Search

Professional Troublemaker

 Jonathan Corbett, Civil Rights Advocate

Category

TSA – Assorted Assholery

Third Circuit All But Immunizes TSA Screeners From Lawsuits for Abuse

Pellegrino v. TSA - Panel OpinionThe federal courts have had a very difficult time figuring out how people can seek redress against the TSA, either via policy challenge or challenge to specific abusive interactions with screeners.  The Third Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, which services New York armpits New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, has taken that challenge to the next level with two decisions that work together to make it very, very hard for someone who was abused by TSA screeners to win a lawsuit.

[Edit – The media is reporting the ruling as “TSA agents can’t be sued for false arrests, abuse, or assault.”  I disagree with this conclusion.  Read on…]

Vanderklok v. United States (.pdf), 868 F.3d 189 (3rd. Cir. 2017) was, relevant to the discussion, a suit against a TSA screener himself.  The plaintiff alleged, in brief, that a TSA screener got annoyed with him and told the cops he made a bomb threat, resulting in the plaintiff’s arrest.  Vanderklok made a First Amendment claim, arguing that his words were what annoyed the screener, and therefore the screener having him arrested violated his free speech.

Constitutionally-oriented lawsuits against individual government agents are generally known as “Bivens” lawsuits, and the idea is that if the Constitution provides a right, then it implies that the courts should be able to hear a case against someone who violates those rights.  The Third Circuit took to heart the U.S. Supreme Court’s direction that lower courts should hesitate to allow new kinds of Bivens lawsuits, and thus ended Vanderklok’s First Amendment challenge.  There is a long test the Supreme Court uses to counsel as to when Bivens should be extended to another area, but the most important part of this test is whether Congress has created some other kind of remedy.  If there’s another way to sue and be made whole, Bivens isn’t necessary.  Despite it being doubtful that there was another way to sue, the Vanderklok court emphasized that “TSA employees are not trained on issues of probable cause, reasonable suspicion, and other constitutional doctrines that govern law enforcement officers,” and therefore should be off the hook for retaliation claims because they don’t know any better.  (Don’t hurt yourself trying to appreciate the wisdom in that one.)

Poorly reasoned, but fine, if there is another way to sue.  The Third Circuit resolved that issue today.

Pellegrino v. TSA (.pdf), 15-3047 (3rd Cir., July 11th, 2018) addressed the only potential other way to sue.  Relevant to the discussion, it was a suit against the TSA itself (as opposed to Vanderklok, where an individual screener was sued).  Suits against the government for money damages come under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), a law written by Congress discussing the terms under which one may use the federal courts for such a suit.  The predicate for Pellegrino’s claim was similar to Vanderklok’s: a screener, annoyed with her, had her falsely arrested by the cops.

The FTCA allows for most types of personal injury claims (including civil rights staples like assault, false arrest, etc.) so long as the injury was caused by “any officer of the United States who is empowered by law to execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests” (28 U.S.C. § 2680(h)).  However, the courts have been hesitant to find that TSA screeners are covered by this law, notwithstanding the fact that their job is literally to execute searches, because TSA searches are, in the courts’ view, different from traditional law enforcement searches.  The Eleventh Circuit tossed several FTCA claims against the TSA of mine a few years ago, holding that TSA screeners are not “officers of the United States” (despite their job title literally being Transportation Security Officer).  Corbett v. TSA, 568 Fed. Appx. 690 (11th Cir. 2014).

Today’s ruling in Pellegrino does the same, although for different reasoning.  The Third Circuit found that the language the FTCA uses implies that Congress only intended it to cover law enforcement officers, and TSA is not law enforcement.  This ruling has 2 problems: 1) Congress’ intent is only relevant where the statute is ambiguous.  It strains credulity to argue that TSA screeners are not “empowered by law to execute searches,” in my view, but the Third Circuit concluded that “searches” is ambiguous enough to need to examine Congressional intent, 2) The FTCA was written before the TSA was created, so therefore Congress could not have had intent to exclude or exclude them, and 3) since Vanderklok foreclosed Bivens suits, there is now no recourse for those injured in the ways that Vanderklok and Pellegrino were injured.

Put another way, in New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, there is now no recourse if a TSA screener intentionally, falsely calls the cops and says you threatened to blow up the airport, because they decided they don’t like your attitude.  If you spend the night in jail because a TSA screener lied, you’ve got no lawsuit.  Not against the TSA, the TSA screener, and probably not against the cops either.

The rulings don’t directly address more traditional Bivens claims, such as one for assault or false arrest.  If a TSA screener beats you or physically restrains you, you may (may!) still have a suit in the Third Circuit.  But malicious prosecution, retaliation, defamation, invasion of privacy, emotional distress, and conspiracy to do any of the same?  Congress intended that the TSA not be held accountable for that, says the Third Circuit.

The decision was a 2-1 panel opinion, with a well-reasoned dissent to the now binding law in that circuit (long, but worth a read).  I look forward to the plaintiff’s motion for rehearing en banc (by the full Third Circuit), for which I’ll be writing an amicus brief.

How Many Times Must TSA Be Spanked for Illegally Prohibiting Filming?

Michael Williams, traveling through EWR airport in Newark, N.J. a few days ago, was surprised when TSA screeners gave him a hard time for photographing his own belongings, and then threatened to have him arrested when he recorded the TSA screeners and managers themselves:

The video starts with Mr. Williams explaining his situation to a blue-shirt screener, and then 2 supervisors in suits walk up to him, and decree the following:

Listen, I’m not here to argue with you.  I’m telling you what we’re supposed to do.  I’m the lead terminal manager, and no, you are not allowed to take pictures of my officers.  [If] my officer feels uncomfortable with you taking pictures because you are interfering with the screening process, my officer is correct, and you are wrong.  Ok?  Clear?”

The threat of arrest comes off-camera after Mr. Williams starts walking away, but the damage to his constitutional rights has already been done even without that threat: Mr. Williams’ taping was protected both by TSA rules and the First Amendment.

Some areas of the law are gray areas.  Others are perfectly clear.  Whether photography is allowed at TSA checkpoints is one of those that is perfectly clear.  From the TSA’s Web site:

“We don’t prohibit public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping, or filming at screening locations. You can take pictures at our checkpoints as long as you’re not interfering with the screening process or slowing things down. We also ask that you do not film or take pictures of our monitors.”

I contacted the TSA for comment on Mr. Williams’ video, and it was also perfectly clear to TSA Press Secretary Lisa Farbstein:

Hi Jon. Your inquiry was forwarded to me for response. Indeed individuals are permitted to film the checkpoint and the TSA officers who are working. The individual who [Williams] encountered will be reminded of that fact. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

Even if the TSA didn’t want to allow photography at its checkpoints, doing so is probably First Amendment-protected speech that they cannot ban anyway:

It is firmly established that the First Amendment’s aegis extends further than the text’s proscription on laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, “the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.” … The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles.

Glik v. Cunniffee, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) (internal citations omitted).  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which encompasses New Jersey, agreed earlier this year.

This kind of nonsense happens all the time, including to me.  Incidents of people being denied the right to take pictures or video are fastidiously documented by Photography Is Not A Crime (PINAC), and their archive of TSA abuse in this realm is well-populated.  It sounds like the TSA needs to be sued over this, and they should probably be careful considering that I’ll have my license to practice law before the statute of limitations for this matter will expire.

In the meantime,  at the least we can get a laugh out of the end of the video.  The supervisor who came to tell him he could not film apparently doesn’t realize the passenger is still recording until the end, leading to this gem when the passenger says he’s going to forward video to the “FSD” (Federal Security Director — basically a high-level regional TSA director):

I hope you’re recording everything. Are you recording me now? Can you please erase that?

“Lordy, I hope there are tapes.”

 

Please, Don’t Go In The TSA’s Private Room!

One of the more interesting (sometimes, disturbing) parts of “my job” is that I get e-mails from people across the country on a regular basis describing abusive TSA practices.  These accounts range from descriptions of the TSA’s usual pat-downs, of which the author was shocked to realize happen that way, to descriptions of clear violations of TSA procedure, thuggish attitudes, and down-right sexual assault.  There is one common theme beyond blue gloves: a high percentage of the time passengers feel abused, it is when they go to “the private room.”

For those of you who have had a TSA full-body pat-down, you probably know the speech they give you: a description of how they’re going to touch you, a note that they’ll be using the back of their hands on your “sensitive” areas, a question as to whether you have any injuries or medical devices, and finally, an offer to conduct the screening in private.

For the love of god, please do not take them up on this offer.

Three reasons:

  1. In the private room, there are no cameras, there is no supervision, and if you say the TSA screener inappropriately touched you, it is unlikely you will convince a TSA supervisor, a police officer, or a judge to believe you.  Every checkpoint in the country has many cameras, and you can actually request footage from them by Freedom of Information Act request.  If something goes wrong (well, more wrong than usual), this is your only hope for justice.
  2. Sometimes, the TSA will insist that they conduct private room screening. In particular, this will happen if you alert the explosive trace detector.  In this case, the private room screening will be even more invasive than usual.  They will literally be grabbing your genitals with the front of their hands.  Even if it results in missing your flight, do not go.  Even if the TSA insists that you must, refuse.  At some point, you have to draw the line — I urge you to draw it at this point or before.  Let them throw a fit, call the cops, or whatever it is they threaten you with, but at the end of the day, they have to let you go.
  3. Private screening allows the TSA to hide their pat-downs from everyone else, making it seem more rare and keeping the public less on notice of what may happen to them.  By forcing the pat-down to be in front of everyone else, you are taking a small stand.

If you think I may be exaggerating, here’s an example of the kind of e-mail I get (warning: graphic):

TSA Sexual Assault

This kind of sexual assault happens all the time, leading to a headline in 2011 where three different senior citizens in three different incidents accused the TSA of strip-searching them in the private room. But most of the time, stories like these get no media attention. The victim may file a complaint, and nothing happens.

Catching your flight is just not worth it.  Please help me get fewer e-mails like this and spread the word.

P.S. – One more suggestion, if I may: tuck your shirt into your pants before a pat-down.  If you do so, you won’t be asked to lift up your shirt, and you won’t feel their latex-coated hands on your bare skin.

Update: Newest TSA Carry-On X-Rays Can Indeed See Through Laptop Batteries

I just passed through a TSA checkpoint at Miami International Airport, where, during my pat-down after opting out of the body scanner, I was placed directly facing a monitor that showed a laptop that was being screened (notwithstanding that TSA policy is that such screens should be hidden from view of passengers).  From that image, it was clear that components underneath the battery of the laptop were indeed visible to the operator, and looked more like this image posted by bomb-detection specialists DSA Detection:

Laptop under AT X-Ray

In other words, lithium batteries are not completely opaque “black boxes” which airport x-rays cannot penetrate.

DSA Detection has been nice enough to publish a how-to guide to detecting explosives concealed in a laptop.  While the guide doesn’t go through how to detect an explosive specifically concealed within a battery, it is clear that the x-rays can penetrate through the battery.  Given that materials of different densities are color-coded differently, and given that the density of PETN is 1.77 g/cm3 and the density of C4 is 1.73 g/cm3, but the density of lithium metal is 0.53 g/cm3, there should be no reason why a properly calibrated x-ray with a well-trained and attentive operator cannot tell the difference between a lithium battery and a box filled with explosives.

Now, are the x-ray machines in the 10 airports subject to the current laptop ban of the newer technology which produces images like the one shown here, or the older that produces images like in my previous post?  I must assume that if DHS has used any logic whatsoever, these 10 airports are using the older technology and that’s why they’ve been shit-listed.  But there is no way all of Europe uses this older technology, and I truly hope that DHS’s European counterparts continue to resist the nagging of DHS to ban carry-on laptops anyway.  DHS should be helping any airport with inferior technology or training to get up to speed, not treating everyone outside of the country as if they are inept and inferior (especially when comparing others to the TSA… you know what they say about those in glass houses…).

So What’s This “New” TSA Pat-Down?

About a couple weeks ago, the TSA announced that it would be “enhancing” its pat-down by, basically, “touching your junk” a bit more.  There was apparently enough concern about its intensity that the TSA warned police in advance that it might generate sex assault complaints.

You may have noticed this blog was conspicuously quiet on the matter, and that’s because of both conflicting reports as to the scope of the updated groping and because of some inside knowledge on what the TSA is up to.  But, having gone through the TSA’s pat-down today and LGA, here’s the deal:

First, if you’re getting a pat-down because you alarmed the body scanner, it’s going to be a full-body pat-down despite the fact that the scanners were specifically designed to point out the specific area of the body upon which an item was detected.  From what I could see at the checkpoint, this is a much briefer version of the opt-out pat-down, but still touched every area of the body.

Second, if you’re getting a pat-down for a reason other than alarming the body scanner (e.g., you opted out), the only difference I noticed was that the “groin search” used to involve several vertical back-of-the-hand swipes from your bellybutton to your crotch, it now is 3 horizontal swipes (from hip to hip) followed by 3 vertical swipes.  It’s slightly more invasive, but given that the TSA was all up in your crotch before, it’s not that big of a change.

In conclusion, the only place you’re likely to notice a change is if you alarm the body scanner.  Given that about half of people were getting patted down by this supposedly brilliant technology while I was watching today (and, of course, the pat-downs finding nothing), that may be significant if you weren’t already opting out.

Given that chances are you may get a pat-down anyway, may as well opt-out, eh?

Detained, Removed From Airplane By Feds @ LAX

In the history of my advocacy, I’ve been kicked out of airports three times (for refusing to allow the TSA to “touch my junk”).  I’ve had airport police called at least a couple times. But having the feds come down the jetway just for me?  That was a new experience I had last Wednesday at Los Angeles International Airport.

Grumpy Cat with SSI
An artist’s rendition of the TSM upon finding my documents

I went through the security line as usual, opting out of the nude body scanners, but one of my bags was flagged for extra screening.  Upon opening it, they were shocked to find… TSA documents, bound into several books, labeled “Sensitive Security Information” (“SSI”).  “These are our documents,” a sassy Supervisory Transportation Security Officer exclaimed at me before fetching the highest-ranking traveler molester TSA staff member at the checkpoint, a suited Transportation Security Manager (“TSM”) who wanted to know how I got those documents and why I had them.

As you guys probably guessed, I have them because the government sent them to me during litigation, and I was traveling with them because I have a brief due based on those documents in Corbett v. Transportation Security Administration, 15-15717 (“Can the TSA make the body scanners mandatory?”) next week.  They contained mundane details of how the TSA came to the decision to implement the body scanners and then to make them mandatory under certain circumstances, rather than any kind of epic secrets ISIS would moisten themselves over.  But I’ll be damned if I have to explain my reading material to the TSA, so I told them they were documents lawfully in my possession and I didn’t feel compelled to share anything further.

The bag check and the pat-down were soon completed, finding nothing other than my “concerning” documents, but I was instructed to “wait” and not to touch my bags, as airport police were on their way because they needed “someone else to make the decision.”  “How are airport police supposed to determine whether it’s a problem if I have ‘your’ documents,” I asked Mr. TSM.  He shrugged, and then airport police arrived and asked him exactly the same question, then wandered over to the side to let the TSA handle it.  Kudos to Airport Police for not buying into their bullshit as they sometimes do in other airports.

Unsatisfied, the TSM calls the Federal Security Director’s office.  The FSD is basically a “regional director,” typically overseeing several airports in a geographic area.  The FSD’s office sent an assistant to come to the checkpoint while they found someone who could actually clear me.  The assistant was friendly enough, and we spoke a little.  After about 45 minutes had passed and it was approaching final call for my flight, I said to her, “It’s really a shame that the TSA is going to detain me for this long and cause me to miss my flight over the contents of paper when they’ve already determined that I have no hazardous items,” to which she replied, “Oh, you’re not being detained.  We don’t detain people!”

Well that’s funny, since I was told to “wait” and not to touch my bags.  The current standard for whether or not one is being detained was first contemplated in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) as “whether a reasonable person would feel like they were not free to leave.”  I must disagree with the assistant, as it seemed clear to me that I was not free to leave until someone other than the TSM (such as the assistant) made the call, but I packed my bags, walked to my gate, and boarded my plane.

Of course, the story does not end there.  After boarding, putting my stuff in the overhead, and taking my seat, an airline employee comes on board and says, “Mr. Corbett, the TSA would like to speak with you off the plane, can you show me where your bags are?”  Ugh.  I do so, and meeting me on the jetway was a smiley man (along with the original TSM) who showed me his ID: “TSA Inspector.”  TSA Inspectors are the only TSA employees that are law enforcement officers.  His position is, essentially, equivalent to an FBI Special Agent, although I’m sure far less trained given the lower pay grade associated with the job.  He seemed to understand that the documents were for litigation and pressed me for a few minutes to explain my business, which I politely declined.  After copying down the information from my ID, he miraculously allowed me to return to the plane, to face the looks of the flight attendants (who, to their credit, largely seemed understanding that the TSA is absurd) and passengers.

So there you have it… how you can be harassed and treated like a terrorist for possessing “suspicious” paper.  The best part?  The documents I had didn’t actually contain any SSI — they were redacted copies for public distribution.  I’m tempted to print books with an SSI cover sheet and the U.S. Constitution underneath it.  Or, maybe just 100 copies of the 4th Amendment underneath the cover sheet, and I can tear one out and give it to them each time they think it’s acceptable to detain people without probable cause (let me know if you’d like one to travel with, perhaps I’ll print a few dozen and mail them out if there’s interest!).


Civil rights advocacy is expensive!  Want to contribute to the fight against police abuse, TSA assholery, and other civil rights issues? Donate via PayPal, Venmo, Chace QuickPay, Bitcoin, or check

DHS Wants Tourists To List Their Facebook Accounts to Enter Country

If you’re a non-U.S. citizen entering the U.S. with a passport issued by one of our friends in Europe, you can enter “without a visa” by completing an “Electronic System for Travel Authorization” form online and paying a fee (which, if you think about it, is really no different from getting a visa… it’s just you print a piece of paper instead of get a mark in your passport).

The questions on the application are mostly the typical stuff you’d expect we might ask those entering our country, but DHS now proposes to add one more:

“Please enter information associated with your online presence—Provider/Platform—Social media identifier.”

What’s wrong with that?  Well, I’ve explained in a letter opposing the proposed rule that there are many problems with this.  The first is that it’s not even clear what one would need to disclose, and sometimes disclosure may be a troubling basis for discrimination:

Do I need to think back to the MySpace account that I created in 2003 and have not used since 2006?  If I have a username for a chat room or message board, does that count?  What about Tinder?  Or perhaps I use the popular dating app for gay men known as Grindr.  Do you think it’s reasonable that I would then need to indirectly disclose my sexual preference as a condition of entering this country?  Or perhaps I use the Web site for connecting individuals with sexual fetishes known as FetLife.  Will you then review my FetLife account and determine if my preferred variety of kinky sex is acceptable?  If it is uncovered that I enjoy being dominated by women in latex bodysuits while ball gagged, will a CBP officer consider me the same level of security risk as one who prefers long walks on the beach and seeks a partner who loves Jesus?  Speaking of Jesus, many people use social networking related to their religion (Christian Mingle, JDate, etc.).  Now you’d like to know my religion, too?

Not particularly worried since you’re a U.S. citizen and therefore won’t have to personally deal with this problem?  Think again…

When the U.S. government implements a stupid rule affecting foreign visitors, other countries implement retaliatory rules on U.S. citizens seeking to enter their territory. …  Many other countries require visa fees only from U.S. citizens (or higher visa fees only for U.S. citizens), or fingerprinting only for U.S. citizens, in retaliation for what we do to their citizens.  I don’t want to have to share my Facebook details in order to travel, and if you implement this rule, it is all but certain that I shall have to do so as other countries decide to implement retaliatory rules.

It would be nice if DHS, for once, could do something that would actually improve our safety rather than play around with technology that they know nothing about.

[Edit – Online comments are now allowed from the public!  Let DHS know what you think!]

TSA: Taking Pictures Of Our Dogs Is Illegal!

tsak9
I’m told that this picture is very illegal.  TSA K-9 handler at JFK T1 immediately before ordering me to stop taking pictures.

On Friday, I flew out of New York’s JFK T1 after experiencing what was the longest airport security line I have ever seen. It literally stretched from the zig-zag queue at the center of the terminal to the far end of the terminal, and then around the corner. The TSA, of course, knows that terrorists now target security lines, rather than airplanes, and doesn’t seem to care that they are putting us at risk, but I digress.

After finally reaching the front of the queue, I spotted, for the first time, the TSA’s new experiment with bomb-sniffing dogs. Interested in finally seeing the TSA put a far better solution in place for the detection of non-metallic explosives than the body scanners, I snapped a few pictures, including the one here.

But, of course, the TSA can’t leave well enough alone. “You can’t take pictures!” barks the dog’s handler. I can’t? Well that’s news to me, and I consider myself pretty up-to-date on aviation security law. 🙂 I soon spot an STSO (supervisory transportation security officer — the “3 stripe” blue uniform people) and ask her to clarify, but she tells me she doesn’t have time to talk to me. Eventually, I spot her boss, the TSM (transportation security manager — always wearing a suit), a very friendly South Asian woman who is cheerfully tells me that my First Amendment right to photograph has been suspended:

Jon: Are you the TSM by chance?

TSM: Yes.

Jon: I have a question for you.

TSM: Sure.

Jon: What’s the policy on taking pictures in line?  The person with the K-9 told me I was not allowed to take pictures.

TSM: Yes, that’s a screening process, what he’s doing there, so you’re not allowed to take pictures.

Jon: OK, so that’s a federal regulation?

TSM: Yes.

Jon: Not New York state, that’s a TSA…

TSM: No, not New York state, it’s federal.

Jon: Ok, so if I ask the TSA, because I’m a civil rights advocate, and my job is to sue the TSA, if I ask them, they’re going to tell me that I’m not allowed to take the pictures, and that’s official TSA policy?

TSM: You have to specify what you were doing.

Jon: Taking a picture of a K-9.

TSM: You can’t.

Jon: OK.

TSM: Because that’s a screening process.

Where legal, I generally record my interactions with the TSA, and New York being a 1-party consent state (any party to a conversation may record it), I got an audio recording (.mp3).  (As a side note, a reasonable argument can be made, and some courts have held, that audio or video recording of government officials while working in public is constitutionally protected even in 2-party consent states.)

Why is this a “big deal,” some may ask: Any time the government restricts our ability to take pictures, they are reducing their accountability to the people. Thousands of times per day, law enforcement in this country violates the rights of citizens, but only occasionally is it caught on camera, and only then is it punished (sometimes).  By removing our ability to document their actions, they are insulating themselves from consequences for wrongdoing, and this a free society cannot stand.

I’ve asked the TSA’s Civil Rights Office to comment as to whether this is official TSA policy and await a reply, but expect a new lawsuit to be filed soon either way.

Sometimes I’m a Trusted Traveler, Other Times I May Be a Terrorist

The TSA’s ability to predict which travelers are terrorists and which are not is apparently so good that not only can they identify which people are possibly terrorists, but they can also predict whether those people are in a “terrorist mood” before a particular flight, or are feeling rather non-mass murder-y that day. Much like rhythm-method birth control, being able to pick out “safe days” vs. “unsafe days” allows minimal inconvenience for all parties.

For example, on January 23rd, I was definitely not in touch with my inner jihadi, and so the TSA assigned me Pre-Check status…

Ticket with TSA Pre-Check Endorsement
Ticket with TSA Pre-Check Endorsement

This morning when I woke up, I didn’t even realize that I was feeling like causing some trouble. But luckily, the TSA did, and so they assigned me “selectee” status to dissuade me from bringing any bombs on board…

Ticket with “Selectee” Indicator

If you’re not familiar, the infamous “SSSS” stands for Secondary Security Screening Selection, and is applied to travelers that are on the “Selectee List” (kinda like the “No Fly” list, except they let you fly after petting your genitals before every flight), travelers who trigger an algorithm by doing such things as buying a one-way flight in cash on the day of departure (because Al Qaida can’t afford a round-trip ticket), or at random. It’s unclear why SSSS was assigned to me today or what effect this has for a boarding pass issued at an international airport, as Stockholm didn’t seem keen to treat me any differently, but I for one can’t wait to see what harassment I get when I land in New York.

Obviously I’m being facetious in suggesting that the TSA has the technology to determine which days a dangerous individual might decide to do something bad (and, for the dense within DHS, any suggestion that on some days I might be a terrorist or consider carrying bombs on a plane is also sarcasm). If on some days we’re saying people are trusted enough that they don’t have to take off their shoes, don’t have to take electronics out for separate x-raying, don’t have to go through a body scanner, and are screened using a metal detector calibrated to be less sensitive than usual, but on other days require the most vigorous of security screening, is the system not completely broken?

As far as keeping us secure, it is certainly broken. But is the Pre-Check system really designed to keep us secure, or is it simply to funnel rich people — that is, people with the most influence over the political process — through easier security such that they may continue treating the 99% like cattle without political repercussions?

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑