National Opt-Out Day: November 24

sba55

sba55

En-Route
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
2,552
Location
Marin County, CA
Display Name
Display name:
sba55
http://www.optoutday.com/

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 is NATIONAL OPT-OUT DAY!

It's the day ordinary citizens stand up for their rights, stand up for liberty, and protest the federal government's desire to virtually strip us naked or submit to an "enhanced pat down" that touches people's breasts and genitals in an aggressive manner. You should never have to explain to your children, "Remember that no stranger can touch or see your private area, unless it's a government employee, then it's OK."

The goal of National Opt Out Day is to send a message to our lawmakers that we demand change. We have a right to privacy and buying a plane ticket should not mean that we're guilty until proven innocent. This day is needed because many people do not understand what they consent to when choosing to fly.


See the website for details. I hope we never see this kind of crazy and irresponsible stuff for GA...
 
Given the useless measures being inflicted at KBED, I wouldn't count on not seeing "this kind of crazy..."
 
Bob Noel said:
Given the useless measures being inflicted at KBED, I wouldn't count on not seeing "this kind of crazy..."
Click to expand...

What measures? I haven't been there for several months, but it wasn't much of an issue at that time. What is happening there now? Of course, KBOS has the security screening, which is a pain. You can arrive from anywhere with any kind of weapon, and enter the facility with it. You just can't get bck on the tarmac with it.
 
Aztec Driver said:
What measures? I haven't been there for several months, but it wasn't much of an issue at that time. What is happening there now? Of course, KBOS has the security screening, which is a pain. You can arrive from anywhere with any kind of weapon, and enter the facility with it. You just can't get bck on the tarmac with it.
Click to expand...

The security plan at KBED is based on the plan at KBOS.

They are now planning to put the same badging process at KBED, every badge will be replaced so they can have a PIN with the badge. They also want to use biometrics. They think that with this, plus the existing requirement that every badge holder swipes in, they can know who is out there walking around on the tarmac. They apparently haven't figured out that people can arrive by airplane...never mind through the USAF base.
 
Don't go in unprotected.

method=get&s=A9971BD1-1D09-6BFC-E5128D442469DF39.gif

-harry
 
F commercial.

Upgrade. that's what I did. Much more relaxing.
 
Does anyone kbow if it's true that they can subject you to a civil suit and $10,000 fine for refusing the grope and leaving the airport? If so, does anyone have a citation to the statutory or regulatory authority for this?

If that's true, it would certainly provide a good reason to avoid airline travel for anyone who can.
 
Palmpilot said:
Does anyone kbow if it's true that they can subject you to a civil suit and $10,000 fine for refusing the grope and leaving the airport? If so, does anyone have a citation to the statutory or regulatory authority for this?

If that's true, it would certainly provide a good reason to avoid airline travel for anyone who can.
Click to expand...
I suppose they could try. Maybe under this statute:

"(a) No individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft under this subchapter."

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...de=49:9.1.3.5.10&idno=49#49:9.1.3.5.10.2.10.4

I say "try" because it seems a) unlikely that this is anything other than intimidation by the TSA clerks and b) because it seems very unlikely to me that such a suit would succeed. Especially if they claim that you have to subject yourself to sexual assault.
 
sba55 said:
I suppose they could try. Maybe under this statute:

"(a) No individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft under this subchapter."

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...de=49:9.1.3.5.10&idno=49#49:9.1.3.5.10.2.10.4
Click to expand...

So...does the "sterile area" start when you pass the ID checker, the metal detector, or when you're discharged onto the concourse after screening?
 
By the way, I noticed that the author of that blog entry referred to his private parts as "junk," and I really wish people would stop doing that, because it demeans something that is an important part of most people's lives.
 
Palmpilot said:
Does anyone kbow if it's true that they can subject you to a civil suit and $10,000 fine for refusing the grope and leaving the airport? If so, does anyone have a citation to the statutory or regulatory authority for this?

If that's true, it would certainly provide a good reason to avoid airline travel for anyone who can.
Click to expand...

From an ALPA article on the subject:

Withdrawal from Screening Process
Click to expand...
According to TSA, once an individual presents himself or herself for airport checkpoint screening (i.e., submits to the process of an administrative search), he or she cannot withdraw from the process before its completion without risk of exposure to a TSA investigative process and/or local law enforcement action. The agency cites U.S. v. Aukai, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th circuit, 2007.
Click to expand...
 
sba55 said:
http://www.optoutday.com/

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 is NATIONAL OPT-OUT DAY!

It's the day ordinary citizens stand up for their rights, stand up for liberty, and protest the federal government's desire to virtually strip us naked or submit to an "enhanced pat down" that touches people's breasts and genitals in an aggressive manner. You should never have to explain to your children, "Remember that no stranger can touch or see your private area, unless it's a government employee, then it's OK."

The goal of National Opt Out Day is to send a message to our lawmakers that we demand change. We have a right to privacy and buying a plane ticket should not mean that we're guilty until proven innocent. This day is needed because many people do not understand what they consent to when choosing to fly.


See the website for details. I hope we never see this kind of crazy and irresponsible stuff for GA...
Click to expand...


Not gonna happen.

My ISP was running a poll on the home page:

"Do you think airport security should be made more rigorous in the wake of last week’s disguise incident in Canada?"

Results:
Yes 4665
No 1500

"People" want more "security" not less. Politicians are happy to buy votes by throwing money at visible things that give the appearance of "security" – it shows that they are “tough on terror”. :vomit:
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Not gonna happen.

My ISP was running a poll on the home page:

"Do you think airport security should be made more rigorous in the wake of last week’s disguise incident in Canada?"

Results:
Yes 4665
No 1500

"People" want more "security" not less. Politicians are happy to buy votes by throwing money at visible things that give the appearance of "security" – it shows that they are “tough on terror”. :vomit:
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree that most people are sheep. That said, I think most also draw the line when they (or even better, their children or spouse) are molested.

I have a feeling that this latest escapade by the TSA is going to backfire...
 
Just went through the virtual strip seach at PIT earlier this afternoon. Same BS as LIH this summer - remove EVERYTHING from your pockets and take off your belt. Stuff I don't need to do to get through their magnetometers. I've got a new congresscritter coming on line. I think she's going to hear from me (not that it will do any good).
 
Ghery said:
Just went through the virtual strip seach at PIT earlier this afternoon. Same BS as LIH this summer - remove EVERYTHING from your pockets and take off your belt. Stuff I don't need to do to get through their magnetometers. I've got a new congresscritter coming on line. I think she's going to hear from me (not that it will do any good).
Click to expand...

TSA says "take off your belt" is now mandatory at all checkpoints, strip-search or not.

There's a reason I have cut back my travel a LOT. I will have managed to avoid work-based travel for 6-8 weeks, in large measure due to TSA.
 
It seems like we're seeing strategy by the TSA to push folks to the scanner. If you opt out it is an immediate full pat down. Why is it you cannot opt out back to the usual procedure?
 
sba55 said:
Oh, I agree that most people are sheep. That said, I think most also draw the line when they (or even better, their children or spouse) are molested.

I have a feeling that this latest escapade by the TSA is going to backfire...
Click to expand...

They won't be molested because they will just walk through the nude-o-scope and everyone will get to Disney World on time.

EppyGA said:
It seems like we're seeing strategy by the TSA to push folks to the scanner. If you opt out it is an immediate full pat down. Why is it you cannot opt out back to the usual procedure?
Click to expand...

Because if you are trying to avoid the scanner, then you are trying to hide something.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
They won't be molested because they will just walk through the nude-o-scope and everyone will get to Disney World on time.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be so sure. There's of course the few parents who are informed and won't let their child be exposed to some creep (probably of the opposite gender) in an undisclosed location. Maybe that's not physical molestation, but I don't think something that basically amounts to child pornography is better.

That said, this was two years ago. Should be even more interesting now!

Three year old girl gets a pat-down (with video)

Just like the person who originally posted this, I also "seriously doubt too many parents will let their children get traumatized like this when they realize what a TSA pat-down of a small child will likely result in." They're losing control of their message.....
 
Last edited:
EppyGA said:
It seems like we're seeing strategy by the TSA to push folks to the scanner. If you opt out it is an immediate full pat down. Why is it you cannot opt out back to the usual procedure?
Click to expand...

"Immediate" is a misnomer.

At least one airport was announcing to people that it would be a "very lengthy" wait if they opted out. ANd, in fact, they were frisking folks that went through the strip search machine, leaving a long line of "opt-outs" waiting.


Anyone who thinks the folks on PoA are livid about this should check out this forum, which includes a few TSA-types that say "tough luck, we can do whatever we want": link
 
wsuffa said:
At least one airport was announcing to people that it would be a "very lengthy" wait if they opted out. ANd, in fact, they were frisking folks that went through the strip search machine, leaving a long line of "opt-outs" waiting.
Click to expand...

That's why I think opt out day is doomed for failure. They can just leave everyone who opts out standing around waiting for as long as they like. Are people willing to "opt out" of making their flight? Are tickets refundable/transferrable if you miss your flight due to (self inflicted) security delays?
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Not gonna happen.

My ISP was running a poll on the home page:

"Do you think airport security should be made more rigorous in the wake of last week’s disguise incident in Canada?"

Results:
Yes 4665
No 1500

"People" want more "security" not less. Politicians are happy to buy votes by throwing money at visible things that give the appearance of "security" – it shows that they are “tough on terror”. :vomit:
Click to expand...

"rigorous"? sure, but let's assume that more rigorous means actually being effective rather than the useless BS they are inflicting on the public.

I wonder what the results would be if the same poll had asked if the current process provides any actual security.
 
Folks living in (or flying from) a Ninth Circuit state are screwed for the time being.

What I would like to see is another federal circuit come to the opposite conclusion from Aukai and the resulting disfunction.

 
The constitutionality of an airport screening search, however, does not depend on consent, see Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315, 92 S.Ct. 1593, and requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world.6  Such a rule would afford terrorists 7 multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by “electing not to fly” on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found.   This rule would also allow terrorists a low-cost method of detecting systematic vulnerabilities in airport security, knowledge that could be extremely valuable in planning future attacks.   Likewise, given that consent is not required, it makes little sense to predicate the reasonableness of an administrative airport screening search on an irrevocable implied consent theory.   Rather, where an airport screening search is otherwise reasonable and conducted pursuant to statutory authority, 49 U.S.C. § 44901, all that is required is the passenger's election to attempt entry into the secured area 8 of an airport.   See Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315, 92 S.Ct. 1593; 49 C.F.R. § 1540.107. Under current TSA regulations and procedures, that election occurs when a prospective passenger walks through the magnetometer or places items on the conveyor belt of the x-ray machine.9  The record establishes that Aukai elected to attempt entry into the posted secured area of Honolulu International Airport when he walked through the magnetometer, thereby subjecting himself to the airport screening process.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
Folks living in (or flying from) a Ninth Circuit state are screwed for the time being.

What I would like to see is another federal circuit come to the opposite conclusion from Aukai and the resulting disfunction.

 
Click to expand...

Well, such a circuit split would certainly increase the probability that the Supremes would grant cert.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Folks living in (or flying from) a Ninth Circuit state are screwed for the time being.

What I would like to see is another federal circuit come to the opposite conclusion from Aukai and the resulting disfunction.

 
Click to expand...
I doubt that even the same court would reach the same conclusion now. The facts have changed significantly.

There's even a question whether those scans fall within the statutory authority of the TSA.

I have a feeling that many organizations (ACLU, EPIC - well maybe not them since they're already in a legal battle with the TSA) are just waiting for material to make a good case out of. I doubt they'll have to wait long....
 
sba55 said:
I doubt that even the same court would reach the same conclusion now. The facts have changed significantly.
Click to expand...

What's changed factually?

There's even a question whether those scans fall within the statutory authority of the TSA.
....
Click to expand...
That argument can't be made in good faith.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/usc_sec_49_00044901----000-.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/usc_sec_49_00044904----000-.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/usc_sec_49_00044925----000-.html

The only way this screening can be shot down on a legal basis is through some kind of constitutional argument.
 
sba55 said:
That's pretty obvious, no?
Click to expand...

Not really. What's changed factually? Esp., what's changed factually in a way that would require a different application of the law?

EPIC has made that argument and the court has allowed the lawsuit to proceed, so clearly they can make that argument in good faith.
Click to expand...
http://epic.org/privacy/litigation/EPIC_Body_Scanner_OB_Final.pdf

There's no mention in the opening brief of this program exceeding the TSA's statutory authority. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying?
 
Last edited:
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Not really. What's changed factually? Esp., what's changed factually in a way that would require a different application of the law?
Click to expand...

I think the increased intrusiveness of the search since that case is what he had in mind maybe. I agree that is not the underlying issue of that case that would cause a different result today. However, it might cause a different result today on different grounds.

But in this country sharp turns only occur after tragedies or major scandals (we call it management by tragedy at work.) These slow erosions will continue until something big happens. Maybe a checkpoint riot.
 
sba55 said:
I doubt that even the same court would reach the same conclusion now. The facts have changed significantly.

There's even a question whether those scans fall within the statutory authority of the TSA.

I have a feeling that many organizations (ACLU, EPIC - well maybe not them since they're already in a legal battle with the TSA) are just waiting for material to make a good case out of. I doubt they'll have to wait long....
Click to expand...

I believe, in theory, that the TSA would try to justify a full body strip-search and cavity search if it thought it could get away with it. Justification would be that a person could hide contraband that was dangerous to aircraft in body cavities. And I believe they would rely on "administrative search" and that a cavity search was the only means possible to detect said items.

That said, I think the only reason they don't do it yet (with emphasis on "yet") is that it would really have folks up in arms and do substantial damage to the airlines.
 
wsuffa said:
I believe, in theory, that the TSA would try to justify a full body strip-search and cavity search if it thought it could get away with it. Justification would be that a person could hide contraband that was dangerous to aircraft in body cavities. And I believe they would rely on "administrative search" and that a cavity search was the only means possible to detect said items.

That said, I think the only reason they don't do it yet (with emphasis on "yet") is that it would really have folks up in arms and do substantial damage to the airlines.
Click to expand...

Just run everyone through a Full Body CT before boarding.:cornut:
 
And even more out of control: TSA - Sexual Assault

Here is why I was sexually assaulted. She never told me the new body search policy. She never told me that she was going to touch my private parts. She never told me when or where she was going to touch me. She did not inform me that a private screening was available. She did not inform me of my rights that were a part of these new enhanced patdown procedures.
Click to expand...
 
Only if this guy was still around. I think he saw it coming.

(NSFW language)
 
wsuffa said:
I believe, in theory, that the TSA would try to justify a full body strip-search and cavity search if it thought it could get away with it. Justification would be that a person could hide contraband that was dangerous to aircraft in body cavities. And I believe they would rely on "administrative search" and that a cavity search was the only means possible to detect said items.

That said, I think the only reason they don't do it yet (with emphasis on "yet") is that it would really have folks up in arms and do substantial damage to the airlines.
Click to expand...
Agreed. This whole issue is about different levels of privacy intrusion. A metal detector is one thing, sexual assault is another - and I'm pretty sure a judge would take this into account.

Given that the TSA/DHS figureheads are suddenly busy doing all the morning shows today, and that they are already inventing new policies (no AIT or enhanced patdowns for children under 12), I think they're worried.

Senate hearing on 11/17, too.
 
sba55 said:
Agreed. This whole issue is about different levels of privacy intrusion. A metal detector is one thing, sexual assault is another - and I'm pretty sure a judge would take this into account.

Given that the TSA/DHS figureheads are suddenly busy doing all the morning shows today, and that they are already inventing new policies (no AIT or enhanced patdowns for children under 12), I think they're worried.

Senate hearing on 11/17, too.
Click to expand...

The problem with that, as I elaborated on in this post, is that assuming for the sake of argument than any of this made any sense to begin with, exempting children from the security measures defeats the whole alleged purpose of the program. Children's undies and diapers can be stuffed with C-4 or PETN, too.

Not only that, but such a policy exempting children from fondling inspection actually encourages terrorists to use children and infants in terror attacks. Not that they've shown any qualms about involving children in their battles, anyway, but this makes little ones especially valuable.

And because these mini-terrorists are so young, they won't even be interested in the 72 virgins, which may mean that their adult handlers get a two-for-one sort of deal: A whole gross of virgins for the price of 72. Any red-blooded al-Queda terrorist would jump at that offer.

-Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top