That was a good explanation of your position. I opt out every time. I don't like the pat down, but I choose it as the lesser of indignities. I am polite and the TSOs are polite to me. And the procedure does provide some protection against underwear bombers, who now have to devise another method.

What I do not understand is why you would choose an approach that is guaranteed to make an unpleasant situation worse. The TSO is never going to change procedure based on the passenger's request. I can't see any benefit other than possibly feeling more virtuous because of your additional hardship. If that's the motivation, why not go on a hunger strike instead?

By opting out I impose a financial cost on the system no financial cost to me. These organizations pay attention to costs, and to very little else. A complete policy shift will only come from the top, prompted either by voters or by a successful act of terrorism.

The OP asserted that people who have problems with the TSA are intentionally causing trouble. My point was that we're not causing trouble, we're standing up for our rights.

Most of the times, I get through security with neither scope nor grope. This is my goal. However, if the TSA insists on scope and/or grope, I will "opt-out" of both. My goal is to continue living my life as normally as possible, and when that is prevented by the TSA, I will convey my disapproval in the form of a double opt-out (in addition to lawsuits). The financial cost is irrelevant to me (and when I win my lawsuits, will be re-imbursed by the TSA anyway).

--Jon

And some are not even standing up for their rights, some are just being themselves, which includes physical limitations, or limited knowledge of English, or not holding US citizenship.

Or just trying to expand their horizons.

I got a call recently from a friend of mine, in tears, because a TSA person questioned her as she was boarding a flight to travel internationally (a "gate check"). "Why are you traveling to Paris?", "There are plenty of places to visit in the US that you shouldn't ever need to leave your country", "You must not be a true US citizen if you want to travel to Paris", "You're lucky that I'm going to let you travel today, you really shouldn't be going to Paris".

All because she was taking vacation in Paris.

(And you know that isn't directed at you)

Unfortunately, some of us have run into that mentality before with TSA, so it isn't unique to the person your friend encountered.

Well, you know fully well that you can't opt out of both. Once again, I'm not sure what you expected to happen in this case. You went to the screening point and refused to go through the screening. What did you think they were going to do?

You sound overly confident about your ability to win lawsuits against the TSA. Let us know how it goes. We'll all be cheering you on.

What did I think they would do? Deny me access to the checkpoint.

What did they do in reality? Deny me access to the checkpoint, plus all the illegal stuff I mentioned in my original reply.

There is no better way to protest TSA policy than to force the issue at the checkpoint. I think everyone should show up at the checkpoints and demand their right to fly without being molested. If even 1% of air travellers did this daily, the TSA would be forced to change their policies. And, to clarify, I didn't go to the checkpoint to protest. I went to fly.

--Jon

Well said. ^

I am curious as to whether or not you think my stand against the TSA at PHX T4 when they wouldn't accept my NEXUS card even after I showed them the website and Pistole's memo stating that the NEXUS card was accepted.

If you genuinely didn't have another card, then that's fine. But if you did, then you were creating your own problems. Is being asked for a driver's license as opposed to a Nexus card now some sort of a human rights violation as well?

No, but it is a blatant violation of TSA's iron-clad, published, fully-accepted policy.

And it also puts a traveler at a slightly increased risk of identity theft, or having their home burglarized while away, particularly when coupled with the new interrogations being phased in around the country - couple the home address with, "Where are you going?" and "How long are you going to be there?" and you've got all you need to know to burglarize someone with impunity. Add in a few other bits like "What company do you work for?" and maybe "What will you be doing when you get there?" and a potential burglar will also get a general idea of the person's occupation, which can give them a clue as to whether their home is worth burglarizing while they're away.

Granted, the identity theft thing and the burglary thing are not common, but they're several tens of thousands of times more common than terrorist attack.

In my job, I'm required to take a yearly online federal training class on Operational Security. Much of the class focuses on safeguarding my own Personally Identifiable Information, as a breach of an individual's personal info can often lead to a breach of operational security within their job. It's not only smart for me to safeguard my info, it's required by my job.

So I will no longer be using my license as ID at the airport, and I will not answer any of the personal questions that the interrogators toss out at me.

I'm simply not at liberty to discuss those things, and I won't violate that.

You are correct that it is not a human rights violation. But, you are incorrect if you say I am creating my own problem.

I do not know how many times this needs to be repeated, but I will try one more time.

The TSA publishes a list of acceptable ID's. The NEXUS is one of them. They are required to accept it. When they do not, the problem is created by them. They wish to solve their created problem by the changing of my behavior. If I do surrender to their demand and change my behavior, it is a tacit admission that they were correct when they were not and it reinforces their wrong behavior. I will have participated in a training activity that makes the screener worse, not better. It tells them they can be a bully. It tells them that their role as an officious martinet is an acceptable one. It tells them they are right even when they are wrong.

This affects not just me but every other passenger that must deal with someone who has been trained in stupid and reinforced in its correctness. I refuse to participate.

No, the OP did not assert that. The OP claimed that some of the problems are intentionally caused by passengers, and I do not believe he is talking about expecting TSOs to follow policy. The OP has stated numerous times in numerous threads that TSOs should and are expected to follow policy.

What I believe the OP intended was to refer to those who actually encounted no problems at a checkpoint, yet go out of their way to cause one - and yes, there are some passengers who do that. In fact, some people here on FT have post that is exactly what they do. Relatively recently (before the TS/S forum was split) someone posted such a thread - and others on this site criticised that person for making it worse for others.

I could have read the OPs post wrong, but that is how I the intent of what he wrote. But to be clear, I did not take the OP to be talking about anyone opting out, or expecting to accept the proper identification at TDC, etc.

It's OK as long as the flight crew gets a free pass.

So asking them to do their jobs properly and follow well-established and published procedures is "creating your own problem?". Wow. By that analysis, any TSA screener can simply disregard any policy and procedure without regard to impact on the public.