101–110 of 140 posts
The best interaction I ever had with the TSA was when I came upon a pair openly wearing their uniforms around a grocery store, so I was able to call them fascist child molesters to their faces.
Please don't post flamebait to HN. It leads to off-topic flamewars. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody has tried because nobody has ever been arrested by the TSA. The TSA calls the airport police or local police and they arrest you. It's hard to imagine a scenario where airport police will not take the TSA's word for it.
Yeah, this makes more sense to me. Also, the police are probably monitoring the checkpoint from somewhere in the back anyway. So they likely have you on camera before they even get to the scene.
That's it. I'm never gonna come to United States. I no longer see United States as free, democratic and safe country to visit. United States usurps itself power to do whatever they want with me upon its soil. My electronic devices searched through, my social accounts surrendered, my belongings damaged or stolen on a whim of TSA without right to appeal or get reimbursed, I can be detained for however long U.S. wants w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(i'll say i actually gravely dislike the TSA, but think this is clearly the right result) "The majority holding is probably correct as a matter of statutory interpretation." Yeah, agreed. Reading this statute, it's fairly clear it was not meant to apply here, but it does raise the sad issue of "we've separated these jobs enough to create a loophole". If they were designated LEOs, they'd clearly fall under the statute…
Not making them LEO's is one of the ways they get around the 4th amendment, if they LEO with the ability to criminally charge people well now you are making a Criminal Search and the 4th amendment kicks in. Law enforcement is not allowed to search people in a free nation unless there is probable cause a crime has been committed. personally I think the TSA is a 4th amendment violation as they stand but.... >As long as…
Do a Google search for [administrative search fourth amendment] for more details.
"“For most people, TSA screenings are an unavoidable feature of flying,” but it is “squarely in the realm” of Congress to expand liability for abuses, Circuit Judge Cheryl Ann Krause wrote." How on earth is the TSA not already covered under those laws? This is why I can't get behind "originalist" judges; they interpret the laws and the Constitution too literally. Because the TSA wasn't explicitly named under the act…
An orginalist would rule the TSA unconstitutional on several fronts... not the least of which 4th Amendment, 10th Amendment, Article I Section 8, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't post flamebait to HN. It leads to off-topic flamewars. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Sorry! I really hadn't intended it as flamebait, just a mild quip over the absolute futility of the situation. I honestly thought it would fit in with the HN consensus regarding the TSA.
The main insight is we're all responsible for what follows what we post. It's a bit weird, but it's a model that actually works. I think of it as similar to how one handles fire in other places, like campsites or gas stations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not making them LEO's is one of the ways they get around the 4th amendment, if they LEO with the ability to criminally charge people well now you are making a Criminal Search and the 4th amendment kicks in. Law enforcement is not allowed to search people in a free nation unless there is probable cause a crime has been committed. personally I think the TSA is a 4th amendment violation as they stand but.... >As long as…
I don't think this is accurate. First: there are lots of places that actual police officers conduct administrative searches; for instance, any time you go to court. Second: if the TSA finds contraband during a search, you can be arrested for it, and that happens routinely. Yes, the airport police arrest you, not the TSA, but the arrest is based on evidence from the TSA's search. Do a Google search for [administrative…
This is where we start threading the needle on what a "search" is, the courts rules awhile back that a Metal Detector is not a search and I have never been to a government building where I had to do through more than Metal Detector and they did not Search me beyond that basic metal detection,
TSA however is employing much more than simple metal detectors which should be (and I believe is) considered a search, that is not even talking about the extended "pat down" these are far far far far more invasive than anything done at a court house
>>Do a Google search for [administrative search fourth amendment] for more details.
yes I am aware the Supreme Court has failed in its duty to uphold the constitution as written, and have more or less made Swiss cheese out of every protection from government intrusion in to a citizens life where police and government more or less have unlimited powers today... That has no bearing on my point.
The Constitution today is a document with no authority because the Supreme Court has granted the Government soo many exemptions to every single provision to it that we might as well not even have a Constitution...
Lucky they are starting, slowly and painfully, to claw back some rights for citizens, but the reality we find ourselves in for the US is one of where the Government has far far far far more power and authority than the constitution plainly allows, the TSA is a prime example of that
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, and more clearcut, I don't think ire should be limited. Those who voluntarily participate in enforcing the current system are not exempt from the fallout of their choices any more than much of HN would suggest engineers be exempt from the ethical decisions of our employment. Look recently, people are saying Microsoft employees should quit because MS sells office products to ICE. If that's the line in the sand…
I would have taken that opportunity to throw up on the agent.
The opinion is here (should be up on the CA3 website later today): http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=310762278918844... . The relevant discussion starts at 12-13. The gist of the suit is this: Ordinarily, you cannot sue the federal government (sovereign immunity). The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), broadly waives sovereign immunity for tort claims. An exception to that waiver of immunity is where the agen…
(i'll say i actually gravely dislike the TSA, but think this is clearly the right result) "The majority holding is probably correct as a matter of statutory interpretation." Yeah, agreed. Reading this statute, it's fairly clear it was not meant to apply here, but it does raise the sad issue of "we've separated these jobs enough to create a loophole". If they were designated LEOs, they'd clearly fall under the statute…