doober

Are all screeners taught to do the opt-out search or do you volunteer for the duty?

VegasCableGuy

Thanks for the reply. I did use the TalktoTSA site on Aug 15 to submit my concerns; it said they'd be sent to the CS manager at OMA. Phone/email contact was included. I haven't received any communication in return but I've seen a couple of posts that indicate turnaround time may be approx 3 months. That in itself is pretty depressing.

Boggie Dog

Just how are you taught to do the Opt Out search?

mozgytog

The woman who I told about the ionizing radiation was thankful. She didn't get sent to the PornoScan because she was behind me and I had already opted out so they weren't routing people that way. The TSA people kept telling her it was safe, and I stuck to the facts about ionizing radiation, how it always causes damage at every exposure, and that the effects are cumulative and include cancer.

The TSA had nothing, no facts to counter with. They just kept repeating 'It's safe.' over and over again. I think it sways people that I had more than just 'It's not safe.' I had the 'Here's why it's not proven to be safe.'

They just got them sometime between the end of July 22 and August 16. They didn't have them on my last trip in July, but they did have them on Aug 16. They are located at both the main checkpoint on the main level and on the alternate checkpoint at the old commuter terminal. They are both being used for primary screening. In the alternate checkpoint, what signs they do have are small, hard to read, and placed directly at the entrance to the machine where you can only read them if you stop and do so after being told to go into the machine, which the TSA makes no effort whatsoever to encourage. All they say is 'It's safe.'

I will file a complaint with TSA today. I will also contact my Senators and Representative as well.

Sign or not, I (and every other human being) have the right to speak to other members of the traveling public. Nothing I said was factually incorrect or designed to cause panic over a fire that doesn't exist (to use the crowded theater example), so there can be no issue there. I did not attempt to stop the TSA from using the scanners, I only told people they had the right to opt out and get a frisking instead. Everything I said about ionizing radiation, much as the four TSA people who tried to surround and intimidate me want to deny, was absolutely factual and true.

You can bank on that.

Much to the dismay of my parents who want their kid to be a civil rights activist in the same way that they want to give a root canal to a rabid pit bull with no anesthesia, I am willing to be the test case. Remember that in your example regarding 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' that the rule only applies if there is no fire. I think that the facts regarding ionizing radiation, which are what I stick to, are an example of the case where the theater actually is on fire.

Some do, but most seem to do whatever the 'authority figures' tell them to do. I suppose for most people it's just nature to do whatever the 'leader' says. I'm just one of those who has always questioned authority and is stubborn as hell. I also don't get intimidated by obvious aggressive posturing like being surrounded by TSA. Most people are omegas. That's not an insult, either. Society wouldn't function if everyone was the alpha. Clashes occur when a natural alpha is faced with a pack of uniform-alphas, though. I make sure that I keep my voice steady, polite, firm and that I don't say anything personal about the actual smurfs I'm dealing with. I never swear at them or insult them, and stick only to the facts. The whole time I was speaking at PIT, I knew a lot of people were watching, and I knew that how I handled the situation would paint me as either a crazy person or someone who knows what they're talking about, and I hope a few people Googled about the x-ray machines after that.

Like I said above, the signs are small, the print is small, and they're right outside the WBI machine. They are literally less than a foot from the side of the machine, off to the right of the portal. I stood right next to them and I didn't manage to spot the verbiage about opting out.

Italy98

Maybe we all need to get a service animal and be exempt from the AIT, according to this post by Blogger Bob (scroll down to "Advance Imaging Technology and Service Animals").

doober

By that time it's too late and, therefore informed consent has not been given.

Boggie Dog

If the signage is directly on the Strip Search Machine then I think that is an obvious attempt to hide needed information to the traveler until it is to late to read the signs and make an informed decision.

The only option is for each person to stop, read the signs and then consider what action they will take, Strip Search or Sexual Assault.

Of course expecting TSA to operate in an honest above board manner is expecting to much.

I have to wonder just where TSA developed its standards on ethics?

doober

Not knowing how all checkpoints are set up, I assume in most cases that your stuff is on the conveyor belt before the signs come into view. At that point, you cannot stop the search. If you can't read the signage BEFORE your stuff is on the conveyor, you have not given consent to be stripped or fondled.

Further signage must be of a size so that all but the most visually impaired can see and read it. For the visually impaired, TSA needs to have some one giving verbal information - not that it will be correct - to those who are not able to read the signage.

P.S. TSA doesn't have any ethical standards.

Boggie Dog

Oh, TSA has standards, they are just lower than whale crap!

mozgytog

I asked TDC about the opt out signage, and he specifically stated that it was beyond that point, at the scanner. It is definitely not (at least at PIT) in an area where it can be read before putting your bags into the bag x-ray. The print on the signs is the same size as the sign indicating which countries the DHS can't verify inbound security for.

There was no example WBI image, either. It had a drawing of the WBI machine showing how to assume the position, but no indication of what the screener would actually see.

FriendlySkies

Blogdad Bob, care to comment? I thought not.. I guess we need to raise awareness about the lack of signage, in addition to the health/privacy..

mozgytog

The sum total of signage was 2 8.5"x11" sheets of paper within a foot of the outside of the RapiScan machine. They were placed well below eye level (I am 5'8" tall and they were torso level) on stanchions like the 3-1-1, electronics and last-port-of-entry signs that are placed in the line prior to encountering TDC.

My understanding is that once you're past TDC you are 'part of the screening process' and can't just leave, so it's too late at that point even if you can read the signs to give any kind of meaningful consent.

L-1011

I had an interesting experience in BOS (Delta terminal) yesterday. I was selected for the NoS and opted out. No problems there, the moat dragon just radioed to someone that they had a male opt-out.

I had to go through the NoS and not the WTMD to get to the pat-down area. The NoS moat dragon very carefully pointed out what she would have to do to activate it, just so I was comfortable with it not being used.

The pat-down screener came over and asked me if I had I had any sensitive areas, I answered, "Yes, between my legs". It took a while for him to realize what I meant and after a 6-7 minutes discussion with a supervisor and a TSA employee in civilian clothing, they decided on slightly modified Enhanced Pat-down.

Every time he approached a "sensitive" area he asked me if I wanted a private screening (apparently SOP according to the Sup who watched the whole thing). Every time I answered that I wanted witnesses to the sexual assault and preferred to do here in the open. I would think that because of my "sensitive area", they had decided not touch my buttocks or my "external organs", not at all. That is not to say that the pat-down wasn't uncomfortable; it was!

During this ordeal, my wife just took my bag and walked off with it; nobody said a word. And the NoS was closed to other travelers for the whole time, probably 13-15 minutes, and the WTMD was used for the next 15-20 passengers without any pat-downs at all.

So, one grumpy, old man can stop the use of this new-fangled, terrorist-fighting piece of equipment for about 15 minutes, just by opting out. I know we are talking about TSA here, but the stupidity is blatant. If someone wants to avoid the NoS, just have a partner go ahead and cause a scene, and you won't have to use it.

goalie

good on you ^ and two observations....

first: i would not have walked thru an allegedly turned off nude-o-scope and not simply because a tso says it's off but unless you drop a lead blankie all over that sucker form top to bottom, i ain't walkin' thru it cuz i do 't want my johnson turning into a glow stick

second: after the secondary screening was completed, you should have said "um, folks....where's my bag?"..........then sit back and watch the dance begin

doober

IANAL, however, I think this is where a great argument could be made by someone really clever.

All those individuals who were redirected to WTMD were originally scheduled to be strip searched or sexually assaulted if they opted out.

If they were so much of a threat to air travel, why were they redirected from NoS to WTMD? Why did they not get the "enhanced" pat down anyway?

It doesn't equate and it's discriminatory.



The ACLU needs to get involved in this aspect of AIT as well.