TSA Proposed Rule as directed by court is out

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Doober, Mar 23, 2013.

  1. Doober

    Doober Original Member

  2. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    Scum procedure from a scum agency. This should have preceded the use prior to deployment in 2010. Now it is just part of a fait accompli rule by force imposed on the people. They claim the nude images "as initially deployed" are now replaced by ATR, with remaining units removed by May 2013, as if the electronic strip search was some temporary short-lived measure. Yes. they used the nude images as long as they could get away with it, until the furor increased after TWO years.

    Scum, pure scum. I hope everyone involved in the decision to deploy these and sexually molest passengers in 2010 come to the end they deserve.
  3. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

  4. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    Pat downs are referred to several times in the "rule."

    However, the TSA can't even standardize the spelling of the word as it is written:

    pat down

    It's quite obvious different individuals wrote different sections of this document and no one person had responsibility for reading the entire document for accuracy.
  5. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Expecting consistency from the criminals and morons of the TSA is like expecting differential calculus from a hamster.
  6. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    ... which might also provide a clue as to just how high in their organization ignorance and non-compliance with their procedures pervade, given that nobody apparently has even proofread the entire document. If the higher-ups can't present things in a consistent manner, they can hardly expect the barely employable dimwits that they hire to do much better.
  7. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    It is neither a pat down, pat-down, nor a patdown.
    Call it what it is you TSA jerk-offs. It's an unwanted, objected-to butt/back/chest/groin massage by a fat, dumb, and ugly clerk.

    If it was the old style frisk, that would be a pat-down.
  8. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Hey, now. Not every TSA employee is fat, dumb, and ugly.

    Not physically, anyway. Every last one of them is ugly from a psychological standpoint, though. And they're not all dumb - some of them are actually somewhat intelligent, but choose to use that intelligence to do things like sew secret pockets into their uniforms so as to more easily steal things.
  9. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    Is that so?
  10. TSA News Blog

    TSA News Blog News Feed

    A full five years after the TSA began installing airport scanners and forcing people through them, and almost two years after it was ordered by Congress and the courts to hold a public comment period on them, the agency is finally complying.​
    Logic and common sense would dictate that an agency would take public comments before implementing a new, invasive procedure.​
    Until now, the TSA has defied not only Congress, but the courts, by not holding a public comment period on the scanners. The first court order was handed down on July 15, 2011. The TSA ignored it.​
    Then, over a year later, the court handed down another order: open the public comment period by the end of March 2013.​
    So the TSA has waited till now to announce that it will comply.​
    And here is the PDF itself (which you don’t have to download; it’s visible on-line) announcing what’s called the NPRM — “notice of proposed rulemaking.” Here’s the summary:​
    The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is proposing to revise its civil aviation security regulations to clarify that TSA may use advanced imaging technology (AIT) to screen individuals at security screening checkpoints. This proposed rule is issued to comply with a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which ordered TSA to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking on the use of AIT for screening. The Court decided that TSA should provide notice and invite comments on the use of AIT technology for primary screening.​
    There then follow detailed instructions on how to submit comments. You can do it electronically, by mail, by fax, or in person. There’s no indication that you are limited in how many comments you make or how long your comments are. You can comment about the scanners, about the pat-downs, about your experience, about the 4th Amendment, about your opinion on anything to do with the TSA’s procedures. And I would urge you to do so.​
    The PDF is over 50 pages long. Because after the summary and instructions on how to comment, there’s a whole raft of stuff you’ve read countless times before: the TSA’s claims about the efficacy of the scanners, the claims that the scanners have been tested for safety, that they’re necessary in an age of “emerging threats,” blah blah blah.​
    But since we at TSA News believe in empirical evidence and not propaganda, we can, as we’ve already done so many times, point to the fallacies in these claims.​
    So again, a few facts:
    The two types of scanners — backscatter (x-ray), which emit radiation, and millimeter wave (MMW) — have not been independently tested for safety. The TSA continues to claim that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) tested the scanners and affirmed their safety. This is a lie. The TSA continues to claim that the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory deemed the scanners safe. This is also a lie.​
    In a FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, EPIC has just obtained documents concerning the radiation risks of TSA’s airport body scanner program. The documents include agency emails, radiation studies, memoranda of agreement concerning radiation testing programs, and results of some radiation tests. One document set reveals that even after TSA employees identified cancer clusters possibly linked to radiation exposure, the agency failed to issue employees dosimeters – safety devices that could assess the level of radiation exposure. Another document indicates that the DHS mischaracterized the findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, stating that NIST “affirmed the safety” of full body scanners. The documents obtained by EPIC reveal that NIST disputed that characterization and stated that the Institute did not, in fact, test the devices. Also, a Johns Hopkins University study revealed that radiation zones around body scanners could exceed the “General Public Dose Limit.” For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security – Full Body Scanner Radiation Risks andEPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program). (Jun. 24, 2011)​
    If you’re going to comment about the backscatter scanners, keep this in mind: the TSA began removing the backscatter scanners from airports a few months ago. If you’re of a cynical bent (or just a logical one), you might conclude that the TSA started doing this so that radiation-emitting machines would be gone from airports by the time the public comment period rolled around.​
    I don’t know what the TSA will do with comments about the scanners, but I do know that they’ll be able to say, “Look! No more backscatter scanners.” So perhaps they’ll simply discount all those comments.​
    Regardless, the millimeter-wave (MMW) scanners are still highly problematic. No, they don’t zap you with x-rays, but as Pro Publica has pointed out and as we’ve reported umpteen times, they have a 54% false-positive rate. They alarm on more than half the people who go through them. They alarm on pleats, on folder-over inseams, on sweat. The UK won’t use them because they’re so unreliable.​
    Therefore, the MMW scanners increase the need for a pat-down.​
    The pat-downs themselves are invasive and often abusive. They are often used as retaliation and punishment for passengers who don’t want to go through the scanners, as TSA agents themselves have admitted. Admitted repeatedly. Admitted as far back as August 2010:​
    However, when meeting with privacy officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and TSA later that month, I was told unofficially that there were two standards of pat-downs. One for the normal situation where passengers are going through metal detectors and a different pat-down for those who refuse to go through the whole-body scanners.
    With this latest announcement, TSA admits that it has been clandestinely punishing passengers for refusing to go through the invasive whole-body scans with an even more intrusive aggressive pat-down and that soon those more invasive pat-down will creep from airport to airport.
    The pat-downs and scanners both are a violation of your 4th Amendment right against unwarranted search and seizure.​
    With a walk-through metal detector (WTMD), one can reasonably argue that the search is limited: it’s limited to metal. With a scanner, your entire body is being searched. Ditto with a pat-down. The way the TSA is conducting pat-downs isn’t limited to a particular part of your body that might have “alarmed” on the MMW scanners — a pocket, say, or an earlobe. On the contrary, when the scanner alarms, you’re pulled aside for a search of your entire body.​
    Such a search is more invasive than necessary and therefore cannot be called an “administrative search.” An administrative search must be ”no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives,” confined in good faith to that purpose” [United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)].​
    The TSA also claims that the MMW scanners have so-called privacy software — Automated Target Recognition (ATR). This is the the generic stick-figure or “Gumby” image that’s displayed on the screen at the checkpoint. They claim that no images of your naked body are recorded or stored. But we’ve heard this before, only to find out that images can be recorded, stored, and leaked.​
    Bottom line: the scanners and pat-downs are an invasion of privacy, a violation of the 4th Amendment, and should be illegal.​
    If you want more facts and empirical evidence, you can find both in abundance in the archives of this blog.​
    (Photo courtesy of the BBC)
  11. N965VJ

    N965VJ Original Member

    What does the NEPA reference cover? I need to find a Cliff's Notes of that.
  12. Doober

    Doober Original Member


    in the above do a search for "agency rules"

    and from the law itself

    42 U.S.C. § 4321-4347
    § 4321. Congressional declaration of purpose
    The purposes of this chapter are: To declare a national policy which will encourage
    productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts
    which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the
    health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural
    resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality.

    The Congress authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent possible:
    (1) the policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted and
    administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this chapter, and
    (2) all agencies of the Federal Government shall—
    (A) utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of
    the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in
    decisionmaking which may have an impact on man’s environment;
    (B) identify and develop methods and procedures, in consultation with the Council on
    Environmental Quality established by subchapter II of this chapter, which will insure that
    presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate
    consideration in decisionmaking along with economic and technical considerations;
    (C) include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major
    Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed
    statement by the responsible official on—
    (i) the environmental impact of the proposed action,...."
  13. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    The legal standard is whether the agency was arbitrary and capricious in their decision. :rolleyes:


    top of page 7

    DHS’s own rules. See criteria used for additional analysis for ‘actions’ normally excluded, pages 28-29. See TSA’s exclusions, page 41.

    An agency’s decision not to prepare an EIS can be set aside only if it is arbitrary and capricious, see 5 U. S. C. §706(2)(A).

    The NEPA EIS requirement serves two purposes. First, “(it) ensures that the agency, in reaching its decision, will have available, and will carefully consider, detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts.” Robertson, 490 U. S., at 349. Second, it “guarantees that the relevant information will be made available to the larger audience that may also play a role in both the decisionmaking process and the implementation of that decision.” Ibid . http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/03-358/
  14. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    I was making an allusion to the good, bad, and ugly (eastwood), but in this case, where you have genital feel-overs under duress, there ain't nothing nor nobody any good who's carrying this out.
  15. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Ah. I missed the allusion. Perhaps "fat, drunk, and stupid" would have been more appropriate, given the physical resemblance most of them bear to Kent "Flounder" Dorfman. ;)
  16. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    I think they may have actually admitted that they were in violation of Section V. Para. D. International Trade Impact Assessment.

    I think we covered the changes in the "fly through" rules that required transit passengers to be screened even though they were not deplaning. The result was that many foreign travelers chose flights that didn't do a stop in the US. The airlines were up in arms when they realized that this was happening and I believe the rule was changed late 2011 or early 2012.

    The fact is that their procedures have, and to some extent still do, make the US less attractive to foreign visitors and thereby negatively impacts international commerce.

    <Edit> BTW, Cato had an interesting commentary;

    KrazyKat likes this.
  17. Frank

    Frank Original Member

    TSA has a lot of work to do to come UP to the level of a frat house...
  18. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Discussed on FT. If this interpetation is correct and TSA is trying to slip in "NO OPT OUTS" then we need to refocus our comments.
    I wouldn't put it past TSA to try to do something like this. Only incapables would get alternative screening.
    TSA is the Slime Ball Agency of all time, don't give them even a fraction of an inch.

    Section III B (last paragraph before subsection C)

    TSA requests comment on the privacy safeguards discussed above and on the ability of passengers to opt-out of AIT screening.
    Section III D (5th paragraph)
    In addition, TSA has posted information on its Web site on what individuals can expect when submitting to AIT screening. AIT screening is currently optional, but when opting out of AIT screening, a passenger will receive a pat-down.
  19. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    I saw that also, RB, and I don't know what to make of it.

    Didn't some court some place say something to the effect that "AIT is o.k. as long as there is the option for travelers to opt out of going through?"
  20. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    Which brings me to something else: I noticed in one of the footnotes in the "proposed rule" states that National Opt Out Day was a failure, which is an out and out lie, since the TSA turned off the majority of WBIs on that day.

Share This Page