|
Originally Posted by saizai
(Post 26459868)
You quoted the regulatory analysis, not the actual rule.
The final rule, at 81 FR 11405, amends 49 CFR 1540.107 to add paragraph (d) as follows: "(d) The screening and inspection described in paragraph (a) of this section may include the use of advanced imaging technology. Advanced imaging technology used for the screening of passengers under this section must be equipped with and employ automatic target recognition software and any other requirement TSA deems necessary to address privacy considerations. (1) For purposes of this section, advanced imaging technology. (i) Means a device used in the screening of passengers that creates a visual image of an individual showing the surface of the skin and revealing other objects on the body; and (ii) May include devices using backscatter x.rays or millimeter waves and devices referred to as whole body imaging technology or body scanning machines. (2) For purposes of this section, automatic target recognition software means software installed on an advanced imaging technology device that produces a generic image of the individual being screened that is the same as the images produced for all other screened individuals." The 2013 NPRM version, at 78 FR 18302, had instead proposed the following amendment: "(d) The screening and inspection described in (a) may include the use of advanced imaging technology. For purposes of this section, advanced imaging technology is defined as screening technology used to detect concealed anomalies without requiring physical contact with the individual being screened." TSA argued in court that "may include" means "might require". I argued that it means "might have as an optional component", like it did in 2011. (And besides, that they can't require it anyway.) So far, no court has yet ruled on the substance of TSA's new mandatory-AIT policy. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 26459927)
Do you agree that the current TSA position is that TSA can refuse a passengers Opt Out and require screening by Whole Body Imager?
More precisely, they claim that it applies to certain (secretly defined) categories of passengers, not everyone, but they couch that in vague enough language that they can't be pinned down on it. And anyway, they also argued in court that they reserve the right to change that rule and require AIT of anyone for any reason, and that opting out is not a right at all, but merely an indulgence that they can withdraw at whim. My belief is that this is a deliberate transitional strategy towards later claiming that the same rule allows them to make AIT mandatory for everyone |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 26459927)
Do you agree that the current TSA position is that TSA can refuse a passengers Opt Out and require screening by Whole Body Imager?
I agree with that position too. But what the Portland Supervisor stated was an lie. Eyecue wants to paint a picture of the evil passengers and trump up the complete innocence flower that is TSA. I challenged eyecue's assertion. |
Eyecue,
have you read this article Dozens Punished by T.S.A. for Whistle-Blowing Are Later Exonerated "The T.S.A., declining a request for an interview, issued a statement denying that workers had faced retaliation for reporting security lapses. “T.S.A. will not tolerate retaliation against employees who bring possible wrongdoing to light,” the statement said. “As public servants, our employees are held to the highest standard of professional and ethical conduct.” The statement also said the agency encouraged workers to report retaliation and misconduct to whistle-blower agencies" really... TSA lies = 0, care to reevaluate your stance? You will find a statement from the Great Father John Pistole "“There should never be any retaliation against workers for reporting a security violation,” he said. “This was not the standard I had for supervisors.” Really retaliation was not the standard? How is it then, that the current stories of retaliation are from under Pistole's reign? |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 26448395)
Dated 11/11/10. Had to really look hard for this, eh?
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:05 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.