My SOP when presented with this nonsense by a TSO is to simply ask the TSO if they are a BDO where I proceed to ask them questions like

Does the SPOT program work?

Have you caught someone other than one with a fake I/D or someone who has drugs on them?

Did you know that the Israeli BDO's receive upwards to a year to 18 months of training as compared to your two weeks?

Etc...

And usually after the second question, the TSO has presented the deer in the headlights look in perfect form and is so flummoxed that they either stop and/or move off to another location

I am pleased that the ACLU has validated my legal opinion as to the legality of the BDO process.

I'm sure that's a figure provided by TSA. I'd wager it has no more basis in fact than TSA's insistence that back-scatter x-ray scanners are "perfectly safe."

I love it! That's what I'm going to do next time.

Except in some Southern states where TSO might speak Spanish, the TSA is essentially an English only outfit. If speaking with a BDO is a mandatory part of boarding a plane, then one of two conditions must be met.

One, since TSOs are English only, then speaking English must be made a condition for all pax who want to fly.

Or, two, TSA must make a reasonable effort to have speakers of all the languages they would reasonably expect to see daily at their checkpoint. Otherwise a terrorist just pretends not to speak English and avoids detection. For example, at the TBIT at LAX the TSA would need speakers of all the Asian languages at the checkpoint. I am sure every day elderly Asian who speak no English come to the US to visit their grandkids.

If speaking to a BDO is a preconditon to fly, it is up to the TSA to speak the pax's language, not the other way around. Otherwise, there can be no requirement for a pax to talk to them.

I have no idea what language they're usually bellowing at ATL, but it certainly isn't anything I'd call "English."

Substitute "all" for "mostly law-abiding" and "and" for "or" and you pretty much have a working description of the TSA.

I know it's sacrilegious to defend the TSA on here, but OP mentioned 3 things that the TSO in question was doing:

1. asking pax if they had any questions about the screening process

2. asking conversational questions like "are you going to Disneyland?"

3. talking about how his son was just finishing a posting to a USAF base.

Which one of these three is a violation of your rights, and how?

The TSA does plenty of things that legitimately deserve criticism, but sometimes I think that people on FT have an automatic reflex that immediately criticizes anything they do. I could post a message on here saying "Today I saw a TSO chewing gum" and immediately people would claim a violation of their constitutional rights and waste of taxpayer money.

The problem is that the most respected scientific journal in the World has not managed to uncover a single grain of scientific support for methods adopted by BDOs. This is a pure waste of time and resources.

I understand your objection ... but I think there is a point to the objections.
Here's the problem, at least from my perspective. (Standard disclaimers apply: IANAL).

When you're interacting with a LEO, and you're a suspect in a criminal proceeding, the LEO has to inform you of that fact, and make your rights clear to you before proceeding with questioning. Thus, you're fully informed as to the intent of the questions being asked, and how your answers will be used. If you're uncertain as to how to proceed, you have every right to request legal counsel, and for the interaction to cease until that point without any consequence to you.

When you're interacting with a TSO, having one of these conversations, the situation is far different. If the TSO is a BDO, the BDO does not have to identify him/herself to you as such. The TSO does not have to tell you that the answers to your questions are being used to determine your admissibility past the checkpoint, or to determine whether you should be subjected to additional screening. It is not clear at all what the consequences are for refusing to engage in such conversation; anecdotal information suggest that at least some TSOs use such refusal as a basis for retaliatory screening or denial of admissibility (D-Y-W-T-F-T). Of course, since TSA will not publicly discuss the standards for behavioral screening, citing "SSI", there's no way to know if such TSOs are acting within or outside the scope of their duties.

(To be fair: the consequences are very different in the two situations. The LEO can arrest you. The TSO can only deny you the opportunity to make your flight --- and in the case of larger airports, perhaps only temporarily.)

In short: when a TSO begins such a smalltalk conversation with a passenger, there's no way for the passenger to know whether the TSO is honestly trying to be friendly and helpful, or whether the TSO is engaging in a criminal interrogation of a suspected terrorist. And that's sad.

IMO, no answer is better than a wrong one. I do not make small talk at the CP. From the TDC to final clearance, I consider it the same as a criminal investigation. They are not there to make me happy or make it easier. The are there to find reasons to impede my progress. I try to not give them any. Now some here will say staying silent is evidence that I may be suspect. Think about that. By not communicating one becomes a suspect. Not probable cause or suspicious action, but by what one chooses to not do.

To me, that is scary.

As a woman who often travels alone, I would rather not have a discussion with a stranger about where I am traveling and what I will be doing there. Others could overhear and use the information to my disadvantage - decreasing rather than increasing my security.

I don't necessarily want to listen to some stranger blather about his kids, especially when I wish to focus removing shoes/belt/laptop, and on avoiding irradiation.

If I have questions about the security process I might ask them, or I might not, since a TSO may give an inaccurate answer - such as an assurance that the backscatter is absolutely safe. If they are patrolling in uniform, those who have questions can ask, without being prodded "Do you have questions?"

Ron suggested that the guy was a BDscreening clerk. That whole process is violation of constitutional rights and a waste of taxpayer money. If he wasn't a screening clerk, it's a waste of taxpayer money.

It is not true that you could say that you saw a screening clerk chewing gum and people would claim a violation of their constitutional rights and a waste of taxpayer money. We criticize the TSA because of what it does, not because we have a reflexive hatred of it.

One has to assume that the motivation behind any conversation with anyone wearing a TSA badge is to interrogate you. I, too, wish is wasn't this way. But, the TSA did it to themselves, and it's up to us to remind the "nice people" that we are treating them this way because of their agency's policies and because of their choice of employer.

You miss the point. None are a violation of rights -- TSOs can ask anything they want. Demanding a response or, worse, penalizing you if you fail to respond by, for example, subjecting you to secondary screening is a violation of rights.

Nothing, unless of course you exhibit the behaviors they are trained to look for. The BDO will still do their job.