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

    Fisher1949 likes this.
  2. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    The entirety of the rule:
    And that indicates genital handling how, exactly?
    So I looked at more footnotes.

    For all the rationale implied in the Federal Register document, (including my favorite NYT's style reference to "Mr. Abdulmutallab"), the presidential directive Pervole cites as authorization for enhanced groping/voyeurism is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...regarding-12252009-attempted-terrorist-attack, which says:
    Total FAIL!
    Fisher1949 likes this.
  3. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Would somebody like to write a blurb that I can email to all TUGgers about this?
  4. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    KrazyKat took me up on the offer to write a message to all, which went out a few minutes ago (a couple days later than planned). If someone (Doober? RB?) wants to do a follow up, send it to me in a conversation. I'll have to reformat it into HTML but otherwise will send it out as-is. I think it would be good to send more reminders at T-60 & T-30 days, and a short, succinct, desperate plea just before the June 26 deadline.

    I never used this option at the former ISP (> 500 emails in an hour would have gotten my email shut down :( ), plus I prefer not to annoy members with emails, but this comment period is an opportunity that should not be passed up.

    For whatever it's worth, of the 366 active members, 351 have elected to received such emails.
  5. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Sorry, very limited internet connectivity. Can't even check for TUG email right now. Doesn't display well on my phone.
  6. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    No rush, the press deadlines are roughtly April 26 & May 26. You should be able to find a place where you can send smoke signals by then.
  7. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    About the importance of commenting? Is that what you're looking for Mike?
  8. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach


    Did you get the one I sent from KrazyKat last night? Same theme, from your own fine point of view. :D
  9. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Will be back this weekend. Can you explain the two dates mentioned up thresd?
  10. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    I never got it, Mike.
  11. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    30 and 60 days prior to the deadline for submitting comments, RB.
  12. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Has anyone read the submitted comments? I am starting to and have yet to find one comment in support of the Strip Search machines. I have left my commnet but it looks like approvals are running several days behind.

    If anyone wants a look at mine I will post it here.
  13. Hey yeah, post it. I've sort of got writer's block on this one.
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  14. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Had to post as a file on the comment site due to size.

    Use of Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) as TSA likes to call these Whole Body Imaging devices is misleading. The machines are clearly Whole Body Electronic Strip Searches, regardless if privacy software is used or not, and the use of Electronic Strip Searches violate the concepts of the Administrative Search doctrine in substantial ways.

    First, the Whole Body Electronic Strip Search machine does not limit the search to the finding of Weapons, Incendiaries, or Explosives (WEI), the only items TSA is permitted to search for. In fact the use of an Electronic Strip Search machine is a general search, a search that finds anomalies as stated by TSA, and a search the violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. These anomalies could be personal hygiene items, medical devices, or even articles of clothing but finding these non hazardous items is clearly not permitted under Administrative Search doctrine. To be classified as an Administrative Search the search must be limited to the stated purpose and in the case of TSA that search is limited to finding WEI. The Whole Body Strip Search machines fail on this point.

    Second, the use of Whole Body Strip Search machines increases the number of hands on pat downs due to false positives. The machines can and do alert on undergarments, prosthesis, and other non-WEI items. While TSA has aggressively attempted to hide from the public just how high the rate of false positives are it has been disclosed in Congressional hearings that the rate is excessive. Causal observation of pat downs after an Electronic Strip Search substantiates the high false positive rate of these invasive illegal devices.

    Third, while TSA has currently removed x-ray based Whole Body Strip Search machines TSA has not ruled out redeploying this type of machine when Automatic Targeting Software is available. The use of x-ray based technology to screen the traveling public is unacceptable. TSA claims that the use of x-ray technology is safe but the EPA, the federal agency with responsibility to issue guidelines to other federal agencies such as the TSA states:

    Is any amount of radiation safe? There is no firm basis for setting a "safe" level of exposure above background for stochastic effects. http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/health_effects.html

    We also know that TSA has issued claims that the Backscatter Whole Body Strip Search Machines have been tested by outside parties since those parties have all denied any such testing. None of the various types of Electronic Strip Search machine have been tested for safety for human use.

    Fourth, previous decisions from various courts have determined that Administrative Airport Searches are permissible but only if limited in scope to the stated purpose. “To meet the test of reasonableness, an administrative screening search must be as limited in its intrusiveness as is consistent with satisfaction of the administrative need that justifies it.”
    “These doctrines dictate a critical examination of each element of the airport security program to make certain that neither the passenger's right to travel nor his right to personal privacy is burdened beyond the clear necessities of current circumstances.” The use of Electronic Strip Search machines fail on this point. Current TSA Administrative Searches exceed any reasonable bounds limited to the need to detect dangerous items since they find all items dangerous or not.

    TSA forced these illegal Whole Body Strip searches on the public without first complying with standing, well known, federal regulations contained in the Administrative Procedures Act. One can only believe that TSA intentionally ignored and violated federal regulations knowing that the public would reject the use of Whole Body Electronic Strip Searches. TSA should be ordered to remove these devices from the nation’s airports as they violate the civil rights of travelers to be free of unreasonable searches. Those DHS and TSA employees responsible for deployment of these devices without first complying with federal regulations should be censured.
    KrazyKat likes this.
  15. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    Loved your comment, RB. I, too, am going to reference the "name change" from WBI to AIT as being deceptive.

    I'm probably going to post more than one comment (I've already done one) but I need my printer to work - I've been in printer purgatory for weeks now - so I can print and read what I've written in order to refine it.
  16. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    The earlier title of this article, according to Google News search, was In Comments, Airport Scanners Are Widely Loathed. The URL suggests that it was originally entitled Public Pours Scorn on Airport Body Scanners

    New York Times: Repulsing an Invasion

    The Transportation Security Administration, under a court order issued nearly two years ago, has finally been soliciting public comments about its use of body scanners and pat-downs at airports. More than 500 people have offered their thoughts — overwhelmingly negative — so far.​


    In 2010, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group, sued to block the use of body scanners, arguing that the machines violated travelers’ constitutional rights. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in a ruling in 2011, did not find the checkpoint technology unlawful, but it ordered the T.S.A. to “act promptly” to seek public input, noting that the “privacy, safety and efficacy” of the body scanners “no doubt would have been the subject of many comments had the T.S.A. seen fit to solicit comments.”​

    TSA really shot themselves in the foot with the two years' delay -- Americans now have two more years of scorn and hate for America's worst government agency.
  17. RB

    RB Founding Member

    The scorn will only get worse when TSA ignores the majority of negative comments.
  18. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    TSA: "What negative comments? We haven't received any."
  19. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    By our friend Susan Stellin who plugged TUG in her article a couple years ago.
  20. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    I just posted this on TSA News:


    None of this says that we can't rightly comment on other aspects, such as privacy and being free from assault, etc., etc., etc. at checkpoints. But the TSA was required to make a rule and a rule they must make.

Share This Page