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 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.
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".
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...
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."
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.