TSA Issues: A Combined List
11-16-2010, 06:24 PM
#101
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 193
TSA, Possible Challenge
This is news to me. An Airport can "opt-out" of TSA services and hire thier own security.
Amid airport anger, GOP takes aim at screening | Washington Examiner
Amid airport anger, GOP takes aim at screening | Washington Examiner
11-16-2010, 06:47 PM
#102
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/10/2010) -- CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) today issued a travel advisory for airline passengers who may be subjected to new Transportation Security Administration (TSA) "enhanced pat-downs" that many of those who undergo the procedure describe as invasive and humiliating.
The advisory comes after two of the nation's largest pilots' unions urged commercial pilots to avoid both full-body scanners and public pat-downs. Pilots have compared the new pat-downs to "sexual molestation." A union for flight attendants has expressed similar concerns.
Travelers are being asked to educate themselves about the new policy and to know their rights if asked to undergo security pat-downs. CAIR's advisory is particularly important for Muslim travelers leaving for or returning from Hajj because of concerns that they will be singled out for secondary screening by security personnel.
CAIR offices have already received complaints, particularly from female travelers who wear hijab, about being subjected to the new pat-down procedure.
The enhanced pat-down involves a much more intrusive manual search of passengers' bodies by TSA officers. Passengers who have undergone the new pat-down procedure have reported feeling humiliated by a search they describe as invasive and that has involved TSA officers touching the face and hair, the groin area and buttocks, and in between and underneath breasts.
One traveler wearing hijab, a 56-year-old Muslim flying out of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, told CAIR the TSA screener patted-down her entire upper body, including, head, neck, chest, and hips, with the backs of her hands. The Muslim woman said she had "no idea" how invasive the procedure would be and would otherwise have opted for a private room or demanded to know why she was selected for secondary screening.
[NOTE: The woman had been referred to secondary screening even though the metal detector did not go off, a phenomenon reported frequently to CAIR by female Muslim travelers.]
(SEE: Airport Body Scanners Violate Islamic Law, Muslims Say)
As of August 2010, passengers who opted out of the full-body scanners were subject to the enhanced pat-down.
In light of the growing concerns about the invasiveness of the new enhanced pat-down procedure, CAIR offers the following recommendations to Muslim travelers:
* If you opt out of the full-image body scanner, you have the right to request that the manual search be conducted in private.
* It is your right to be screened by an officer of the same gender. The TSA states in its Head-to-Toe Screening Policies: "It is TSA's policy that passengers should be screened by an officer of the same gender in a professional, respectful manner."
* If you experience any disturbing incidents with the new pat down procedure, particularly if you feel you have been subjected to religious or racial profiling, harassment or unfair treatment, immediately file a complaint with the TSA and report the incident to your local CAIR chapter.
Special recommendations for Muslim women who wear hijab:
* If you are selected for secondary screening after you go through the metal detector and it does not go off, and "sss" is not written on your boarding pass, ask the TSA officer if the reason you are being selected is because of your head scarf.
* In this situation, you may be asked to submit to a pat-down or to go through a full body scanner. If you are selected for the scanner, you may ask to go through a pat-down instead.
* Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.
* You may ask to be taken to a private room for the pat-down procedure.
* Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands.
* If you encounter any issues, ask to speak to a supervisor immediately. They are there to assist you.
CONTACT: CAIR National
-----
So I guess they will have to profile after all?
The advisory comes after two of the nation's largest pilots' unions urged commercial pilots to avoid both full-body scanners and public pat-downs. Pilots have compared the new pat-downs to "sexual molestation." A union for flight attendants has expressed similar concerns.
Travelers are being asked to educate themselves about the new policy and to know their rights if asked to undergo security pat-downs. CAIR's advisory is particularly important for Muslim travelers leaving for or returning from Hajj because of concerns that they will be singled out for secondary screening by security personnel.
CAIR offices have already received complaints, particularly from female travelers who wear hijab, about being subjected to the new pat-down procedure.
The enhanced pat-down involves a much more intrusive manual search of passengers' bodies by TSA officers. Passengers who have undergone the new pat-down procedure have reported feeling humiliated by a search they describe as invasive and that has involved TSA officers touching the face and hair, the groin area and buttocks, and in between and underneath breasts.
One traveler wearing hijab, a 56-year-old Muslim flying out of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, told CAIR the TSA screener patted-down her entire upper body, including, head, neck, chest, and hips, with the backs of her hands. The Muslim woman said she had "no idea" how invasive the procedure would be and would otherwise have opted for a private room or demanded to know why she was selected for secondary screening.
[NOTE: The woman had been referred to secondary screening even though the metal detector did not go off, a phenomenon reported frequently to CAIR by female Muslim travelers.]
(SEE: Airport Body Scanners Violate Islamic Law, Muslims Say)
As of August 2010, passengers who opted out of the full-body scanners were subject to the enhanced pat-down.
In light of the growing concerns about the invasiveness of the new enhanced pat-down procedure, CAIR offers the following recommendations to Muslim travelers:
* If you opt out of the full-image body scanner, you have the right to request that the manual search be conducted in private.
* It is your right to be screened by an officer of the same gender. The TSA states in its Head-to-Toe Screening Policies: "It is TSA's policy that passengers should be screened by an officer of the same gender in a professional, respectful manner."
* If you experience any disturbing incidents with the new pat down procedure, particularly if you feel you have been subjected to religious or racial profiling, harassment or unfair treatment, immediately file a complaint with the TSA and report the incident to your local CAIR chapter.
Special recommendations for Muslim women who wear hijab:
* If you are selected for secondary screening after you go through the metal detector and it does not go off, and "sss" is not written on your boarding pass, ask the TSA officer if the reason you are being selected is because of your head scarf.
* In this situation, you may be asked to submit to a pat-down or to go through a full body scanner. If you are selected for the scanner, you may ask to go through a pat-down instead.
* Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.
* You may ask to be taken to a private room for the pat-down procedure.
* Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands.
* If you encounter any issues, ask to speak to a supervisor immediately. They are there to assist you.
CONTACT: CAIR National
-----
So I guess they will have to profile after all?
11-16-2010, 06:53 PM
#103
Don't want to participate
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: 737 Left Seat
Posts: 1,016
Originally Posted by hoserpilot
Would any of us be complaining if she was touching our junk?
Her name is ...... Tara U Clothesoff ..... I think that is Russian for hottie.
Her name is ...... Tara U Clothesoff ..... I think that is Russian for hottie.
11-16-2010, 07:34 PM
#104
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B767 Capt.
Posts: 616
Change in vacation plans
After discussing this issue with the House Commander we've decided that unless something changes we will not purchase airline tickets. And will instead, if current plans remain, drive to see Mickey this upcoming spring break. I will not allow my wife nor my children to be put under the scrutiny of scanners or pat downs.
Last edited by JethroFDX; 11-16-2010 at 08:01 PM.
11-16-2010, 07:44 PM
#105
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 52
For Immediate Release: November 16, 2010
The Rutherford Institute Defends Airline Pilots, Sues Dept. of Homeland Security & TSA Over Scanners, Virtual Strip Searches & Full-Body 'Rub-Downs'
WASHINGTON, DC -- In a case involving the continuing encroachment of modern technology upon personal privacy, The Rutherford Institute has filed a Fourth Amendment lawsuit in federal court against Janet Napolitano, secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and John Pistole, administrator of the Transportation Security Agency (TSA), on behalf of two airline pilots who refused to submit to airport security screening which relies on advanced imaging technology that exposes intimate details of a person's body to government agents.
In opting out of being put through the Whole Body Imaging (WBI) scanners, the pilots, Michael Roberts and Ann Poe, both veterans of the commercial airline industry, also refused to be subjected to the alternative--enhanced, full-body pat- or rub-downs by Transportation Security Agency (TSA) agents. Insisting that the procedures violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures found in the U.S. Constitution, The Rutherford Institute's lawsuit asks the court to prohibit DHS and TSA from continuing to unlawfully use WBI technology and newly-implemented enhanced pat-down procedures as the first line of airport security screening in the United States.
The complaint in Michael Roberts, et al., v. Janet Napolitano, et al. is available at The Rutherford Institute : Dedicated to the Defense of Civil Liberties and Human Rights.
"Forcing Americans to undergo a virtual strip search as a matter of course in reporting to work or boarding an airplane when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing is a grotesque violation of our civil liberties, undermining our right to privacy and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "Indeed, TSA is forcing travelers to consent to a virtual strip search or allow an unknown officer to literally place his or her hands in your pants."
As airports across the country continue to install the controversial devices, a growing number of Americans are voicing concerns about the impact of the scanners on their privacy rights and the risks they pose to travelers' health.
Collectively, Michael Roberts, a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., and Ann Poe, a pilot on the Boeing 777 for Continental Airlines and one of the first 100 women commercial airline pilots in the United States, have more than 50 years of piloting experience and thousands of hours of combined flight time. In two separate incidents taking place on Oct. 15, 2010, and Nov. 4, 2010, respectively, TSA screeners asked Roberts and Poe, who were on their way to work, to submit to WBI scanning or be subjected to a full pat-down frisk of their persons. Upon refusing, both pilots were prevented from passing through security, and unable to report to work on the days in question and since then.
The only alternative to a WBI scan, which has been likened to a "virtual strip-search," is an enhanced pat-down in which TSA screeners press their "open hands and fingers over most parts of an individual's body including the breasts, and uses the back of the hands when touching the buttocks. Additionally, officers slide their hands all the way from the inner thigh up to the groin until the hand cannot venture any higher because it is literally stopped by the person's groin." The complaint alleges that these procedures, which are described as "profane, degrading, intrusive, and indecent," besides being "patently unreasonable," amount to an unreasonable search and seizure of airline employees and travelers passing through security. DHS continues to rapidly deploy WBI scanners throughout U.S. airports, with 491 machines to be deployed by December 2010, and an additional 500 machines in 2011.
The Rutherford Institute Defends Airline Pilots, Sues Dept. of Homeland Security & TSA Over Scanners, Virtual Strip Searches & Full-Body 'Rub-Downs'
WASHINGTON, DC -- In a case involving the continuing encroachment of modern technology upon personal privacy, The Rutherford Institute has filed a Fourth Amendment lawsuit in federal court against Janet Napolitano, secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and John Pistole, administrator of the Transportation Security Agency (TSA), on behalf of two airline pilots who refused to submit to airport security screening which relies on advanced imaging technology that exposes intimate details of a person's body to government agents.
In opting out of being put through the Whole Body Imaging (WBI) scanners, the pilots, Michael Roberts and Ann Poe, both veterans of the commercial airline industry, also refused to be subjected to the alternative--enhanced, full-body pat- or rub-downs by Transportation Security Agency (TSA) agents. Insisting that the procedures violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures found in the U.S. Constitution, The Rutherford Institute's lawsuit asks the court to prohibit DHS and TSA from continuing to unlawfully use WBI technology and newly-implemented enhanced pat-down procedures as the first line of airport security screening in the United States.
The complaint in Michael Roberts, et al., v. Janet Napolitano, et al. is available at The Rutherford Institute : Dedicated to the Defense of Civil Liberties and Human Rights.
"Forcing Americans to undergo a virtual strip search as a matter of course in reporting to work or boarding an airplane when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing is a grotesque violation of our civil liberties, undermining our right to privacy and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "Indeed, TSA is forcing travelers to consent to a virtual strip search or allow an unknown officer to literally place his or her hands in your pants."
As airports across the country continue to install the controversial devices, a growing number of Americans are voicing concerns about the impact of the scanners on their privacy rights and the risks they pose to travelers' health.
Collectively, Michael Roberts, a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., and Ann Poe, a pilot on the Boeing 777 for Continental Airlines and one of the first 100 women commercial airline pilots in the United States, have more than 50 years of piloting experience and thousands of hours of combined flight time. In two separate incidents taking place on Oct. 15, 2010, and Nov. 4, 2010, respectively, TSA screeners asked Roberts and Poe, who were on their way to work, to submit to WBI scanning or be subjected to a full pat-down frisk of their persons. Upon refusing, both pilots were prevented from passing through security, and unable to report to work on the days in question and since then.
The only alternative to a WBI scan, which has been likened to a "virtual strip-search," is an enhanced pat-down in which TSA screeners press their "open hands and fingers over most parts of an individual's body including the breasts, and uses the back of the hands when touching the buttocks. Additionally, officers slide their hands all the way from the inner thigh up to the groin until the hand cannot venture any higher because it is literally stopped by the person's groin." The complaint alleges that these procedures, which are described as "profane, degrading, intrusive, and indecent," besides being "patently unreasonable," amount to an unreasonable search and seizure of airline employees and travelers passing through security. DHS continues to rapidly deploy WBI scanners throughout U.S. airports, with 491 machines to be deployed by December 2010, and an additional 500 machines in 2011.
11-16-2010, 07:46 PM
#106
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 52
For Immediate Release: November 16, 2010
The Rutherford Institute Defends Airline Pilots, Sues Dept. of Homeland Security & TSA Over Scanners, Virtual Strip Searches & Full-Body 'Rub-Downs'
WASHINGTON, DC -- In a case involving the continuing encroachment of modern technology upon personal privacy, The Rutherford Institute has filed a Fourth Amendment lawsuit in federal court against Janet Napolitano, secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and John Pistole, administrator of the Transportation Security Agency (TSA), on behalf of two airline pilots who refused to submit to airport security screening which relies on advanced imaging technology that exposes intimate details of a person's body to government agents.
In opting out of being put through the Whole Body Imaging (WBI) scanners, the pilots, Michael Roberts and Ann Poe, both veterans of the commercial airline industry, also refused to be subjected to the alternative--enhanced, full-body pat- or rub-downs by Transportation Security Agency (TSA) agents. Insisting that the procedures violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures found in the U.S. Constitution, The Rutherford Institute's lawsuit asks the court to prohibit DHS and TSA from continuing to unlawfully use WBI technology and newly-implemented enhanced pat-down procedures as the first line of airport security screening in the United States.
The complaint in Michael Roberts, et al., v. Janet Napolitano, et al. is available at The Rutherford Institute : Dedicated to the Defense of Civil Liberties and Human Rights.
"Forcing Americans to undergo a virtual strip search as a matter of course in reporting to work or boarding an airplane when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing is a grotesque violation of our civil liberties, undermining our right to privacy and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "Indeed, TSA is forcing travelers to consent to a virtual strip search or allow an unknown officer to literally place his or her hands in your pants."
As airports across the country continue to install the controversial devices, a growing number of Americans are voicing concerns about the impact of the scanners on their privacy rights and the risks they pose to travelers' health.
Collectively, Michael Roberts, a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., and Ann Poe, a pilot on the Boeing 777 for Continental Airlines and one of the first 100 women commercial airline pilots in the United States, have more than 50 years of piloting experience and thousands of hours of combined flight time. In two separate incidents taking place on Oct. 15, 2010, and Nov. 4, 2010, respectively, TSA screeners asked Roberts and Poe, who were on their way to work, to submit to WBI scanning or be subjected to a full pat-down frisk of their persons. Upon refusing, both pilots were prevented from passing through security, and unable to report to work on the days in question and since then.
The only alternative to a WBI scan, which has been likened to a "virtual strip-search," is an enhanced pat-down in which TSA screeners press their "open hands and fingers over most parts of an individual's body including the breasts, and uses the back of the hands when touching the buttocks. Additionally, officers slide their hands all the way from the inner thigh up to the groin until the hand cannot venture any higher because it is literally stopped by the person's groin." The complaint alleges that these procedures, which are described as "profane, degrading, intrusive, and indecent," besides being "patently unreasonable," amount to an unreasonable search and seizure of airline employees and travelers passing through security. DHS continues to rapidly deploy WBI scanners throughout U.S. airports, with 491 machines to be deployed by December 2010, and an additional 500 machines in 2011.
The Rutherford Institute Defends Airline Pilots, Sues Dept. of Homeland Security & TSA Over Scanners, Virtual Strip Searches & Full-Body 'Rub-Downs'
WASHINGTON, DC -- In a case involving the continuing encroachment of modern technology upon personal privacy, The Rutherford Institute has filed a Fourth Amendment lawsuit in federal court against Janet Napolitano, secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and John Pistole, administrator of the Transportation Security Agency (TSA), on behalf of two airline pilots who refused to submit to airport security screening which relies on advanced imaging technology that exposes intimate details of a person's body to government agents.
In opting out of being put through the Whole Body Imaging (WBI) scanners, the pilots, Michael Roberts and Ann Poe, both veterans of the commercial airline industry, also refused to be subjected to the alternative--enhanced, full-body pat- or rub-downs by Transportation Security Agency (TSA) agents. Insisting that the procedures violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures found in the U.S. Constitution, The Rutherford Institute's lawsuit asks the court to prohibit DHS and TSA from continuing to unlawfully use WBI technology and newly-implemented enhanced pat-down procedures as the first line of airport security screening in the United States.
The complaint in Michael Roberts, et al., v. Janet Napolitano, et al. is available at The Rutherford Institute : Dedicated to the Defense of Civil Liberties and Human Rights.
"Forcing Americans to undergo a virtual strip search as a matter of course in reporting to work or boarding an airplane when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing is a grotesque violation of our civil liberties, undermining our right to privacy and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "Indeed, TSA is forcing travelers to consent to a virtual strip search or allow an unknown officer to literally place his or her hands in your pants."
As airports across the country continue to install the controversial devices, a growing number of Americans are voicing concerns about the impact of the scanners on their privacy rights and the risks they pose to travelers' health.
Collectively, Michael Roberts, a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., and Ann Poe, a pilot on the Boeing 777 for Continental Airlines and one of the first 100 women commercial airline pilots in the United States, have more than 50 years of piloting experience and thousands of hours of combined flight time. In two separate incidents taking place on Oct. 15, 2010, and Nov. 4, 2010, respectively, TSA screeners asked Roberts and Poe, who were on their way to work, to submit to WBI scanning or be subjected to a full pat-down frisk of their persons. Upon refusing, both pilots were prevented from passing through security, and unable to report to work on the days in question and since then.
The only alternative to a WBI scan, which has been likened to a "virtual strip-search," is an enhanced pat-down in which TSA screeners press their "open hands and fingers over most parts of an individual's body including the breasts, and uses the back of the hands when touching the buttocks. Additionally, officers slide their hands all the way from the inner thigh up to the groin until the hand cannot venture any higher because it is literally stopped by the person's groin." The complaint alleges that these procedures, which are described as "profane, degrading, intrusive, and indecent," besides being "patently unreasonable," amount to an unreasonable search and seizure of airline employees and travelers passing through security. DHS continues to rapidly deploy WBI scanners throughout U.S. airports, with 491 machines to be deployed by December 2010, and an additional 500 machines in 2011.
11-16-2010, 07:50 PM
#107
Retired
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: whale wrangler
Posts: 3,527
[QUOTE=Cargo Man;902399]This is news to me. An Airport can "opt-out" of TSA services and hire thier own security.
Amid airport anger, GOP takes aim at screening | Washington Examiner[/QUOTE
According to my other half they,ve had that option for a while now and I beleive that a couple of airports have opted to go the private route .
Ally
Amid airport anger, GOP takes aim at screening | Washington Examiner[/QUOTE
According to my other half they,ve had that option for a while now and I beleive that a couple of airports have opted to go the private route .
Ally
11-16-2010, 11:33 PM
#109
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: DAL Pilot
Posts: 1,133
Originally Posted by StillInstructin
Yeah, doesn't ROC has some security company in smurf shirts and badges?
Here's the link...
TSA: TSA Awards San Francisco International Airport Private Screening Contract Under Screening Partnership Program
11-16-2010, 11:55 PM
#110
Ref +8
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: North by Midwest
Posts: 383
Originally Posted by Cargo Man
This is news to me. An Airport can "opt-out" of TSA services and hire thier own security.
Amid airport anger, GOP takes aim at screening | Washington Examiner
Amid airport anger, GOP takes aim at screening | Washington Examiner
Last edited by flywithjohn; 11-16-2010 at 11:57 PM. Reason: Typing errors
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
