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.

Potential criminal matters. It applies when somebody has a "reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer" (Ohio v. Reiner). In other words, if there were an articulable reason that a truthful answer to the question could put one in danger of a criminal prosecution, one may assert the privilege, whether or not one is guilty of any crime.

Good to see that some here still enjoy lying! ^

I dont think anyone who post here on FT has ever claimed that, excpt you and a few other critics of TSA.

Absolutely agree. TSA is getting NO love from anyone these days, a butt of jokes and derision from all quarters, ever since they started looking at pax naked and handling pax' family jewels. Everywhere you look there's criticism of TSA. Not just FT by a LOOOONG shot.

Thanks for the clarification. The TSA has a two zone clearance, VIP and FAMs bypass the WTMD, everyone else is assumed to be OBLv2.0 until told to put their shoes and belts on and released into the sterile area. Since TSO clerks will call LEOs over for "failure to respect my authori-tay", this only supports my belief than any and all interactions with the TSOs are "pre criminal charges" in nature. They are not trying to clear me; they are trying to find a reason to bust me. They all act like Jr. FBI wannabees looking for the Big Catch™.

Every TSO encounter thus meets the "reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer" test. The only answer to a clerk violating your Fourth Amendment rights is to say nothing to preserve your Fifth Amendment rights.

Yes I know saying nothing risks ticking off clerks on a power trip. The worst PR for this type is the "Cops" type reality TV shows. Every time a person talks to the cops and trys to "explain" they only dig themselves a bigger hole. OTOH those that say "I'll take the Right to Remain silent and a lawyer" are slammed by the vigilantee cops with a "He must be guilty, he LAWYERED UP and did not confess." :td: The idea that a citizen is both innocent and more knowledgeable about his constitutional rights than the local beat cop or one striper TSO clerk is not considered an option. :td:

The big question, however, is: can their screeners speak and comprehend English at a fifth grade level.

I'm quite sure that half of the TSO rookies, when taking their oath, responded to "I, state your name" with "I state your name" just like in Blazing Saddles.

Thanks to 18 USC 1001, the less said to government agents the better.

I'm glad to see that you're finally acknowledging universal acceptance of how wretched the organization you work for actually is.

From a practical point of view, yes, but from a legal point of view, it's just a little murkier. The 5th Amendment can only be invoked if a truthful answer would subject you to danger. But the only way 18 USC 1001 can be violated is if what you said wasn't true. So to be able to assert the privilege, you need to be able to argue that there was an articulable danger that a true statement would be perceived to be false. That's a little harder than claiming it for other reasons.

In the case of someone with a rather distinctive last name, providing a truthful answer aloud could subject them to danger...

I'm thinking along the lines of burglary while they're out of town, brought on by a TSO providing information to others for possible targets. It's not too far-fetched, as I recall there was already one similar operation that TSA discovered which was doing this very thing.

So what do all these mean for interaction at the checkpoint going forward? It's beginning to sound more and more like TSA might have the authority to compel one to interact with agents of the government before flying - and that's a scary thought. This would be another example of how law-abiding airline passengers are treated with fewer rights than convicted murderers and sexual predators.