TSA: 1 Liars: 0
 

"Flying on an airplane shouldn't have to seem like entering Alcatraz, and civil liberty concerns appear to rank low among TSA's priorities. Yet there's no evidence McClain was mistreated here, and it's clear she makes up parts of her story. Instead of spurring change at the TSA, McClain's outrage will only raise the hurdles for people who have real issues."

"http://jalopnik.com/5687831/this-libertarian-radio-host-lied-about-tsa-harassment

Credit to Jalopnik.com

Dated 11/11/10. Had to really look hard for this, eh?

The story is from 2010. I'm not debating its content, nor intending to attack you, but was there a specific reason why you posted this today? e.g., is the person in the news again, etc.? I'm genuinely curious.

So TSA found someone that spins tales? The tales spun by the TSA are a much bigger concern, as the TSA is a behemoth compared to the average passenger or even compared to a passenger with little to no respect for the facts.

Did Jalopnik.com win a pulitzer for this hard-hitting commentary, or something?

TSA Management:

Laura Labbee (PHL) filed a police report passenger arrested, case thrown out for lack of evidence.

Charles Kieser (PHL) files a police report, passenger arrested, case thrown out because Kieser's court testimony contradicted the video evidence.

David Smith (SFO) informs Siazia that his medically exempt liquids are prohibited items. (TSA issued an apology later)

2015 - Supervisor (eastern airport) steals Adam Kokesh's cell phone - and in the process commits assualt/battery.

2015 - Portland Supervisor informs passenger in a wheelchair "You cannot refuse AIT screening".

2015 - Portland Supervisor informs passenger in a wheelchair "You cannot refuse AIT screening

Upon the release of the Whole Body Imager NPRM final rule the bolded statement is now true, you cannot refuse Whole Body Imager screening. There are some cases where TSA says you cannot Opt Opt but has refused to disclose what cases that applies to.

Funny how they're always able to find the videotapes when a passenger is eventually to blame, but they tend to disappear, otherwise.

Mike

(bolding mine)

"Screener discretion".

I notice the wordsmiths at TSA are trying to avoid praising 'consistent inconsistency'.

They're not 'inconsistent'; each screener has the authority to 'interpret' the rules as s/he sees fit.

So some screeners interpret the rules on contraband substances to mean that medical nitro pills are not allowed and TSA is cool with that.

"some cases".

It is, by plain reading of the "rule" not a blanket prohibition from opting out. TSA has not released details on who cannot opt out.

But since the media is not filled to overflowing with TSA forcing individual who are wheelchairs which individuals also state several times "I can not hold the stance", then we can assume that that those who cannot hold the AIT stance are permitted to "opt out". And isn't there an entire thread dedicated to post rule opt outs?

As was the situation with Laura Labbee, she accused a passenger of assualting her, TSA destroyed the video tape evidence of where/when the incident allegedly occurred. The case was thrown out almost immediately after the first witness for TSA took the stand.

I would say that what we know is that you can "Opt Out" until you cannot "Opt Out" and only TSA knows when that point is reached.

The final decision is no longer in the control of the traveler.

If you haven't read the NPRM Final Rule then I suggest you do.

TSA permits passengers generally to opt out of AIT screening and receive a thorough pat-down instead.

According to LinkedIn, she is still with TSA and is now a TSM.

Recently an online news outlet report that an internal investigation sustained 3 charges of "lack of candor" against Jospeh Salvator - he is still employeed by TSA.

The office of special counsel opened against FSD Cliff Vanlueven conduct at MSP, there is no indication the investigation was closed AND no indication that VanLuven was reassigned suring the investigation.

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.

Like in my BOS case? I asked them to preserve *all* video of it, and they agreed. But somehow only the secondary screening video got preserved — despite them having TSO testimony about what happened before the secondary, disputed by me, that was crucial to their claim to having a lawful search in the first place.

(Google "spoliation"…)

They issued a pseudo-apology to the RightThisMinute when RTM asked. But in court, they outright refused to respond to my grievance.

I won that case; the court ordered them to respond.

Their actual formal response claims that they did nothing wrong. That litigation is just starting.

That was also me.