|
Originally Posted by eyecue
(Post 15091727)
You have the wrong EO try 12958. I will verify that at work.
Executive Order 12958 of April 17, 1995, and amendments thereto, including Executive Order 13292 of March 25, 2003, are hereby revoked as of the effective date of this order. |
Originally Posted by eyecue
(Post 15091727)
You have the wrong EO try 12958. I will verify that at work.
Sec. 1.3. Classification Levels. (a) Information may be classified at one of the following three levels: (1) "Top Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe. (2) "Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe. (3) "Confidential" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe. (b) Except as otherwise provided by statute, no other terms shall be used to identify United States classified information. In no case shall information be classified in order to: (1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; (2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency; (3) restrain competition; or (4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security. From Wikipedia Sensitive Security Information (SSI) is a category of sensitive but unclassified information under the United States government's information sharing and control rules. SSI is information obtained in the conduct of security activities whose public disclosure would, in the judgement of specified government agencies, harm transportation security, be an unwarranted invasion of privacy, or reveal trade secrets or privileged or confidential information. SSI is governed by Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), parts 15 and 1520. SSI was created to help share transportation-related information deemed too revealing for public disclosure between Federal government agencies; State, local, tribal, and foreign governments; U.S. and foreign air carriers; and others. SSI is not a form of classification under Executive Order 12958 as amended; that is, it is not classified national security information in the sense of Top Secret, Secret or Confidential. |
Originally Posted by Tom M.
(Post 15091868)
Nothing about SSI in that one either
Sec. 1.3. Classification Levels. (a) Information may be classified at one of the following three levels: (1) "Top Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe. (2) "Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe. (3) "Confidential" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe. (b) Except as otherwise provided by statute, no other terms shall be used to identify United States classified information. In no case shall information be classified in order to: (1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; (2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency; (3) restrain competition; or (4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security. From Wikipedia Sensitive Security Information (SSI) is a category of sensitive but unclassified information under the United States government's information sharing and control rules. SSI is information obtained in the conduct of security activities whose public disclosure would, in the judgement of specified government agencies, harm transportation security, be an unwarranted invasion of privacy, or reveal trade secrets or privileged or confidential information. SSI is governed by Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), parts 15 and 1520. SSI was created to help share transportation-related information deemed too revealing for public disclosure between Federal government agencies; State, local, tribal, and foreign governments; U.S. and foreign air carriers; and others. SSI is not a form of classification under Executive Order 12958 as amended; that is, it is not classified national security information in the sense of Top Secret, Secret or Confidential. |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 15088140)
Well I can tell you what the doctors told me when I got mine. They said that they would only perform it on someone under general anesthesia. From that I deduced that the pain was far more than I, or anyone really, was willing to accept or in most people tolerate. Yuk. :eek:
|
Originally Posted by JObeth66
(Post 15091009)
That's great - except that the patdown shouldn't be a standard *unless* there is probable cause. This is a 4th Amendment issue, and has been since the government took over passenger screening. A LEO cannot stop or otherwise detain someone without probable cause, and a warrant must be issued for a search.
If the *airline* wants to search passengers as a condition of flight passage, hey, have at it. If my GOVERNMENT wants to do so, then they need to do so within the confines of what's allowable by the Constitution. And I am by law to be secure in my person and property unless a warrant is issued for probable cause. You wanna run me through the WTMD and X-ray my baggage? I'll grumble, but it's not terribly invasive. I alarm there? Fine. NOW you have probable cause. You want to force ME into an X-ray being run by an unlicensed tech with little or no safety guarantees, and/or feel me up just because I want to fly? Get a warrant demonstrating the threat. Why? That's the question. The NoS has been in use for a few months - how many weapons has it stopped in comparison to the number of passengers screened? Seriously - that information must be available somewhere. Why is the picture being viewed hidden from the passenger being scanned? I should be able to see *exactly* what the monitor is seeing. That should be changed. If I give consent to my screening being taped, as long as there is no identification of the LTSO or other party performing the screening, then I should be legally allowed to do so. Is the DHS/TSA taping secondary screenings? If not, how do they monitor to make sure that no violations of protocol are taking place? What independent group is watching out for the passengers in these situations? Have you seen the security personnel in airports overseas? Those are folks I wouldn't want to mess with. Some of the TSOs in my home airport couldn't run 100 yards if they HAD to. Instead of using invasive techniques, why not dogs? If the patdown is warranted, that's fine. Simply refusing to be x-rayed should not warrant a patdown absent probable cause. So...these terrorists that want to bring down our planes don't even have to learn to fly. Just get a job at a funeral home, pack a coffin full of explosives, slap a sticker on it, and you can run every passenger on the plane through NoS and subject them to invasive patdowns, and it won't prevent a thing. That's safety for ya. Oh - and while I may not be able to file charges, I can certainly institute a civil suit. My time & money, but the government will have to answer for the actions of their employees in forcing victims to relive sexual assault for no valid reason. Hubby has decided he will probably fly in his kilt, the traditional way, in the future. Someone on another board I frequent suggested spreading mayonnaise on the privates before going through security. That could be fun. |
Originally Posted by eyecue
(Post 15091727)
You have the wrong EO try 12958. I will verify that at work.
Further quote from my originally linked EO:
Originally Posted by Executive Order 13526
Sec. 6.2. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall supersede any requirement made by or under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the National Security Act of 1947, as amended. "Restricted Data" and "Formerly Restricted Data" shall be handled, protected, classified, downgraded, and declassified in conformity with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and regulations issued under that Act.
(b) The Director of National Intelligence may, with respect to the Intelligence Community and after consultation with the heads of affected departments and agencies, issue such policy directives and guidelines as the Director of National Intelligence deems necessary to implement this order with respect to the classification and declassification of all intelligence and intelligence-related information, and for access to and dissemination of all intelligence and intelligence-related information, both in its final form and in the form when initially gathered. Procedures or other guidance issued by Intelligence Community element heads shall be in accordance with such policy directives or guidelines issued by the Director of National Intelligence. Any such policy directives or guidelines issued by the Director of National Intelligence shall be in accordance with directives issued by the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office under section 5.1(a) of this order. (c) The Attorney General, upon request by the head of an agency or the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, shall render an interpretation of this order with respect to any question arising in the course of its administration. (d) Nothing in this order limits the protection afforded any information by other provisions of law, including the Constitution, Freedom of Information Act exemptions, the Privacy Act of 1974, and the National Security Act of 1947, as amended. This order is not intended to and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. The foregoing is in addition to the specific provisos set forth in sections 1.1(b), 3.1(c) and 5.3(e) of this order. (e) Nothing in this order shall be construed to obligate action or otherwise affect functions by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (f) This order shall be implemented subject to the availability of appropriations. (g) Executive Order 12958 of April 17, 1995, and amendments thereto, including Executive Order 13292 of March 25, 2003, are hereby revoked as of the effective date of this order. |
Originally posted by JObeth66 That should be changed. If I give consent to my screening being taped, as long as there is no identification of the LTSO or other party performing the screening, then I should be legally allowed to do so. Is the DHS/TSA taping secondary screenings? If not, how do they monitor to make sure that no violations of protocol are taking place? What independent group is watching out for the passengers in these situations? Originally posted by eyecue There is no camera in the private screening room. That said and with such information, no one should EVER GO INTO A PRIVATE ROOM with a TSA agent. |
Originally Posted by CavePearl
(Post 15091805)
JObeth66, your husband just became one of my heroes. (and my husband just went to the attic to start looking for his kilt...) ^
This whole situation is just so ludicrous as to be inane. The NoS and 'enhanced pat down' aren't going to stop anything, prevent anything, or protect anything - except TSO's jobs. I think bomb-sniffing dogs at the screening area, and full screening of every piece of cargo that goes into the hold will do more for security. But that'll never happen, because then we might upset commercial interests, and it's much, much better to try to turn the American public into sheep that will bleat 'anything for security' in unison. |
And now, eyecue, let's get back to Executive Order 12958 instead of trying to move the discussion away from it.
Do you still think that SSI is covered by that or any other Executive Order? |
Originally Posted by eyecue
(Post 15092067)
That is the whole problem with what TSA deals with. Because of the nature of the tactics being used by people that would do harm, there is no way to tell when, where or how. Hence TSA covers as many bases as possible. The standard is different than a criminal standard.
Originally Posted by eyecue
(Post 15092067)
There is no camera in the private screening room. There is a different standard in Europe.
Originally Posted by eyecue
(Post 15092067)
First off not all the airports are using x-ray backscatter technology. You should know what you are dealing with at the checkpoint.
A backscatter unit looks like either a single 2' thick wall (requiring two scans of each passenger) or two-closely spaced walls with no glass enclosure or overhead structure (requiring a single scan of each passenger). The MMW units look like an oversized telephone booth. It is not that easy. There are layers of security in place to prevent this.
Originally Posted by eyecue
(Post 15092067)
I posted in another thread about the problems associated with suing the government for something like this. There is some dispute about Bivens and the FTCA as far as what has precedence.
|
Originally Posted by JObeth66
(Post 15091009)
Hubby has decided he will probably fly in his kilt, the traditional way, in the future. Someone on another board I frequent suggested spreading mayonnaise on the privates before going through security. That could be fun.
Oh please record that if your husband does that it would be hilarious to see the clerks reaction. |
Originally Posted by JObeth66
(Post 15091009)
Hubby has decided he will probably fly in his kilt, the traditional way, in the future. Someone on another board I frequent suggested spreading mayonnaise on the privates before going through security. That could be fun.
Wonderful idea. I will buy a kilt this week :) I think the ideal civil disobediance would demonstrate the hypocrisy of the screening process - ie rather than proceed to a room for 'private screening', simply remove all your clothes (+/- underwear) and put them through the baggage scanner. They'll look pretty ridiculous frisking a naked man, or one in his jocks. What grounds are there for complaint if the TSO in the back room can see everyone's naked body? If it's ok for him to see it, why not ok for everyone else? |
Originally Posted by eyecue
(Post 15092067)
This is the difference between an administrative search and a criminal search and the defining elements of an administrative search are vague and are most likely going to end up in a court of law.
Actually you are not correct about the application of probable cause. That is the whole problem with what TSA deals with. Because of the nature of the tactics being used by people that would do harm, there is no way to tell when, where or how. Hence TSA covers as many bases as possible. The standard is different than a criminal standard. It is not. It would however be as low as the WTMD. There are not many weapons that are stopped at the WTMD because they are not being put through it. The WTMD just by its nature is a deterrent. If you could see your own image then other non TSA people could to and that is not allowed. I understand that you have no issues with it being seen, but other people do. There is no camera in the private screening room. There is a different standard in Europe. Dogs are not as good as you would think. They have to be given breaks and are not as sensitive as a machine. First off not all the airports are using x-ray backscatter technology. You should know what you are dealing with at the checkpoint. Once again we are not at the probable cause standard, we are at the administrative search It is not that easy. There are layers of security in place to prevent this. I posted in another thread about the problems associated with suing the government for something like this. There is some dispute about Bivens and the FTCA as far as what has precedence. I deal with qualified immunity issues from a litigation standpoint, specifically with LEOs used in private security detail applications at financial institutions. It's not as all-encompassing as you might assume it is, nor is it automatic - discovery still may need to be concluded, depositions have to be taken, it costs time and money. The government doesn't get to just file a motion to have it dismissed, excluded or quashed and the courts roll over & say 'ok'. And it's all public record or otherwise discoverable. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 15081193)
SATTSO, TSORon, eyecue, TSA1Dude or any other TSA employee; the link I am posting includes a first person interview of a person TSA screened.
After listening to the interview tell us if you think the person is being dishonest. http://www.infowars.com/tsa-fondles-...body-scanners/
Originally Posted by tsadude1
(Post 15083209)
Google Alex Jones and add the word "hoax"
Oh, and thank you for being the only TSO willing to even respond to that post. |
Originally Posted by JObeth66
(Post 15092350)
Really? According to the person I know who works in the Certified Screening Facility (funeral home) it was a 10 minute training course, then their driver takes the remains to the airport, though a checkpoint (where they do have to sign a clipboard & show 2 forms of ID) and that's it. So. What 'layers of security' do you propose exist beyond what she's stated SHE has to do? Since she's the one doing it, I'm going to believe her unless you can show me why I shouldn't.
I know you posted about it - but since you're not a lawyer nor in any way involved in the law, what you posted is as valid as what any other layperson would post, no offense. I deal with qualified immunity issues from a litigation standpoint, specifically with LEOs used in private security detail applications at financial institutions. It's not as all-encompassing as you might assume it is, nor is it automatic - discovery still may need to be concluded, depositions have to be taken, it costs time and money. The government doesn't get to just file a motion to have it dismissed, excluded or quashed and the courts roll over & say 'ok'. And it's all public record or otherwise discoverable. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:03 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.