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!
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!
...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
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.
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
I dont have to "tell you again" about your straw-man. Its your straw-man, perhaps you should have given it the ability to speak.
This is my straw-man. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My straw-man is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I master my life. My straw-man, without me, is useless. Without my straw-man, I am useless. I must use my straw-man true. My straw-man and myself know that what counts in this flamewar is not the illogic we fire, the noise of our post, nor the sense we make. We know that it is the diversion of the argument that count. My straw-man is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weakness, its strength, and its straw. I will keep my straw-man clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. Before The Flying Spaghetti Monster I swear this creed. My straw-man and myself are the defenders of the internet. We are the masters of our argument. We are the saviors of my ego. So be it, until victory is mine and there is no enemy, but conformity.
Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
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.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yes, the exact curcumstances of the events being duscussed is the straw man.
It's not your completely unsupported claim with no relevance to the events at hand that is the straw man.
Hint: yes in lots of situations wealthy people get away with things that poorer people don't. But carrying money and being wealthy are unrelated.
The homeless looking man carrying $100,000 in a sack is going to have far more issues with the cops than the well dressed man with $80 in his wallet.
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".
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
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...
'[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.
In this case a large sum of money to the TSA was $4,300 in a metal box. We're not talking a suitcase with a million dollars. While I don't carry that much cash, someone carrying that much cash isn't uncommon. Business people may carry that much for one reason or another.
As far as I know only Customs asks people about the amount of money carried by a passenger if you are entering a country. Almost no one asks on domestic flights.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
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!
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.
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 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."
I've never heard of computers being searched on domestic flights. I'm under the impression that that is Customs that performs those searches. So, yes, they will likely continue.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
...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.
I thought that they can search you because flying on a plane is not a constitutional right, and by flying you agree to be searched (within a different set of rules than the 4th amendment).
$ make available
Second Life money earned by whoring out your avatar doesn't count.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If committing an offense unrelated to the security of the aircraft is caught by TSA employees (ie. smuggling heroine or ancient antiquities or whatever), then why not just call the cops? It strikes me that these guys are getting way too big for the britches, and that they have indeed been permitted to expand far beyond any reasonable mandate.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It depends - are you white? If you aren't, kiss that money goodbye unless you can *prove* that it wasn't from selling drugs. After all, it'll be covered in cocaine residue (like any other US currency)...
'Lots of money' as in a few thousands in cash that will trigger a search based on the DEA's rules, and 'lots of money' as in mover and shaker who can easily afford good lawyers if hassled are so very different. Conflating the two does create a strawman, a purely hypothetical entity that you can substitute for real ones to have an easier time arguing your point. The people who travel with too much cash, and the people who make large donations to political campaigns and have their pictures taken with governors and presidents, are two overwhelmingly different groups with almost no overlap. Those of you who insist they belong together as one group, are, quite simply, wrong, and yes, it's a strawman argument to substitute the hypothetical person who has over a thousand in cash as also being the person who has the position and power to fight the TSA, and then claim that's what the original poster meant. Hell, it's practically a textbook example of a strawman attack. The moderations applied to Rookoon are therefore abusive, violations of the mod system, particularly the -1 troll on the above post.
Who is John Cabal?
You're assuming it's hundred dollar bills. In the transcript they say there's a note with the money with the number $4710, and they seem to think there are a lot of bills, so it might be a bunch of 5s, 10s, and 20s - maybe small bills that people donated for the campaign.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
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.
Read the reports he helped arrange after the fact, and watch the video he recorded on his iPhone. It becomes painfully obvious that he intended to get stopped, intended to get hassled, and ultimately intended for this ruling to come down that the TSA has to stop sliding down the slippery slope of fucking with people they search and stick to the real reason they exist - to prevent airplanes from getting hijacked and flown into buildings full of corporate executives, destroying the financial well being of America.
For what it's worth, I wasn't a Ron Paul supporter until I saw this (the guy was working on behalf of Ron Paul) - and now I am. And by 'supporter' I mean I know who he is and I'd vote for him if he ran again.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer