Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down

noblasters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 185 posts

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

#71

Post by ck2 »

hartror wrote: post #66

Ah – he’s gotten the Miranda talk. I hide my smile. Anyone know what this is? Edit: Thanks, live in Australia so don't get all the lingo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

When any law enforcement officer in the USA starts asking you questions, become EXTREMELY cautious and serious (even if they do not explicitly state the warning, which they might just say afterwards to cover themselves). People often think they can "talk themselves out of it", and almost always discover that is not the case.

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

#72

Post by seldo »

hartror wrote: post #66

Ah – he’s gotten the Miranda talk. I hide my smile. Anyone know what this is? Edit: Thanks, live in Australia so don't get all the lingo.

Well, Miranda refers to Miranda Rights, or the Miranda Warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

However, Miranda rights are mostly about the right to avoid self-incrimination. In the article he seems to suggest that the officer must present identification or credentials as part of Miranda, which is not something I'm familiar with.

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

#73

Post by RickHull »

carbocation wrote: post #57
dpatru wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

Well, it's a pretty low bar to have a rational basis. Such ought to be apparent. When it is not apparent -- and called into question -- it must be defended, for to acknowledge no rational basis is policy suicide.

The problem is not that this law has no rational basis, it's that it is tenuous.

I can imagine a few: we don't want terrorists to be able to smuggle (dangerous) materiel past our borders when detecting such is relatively trivial (i.e. airport checks are easy). Or we want to condition the general public to accepting invasive behavioral controls.

Clearly some rational bases cannot be acknowledged. And so that is the test. The proponent of the law must acknowledge a rational basis for its existence. Should he fail, it would be devastatingly easy to lobby for its removal.

So the real problem is: let's identify precisely the rational basis here. What is the motivation?

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

#74

Post by ScotterC »

dpatru wrote: post #6
param wrote: post #2

What? I wasn't aware you needed to be irradiated just to enter into the US, even without planning to take any more flights. What is the rationale behind that?

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.

The amount of radiation you receive from the backscatter machine is harmless. Take note that you also receive a substantial amount of radiation from simply flying.

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

#75

Post by gcheong »

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…

"Wolanyk's attorney said that TSA requested his client put his clothes on so he could be patted down properly...".

If this is true that is the most ridiculous request I have ever heard. If I show up to the airport in a speedo bathing suit are they going to make me put on more clothes to go through security?

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

#76

Post by AngryParsley »

stcredzero wrote: post #67
dpatru wrote: post #4

The trouble with the Internet is that it's so hard for the government to keep secrets anymore. It's exciting to see in real time how American citizens are working together to challenge and change unreasonable government policy. First by broadcasting government abuse and now by documenting successful tactics.

One thing that came out in this blog post -- it seems there may be a policy that the TSA employees are specifically forbidden to wear radiation dosimetry badges. What!? How in the world is this a sane policy? Who is this policy meant to protect?

If a lot of TSA employees wore dosimeters, chances are there would be at least one false positive and the media would latch onto it.

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

#77

Post by srveit »

acabal wrote: post #10

Oh wow, I had no idea they scan you after re-entering the country. I'm flying to Chicago O'Hare from London Gatwick on Dec 2, and now I'm concerned about this. Does anyone know precisely what my rights are as a US citizen upon re-entering the country to avoid all of this ridiculousness? I know that Customs has some Constitutional power for searches and so on (and there's that insane 100-mile "border" where people can…

Here is an article and HN discussion thread that was posted two months ago that describes how one man retained his rights upon re-entering the US:

http://nomadlaw.com/2010/04/i-am-detained-by-feds-for-not-an...

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1681721

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

#78

Post by kreneskyp »

dedward wrote: post #42
Devilboy wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he means on arrival in the US, not before you get on the plane.

I'm theorizing here - maybe someone can answer - would the flight & airport in question be laid out such that, once passing through immigration, you were still in the secure area of the airport and able to board another aircraft, or was there a choice between "connecting flights" and "exit". The only rational explanation I can come up with would be if the airport layout demanded this - but it seems unlikely. This als…

You would still be in the secure area. The problem is that coming from an international flight you wouldn't necessarily be groped for explosives.

It's a good assumption that if they have explosives on a plane flying over the US, they are going to use it before they land.

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

#79

Post by eitally »

Lewisham wrote: post #3
param wrote: post #2

What? I wasn't aware you needed to be irradiated just to enter into the US, even without planning to take any more flights. What is the rationale behind that?

I haven't been through a TSA checkpoint when landing in the US, but it might depend where you fly from. The airport I usually enter the US from, Schipol (Amsterdam), has the backscatter machines installed at the gates (not the terminal checkpoints)... it is clear that they are only used to meet USA conditions. It might be that flying from a country that is not bowing to pressure from the TSA requires a security scan…

I recently (in the past month) flew back into the US from a couple of places:

Guadalajara --> Houston: no security besides customs & immigration São Paulo --> Houston: no security besides customs & immigration Brussels --> JFK: no security besides customs & immigration

(sort of off topic, but the thing that's been really annoying me lately is when you are forced -- due to the airport's layout -- to leave the secure area when transferring between terminals. This, coupled with gate areas that don't have arrival/departure boards, is freaking annoying.)

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

#80

Post by toast76 »

I just want to know what the TSA supervisor expected would happen if he DID choose to go back to customs. Then what? Where does he go? He has no ticket, no boarding pass. He can't get on a plane. I don't see how refusing could possible end any other way than for him to walk out of there. Surely even as he was saying this, he'd have realised how absurd it was.

As a tourist, I wouldn't risk it...too easy to put you back on a plane (unless you have to consent to a search there too?). But if I were a citizen of the USA, there is no chance I'd put up with that when returning to my own country.

Post reply on HN