nothing to fear
 

Fine work, tkey. . . and if they seem worried, as a good, patriotic American, you can remind them that "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear."

I don't get asked, but I volunteer the information; I have nothing to hide.

Depending on the clerk, I say:

Those things cause brain damage

or

Those things cause obesity

or

In addition to causing cancer, those things cause brain damage and obesity.

Melanoma is not trivial. Works for me. There's always the "wait here" and the answer is "not in the scatter zone, thank you very much. " and if its a female, "children in your future?"

I once said to a female clerk at Dulles after she told me the Cancer Box was perfectly safe: "Well, Missy...Have you ever watched someone die of cancer?" Yes, I called her "missy."

I opted out at ORD and DEN last week. No recording of info. DEN did say "it'd be faster if you just went through" I just said "I know"

My answer at SFO used to be "privacy". With ATR the answer is now "I don't want to be scanned". Soon the answer will be "because I didn't get LLL from Precheck". :o

Last April as I waited for my groper another TSA Himmler asked why I opted out.

"I asked him if he had a dosemeter and he said no. my reply was you must trust your government, I don't."

"Wait for 20 years and ask yourself, as the doctors come at your scrotum with knives in their hands, were these machines really safe?"

He got a really funny look on his face :D

DHS is routinely asked to supply statistics to Congress in response to concerns raised by constituents to Members. TSA therefore conducts random opt out surveys so that approximations can be supplied.

Nobody is required to provide a reason to opt out, but those who do not have to consider that the public is then stuck with the statistics provided by DHS, which indicate that opt outs for non-medical (which aren't really opt outs because they aren't "opts") are infintesimal.

From http://www.justice.gov/opcl/1974crimpen.htm:

"Any officer or employee of an agency, who by virtue of his employment or official position, has possession of, or access to, agency records which contain individually identifiable information the disclosure of which is prohibited by this section or by rules or regulations established thereunder, and who knowing that disclosure of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully discloses the material in any manner to any person or agency not entitled to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000." 5 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(1).

"Any officer or employee of any agency who willfully maintains a system of records without meeting the notice requirements of subsection (e)(4) of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000." 5 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(2).

"Any person who knowingly and willfully requests or obtains any record concerning an individual from an agency under false pretenses shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000." 5 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(3).

However, the citation goes on to say the regulation does not create a right of private action - so you'll have to get the local USADA involved. Yeah, I'm sure he and his staff have a lot of time on their hands...

Even better, from http://www.tsa.gov/privacy-act-faqs:

Does the Privacy Act apply when TSA keeps a record of my personal information?

If you are asked to provide your ID to TSA personnel and they write down your name/personal identifier on a report that we retrieve by your name /personal identifier, we keep that information in accordance with the Privacy Act. In some instances, however, the information may be recorded on a report retrieved by the date, not by personal identifier. In these instances the Privacy Act would not apply.

What are some of the common circumstances under which TSA will collect personal information about a traveler?

Personal information about a traveler may be collected under circumstances such as the following: upon presentation of false or fraudulent identification; upon discovery of a weapon or other unlawful item; after response by law enforcement to handle a disturbance or make an arrest; when a member of the public is injured or sick; when there is a claim of damaged, lost or stolen property; when there is a disputed screening determination, or when there is any incident at the checkpoint for which screeners may make an incident report.


IANAL, but I'm not buying the argument that how data is retrieved (by date or by PII) affects whether or not the collection is covered by the Privacy Act.

Opted out 7 times the past three weeks and was never asked for ID. Would not have given it to them either.

What's going to happen when they refuse to let you pass unless you either A.) get scanned or B.) provide ID before getting groped? I'm talking about getting past the dragon. What if as a condition of even walking through the side door, you have to provide ID?

I always opt out have never been asked for ID or BP. I would have my trip canceled before providing it.

I got asked for my information at LIH after I opted out. Before I knew what was happening he grabbed my boarding pass and wrote down my information. Fortunately, my name is so long that the boarding pass does not even contain my entire first name, let alone with middle name. In addition, his handwriting was so bad it looks like it would be difficult to read my name later. I asked if I were in trouble; he said no. On a side note, he said that about 5 passengers per hour opted out of the MMW. Should I be worried? I don't want it to affect my precheck status.

Nah, you're fine. The reason why we don't provide it is because it's not required as a result of opting out. If it's not required, I'm not doing it. If this involves a 20-minute disagreement with multiple TSOs, I view it as taking one for the team. Many on TS&S hold similar views.

I'm too lazy to search for the post in the opt-out stories thread, but I believe the reason they are doing this in LIH was so they could locate any walk offs in the terminal while waiting for an assist. Supposedly this was to prevent a terminal dump, but I fail to see the logic there. The person who walked away from the checkpoint could have easily passed on or disposed of unsavory objects, so the terminal dump/sweep would likely still take place.