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

141–150 of 218 posts

Re: Problems with the TSA

#141

Post by silencio »

coudron wrote: post #44

Wow. Was thinking Sai had a logical complaint until I watched the video of him interacting with the TSA (or whatever company does security in SFO). It's clear by the video, he was trying to troll TSA rather than get through security with his medical liquids. He can't expect to not justify and explain why his liquids are considered medical. Otherwise, every person who paid $4.50 for a soda before security would just p…

> Otherwise, every person who paid $4.50 for a soda before security would just pull the "It's medical! You can't ask questions card"

It actually can be. My father has a doctor's note effectively saying that he's using soda/juice for medical reasons, just so TSA can leave him alone. He's almost never been asked for that note too, most of the time TSA doesn't give a crap as long as the liquid gets tested and is "safe". I really don't understand why he has to explain this to TSA at all cause it's none of their fucking business, but that's how things work (and by god I wish they'd change).

FWIW the only reason the note exists at all is because a bottle of juice or soda that my dad likes is far cheaper than the legally prescribed "medical use" labeled juice that you can get, and works just as well.

:)

Re: Problems with the TSA

#142

Post by bmelton »

hnolable wrote: post #112
ricardobeat wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

Re: Problems with the TSA

#143

Post by glenra »

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",…

AFAICT, you just made a case that "an administrative search" is legally allowed, not that they're allowed to confiscate his stuff or prevent him from flying with it. Does their right to "search" - examine his stuff - also imply their right to just take whatever they want? If so, how does that work?

Re: Problems with the TSA

#144

Post by hnolable »

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?

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.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#145

Post by bmelton »

javert wrote: post #135
trust-me wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being confrontational is very often a great strategy, especially in front of a dumb crowd (luckily the Eternal September is yet to happen in full force here).

But (a) I'm not dumb (I was the guy being confronted), and (b) that is not a great strategy on HN because you will be downvoted to oblivion, as happened in this case.

Not generally on the weekends. I've maintained for some time now that HN gets more spiteful, vindictive and petty starting Friday evening and in to Monday morning, every week.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#146

Post by thezach »

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…

Actually its illegal to request a passenger to identify his or her disability to a TSA security checkpoint or require proof of the disability.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#148

Post by thezach »

iandanforth wrote: post #67
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'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…

Its illegal for the TSA to inquire about or require proof of a disability.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#149

Post by anigbrowl »

javert wrote: post #140
anigbrowl wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. 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'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 privileges. I find your position nonsensical and irrational because it is in conflict with the plain language of the Constitution and with the fact that the Supreme Court has been functioning in this role ever since the its inception.

When you talk about the legitimacy of the government, you're making a legal assertion. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion of what you consider to be moral, but when you make legal assertions on the basis of your personal moral code in complete disregard of how the governance of the US is constitutionally organized, then I view those assertions as fundamentally flawed. DannyBee has cited specific case law elsewhere in the thread that shows the error in your position.

If you are simply going to dismiss anything you disagree with as being morally deficient that's up to you, but your moral opinions are wholly subjective. The objective reality here is what the judicial branch holds to be the meaning of the constitution, regardless of how your or I feel about the morality or quality or their jurisprudence.

I have nothing further to say on this topic, and I think you know perfectly well what I meant in the first place.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#150

Post by glenra »

cj wrote: post #40

I really don't like most of the TSA's procedures either, but watching the hidden camera video, it seems like the OP went in to the situation expecting to have an issue with the TSA. If you approach the TSA adversarially, it's logical that they'd respond unpleasantly. OP: In a patronizing tone : "You're required to accept it, and to screen it. You have the means available to screen it, namely xray and explosive trace…

Except that it really IS none of their business, and we're collectively better off if the TSA periodically gets TOLD that when they ask nosy stupid random questions.
Post reply on HN