|
I guess I am too docile; as an American living in Europe, I am ALWAYS selected randomly for the full procedure both in Europe and when transferring in the states, I now just factor in the extra time in my planning and carry extra socks to wear for the shoe exam...
|
If you are haraSSSSed, complain. Use names. If the TSA claims you were selected by the airline, tell them: "I don't care. TSA forces the airlines to select x% of passengers for haraSSSSment. It's YOUR fault; give me a complaint form."
If "continuously screened", complain. Use names. If the TSA claims they have to do continuous harassment, tell them that's why you're complaining; you object to this waste of resources and civil liberties. If you are subjected to the shoe carnival: complain. Use names. This practice is a stupid, useless waste of time. Complain, complain, complain. It's the only way the filth "in charge" of the TSA will ever change. |
Originally Posted by Spiff
If you are haraSSSSed, complain. Use names. If the TSA claims you were selected by the airline, tell them: "I don't care. TSA forces the airlines to select x% of passengers for haraSSSSment. It's YOUR fault; give me a complaint form."
If "continuously screened", complain. Use names. If the TSA claims they have to do continuous harassment, tell them that's why you're complaining; you object to this waste of resources and civil liberties. If you are subjected to the shoe carnival: complain. Use names. This practice is a stupid, useless waste of time. Complain, complain, complain. It's the only way the filth "in charge" of the TSA will ever change. I've seen it too many times that the passengers don't agree with the pat downs. The passengers berate the screener when all theyt have done is what is written down and maintained their professionalism. There's just no purpose in it. What ends up happening is the professional screener quits and is replaced by a screener who doesn't care what you think or feel. |
Amendment 4: This amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures. Search and seizure are permitted only if a judge has issued a warrant. A warrant is issued only if there is probable cause. This means an officer must show that it is probable, or likely, that the search will produce evidence of a crime.
See it is not random so I am being lied to. I can't wait to get another SSSS and I'm going to refuse to go through with it, only regular screeening. |
Originally Posted by PatrickHenry1775
If I may offer some advice, do not act as your own attorney. Contact the local bar association or even the state bar association to consult with an attorney who is experienced in litigating civil rights violatation actions. If nothing else, contact the ACLU for a recommendation on an attorney. Also, if the ACLU does not assist your lawsuit, then this can help expose the fraud that the current ACLU has become.
|
Originally Posted by deltajfk
Amendment 4: This amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures. Search and seizure are permitted only if a judge has issued a warrant. A warrant is issued only if there is probable cause. This means an officer must show that it is probable, or likely, that the search will produce evidence of a crime.
See it is not random so I am being lied to. I can't wait to get another SSSS and I'm going to refuse to go through with it, only regular screeening. |
Deleted
|
Originally Posted by entilzhaFT
The ACLU is not a legal referral service, and as such you should not expect them to refer you to an attorney.
|
Originally Posted by PatrickHenry1775
Good point that the ACLU is not a referral service. I had several beers and a vodka tonic last night, so I was not as precise as I should have been. If the ACLU is worth a damn, it would file a lawsuit on behalf of every American aggrieved by random warrantless searches, unsupported by probable cause, at airport checkpoints. I would not hold my breath expecting the ACLU to file such a lawsuit, for both the class of Americans searched without probable cause and for injunctive relief prohibiting these searches.
|
Originally Posted by Bart
"Secondary screening" is often misused in this forum. There are three types of screening:
1. Selectee screening. This refers to the computer-generated mandatory screening signified by the SSSS on the boarding pass. 2. Continuous screening. This is the practice of screening passengers at random even though they successfully passed through the WTMD. 3. Secondary screening. While used interchangably with the terms above, this term refers to follow-up screening to resolve alarms or concerns from the primary screening methodology. In the case of the passenger, when that person alarms the WTMD for the second time, hand-wanding is the secondary screening method to resolve the alarm resulting from the primary screening method. It also applies to physical/ETD checks of property that either contain prohibited items or appear to contain prohibited items on the x-ray scan, or are so cluttered that the possibility of prohibited items cannot be ruled out. Either way, this is the basic nuts-and-bolts of security screening. In FlyerTalkWorld, each one of these different types of screening are referred to as "retaliatory screening." :D :rolleyes: :p My understanding is that what many of us call "retaliatory screening" is the type 2. Seems that at some airports passengers who refuse to remove their shoes are "continuously selected". As you aptly pointed out, it is nothing but harrassment. Hence the assertion about abuse of power. |
In Jamaica they screen every adult male completely. Remove shoes and they go through them, completely go through carry ons and so forth. Explain this descrimination.
|
Originally Posted by JTG
It's been a couple years since I was flagged for secondary screening. Then, on Monday LAX-SFO I was tagged SSSS. Last night, doing online checkin, I was again able to check in, but not print boarding pass, so I figure I'm in for the touchy-feely dance again today.
So, nothing for 2 years, then twice in a week. Is it just coincidence, or was I possibly flagged because of my trip to Johannesburg SA last week, which I assume is not on some sort of TSA watch list? 1. You checked in late. This includes changing carriers that is not your fault. 2. You purchased late. Within 96 hours of departure. 3. You used a credit card with a name different than your own. 4. you paid cash 5. You checked no bags. 6. You have a name similar to ones on a list 7. You have reported an identity theft. These things are all compiled and given a numerical value. When a certain value is reached, Bingo you are SSSS. Of course there is a random factor. |
But of COURSE there is a random factor: The Unknowable Law Which Applies to You. Better not break it. If you do, better not ask why or how.
Papa Joe has eyes everywhere. |
Originally Posted by drbond
In Jamaica they screen every adult male completely. Remove shoes and they go through them, completely go through carry ons and so forth. Explain this descrimination.
BTW, It was the same in the Dominican Republic in 2002, the last time I was there. Another location off my list! :td: |
Originally Posted by eyecue
There are a lot of reasons that you could get secondary screeing. One of them is a random factor. you will never know the exact reason why. However some of the reasons are:
1. You checked in late. This includes changing carriers that is not your fault. 2. You purchased late. Within 96 hours of departure. 3. You used a credit card with a name different than your own. 4. you paid cash 5. You checked no bags. 6. You have a name similar to ones on a list 7. You have reported an identity theft. These things are all compiled and given a numerical value. When a certain value is reached, Bingo you are SSSS. Of course there is a random factor. I think the biggest one is one-way ticket. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:13 pm. |
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.