Slashdot Mirror
TSA Changes Its Rules, ACLU Lawsuit Dropped
ndogg writes "Earlier this year, there was much ado about a Ron Paul staffer, Steve Bierfeldt, being detained by the TSA for carrying large sums of money. The ACLU sued on his behalf, and the TSA changed its rules, now stating that its officers can only screen for unsafe materials. With that, the ACLU dropped its suit. '[Ben Wizner, a staff lawyer for the ACLU, said] screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes, not to help police enforce other laws.'"
Personally, I'd have rather have a legal precedent set VS a rule that can be changed back.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
...people with large sums of money have more freedoms than people who don't.
"His name was James Damore."
She said the directives would not be released unless a Freedom Of Information Act request was submitted by The Washington Times.
The law is not available for inspection, citizen. Now drop your pants.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
TSA spokeswoman Lauren Gaches said the new "internal directives" are meant to ensure their screeners are consistent. She acknowledged the policy on large sums of cash had changed, but wouldn't provide a copy of either document. She said the directives would not be released unless a Freedom Of Information Act request was submitted by The Washington Times.
Fuck that.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Which is to create the illusion that the government is doing all it can to protect your security.
Wait, what? Why do they get a "narrow exception" to abiding by the constitution (fourth amendment)?
I'm surprised the TSA considered $4500 to be a "large sum of money". That's about two weeks of business travel. If that.
With current credit card fees, it may be more cost-effective to carry cash. Even if you get robbed 1% of the time, you're still ahead.
It isn't illegal to carry cash... so what are these "other" laws the TSA screeners are trying to enforce?
You do have to declare large amounts of cash when you go across the border, but this was a domestic flight. No disclosure needed.
What happens now if the TSA's screening finds drugs, or even worse, marijuana?
I used to fly with pot all the time, but these days it hasn't been worth it. With this rule change it appears that it would be something not to really worry about.
"screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment" .06% of the total words available so that is how we measure *narrow exception*
what the eff do we have a Fourth Amendment for? You can actually get 'narrow exceptions' to the fundamental rights? Isn't this step one BIG step towards, "you have freedom of speech except that we have a *narrow exception* to that rule to forbids political statements that paint the current regime in a bad light" kind of crap? How about, ' There are 171,476 words in the english language, you cannot use these 100 words as we have a narrow exception to your freedom of speech. thats only
You know who I blame for this? YOU(me). When was the last time any of us rioted in the streets to stop this kind of BS? been a while huh? wonder why the Gov. can pass anything they like on a whim? The only people they answer to is themselves.
yeah im anonymous, dont need any door knockers this afternoon if you know what I mean. and if your clueless, I dont mean mormons, jahova's, or the schwanz man.
What if I put $1 million in suitcase, and the TSA found it without specifically screening for it?
And there is nothing the government hates more than anonymity. Can't tax it, track it and control it unless it is electronic, and traceable. That is why they hate cash so much. The only possible reason for economic anonymity is nefarious. You must be using it to avoid taxation or buy or sell something the government doesn't think you should have or fund terrorists. Cash must be stamped out.
"...screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes, not to help police enforce other laws."
Hmm. Does this means it's ok now to carry my blow in my pocket when I fly home to visit the folks during Xmas? I'm tired of carrying it...up there.
No, it's not an exception to the Fourth Amendment. It's only an interpretation that looking for guns and explosives when people board a plane does not constitute an "unreasonable search and seizure", but looking for anything else is "unreasonable".
TSA can file a criminal complaint (just like you and me) but they can not formally charge anyone.
Their internal directives are their internal directives, they are not 'laws' and can not be enforced in
courts more than any other corporations internal directives and policies. And as such you can go
to jail following them, something the individual TSA employee will want to make sure they don't
walk into these traps as TSA sure does not finance the legal expenses of their employees.
My first impression was it was silly and wrong-headed for TSA screeners to be setting themselves up as police proxies - and I do, mostly, still feel that way. But I would certainly want them to notify police under certain circumstances that aren't related to their screening duties. For example, if there was an abducted child for which they had a photo, and a child who looked like that went through the security line, I'd want them to inform the police that someone resembling the kid was boarding a flight - I wouldn't want them to take any additional steps, however.
Basically with regards to police matters they shouldn't do anything a private citizen wouldn't be expected to do in a similar situation.
#DeleteChrome
'[Ben Wizner, a staff lawyer for the ACLU, said] screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes, not to help police enforce other laws.'
So, how is this any different from:
Police get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep dangerous weapons and illegal drugs off streets/school surroundings/public parks/college campuses/subways/high rise buildings/etc.
Just wondering.
The system basically worked here, the offended party was able to use the system to address his grievance. Let's not forget that for all our bluster about liberty and freedom there are some places where a real politically-motivated detainment could have meant death or worse.
Three cheers for Steve Bierfeldt! Most people are sheep, and wouldn't even think of standing up to authority like this. Of those who aren't sheep, very few would do it despite the inconvenience of missing your flight and the implicit threat of going to jail in a country that no longer thinks it's necessary to give people trials. Listen to the audio he recorded on his iPhone. The TSA guys are cussing at him, and then you hear a loud noise that sounds like someone pounding on a desk. You can hear the stress in Bierfeldt's voice, but he's not backing down just because it's a psychologically intimidating situation. I consider Steve Bierfeldt to be a hero.
Find free books.
The next Republican president will expand TSA's authority to search for any and all contraband. To think they're going to limit themselves is ludicrous. Big Brother never says, "I don't want to look."
The new rules, issued in September and October, tell officers "screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security"
Does this mean they can no longer go through your computer files?
The only office you consider voting for, then backed down, was for the federal office of president?
You did not vote for your federal level house rep or senators, or any state/county/city level offices?
Some white guy in a wig, now long dead, once said: "We do not have a government of the majority. We have a government of the majority who choose to participate."
...is an idiot.^^
Because now, suddenly money is an "unsafe material" (could be fake, could be to pay "terrorists", could be a bomb inside, "I'm just asking questions."(TM)*),
and therefore it is "by definition reasonable".
Who are those people who think they could stop criminals that don't care for the rules of society (laws), by creating yet another law? Are they drunk?
On the other hand... who said they actually want to stop them...? ^^
___
* Trademark of FOX News.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Are the best TV produced, and Yes Minister should be compulsory viewing for all Commanders in Chief
Cash has the problem of being a bearer note, meaning whoever possess it is the person who gets to use it. That means that it is very prone to being taken by thugs. Maybe thugs in uniform under the cover of law, or more likely just random thugs willing to do as they please. Once taken, it is extremely hard to get back. In a foreign country, this is even more true.
Credit cards are much safer because you are, by law, not responsible for charges you didn't make. There's also the matter of possession. With cash, it has been taken from you so you have to find who possess it (if they still do) and you are then claiming it is yours. You have to convince law enforcement or the courts that it is yours and you should get it back. With a credit card, nothing has been taken. You are simply disputing that you owe a given amount of money. If push comes to shove, they have to take you to court to try and get it.
I'm not saying carrying some cash doesn't make sense when traveling, you do run in to places that don't take a card (though not so many these days), but cards are far safer.
This is not to say credit cards aren't something you have to use responsibly and look after, however when used right they are an excellent security measure for your money.
Don't worry, it's ok, they'll put RFID chips in all our cash soon enough.
Wouldn't we want the TSA to infringe every possible civil liberty, so that we could sue to overturn the rules?
Wait - it gets better. Wouldn't we want to LOSE all the lawsuits, so we could win on appeal and set binding precedent?
Short of that, I think "TSA changes policy" is a pretty good outcome.
MANY of us notice the trend. Many see the futility as well.
Sure, with 2 corporate approved candidates to choose from the situation is quite controlled and might not progress; however, voting for the step backward does not do any good. Well, other than messing things up and motivating the public to take 1 step forward after 2 steps backward. In bush's case, it was more like 10 steps backward that can not be undone with the way things are... Obama sold the hope of maybe 12 steps forward but if lucky, will only deliver 8 at best.
That having been said, it is simply not possible to undo 8 years of total fuck ups that were purposely planned to be entrenched so they couldn't be removed in a timely fashion. Its silly to expect that in less than 8 years; and naive to expect him want to remove it all. They can call him an extreme Liberal all they want; won't sucker me, he is a pragmatist; which means his leanings don't have much impact; extreme or not.
Its not a matter of EARNING your vote; grow up! This is the real world! Choose the best answer, even if you are not exited about the available options. I'm sick of wimps who cant make a tough decision. You're walking out on the exam; you will always fail. Hell, most the propaganda lacks substance because they only need to FUD the other side! If they are any good, you should have doubts about anybody or they didn't earn those millions.
I almost voted McCain because a depression might have been boost needed to take major steps forward in 2012. That is about as much hope as I give this dying republic (the democracy is functionally dead.) McCain was bad and Palin was an INSULT. Made me wonder if the race wasn't rigged for Obama.
A slow crash landing is more likely to raise complacency above the threshold of progress or even get us stepping backwards again. This is what the establishment wants; gradual long term decline the public can adjust to without noticing enough to take action.
What the public must DEMAND is a working voting system with a heavily regulated campaign funding system; otherwise the choices will be poor. It'll take a TON of political pressure to fix this.
Our government and financial institutions have been making a concerted effort to eliminate cash from from our everyday use for a long time now. After all cash is to hard to track. In GOD we trust but you better have a receipt.
Some people are confused about what's defined as a liquid or gel, Baird said. "If you can pour it, pump it, squeeze it, spread it, smear it, spray it or spill it, it's considered a liquid or gel."
According to this, then, the heart, brain, and liver are liquids?
Furthermore, don't people contain more than 3Oz of expl...Fluids?
Seizing up on ca $4300 as "large amounts" of cash??! Jeez, that is worse than the airports in some murderous 3rd world dictatorships I've been in, that like to grab $$$. Oh, yeah, I forgot, we're the biggest banana ("republic").
With credit cards and banks becoming so unreasonable, this type of cash restriction is dangerous to the economic recovery, freezing or jeopardizing a most vulnerable segment of the population.
Cash may be close to anonymous (it's not; it can be traced in various ways, it's just more effort than it's worth for small amounts) but you're certainly wrong that governments hate it. Cash is backed by the government. Every time you accept it, you are making a small investment in the government's reputation. By exchanging something of real value (e.g. food) for cash, you are saying 'I trust the government's guarantee that this money can be exchanged for something of value'. This acceptance is the main reason that governments have power. This is one of the reason why groups like the Mafia prefer trade in favours, backed by their organisation, rather than money backed by a government. The other is that it's even harder to trace (and tax) informal exchanges.
If you mow my lawn and I fix your computer then, under most tax laws, we are both liable to pay tax on the equivalent monetary value of the payment we received (i.e. you pay tax on the value of having your computer fixed, I pay tax on the value of having my lawn mowed) but proving that these services were performed as part of a trade is almost impossible and certainly neither of us would think to declare them on our tax returns. We would both be committing tax evasion by not doing so, but it is effectively impossible to prove.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
http://www.coolforsale.com/ Best quality, Best reputation , Best services Our commitment, customer is God. Quality is our Dignity; Service is our Lift. Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products . Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing! Welcome to come next time ! Thank you! Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal Thanks
I want to know why the TSA agents and the police are not fired.
Listen to the audio. They're idiots. "I don't have to let you go through MY checkpoint."
What a bunch of jerks.
If they happen to see some Weed in a passenger's bag, or some narcotics in their checked luggage, they have to ignore it and let them through now?
It doesn't pose any danger to aircraft security.
This is how -- you get more freedoms only by giving the money out, doh.
Not by trying to keep them from taking it and your rights.
Eg, a bribe, by any other name. Like the old joke, where the guy asks the hot chick if she'd sleep with him for a million. She says yes. Then he asks if she'd do it for 20 bucks, and she gets insulted, saying "what do you think I am".
The answer for those who haven't heard this one (has anyone not?) is, we've determined what you are, now we're haggling price.
I think you can work out for yourself how this applies in various situations.
Once it's OK, it's only relative -- you have to draw the line in another domain for it to mean diddly.
The decision sounds pretty vague. What is unsafe? I'd argue that water bottles and any other non-flammable substance is safe. Lighters are fairly safe. It seems like this doesn't help much, and things remain extraordinarily subjective. /cell phones are always unsafe, though: http://www.urinalgum.com/?p=112
I once was traveling with someone who walked through the checkpoint carrying a full 1 liter bottle in his hand. The TSA people didn't even notice.
That must be why they keep printing it.