Organized resistance to WBI/invasive patdowns
Sep 29, 2010, 12:14 pm
#511
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,004
That is what I've thought all along- anyone can walk into the terminal and detonate before the check point. Instead of losing a plane and occupants, you lose airline customers, employees, and a terminal building; and a lot of credibility, if you are TSA.
Sep 29, 2010, 12:24 pm
#512
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,170
You have it about right except for one thing, TSA has no credibility.
Sep 29, 2010, 12:56 pm
#513
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
Also of note is the fact that she is a few seats away from being the Committee Chair in January.
Sep 30, 2010, 9:16 pm
#515
Join Date: May 2010
Location: FLL - Nice and Warm
Programs: TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 1,025
New Website about Body Scanners
A new web site started by a guy in UK known to me on Facebook.
Pretty well done - add to your list.
http://www.nomorebodyscanners.com/
^^^
Pretty well done - add to your list.
http://www.nomorebodyscanners.com/
^^^
Oct 1, 2010, 9:05 am
#516
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Port Moody, BC
Posts: 484
For your entertainment and aggravation here's a copy of CATSA's WBI brochure (PDF).
Oct 1, 2010, 10:02 am
#517
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 549
Oct 2, 2010, 10:12 pm
#518
Join Date: May 2010
Location: FLL - Nice and Warm
Programs: TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 1,025
It is official. America is a fascist state
Oct 5, 2010, 4:01 pm
#519
Join Date: May 2010
Location: FLL - Nice and Warm
Programs: TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 1,025
Canada (CATSA) New Privacy Annual Report
The agency also agreed with our recommendations that the scanners be used only as a secondary screening method. It further pledged that:
* participation would remain anonymous and voluntary;
* a physical pat-down would be offered as an alternative;
* screening officers would be separated from and unable to see the individual being screened;
* the images would not be correlated with any other personal information and would not be identifiable; and
* all images would be deleted immediately after the scanning is completed.
The agency also agreed to seek out and develop less privacy-invasive technologies, regularly reassess the need for whole-body scanners against new intelligence, ensure the public has clear and accurate information on which to base informed choices, and track and report public complaints and concerns.
* participation would remain anonymous and voluntary;
* a physical pat-down would be offered as an alternative;
* screening officers would be separated from and unable to see the individual being screened;
* the images would not be correlated with any other personal information and would not be identifiable; and
* all images would be deleted immediately after the scanning is completed.
The agency also agreed to seek out and develop less privacy-invasive technologies, regularly reassess the need for whole-body scanners against new intelligence, ensure the public has clear and accurate information on which to base informed choices, and track and report public complaints and concerns.
PLUS - Canada only uses the MM wave scanners. Less detailed images and NO X-RAYS!
HOORAY FOR CLEAR THINKERS in Canada!^^^
Now we need a similar statement from TSA. Not just more mission creep.
http://www.priv.gc.ca/information/ar...00910_pa_e.pdf
(Page 47)
Oct 6, 2010, 12:52 pm
#520
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Silicon Valley
Programs: UA GS, WN A-List, AA Exec Plat, National Emerald
Posts: 1,020
Here's my opt out story for today:
SFO. Flight to Shanghai. They have a MW scanner, which I'm OK with technically in that I think it has little risk of harm to a pax.
I opted out. They asked why. I said "Radiation"
They called some guy over to explain to me about "radiation". He told me that the flight will give me more "radiation" and my cell phone gives me "radiation". He said that there are two types of scanners and this one has no "radiation" He asked me if I knew this and I said "What do I know? I'm not a physicist" (I'm not. I'm a mathematician.)
(Full disclosure: I have been a licensed PE, and I am currently licensed by the FCC to perform measurements on radar equipment (Commercial Radiotelephone license with "Radar" endorsement http://wireless.fcc.gov/commoperator...job=ship_radar ) So I know something about radiation.
Sensing I wasn't going to get anywhere with the "Radiation" answer, I added "I like to see my bags at all times. I've had a watch stolen at a checkpoint." They had no answer for this, but did say that they've caught people who've tried. I added "According to the TSA website, as of 1/2008, 200 TSA agents have been prosecuted for stealing from passengers, so it isn't just passengers I'm worried about."
Then they yelled out "WE HAVE AN OPT-OUT", made me stand in the penalty box, wait about 5 minutes, and then gave me one of the most ineffective patdowns I've ever had. I could have had as 12" Subway Sandwich down the front of my pants and they wouldn't have found it.
After the search he said "I have to log your reason for opt out." I told him to write that I wanted to be able to see my bags at all times.
To their credit, they did permit me to see my bags at all times.
SFO. Flight to Shanghai. They have a MW scanner, which I'm OK with technically in that I think it has little risk of harm to a pax.
I opted out. They asked why. I said "Radiation"
They called some guy over to explain to me about "radiation". He told me that the flight will give me more "radiation" and my cell phone gives me "radiation". He said that there are two types of scanners and this one has no "radiation" He asked me if I knew this and I said "What do I know? I'm not a physicist" (I'm not. I'm a mathematician.)
(Full disclosure: I have been a licensed PE, and I am currently licensed by the FCC to perform measurements on radar equipment (Commercial Radiotelephone license with "Radar" endorsement http://wireless.fcc.gov/commoperator...job=ship_radar ) So I know something about radiation.
Sensing I wasn't going to get anywhere with the "Radiation" answer, I added "I like to see my bags at all times. I've had a watch stolen at a checkpoint." They had no answer for this, but did say that they've caught people who've tried. I added "According to the TSA website, as of 1/2008, 200 TSA agents have been prosecuted for stealing from passengers, so it isn't just passengers I'm worried about."
Then they yelled out "WE HAVE AN OPT-OUT", made me stand in the penalty box, wait about 5 minutes, and then gave me one of the most ineffective patdowns I've ever had. I could have had as 12" Subway Sandwich down the front of my pants and they wouldn't have found it.
After the search he said "I have to log your reason for opt out." I told him to write that I wanted to be able to see my bags at all times.
To their credit, they did permit me to see my bags at all times.
Oct 6, 2010, 5:45 pm
#521
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,004
If they are asking for information on why passengers are opting out, this is an opportunity to provide and voice our concerns. Perhaps this could be addressed in the websites- If asked, please state your concerns about the AIT devices.
Oct 6, 2010, 7:31 pm
#522
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 132
Don't take this post a s a shot at you IB. I'm just saying don't get your hopes up.
P.S. if any opt-outs have encountered this before please let us know.
Last edited by deldel; Oct 6, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Oct 7, 2010, 6:28 am
#523
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Here today gone tomorrow
Programs: *G, ow Saph
Posts: 2,865
Well, keep in mind, this is not TSA, this is "Team SFO". They sometimes do things a little differently (not necessarily better).
They also have a 100% record this year of opening my bags on domestic/intl transfers
They also have a 100% record this year of opening my bags on domestic/intl transfers
Oct 7, 2010, 6:43 am
#524
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
I did a quick search and couldn't find the posts I wanted, but I know we have heard of TSA having to log "reasons" for opting-out in the recent past. I believe I recall one FTer suggesting "Because I can" as his/her reason.
First time i've heard of this. They've been pushing AIT for months....and now all of a sudden they are concerned about why ppl are opting out. Why wouldn't they be keeping track since the inception of the NoS. This seems like just another way to placate the masses and make ppl feel like their voice matters. To paraphrase Chief Wiggum: "I will just type the report here on my invisible type-writer".
Don't take this post a s a shot at you IB. I'm just saying don't get your hopes up.
P.S. if any opt-outs have encountered this before please let us know.
Don't take this post a s a shot at you IB. I'm just saying don't get your hopes up.
P.S. if any opt-outs have encountered this before please let us know.
Oct 7, 2010, 6:55 am
#525
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Somewhere near BWI
Programs: DL DM, HH Dia, SPG Gold, MR Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 3,654
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.