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

181–190 of 218 posts

Re: Problems with the TSA

#181

Post by tptacek »

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.

What the hell does this even mean? What's wrong with you? In what parallel universe is it civil for you to take a disagreement about the law with someone you don't know on a message board and parlay it into a claim that they don't care about "disabled mute's rights to participate in our society"?

Re: Problems with the TSA

#182

Post by tptacek »

javert wrote: post #122
anigbrowl wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Privilege is not a false concept just because you don't like it. I didn't say it was a false concept _in general_. For a kid to get an allowance is a privilege. What I should implied (and should have have said explicitly) is: the relationship between people and their government should not be governed by a notion of privilege. > Whether or not you agree with the policy, you can't just ignore the existence of Supreme…

Your conception of the Constitution's place in moral arguments is unfounded. The Constitution largely avoids moral concerns --- or, more precisely, values and substantive rights.

What the Constitution cares about are the "constitutive" issues: the procedural rights that ensure that all citizens have access to the political process and to the same dispute resolution mechanisms, and that attempt to ensure (as best any constitution can) that the majority cannot impinge on the minority without sharing in the downside of those actions.

As you know, the ultimate arbiter of Constitutional rights is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is 9 unelected humans with lifetime tenure. We are not a nation governed by philosopher kings.

The Constitution is not just not a source for our morality and values; it is deliberately designed to avoid those questions. The framers and every court since Marshall's recognized that the legislative branch was uniquely positioned to represent the largest number of people and equipped with the best fact-finding capabilities. So it falls to Congress to judge the morality and value of the country. SCOTUS is there as a "ref", to make sure the routinely terrible decisions of any collection of West African Plains Apes don't violate the integrity of the Constitution's process --- and that's (mostly) all they do.

Highly recommended: _Democracy and Distrust_, John Hart Ely.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#183

Post by tptacek »

javert wrote: post #180
anigbrowl wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you pulled "the government doesn't follow the 4th Amendment" out of the air.

The First Amendment is written in remarkably clear language. "Congress shall make no law". Every court that has confronted the First Amendment has pointed out that there's very little wiggle room in it. And yet there is room to maneuver in the First Amendment. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater; you can't stand outside a small-town prison and encourage a mob to lynch one of its inmates. This goes beyond "speech plus action"; there are messages that are unprotected by the First Amendment.†

Now look again at the Fourth Amendment. What does the word "unreasonable" mean? Do you think the Framers just slipped up and wrote one of the most important amendments in the Bill of Rights sloppily? Or do you, like every Supreme Court since the ratification of the Constitution, think that the Fourth Amendment is designed to balance the needs of the state against those of the people, and that's why they put a wildcard like "reasonable" in the text?

TSA searches are lawful under the "Administrative Search" doctrine. Searches can be allowed as "administrative" when they are (a) not targeted to specific classes of people, (b) avoidable --- as in, nobody is coming to your house or stopping your car on the road to search you, and (c) balanced against a legitimate need of the state (in this case, the safety of commercial airliners).

I think the TSA is patently ridiculous and they piss me off just as much as they piss you off. But they are not unconstitutional. The Constitution allows plenty of room for Congress to make dumb decisions, and this was one of them.

† Libel, fighting words, incitement among them.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#184

Post by shawn-butler »

tptacek wrote: post #182
javert wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Privilege is not a false concept just because you don't like it. I didn't say it was a false concept _in general_. For a kid to get an allowance is a privilege. What I should implied (and should have have said explicitly) is: the relationship between people and their government should not be governed by a notion of privilege. > Whether or not you agree with the policy, you can't just ignore the existence of Supreme…

Your conception of the Constitution's place in moral arguments is unfounded. The Constitution largely avoids moral concerns --- or, more precisely, values and substantive rights. What the Constitution cares about are the "constitutive" issues: the procedural rights that ensure that all citizens have access to the political process and to the same dispute resolution mechanisms, and that attempt to ensure (as best any…

I'm sorry but you are just making sh*t up and while usually it is best just to ignore such posts; this is too important to let stand unopposed. The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are firmly founded and derive from natural law. How can you say the Constitution largely avoids moral concerns when slavery and its role was foundational to the document's very existence? If there had been no agreement regarding humans as property in the US Constitution there would have been no republic. Period.

Revisionist nonsense is just revisionist nonsense.

The Supreme Court is also not the ultimate arbiter of Constitutional rights, that is reserved to the people to elect officials that either comport with the Constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS or not. An "unconstitutional law" is still the law of the land until it is duly repealed by Congress.

The concept of judicial review does not even exist in the Constitution nor was it even debated by the founders. It was entirely a power grab in the aftermath of Marbury v Madison. Whether its establishment as a pro forma power was for the better of the country is debatable. The history of the SCOTUS is long and tangled.

SCOTUS has zero power to enforce any of its decisions other than budgetary control of the federal courts. It is a political institution just like any other but with a unique set of tribal rules. It offers its opinions, and if it offers too many contrary to public opinion it becomes irrelevant to political life.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#185

Post by bmelton »

gambiting wrote: post #172
ricardobeat wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wa…

The US is the same way actually, and I always sort of figured the easier way in would be to get one of the minimum wage retailers to smuggle something in for me. As they're typically young and low-paid, they 1) need the money, 2) aren't as likely to think about dangerous possible outcomes and 3) (possibly) aren't as likely to worry about it anyway.

Of course, blowing up a plane is sort of a stupid notion anyway. If I wanted a terrorist attack, I'd just bomb a building directly, Oklahoma City style. That wouldn't even need to be a suicide attack. If I was dead set on a suicide attack on an airline, I'd just pick the longest security checkpoint line and blow myself up there.

There are plenty of tactical reasons for commandeering an airplane, but blowing it up is generally not one of them.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#186

Post by othermaciej »

anigbrowl wrote: post #178
othermaciej wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The Constitution uses the word "privilege", but it does not mention the concept of privilege as you are using it. "Privileges" in the constitution aren't distinct from or weaker than rights - they are considered fundamental rights. The Supreme Court said so and I think their interpretation counts for more than yours.

That is probably why you got down voted - your citation is factual, but completely misleading in context.

To address the specific example you mention here: the privilege of immunity from arrest for members of Congress cannot be infringed except for specific enumerated exceptions. It's not the kind if "privilege not a right" that may be arbitrarily harshly regulated that you were talking about.

The law is not stupid. Courts understand that words have more than one meaning and that context matters. Given how rude and condescending you have been on this thread, you should learn more about how constitutional law actually works.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#187

Post by saraid216 »

bmelton wrote: post #142
hnolable wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessary. The TSA already gave a better alternative. FTFV: They can put the liquid in several smaller bottles and then let him through with it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m12mLXgO1A&t=11m10s

So what you're saying (and I'm trying to ask this without laughing), is that per TSA rules, I can't bring a liter of potentially explosive liquid, but I can bring several smaller containers of potentially explosive liquid, as well as a dry (empty) 1 liter bottle?

> as well as a dry (empty) 1 liter bottle?

Actually, you're not allowed to bring such a bottle as I understand things. I didn't really bother scrutinizing, but the impression I got from a few years back was that even if you emptied out an over-sized container, you still wouldn't be allowed to pass it through.

Now that I think about it, I think this impression is from the fact that you can't bring a half-empty bottle (with only 100ml of liquid or whatever the amount is).

Re: Problems with the TSA

#188

Post by saraid216 »

gambiting wrote: post #174
silencio wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The prices are generally higher back there, for what I hope are obvious reasons.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#189

Post by bmelton »

saraid216 wrote: post #187
bmelton wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what you're saying (and I'm trying to ask this without laughing), is that per TSA rules, I can't bring a liter of potentially explosive liquid, but I can bring several smaller containers of potentially explosive liquid, as well as a dry (empty) 1 liter bottle?

> as well as a dry (empty) 1 liter bottle? Actually, you're not allowed to bring such a bottle as I understand things. I didn't really bother scrutinizing, but the impression I got from a few years back was that even if you emptied out an over-sized container, you still wouldn't be allowed to pass it through. Now that I think about it, I think this impression is from the fact that you can't bring a half-empty bottle…

But I could bring a few small containers, pass the security checkpoint, and buy a 1.5 liter Fiji bottle that I could empty in the restroom?

Re: Problems with the TSA

#190

Post by mindslight »

anigbrowl wrote: post #41
javert wrote: post #4

My mother can't travel by plane, because she has aphasia (can't speak) and a leg brace, due to her stroke. If I go through the airport with her, there is no guarantee the agents will let me stay with her and explain the situation. She can't remove the leg brace on her own for them to make sure it's not a weapon, and TSA agents can't do it properly. So, basically, taking her to the airport is a recipe for having her v…

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…

Your post sounds reasonably objective only because we've all been indoctrinated to worship in the churches of democracy, the constitution, and common law. You're actually ruling out a whole class of dissent that recognizes USG is simply not working as intended nor producing good results. Of course showing up to the polls and voting for non-incumbent candidates ends up looking like lively dissent when real dissent has been so marginalized.

I can't claim the above will ever be a popular opinion (and your comment is only net negative because it's combative and so blatantly inconsistent with TSA reality), but the technologies that replace our decaying systems of social organization won't be designed by committees either.

Post reply on HN