[blindlaw] Supposedly suspicious behaviors (WAS: conducting investigations)

[Ben Fulton]

OK, the obvious argument is that these indicators do not apply to blind and visually impaired people. Recognizing that someone is blind or visually impaired would negate much of this. I now use a dog, but used to use a cane, either of which made it pretty obvious that I am blind. Before then when I was visually impaired and didn't always use a cane, it did result in being asked more about apparently suspicious behaviours. Once I was actually kicked out of a club for stumbling on their poorly designed landing.

They may argue for more training with respect to disabilities, but may not be willing to overhaul the entire policy. You may have to deal with them seeking for ways to justify maintaining their status quo. 

One reason I bring this up is because I am looking into a provision in the Ontario Human Rights Code that allows landlords sharing a kitchen or bathroom to discriminate on any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination. Normally if a room is being rented landlords aren't allowed to discriminate against the tenant, but the landlords can if they share a kitchen or bathroom.

I'm anticipating the argument being that the private sphere is something the legislature doesn't want to interfere with. 
So, my argument is that by advertising publicly on Kijiji that the landlords have entered a commercial area where the constitution should apply, and therefore the provision in the human rights code is unconstitutional.

But I'm trying to anticipate the arguments that will be running against me in this challenge.

All the best,
Ben  



Subject: [blindlaw] Supposedly suspicious behaviors (WAS: conducting investigations)
Message-ID: <cf7a97f4-ff5d-2c0d-f8e0-097b8cb99e65 at fiatfiendum.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

On the subject of behaviors like gaze, sweat, shuffling, etc not
actually having any legitimate bearing on determining suspicion:

Here's an affidavit I filed in my case against all of TSA's policies.

At page 41, heading "SPOT behaviors", I exhaustively list behaviors that
are on the TSA SPOT ("behavior detection") profiling list, and explain
how they are in fact symptoms of my disability, exercise of
Constitutional rights, or just being a human.

PDF (as filed):
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzmetJxi-p0VOFZXLUdpRzJ6LXc/view?page=41>

Google Docs version (as drafted):
<https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XiqxmO3gRTZpXRrBGkEmcTYktJfigneeZdWSkV4npgY>


Google Docs version of TSA's SPOT checklist (transcribed by me):
<http://s.ai/tsa_spot>


Many of the supposedly suspicious behaviors are specifically related to
my blindness, namely:

1. "Observation and behavior analysis" - 4 or more points = selectee
screening, 6 or more points = automatic referral to police
* 1 point: Arrives ?late ?for ?flight, ?if ?known
* 1 point: Avoids eye contact with security personnel or LEO
* 2 points: Powerful ?grip ?of ?a ?bag ?and/or ?hand ?inside ?the ?bag
* 2 points: Rigid ?posture, ?minimal ?body ?movements ?with ?arms ?close
?to ?sides
* 3 points: Appears ?to ?be ?confused ?or ?disoriented
* 3 points: Appears ?to ?be ?in ?disguise

That's 12 points total, just for perceived symptoms related to my
blindness. Well over the 6 points for police referral.

2. "Signs of deception" - 2 or more = automatic referral to police
* Appearing ?not ?to ?understand ?questions
* Distracted ?or ?inability ?to ?pay ?attention ?to ?present ?situation
* Gazing down
* No ?or ?little ?direct ?eye ?contact
* Placing ?objects ?between ?self ?and ?official

(My affidavit has explanations of why each one applies to me.)

So basically, TSA's policy means that ordinary blind people are to be
referred to police for behaviors that are perfectly normal symptoms of
disability.


If you total everything I list in that affidavit as normal for me, I
have 56 points of "suspiciousness" (vs 6 for police referral) & 24
"signs of deception" (vs 2 for police referral).

It's completely absurd. One part of my lawsuit seeks to permanently
enjoin this program, and make TSA's documents about it public.


The case is Sai v Pekoske, No. 15-2356 (1st Cir.). Original proceeding
under 49 USC 46110, not an appeal.

I'm IFP and need counsel, so if any of you are interested or know
someone who may be, please get in touch.

Sincerely,
Sai
President, Fiat Fiendum, Inc.

On 11/5/18 01:37, Elizabeth Troutman via BlindLaw wrote:
> A huge thanks to everyone who responded to my post about investigations. It didn't feel right when I was told that blind people can't conduct investigations well, but it's hard to argue when you're genuinely uninformed. I am now armed with some good information to start addressing the assumptions and getting myself trained up. I feel so fortunate to have this group.
> Elizabeth