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.