Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: What's the Best Way To Deal With Roving TSA Teams?

An anonymous reader writes "I live in Boston, and I have noticed the TSA performs random security checks at the Copley T (subway station) and other locations. I routinely travel with a laptop, iPhone, and other gadgetry. What are my rights when asked by one of the TSA agents to 'come over here'? Can I say no and proceed with my private business? What if a police officer says that I 'must go over there and cooperate'? Can I decline or ask for a warrant? Like the majority of the population, I turn into an absolute shrinking violet when pressured by intimidating authority, but I struggle with what I see to be blatant social devolution. Has anybody out there actually responded rationally, without complying? What were your experiences?"

34 of 1,059 comments (clear)

  1. What rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unless I'm mistaken, you don't have rights anymore. If the TSA thinks you're a terrorist based on your evasiveness and defiance they can detain you indefinitely.

  2. Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? by realmolo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the answer to either of those questions is "No", then you better do what they tell you.

    Sure, they're violating your rights. But in the United States, you have no recourse except to go to court. Which will costs LOTS of money. More than you have, probably. And don't forget that the cops and TSA will make your life hell while the case slowly progresses.

    This country is so fucked.

    1. Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? by WastedMeat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Being able to go to court isn't even a guarantee anymore.

    2. Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The freedom to travel freely with out undue restriction is a corner stone to the idea of a free world...

      Per the UN Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

              (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
              (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

      In Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

              (1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
              (2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
              (3) The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
              (4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

      From US code you have: Corfield v. Coryell, and Paul v. Virginia among others.

      If a person can not freely move with in their own country then they may (can) not engaged in other activities seen as being part of a free society. Making a petition of grievance at city hall is once such example. With out freedom of movement I can not be guaranteed that I would be able to make to city hall to file said hypothetical grievance, Then there are rights to life and property. If I'm sick I have a right to seek medical attention at a clinic or hospital of my choosing. With out the ability to freely travel there I can not receive the treatment I need.

      With out the freedom to move, we are forced to stay put. In effect our homes would become a jail. If you can't see that as tyranny then your ether a fool, or a dangerous idiot.

    3. Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? by Synerg1y · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I just can't help thinking, Osama (assuming he's dead) is laughing in his grave so f'in hardddddd right now.

    4. Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? by forkfail · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd say that even the letter isn't.

      Consider this case: let's say there was a law that to acquire food, you needed to submit to a search. That would mean that you get searched, or you starve. Most folks would agree that in this case, the letter is being violated.

      I'd argue that all that's happened here is that the chain has been extended a bit. To ride the train to get to work to get the check to buy the food, you need to submit to a search.

      Also:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      If you look at the text, you'll note that it is actually in direct violation. People are not secure in their persons, and there is no warrants being issued, with our without probable cause, let alone sworn.

      With all this said, it probably doesn't matter. It looks to me that we may have passed the tipping point, and I'm probably a fool for even posting this.....

      --
      Check your premises.
    5. Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seems you don't understand the whole concept of "habeus corpus", people being allowed to go about their affairs without being searched or having their posessions seized, people not having to explain themselves to authority, etc. You know, all those hallmarks of a free society. No, it seems you think people are restricted to only those specific rights that are written down, and even these are modified over time. People must do as they are told, obtain permits and permissions, and be suspect of (insert crime here, but terrorism is vague enough that it will do nicely) if they do not conform. These are the hallmarks of a society of serfs, which is what the US has become in a surprisingly short time, in less than my lifetime in fact. Today there are children born who will never know the freedom I enjoyed only 30 years ago. I'm now glad that I don't live in the US. You have become everything you said the Soviets were.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? by demachina · · Score: 5, Insightful

      TSA VIPR teams are already working the highways in Tennessee for their pilot program, though they are focusing more on trucks and busses as they ease people in to the idea of the pervasive police state.

      The new TSA budget added money for more VIPR teams so they will, no doubt, be extending their reach over time and as their budget allows. They really need to enlist state and local police to be able to afford doing this nationwide, considering the current constraints on the Federal budget.

      It is nearly inevitable that you will eventually not be allowed to move in this country unless you have your papers in order and are not on the DHS "Do Not Travel" (a.k.a. "You Are An Enemy of the State") list, just like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in their heyday. Presumably they will be using the now pervasive freeway traffic cams and license plate recognition, to track the movements of everyone who is on that list, and will encourage to not get in their cars in the first place.

      The introduction of police states in to formerly free countries are often creeping affairs. They chisel away civil liberties slowly so there is no single point in time when everyone realizes they are screwed and revolt en masse. If you do it slowly everyone realizes at a different point in time that they are in a police state. People either revolt one at a time and are crushed, or more typically never revolt at all because no one around them is.

      One ray of sunshine is Joe Lieberman is retiring at the end of 2012. He is the person most responsible for the maddness that is DHS and TSA, but his police state has so much momentum now I doubt it will stop just because its Saint-Just is stepping down.

      --
      @de_machina
  3. Best way... by JockTroll · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... Dress sharply at all times, and keep a business-like posture and demeanour. Playing bully with a peon is safe enough, but harassing an (apparently) wealthy and influent person is a career-destroying move. You don't mess with the Ruling Elite, so might as well camouflage as one.

    --
    Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
  4. Maybe you should be asking the ACLU? by nedlohs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know where they have lawyers and actually might know more than the random crap you'll get here.

  5. Re:just cooperate by kheldan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Pussy.
    Everyone needs to stand up for their civil rights, or no will have any civil rights anymore. The TSA thinks they're above the law, above the Bill of Rights, and they have to be proven wrong. That, and the TSA needs to be dismantled. If they're "expanding" into non-airport-related areas (train stations, bus stations, docks), how long does anyone think it'll be before they start performing traffic stops at random and committing search-and-seizure without a warrant "because they thought you acted/looked/smelled like a terrorist"?

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  6. Re:Well... by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Edmund Burke said all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

    --
    If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
  7. Re:"I do not consent to a search." by ethan0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I do not consent to a search."

    "Why are you detaining "Why are you detaining me?"

    "Am I under arrest?"

    "Am I free to go?"

    that first one is really important and may be overlooked due to hiding in the subject line (I do not understand the tendency of people here to start typing in the subject and then continue in the body)

  8. Re:Here's what you say by sauge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    An officer may not have made an arrest, but the officer still has a right to detain you. Law classes are worth the money - even undergraduate ones. In fact, there should be civil rights classes in these universities. Of course, perhaps they won't like the outcome of students educated in the law....

  9. Hmm by lightknight · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To fight the TSA requires any number of resources in your favor: time, money, influence, or numbers.

    Perhaps the easiest way to fight this particular group is by pulling a SEP -> someone else's problem. Attend a city council meeting, and move that the local Boston Police Department have its budget slashed, reasoning that since the TSA is doing their job, the city no longer needs to pay for benefits that the Boston PD is not providing. 3 possibilities are likely -> 1.) the city council will squash the movement (but doing so will draw attention to your plight, and paint the current politicians as being in bed with the TSA -> not a good place to be when the TSA is chafing potential voters), 2.) the city will cut Boston PD's budget (at which point the Boston PD will have to make a tough choice of pissing off the populace because of a pay cut, or letting it slide), or 3.) the Boston PD will become wise to the situation, and take out a jurisdictional grievance against the TSA (they get to keep their budget, remove some competition, and look like the heroes -> kid gloves from the officers reassigned to the public transit beat, something of a junket for the officers concerned as it may be 'easy' compared to other patrols).

    This is how you handle problems that you do not have the resources to fight properly -> get someone who has the proper resources to do the fighting for you. It helps if you appeal to this person's / group's best interest in a truthful, sincere way (the untruthful / insincere stuff tends to fall apart before a victory).

    And yes, given the Amtrak PD's response to various TSA shenanigans, it has a precedent. And the danger to the Boston PD (or whoever patrolled that beat prior to the TSA) is quite real; you don't want a generation of Bostonians growing up thinking that it takes a guy in tactical gear with a SMG to keep public transportation safe; once they do, the original patrollers will never get that beat back (loss of territory),

    --
    I am John Hurt.
  10. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Edmund Burke said all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

    Yeah but fighting back against police or TSA agents isn't the thing that needs done. The thing to do is to convince our Congressmen that we actually care about civil rights more than protection from terrorists. Fight the stupid laws not the people paid to enforce them

  11. Re:just cooperate by Feyshtey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd rather my son know that I died for a reason than teach him to be a slave coward.

    --
    "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
  12. Vote for Ron Paul. End the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Vote for Ron Paul. End the TSA

  13. Re:Well... by dbet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You assume your elected officials care what people want.

  14. Remarkable how times change by ilotgov · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the 1970s I used to hear stories like that from the Soviet-union and their friends.
    Eastern-Europe immigrants who lived in the communist time might have experience in these matters ask them how best to avoid random searches.

  15. Re:Just keep calm... by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The best part of your linked article:
    "There are notices posted at the entrance to the station that the inspection is in progress."

    Terrorist in Boston: "Well, I guess we should bring our bombs to Downtown Crossing instead of Park St!"

    I mean, the way they're doing this, they're absolutely guaranteeing they won't actually catch a reasonably non-stupid terrorist.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  16. Re:Just keep calm... by Apothem · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dude, it's security theatre at it's best! Clearly they want the terrorists to bring popcorn instead of bombs.

  17. Re:Well... by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is based on the US legal system the way to challenge the Constitutionality of these laws is to break them, and then (after a likely horrible reaming by the justice system) appeal to the Supreme court to try to get it overturned.

    Unless someone stands up to the violation of their civil rights, these things never get tested. Relying on the useless Congress that passed the law in the first place to overturn it is pretty much futile.

  18. Good links, thanks! Re:ACLU's guidance by Fubari · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This great quote puts "terrorisim" into perspective:

    Americans have lived through civil war, economic collapse, a surprise military attack on U.S. territory, dictators and world war on two fronts, and, for 50 years, the threat of nuclear Armageddon. Through all these threats, we mostly stayed true to our values and preserved our freedom. And when we didn’t, it didn’t make us safer and we always came to regret it.

  19. and thats why you cant do shit : by unity100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The thing to do is to convince our Congressmen

    those 'congressmen' do not give zit about what you think. so you cant 'convince' them either. they have been elected there by the monetary backing of private interest groups who are much richer than rest 95% of the population. only they have their ear.

    you have 2 choices at this juncture :

    - be richer than 5% or so of the population, that controls 72% of the wealth. (in contrast you have only 15% - so its impossible - there would be enough who made it that much up till this point if it would work)

    - get rid of the economic system that allows tiny minority of population to command 70-80% of economic wealth.

    - get rid of the current existing political system, in which only those who are extremely rich or have the backing of extremely rich can get elected.

  20. Re:Just keep calm... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Insightful

    [citation needed]

  21. Re:Well... by alexo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Agreed, contacting your elected representatives is the only reasonable way to achieve meaningful change.
    Just like the people did in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain.

  22. Re:Just keep calm... by ziggy_az · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not likely. I despised "W" giving the okey-dokey to invade the persons and privacy of people in the US then and feel betrayed that our current President has done nothing to fix the problem.

    Terrorist: Look at that! 600 people waiting in the security check point line at LAX!!! More than they can fit on any plane!!!
    Terrorist: *BOOM*

    CNN: 100s dead, 100s wounded in LAX bombing.

    See the problem?

    --
    "Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
  23. Re:Just keep calm... by postbigbang · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Civil liberties know no "right" or "left". It's one of the few common causes we have left.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  24. Re:Just keep calm... by ohnocitizen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We are chafing at it and railing against it. OWS is a liberal movement. That said, we are at a bit of a loss when the Republicans are evil, the Democrats are evil, and no one else is standing up.

  25. Re:Just keep calm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The best part of your linked article:
    "There are notices posted at the entrance to the station that the inspection is in progress."

    Terrorist in Boston: "Well, I guess we should bring our bombs to Downtown Crossing instead of Park St!"

    I mean, the way they're doing this, they're absolutely guaranteeing they won't actually catch a reasonably non-stupid terrorist.

    Our government would not pat people down for safety. They are patting people down to scare them and make them feel powerless. They are reinforcing the fact that we do not have rights or control over the situation. The only reason our government would want us to think that they are protecting us is to avoid future liability when something actually does go wrong. That way, they can say "look, look, we were trying to prevent this all along..." Even if they are full of crap.

  26. Re:Vote for Ron Paul. End the TSA by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The same thing Obama did about Gitmo. Issue an executive order, get stonewalled by Congress, realize that being president isn't like being king, and give up.

  27. Re:Just keep calm... by deniable · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Brazilian electricians need to be very careful.

  28. Re:Just keep calm... by sociocapitalist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Security checkpoints aren't to protect normal people. They're to protect the pentagon, white house and financial centers from having planes dropped on them.

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial