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

151–160 of 218 posts

Re: Problems with the TSA

#151

Post by grownseed »

This is appalling, and not only from a medical or legal standpoint. I fly a lot, mostly internationally, and this isn't a problem with just the TSA (I'm not a US citizen). Airports around the world have to be the least humane places I've ever encountered. Anybody who knows me would say I'm not one for stirring up trouble for the sake of it, but having people power-tripping on the little uneducated authority they have has to be the most vile experience ever.

I could probably write an essay on the number of moral abuses I've seen in airports, from the typical inappropriate "you need to calm down" to seeing people in clear medical or mental distress (gladly few, but some of these experiences being mine).

We would never expect this sort of behavior anywhere else in society, yet we're letting this go on as if it were normal. I personally wonder how this is even legal, but I suppose that's beyond the point. This may be an overused quote, but "those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither" rings very true in this instance.

How is oppressing the vast majority of flyers any better than the terrorism we are supposedly preventing? I would even go as far as saying that this sort of behavior is most likely what encourages terrorism in the first place, but I digress.

Airports are one of those far-too-regular cases where "you're guilty until proven innocent" has become the norm. Anybody in their right minds know full well that if somebody really wants to make anything happen on a plane, it will. It's clear that restrictions against foods, liquids and whatever else are more about perceived security than actual security (also very possibly about purchases...).

I truly understand the reason (beyond medical) the OP was driven to shoot that video. People saying he was picking a fight may or may not be right. Similarly, his legal reasoning may or may not be biased. But that's not the point, the law is there to protect freedom, not obstruct it.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#152

Post by DannyBee »

glenra wrote: post #143
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",…

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?

They can definitely prevent him from flying with it. In most cases, the violation would have to be the seizure itself, not the "preventing him from flying with it" part. Flying with it implicates not just TSA regs, but FAA/etc. You'd basically have to find that congress has not granted them the authority to decide who can fly with what, or that congress does not have that authority. Neither seem like a good argument (unless you believe congress has no right to regulate air travel at all, in which case they all seem like good arguments :P). At least in this part, TSA is just doing what it's been explicitly allowed (and in some cases, ordered to by congress. See, for example public law 107-71, the act that created the TSA, where you can see they actually require the TSA to do certain things to passengers)

So let's talk about the confiscation: In general, during administrative functions like this, agencies are granted wide latitude, and can in fact, take stuff away for many hours with no issue. Again, remember these searches and seizures only have to be reasonable, they don't have to have probable cause.

Before the recent border search case, it was even weeks or months that they could hold stuff.

As for permanent confiscation, probably not, but they could say "junk this or don't fly"

Re: Problems with the TSA

#153

Post by tptacek »

DannyBee wrote: post #132
revelation wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Of course I read the link, he FOIA'd, filed ADA complaints, and is threatening a lawsuit. So, in order: 1. FOIA will get him some documents in about 3-4 years. Maybe. It'll take a while, and he'll get the old copies. 2. The ADA filings will do nothing. the ADA specifically exempts travel by aircraft when it comes to accommodations for forms of public transportation. It also does not say anything about US Government a…

Thank you for this comment, and for taking the time to spell this stuff out.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#154

Post by svachalek »

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 think this is precisely the difference between "security" and "security theater".

Re: Problems with the TSA

#155

Post by othermaciej »

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…

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 as a citizen of a State....

Or were you claiming above that flying is one of those rights which are fundamental?

Re: Problems with the TSA

#156

Post by asveikau »

rdtsc wrote: post #80
kzrdude wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we can go wider: the americans are only humans. We can all have these tendencies.

I am comparing here vis-a-vis the propaganda image (that is widely believed). So yes, they are humans. However resistance to abusive authority, resistance to invasion of privacy, freedom of speech, all those are touted as core first principles of America. I was pointing out that there seems (to me) to be a disconnect from that image to every day abuses of authority and how average Americans react to being patted down…

One thing that influences my own thinking on this topic was having read "Conservatives without conscience" by John Dean several years ago. It's a bit political so maybe the HN crowd won't appreciate it. But one of its ideas is that a certain percentage of Americans have authoritarian personalities as described by social scientists - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality . This made sense to me in the context of the Bush years and I've continually seen situations that remind me of it, in all sorts of contexts, including, say, to explain why some people in this HN thread seem so eager to defy what I see as simple common sense and defend these TSA types, ahead of putting themselves in the shoes of the disabled guy.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#157

Post by dyno12345 »

DigitalSea wrote: post #125

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…

You can also buy all the juice bottles you want in the gating area.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#158

Post by jedberg »

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…

Every day in elementary school, we were required to state, "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands". From the age of 5, they make it very clear that you are to have an undying allegiance to the government.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#159

Post by kybernetyk »

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…

So if you don't want to have your rights violated you have to be nice to the authorities? That's absurd.

Re: Problems with the TSA

#160

Post by ricardobeat »

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…

I think that's totally fine, but unlike your father he doesn't want to explain at all or carry a doctor's note. You can't show up to the gate with a gallon of water and get through security just by saying "it's medical" with no further explanation.
Post reply on HN