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

171–180 of 218 posts

Re: Problems with the TSA

#171

Post by gambiting »

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…

I think you watched something else. I would have exploded like 10 times in that time, and he remained perfectly calm. And no, if it's not required by law, he should not be asked questions about his medical conditions or requirements. Period. If they want to be able to ask these questions,they should include such a policy. An agency that interprets their own rules however it sees fit is a recipe for disaster.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#172

Post by gambiting »

ricardobeat wrote: post #162
hnolable wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume they would probably still _attempt_ to limit the amount of total liquid. But the idea that terrorists can bypass a chemical bomb detector but not figure out a way around the amount of liquid limit is laughable.

Why is it laughable? Because it doesn't fit your line of thought? Choosing a substance that doesn't trigger a specific chemical detector, but becomes dangerous when interacting with something else in your carry-on is certainly more feasible than taking large amounts of liquid unnoticed through multiple scanners. As for the "split into smaller bottles", I think that's a brainfart on the part of the agent, at least aro…

So you get 4 people to go through security with you, each one of them brings the necessary components. And I don't know how is it like in the US, but in EU you always get shops on the other side, for duty-free purchases. And yes, they do sell all kinds of liquids - the idea is that they have been screened before entering the airport so they are safe to buy and sell after the screening. So you go and buy a litre of water, go to the bathroom, pour it out, fill it up with the stuff you and your 3 colleagues brought in a few 100ml bottles.

See? All TSA achieved is horse shit. You can still end up on the other side, with a litre bottle of whatever substance you wanted to have,and they couldn't stop you. This is why this entire agency is absolutely useless and more an inconvenience than anything.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#173

Post by mgkimsal »

pekk wrote: post #100
mgkimsal wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 1 quart may have been specifically tailored to his own requirements, but I can imagine that many people, for most flights, would be fine with medical liquid amounts of 1q or smaller. Trying to bring a gallon or two of something on a plane just may not be practical, regardless of the medical necessity, and other transport might be required. But... the 3oz rule has struck me as stupid from day one.

Can you provide any more specific justification for the specific measure of liquid to allow, or is it just going to be what you can imagine seems reasonable to you?

It's just what seems reasonable to me, which is how I was assuming the OP was justifying his 1 quart recommendation.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#174

Post by gambiting »

silencio wrote: post #138
ricardobeat wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

My father travels with a bottle of juice/soda regularly because it is a reliable, known, and fast way of raising his blood sugar when it gets too low, and it is far more palatable than non-liquid methods of doing so. He has never been hassled when it is explained to a TSA agent (and he has a doctor's note too). Just because it's not prescribed or regulated doesn't mean it can't be medically necessary. Not to mention…

My question is(I honestly don't know) - do you not get shops behind the security screening like any country in the EU does? I don't bring anything to drink with me, but immediately after going through security I go to the nearest duty-free shop in the departure lounge and just buy a bottle of juice or whatever. Problem solved.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#175

Post by ynniv »

anigbrowl wrote: post #129
kefka wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weren't you claiming earlier: "I'm offering you a communication channel to studio executives right now." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5458900 And you say stuff like you do not have a right to fly? Too bad there's no way to have HN not show me any of your replies (without scripting).

I fail to see what my professional and personal friendship with people in the movie industry has to do with my opinions on the legalities of flying. Too bad there's no way to have HN not show me any of your replies (without scripting). Well, you could put a paper bag over your head when you see one coming.

Your comment history suggests that you are a crusader: willing to take great risks defending those whom you identify with, but uninterested in defending a disabled mute's right to participate in our modern society. Your arguments, however well constructed, are built on a self-serving foundation.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#176

Post by anigbrowl »

zapdrive wrote: post #165
anigbrowl wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see what my professional and personal friendship with people in the movie industry has to do with my opinions on the legalities of flying. Too bad there's no way to have HN not show me any of your replies (without scripting). Well, you could put a paper bag over your head when you see one coming.

> I fail to see what my professional and personal friendship with people in the movie industry has to do with my opinions on the legalities of flying. Both of these advocate taking away rights from the citizens, the rights for which we have paid a heave price.

No they don't.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#177

Post by anigbrowl »

ynniv wrote: post #175
anigbrowl wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see what my professional and personal friendship with people in the movie industry has to do with my opinions on the legalities of flying. Too bad there's no way to have HN not show me any of your replies (without scripting). Well, you could put a paper bag over your head when you see one coming.

Your comment history suggests that you are a crusader: willing to take great risks defending those whom you identify with, but uninterested in defending a disabled mute's right to participate in our modern society. Your arguments, however well constructed, are built on a self-serving foundation.

On the contrary, I said what I think would be an effective challenge to the TSA above. Shooting yourself in the foot (argumentatively, by unilaterally declaring the entire government to be illegitimate on spurious grounds) and then hopping about saying 'look what you made me do!' is not an effective way of changing things.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#178

Post by anigbrowl »

othermaciej wrote: post #155
anigbrowl wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Article I Section 6: The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate…

These uses of the word "privilege" are all defining rights, not privileges in the sense you mean. Here is an example of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the Privileges and Immunities Clause (from the landmark Slaughterhouse Cases ): [P]rivileges and immunities....are, in the language of Judge Washington, those rights which are fundamental. Throughout his opinion, they are spoken of as rights belonging to the individual…

Of course not. I was simply responding to the incorrect assertion that the concept of privilege isn't mentioned at all in the constitution. I pointed out that it is.

As far as the type of privilege, consider the privilege of immunity from arrest and accusations of libel etc., that members of Congress enjoy - but only within the legislature. This is a quite limited one, contingent on being a lawmaker and being engaged on legislative business. I mistakenly thought that this would be obvious from a reading of the text.

Of course I am not arguing that flying is a fundamental right. I rather describe it a privilege precisely because it is not fundamental, as observed upthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5467700

Re: Problems with the TSA

#179

Post by baggachipz »

rdtsc wrote: post #23
w1ntermute wrote: post #6

We complain about the TSA on here all the time, but it's important to remember that the average American sees absolutely nothing wrong with what the TSA does. They genuinely and wholeheartedly believe that the TSA is helping to make the skies safer for Americans, and that it is doing so without violating any civil liberties. The idea that "if you have nothing to hide, why do you care if the authorities search you?" i…

Americans (and I am painting with a very wide brush here) I find are very authoritarian. For all the propaganda about freedom, independence, personal rights and property, they are very willing to support authority, very obedient, and most of all would not lift a finger to protect or step up if they see authority overstepping its bounds. As a bit of a background, I grew in a former communist dictatorship so I am famil…

It's also a very religious country.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#180

Post by javert »

anigbrowl wrote: post #149
javert wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's literally nonsense. Morality is an abstraction of what constitutes proper behavior. An arbiter is a particular body that judges disputes. In the United States, that judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, per article III of the Constitution. Your concept of the Constitution as a moral agent, ignored by the rest of the government (including the Supreme Court) is just irrational. In this paragraph, you…

In this paragraph, you called my position "nonsense" and "irrational," yet you gave no reason for those claims whatsoever. Javert, my reasons are given in the third and fourth sentences, where I define the term 'arbiter' and then observe that the constitution assigns the judicial power of the country to the Supreme Court. You have denied that the SC is the arbiter of constitutional questions on things like rights and…

I understand your point in the first paragraph, now.

There is legal, and there is moral. The SC is the final, ultimate arbiter of _legality_, not morality.

This isn't a conflict with the Constitution, it's just a "meta-Constitutional" issue.

You act like this is a bizarre notion, but it's actually the common-sense one. First, nobody holds the Constitution as a moral document, only as a legal one. Second, the founding fathers clearly articulated (and demonstrated) that when a government becomes tyrannical, it can and should be overthrown.

Now, putting all that aside, there is a separate issue, which is that the government doesn't follow the 4th amendment. Thus, it is acting both illegally _and_ immorally. Though I see that you would probably say it's legal if the SC rules it OK. I guess it would be "legal" to enslave people, if the SC ruled it to be OK under the constitution? I mean, can the SC just make _anything_ legal by "interpreting" the constitution _however_ it wants to? (Rhetorical question, not asking for a response.)

> your moral opinions are wholly subjective.

No, they're objective, but I don't expect that to sound reasonable to a non-philosopher (or even most philosophers).

> I think you know perfectly well what I meant in the first place.

I resent the implication that I'm just arguing for the sake of argument, which simply isn't the case.

> I have nothing further to say on this topic

I respect your wish to close the conversation, and I feel the same way.

Post reply on HN