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.'"
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!
There's no exception to the Constitution. The wording was imprecise. It's considered reasonable to prevent people from bringing unsafe substances onto planes. So this is a reasonable search.
I think you need to look up the definition of a straw man argument. It is a hypothetical case introduced containing irrelevant points which is easier to argue against than the original. The grandparent's guy was the man TFA is about, while you were talking about a hypothetical person. If anyone is introducing straw men into the argument, it is you.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Most business travel stays within the domain the home currency, so that's irrelevant. And there are more fees than just currency conversion markups.
The law is not that you cannot carry more the $10,000 in or out of the country, but simply that you must declare it to customs when you transport more than $10,000 in and out of the country.
Remember, 50% of people are below average...
When traveling into the US from a foreign country (this obviously does NOT apply to domestic travel, but good to know) 10. How much cash may I bring with me for my trip? There is no limit on the total amount of money or monetary instruments that may be brought into or taken out of the United States. However, if you transport or cause to be transported, more than $10,000 in monetary instruments on any occasion into or out of the United States, or if you receive more than that amount, in behalf of someone else and then transport it, you must file a Customs Form 4790 with U.S. Customs. Failure to comply can result in civil and criminal penalties, including seizure of the currency or monetary instruments. Monetary instruments include U.S. or foreign coins, currency, traveler's checks, money orders, and negotiable instruments or investment securities in bearer form are all considered when determining the total $10,000 reporting requirement.
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.
April 15th, July 4th, and September 12th. But it wasn't really a riot, and the numbers vary based on who is telling the story...
Within the US, yes of course it is. Why wouldn't it be?
Look up how governments use civil forfeiture, and be enlightened.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
The merchant pays a fee for every transaction and there is a minimum charge. In places like Peru this means the merchant would end up paying $1.00 for a $2.13 dinner. For this reason many merchants there charged extra for using a credit card.
The new directives don't affect a situation where a TSA officer, in the performance of a regular screening, comes across evidence of illegal activity, such as a bag of illicit drugs.
I'd rather you rationally disagree than irrationally agree.
From the very last line of TFA:
"The new directives don't affect a situation where a TSA officer, in the performance of a regular screening, comes across evidence of illegal activity, such as a bag of illicit drugs."
"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned, something that you later rely on in court, anything you do say may be used in evidence."
This caution must again be repeated at the start of every interview. Any interview conducted without this caution is inadmissible as evidence. On being arrested, you must be informed of the crime you are being accused of and read this caution. The only reason for not doing this is if it is not possible (for example, the suspect is unconscious). If the police do not arrest you, then they can not detain you. They may ask you to remain and, if you refuse, then they may (if they have sufficient grounds) arrest you, but if they don't arrest you then you are free to go.
After you have been arrested you are in the charge of the police officer and he is responsible for you until he hands you over to the custody sergeant or to some other officer. He may be required in court to account for your whereabouts and wellbeing until the point where he can prove that someone else took charge of you.
If the situation in the USA is really as different as you describe then perhaps you have greater concerns than the TSA...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News