With all due respect, MrAndy1369, I wouldn't think TSA would be proud to admit that their noble warriors in blue, fighting on the front lines for aviation safety, are easily confused by the English language. Nor would TSA be likely to want to admit that if their screeners get confused, they are prone to exercise their 'screener discretion' in punitive ways.

A pissed-off screener looking for retaliation is a screener who is too distracted to perform his/her duties effectively.

And if a screener can be easily confused and lose focus because s/he doesn't feel comfortable with the English language, how much more at risk are we when those same screeners have to bark at people who don't understand English or who have hearing limitations?

Perhaps one requirement for a TSO should be an adequate command of the English language, so we don't have to dumb down what we say to avoid inadvertently giving offense and being retaliated against.

FWIW, there are a large number of screeners whose grasp of English is so poor, they don't understand the difference between "I am physically incapable of raising my arms over my head and standing completely still" and "I am opting out". In PHX T2, for example, when I declare my physical limitations, the screener always gets within a foot of my face and repeats "then you are an opt-out", louder and louder, on one notable occasion, even spitting while speaking.

What part of "I am physically incapable of raising my arms over my head and standing completely still" confuses the screener? Is there a way to dumb it down enough for them to understand? Or are they following the orders of their STSOs and LTSOs and suits and doing exactly what they are told to do - lie?

@MrAndy1369

If a passenger says they Opt Out for any reason that should be the end of discussion. Either use alternate screening procedures or have the traveler removed from the airport.

TSA screeners seem cocked to use their "authority" to inflict whatever abuse they wish to dump on a person who doesn't toe the TSA demand of complete obedience.

No one should have to explain their physical limitations to one of TSA's screeners. For one, most of them aren't smart enough to even understand most medical terms and certainly don't have the education to know what certain limitations even mean.

TSA screeners should screen people using the tools provided and adjust that screening to people who can't stand, can't hold their arms up, or what have you. The screener only needs to know that a person cannot or will not use the WBI. TSA has other choices which give as good or better screening results than the Strip Search Machines.

andy i would you might have a point IF,

The passenger had not stated numerous times he was UNable. All the tsa was hearing was a refusal.

Even the manager, after being informed directly "I am unable, and if i was able I would refuse" responded with "So you are refusing".

There was a communication break down; it did not start with the passenger.

Great Dialogue, Sai and Andy
 

Folks -- I think there are many great points to go around. I think we've all seen that the way to earn a medical opt out is to keep reiterating that you are unable to assume the surrender position. I definitely think that being "unable" and "refusing" in the same sentence was way too much for the clerks to comprehend. A "refusal" is a confrontational term, which plays right into their collective Napoleon complexes. "Medically or physically unable" is not confrontational in the least. It puts the clerks on the defensive because you come across as a compliant citizen who would love to obey their commands, but, shucky darn, just can't physically get the job done.

If they start to interrogate you about details concerning your medical condition, it's very easy to fall back on HIPPA. Whether it applies or not isn't the issue. Bluffing HIPPA and getting the results one desires is just as good as having it actually apply. Note how quickly the Suit Clerk backed off when Sai asked him if he was a doctor during the medical liquids interrogation.

You can politely correct them if they use the words "opt out" and proceed to do the full groping. That needs to become the issue.

One other take-away from the video: Did anyone else notice how all the clerks practically fell on their knees anytime the three-stripe clerk and, later, the suit, were in the area? They opened the gate for them numerous times and practically came to attention.

There's a time and place to get in-your-face with a clerk or two. Most of us have done it at least once and get some level of satisfaction from it. But, I'm of the mind that we should reserve a special category for medical issues (We need a better word than "opt-out" in this case).

I think the words; "I am physically not able to do that" should suffice.

What else could possibly be needed by TSA to understand there is a limitation?

The reason, medical condition, nor nothing else is the business of any TSA employee.

TSA will say the issue is allowing anyone, at any time, to predict the form screening will take. That would allow the bad guys to plan accordingly.

Of course, that means anyone with a physical limitation is suspect. They may be a bad guy faking a limitation to get the type of screening they have found a way to fool.

Slightly OT, heard second-hand: a TSO says the reason at least some TSOs do the forceful groin chop is allegedly to detect concealed bad stuff. If you don't gasp/flinch/otherwise indicate you've been chopped, then you are immediately suspect - you may be concealing something in padded underwear or a cup.

I've often wondered what would happen if someone got the chop and immediately pulled a football-worthy performance of dropping to the floor, writhing and screaming in feigned agony and clenching his resistance.

Would TSA call the medics? Would the TSO involved get any sort of a reprimand or issue an apology? How high up the TSA food chain would it go in the immediate aftermath while the victim was still at the c/p?

THAT is a YouTube video I'd really like to see. ^

I'm still trying to figure out how an STSO can say that you have no right to opt-out anymore when the spokesperson for the entire agency said in the Washington Post that that only applied to people who had some kind of designation on their boarding pass (presumably SSSS).

I for damn sure am going to be carrying a copy of that article with me

If you learn anything about TSA it is that TSA and its employees are dishonest and lie about everything when it serves TSA's purpose.

I have been wanting to do that in the worst way. The last time it happened to be was probably in a basketball game in college, so I really don't remember what a believable reaction is supposed to be. I seem to recall I just kind of doubled over while standing up and was pretty debilitated for a few minutes. I don't recall rolling on the court writhing in pain. Guess I'll have to watch more YouTube. An additional problem is that I'm a lousy actor.

Yeah, but this is the stuff that is going to screw them over in court. Judges are looking for every reason not to step into the middle of a national security issue. TSA goes through the rulemaking process and follows its own policies and a judge is going to find a way to not rock the boat.

But when you have the TSA spokesperson saying one thing in a national newspaper and the officers on the ground documented on film doing something completely different, that's the type of stuff that gets judges pissed off and stokes their instinct that they are there to be a check on government abuse. There are few things judges hate more than government officials lying to the American public.

TSA will throw their employees under the bus claiming these few employees were improperly trained and didn't use proper screening procedures.

I appreciate that Sai did not just say that he was opting out because of a medical condition. His language of stating that he can assume the position but refuses to do so makes his occurrence about the right to opt out in general, not just the right to opt out for medical reasons. Perhaps this could make a difference if it is ever used in his court case.

Yes, I agree it would allow the "Bad Guys" to plan accordingly, just like the pervert TSO in Denver who only wanted the pat down the "hot" guys passing through the NOS, and rigged the system so that could indeed happen. :rolleyes:

Wow, that was a lot of remarkably good conversation. Digging in…


Of course! Captions on #3 are still pending, should be done soon.


If I just wanted to get out of it, rather than to also exercise my 4th Amendment rights, then yes, that's what I should have done.

But I don't believe that disabilities make me have any less volition. I'm not able or willing to go through AIT. Why should I be unable to opt out by choice, in addition to by inability?

I have a pretty hard line policy of not disclosing any medical info to people who have no business knowing it, let alone TSA goons. I've gone down that road before, and it turned out badly each time. I have zero interest in letting them get even a whiff of idea that they have any right to evaluate my medical state.

There was only one question I refused to answer at first, which is whether my boots are removable or not. And I refused that because it's premised on a wrong assumption, i.e. that disability is all or nothing. It's a pain to remove my boots, and not necessary for screening, so I said what was relevant — that I wanted them to screen me with my boots on. That's happened plenty of times before, and they could have done it then too; they simply refused.

It is a "no" — no, I am not going through AIT, for two distinct reasons, both of which are valid and both of which I want to assert.

From of Deaf POV (don't know if you're late/early or raised oralist): suppose someone said that you have to speak your name to go through security, unless you're unable to do so. Very few Deaf people are actually mute, but many are extremely uncomfortable about using their voice.

Do you have to choose between (a) refusing because you're unable (or it's difficult, or embarrassing, or whatever), and maybe exaggerating that (playing into the "deaf-mute" stereotype), and (b) refusing because it's a stupid and unconstitutional imposition? Hell no. Both are legitimate reasons to (literally) stay silent.

I was well aware of that, and was prepared to stay some time in Seattle if getting through security without AIT required a court order.

It may be helpful to read my manifesto on civil obedience to understand my POV on this. If I am threatened with unlawful use of power, that's going to make me much more likely to resist, not less. I simply have no tolerance for such abuse. I would rather sue and get it slapped down after a fight than have more convenience at the cost of getting my rights violated.


Mind, I have no quarrel with people who just want to get through their day and are willing to give up rights to do so. I can very much understand that. And frankly there are a lot of people for whom the inconvenience is really problematic. To put it as Popehat did, I have the privilege to shut up — and to sue when they won't take no for an answer. I'm acutely aware that not everyone does.

I hope that my being very vigorous about asserting my rights makes it easier for others to have that be the expected base line.


That would be a lie.

I am able to stand; my legs aren't broken, just weak. I use walking sticks due to fatigue, and a guide cane due to extreme light sensitivity. Standing with my hands held above my head for several seconds, with no support, is painful and tiring.

Could I do so if I absolutely had to? Probably yes. I could also probably run up a flight of stairs if it meant getting away from a fire, but I'd have a painful episode afterwards if I did.

Disability is not a binary (as you surely know).

I tried the Congressional route, and the formal administrative complaint route too. It got nothing done at all. So now I just sue instead. That seems to have much more potential for making a real change. Maybe it'll also make them more responsive to the nicer approaches.


Which, incidentally, is roughly what TSA says in its own documents about training BDOs to not discriminate on the basis of race / religion. (I'll be posting about 700 pages of documents soon, in an article I'm writing for BoingBoing, and you can read 'em for yourself.)


Amen. Explanation implies that it's somehow up for debate or judgment on their part. It isn't.


I was refusing. And unable. I can do both. ;)

Great way of putting it. :D

That was actually going to be my next question to the TSM, but he was backing down, so I didn't. :p

I hadn't, and you're right. Interesting point.

On that I actually disagree. I think everyone should get the same treatment, and not have to say that they even have a medical issue.

As one obvious example: medical liquids. Who gives a damn if you want to take a gallon of shampoo, five fresh-baked and gooey apple pies, and a snowglobe with you? It ain't a bomb. You shouldn't have to explain yourself.

The only exception I can think of is for things that are actually for-real dangerous, like canisters of compressed oxygen. For that, FAA regs already say you have to notify in advance, and I think that sort of medical exception (and requirement for disclosure) is perfectly reasonable.

Everything else? Hell no.

They definitely do say that. Obviously they've never met a hacker. Here's a fundamental truth: security through obscurity, isn't.

Frankly, that's true. Someone might well be "faking it", and do so better than me. Provide a fancy looking note and everything. If that possibility is a problem, they're doing it wrong. My point is that it should not matter whether or not someone is faking it — and therefore you shouldn't be asked in the first place.

Any chance I could get a document about that, or a reference to one? :D

Me too. ^

Read carefully. The quote is:

Note that it does not say that SSSS is sufficient or necessary to imply mandatory AIT.

And in court, both with me and Corbett, TSA has refused to say what its new criteria are.

That's what matters. What they say in the media is PR BS worth nothing.

The judge in EPIC v DHS found a way to not rock the boat even when ruling that they didn't obey the APA rulemaking process. (And twice again in four years since then — In re EPIC & In re CEI.)

The trick is catching them in a provable outright lie, since they get a lot of leeway to just suppress evidence as "SSI" at whim.

Frankly, I think that's a fairly likely response. It would be hard for me to prove that the AIT mandate that I was subjected to is due to their secret order, especially with no access to their documents.

On the other hand, they refused to do that re my SFO experience — at least not in any way I could enforce. (They did so within two days on TV, but have still not given me a legal document I can rely on. And now they seem to be planning on appealing the court's order that they cough it up. I'll know by Jan. 22 at least.)

So it's also quite likely that they won't go for either. E.g. most likely to me is that they'll say that in fact I wasn't being required to go through AIT at all, either because I somehow misunderstood the STSO, or because his word didn't matter 'cause the TSM overruled him.

It's about to be. ;)

Also, I said that I can't. (Or at least, that it would be difficult for me to do so.)