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.'"

15 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 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. Also: by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!
    1. Re:Also: by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you think his ability to make changes is so great that he could have changed everything by now, you are a damn fool.

      I don't think he can change everything, but the TSA is part of the Executive Branch.
      Obama is the Executive. As Executive, he can issue "Executive Orders" telling them what to do.
      Oh wait! He did!

      January 21, 2009
      ...
      All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.

      The presumption of disclosure also means that agencies should take affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from the public. All agencies should use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done by their Government. Disclosure should be timely.

      This isn't a problem with Obama, it's a problem with the TSA and their culture of secrecy.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Also: by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Informative

      This isn't a problem with Obama, it's a problem with the TSA and their culture of secrecy.

      Sure sounds like it. The spokesperson essentially admitted that they would disclose it in response to a FOIA request and Obama's order essentially says that if it would be released under FOIA, then just release it now and skip the song-and-dance. The TSA complains that it is unfairly maligned, but insisting on the song-and-dance like that is exactly the kind of BS that makes people lose any faith or confidence in the agency that they might have had.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:Also: by mhall119 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Good luck with that

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
  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.

    1. Re:$4500 a "large sum of money" for travel? by BigForbis · · Score: 5, Informative

      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...
  4. Re:In other news... by captjc · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  5. 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.

  6. 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".

     

  7. Re:Ok to carry drugs now? by Bob9113 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "...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.

    Probably not. The quote came from the ACLU, and only refers to the limits of governmental authority established in The United States Constitution. The United States government does not operate within the bounds of that charter.

  8. 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.

  9. Re:Is it now legal to carry large sums of money? by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  10. 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?