OK, I'll start, but this is not verbatim:

Post #1:

People with diabetes and open wounds on their feet should ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to remove their shoes. TSA cannot question pax on medical issues as they are not licensed medical doctors and it's against HIPAA laws.

Post #2:

When screener requests one's personal information upon pax requesting a complaint form, why is one not given a Privacy Act statement setting forth what is done with that information

Post #3

Asking "Caitlin" and "Lynn", both alleged TSA employees, how much the TSA paid them to post answers supporting TSA's positions that there are no germs that can be picked up from the floor at checkpoints.

My comment on "Wow! What a Response"

Well, what did you expesct my dear Kipiots, given that your agency treats me more poorly than even the East German Border Police did when ever I transited to and from West Berlin??

Questions I've asked but not were rejected to this time:

Why aren't Privacy Act notices given when information is copied down? And in the same vein, why does TSA use the intimidation tactic of requesting ID when a complaint form is required? Why is it germaine to the complaint?

If we are being searched on administrative grounds, why is TSA looking for other things that are not on the prohibited item list? It becomes a criminal search when law enforcement is called, but yet TSA continues to trample on these rights. Additionally, law enforcement by extension are using TSA to search bags they otherwise would not be able to due to 4th amendment protections.

Why are so many resources used to screen shoes when by the TSA's and FBI's own admissions that there have not been ANY attempts at copycat shoe bombings?

What possible items does TSA expect to find in thin flip flops that merit an x-ray check? Similarly, what does it expect to find in toddler shoes that can barely hold a small child's foot?

Why does TSA require shoes be removed prior to a passenger going thru a puffer? So why is the x-ray, which does not detect explosives, used instead of a technology that WILL detect explosives?

All longer posts of course, but those were the gist of what was rejected. If I think of any more that were, I'll be sure to post them.

My rejected post:

Why is KIP HAWLEY SUCH AN IDIOT?

Why ask questions you already know the answers to?

Super, I agree with you here, but my question is - what should the TSA do then when they encounter say, a gun? Obviously the pax can't fly with it, but should they then not call the LEOs, since it's only an admin search?

Or what, to use a reducto ad absurdum example, a human head in a carry on? No LEOs? Where is the line drawn, on both sides of the question?

Don't want to hijack this thread too much, I'm just curious as to your take.

Personally, Im kind of torn on the things that don't require "further investigation" by LEO (gun, severed head, etc), IF they are found during a legitimate good faith search for prohibited items. I'm still in limbo on this one, as I feel like the gravity of the item in question probably should play a part (but where do you draw the line ... which items? ... I dont know). Do you let the teenager with the joint pass after trashing it? maybe ... do you give the same leeway to the child pornagrapher found with unmistakeable evidence, even ignoring information pointing toward victim location? CERTAINLY NOT!

However, IMO things that require the LEO to look/test further (real examples: testing the flour inside the homemade stress balls, testing "marijuanna-like" residue in hidden compartment of water bottle) is clearly over the line and should never be done ... my 2 cents (keep the change )

I would think that all the TSA has to do is to place yet another series of signs before entering the checkpoint stating something to the effect that anything illegal that a screener finds during the course of the screening process (including the SPOTniks) will result in possible arrest. That way, the TSA would cover themselves, I would think, against possible 4th Amendment law suits. However, the TSA couldn't continue to perform mission creep, and, the signs themselves probably wouldn't pass any sort of Department of Justice legal muster.

So, it's in the TSA's best interest to just keep doing what they are doing betting on the prospect that their practices (i.e.: mission creep) will never be successfully challenged in court. Considering that their culture is cop-wanna' be (remember Magaw?), this somehow makes sense.

The first part I don't have an issue with. TSA is looking for guns and stuff to keep them off of planes and they shouldn't be allowed to fly with that. It's within the scope of their search. I'd be more inclined to send them out of the line to get rid of the weapon and issue a civil fine for the max (I believe $5k) for trying to bring it into a sterile area.

Things like drugs I think should be ignored. I don't think drugs are a good thing, but I think the line needs to be drawn there.

I have a harder time with finding the head, and honestly, I'm not sure where the line should be drawn. I mean, it's likely to be evidence of a murder. On the other hand, there would be a chance with the right lawyer and judge that the evidence could be quashed because it could be argued that the search turned criminal and violated the accused's 4th amendment rights and the guy could walk. So it really seems to me like it's lose/lose either way. It's an ethical conundrum at that point.

As much as I'm loathe to let a murderer walk, at the same time, I really don't want to see that checkpoints are used than other for their intended purpose. I would hope that there would be a way that the criminal erred that they could prove that it was in plain sight and not found due to the administrative search.

Sorry I can't give a better answer to the last part. The constitution was written to prevent innocents from getting put in jail wrongly and I think the founding fathers knew that the price of that would be that some people would walk. There is no easy answer to this.

The consent to search takes effect when you place your bag on the xray conveyor or enter the WTMD if you have no bags. Currently that is, I can well see the definition changing at some point.

The SPOTniks have no authority to search. They can summon a LEO who must (theoretically) then meet the criteria of a Terry stop.

Would they ? Hah !, I wouldn't want to put it to the test. DYW TFT ?

another interesting point is that it has been held that this "consent" to a manual search is irrevocable, even if the xray shows nothing and even if you would rather not fly than be searched [TORBET v. UNITED AIRLINES]

I think the judges got that one wrong.

The "human head" hypothetical was first posed here by me, long ago. Thanks for remembering it. I'm flattered (seriously!). It does raise legitimate questions about criticism of TSA procedures. No one, no matter how much he hates the TSA, can seriously expect screeners to say, "Have a nice flight" upon discovery of a human head. They must call the police. So, what if they find a human finger? Or 10 pounds of cocaine? Where exactly should they draw the line?

Bruce

Put body parts on the prohibited items list. Problem solved.

Certainly not with handheld writing tools:

Better not sever you finger post-security. You now have a prohibited item. If the rest of your body is prohibited already anyway.

Seriously, is it always prohibited to have human heads? What about skulls? Can't they be carried legally and/or with some sort of license? Edit to add: What about severed parts of your own body (teeth, fingers, you name it)?



OHHHH; brainstorm: A great way for pro-life people to extend their viewpoint:

Make all babies being transported need ID. Then require a special ID card for transport of [insert creative term for fetus, like: pre-birth child]. The ID for pregnant women then automatically becomes the child's ID at birth. Awful on so many levels (and both sides), but close to plausible.

This can be marketed as an effort to protect pregnant women from unwanted repeated exposure to (something?) by giving them a government issue ID to avoid certain parts of security.