"My company invents information security classifications like 'SSI' and applies it to random things, so I cannot divulge the details of my travel to you."

Amendment 14, paragraph 1.

If I'm asked any of these questions I will answer each with a flat "I am neither obligated nor willing to answer this question" (regarding reason for travel, occupation, etc; I don't really care about the name, destination, etc. questions). If they press the issue I'll remind them that we still have the 4th and 5th Amendments, I want an attorney present during questioning but that I cannot afford one (spent my last $5 on the Sept. 11th security fee on my ticket), so they should provide one for me.

The answer to your question is "no", because most national groups get some kind of government funding to survive. As soon as such a group puts forth a statement criticizing the TSA and its "security" procedures, said funding will cease.

That's false. With very few exceptions, anybody can be questioned at any time for any reason. What's unconstitutional is requiring answers and that applies whether or not you are involved in a crime.

Their questions are being asked to determine if you are in the process of committing a crime. I see the difference as negligible.

Predicting the future is always risky. But, where TSA is concerned, the evidence we've seen is that virtually all pilot programs become mandatory in time --- usually, without official public discussion (FT doesn't count) or commentary.

The only "pilot" program that I can think of which didn't get implemented was the experiment with puffers, which failed for technical reasons.

So ... given past history, I'd have to say this program is likely to be fully deployed. Of course, I have no idea how this pilot will be judged for "success", so my opinion and $1 will buy you a soft drink at McD's ...

I'm sorry, I have to take issue with this comment.

There is NOTHING senic about I-95.

The vast, vast number of regulars on this forum that have concerns with the way TSA operates do not want Israeli aviation security implemented in the US.

This coming from the poster who when asked about authority to require presentation of ID's and authority to conduct random screenings of passengers anywhere in the sterile area goes completely silent.

And what if one does not have a car or a driver's license?

Ain't no doubt about it.

I'm not sure the puffers were really a pilot scheme, the TSA ended up buying (well, contacting for) 207 machines, but after 94 had been installed they suddenly found they didn't work. The TSA was able to blame the machines, thereby avoiding a loss of "face".

This new bloated BD scheme will be implemented nationwide since there is no success or failure metric, so if the TSA says it works then it works .
It generates the need for more manpower, hence a greater budget, hence a bigger empire.
It gives more ersatz power to checkpoint workers and increases their opinions of self worth.
Most importantly, not to do so would be an admission by the TSA that it was a dumb idea, something they never have and never will do (see: Say Your Name).

Does anybody know the name of the contractor "training" the SPOTNiks? It would be very interesting to follow the money: who is on the board, who are the company officers, and in whose congressional district is the company located?

I'd really like to know this, too.

I've been through corporate-mandated 'all hands' training before. It's standard stuff, we 'buy' the training from an outside vendor, and it's always insanely expensive and completely worthless.

Given that there's constant 're-training' (allegedly), not to mention each TSO spending a certain number of hours every week for 'training', someone is collecting some very large paychecks.

And if TSA's problems are at all training related, then (as usual) the taxpayers are really getting ripped off.

Wonder if it's the same genius folks who teach female TSOs to frisk by practicing on each other but who train male TSOs to frisk the opposite sex by using hands-off visual aids?

How so?

I'm wondering the same, since TSA is a federal agency. Now, if each State were to be in charge of its own airports' security, then you might have a claim. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment defines U.S. citizenship and also stipulates that no State may deny the right to life, liberty or property w/o due process to anyone under its jurisdiction, citizen or non. Based on this text alone, the federal government would appear exempt from that particular clause.

I cannot find anywhere that states whether any of the rights outlined in Amendments 1-10 (or beyond) apply differently to citizens vs. non, though I'll admit, I'm no constitutional scholar.