TSA to expand their "greeter" program Nationwide
 

http://www.fiercehomelandsecurity.co...ide/2011-09-19

Greeters? Who the heck are they fooling?!
Yep, now the rest of us who didn't fly into BOS will have to put up with this nonsense too. :mad:

Not really a surprise. A 60-day pilot program which found zero terrorists but which annoyed thousands is an A+++ success for the TSA ^

things I'd want to ask THEM
 

Can we ask them about the red team failure rates at
the airport and question them about when safety of
actual backscatter machines will be tested and reported?
Can we ask them when studies showing that behavior
detection works (as used by DHS) are published in peer
reviewed papers (i.e. accepted by the general scientific
community as not junk science)?

I don't discuss my travel plans with strangers but I
sure do want to know why they spend money better
than drunken sailors (no disrespect for sailors intended).

Can you stitch that for me on a pillow?

Wondering, was not the TSA/DHS ruled from some court on some high level to at least implement the comment and reply stage like in Federal Registers? (Recalling from memory, maybe a month or two ago?)

It sounds like we should stage another event around Thanksgiving if this happens nationwide. We can call it "The Great Passenger Flick-Off Day". I'm sure that many of you can guess the particular hand gesture that so many would be encouraged to sport.

If TSA doesn't get the message as an agency, we need to hammer away on each and every one of its employees. Make the minions suffer in the hopes that their disdain erodes the fragile base of power that Mr. Pissytole and Ms. Nappyhead have.

hmm. Like Walmart greeters. But WAIT! No, it can't be like Walmart greeters, because if I just nod and walk right on by the Walmart greeters, they don't run after me and grab my buttocks and feel my genital area.

Count me in!^

Wow. Color me shocked that the "pilot" was a resounding "success." :rolleyes:

Ranking Member House DHS Committee Opposed SPOT/Assessor Program
 

Bennie Thompson, D-Miss in a letter dated August 12, addressed to Hizzonor Pistole, completely debunks the 20 questions gambit: Full article here.

and Rep. Thompson's letter here. (pdf)

This letter, while old news, contains the following ominous statement from Rep. Thompson:

[emphasis mine.]

So, according to testimony by TSA before Congress, your response to Assessor Spotnik's questions will determine if:
1. You fly today
2. You will be felt today
3. You miss your flight today
4. You are referred to a cop.

By this I construe that they are once again going fishing for anything and everything, and the 4th Amendment, now being fully and finally trampled into oblivion, they have now set their sights on the 5Th Amendment.

Since they have testified to Congress that my response to their interrogation might result in me being referred to a law enforcement officer, I am afraid, I must refrain from speaking to them, at all, other than to provide my name, and destination. Beyond that, I might make small conversation, but if I am directly asked the purpose of my trip, my answer will be "to go to my destination because I want to go there."

'nuff said.

One of the functions of Law and due process is to remove the possibility that a government official use his position to subject others to his whim. In this program, that appears precisely what is taking place. It is up to the SPOTnik's whim to decide how he's going to treat you. This is as unAmerican as it gets.

If anyone comes to me with this line of questioning I am going to question back on his/her reading of that Nature (World´s top scientific journal) article saying SPOT has no scientific basis. I consider it mandatory reading for all spotniks. Anything less would be highly unprofessional of them, wouldn´t it??

That would be a great idea and very rabbinical -- answering a question with a question. They would expect to be flipped off but they wouldn't expect to be interrogated themselves.

We could ask them about their training, their education, and how many college kids with fake IDs they've caught. Or, "Do you get paid more than the clerks over there who grab our crotches?" Or, "I'll bet you're glad you aren't standing right next to those cancer-causing radiation machines over there."

We could have a lot of fun with this!

I enjoy the banter and the suggestions, some of which are sarcastic and some which are serious. But, may I ask for a moment of seriousness, and then we can get back to making the deserved fun of this program?

What legal liability do I incur by not telling them the truth? As a government actor, and if things should occur that place me within an investigation, would my answers to the TDC be considered "lying to a federal officer" or some such crime?

However, if I do not answer the questions, I may imperil my ability to fly that day. So this government actor has the potential to affect my time and cost because I have a potential of legal liability if I do not answer the question. It may be a very small risk of legal liability but a risk nonetheless
So, in the end, they compel a truthful answer at the threat of either a potential legal liability for an untruthful answer or the loss of time and money for no answer.

Finally, the release of my travel plans to person of unknown reliability creates a third potential liability, discussed in detail already.

Therefore, all three possibilities carry risk for the passenger and none for the government. I also suspect that this would survive legal scrutiny, however unfair it may feel. The only fix is no questions, which does not appear to be going to happen.

So what do we do?

Right now I am leaning towards silence at my home airport where I can effectively participate in legal action if denied boarding and lying if I am somewhere else and trying to get home.

How's that for being forced to make a difficult choice for no good reason?

I like the National Flick Off Day, but here's one better: AFS folks want AFS? OK, fine, let's give it to them. AFS means that nothing is too outrageous to secure the safety of a flight, and if that means other airports see 4-hour delays ala BOS, so be it.

TSA wants to chat? I'd love to chat!

Where are you going?

Well, that really is a loaded question, isn't it officer? I can't rightly say. With your blessing I would be so gratified to enter the sterile area of this airport. It's such a beautiful building, don't you think? I wonder who designed it? They must have been a very talented architect to have put together such a beautiful, and functional, building. I've never really been through this airport before. I wonder how many gates it has? Say, speaking of, do you know where the closest Starbucks is? I'd love a Grande Caramel Macchiatto right about now. So, I guess that's where I'm going. I'm headed to Starbucks. Maybe the closest one isn't the best idea, though. Perhaps I should find one closer to my gate. I don't know, what sort of lines do you see at the Starbucks these days? Well, regardless, I'm going to figure out which is the most convenient Starbucks. Then, once I get my coffee, I guess I'll head to the gate. On the way I suppose I'll need a quick bathroom break. Then maybe I'll head to one of the stores to pick up something for my daughter. Do you have kids? Are they glad you don't have that job where you poke other women in their who-ha just to get on a plane? That's so ridiculous! But I've gotten ahead of myself. Probably after the gift shop I'll head over to the gate and wait for my flight. This flight was such a steal! I can't believe I got such a good price. I really do hope I'm not sitting next to anyone on my plane that spills into my seat. I see a lot of morbidly obese around this checkpoint. I wonder if someone decided that all fat people were supposed to wear blue? It's just so inconsiderate to be that big and only buy one seat. I can't tell you how many times I've had to forfeit a portion of my seat just so someone else could sit in part of it. Say, do you happen to know, is the bathroom just through here, or is it closer to my gate?

TSA wants to chat? Fine, I'll chat.

What makes you think they can read or if they can read comprehend?

They always are.

I'm going with, "The new program made terrorists too scared to even go to the airport." It's a resounding success!

Mike

I don't know whether TSOs are considered "federal officers." ICE officers are, but they're also LEOs. Regardless, I suspect that, if you lie, you could be cited for "interfering with the screening process." What I intend to do is as follows:

1. For general, non-personal questions, e.g. "Nice weather today, isn't it?" I'll respond politely (unless the BDO is rude, in which case I will calmly protest, and escalate as necessary).

2. For personal questions, e.g. "What do you do for a living," "Who do you plan to see at your destination," etc., my response will be, "The government cannot, constitutionally, demand that I disclose this kind of private and personal information as a condition of flying on commercial aircraft. I have no intention of answering you."

If I'm threatened with DY... today, my response will be, "Please call your supervisor, the FSD and the GSC." Rinse and repeat.

If I'm told I have to answer or submit to a grope, my response will be, "Please call your supervisor, the FSD and the GSC."

If I'm threatened with referral to a LEO, my response will be, "Please call a LEO, now. I'll wait right here."

That's the risk we'll all have to take. I'm prepared to not fly and, for that matter, be arrested if that's what it comes to.
Finally, the release of my travel plans to person of unknown reliability creates a third potential liability, discussed in detail already.

It worked against elephants, too. Not a one tried to get on an airplane in Boston!

^
duly memorized! Thanks...

Like PT mentioned, you have to look at this reverse backwards, also known as TSA Logic™. During the 60 day period no planes departing that airport were hijacked or blown up, thus the program is a 100% success at preventing terrorist activity.

TSA prevention programs use the same logic as Lisa Simpson’s Tiger-Repellant Rock. Except the "TSA Tewwowist Repellant Rocks" tend to cost a billion dollars and come via the Chertoff Group. :rolleyes:

add: In these type of encounters, expecially in two party states, the first words out of the passenger's mouth should be "Do you mind if I tape record this conversation? Just in case you might violate my constitutional rights, I will have proof for my Federal civil rights lawsuit. You don't mind, do you? You are not planning to violate the Constitution, are you?"

18 USC 1001 doesn't require the information be disclosed to a Federal "officer". The only question is whether a lie would be "material", but if the TSA says a passenger's ability to proceed further is a function of the answer, it seems to me that it's material by definition.

I can always depend on you to provide reasoned and intelligent information. Thanks.

I, too, intend to memorize and use.

I love your posts, PT. Reasonable, Constitutional, and fiercely dedicated to the preservation of individual liberty.

Unfortunately, as I am not a lawyer and do not have the financial ability to retain one of your conviction and ability, I have to take a somewhat kinder, gentler approach when dealing with this nonsense.

It may or may not work, but when I get interrogated at the airport, I'm simply going to respond with, "I'm sorry, I'm not at liberty to discus that." WHY? I'm not at liberty to discuss that. Are you a government worker? I'm not at liberty to discuss that.

If I am denied flight, so be it. I won't let them touch me, and I won't discuss my travel plans, my work, or my employer, or divulge any Personally Identifiable Information, just as I was instructed in my yearly OPSEC training.

Yes, but we didn't have any terrorist attacks in the past 60 days so clearly this program was SPOT-on. :rolleyes:

In related news, I haven't washed my car in the past 60 days, and the sun didn't explode. You're all welcome.

Add more detail about the highlighted sentence and you'll be waved through quick-smart! ;)

I did something like at Immigration in NZ once; I was sleep-deprived after too many late nights but all geared up to give a conference talk on the really exciting part of my project, so when the immigration guy asked "reason for visit" I launched into it. After two sentences he gave me back my passport and said, rather forcefully, "Welcome to New Zealand. NEXT!!!" :D:D:D

Ever see "The Man Who Knew Too Little", when he arrives in England?

During one of my encounters involving 2 TSOs, 1 TSA supervisor, and 1 LEO, the LEO said to my complaints that "we must be doing something right, we've not had any terrorist attacks since instituting the enhanced screening." I looked him in the eye and said, "Sir, every morning when I get up, I kneel down and kiss the ground before the sun comes up. And every morning the sun then comes up. Using your logic, the only way to prove that I'm not the reason for the sun coming up every morning is for me to stop kissing the floor every morning and see what happens." The LEO dropped his mouth open, was silent for five seconds, and then said, "well, I guess you're right."

:p ^

If FT had a "Flyer of the Year" award, you'd be my nominee! Well done! ^

Y'know...

The only time in my entire life I visited NYC was in August of 2001. I drove right past the WTC to a meeting a few blocks up, went to B&H Photo in mid-town, and had lunch at a typical New York greasy spoon. Then I got hopelessly lost in traffic on the way back down to the WTC to visit the ob deck (a lifelong ambition!), and wound up leaving NYC without entering the WTC at all. I said, "Well, I'll come back in the fall and see them. They're not going anywhere!"

Two weeks later, 9/11.

I haven't returned to NYC since, and we haven't had another 9/11.

Yer velcome.

NOTE: My company has some involvement with the new One World Trade tower project, so I may visit it, and the 9/11 Memorial, at some point in the future. If we have another 9/11 afterwards, you can all feel free to blame me.

Though, on further reflection, I think I'll stick with the premise that the one has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. Just like TSA's fishing expedition interrogation program has nothing whatsoever to do with preventing terrorism or catching terrorists.