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

Problems with the TSA

saizai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 218 posts

Re: Problems with the TSA

#101

Post by ricardobeat »

hnolable wrote: post #87
ricardobeat wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ignore the fact that the guy was trying to board with 2 liters of liquid, when the limit is 100ml, then yes. Imagine he was trying to board with a 2kg pack of sugar instead. Just saying it is 'medical' is not enough, otherwise anything would go through just by saying the magic word. From the agent's perspective, some guy with a camera showed up with 2L of juice, clearly not allowed, and didn't want to give any…

Just FYI, they tested the liquid in question for explosives and of course it turned up negative (as can be seen near the end of the video). Would requiring a doctor's note or more explanation really make any of us safer. I'm sure the terrorists have doctors too. I think the main point here was this was already decided in court and even put into policy and the TSA just disregarded it.

I'm sure terrorists have chemists too, and would defeat that swab test in a week if it was that easy to take large amounts of unknown substances through security.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#102

Post by lwf »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #84
ricardobeat wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ignore the fact that the guy was trying to board with 2 liters of liquid, when the limit is 100ml, then yes. Imagine he was trying to board with a 2kg pack of sugar instead. Just saying it is 'medical' is not enough, otherwise anything would go through just by saying the magic word. From the agent's perspective, some guy with a camera showed up with 2L of juice, clearly not allowed, and didn't want to give any…

According to his blog post, there is no limit on volume. I don't know where you're getting this 100ml number.

https://www.google.com/search?q=3.4+oz+in+ml

Re: Problems with the TSA

#103

Post by ricardobeat »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #84
ricardobeat wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ignore the fact that the guy was trying to board with 2 liters of liquid, when the limit is 100ml, then yes. Imagine he was trying to board with a 2kg pack of sugar instead. Just saying it is 'medical' is not enough, otherwise anything would go through just by saying the magic word. From the agent's perspective, some guy with a camera showed up with 2L of juice, clearly not allowed, and didn't want to give any…

According to his blog post, there is no limit on volume. I don't know where you're getting this 100ml number.

There is no volume limit for medication. The issue here is that in his case store-bought juice is his 'medicine'.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#104

Post by anigbrowl »

javert wrote: post #91
anigbrowl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The TSA is a direct, overt violation of the 4th amendment (search and seizure). Thus, the US federal government is not legitimate under the US Constitution. Don't be so fucking stupid. Apart from the obvious argument that flying is a privilege and not a right, and that you don't need to fly (however impractical this is), even if you were right on the 4th amendment argument it doesn't mean 'the US federal government i…

Calling someone you disagree with "fucking stupid" strongly suggests an argument based on empty emotion, not reasoning. "Privilege" is a false concept in any political discussion. Privileges are granted by the owner of the privilege. But the government does not own my life, nor any aspect thereof, nor any aspect of anybody else's life, including their property. We are not owned by the government. To hold otherwise is…

Privilege is not a false concept just because you don't like it. Whether or not you agree with the policy, you can't just ignore the existence of Supreme Court jurisprudence because the SC is the arbiter of these questions per the Constitution itself.

And as for reason, I directed you to the concept of severability. Your claim that a constitutional violation invalidates the entire existence of government is just not anchored in reality. Lots of laws have been overturned as unconstitional, as have many actions by individual law enforcement officers or officers of the government over the ~230 year history of the United States. Has any of the Supreme Court decisions ever resulted in a dissolution of the government? No. Why? Because an infringement of the a constitutional right does not delegitimize the existence of the government. The point of a constitutional republic is to be self-perpetuating and self-correcting, not to fall apart like a game of Jenga when you pull on the right piece.

Please, read the whole constitution. It's not very long, you can do it in an hour or so. There's a lot more to it than just the bill of rights.I stand by my original argument that your approach to this is an example of magical thinking, and is actually getting in the way of the change you seek.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#105

Post by Samuel_Michon »

rdtsc wrote: post #16

I have a speech impediment. Sometimes, especially when I am tired or upset I can't talk to save my life. I have in the past written note cards to hand out and I carry a notepad and a pen with me. I had not idea they would refuse someone to use them. Well, I guess I should say I am not surprised. To be politically incorrect (insensitive) a good number of TSA employees don't seem to be very bright. I hope your case is…

“To be politically incorrect (insensitive) a good number of TSA employees don't seem to be very bright.”

In the words of a former TSA agent: “Did you know you don’t need a high-school diploma or GED to work as a security screener? These are the same screeners that TSA chief John Pistole and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano refer to as a first-class first line of defense in the war on terror. These are the employees who could never keep a job in the private sector. I wouldn’t trust them to walk my dog. [...]

Most TSA screeners know their job is a complete joke. Their goal is to use this as a stepping stone to another government agency. We work in a culture where common sense has no place. All but a very few TSA personnel know they’re employed by a bottom-of-the-barrel agency. [...]

It’s the people who’ve been there a good number of years who could never find employment elsewhere. When you have a real job, it usually means you have to actually work and think, which a lot of them have a hard time doing.”

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/confessions_of_tsa_agent_...

Re: Problems with the TSA

#106

Post by bisrig »

coin wrote: post #86
anigbrowl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The TSA is a direct, overt violation of the 4th amendment (search and seizure). Thus, the US federal government is not legitimate under the US Constitution. Don't be so fucking stupid. Apart from the obvious argument that flying is a privilege and not a right, and that you don't need to fly (however impractical this is), even if you were right on the 4th amendment argument it doesn't mean 'the US federal government i…

Here we go again, another "flying is a privilege" argument. Flying is a right: " A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace." From http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40103 I choose to exercise that right by hiring air travel with an airline. Airspace is a public resource that belongs to everyone.

I think you are confusing the right to public transit with the right to transit with any commercial carrier through any engagement of your choosing...

Which is unfortunate, because I agree with your point but I don't think the law backs you up here.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#107

Post by DannyBee »

themgt wrote: post #66
DannyBee wrote: post #56

I was with him until I watched the actual video, where he basically comes off like a guy deliberately looking for a fight who gets one. He tries to pull the "i don't have to explain why it's a medically necessary liquid, you fuckers should screen it". All they did was ask why it was medically necessary, which is reasonable, in order to prevent people from abusing the policy. His citation that the special needs memo s…

TSA contractors have absolutely no right to demand intimate medical information from people who simply wish to travel through the air. The fact that you would think otherwise is a symptom of how unhinged the thinking in this country has become. They prohibited him from drinking juice. He asked to be allowed to drink it in front of them, and they said no. What in the fuck is anyone from anywhere doing telling anyone t…

Let's separate two things: The way I believe the law is right now, and the way i wish the law was right now. You are conflating both. Like most lawyers, I can be dispassionate in my analysis of things, regardless of my personal feelings.

I actually have a very good understanding of what the law says right now. I personally think it's become seriously perverted from its original purpose, but that does not change how the law has developed, it only means we need to fix that.

As it stands right now, the government very likely has the right to demand intimate medical information from people when that intimate medical information is the reason they are citing to avoid legally enacted security rules. Again, i think this is mostly bullshit, and shouldn't be that way, but it doesn't change that it is. The supreme court and others have been very protective of border and transportation searches made for the purpose of security.

Note, btw almost any ADA claim he makes would fail

The ADA does not actually prohibit these inquiries on it's face (it would if they were made for a job related purpose), and aircraft is specifically exempted from most of the ADA's transportation requirements:

"The term "specified public transportation" means transportation by bus, rail, or any other conveyance (other than by aircraft) that provides the general public with general or special service (including charter service) on a regular and continuing basis."

If your hope is to get a court to decide that he won't have to justify it's medically necessary liquid, there is a roughly 10% chance that will happen (maybe less).

If your hope is for a court to decide the TSA needs actual individualized suspicion before fucking groping people, there's an even less percent chance of that happening. In fact, courts have already held exactly the opposite numerous times (due to them being held to be administrative searches)

Your best outcome here is probably that they'll require the TSA offer to ask this stuff in private, and be required to guarantee confidentiality.

At least right now, no court is likely to stop them from doing it.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#108

Post by Samuel_Michon »

victorh wrote: post #52
rdtsc wrote: post #16

I have a speech impediment. Sometimes, especially when I am tired or upset I can't talk to save my life. I have in the past written note cards to hand out and I carry a notepad and a pen with me. I had not idea they would refuse someone to use them. Well, I guess I should say I am not surprised. To be politically incorrect (insensitive) a good number of TSA employees don't seem to be very bright. I hope your case is…

Of course not; if they trained TSA agents beyond having a simple state machine there wouldn't be so much money left to buy Rapiscan machines. I highly doubt being assholes is due to anything but poor training and their salaries are probably too low for them to really want to put any effort into anything. I'd remove the machines and give them higher wages and better training if I had any say in the matter.

According to a former TSA screener: “Did you know you don’t need a high-school diploma or GED to work as a security screener? [...]

[Most screeners] are only there for the paycheck and generous benefits. Screeners start at $15 per hour, and there is tons of overtime — mainly because they are filling in for the many screeners who don’t bother coming to work. For every 40 hours you work, you receive four hours of vacation and four hours of sick time.

One screener didn’t come to work for four weeks. When he finally reappeared, he asked for another week off. The answer was no. So what did this brainiac decide to do? He took another week off — and didn’t get terminated. People have been caught falling asleep on the job. They get written up, it’s put in their file, and that’s it.

New hires see how bad it is working there, and, believe it or not, TSA does manage to hire some pretty decent people. They just don’t last because they can get a normal job. It’s the people who’ve been there a good number of years who could never find employment elsewhere. When you have a real job, it usually means you have to actually work and think, which a lot of them have a hard time doing.”

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/confessions_of_tsa_agent_...

Re: Problems with the TSA

#109

Post by bandwevil »

BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #78
themgt wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TSA contractors have absolutely no right to demand intimate medical information from people who simply wish to travel through the air. The fact that you would think otherwise is a symptom of how unhinged the thinking in this country has become. They prohibited him from drinking juice. He asked to be allowed to drink it in front of them, and they said no. What in the fuck is anyone from anywhere doing telling anyone t…

> TSA contractors have absolutely no right to demand intimate medical information from people who simply wish to travel through the air. They're not doing that. They're demanding a doctor's note (official communication from your doctor to people like employers, school administrators... in other words, not intimate information) only in the case that you need an exemption from the rule that prohibits you from carrying…

It states very specifically in the memo he refers to:

"It is recommended (not required) that passengers bring along any supporting documentation (ID cards, letter from doctor, etc.) regarding their medical needs."

So yeah, it would likely be easier for him if he did have one, but it's certainly not something the TSA can demand.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#110

Post by DannyBee »

saraid216 wrote: post #88
BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> TSA contractors have absolutely no right to demand intimate medical information from people who simply wish to travel through the air. They're not doing that. They're demanding a doctor's note (official communication from your doctor to people like employers, school administrators... in other words, not intimate information) only in the case that you need an exemption from the rule that prohibits you from carrying…

It's not an exemption from the rules when the rules explicitly say that it's cool.

Can you point to where it says that? It actually does not say that they can't ask, and you don't have to prove it. The only thing the rules say is that it's "recommended but not required" that you carry a doctors note.

That doesn't mean "welp, i don't have to prove shit, because i am not required to have a doctors note". It means it's recommended, but not required, that you have one. If you don't, there is nothing in these rules that say you won't have to explain yourself.

Post reply on HN