The TSA's FAST Personality Screening Program Violates the Fourth Amendment [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: The TSA's FAST Personality Screening Program Violates the Fourth Amendment [pdf]

#51

Post by jimktrains2 » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 12:32 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #35

dragonwriter wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Constitution is a domestic instrument. The Constitution is the basis of all US government authority, it is not merely a "domestic instrument". > It does not limit what the United States can do abroad, Several provisions of the Constitution directly and explicitly concern what the United States can do abroad, and which institutions of the United States government are entitled to do those things, so that seems an…

"It results that the investment of the federal government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution. The powers to declare and wage war, to conclude peace, to make treaties, to maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereignties, if they had never been mentioned in the Constitution, would have vested in the federal government as necessary concomitants of…

> "The powers to declare and wage war, to conclude peace, to make treaties, to maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereignties, if they had never been mentioned in the Constitution, would have vested in the federal government as necessary concomitants of nationality"

And the Constitution only mentions these to prevent member-states from partaking in these actions of their own accord. A 1936 ruling is a generation after the Civil War, so there is a predominate interpretation of who was actually a sovereign at the time, right?

I'm not arguing with you, I just find the topic interesting to say (basically) "we can do this because we're a country" when that hasn't always been the end-all-be-all of it.

Re: The TSA's FAST Personality Screening Program Violates the Fourth Amendment [pdf]

#52

Post by Zigurd » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 2:09 PM UTC

hurin wrote: post #29

jimktrains2 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, so lets assume the cameras work. For the same reasons polygraphs have no basis in science, nor would these. I fucking hate the TSA and am fucking furious every time I have to wait to be sexually molested. I'm also worried that they'll fuck up and I'll miss my flight. I'm nervous because I'm worried. I'm constantly looking around to find out how many TSA agents are just fucking around doing nothing. Yet, I'm not a…

The rather strong verbal comments aside - I think this is almost certainly correct. Polygraph tests are notoriously inaccurate - where as for something like terrorist threats the number of real positives you are interested is probably in the x > 1/10^6. That's totally fantastic - consider that pregnancy tests have a false positive rate in the single digits.

Polygraphs are not just ineffective, the practitioners are frauds and quacks. It is widespread public knowledge that polygraphs simply don't work any better than reading tea leaves or entrails. They are perpetrating this fraud on the public and on the law, and ought to be harshly punished for doing so.

Re: The TSA's FAST Personality Screening Program Violates the Fourth Amendment [pdf]

#53

Post by hueving » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 2:43 PM UTC

tajen wrote: post #47

gknoy wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The language is strong, but pretty much encapsulates the impotent anger I feel even __thinking__ about interacting with the TSA. On the rare occasions when I must, my anxiety and fears match very closely to the GP's post's language.

And this is why... I don't go to US. There has been two highly interesting conferences in NY and one in SF (for which another founder offered to give me his tickets for free). But I use a false name on Facebook, which is against my contract with an american company, which is an impersonation, and I don't want to risk it with a TSA agent.

Your reasoning is nonsensical. The TSA has nothing to do with enforcing company contracts.

Re: The TSA's FAST Personality Screening Program Violates the Fourth Amendment [pdf]

#54

Post by rtpg » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 3:50 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #6

This is a note, written by a law student. Not a reason to discount the analysis, per se, but worth keeping in mind if you were thinking of skipping the article and taking the conclusion at face value. The actual analysis starts at 367. The gist of the argument, from a quick read, is that Kyllo (the case that held that the government could not use infrared cameras to look into peoples' homes) established that the gove…

Haven't read the post, but a precision on Kyllo: extrasensory searches are fine if we're talking about doing it with commonly available tools. Binoculars are fine, helicopter-mounted infrared cameras aren't. The idea being that people _expect_ the public to have certain things but not others.

Now I imagine that most ways to get vitals would be pretty intrusive and require non-common (as in, not in use by everyday people) hardware, but generally speaking Kyllo only invalidates a certain class of instrument

Re: The TSA's FAST Personality Screening Program Violates the Fourth Amendment [pdf]

#55

Post by skj » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 5:07 PM UTC

Let me begin by stating that I think the TSA, as implemented, is a huge waste of money and time.

That said, I am not sure any searching done by the TSA can violate the 4th amendment - you can always refuse a search if you're ok with being ejected from the airport.

Re: The TSA's FAST Personality Screening Program Violates the Fourth Amendment [pdf]

#56

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 5:35 PM UTC

jimktrains2 wrote: post #51

rayiner wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It results that the investment of the federal government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution. The powers to declare and wage war, to conclude peace, to make treaties, to maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereignties, if they had never been mentioned in the Constitution, would have vested in the federal government as necessary concomitants of…

> "The powers to declare and wage war, to conclude peace, to make treaties, to maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereignties, if they had never been mentioned in the Constitution, would have vested in the federal government as necessary concomitants of nationality" And the Constitution only mentions these to prevent member-states from partaking in these actions of their own accord. A 1936 ruling is a generat…

> And the Constitution only mentions these to prevent member-states from partaking in these actions of their own accord.

No, the Constitution mentions them to assign what agents of the government have the power to do them, and the conditions on the exercise and the interrelations between those powers and other powers.

Note that, pieces of the powers related to war, peace, and foreign relations are assigned to different entities in the Constitution (some to the Congress, some to the President, and some to the Judiciary.)

Re: The TSA's FAST Personality Screening Program Violates the Fourth Amendment [pdf]

#57

Post by dredmorbius » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 6:51 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #35

dragonwriter wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Constitution is a domestic instrument. The Constitution is the basis of all US government authority, it is not merely a "domestic instrument". > It does not limit what the United States can do abroad, Several provisions of the Constitution directly and explicitly concern what the United States can do abroad, and which institutions of the United States government are entitled to do those things, so that seems an…

"It results that the investment of the federal government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution. The powers to declare and wage war, to conclude peace, to make treaties, to maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereignties, if they had never been mentioned in the Constitution, would have vested in the federal government as necessary concomitants of…

Your war argument boils down to "who gives authorization and to whom".

International law is both a fairly novel and fluid concept, and as with product guarantees, grants of legitimacy or otherwise vary greatly in there effects. Much of the UN's power lies in the Secretary General's authority to give a stern talking to of those chuffing the General Assembly, subject to approval by the Security Council or veto by any of the Permanent Members.

There are numerous countries which have acted either in opposition to UN measures, or which have succeeded in blocking actions to sanction them within the UN.

There are also other international legal arbiters though their authority is not universally recognized, e.g., the International Court, or more complex arrangements under various international criminal law constructions.

All are routinely flouted.

A country could allow for itself no military or violent action -- I imagine that the hypothetical Constitution of the Jainist State might do just that. In which case the country would, by its own laws, have no legal right to offensive or defensive action causing harm.

I'm finding dragonwriter's arguments far more persuasive here.

Re: The TSA's FAST Personality Screening Program Violates the Fourth Amendment [pdf]

#58

Post by panarky » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 7:15 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #6

This is a note, written by a law student. Not a reason to discount the analysis, per se, but worth keeping in mind if you were thinking of skipping the article and taking the conclusion at face value. The actual analysis starts at 367. The gist of the argument, from a quick read, is that Kyllo (the case that held that the government could not use infrared cameras to look into peoples' homes) established that the gove…

  The system has an eighty-one percent classification accuracy
  in a laboratory test setting

That sounds pretty good -- "It catches 81% of the bad guys".

It sounds good until you realize that bad guys are an infinitesimal portion of the population.

If bad guys are 1 in 1,000 or 1 in 100,000, virtually all of the people implicated by the system will be innocent.

Re: The TSA's FAST Personality Screening Program Violates the Fourth Amendment [pdf]

#59

Post by rayiner » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 9:11 PM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #57

rayiner wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It results that the investment of the federal government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution. The powers to declare and wage war, to conclude peace, to make treaties, to maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereignties, if they had never been mentioned in the Constitution, would have vested in the federal government as necessary concomitants of…

Your war argument boils down to "who gives authorization and to whom". International law is both a fairly novel and fluid concept, and as with product guarantees, grants of legitimacy or otherwise vary greatly in there effects. Much of the UN's power lies in the Secretary General's authority to give a stern talking to of those chuffing the General Assembly, subject to approval by the Security Council or veto by any o…

Why do cats have the capacity to kill mice? Because they're cats. Nobody gives them the right to kill mice. It's silly to even ask the question. They may choose to do it or not. But having the capacity to do so is characteristic of their very existence.

That's basically the premise of Curtiss-Wright. It rejects the idea that the federal government requires an affirmative grant of power to exercise sovereign powers abroad, because those powers "would have vested in the federal government as necessary concomitants of nationality." The Constitution might impose a certain allocation internally about how that power is exercised, but it doesn't really purport to limit the scope of those powers in any significant way.

Re: The TSA's FAST Personality Screening Program Violates the Fourth Amendment [pdf]

#60

Post by JadeNB » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 11:32 PM UTC

panarky wrote: post #58

rayiner wrote: post #6

This is a note, written by a law student. Not a reason to discount the analysis, per se, but worth keeping in mind if you were thinking of skipping the article and taking the conclusion at face value. The actual analysis starts at 367. The gist of the argument, from a quick read, is that Kyllo (the case that held that the government could not use infrared cameras to look into peoples' homes) established that the gove…

The system has an eighty-one percent classification accuracy in a laboratory test setting That sounds pretty good -- "It catches 81% of the bad guys". It sounds good until you realize that bad guys are an infinitesimal portion of the population. If bad guys are 1 in 1,000 or 1 in 100,000, virtually all of the people implicated by the system will be innocent.

Specifically, since the numbers are pretty unbelieveable if you haven't seen such arguments before: if the bad guys are as numerous as 1 in 1000, then the number of false positives will be 999*19% > 189 in 1000. That is, if you are identified as a bad guy, then the odds are worse than 1 in 190 (just over 0.5%) that you are one.