And furthermore the pre-checkin questions, while annoying, are far too benign for the current "style" of the TSA.

Bu, bu, but how can that be? :confused: We've been talked down to here by TSA apologists for some time that say FT is the only place where there is criticism.

:D

The questions in Europe have been the same for decades. It's the same set of five to ten question before check in at European and South American airports if one is flying on US carrier. There is then a second, smaller set of questions at the gate.

ICTS and its subsidiaries have a standard set of "positive" and "negative" criteria for passengers. They establish if the passenger is on a watch list, the computer analyzes form of payment, time of purchase, etc. The agent reviews presence or absence of baggage, traveling with others, etc. Those with an excess number of "positive" points are sent for further screening.

It's clearly not a perfect system because the "Underwear Bomber" and Richard Reid both had to go through the same screening process and passed.

The agents are usually friendly and attentive (especially at CDG), but their purpose is to fulfill a US Government mandate. They also have the obligation to ensure that passengers have valid visas and passports so that the airline doesn't get fined. In other words, they're looking for document validity as well as security risks.

The staff at Tel Aviv are for more interactive. Although the questions have been the same for years, they tend to work in teams, and have a far more conversational approach.

The security system at Ben Gurion Airport works well for me. It's quicker than many US airports because I always get a "1" sticker. But it does not seem humanly possible to conduct a similar level of interview for each US passenger. We have far greater volume and a much larger, less motivated, TSA workforce.

I stand by "trusted traveler" initiatives. This would limit the need for many passengers to have an interview prior to each flight.

Unless you dramatically increase the number of SPOTniks, with the resultant hike in your budget @:-) .

Until I reach the 'papers' scrutineer I will talk to nobody employed by the TSA. Maybe not even then.

Just like their leadership, the clerks that post here are lying when they claim FT is the only place where people complain about TSA. :D


"Not a perfect system" is an understatement. That the same questions have been used for decades speaks volumes about their uselessness.

My response to any BDO attempts will be:

1. "Go SPOT someone else"
2. Incoherent gibberish.

I won't talk to any one in a TSA uniform unless absolutely forced. I want nothing to do with the US version of the Gestapo. As it is now, I only fly when forced. My last trips from NC to NJ have been by car, and I will continue to do so.

If Pistole/Nappy think this will make things better, then they need to submit for their regularly scheduled drug test.

Exactly right. It is already going on at BOS for those of you who fly out of there frequently. EVERY time (3x in past 2 wks) I have had a mini-"interview" by the BDO asking me where I'm coming from, and then been selected for cancer box (however, 75%+ of ppl are selected for cancer.)

I initially tried to play along, but it doesn't seem to "get me out" of the WBI at all, in fact ever. So, as long as I'm not getting any benefit I'm not going to participate. Next time I'm just going to look puzzled at the guy or be engrossed in my blackberry.

The irony is, I think that extended interviews, or even "CBP-style interviews" could divide people into low risk and higher risk. It would, however, take very trained agents, and clearly violate discrimination laws and even our constitution. I don't want this kind of effort in the freedom-loving (at least supposedly freedom-loving) U.S.A. This half-a$$ed implementation is absolute nonsense and simple retaliation for non-conformity.

No biggie...this has never stopped the TSA before...

The questions do actually vary. There are the three 'standard' questions which used to be asked everywhere. They are no longer asked at every airport, and certainly not for every flight.

Then there are the additional, random, often bizarre questions. One is asked these before one can even check in for a US carrier, US bound flight (at LHR, MUC and FRA for example the questioner is before the check in area for UA). Then one may be asked additional questions before entering the gate area. (I was asked those exactly once, at MUC)

The questions as some have stated are asked by airline employees or security contractors. They are sometimes truly bizarre. What does annoy me is that the ones at MUC and FRA often do not speak German, and only speak heavily accented English. That is just useless is doing much at all to act as a deterrent or to scope out possible troublemakers. I tell them every single time that they should ask me in German, and sometimes they give up. I also cannot understand some of the American accents or terminology even at this point in my life and thus cannot answer some of the questions.

But I wouldn't think that this mandated, European model in use for some flights is what is being discussed here.

And I still question if like 'pronounce your name' and 'spell your name' the TSA is prepared to handle those passengers who do not speak English.

If a BDO could tell instantly when somebody was lying, he would have better professions to enter:

http://www.allvegaspoker.com/

It CAN NOT be done with any sort of accuracy. The questions are going to be a huge annoyance. Ask me if I'm coming back from vacation while wearing a suit and tie and I WILL get annoyed. A great deal of people would, because it shows you are just stupid.

We need a trusted traveler program, body scanning for secondary ONLY with opt-out option, and a massive downsizing of the TSA with focus on intelligence and organized threat detection. Nothing else, no more toys.

^
Looks like another massive taxpayer boondoggle coming down the road. Huge taxpayers dollars will be spent on training folks who aren't qualified in the first place. I suspect only a small percentage of my own workforce would be qualifed to do this sort of interrogation effectively - and we're going to waste time and money telling folks who can't master the website list of '10 allowable IDs' to become ace BDOs.

Right.

This from an agency that can't even control the barking and braying. Airports around the world can teach their security personnel how to communicate without barking and braying, but after almost ten years, TSA still hasn't mastered that one.

Right.

I disagree. We do not need to have some animals more equal than others, and the Nude-O-Scopes do not detect explosives nor do they see into body cavities or under folds of flesh.

Everyone (passengers, airline employees, TSA employees) should be subject to the same screening. X-ray of belongings, hand held / walk through metal detectors, and Explosive Trace Detection / Explosive Trace Portal.

Agreed 100%.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rhTQQtcMO_...pit%2Btake.jpg

I move that goalie-mom and RadioMom co-run the TSA's BDO problem :D. Do I have a second?

TSA and the security screening has a huge credibility problem. This new program will do nothing to help it. Look at the comments already. TSA really need to go back and look at the fundamentals and what is really needed for travel security. A program such as this one could be feasible but as said above the given that the many of the TSOs the public interfaces with on a day to day basis have been hired on very on very standards it does not help.

To me the only way out of some of this mess it have another program take it over. Such a program might be useful not just at airports but any large gathering of people. For instance, FAM though part of TSA is on the law enforcement side. As such they have higher standard for training and employment. If left as part of the security screening program then forget it no matter how well trained.

Don't you love your own mother? I would never nominate my own mother to work in such a den of thieves, liars, and cheats. :D

Seconded.

A motion has been made and seconded. All in favor?

Aye!

A few questions:

1) What kind of training will the new BDOs get? How will it compare to the training that their "equivalents" in Israel get?

2) In Israel, I did not have to remove shoes or liquids. Would that be carried over, as well?

3) What controls will be in place to make sure that there are no retaliatory screenings for those who do not work and play nicely with others?

The female ones that I went through were also smoking hot. No matter how many times I asked, though, I couldn't get them to give me a patdown. My wife was happy to slap me silly, though, after I pointed it out to her.

You bring up an important issue. In Israel, a lot of the "screening" is done before anyone gets to the airport. It's not "one size fits all," and they don't determine who a terrorist is by asking them a few questions.

No, because, as you correctly pointed out, Radio's mom can only detect when Radio is lying, and Goalie's mom can only determine when Goalie is lying. I would, however, be happy to have Goalie's mom join the JMS force (Jewish Mothers for Security) at the airport. As the son of a Jewish mother, I guarantee you that, within a few minutes, they would have the terrorists feeling so guilty that they would confess their plans.

Mike

About 99% of the time, when I am in line, I have noise-cancelling headphones on and am listening to music. I remove them just before I get to the TDC. I never actually did this to avoid TSA, but rather the incessant prattle of people yammering on their cell phones. If I can't hear them, how can they interrogate me, at least when I am in line? So far, they have never asked me to take them off as there is usually someone lonely or friendly enough to actually chat up the BDOs and keep them busy.

I am curious how this will be handled. Or will I be deemed suspicious for having headphones on in the first place? What if I am on a cell phone, having a conversation, will they make me hang up the phone to talk to them?

I've worn earbuds with the cord not plugged into anything shoved in my pocket to avoid being pestered by panhandlers while walking around some cities, so I imagine the same technique would work in an airport to avoid pestering Behavior Detection voodoo practitioners. :D

But there is nothing that compels anyone to speak to a TSA employee. I limit exchanges to things such as identifying my bag if asked when it comes out of the x-ray when they want to do a secondary. Topics beyond that, such as where I'm flying to, are met with silence, and I do want them to know I can hear them just fine. ;)

If I recall correctly, the following types of questions were asked when I last flew to Israel:

Why are you going to Israel? If business, what is the nature of your business? If holiday, why did you choose Israel for a holiday?
What is your job?
How did you pay for this trip?
Are you traveling alone or with someone? Why are you traveling alone or who is this person you are traveling with and how long have you known them?
Where will you be staying? Show me your hotel reservation.
How long will you be staying in Israel?
Have you ever been to Israel before? When? For what purpose?
When are you leaving Israel? Show me your return ticket/itinerary?

Can you imagine going through this type of questioning when flying from say MLB to ATL, every single time?

Does the education/training level of the TSA support evaluating the answers to these types of question? Doubt it. I bet most TSA employees wouldn't be able to pass a basic geography test.

This scares me......a lot.

:D but you don't know goalie-mom ;) :D. She'd have all the gypsies, tramps and thieves (plus the liars & cheats) pegged, busted and gone faster than you could say glove save and a beauty.

I get the impression he is wanting to move to ICTS style screenings where the "interaction" comes in the form of a litany of questions.

However, it should be noted ICTS screenings are used in AMS for US Bound flights on US registered aircraft.

Furthermore, the "underwear bomber" transferred to a DL/NW flight in AMS and went through the ICTS litany + gate screening.

In a twist, it should be noted Richard Reid, had two ICTS encounters at CDG. The first encounter resulted in a denied boarding. He returned the next day and got through ICTS screening and boarded an AA flight.

I object to such a model being used here in our domestic airports; I only see US domestic becoming more difficult. Last, is Pistole going to hire more employees for this at a time when govt needs to be cut?

My proposed responses to these questions, if asked by TSA as part of a domestic trip:

"I refuse to explain why a ticket was purchased for me to travel from here to there. I object to this unconstitutional interrogation. Am I free to leave?"

"I refuse to provide non-material information that has no bearing upon the potential security risk my presence presents represents to an aircraft. Am I free to go?"

"Your request for details of this financial transaction will be complied with, as soon as you can articulate probable cause and produce a warrant compelling me to answer such questions. Am I free to go?"

"My travel plans, and the plans of any potential travel companion I may be flying with, are not germane to your ability to protect our aircraft from introduction of WEI. I will, however, comply with this request as soon as a warrant is produced compelling my cooperation. Am I free to go?"

"My travel plans are private and personal. You are acting as an agent of the government, and as such have no right to request this information unless it is part of a criminal investigation in which I am a suspect. If I am suspect in a criminal investigation you are involved with, I demand to know immediately so that I may retain and consult with an attorney before this interrogation continues. Am I free to go?"

"Until I decide to leave."

"Unless you can articulate probable cause for this line of questioning, I respectfully refuse to answer these queries as they constitute an undue interrogation by a government agent. If you can articulate a reason for asking these questions, I demand an opportunity to speak with counsel prior to answering them, and prior to this interrogation continuing. Am I free to go?"

"Please explain how my return date has any bearing upon the security risk I present to the aircraft. How does knowing this date help protect the aircraft from introduction of WEI? If you are incapable of explaining how this line of questioning does not violate my rights, then this interrogation is over. Am I free to go?"

Hopefully asking about being free to go trips them up to say "no" at some point. That hopefully sparks a lawsuit against the screener personally for false arrest, and against the agency. (I'm beginning to think that one appropriate strategy to hurt TSA might be to sue screeners individually. Sue them for small amounts of money - enough to cover your costs in small claims court, but not enough to make it worthwhile for them to take a day off to go to court. In the end they lose no matter what - don't take a day off work, lose the lawsuit and have a default judgment entered against them; take a day off work, and maybe they win, but it still cost them more to defend themselves in losing a day of vacation.)

In JFK I could see that being more along the lines of:


BDO: How are you today?
Me: F*#^* off.
BDO: where are you going/flying today?
Me: F*$&# off.
BDO:I've neverbeen to XXX, is it a nice place?
Me: F*#& you and your #*%^%

My Personal CONOPS When This Happens
 

When this interrogation starts (and you know it will), I figure I will take two different approaches. I will make the assumption that giving lip or getting in the face of a SPOTNik will result in a retaliatory secondary.

At airports without Cancer Machines, I will probably win an Academy Award playing along, since there is no need for a retaliatory secondary at a pretty safe airport. COS comes to mind.

At airports with NoS where I will opt out anyway (and have even more fun with them), I might as well push back against the SPOTNik, since there a better than even chance of being groped during the opt out anyway.

Regardless of the approach anyone takes, the fact that this interrogation will happen away from the checkpoint means that it will be very easy to audio or video record the confrontation, since you will have easy access to a camera, cell phone, or other recording device. If you observe things, it will be pretty easy to tell if interrogations are going on well in advance of your turn.

My hunch is that the SPOTNiks and their fellow screening clerks will be providing lots of YouTube material soon after this starts.

Meaning that it may be tied to un-"trusted traveler". Great. So those who go through the hurdles to become trusted will have to undergo a soviet-style interrogation.

As have I. "You have no rights of any kind at the checkpoint". At IAD.

If they try to pull that one on me, they'll learn about my rights soon enough. A personal lawsuit focused at the screener for acting outside the permissible scope of services under the color of authority ought to be worth a few thousand dollars.

Forget about suing TSA - sue the screener instead. If every passenger who encountered a rude, egotistical, power-tripping screener sued (even for just a few hundred dollars) we could clog up our court system and (more importantly) make life a living hell for the screeners.

Nothing I've read seems to even remotely suggest that, so I don't know where that comes from. What it sounds like is that some sort of questioning might be done on the who are not trusted travelers to potentially give them some of the same lowered screening that TT's have.

But I think asking for "criteria" for risk-based screening misses the point. I get the sense that it's more a philosophy than anything else and that a lot of the possible changes we've heard about here (LGA and shoe relaxation, differing screening of children, TT) are all parts of the philosphy.

At what point, and how will trusted vs. non-trusted be identified ? Assuming airlines have access to this new list :rolleyes: maybe you get a TTTT on the BP but even so, as discussed in another thread, there seems to be no requirement to speak to any TSA worker prior to the papers scrutineer (TDC). Unless there will be a pre-TDC TDC (which is entirely possible) these interrogations would have to be done inside the checkpoint.

You think it's slow now ? As I posted before, unless this program absolutely guarantees fast passage without any possibility for TSA workers to engage in capricious exception it will be just another cosmetic facade and money grab. Oh yes, you will have to pay.

Photoshop is your friend :) :D

I've been thinking about this. I have a theatre background, and while I've not won any Academy Awards, I think I'm a pretty decent actress and absolutely love Improv comedy.

I already have my SOP for their questions. For years if I am asked where I'm headed I just say "home." When I've been asked where I've been I say "working." I have never had to answer more than that. But if the new SPOT procedures push me for more - I'll consider it a challenge for my creative abilities.

I've never been afraid of screeners at airports, and while I am angry at the whole security fiasco, I try to not let it show unless something happens in which anger is appropriate. My choice is to create a situation that I can control.

The majority of screeners I've encountered don't have the verbal ability to communicate with passengers, and certainly don't understand customer service. There is no way they can pick up on behavior subtleties.

They will never know if the person answering questions is CavePearl - or Blanche from Streetcar Named Desire.

To which the response will be :

Sir, do you want to fly today?

I can't help but wonder if such questions would fall into the same general category as "administrative searches." :confused:

For example, one has to answer questions that could be considered invasive to obtain a driver's license.

Perhaps one of the resident lawyers could weigh in on that.

Nobody has to speak to a Trained Document Checker. They might raise a stink and call a supervisor, but in the end you cannot be denied entry to the sterile area.

Considering the numbers of TSA clerks incapable of comprehending the simple idea that photography and videography are not forbidden by TSA policy, I think you're giving them too much credit.

And the proper response from the passenger will be "may I see your supervisor and a LEO, please?"

I was just trying to be nice. Besides, I just have to believe that somewhere, somehow - there are clerks with brains. Hey, what can I say... I'm an optimist. :cool:

The solution is pass another law, as bad guys never break the law. :rolleyes: Put on all visa applications "All foreign visitors must speak at least fifth grade English or you will be denied entry into the US."

In another thread someone pointed out that the Fifth only applies to criminal matters. However TSA treats every pax as a terrorist (i.e. a criminal) until proven otherwise. OTOH TSOs are clerks not LEOs. I think the reply, if you choose to say anything, might be "I'll talk to you after you show me a LE badge and a warrant. However if you do, I plan to invoke the Fifth." Catcha 22. :p

“”I think we can do a different way of screening children that recognizes that the very high likelihood they do not have a bomb on them," Pistole said."

JP: TSA has screened almost 7 Billion passengers, the population of the Earth. TSA has found ZERO terrorists. By any real mathematical risk based analysis, that means all two million pax being harassed today have a VERY VERY high likelihood they do not have a bomb on them and can be waved through the checkpoint with no screening.

“However, another pilot program is underway underway to identify people who have traveled very frequently for years and who could get an expedited screening.”

I hate to point out this flaw to TSA. Between the meetings all over the world for several years and the dry runs, if terror leaders like Atta had put all their trips on one alliance FF plan they would easily be Silver or Gold and would have a FF profile identical to half the FTers. :eek:

I Agree But.....
 

==================================================
I agree with you Tx BUT it is already in place. Politicians, LEO's, VIP's.
It would be much fairer & secure if ALL were screened BUT I don't see it being turned back.