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.'"

20 of 285 comments (clear)

  1. Maybe it's just me by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Personally, I'd have rather have a legal precedent set VS a rule that can be changed back.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Maybe it's just me by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why do you think the rules were changed in the first place? The system works as follows: Now those rules are changed to avoid a precedent. Then we wait 'til the waves settle and use the time to think up a more bulletproof version, including terrorists, pedophiles and ... well, whatever other boogeyman shows up in the meantime. Then anyone protesting or even arguing against it is vilified.

      You didn't get the memo?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Maybe it's just me by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd have rather have a legal precedent set VS a rule that can be changed back.

      I hear you, but let's not forget that the supreme court has a very spotty record when it comes to enforcing the bill of rights. I'm not sure I'd like to roll the dice on them upholding the fourth or fifth amendment.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  2. Re:In other news... by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...people with large sums of money have more freedoms than people who don't.

    He had a large sum of money on him, and as a result was detained for hours and strip-searched, as well as being accused of being a terrorist and denied access to a lawyer or charged with any crime. Meanwhile, the guy who only had $15 and a cracker in his pocket was able to get on the plane. Tell me again how the guy with the money had more freedoms in this case?

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  3. $4500 a "large sum of money" for travel? by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Cash is the anonymous proxy for economic networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Also: by pete-classic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This seems to be another exemption from President Obama's promise of transparency in government. In fact, I'm not sure I'm able to distinguish his policies from his predecessor's.

    -Peter

  6. Re:Also: by maxume · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you think his ability to make changes is so great that he could have changed everything by now, you are a damn fool. If you vote as if politicians will quickly achieve all of their stated goals regardless of the opposition they may face, you are poison.

    (I voted for Obama, but mostly because he wasn't McCain-Palin, not because I thought he was going to be so different than his predecessors)

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  7. Interpretation, not exception by mangu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can actually get 'narrow exceptions' to the fundamental rights?

    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".

     

  8. Re:Also: by palegray.net · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sounds like it's time to submit a FOIA request.

  9. Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath by BitHive · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath by QuantumRiff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, the system didn't fully work. The TSA changed its "internal policies".. That is much different than a legal precedent, and of course, they can be changed right back, in a month. A person violating "internal policies" might get "disciplined" which is a long way from what's going to happen to someone for willfuly violating your rights. (And really, some of those minimum wage power tripping ego's really do need to get knocked back a few notches.) Also, if I'm not mistaken, pretty much all of the airports use Contractors to actually hire the agents. I'm not sure exactly how much training the employees get, since that would cut into the companies profits...

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    2. Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath by bcrowell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      Yes, but to me the real point to keep in mind is that since 9/11, we've been on the slippery slope toward becoming one of those bad places you're describing. And let's also remember that the whole reason Guantanamo exists is so that some parties will not be able to use the system to address their grievances.

      I have a recurring alert in my calendar to donate $100 every July 1 to the ACLU, PO box 96265, Washington, DC 20090-6265. I hope everyone here who's posting about what a great victory this was will do something similar. (Note that contributions to the ACLU are not tax-deductible because they use more than a certain % of their money for lobbying.)

      What I really love about the ACLU is that even though they're basically a bunch of liberal Democrats, they take cases strictly on what they perceive as the case's legal importance for civil liberties. Most people associated with the ACLU probably think Ron Paul is the antichrist, but they took this case because it was a good, important case.

  10. Re:In other news... by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, if the guy with a cracker had a bottle of soda instead, the roles would have been reversed but he wouldn't be released with a change of rules to take home.

    More often than not, that bottle of soda gets chucked into a 30 gallon garbage bin sitting next to the security screeners.
    Which tells you how dangerous they really think it is.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  11. three cheers for Steve Bierfeldt by bcrowell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:Also: by LordNimon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do you know that there are more than two sides? You could have voted for any of the dozens of other individuals/parties running for President. I voted for the Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr.

    --
    And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
    To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
  13. did not vote at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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."

  14. Re:Also: by jamstar7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I kind of wish McCain of 2000 was running in the last election instead of McCain of 2008.

    He didn't get the nod in '00 because he wasn't tight with the neocons. Dubya was, so he got the nod.

    Personally, as a Republican, I'd LOVE to get my party away from the neocons.

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  15. Re:Also: by CecilPL · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You need to take a longer term view. Your vote serves to do more than simply help that candidate win that election. It also serves to increase (however slightly) the profile of that candidate, and by extension the party. Every vote that goes to a third party is one that helps further the belief that a third party candidate is viable.

  16. Re:Gray areas by gavron · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Please don't make this "about the children" or "stop the Nazis." It's about the TSA abusing their positions.

    They are not police, have no police powers, and are bullies and dragoons.

    E
    P.S. I'm calling modified Godwin's Law on this.