|
Originally Posted by N965VJ
(Post 16955564)
I don't see where refusing to answer questions, in and of itself, will result in being refused access to the sterile area. Additional, possibly retaliatory, secondary screening perhaps, but once someone and their belongings are screened for weapons, explosives and incendiaries they will be admitted.
Here it is on the TSA jobs site. Behavior Detection voodoo practitioners need to pass a drug test and read English, so at least we have that going for us. :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by vvortex1
(Post 16955296)
While the TSA can't prosecute you for refusing to answer their questions, they can keep you off the plane.
While some have argued that things like the "no fly" list constitute an unconstitutional abrogation of freedom of movement, existing legal doctrine unfortunately seems to support it. Also, it's not clear that those other three-letter agencies are categorically more competent and less intrusive than the TSA. (Look up the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, for instance. Or look at the Christmas bomber, who evaded the FBI and might have succeeded if it were easy to get a better bomb through the checkpoint.) The TSA is just more transparent and visible to the public. |
Originally Posted by Often1
(Post 16955222)
FT has too many posts to count in which posters rant about how they want TSA to function more like Israeli aviation security. That's what this is. It's not invasive, it's not unconstitutional and is used to make judgments about whether some people need secondary inspection.
Fortunately, it will only take a few prosecutions of people who deliberately lie to TSA (18 USC Sec. 1001 provides a 5-year felony penalty for that) before the jokesters stop giving poor advice. In the meantime, BOS-ATL is easily driveable and a wonderful view of scenic I-95! |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 16952975)
Not answering subjects the person to a thorough screening.
Opting Out subjects the person to a thorough screening. Calling TSA a bunch of blithering idiots subjects a the person to ......? |
Originally Posted by PTravel
(Post 16955267)
Where did you get your law degree, and where are you licensed to practice? Because I haven't seen anything, either in statutory law or precedent that suggests, even remotely, that this process is constitutional (nor its backup, the mandatory x-ray or grope).
Again, BOS-ATL is fortunately driveable for those who object to the process. |
Originally Posted by Often1
(Post 16955222)
FT has too many posts to count in which posters rant about how they want TSA to function more like Israeli aviation security.
|
Originally Posted by MDtR-Chicago
(Post 16955619)
The suggestions for yet-more airport "security" - methods that are not scientifically proven and don't even seem effective under the lens of common sense - sounds utterly foolish.
|
Originally Posted by Often1
(Post 16955692)
Don't want to speak, that's your right. 18 USC Sec. 1001 punishes false statements, not silence. Presume that the "no speakers" are like opt outs and go to secondary.
Again, BOS-ATL is fortunately driveable for those who object to the process. |
Originally Posted by LeslieJam
(Post 16953655)
I'm not a fan of TSA, but if it keeps us safe, it is worth it, and if modeled after El Al hard to argue their success in passenger safety.
The Israeli model:
The TSA experiment lacks all of the above. In both cases passengers are questioned; however, beyond that superficial resemblance they are in no way similar. Comparing what TSA is doing with the Israeli approach is like saying a kindergarten play is modeled on a Broadway production. It may be literally true but the result is not - and should not be expected to be - similar. |
Didn't anyone ask who landed the voodoo "security" training contract and who all is getting paid or paid off for the TSA's voodoo "security" training?
Perhaps something else for the GAO to pursue beside this GAO report on the voodoo "security" of "behavior detection".
Originally Posted by T-the-B
(Post 16955848)
Actually the TSA experiment is not modeled on El Al at all.
|
Originally Posted by 14940674
(Post 16954128)
I genuinely understand your misgivings about the TSA questions you on personal matters; however, since the TDC is talking to thousands of people everyday, your answers will not be logged or remembered. What matters is how you answer. Your body language helps the TDC to determine if you are a threat. If you maintain eye contact and exude calm body language you will be through in no time, and you can be sure the government will not have recorded your responses. While on its face this program appears to invade privacy, in reality the intrusion is very small.
If your assertion is true then an answer of "Feel free to engage in an unnatural act," or "I choose not to respond," should work just as well as any other answer. Think that would work? |
Originally Posted by T-the-B
(Post 16955905)
If your assertion is true then an answer of "Feel free to engage in an unnatural act," or "I choose not to respond," should work just as well as any other answer. Think that would work?
|
Originally Posted by 14940674
(Post 16954355)
The TSA is only using college educated agents for this assignment, which should help on that front. Also I think you misjudge the El Al approach. It is much more centered on training and skill than profiling. They would not have their perfect security record just by hassling every Arab passenger flying on El Al.
|
Originally Posted by T-the-B
(Post 16955905)
(Underlining mine)
If your assertion is true then an answer of "Feel free to engage in an unnatural act," or "I choose not to respond," should work just as well as any other answer. Think that would work? This approach has worked pretty well for the friskings. Documenting as many as possible has caused all sorts of national attention, embarrassed the TSA, caused Pissy to have more embarrassing reactions, and resulted in a few lawsuits. ...not bad for 9 months of work on our part. |
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:12 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.