|
Originally Posted by steve65341
(Post 16954557)
Just went through the low B gate checkpoint here and there is no secondary interrogation yet.
Mike |
Originally Posted by 14940674
(Post 16955337)
I thought you were addressing your comments to me, rather than Ms. Davis. I apologize for my misinterpretation.
|
Originally Posted by exbayern
(Post 16954201)
But that means that there will be many people selected who truly have nothing to hide.
I fear that I am one of those. It is considered rude and intrusive in many cultures to make small talk and ask questions of a personal nature. I can grit my teeth and bear it when I am in the US or other countries where such 'small talk' is considered polite, and generally can give out noncommittal responses to strangers who ask such questions. But for years I never understood why I became so nervous at any checkpoint, be it a border crossing, or simply a ferry ticket purchase booth or a toll booth. In recent years I have started to come to terms with the collective history that I share with millions of others and now I understand that my fear and nevousness comes from my experiences as a small child crossing 'internal' borders. (The memorial museum at Marienborn is still something I can only take in small doses) I tend to turn off a switch internally in these types of situations. Now I have to face speaking to someone in another language (often with a very strong regional accent), answering questions which make me uncomfortable in a setting not involving a position of authority, about subjects which are often confidential. I fear that my response both verbal and physical will make me a target, unintended or not. And I am not alone. |
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.
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
(Post 16955297)
If you look at the 1801 or 1802 series, which are the ones the TSA seems to use for SPOTNiks, you will see standard qualifications.
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: |
It's shocking to me the level of risk-aversion so many otherwise intelligent people have on FT.
0 terrorist incidents in 10 years. 2 very poor attempts. Ok, you want more "safety" than that? And you have a multi-billion $ budget? Why are you asking for more airport security, then? Your own personal drive to the airport is so much more dangerous. Why not fund permanent sobriety checkpoints at high volume highway entrances instead? So much more effective... 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 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. |
|
I'm wish you. The agents at TLV are very good at what they do. They approach with a disarming demeanor and explain things simply. Even my crazy want to be Massad agent Mother doesn't freak out with them. They will ask what they determine is needed to make sure you're not a threat but they ask in such a manner not to entice a negative situation....something the TSA needs lessons in immediately. After going through TLV Europe is nothing and US TSA are just disrespectful. *Generalization*
Originally Posted by mtkeller
(Post 16953690)
In before the move to TS&S.
I have mixed views on this one. I've been grilled by Israeli security at TLV while departing with a Saudi visa in my passport. It was done very respectfully, and I understood the need for security. After that, the WTMD and X-ray for my bag were super easy. However, this is conditioned on well-trained agents doing the questioning in a professional manner. I don't have confidence that the TSA can carry things out in that manner, and there is a bit of an issue of whether it's even constitutional in the US. |
Originally Posted by mikeef
(Post 16955357)
I think this was in response to the original "How would you make the TSA better?"
I stick with my original suggestion. Mike |
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
(Post 16955957)
It will be interesting for us to document and start to build a data base of how they react once this becomes widespread and we start getting in their faces or simply refusing to answer. As I think I have asserted before, these confrontations should be easy to record because you still have access to all of your stuff.
|
Originally Posted by neko
(Post 16955057)
+1
"For my own safety, I don't give personal information to strangers." |
Originally Posted by avidflyer
(Post 16953640)
This is a pilot program in BOS that started today. It is expected to roll out to LAX in the next month. Modeled on El Al.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...oning-bos.html |
Will some in the government try to bait some fool into becoming a "terrorist" wannabee and send them to the airport to be caught by the TSA clowns in order to chalk up a "victory" in the "war on terror" so as to ramp up this voodoo "security" BDO dog and pony show at airports near and far?
|
Originally Posted by CavePearl
(Post 16956085)
Exactly the answer I gave at HOU a while back, and the TDC asked me DY...T. He wouldn't let me through until I gave him my name. :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by TheGolfWidow
(Post 16956143)
That is a different boondoggle than the new expanded behavior detection boondoggle...no?
I need a drink. I think I'll pull out a couple of mini-bottles now. Salud! :p |
Originally Posted by saulblum
(Post 16953874)
It is none of a government's agent's business why I am traveling within the USA, with whom I am staying, who I am visiting, and the nature of my trip. Would you feel the same way if the toll-taker asked you the same questions when crossing the George Washington Bridge from New Jersey to New York? Or if the token booth clerk (yes, I am dating myself) asked you the same when buying your MetroCard? Then why should I be asked these questions when I am flying from Chicago to San Francisco?
|
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 16955683)
Being physically unable to assume and hold the position in the NoS subjects a person to a thorough screening....
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 16956003)
Freedom OF speech includes freedom FROM speech. Government should NEVER be empowered to compel speech. What happens if incriminating statements are made in the course of these interviews? When I''m traveling, the LAST people I care to have ANY conversation with is TSA. So what now? Either speak or you forgo your flight? And with fares being non-refundable, I'm clearly suffering as a result, so how is this not a denial of my right to due process? BY Ray on 08/15/2011 at 18:45 |
Originally Posted by Often1
(Post 16955222)
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 GUWonder
(Post 16956111)
Will some in the government try to bait some fool into becoming a "terrorist" wannabee and send them to the airport to be caught by the TSA clowns in order to chalk up a "victory" in the "war on terror" so as to ramp up this voodoo "security" BDO dog and pony show at airports near and far?
|
Originally Posted by 14940674
(Post 16954259)
I am sure there are many people like you who negotiate Israel's airports every day. In Tel Aviv the security agents handle passengers with grace and respect, so their nervousness is not exacerbated or mistaken for a threat. We can only hope the TSA approaches this in similar fashion.
This sounds like a very good improvement in security... :confused: |
The entire program is an utter waste of time and an excuse to maintain TSA's bloated budget. Nothing more than another jobs program wasting taxpayer money on useless jobs for the otherwise unemployable.
For frequent fliers this will quickly devolve into the same kind of "canned" responses used to get through customs. A bunch of vague answers interspersed with a few fabrications and a grain of truth. Expect to see yet another string of abuse stories in the news, a few lawsuits and more double speak from TSA trying to explain their way out of criticism from the public, press and lawmakers. |
Originally Posted by exbayern
(Post 16956376)
So someone identified as a potential threat just has to say that they are a child of the DDR times and came from a family shattered by the regime and have repressed memories of crossings at Marienborn and being monitored by the Stasi in childhood and then they are simply no longer a threat?:confused:
|
Originally Posted by 14940674
(Post 16956408)
No. My point was that they do not come across as threatening villains, so they do not increase the nervousness of the innocent.
I have yet to see how this game will be played with us, but based on the results of the name game I suspect that there is no plan in place to deal with us. There were absolutely threats being made and passengers told that they would not be able to proceed unless they responded to the question in English and pronounced the name as the person expected it to be pronounced (and not necessarily as it is really pronounced) Again, I fear the outcome of this for many travellers. |
Originally Posted by Fisher1949
(Post 16956395)
Expect to see yet another string of abuse stories in the news, a few lawsuits and more double speak from TSA trying to explain their way out of criticism from the public, press and lawmakers.
|
I can see where these questions COULD be important to enter the country - establish IF a person should be allowed in. But once in, there is a Constitution and I THINK (not a lawyer, just an educated tax payer) you can not be interrogated unless there is a belief you are involved in a crime or attempting to committing one.
Wanting or having to fly is not a crime. A police checkpoint for DUI offenders cannot stop everyone and give a breath test or try to accuse a person of being intoxicated - lawyers, is that right? If they can, why not do a sobriety test on everyone leaving an establishment that serves alcohol? Then there are no DUI deaths and nasty crashes. Why not stop every person with a sweatshirt on in the summer with the hood pulled over there head? They must be up to something, not just trying to look like a badass. I would never state my employer or reasons for what I am doing. When I travel to the home city, their are protests outside the corporate offices and the attacks are aimed at the people walking by, as if the rank and file caused the mortgage crisis. So safety first!! |
We have at least two regular posters on TS&S who are hearing impaired. Many on TS&S are ESL posters, and several seem to struggle with English (I am not referring to myself, unless someone cares to point out my lack of English skills - there are two who come to mind here who often post with poor spelling, grammar and sentence structure, making their posts quite unitelligible at times)
I am curious to see how those types of travellers will be treated. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:42 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.