Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down • Hacker News Board

Re: Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down

#51

Post by aero142 » Tue, Nov 23, 2010, 1:23 AM UTC

trunnell wrote: post #22

This is what elections are for. Did you know you can be stopped and searched without a warrant within 100 miles of the physical border? [1] Between that and this new screening policy for re-entry at international airports, I think we've crossed a line. Everyone I talk to about this is outraged . If we still have a functioning democracy, these policies will change. It's somewhat expected that now and then the governme…

You can't get rid of the constitution just because you won an election. That is why it's the constitution. Unreasonable search is a constitutional issue, not a normal policy issue.

Re: Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down

#52

Post by jacquesm » Tue, Nov 23, 2010, 1:24 AM UTC

ck2 wrote: post #50

Except he'll probably get a surprise $10k fine (civil lawsuit) a few months from now. For anyone else trying to prevent a gate-rape freedom-fondle, do not try the "less clothes" approach, this one ended with an arrest: http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&... There is also some documentation now that the scanners produce TWENTY times the claimed radiation level: http://holt.house.gov/index.php?opti…

> Except he'll probably get a surprise $10k fine (civil lawsuit) a few months from now.

What do you base that on ?

Re: Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down

#53

Post by dpatru » Tue, Nov 23, 2010, 1:24 AM UTC

carbocation wrote: post #40

dpatru wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the question that they should have to answer before a judge. Laws at minimum must have a rational basis, there must exist some scenario in which the law makes sense. Irradiation before a flight may protect against terrorist attack. Irradiation after the time of danger has past makes no sense at all.

I'm not sure that laws in general really need a rational basis[1], but invasive exceptions to your Fourth Amendment right require a rational basis (i.e., a reasonable suspicion). [1] What seems rational to some might seem irrational to others.

There are three "levels of scrutiny" used to determine if a law is valid. The lowest level, the level which every law must meet is rational basis. Government may not enforce a law which makes absolutely no sense. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review.

Re: Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down

#54

Post by dedward » Tue, Nov 23, 2010, 1:25 AM UTC

obiefernandez wrote: post #39

When you arrive from an international flight at Atlanta airport, you have to go through security to get out of customs because there is no direct exit out to the street. In other words, when you arrive and go through border control and customs, the only way to get out of the airport is to go through the other terminals. I wonder if the same applies at Cincinnati/N. Kentucky airport.

This makes a lot of sense.

Had someone with authority said "Sir, unfortunately, the way the airport is laid out, you must enter the secured area of the airport in order to leave, and therefore we have to put you through our screening process." then there would be no trouble. Equally less troublesome would have been if the TSA had simply realized this and told the police "No problem, he's not connecting anywhere - please just escort him out of the building safely." That seems logical, and seems to be what happened in the end - as soon as someone actually made a decision.

Re: Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down

#55

Post by barrkel » Tue, Nov 23, 2010, 1:25 AM UTC

chc wrote: post #11

ojbyrne wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think his point is that some other countries don't take the latest TSA requirements seriously, and if you come from one of those countries, the TSA will screen you because of that.

I don't understand the point of that point. If the reason for the X-ray machines is to stop people from smuggling dangerous materials onto planes and using them to cause harm, scanning people after they get off the plane is the most literal analogue I've ever seen for shutting the barn door after the horses have fled. Imagine a daycare center that had a policy of running background checks on its employees only once t…

Perhaps the point of scanning the people flying is to justify spending money on the machines? The machines are being pushed in part by people who used to run the TSA, after all.

Re: Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down

#56

Post by jacquesm » Tue, Nov 23, 2010, 1:25 AM UTC

acabal wrote: post #19

swombat wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your mileage may vary, but it sounds to me like he was claiming his constitutional rights... "Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" seems to be a key-phrase of people who know their rights when faced with police officers. That, and verbally not consenting to any search - your person is also protected by constitutional rights, afaik. (note: I'm not American, I may be wrong)

I think that Customs may detain you at a border--they have more leeway in the Constitution for border searches iirc. That's what I'm confused about now, because with each new insane agency that gets created and each new law that alters and amends old law, it's hard for a non-lawyer to get a clear picture of exactly what is and what isn't a right. And if I have the free time upon landing and no flight to catch, I don'…

The TSA is not customs.

Re: Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down

#57

Post by carbocation » Tue, Nov 23, 2010, 1:28 AM UTC

dpatru wrote: post #53

carbocation wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that laws in general really need a rational basis[1], but invasive exceptions to your Fourth Amendment right require a rational basis (i.e., a reasonable suspicion). [1] What seems rational to some might seem irrational to others.

There are three "levels of scrutiny" used to determine if a law is valid. The lowest level, the level which every law must meet is rational basis. Government may not enforce a law which makes absolutely no sense. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review .

>There are three "levels of scrutiny" used to determine if a law is valid. The lowest level, the level which every law must meet is rational basis. Government may not enforce a law which makes absolutely no sense.

The article that you linked to indicates that "rational basis review" applies to laws which may be related to the 5th or 14th Amendments, which is substantially narrower than what you've appeared to say. I'm not a lawyer, so can you clarify?

Re: Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down

#58

Post by ck2 » Tue, Nov 23, 2010, 1:30 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #52

ck2 wrote: post #50

Except he'll probably get a surprise $10k fine (civil lawsuit) a few months from now. For anyone else trying to prevent a gate-rape freedom-fondle, do not try the "less clothes" approach, this one ended with an arrest: http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&... There is also some documentation now that the scanners produce TWENTY times the claimed radiation level: http://holt.house.gov/index.php?opti…

> Except he'll probably get a surprise $10k fine (civil lawsuit) a few months from now. What do you base that on ?

http://gawker.com/5689925/man-threatened-with-10000-fine-aft...

https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.tsa.gov/assets/...

Re: Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down

#59

Post by stcredzero » Tue, Nov 23, 2010, 1:31 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #56

acabal wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that Customs may detain you at a border--they have more leeway in the Constitution for border searches iirc. That's what I'm confused about now, because with each new insane agency that gets created and each new law that alters and amends old law, it's hard for a non-lawyer to get a clear picture of exactly what is and what isn't a right. And if I have the free time upon landing and no flight to catch, I don'…

The TSA is not customs.

Unfortunately, this is vulnerable to a bit of bureaucratic sleight of hand. I say we hold it against the politicians who aid and abet such shenanigans.

Re: Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down

#60

Post by gaelian » Tue, Nov 23, 2010, 1:31 AM UTC

trunnell wrote: post #22

This is what elections are for. Did you know you can be stopped and searched without a warrant within 100 miles of the physical border? [1] Between that and this new screening policy for re-entry at international airports, I think we've crossed a line. Everyone I talk to about this is outraged . If we still have a functioning democracy, these policies will change. It's somewhat expected that now and then the governme…

Is this really what elections are still for? I remember the sense of relief and elation of many around me when Obama was elected. Change was coming and many people seemed to feel that the best time for it was when the old system has all but collapsed. I believe Obama himself actually said something to this effect at the time. Fast forward to a few weeks ago just before the US mid-term election and I saw Obama interviewed by John Stuart. His points seemed to boil down to that they couldn't change as much as they wanted to because the US (and by extension the world) was in crisis and that people expected too much.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in participating in the political process, I do vote (though I'm not American) and at least try to keep myself informed though I'm no political expert by any means. But I guess my point is that taking into account how things have gone over the last few election cycles both in my country and the US, what this guy did at the TSA security checkpoint seems far more effective than voting if more people were to do it and things like it. But I guess that would mean that we'd all have to handle some amount of inconvenience to protect our rights and that seems to be something that modern citizens of modern societies seem mostly incapable of accepting.