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

121–130 of 218 posts

Re: Problems with the TSA

#121

Post by nandemo »

cj wrote: post #69
Samuel_Michon wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“If you approach the TSA adversarially, it's logical that they'd respond unpleasantly.” Why? Aren't they trained to deal with all kinds of people and types of behavior, like anyone in a customer facing profession? If I go to an Apple Store to buy a product while I'm in a bad mood and don't feel up for chit-chat, the sales rep isn't going to make me play nice. Also, I think Sai was very courteous and patient, given th…

If a cop stops you on the street because he thinks you look suspicious, how do you respond? 1) "It's none of your business. I'm going to start recording you to make sure you handle this situation legally" 2) "I'm just rolling a cigarette. Don't worry it's not weed!" Although most people don't like answering to authority, especially when they aren't required to, option #2 is the path of least resistance. That said, I…

Here's a slightly different example that's still hopefully in the spirit of yours.

You're walking in a busy area and a pair of cops stops you and asks you to show your ID and the contents of your bag.

1) Show the ID (which you're required to in this country, if you're a non-citizen), but not the contents of your bag. 1a) Optionally, ask the policemen's ID and write down their names.

2) Show both the ID and the contents of your bag.

This happened to me a while ago, in Tokyo. Apparently most people do #2. The cops were very surprised that I chose option #1a. It took 15 minutes for them to give up. Apparently most people either don't know that cops cannot search you without probable cause, or they know but don't care. I don't think you need to be particularly courageous to say "no" to a cop, when it's your right to do so and you live in a place where the law is upheld.

Incidentally, I would never antagonize a TSA person or an US immigrant officer like that, as I have no idea of what laws (if any) would protect me, as a non-citizen.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#122

Post by javert »

anigbrowl wrote: post #104
javert wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 Court jurisprudence because the SC is the arbiter of these questions per the Constitution itself.

No, morality is the arbiter of these questions, and the government either acts in line with morality, or it does not. In this particular case, the Constitution has taken the right moral stand, and the rest of the government has ignored the Constitution.

> Your claim that a constitutional violation invalidates the entire existence of government is just not anchored in reality.

I don't know why you keep talking about this. I explicitly stated that I don't support rebellion. I think we should try to work within the legal framework we have to change things. So we have no practical disagreement. I just think that a government that does not follow the rules of the Constitution is not a _legal_ US government, because it's acting _illegally_, in the same way that China taking over the US by force would not be legal under the US constitution, and would also therefore be illegitimate.

This is not the same thing as severability. Severability comes into play when part of a law is deemed illegal. In this case, the law (constitution) is illegal, and one of the parties to the law is breaking it.

> Please, read the whole constitution

Your presumption that I haven't read it is ridiculous.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#123

Post by revelation »

DannyBee wrote: post #117
hnolable wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explaining how he's wrong on both points would be very useful.

Sure 1. The TSA is legally entitled to deference of its interpretations of its own regulations. See Chevron (for statutes. Yes, they get deference to interpret the statutes congress passed that say what they are allowed to do), or Auer (for their interpretations of their own regulations). It's ridiculous (in the case of Auer deference), but true. However, at least right now, if the TSA says "our regulations mean X",…

Did you read the link? If you think all of these things "suck", why would you be opposed to

FOIA for essentially all of the TSA's policy & procedures documents

which is what he plans to do? There might be no legal remedy, but certainly a "public opinion" one.

He also doesn't want to pursue anything on the grounds of their procedures or policy, but the ADA / Rehabilitation Act, and this is where all of us need to excuse ourselves into IANAL.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#124

Post by iandanforth »

DannyBee wrote: post #96
iandanforth wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what video you watched. Here's a guy who, to the extent of his non-lawyer knowledge, stands up for his rights in the face of bureaucratic harassment. He doesn't yell, scream, or cry, he just insists on people following their own rules, not having his possessions taken, and being treated like a citizen whose rights should be respected. The above comment implies that it is reasonable for TSA contractors to…

But he's not actually citing their actual rules, he's citing his interpretation of the rules, and claiming various court decisions support him. He's wrong on both points, AFAICT. Now, he may not like that their is more wiggle room than he likes, but ... As for what is reasonable to inquire about, they can ask about a lot. This is particularly true since it's probably not a custodial interrogation, and they are clearl…

At the risk of philosophy there is a difference between expectation in terms of a demand, and expectation in terms of an assumption. There is no naiveté in understanding the common outcome and seeking an alternative one.

I learned a lesson recently about having faith that the status quo can be changed from the tactics of the GLBT community. I had assumed that the only way to create real change would be to force change through radical action, but they expected people to act like rational caring individuals if they just went door to door, introduced themselves, and explained their way of life. This has been (to me) shockingly successful. It seemed naive, an absurd assumption that people would listen and act rationally, but to a staggering extent it has worked.

Perhaps you think our legal system is too far gone to be given the same faith, and held to similar expectations of decency, but I would disagree.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#125

Post by DigitalSea »

I get the guy was standing up for his rights and all, and I am all for human rights (especially those with disabilities) but you have to admit the guy was baiting them quite a bit. I felt as though he was intentionally trying to take it as far as possible. The guy was trying to take a 2 liter bottle onto the plane, I understand he needed it, but where was he going that required a 2 liter bottle of Aloe Vera juice? If it's the sugar, could he not have sufficed with sugar mixed with water or perhaps some kind of confectionery on the plane to tie him over?

Taking a 2 liter bottle onto the plane of store bought juice is silly no matter which way you look at it. If it were a prescribed liquid, they would have let him on no questions asked. But as far as the TSA or "their representatives" know, he's just some guy with a bottle of juice and camera. I know someone suffering as equally medically and they don't try and carry 2 liter bottles of juice onto planes, they always have backup sugar pills for when they need them and if he was nice and made his needs known to flight staff, they would have been more than accommodating to his needs on the plane opposed to risking a potential PR storm if there were to be an in-air medical emergency.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#126

Post by SoftwareMaven »

revelation wrote: post #123
DannyBee wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure 1. The TSA is legally entitled to deference of its interpretations of its own regulations. See Chevron (for statutes. Yes, they get deference to interpret the statutes congress passed that say what they are allowed to do), or Auer (for their interpretations of their own regulations). It's ridiculous (in the case of Auer deference), but true. However, at least right now, if the TSA says "our regulations mean X",…

Did you read the link? If you think all of these things "suck", why would you be opposed to FOIA for essentially all of the TSA's policy & procedures documents which is what he plans to do? There might be no legal remedy, but certainly a "public opinion" one. He also doesn't want to pursue anything on the grounds of their procedures or policy, but the ADA / Rehabilitation Act, and this is where all of us need to excu…

The FOIA request and the threat of lawsuit are very different things. He's using TE former to attempt to bolster his claims for the later (which, if he can get the info, is a good strategy).

Re: Problems with the TSA

#127

Post by anigbrowl »

mattdeboard wrote: post #116
anigbrowl wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there's this thing called the Supreme Court, which has established various lower courts, and if you don't like the way things are you find a sympathetic lawyer and file a lawsuit in which you make your argument about how things ought to be different. I don't like to be condescending, but come on, this stuff is in the constitution too. I feel like sometimes people just read the bill or rights and completely igno…

There's no such concept as "a privilege" in the constitution. The constitution isn't a definition of what citizens can do, it's a definition of what the government can do. Like I don't give a crap about the rest of this dumb argument, but drawing some weird distinction and calling one thing a privilege and another a right while wrapping it up int he Constitution is vapid.

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 in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Article I Section 9

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Article IV section 2.1:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Amendment XIV:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State [...]

--

I personally don't care for textualist arguments, but the concept of privilege is explicitly mentioned 4 times in the Constitution.

EDIT: I'm getting downvoted for pointing out a fact, with citations. Impressive.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#128

Post by SquareWheel »

He was clearly looking for a fight, but I wish everybody would do what he has done. This security theater wouldn't be feasible if everybody took a stand.

I just hope he is correct in his legal interpretations.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#129

Post by anigbrowl »

kefka wrote: post #119
anigbrowl wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep reading.

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.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#130

Post by mattdeboard »

anigbrowl wrote: post #127
mattdeboard wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no such concept as "a privilege" in the constitution. The constitution isn't a definition of what citizens can do, it's a definition of what the government can do. Like I don't give a crap about the rest of this dumb argument, but drawing some weird distinction and calling one thing a privilege and another a right while wrapping it up int he Constitution is vapid.

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…

No, the word "privilege" is mentioned 4 times. None of those instances are used in the same sense as you're using the word. Anyway this has officially crossed into the absurd. You win, bye.
Post reply on HN