Argue with a screener - your name goes on a list
May 25, 2010, 2:47 pm
#63
Join Date: May 2006
Location: MYF/CMA/SAN/YYZ/YKF
Programs: COdbaUA 1K MM, AA EXP, Bonbon Gold, GHA Titanium, Hertz PC, NEXUS and GE
Posts: 5,839
May 25, 2010, 2:52 pm
#64
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
As to your claim that an incident recorded in the database is a "documented fact", that's not the standard required by the Fifth Amendment: it requires "due process of law", which, in turn, means some adversarial proceedings where witnesses testify and are cross-examined.
Your comment that it's the "airline's decision" also misses the point that the decision is being made based on information provided by the government. You're quite correct that an airline is permitted to maintain a list of people who they claim has caused problems on their aircraft and refuse to accomodate such a person. It's when the government gets into the process and provides information that's been collected without due process of law with the understanding that some other entity is going to use that information to deny some service to that person that a Fifth Amendment issue arises.
May 25, 2010, 3:01 pm
#66
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Because "documented" often means "my word against his" and has not been validated as being true in any court of law. If the TSA wanted to maintain a database that recorded convictions of people who've committed crimes at a checkpoint, there's no problem at all.
May 25, 2010, 3:22 pm
#68
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,111
May 25, 2010, 4:22 pm
#69
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Sunshine State
Programs: Deltaworst Peon Level, TSA "Layer 21 Club", NW WP RIP
Posts: 11,370
I'm shocked. I spot a TSO whose blind faith is slipping.
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; May 25, 2010 at 7:16 pm Reason: remove imflammatory comment
May 25, 2010, 8:51 pm
#70
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Programs: UA/CO(1K-PLT), AA(PLT), QR, EK, Marriott(PLT), Hilton(DMND)
Posts: 9,538
So, who here is worried about their name going on a list? I think an excellent civil disobedience exercise would be for as many people as possible to get on the list in an attempt to make it worthless. Could be fun too.
May 25, 2010, 9:02 pm
#71
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
Too bad that the people who allow this rolling outrage to continue (Congress) don't so something about it. Safety at any cost? Paid too much for too little with few substantial results.I used to joke about being on TSA's frequent complainer list. 10,000 complaints gets you an orange (to ward off scurvy) and a kick in the seat of your pants to get you on your way. Sometimes a comment made in jest/sarcastically is spot on.
May 25, 2010, 11:34 pm
#72
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DCA / WAS
Programs: DL 2+ million/PM, YX, Marriott Plt, *wood gold, HHonors, CO Plt, UA, AA EXP, WN, AGR
Posts: 9,388
No. Simple answer - we don't add someone to a government list because they are a trouble maker or difficult person - unless you are getting the US confused with China or the UK.
If someone threatens or hits a screener, then call the police. No different than if someone threatens me on the street.
If someone threatens or hits a screener, then call the police. No different than if someone threatens me on the street.
A list, that may be used to deny freedoms or privileges to a passenger is a form of punishment.
OK. Then we disagree.
I'm not talking about passengers who verbally disagree with a TSO (as indicated by the title of this thread). I'm talking about those who physically strike TSOs or destroy property. I think people who display this type of behavior at a checkpoint have a potential for exhibiting this same type of behavior in the passenger cabin at 30,000 feet regardless of whether or not they were arrested by the police.
I don't see anything sinister in this.
I'm not talking about passengers who verbally disagree with a TSO (as indicated by the title of this thread). I'm talking about those who physically strike TSOs or destroy property. I think people who display this type of behavior at a checkpoint have a potential for exhibiting this same type of behavior in the passenger cabin at 30,000 feet regardless of whether or not they were arrested by the police.
I don't see anything sinister in this.
I agree with you regarding passengers who resort to physical violence or destruction directed at a screener (or other TSA employee). However, this from the article:
"Incidents in the database include threats, bullying or verbal abuse, remarks about death or violence, brandishing a real or fake weapon, intentionally scaring workers or excessive displays of anger such as punching a wall or kicking equipment, the report says."
Threats? Perhaps.
Bullying? What, exactly, is "bullying" in this context? Is it bullying when I call a screener's bluff and say, "Let's summon a LEO." How about when I ask for a supervisor? How about when I believe, in good faith, that a screener is wrong? Or rude? This TSA "rule" chills First Amendment speech and is presumptively unconstitutional.
Verbal abuse? 'Fraid not. I have a constitutional right to call a TSO stupid (and irrespective of whether he is stupid or not). "Verbal abuse" is constitutionally-protected speech.
Remarks about death or violence?Depends. If they're perceived as threats, possibly.
Brandishing a real or fake weapon? Absolutely -- no argument there. Note, though, that "brandishing" has a legal definition. A child with a water pistol is not "brandishing."
Intentionally scaring workers? It depends. Putting someone in apprehension of an immediate, unpermitted contact is the legal definition of assault. Obviously, assault on TSA personnel should be (and is) illegal. Is it "scaring" a worker if I say, "I'm writing a letter of complaint!"? How about, "Please call your supervisor, the FSD, GSC and a LEO right now!"?
Excessive displays of anger such as punching a wall or kicking equipment? I'll accept the two examples given as appropriate. I find "excessive displays of anger," too broad and constitutionally vague. I have a constitutional right to be angry at a screener. I have a constitutional right to communicate that anger to the screener.
This appears to be yet another instance in which the TSA has decided to exercise discretion to sanction a broad range of constitutionally-protected activities.
Oh, and as a reminder to everyone, you are under no legal obligation whatsoever to provide any information to TSA for their "incident reports" that, as we all suspected, appear to be used, in violation of law, to provide data for this recently revealed list.
"Incidents in the database include threats, bullying or verbal abuse, remarks about death or violence, brandishing a real or fake weapon, intentionally scaring workers or excessive displays of anger such as punching a wall or kicking equipment, the report says."
Threats? Perhaps.
Bullying? What, exactly, is "bullying" in this context? Is it bullying when I call a screener's bluff and say, "Let's summon a LEO." How about when I ask for a supervisor? How about when I believe, in good faith, that a screener is wrong? Or rude? This TSA "rule" chills First Amendment speech and is presumptively unconstitutional.
Verbal abuse? 'Fraid not. I have a constitutional right to call a TSO stupid (and irrespective of whether he is stupid or not). "Verbal abuse" is constitutionally-protected speech.
Remarks about death or violence?Depends. If they're perceived as threats, possibly.
Brandishing a real or fake weapon? Absolutely -- no argument there. Note, though, that "brandishing" has a legal definition. A child with a water pistol is not "brandishing."
Intentionally scaring workers? It depends. Putting someone in apprehension of an immediate, unpermitted contact is the legal definition of assault. Obviously, assault on TSA personnel should be (and is) illegal. Is it "scaring" a worker if I say, "I'm writing a letter of complaint!"? How about, "Please call your supervisor, the FSD, GSC and a LEO right now!"?
Excessive displays of anger such as punching a wall or kicking equipment? I'll accept the two examples given as appropriate. I find "excessive displays of anger," too broad and constitutionally vague. I have a constitutional right to be angry at a screener. I have a constitutional right to communicate that anger to the screener.
This appears to be yet another instance in which the TSA has decided to exercise discretion to sanction a broad range of constitutionally-protected activities.
Oh, and as a reminder to everyone, you are under no legal obligation whatsoever to provide any information to TSA for their "incident reports" that, as we all suspected, appear to be used, in violation of law, to provide data for this recently revealed list.
As long as screeners and supervisors can add people to this list without due process there is a strong probability of abuse. Like reporters that end up on the watch list if they are critical of the agency.
We have to remember that the TSA loathes due process, giving its employees every chance to abuse passengers. Most don't - but enough do that this kind of list is a really, really bad idea.