Slashdot Mirror


TSA Orders Searches of Valet Parked Car At Airport

schwit1 writes "Laurie Iacuzza walked to her waiting car at the Greater Rochester International Airport after returning from a trip and that's when she found it — a notice saying her car was inspected after she left for her flight. She said, 'I was furious. They never mentioned it to me when I booked the valet or when I picked up the car or when I dropped it off.' Iacuzza's car was inspected by valet attendants on orders from the TSA."

453 comments

  1. And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Valet parked cars may remain in front of the busy area of the airport for a while before being parked.

    Already-parked cars aren't near the airport.

    If you're going to park a car full of explosives, you can either create a small crater in a car park, or you will go for the airport - so cars that are left outside are checked.

    Yes, people who are parking the cars should be informed beforehand. That way they can choose to park themselves and make their own way to the terminal building if they don't want their car searched.

    1. Re:And the story is...? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is when they damage your car they will deny it and you will get nothing.

      If they don't just steal everything inside the car as well.

    2. Re:And the story is...? by noh8rz9 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      the AC's analogy fials because you could just as easily do such an act with just stopping yoru car at the airport. this whole thing is very violating because wehn you use a valet you trust that they won't mess with your stuff. if they can't do that the whole valet thing goes away. i disagree with harrier and that the problem isn't when they damage it, the damage is the breach of trust.

      --
      let's have a conversation! let me know what you think.
    3. Re:And the story is...? by Chrisq · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Valet parked cars may remain in front of the busy area of the airport for a while before being parked.

      Already-parked cars aren't near the airport.

      On the other hand the muzzies just try to drive through the terminal door.

    4. Re:And the story is...? by LouTheTroll · · Score: 5, Informative

      Living in Rochester, I actually caught this on a local news station and there was a lot more information. The concern (and perhaps the story) isn't so much the searching (as their rational is that those vehicles are often parked at the entrance and exit lanes blah blah blah) but that the searching is being done by the valets instead of TSA or law enforcement. These individuals (at the moment) are not trained and have no oversight. So when the thefts and such start occurring, you have zero recourse and absolutely no hope of resolution. The point being that we have can assume some level of trust with TSA and law enforcement as they have oversight and procedures to reduce these type of theft events but there's nothing in place with this valet program in Rochester atm. (And please don't flame me about assume a level of trust with the TSA and law enforcement, I'm just trying to provide more information and some context.)

    5. Re:And the story is...? by bickerdyke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And that's different from what happens to you luggage in WHAT way ??

      May I remind you that you are not allowed to use locks that are not easy to open (read. useless) on your suitcase?

      --
      bickerdyke
    6. Re:And the story is...? by snookerdoodle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They can do that already. Without giving you notice. Without the TSA telling them to do anything.

      The news isn't that valets have access to your car. The news is that the TSA is having them search it.

    7. Re:And the story is...? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The story is ... that the current government is, in theory, authorized by the People, under certain conditions. One of those conditions is specified in the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution:

      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.

      The current group of people calling themselves that government (is it really?) has written some stuff down called the USAPATRIOT ACT which says that this condition is no longer relevant. "So, then," the logician asks, "what authorizes that government?" Mao says it's the willingness to aggressively shoot people in the head, which decent people decline to do.

      This may all be for the best, ultimately, though. Carlin's hyperbole has a sound basis. Most people today don't feel that they have to fight for their liberty - they think there's a system in place to protect it. As these things become more common, they may finally realize that it's all a rouse to fleece them of their property, while denying their modern hybrid serf/helot/slave status. Unfortunately, it's going to have to get much uglier before they come to that realization. It'll happen eventually and it won't be pretty. But hopefully, society takes the next step at that point and evolves a better replacement system.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:And the story is...? by SJHillman · · Score: 2

      96.5 interviewed the guy that broke the news story this morning, and one of their big questions was "Do the valets know what the hell to even look for?" and "What would happen if I left a copy of the Koran on the dash or papers written in Arabic on the seat?".

      I don't oppose them giving a quick glance around the interior of the car (you did give them permission to get inside) or underneath it, but opening the trunk is going too far in my opinion.

    9. Re:And the story is...? by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is not much different. Though people do expect it to be, since they often leave last minute valuables locked in the trunk of their cars.

      You can actually prevent those sorts of thefts by use of a gun, not by pointing it at the TSA, but by checking a firearm. Lots of photographers do this to protect their equipment. You can just buy an old useless firearm for pennies at a gun show, weld it up to make it non-functional and then check it as a firearm and place your valuables in the same storage device.

      This is of course not going to work with international travel.

    10. Re:And the story is...? by Jaysyn · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you are going to be a bigot why not just use the preferred bigot Sand N-word nomenclature?

      Why be a bigot and then water down your hate?

      Because he dislikes Muslims & not Arabs?

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    11. Re:And the story is...? by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > And that's different from what happens to you luggage in WHAT way ??

      Your car isn't being packed into a pressurized metal cylinder that will be flying through the air with thousands of gallons of jet fuel and hundreds of people on board.

      There isn't even the pretense of a public safety issue with a car parked at the airport.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    12. Re:And the story is...? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Funny

      Living in Rochester, I actually caught this on a local news station and there was a lot more information. The concern... [is] that the searching is being done by the valets instead of TSA or law enforcement. These individuals (at the moment) are not trained and have no oversight.

      Wait, I thought you said the TSA wasn't doing the searches...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    13. Re:And the story is...? by RMingin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Because "sand n***er" is an American slur, and the GP appears to be of UK origin, where terms like "Paki" or "Muzzie" are the preferred slurs?

      --
      The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
    14. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      underneath it, but opening the trunk is going too far in my opinion.

      If that's all you object to, then take the time to bring your car's "valet key" which is coded to prevent them from using it to open the trunk.

    15. Re:And the story is...? by swb · · Score: 1

      I hate to get flagged by the NSA for some kind of conspiracy charge, but it's not a very complicated tactical challenge to figure out how to use a car to damage at the airport without using the valet service.

      If you're just looking for a place to have an explosion, every airport I've ever been to allows you to drive right up to the terminal building. Even better is that these areas are designed on purpose to allow for large vehicles to drive up there, unlike the parking area valets use.

      So maximum damage is likely to come from a rogue minibus (the kind that handle shuttles to rental cars or hotels) or a large passenger van at the front of the terminal, not in the valet area.

      The idea that the valet would be useful for damage is probably only unique to some airports where the valet parking area is in an underground lot underneath some sensitive area, although I think most of those places have so much steel reinforced concrete that a car just can't carry enough hidden explosives to do any damage.

      Now, the valet may be an excellent place to park a car with something secret and non-explosive, like cash or drugs. It allows the car to sit fairly securely for days and for someone to come in and claim the car with little more than a valet ticket and gain plausible deniability by having a boarding pass for a flight that just landed (obviously they didn't park the car).

    16. Re:And the story is...? by Imagix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      weld it up to make it non-functional

      Be careful what you advise... up in Canada this would actually make it _more_ illegal (oddly enough). By welding it so it is non-functional, that changes the class of firearm from Non-restricted (loosely: rifles) or Restricted (loosely: handguns) to Prohibited (it's now a replica firearm....). Be sure to consult appropriate legal advice before attempting this stunt.

    17. Re:And the story is...? by LouTheTroll · · Score: 1

      Sorry for being clear. "These individuals" refers to the valets, not the TSA.

    18. Re:And the story is...? by h4rr4r · · Score: 0

      In my experience this type believes those two are interchangeable. They also tend to use that term for all folks of Middle Eastern or North African heritage and not just Arabs. This is likely because they are unaware other such groups exist. Bigotry and ignorance seem to be highly correlated.

    19. Re:And the story is...? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      And that's different from what happens to you luggage in WHAT way ?? May I remind you that you are not allowed to use locks that are not easy to open (read. useless) on your suitcase?

      My car is not being loaded into the cargo hold of the aircraft.

      As for locks, I could use a suitcase made of 1/4" thick steel plate, weld the damned thing shut and encase it in 2' of concrete if I choose to do so. If it's not going onto an aircraft, I can lock it however I want.

      (As an aside, you CAN use locks that are not easy to open, but that may prevent them from being loaded onto the aircraft, or being loaded without the lock being damaged)

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    20. Re:And the story is...? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Funny

      Which is why I advised against international travel.

      Also I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on slashdot, if you want legal counsel go pay your own bloodsucker. Before attempting this stunt besure to consult with your lawyer, the TSA, DHS, all local law enforcement, a Rabbi, a Priest and a duck.

    21. Re:And the story is...? by LouTheTroll · · Score: 2

      Oh this might very well have been instigated by the Airport and not the TSA. We have a history of craziness here. See this recap of a Director driving drunk in Airport vehicles and another spending Airport funds on cigars and strippers: http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/msg48963.html

    22. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      weld it up to make it non-functional

      Be careful what you advise... up in Canada this would actually make it _more_ illegal (oddly enough). By welding it so it is non-functional, that changes the class of firearm from Non-restricted (loosely: rifles) or Restricted (loosely: handguns) to Prohibited (it's now a replica firearm....). Be sure to consult appropriate legal advice before attempting this stunt.

      Huh? Can you explain this??

    23. Re:And the story is...? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1, Informative

      Sorry, I appear to not be aware of the ethnic slurs used in the UK. This is an American site after all.

    24. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, the problem is the fourth amendment they are ignoring.

    25. Re:And the story is...? by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      These individuals (at the moment) are not trained and have no oversight. So when the thefts and such start occurring, you have zero recourse and absolutely no hope of resolution.

      My suggestion would be an introduction of laws that make theft by anyone authorised to make searches a crime that is punished much more than ordinary theft. Let's say if a police officer with a search warrant enters your house (legally) and steals money from their home, they should be automatically punished a lot harder than a burglar doing the same thing. Same for someone searching luggage at an airport. Lots of one-handed TSA employees on the airport who got caught once; when you're caught twice you lose your job as well.

    26. Re:And the story is...? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      More to the point, what happens if an untrained but well-meaning valet finds a bomb and tries to be a hero?

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    27. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What would happen if I left a copy of the Koran on the dash or papers written in Arabic on the seat?".

      How many people in Rochester can tell the difference between Arabic and Cyrillic (or any other non-latin alphabet) anyway? I mean, Slashdot can't, so....

    28. Re:And the story is...? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 3, Informative

      They can do that already.

      Yes, they can. But if they access the locked compartments and I haven't given them permission, that's illegal.

      Capability and legality are not always interchangeable.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    29. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you are going to be a bigot why not just use the preferred bigot Sand N-word nomenclature?

      You mean dune coon?

    30. Re:And the story is...? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Yea, no shit. Thanks, Captain Obvious, almost didn't recognize you without the mask and cape.

      Sorry for having a sense of humor (oh, wait, no - I'm not sorry at all)

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    31. Re:And the story is...? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      My suggestion would be an introduction of laws that make theft by anyone authorised to make searches a crime that is punished much more than ordinary theft.

      That already exists:
      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    32. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I'll have you know, us racists are sick and tired of your prejudices against us.

    33. Re:And the story is...? by LouTheTroll · · Score: 1

      Ha... sorry for "NOT" being clear... (I so hate mornings)

    34. Re:And the story is...? by RMingin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hey, nobody's perfect! I have a link here somewhere...

      Ah, there we go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs

      --
      The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
    35. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I appear to not be aware of the ethnic slurs used in the UK. This is an American site after all.

      Nicely done. Accuse him of being a bigot with a thinly veiled critique his mis-use of stereotypes, and then hide behind "this internet is for americans!" You get my gold star hypocrite of the day award.

    36. Re:And the story is...? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Even easier, use the airport provided shuttle and pack your explosives in your suitcases. Just bring 5 or 6 really big ones. You don't even need a ticket to ride the airport shuttle.

      Note to the NSA: I would not do this, I detest terrorism more than I detest the stupid methods use to try to stop it.

    37. Re:And the story is...? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Huh? Can you explain this??

      Politicians.

      What else do you need to know?

      As I understand it, a non-firing replica Uzi is illegal here, but you can buy a full-auto metal Uzi air-gun from a store over the counter and fire BBs to your heart's content.

    38. Re:And the story is...? by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      In my experience this type believes those two are interchangeable. They also tend to use that term for all folks of Middle Eastern or North African heritage and not just Arabs. This is likely because they are unaware other such groups exist. Bigotry and ignorance seem to be highly correlated.

      Don't be rediculous. Anyone who reads about Islamic terrorism will be aware of the many white muslim terrorist. If anything they are to be despised more. At least those from Islamic cultures have the excuse that they are abused and brutalised as kids, taught that hatred and murder is good, and that non-muslims are evil.

    39. Re:And the story is...? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      So your point is that my suitcase won't be subject to searching if I'm not taking it with me on a plane?

      Well, if you want to keep your car safe from searching, don't take it to the airport.

      That's pretty much the same logic. For the sake of the argument, I don't see why an airport should be a less secure zone than a plane.

      --
      bickerdyke
    40. Re:And the story is...? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Read the slashdot FAQ.
      The internet is for everyone, even bigots. Slashdot however is an American site.

    41. Re:And the story is...? by voidptr · · Score: 1

      It's also not going to work flying in and out of New York, where handguns are prohibited for non-residents, and attempting to check it per the FAA's regulations will get you arrested for violating NYS law.

      --
      This .sig for unofficial government use only. Official use subject to $500 fine.
    42. Re:And the story is...? by bickerdyke · · Score: 2

      If you have never heard of car bombs, you should start watching international news. Or remember Oklahoma city. Blowing up that car pretty much effected safety for those people inside the building.

      --
      bickerdyke
    43. Re:And the story is...? by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      underneath it, but opening the trunk is going too far in my opinion.

      If that's all you object to, then take the time to bring your car's "valet key" which is coded to prevent them from using it to open the trunk.

      That, or just drive the Range Rover when you go to the airport. Come on, how many first world problems do we need?

    44. Re:And the story is...? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      "this type"?? Who's stereotyping here?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    45. Re:And the story is...? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      How far around the airport? Or should it be the whole flight path of the plane?

    46. Re:And the story is...? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      There isn't even the pretense of a public safety issue with a car parked at the airport.

      Nothing like a car bomb then?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    47. Re:And the story is...? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      I am not suggesting the use of a handgun. Not all firearms are handguns. Buy an old rusty mosin.

    48. Re:And the story is...? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      9-11 wasn't a car bomb. Why are we trying to stop every possible bad thing? We weren't doing this before 9-11.

      But for fun, how many car bombs have been detonated or even attempted to be detonated in the US at an airport valet parking lot? I'm guessing less than 2 and likely zero.

      Lets stop actual threats and not people just fishing for something to justify their jobs.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    49. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is? I've lived in America all my life and this is the first time I have ever come across that term.

    50. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry for having a sense of humor (oh, wait, no - I'm not sorry at all)

      So you are sorry, just unremorseful.

    51. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      underneath it, but opening the trunk is going too far in my opinion.

      If that's all you object to, then take the time to bring your car's "valet key" which is coded to prevent them from using it to open the trunk.

      That, or just drive the Range Rover when you go to the airport. Come on, how many first world problems do we need?

      That would be a little embarrassing, driving to the airport in the Range Rover like some sort of commoner. Bah!

    52. Re:And the story is...? by Sigmon · · Score: 1

      A replica? Uh... That just doesn't make any sense to me. But, then, there are a lot of laws here and there that don't make any sense.

      So, does that mean a handgun with, say, the hammer spring removed (or broken) is considered a replica and therefore illegal? Seems like that's one of those laws that would be easy to circumvent and difficult or impossible to enforce.

    53. Re:And the story is...? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      To be fair, buying cigars and strippers is probably just as effective at preventing terrorism as having valets search the cars they're parking.

    54. Re:And the story is...? by Zirbert · · Score: 5, Informative

      in Canada this would actually make it _more_ illegal (oddly enough). By welding it so it is non-functional, that changes the class of firearm from Non-restricted (loosely: rifles) or Restricted (loosely: handguns) to Prohibited (it's now a replica firearm....). Be sure to consult appropriate legal advice before attempting this stunt.

      Under Canadian law, deactivated firearms (i.e., those welded up to be non-functional) are a separate legal category from replica firearms. Replica firearms are prohibited devices, deactivated firearms are chunks of metal with no legal status. They have very different legal consequences, despite being indistinguishable without close physical examination (which most police officers will not be trained or interested enough to do).

      This makes no sense whatsoever, but is how Canada's firearms laws actually work.

      Verification sources: Canada's Firearms Act and the Canadian Firearm's Program's call centre (1-800-731-4000 from Canada and the U.S.).

    55. Re:And the story is...? by h4rr4r · · Score: 0

      Oh noes I might have offended a bigot. Dear me, what ever shall I do.

    56. Re:And the story is...? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      Too bad these are valet parking attendants who aren't law enforcement officers and aren't subject to to those rules.

    57. Re:And the story is...? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      In which case an evil actor would simply not use a valet. Pull up to the terminal and run from his car, or not. I suppose that depends on the level of dedication/crazy.

    58. Re:And the story is...? by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Whoosh...

    59. Re:And the story is...? by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 2

      FTFY

      Note to the NSA: I would not do this, I detest terrorism more than I detest the terrorism that you use to try to stop it.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    60. Re:And the story is...? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      So you're logic is that cars could contain bombs and we should try and prevent any car from having a bomb at any place more than a few people gather?

      How about school parking lots? Should we be searching every car dropping off kids?

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    61. Re:And the story is...? by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're going to park a car full of explosives, you can either create a small crater in a car park, or you will go for the airport - so cars that are left outside are checked.

      But the airports were rapidly remodeled after 9/11, and have since been built such that a car exploding in the drop off area would only be slightly more lethal than a car exploding in a parking lot. They street is not close to where people are congregated. Some people would be killed who were walking through the doors, but the same is true of the parking lot. The psychological effect is equivalent as well. "Terrorist attack at airport (parking lot)" is going to cause about as much panic among idiots as "Terrorist attack at airport (doors)." The fact that your chances of dying from someone texting and driving on the way TO the airport is many times higher than dying from a car bomb either way won't matter to most.

      TSA has meanwhile set up security to where there are gigantic lines of human bodies before security. A backpack bomb in the line before the nude-scanners is the security risk if there is one. Fortunately, the only ones dumber than TSA are the terrorists, and they don't seem to have figured this out. However, TSA has been creating the gigantic lines for over a decade. Eventually, even the terrorists are going to realize that a small bomb right before security is more likely to "succeed" than trying to gain control of the plane or detonate a car bomb.

      Again, this is still far less dangerous than the drive TO the airport, I'm just annoyed that a line I'm told to wait in "for my safety" does the exact opposite and is wasting an insane amount of tax dollars that could be going towards actual useful things. Such as research, lowering the debt, or really anything else the government spends money on.

    62. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, the locks are just there so the damn thing doesn't accidentally fly open by itself.

    63. Re:And the story is...? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      It might also depend on where the valet parking is, and if it presents a useful opportunity.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    64. Re: And the story is...? by Mabhatter · · Score: 1

      The point is that the LEGAL means of transporting a firearm is that it MUST be locked up and the TSA will only allow special inspections, not the usual thuggies.

      You can't just "show up" obviously, buy if you have tens of thousands of dollars of equipment, filing extra paperwork to ensure its safety makes sense.

      Until the investigate you for transporting guns on a regular basis!

    65. Re:And the story is...? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Where would that be, vs the very useful terminal doors?

      Underground parking I suspect, but then we need to start screening valets to make sure they are not the evil actors.

    66. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never understood the "logic" of some airport security measures. For example, many airports will flip their shit if you stop your car in front of a terminal and there isn't a passenger climbing into or out of your car within ten seconds. "It's a security risk" they say. Do they really believe I have to park my car before I can press a button on a detonator? Are they that stupid truly?

    67. Re:And the story is...? by Holi · · Score: 1

      So can I, but it doesn't make it legal

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    68. Re:And the story is...? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't see why an airport should be a less secure zone than a plane.

      And yet, I and 19 of my "friends" could walk into 5 of the busiest airports in the country on the day before Thanksgiving, each carrying a backpack and two duffel bags filled with explosives and shrapnel, get in line and at a predetermined time, blow ourselves up while waiting in the crowded lines caused by the security circus.

      How many people do you think we could kill/maim in that event?

      Who would prevent me from doing this? They don't check people as they walk into the building. That certainly isn't very secure.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    69. Re:And the story is...? by Holi · · Score: 1

      What would happen if their were a bomb and some Valet got hurt or killed. Why the hell would the TSA tell a civilian to search someone else's car.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    70. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop being such a nigger you damn spic.

    71. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      consult with your lawyer, the TSA, DHS, all local law enforcement, a Rabbi, a Priest and a duck

      ...all of whom may actually be the same entity!

    72. Re:And the story is...? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      So you are telling me I can own and sell firearm look-a-likes in Canada, as long as they used to be functional, but are no longer.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    73. Re:And the story is...? by Deflagro · · Score: 1

      As a kid in Canada, I thought "Paki" was an accepted term for Indian people. That didn't go over well when I moved to a more ethnic city.
      I didn't realize it was a euro slang and not just a generic slang term.

      --
      Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
    74. Re:And the story is...? by Jawnn · · Score: 2

      9-11 wasn't a car bomb. Why are we trying to stop every possible bad thing?

      Yeah, pretty much. Cuz, ya know, the public is a-scared of teh terrorists and we can do anything we want if we add "to prevent terrorism" to the end of it.

    75. Re:And the story is...? by pla · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you have never heard of car bombs, you should start watching international news.

      You can't hide a car bomb big enough to cause serious damage to anything outside the car. Successful attacks against structures have, without exception, used unmarked vans and dark-tinted SUVs for a reason.

      A valet, entirely without conducting a formal search, can instantly tell whether or not a car poses an explosive threat to the airport. The act of helping the passenger get their bags from the trunk and then driving the car to the long-term lot automatically rules out any plausible hiding spots for enough explosives to make it into a WMD or national security issue.

      Not to say, of course, that you couldn't fit enough somewhere in the body of the car to seriously damage the car itself, any occupants, and perhaps break a few windows of nearby cars - The Boston Marathon bombing proved roughly what you can do with a small well-placed bomb; but "Lot Z3" doesn't exactly equal the finish line of a marathon in terms of the number of squishy pink sacks of meat available for embedding shrapnel in.

    76. Re:And the story is...? by Phanatic1a · · Score: 1

      "If you're going to park a car full of explosives, you can either create a small crater in a car park, or you will go for the airport - so cars that are left outside are checked."

      Not quite. What you probably meant to say was that "...cars that are left outside are checked by some minimum-wage monkey whose chief marketable skill is being able to maneuver a car into a parking space."

      If bombs in parked cars were an actual concern, they'd be using trained and skilled personnel in order to search them. You think a parking lot attendant is going to check underneath the car, or under the hood, or in the trunk, or in the wheel wells, or behind the dash, or any of the other places in a car where substantial quantities of explosive can be concealed from view?

        No. Of course not. At best he's going to check under the seats and steal your loose change. This should let intelligent people know that there are two possibilities here:

      1. Bombs in parked cars at short-term valet-parked lots are not a serious security threat.
      2. The TSA is criminally incompetent and that useless titsuck of a government agency should be sequestered with extreme prejudice.

      Note: These are not mutually exclusive possibilities.

    77. Re:And the story is...? by Zordak · · Score: 2

      I don't oppose them giving a quick glance around the interior of the car (you did give them permission to get inside) or underneath it, but opening the trunk is going too far in my opinion.

      I think the concern is that the TSA is deputizing valets to search cars without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion. You gave a valet permission to enter your car to park it, not a TSA agent permission to search it. If a government agent asks permission to enter your car (or house), the answer should always be "no." And as somebody pointed out below, if you happen to have a copy or the Koran in your car, when Sparky reports that to the TSA, they are almost sure to strip the thing down looking for the contraband they just know is there. It's still not illegal to be Muslim in America, but there are lots of people who consider it tantamount to being an admitted terrorist.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    78. Re:And the story is...? by Holi · · Score: 1

      Where sis he say the internet is for Americans. And even Slashdot says it is an American site. You should apologize for calling him a hypocrite.
      But I won't hold my breath, as no one wants to take responsibility for when they are wrong anymore.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    79. Re:And the story is...? by Deflagro · · Score: 1

      That seems like something that is insanely overlooked. It is basically a free ride right into a target area. I guess they don't expect someone's bag bombs to have enough yield for big damage. A well-funded terror cell could make that happen I'm sure.

      --
      Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
    80. Re:And the story is...? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      That's not hyperbole.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    81. Re:And the story is...? by Zordak · · Score: 1

      Except the TSA has apparently deputized them, so they are government actors acting under color of authority.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    82. Re:And the story is...? by Zirbert · · Score: 4, Informative

      So you are telling me I can own and sell firearm look-a-likes in Canada, as long as they used to be functional, but are no longer.

      Yup. As long as it used to be capable of inflicting fatal injuries, it's fine. If it was always harmless, it's verboten.

      Welcome to Canada!

    83. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No reason to be a douche in responding. Your attempt a humor may not have been obvious to everyone.

    84. Re:And the story is...? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

      And that's different from what happens to you luggage in WHAT way ??

      May I remind you that you are not allowed to use locks that are not easy to open (read. useless) on your suitcase?

      Your car isn't going on the plane, so it can't be used to bring down an aircraft.

    85. Re:And the story is...? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      If he suceeeds, he is a hero - no matter how stupid he was or how low his chances. Successfully preventing an attack activates Patriot Shields, rendering the hero off-limits to all criticism from media or political circles.

      If he fails, then he shall be mocked. Assuming anyone can work out from the remains that he had his hand on the wire.

      Though really, the typical car bomb isn't the most sophisticated device and isn't going to include any anti-tamper devices, so anyone with the most basic electronics knowledge can work out how to defuse it by just cutting every wire in sight.

    86. Re:And the story is...? by firex726 · · Score: 1

      Many malls also offer valet parking and are just as busy, should we also search those cars?
      At what level of foot traffic does it require the searching of people and vehicles?

    87. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oklahoma City wasn't a car bomb, it was a truck, loaded with 7,000 pounds of explosives. You couldn't fit that in a car or even a large SUV (and if you could, it'd probably break the axles).

      I guarantee that if you park a truck for any length of time near an airport terminal, somebody will investigate it.

    88. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use a flare gun. Same thing, and cheaper.

    89. Re:And the story is...? by peragrin · · Score: 2

      two points about valet keys.

      Most cars have folding seats which can be opened into the trunk from the inside. second a lot of cars have internal trunk release levers. you can open the trunk from the front seat.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    90. Re:And the story is...? by Matt.Battey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Anybody thought to wonder why the car was searched by the valet service instead of the the TSA itself?

      The very reason is because the contents of your car has long been held protected under the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution {Jay-Z even wrote a song about it, 99 Problems :) }. Where as, common law has set, the yet non-SCOTUS challenged precedent, that private security firms may check your baggage with x-rays and magnetometers (otherwise referred to as non-unreasonable means) when you enter the secured portion of an air-port, to protect the persons and private assets operated there. In no situation, has it ever been shown that the Government of the United States may search the person or materials or vehicle of every individual, unless entering or exiting the country (which falls under export law, under which you would be considered a "smuggler"). Because doing so assumes that there is a reasonable belief that every single person is some how operating in a criminal manner. (BTW: This is also why the NSA search warrants, if challenged would be shown to be invalid.)

    91. Re:And the story is...? by Khyber · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "Successful attacks against structures have, without exception, used unmarked vans and dark-tinted SUVs for a reason."

      Want to know how I know you know jack shit about explosives?

      They used vans and SUVs because of the shit crudeness of their fertilizer+diesel bombs.

      I could take a Smart car packed with C-4 just inside of the frame/body and do way more damage.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    92. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's OK. As I understand it, you can carry an Uzi in fairly close proximity to the President, are banned from carrying a water pistol, and if you simply want to vocally disagree with him, they'll pen you up somewhere down the block.

    93. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luggage is cheap compared to a proper spray job for a new(ish) vehicle.

      Luggage is insures, random damage to you car is not.

      May I remind you, you're a twat.

    94. Re:And the story is...? by sjames · · Score: 2

      More commonly they use a starter pistol which, in spite of being incapable of firing a projectile by design, is classified as a firearm.

    95. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when the thefts and such start occurring, you have zero recourse and absolutely no hope of resolution. The point being that we have can assume some level of trust with TSA and law enforcement as they have oversight and procedures to reduce these type of theft events but there's nothing in place with this valet program in Rochester atm.

      If the valet is going to steal from you, they don't need the TSA to direct them to search the car. They are already in there, driving it around, as part of their regular duty.

      If anything, having the TSA perform the search would only mean that more people are now in your car, increasing the likelihood of a dishonest actor getting access to your stuff.

      Maybe instead of just playing at security theater, the TSA could offer complementary valet parking? I kid, I kid..

    96. Re:And the story is...? by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Want to know how I know you know jack shit about explosives?

      The same way I know you know jack shit about the real world, Mr. Military Demolitions Expert?


      They used vans and SUVs because of the shit crudeness of their fertilizer+diesel bombs.

      They used shitty crude fertilizer+diesel bombs because the average Joe can get fertilizer and diesel (and even then, if you don't run a local farm, good luck getting more than a few pounds of ammonium nitrate).


      I could take a Smart car packed with C-4 just inside of the frame/body and do way more damage.

      No doubt you could! And how, do you suppose, you would obtain that much C4 without raising every red flag in the intelligence community?


      Hey, if the TSA had exactly that information and searched the car based on reasonable suspicion, consider me on their side in this one. But we all know that didn't happen, they just found yet another way to abuse the interface between government and business to give a great big "fuck you" to our 4th amendment rights.

    97. Re:And the story is...? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      That seems like something that is insanely overlooked. It is basically a free ride right into a target area. I guess they don't expect someone's bag bombs to have enough yield for big damage. A well-funded terror cell could make that happen I'm sure.

      Stuff like that has been discussed many times. Terrorists are as much into "theatre" as the TSA. They only score points when they bring down a plane. So they ignore the easier and more obvious targets.

      At least until they don't. After all, until 9/11, the safest way to survive a hijack attempt was to let the hijackers do what they wanted.

    98. Re:And the story is...? by sjames · · Score: 1

      McVeigh used a panel truck. A car wouldn't hold enough ANFO. So perhaps panel trucks should not be valet parked? Or they could use a tram like amusement parks do instead of a valet? I suppose that's a case of security is good but charging for valet parking is better?

    99. Re:And the story is...? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      And the 'valet' key that won't open the trunk? The key lock in the car to stop the trunk from opening is just a cable that can be pried with a screwdriver and pop goes the trunk latch. If you have a lever to pull to open the trunk, odds are it's a cable. If it's electronic, then it's just a button push and I haven't heard of a valet 'mode' to put the car in yet.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    100. Re:And the story is...? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Being from Rochacha, fuck you. But you're point is apt, in that as people have noted, the valets aren't at all trained and ANYTHING unusual would probably make them go "Hey NSA look here!"

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    101. Re:And the story is...? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      Which is why I advised against international travel.

      Traveling within any country isn't international travel. I think you meant "This is of course not going to work outside the USA". I'd also watch out inside the US; I believe California at least may have gun replica laws on the books as well. Of course, if the firearm is registered, then it probably doesn't matter whether it actually functions or not -- it would still fall under "registered firearm" I would think. But you'd have to check local laws everywhere to be sure.

      Remember: you have the right to bear arms, not the right to bear things that resemble arms. THOSE can have all sorts of restrictions on them.

    102. Re:And the story is...? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      But the valet's aren't authorized to do 'searches', just to access and move your vehicle. Now the fun legal gymnastics being trying to prove that the NSA telling them to do something was official 'authorization'.

      Having the NSA outsourcing this crap is a HUGE red flag.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    103. Re:And the story is...? by c · · Score: 1

      So when the thefts and such start occurring, you have zero recourse and absolutely no hope of resolution.

      I've been missing a lot of sleep lately, and maybe this should be obvious, but if valet parking works in Rochester like it does in most of the rest of the world, the driver hands his or her keys to some guy in a fancy vest, gets a piece of paper, the guy in the fancy vest drives away with the car, and the no-longer-a-driver wanders off to do something. At some point in the future, the process reverses and the driver gets his or her keys and car back.

      Sound about right?

      So, I guess my question is how, exactly, does the involvement of the TSA somehow significantly increase the theft risk? Wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that having a bunch of wannabe-law-enforcement people standing around the parking lot might possibly discourage the theft of personal items by parking valets? Don't thieves generally prefer to work when there's a few other people around as possible watching what they're doing?

      I mean, I could believe that the theft rate might increase if the TSA folks were doing the searches themselves (the more people with access to your stuff, the more likely your stuff walks away), but if it's the exact same people who already have unfettered access to everything in your car, I just don't see a theft issue.

      Now, the part about people not trained to look for threats being the ones searching your vehicle is definitely a problem. But theft? I don't see it.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    104. Re:And the story is...? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      After 9/11, there were rules put in place as to the "no park zone" around an airport facility. Some airports near where I live had to abandon sections of parking lot that were inside the zone -- I believe they turned them into green space eventually (so now the bomb gets hidden under a bush instead of inside a car... I guess they have lots of CCTV around the green space).

    105. Re:And the story is...? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually, it could apply. Color is about the capacity you are working under. A Valet isn't allowed to search anything, he's just a private citizen. If he has been granted a legal right to perform the search (presumed since he's been ordered to do it by a 'competent' authority), then he is searching under the color of law. If he is NOT under color of law then his searches are criminal acts in the first place.

    106. Re:And the story is...? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      They can do that already. Without giving you notice. Without the TSA telling them to do anything.

      The news isn't that valets have access to your car. The news is that the TSA is having them search it.

      That's not really news either; the news is that they actually left a note saying they'd done it. That's the bit that surprised me, anyway.

    107. Re:And the story is...? by sjames · · Score: 1

      The usual. He dies, the TSA denies all knowledge and throws him under the bus.

    108. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use a flare gun. Same thing, and cheaper.

      Or a starter's pistol.

    109. Re: And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for the Obamabot viewpoint

    110. Re:And the story is...? by wwphx · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that the best way is to buy a starter's pistol. It can only fire .22 blanks, but it's still classed as a firearm. They're not as expensive as a junk gun and would serve the same purpose for locking up your equipment. They're also pretty darn small.

      --
      When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
    111. Re:And the story is...? by jeffy210 · · Score: 2

      1. It's all security theatre
      2. Enjoy getting arrested for this threat, or hope a canadian woman isn't reading this site and reports you to the cops :-\

      --
      ------
      "And may your days be long upon the earth."
    112. Re:And the story is...? by tehlinux · · Score: 1

      >And that's different from what happens to you [SIC] luggage in WHAT way ??

      You don't (usually) take your car on the plane with you!

      --
      Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
    113. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a dick. There are times to just STFU and this was one of them.

    114. Re:And the story is...? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      some cars have(or used to have) a different key based system. where you have a valet key that starts the car, but doesn't open the locks to trunk or glovebox... a real turning lock, that has nothing to do with the cable release.

      but I suppose in that case the tsa might just as well break it for fun.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    115. Re:And the story is...? by Dynedain · · Score: 1

      Most cars with valet keys have locks where the seat-fold levers are. These locks are not operable by the valet key.

      Likewise the driver-side lever does not work if the car is unlocked or turned on using the valet key. Often to make this simpler there is another lock located by the driver's lever.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    116. Re:And the story is...? by Holi · · Score: 1

      Hell, you would be far more effective then if you actually got on the plane.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    117. Re:And the story is...? by mpoulton · · Score: 1

      Anybody thought to wonder why the car was searched by the valet service instead of the the TSA itself?

      The very reason is because the contents of your car has long been held protected under the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution

      A search by a private individual at the behest of the government is the same as a search by the government. Anyone acting on behalf of the government (whether directly employed by them or not) is bound by the constitutional limitations on government action. Source: IIAL, and I don't have time to look up the cite.

      --
      I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
    118. Re:And the story is...? by fuckface · · Score: 1

      two points about valet keys.

      Most cars have folding seats which can be opened into the trunk from the inside. second a lot of cars have internal trunk release levers. you can open the trunk from the front seat.

      two points about people who have never had a valet key.

      They're oblivious to the fact that a proper valet key can LOCK THE FUCKING SEATS. second there's a switch in the glove box that you lock with a key to turn off the electronic trunk release.

      Car designers are smarter than you. And unlike you, the people that valet park at the airport probably aren't borrowing your ex-roommate's little sister's 3rd generation hand-me-down Saturn.

    119. Re:And the story is...? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Does it matter if your valuables are stolen from something that is supposed to go on a plane?

      And as my car is NOT going to go on a plane, there is at least less incentive for someone to use my suitcase as a drug mule.

      --
      bickerdyke
    120. Re:And the story is...? by nemui-chan · · Score: 1

      Mostly because they are in desperate need to justify their budget. They've never caught a terrorist, so they're trying to catch other people doing illegal things before they get shut down for wasting tax payer dollars.

    121. Re:And the story is...? by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      Makes me wonder. What if somebody rigged something to only go of if and only if the suitcase/car/whatever was fucked around with? It could even have a notice on it like. "If you leave this alone, it will not blow up." Legally, if the thing blows up, whose fault would it be? I know the person setting the thing up would be the one that got sent to Gitmo. But isn't this a bit like "beware of dog" signs on a fence?

    122. Re:And the story is...? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Yes. My car isn't going on a plane. That's why I'm not worried about some winimum wage, no security check baggage handler depositing something in my car that he wants to go across a border.

      --
      bickerdyke
    123. Re:And the story is...? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      You can't hide a car bomb big enough to cause serious damage to anything outside the car.

      And that is why they're worried about exploding suitcases?

      --
      bickerdyke
    124. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fire BBs to your heart's content

      as long as the end of the fire arm is orange

    125. Re:And the story is...? by Kilo+Kilo · · Score: 1

      Loud, scary noises must be tightly regulated.

    126. Re:And the story is...? by capebretonsux · · Score: 1

      At first I thought your comment was in seriousness, and then...

      taught that hatred and murder is good [foxnews.com]

      ...you linked to Fox news.

      Quite funny.

    127. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when the thefts and such start occurring,

      The valets could already steal from your car way before this, so it is interesting that there is an increase in thefts.

      Maybe not that surprising - perhaps the TSA really did train them ;)

    128. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can actually prevent those sorts of thefts by use of a gun, not by pointing it at the TSA, but by checking a firearm. Lots of photographers do this to protect their equipment.

      Just get a starter's pistol used for races. It's a "firearm" in terms of the TSA, but much cheaper.

    129. Re: And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And searching the car solves what? It's already positioned where it's meant to detonate so what will searching it accomplise?

    130. Re:And the story is...? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      How many people do you think we could kill/maim in that event?

      That doesn't even matter. The question is how many people would be terrified. Killing people isn't a goal. It is nothing but a means.

      --
      bickerdyke
    131. Re: And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Similarly, I've noticed recently that some airports have started placing empty bins at the entrance to the security checkpoints.

      The idea is that you empty your water bottles in the bin and refill them beyond security, but what's to stop someone from just mixing their binary explosive there?

      Depending on the time of day, there could be hundreds of people nearby, waiting in line.

    132. Re: And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's terror, you don't have to be effective.

    133. Re:And the story is...? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Good idea, how cheap are they?

      A non-functional mosin can be had for sub $50.

    134. Re:And the story is...? by slew · · Score: 1

      There isn't even the pretense of a public safety issue with a car parked at the airport.

      Perhaps not in the US, but cars at airports have been at issue internationally.
      * Madird
      * Glasgow

    135. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anybody thought to wonder why the car was searched by the valet service instead of the the TSA itself?

      The very reason is because the contents of your car has long been held protected under the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution

      A search by a private individual at the behest of the government is the same as a search by the government. Anyone acting on behalf of the government (whether directly employed by them or not) is bound by the constitutional limitations on government action. Source: IIAL, and I don't have time to look up the cite.

      They're considered a State Actor

    136. Re:And the story is...? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Yes the key wouldn't open the trunk 'lock' but if there's a pull lever in the car to pop open the trunk (with key lock to stop it's operation from a valet key), that usually is a cable that goes back to the trunk latch. Regardless of key that cable is simply under the interior molding that a simple screw driver can move and thus open the trunk latch.

      My 87 civic had that technology. If they've gone to electronic push buttons to open the trunk, see my lack of valet 'mode' to stop trunks from opening.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    137. Re:And the story is...? by tibit · · Score: 1

      Shaped charges that eject metal hot enough to penetrate a meter or two of concrete, at supersonic speeds, don't think much of those rapid remodel jobs.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    138. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who would prevent me from doing this?.

      Chuck Norris!

    139. Re:And the story is...? by Pogue+Mahone · · Score: 1

      ...or a footgun :-)

      --
      Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
    140. Re:And the story is...? by tibit · · Score: 1

      How the heck is a baggage check with a magnetometer useful? A check of a person I understand, but a check of baggage?

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    141. Re:And the story is...? by Kilo+Kilo · · Score: 1

      They could just walk right in. This is another case of the TSA focusing on something stupid instead of a plausible threat.

    142. Re:And the story is...? by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      And that's different from what happens to you luggage in WHAT way ??

      It costs a bit more to repair my car than to replace my luggage.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    143. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked with explosives in the military. The person you are replying to is an idiot who has watched too many movies.

    144. Re:And the story is...? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Assuming you're being serious, terrorists don't want to kill people at security checkpoints. They want the biggest, most spectacular attacks they can get. Airliners are awesome. Marathons less so - but easier.

      Remember that guy who shot a bunch of people at the El Al check-in at LAX? No? Yeah, that's what I thought. Remember that guy who tried to blow up an airliner with a bomb in his shoe? Yeah he's famous.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    145. Re:And the story is...? by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      And yet, I and 19 of my "friends" could walk into 5 of the busiest airports in the country on the day before Thanksgiving, each carrying a backpack and two duffel bags filled with explosives and shrapnel, get in line and at a predetermined time, blow ourselves up while waiting in the crowded lines caused by the security circus.

      Or, for that matter, walk into five different Walmarts in one town on midnight the day after Thanksgiving. Remind me again how many of those have TSA checkpoints set up? Fact of the matter is, we're going to have to accept some level of risk in our lives. The question is one of how much.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    146. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you might be on a list now...

    147. Re:And the story is...? by Tharkkun · · Score: 1

      They can do that already. Without giving you notice. Without the TSA telling them to do anything.

      The news isn't that valets have access to your car. The news is that the TSA is having them search it.

      That's not really news either; the news is that they actually left a note saying they'd done it. That's the bit that surprised me, anyway.

      When your luggage is searched by the TSA they leave notes on it also. It's a courtesy so you don't freak out and think someone illegally ruffled through your belongings.

    148. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wouldn't even need to blow yourself up. It'll take at least a little while for someone to notice the unattended luggage and get the crowd moved somewhere else. In all likelihood there would be plenty of time for you to get away. Also, first responders are going to be worried about helping all the people, not about making sure no one leaves. Airports aren't the most obvious targets for that anyway. There's lost of more crowded events that it will be even easier to leave a bag at unnoticed.

    149. Re:And the story is...? by tibman · · Score: 1

      This was caused by a mid-sized 4 door car. People were walking by it and nobody could tell it was packed with an IED.

      I do agree that a quick examination of the trunk and back seat should be plenty good enough. But do you want that to be the Valet's job? I personally think it's not worth the effort to do any inspection at all. Just wanted to point out how deadly a car could be : )

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    150. Re:And the story is...? by slew · · Score: 1

      two points about valet keys.

      Most cars have folding seats which can be opened into the trunk from the inside. second a lot of cars have internal trunk release levers. you can open the trunk from the front seat.

      I don't know about "most" cars, but two of the cars I own allow you to lock the internal trunk release and the one car that has the fold-down rear seat has a lock as well (not that I ever actually lock them nor the glove compartment). The other car I have is an SUV which of course is open to the trunk from the rear seat making any locks silly... My dad's car has the trunk release button inside the glove compartment door (which is of course lockable).

      I think maybe the old '85 subaru I once owned, had a non-locking trunk release, but since it's long gone, I can't check. It also didn't have the inside-the-boot glow-in-the-dark release mechanism which is now mandatory on new cars to avoid being able to lock people in the trunck (and I know this for a fact, but that is a long story)...

      Of course the cheesy cylinder locks like the kind you find on a glove compartment (or trunk release or fold-down seat) are pretty easily to pick with a skeleton key or a hairpin if a minimum wage valet car-parker working for tips were so inclined which is why I just try to avoid putting any valuables in the car if I valet it.

    151. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      9-11 wasn't a car bomb

      No, but that wasn't the group's first attempt at bringing down the towers. The first attempt was a car bomb in the parking garage under one of the towers.

    152. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thank you. A padded van is waiting for you outside your home and some scary looking dudes will escort you.
      Remember, in space no one can hear you scream.
      NSA bot #2246

    153. Re:And the story is...? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      True, but by doing this it would achieve the same thing that happened on 9/11. Namely, every airport in the nation would be shut down, every airplane grounded and more people living in fear that going to the supermarket might make them a target.

      Then, in response to this, the TSA would be expanded even further to force people to undergo background checks before flying, to get searched before entering the terminals, and other related issues. The government would (somehow) get even more intrusive in our lives, possibly forcing us to verify who we are at all times.

      Thus, we would have to change our ways which is the stated goal of terrorism. Killing people isn't the issue. It's getting people to live in fear and the changes to society that occur as a result of the terrorism until we do what they want.

      Which we are doing quite nicely.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    154. Re:And the story is...? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Do you know how much Semtex you can pack into a school bus?*

      I don't either. And to make sure we never find out, we gotta either ban school buses entirely, or make them park and unload at least 1/4 mile away from their destination.

      Walking is good for kids anyway.

      *By having combined the words "Semtex" and "school bus", my communications are probably now flagged for maximum scrutiny. Yaah me!

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    155. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to park a car full of explosives, you can either create a small crater in a car park, or you will go for the airport - so cars that are left outside are checked.

      The terrorist doesn't need the valet- he'd just park the car where ever he wants, like right in front of the terminal. Why not? Is he really afraid of a parking ticket for the car he's about to blow up???

      Searching cars (valet or not) is useless, like the rest of the TSA.

    156. Re:And the story is...? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      They can do that already. Without giving you notice. Without the TSA telling them to do anything.

      The news isn't that valets have access to your car. The news is that the TSA is having them search it.

      That's not really news either; the news is that they actually left a note saying they'd done it. That's the bit that surprised me, anyway.

      When your luggage is searched by the TSA they leave notes on it also. It's a courtesy so you don't freak out and think someone illegally ruffled through your belongings.

      The times the TSA has searched my luggage they've never left a note; of course, it's possible that it wasn't TSA who did the search, but when my zip strips change color and size during one leg of my flight (large and black to small and orange), I know it's not accidental.

    157. Re:And the story is...? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      The very reason is because the contents of your car has long been held protected under the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution...

      Nope. See US v. Carroll (1925), and more broadly, the evolution of the motor vehicle exception.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    158. Re:And the story is...? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      And we didn't start checking every single car near a group of people for bombs after that. Can't imagine why...except that it isn't a useful check since the haystack of cars without a bomb is so fucking big as to make finding the needle through searching every strand of hay a useless endeavor.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    159. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to be dense here, but can you explain why packing a firearm along with other valuables would prevent theft of the other valuables? I don't quite follow the logic. Thanks.

    160. Re:And the story is...? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Valet parked cars may remain in front of the busy area of the airport for a while before being parked.

      So do taxis and everybody dropping off or loading. Yet we aren't searching them...

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    161. Re:And the story is...? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      They are operable with a screwdriver though. Just pull the tension cable and the latch opens...which is how the key works.

      Some are probably electronic buttons, but then how do you disable that?

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    162. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Car bomb, OK City?

      Idiot, that was a TRUCK bomb.

    163. Re:And the story is...? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Apparently you're oblivious to the 4th Amendment. Cops are allowed to visibly inspect, but not open closed compartments.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    164. Re:And the story is...? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Actually, most of those locks stopping the trunk release lever from moving, are tension cable driven. Just take a screwdriver under the interior molding and pry up about an inch. It will trip the latch.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    165. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What if somebody rigged something to only go of if and only if the suitcase/car/whatever was fucked around with?
      You'd be an asshole.

      > Legally, if the thing blows up, whose fault would it be?
      Yours.

      It's reprehensible that you would even consider taking the life of another person (or persons, which may include innocent bystanders) to deny your material belongings to someone.

    166. Re:And the story is...? by icebike · · Score: 1

      Yes, people who are parking the cars should be informed beforehand. That way they can choose to park themselves and make their own way to the terminal building if they don't want their car searched.

      You've already made the case that the search is too late, why meekly offer up an opt out simply to excuse or enable the search program?

      There would be no point in blowing up a car in a parking lot.
      So if it didn't blow up at the departure curbside, all excuses for searching it disappear.

      Even if you buy into the search is justified myth, a peek into the trunk is all that is necessary to make sure it wasn't packed with a huge stash of explosive. So any search other than a peek into the trunk is an un-reasonable search.

      Any amount of C4 could be backed into areas of the car that your valet would never be able to access. So even if every nook and cranny was packed with explosive, once he drives it away to the great scratch-yard, there is no longer any point in any search.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    167. Re:And the story is...? by BancBoy · · Score: 1

      9-11 wasn't a car bomb.

      No, it wasn't. The previous attempt to blow up the World Trade Center was.

      --
      [UID-HeinzIntel]
    168. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we just get rid of the people who come up with these dumb laws?

    169. Re:And the story is...? by icebike · · Score: 1

      And that's different from what happens to you luggage in WHAT way ??

      May I remind you that you are not allowed to use locks that are not easy to open (read. useless) on your suitcase?

      Your car doesn't come with you on the plane. (I would have thought that was obvious to the most casual reader).

      If the car doesn't blow up at the departure curb when the valet starts it up to move it, any chance for inflicting serious damage or terror disappears, because bowing up a couple adjacent cars in a valet lot does nothing.

      So a peek into the trunk while the valet helps you unload is more than enough.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    170. Re:And the story is...? by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      And 9-11 will never happen again now that the cockpit door is locked.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    171. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...aaaaannnnnd Smooth Wombat has just shown up on a watch list.

    172. Re:And the story is...? by icebike · · Score: 1

      If you have never heard of car bombs, you should start watching international news. Or remember Oklahoma city. Blowing up that car pretty much effected safety for those people inside the building.

      Car bombs? You must be joking, right? Valet parking isn't going to be anywhere near the terminal. That's why you need a valet.

      Why would you take a car bomb to the airport and risk getting dog-sniffed, when you could park downtown and do way more damage?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    173. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No doubt you could! And how, do you suppose, you would obtain that much C4 without raising every red flag in the intelligence community?

      It's a smartcar, the amount of explosives required to fill it would definitely fly under the radar. The problem with his plan is how is he going to fit himself in the car to drive it somewhere with any dangerous amount of explosives?

    174. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when I get back those pennies better still be there in my ashtray!

    175. Re:And the story is...? by icebike · · Score: 1

      Google Panel Truck.

      Then Google exactly what McVeigh used. It was a lot bigger than a panel truck.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    176. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this whole thing is very violating because wehn you use a valet you trust that they won't mess with your stuff.

      If you do, then you're either hopelessly naive or a complete idiot. NEVER leave anything valuable in the car if you valet it, because there is a VERY good chance it will not be there when you get back.

      the AC's analogy fials because

      First, it's not the AC's, it's what the TSA folks said. Second, it's not an analogy at all.

      the problem isn't when they damage it, the damage is the breach of trust

      It's important to note that any vehicle parked at the airport MAY be searched, this isn't news to anybody who pays any attention to what they sign. It just so happens at this airport they don't make routine searches of cars parked out in the lots, but they do make routine searches of cars parked right next to the terminal... which includes the valet spots.

      I'm not a fan of the TSA and think the whole security thing is a pile of pig shit. But I also think this lady is just a stupid entitled bitch looking for some attention.

    177. Re:And the story is...? by Y-Crate · · Score: 1

      As a kid in Canada, I thought "Paki" was an accepted term for Indian people. That didn't go over well when I moved to a more ethnic city.
      I didn't realize it was a euro slang and not just a generic slang term.

      In New England, it's shorthand for "package store" aka "liquor store". The spelling is different, though.

      i.e: "I'm gonna head down to the packie before the cookout."

      Since moving away, I've had to mentally restrain myself from ever letting it slip. Not that I was ever really a fan of the term "package store".

    178. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      two points about valet keys.

      Most cars have folding seats which can be opened into the trunk from the inside. second a lot of cars have internal trunk release levers. you can open the trunk from the front seat.

      And some cars allow you to disable that lever and lock the folding seats. Both locks can only be opened with a normal key not a valet key.

    179. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How come you don't use a spell-checker — contempt for those who read your posts? Lack of technical knowledge? Something else entirely?

    180. Re:And the story is...? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      and we didn't do any of this crap...and guess what, it hasn't happened again either.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    181. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately, the only ones dumber than TSA are the terrorists, and they don't seem to have figured this out

      Of course they have. There are just not as many terrorists as our fearless leaders like you to think.

    182. Re:And the story is...? by awkScooby · · Score: 1

      Hey, if the TSA had exactly that information and searched the car based on reasonable suspicion, consider me on their side in this one.

      Even in that scenario I wouldn't be on their side. TSA is not law enforcement.

    183. Re:And the story is...? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I've long said that 3 things will prevent another 9/11.

      1. Locked and reinforced cockpit doors
      2. You
      3. Me

      Nobody is going to sit and wait out hijackers anymore. Flight 93 proved that and every flight since where people sometimes literally sat on would be bombers to control them.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    184. Re:And the story is...? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      If you're driving to the airport, you *are* a commoner. My chauffeur agrees.

    185. Re:And the story is...? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Many cars don't have folding seats. But FWIW, my VW does and has key-locks on them and a key lock to de-activate the trunk button in the door.

    186. Re:And the story is...? by hibji · · Score: 1

      I don't know. Shutting down an airport for god knows how long would be pretty damn disruptive.

    187. Re:And the story is...? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Both my cars have "valet modes" for the trunk.

    188. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why make it non-functional? Keep it as a real firearm and you will have it to protect yourself with when you get to wherever you're going.

    189. Re:And the story is...? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have them spending the money on cigars and strippers than paying some guy to touch my junk.

    190. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also not going to work flying in and out of New York, where handguns are prohibited for non-residents, and attempting to check it per the FAA's regulations will get you arrested for violating NYS law.

      Entirely wrong.
      You do NOT have to be a resident of NY to get a handgun license, and even without a license there are several exemptions to possession laws for transport purposes.
      In addition, under Federal law, if you're a legal owner in one State, and are passing through a State to a destination where you are also legally allowed to posses, they cannot prevent you from transporting the handgun through the State. You will, however, have to keep it in the proper type of locked box.

    191. Re:And the story is...? by Wookact · · Score: 1

      You cannot open my trunk with a key. There are three ways to access the trunk. Remote FOB. That will not work cause I am not giving that to a valet. Button next to drivers see (Electronic) Open back seats.

      The back seats lock closed. Requires the regular key to open, valet does not work. The Trunk button is disarmed inside the glove box, which also locks closed, valet key does not work.

      If I shut off the trunk release, lock the back seats and not give the fob to the valet the only way to open the trunk is through force, or perhaps some sort of master fob.

    192. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On my 7 year old Accord, the rear seats are locked by default, you need the key to flip them down, and the interior trunk latch (like the glove box) can be lock.

    193. Re:And the story is...? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Car bombs? You must be joking, right? Valet parking isn't going to be anywhere near the terminal. That's why you need a valet.

      Of course valet parking is near the terminal. That's why it is convenient -- you don't have to wait for a shuttle or walk large distances. You stop the car, hand the keys to the valet, and go to the checkin.

      The valet isn't there to drive you to the airport, he's there to park your car. If you need someone to drive you to the door of the airport, you need a taxi or limo driver, not a valet.

    194. Re:And the story is...? by holmstar · · Score: 1

      A checked firearm is treated differently than regular checked baggage. The important part is that if you are checking baggage containing a firearm, the security screening takes place in public view and then the case is sealed. Nobody else in the airport has authority to open the case after that. Regular checked baggage can be opened and searched at more or less any point after it leaves your sight.

    195. Re:And the story is...? by Wookact · · Score: 1

      Before the permissible searches, it would be unlikely to see the valets going through the trunks. There is bound to be an honest valet, or a video camera somewhere that would notice the teenager rifling through your junk.

      Now all of the valets are going through trunks. It is no longer suspicious to see them doing so, which opens up opportunity to steal and not get caught.

    196. Re:And the story is...? by icebike · · Score: 1

      Sigh...

      The valet parking lot is not close to the airport terminal.

      You get out at the terminal, hand your keys to the valet and he drives it to the valet lot and then searches your vehicle.

      Any opportunity to bomb the terminal ends the minute he drives away.

      So why would a search be justified?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    197. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently Lou successfully trolled you!

    198. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's say if a police officer with a search warrant enters your house (legally) and steals money from their home,

      They didn't steal your money, they mis-placed evidence of illegal activity which was confiscated during the search. What illegal activity you might ask? Well for starters you have a bottle of aspirin which expired last week, so you're in violation of federal drug laws. In addition, you have a bottle of a common household cleaner which isn't stored according to the instructions on the label.. it's within reach of children. So you're also in violation of federal law for using the product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. The money is in the same house so they are legally allowed to assume it's part of the crime, and confiscate it without any recourse.

    199. Re:And the story is...? by lgw · · Score: 1

      How about you just stop being such a coward? Seriously.

      I am not afraid of terrorists.

      I do not fear a terrorist in a plane.

      I do not fear a terrorist in a car.

      I do not fear him, near or far!

      For fucks sake, driving to the airport is the most dangerous part of any trip. The risk of terrorism is statistically insignificant. Can we please stop looking for every opportunity to throw away freedoms in pursuit of security that's not even relevant!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    200. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      two points about valet keys.

      Most cars have folding seats which can be opened into the trunk from the inside. second a lot of cars have internal trunk release levers. you can open the trunk from the front seat.

      In all Hondas, for the last 15 years or so, there is a lock which can only be opened using the non-valet key to unfold the seats and there is another lock on the internal trunk release which can also only be opened using the non-valet key. I rather doubt that's exclusive to Honda.

      Take a closer look at your car ... you may find the engineers weren't as dumb as you thought they were.

    201. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're part of a big gang of sockpuppets, and anyone giving you or any of your siblings any + mods is either new here, or needs his head examined.

    202. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You can't hide a car bomb big enough to cause serious damage to anything outside the car.

      Mom says I can do anything I want if I put my mind to it!

    203. Re:And the story is...? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Blowing up that car pretty much effected safety for those people inside the building.

      I am pretty sure you just said the opposite of what you intended. Please consult a dictionary.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    204. Re:And the story is...? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Portland Oregon had just completed a large multi-level parking garage just across the road from the main terminal and near the tower when this went into effect. Basically, millions of taxpayer dollars spent building a garage nobody could park in. The rules have relaxed now and people can park there, but as I recall, there are signs at the entrance saying that parking there is authorization to search.

    205. Re:And the story is...? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      If the airport has a policy to the effect that anyone entering its property consents to a search, I suspect that the 4th Amendment need not apply.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    206. Re:And the story is...? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Yes. My car isn't going on a plane. That's why I'm not worried about some winimum wage, no security check baggage handler depositing something in my car that he wants to go across a border.

      Just because you don't care about an invasion of privacy doesn't mean others don't. What if instead of some minimum wage security check baggage handler taking something valuable from your vehicle or glove box or trunk instead of depositing something? What about them not taking something, but getting enough info from papers in your glove box or elsewhere to steal your identity (have your insurance card, title, or any receipts in there)? Most importantly, it's your car, your property, the government, according to the constitution, cannot search it without cause and just because you used valet parking instead of parking the car yourself hardly seems cause.

    207. Re:And the story is...? by Demonantis · · Score: 1

      I throw a purple or pink zip tie on the bag so I don't care if the TSA cuts it and leaves a note and it scares the workers from cutting it.

    208. Re:And the story is...? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      But the poster you're replying to specifically pointed out that he was talking about bombs located away from human beings. The bomb you're talking about killed a bunch of people because they were standing in line next to it. In a parking lot, the explosion from the same bomb would have been largely absorbed by the cars around it. You might have even been able to drive them away afterwards.

    209. Re:And the story is...? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      It's worth noting that the video you posted was of an exploding garbage truck, not a passenger car. Also, as impressive as the explosion was, it looks like the nearby pedestrians actually walked away from it.

    210. Re:And the story is...? by Demonantis · · Score: 1

      If the tip is orange it stops it from being a replica so there is a ton of airsoft guns in Canada with orange tips. The replica thing makes absolutely no sense.

    211. Re:And the story is...? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      No, no. Everyone knows you have to cut the right wire or it blows up instantly. You will know when you've cut the right wire because the digital countdown will stop in mid-countdown. Probably with just 1 second remaining.

    212. Re:And the story is...? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      How far around the airport?

      Probably that same 100 mile Constitution-free radius around our "borders" that deliberately covers the entire landmass since International airports are included in that word.

    213. Re:And the story is...? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The valet parking lot is not close to the airport terminal.

      Sigh yourself. The parking lot is not close to the terminal BUT THE SERVICE IS.

      You get out at the terminal, hand your keys to the valet and he drives it to the valet lot ...

      Yes, you leave it with the valet service at the terminal. And then sometime later the valet drives it to the lot. Until then, it's parked, unattended, next to the terminal.

      Any opportunity to bomb the terminal ends the minute he drives away.

      And runs from when you leave the car until a valet actually drives it away. Busy terminal, busy valets, could be a hour. Could be more. Could be less.

      So why would a search be justified?

      Because your car is parked for an unknown amount of time near the terminal, unattended.

    214. Re:And the story is...? by icebike · · Score: 1

      And runs from when you leave the car until a valet actually drives it away. Busy terminal, busy valets, could be a hour. Could be more. Could be less.

      The more busy it is the less time it will be. At any busy place it is mere minutes, and if you run away, the valet will summon police immediately.

      But if you don't run, the Valet helps you get your bags out of the trunk, so they ALREADY know there is no bomb in there.

      There is exactly 3 to 5 minutes of exposure, where you are there, but not yet unloaded, which is exactly the same amount of time if you do your own unloading and parking.

      So under what twisted scenario does the Valet get to search your car after they drive it to valet parking?

      Its clear you want to twist this so that there is an excuse to search your car, because you think valet parking is some how more unsafe than self parking, and any bit of freedom we can give up for some minuscule amount of safety is worth it. But no matter how hard you try, you just come off looking ridiculous.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    215. Re:And the story is...? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The more busy it is the less time it will be.

      Right. So you show up while all the valets are off retrieving cars for someone else, and that means it will be sooner that your car is taken away. It won't matter if there is only the one who is checking cars in there, or if there is a row of cars ahead of you to go to the lot.

      and if you run away, the valet will summon police immediately.

      The reason you left the car with the valet is SO YOU COULD LEAVE IT. You don't have to run, you'll hand him the keys and get the tag and then walk.

      But if you don't run, the Valet helps you get your bags out of the trunk,

      If you have bags. If he's available to do that. You're assuming best case scenario: you stop the car, someone runs up to take your keys and help with bags, and immediately drives away. I'm assuming normal situations, like nobody is there to take the car away, and you may not have bags to start with, or they're in the back seat.

      Its clear you want to twist this so that there is an excuse to search your car

      No, I just assume that nothing runs perfectly and there is a "real world" in which we live. Cars can sit at the drop-off, nobody looks in the trunk, etc.

      because you think valet parking is some how more unsafe than self parking,

      You're making this up. I said nothing about self parking or how safe either one was. How safe using a valet service is doesn't matter. The fact that the cars can be left near the terminal effectively unattended does.

      and any bit of freedom we can give up for some minuscule amount of safety is worth it.

      Never said that, and I will not let you put those words in my mouth. Argue honestly or don't.

      What is reasonable to say is that if you don't want your car searched, don't park it at the terminal for someone else to deal with later, and not someplace where you know unattended vehicles are suspect and subject to towing. Park it yourself. I didn't realize that getting someone to park your car for you was one of those "essential liberties" that we were warned about giving up.

    216. Re:And the story is...? by tibman · · Score: 1

      It was not quite as small of an explosion as you are imagining. It killed so many people because of shrapnel (some falling), concussion, and fire. There were hundreds of wounded too. People died(or were wounded) up to 100meters away (down the street). The line of IP applicants was 20m from the car. There was no car left, pretty much just the engine (which was pushed something like 10m from where the bomb went off). Nearby cars were not drivable. The few nearby cars were crushed by the shockwave, punctured in many places, and set on fire by the explosion. Polish fire trucks from the nearby allied FOB put out the fires.

      Valet is usually located near the entrance to where you are going. I'd say people are likely to be standing near any entrance. I'd also say that his argument was not the location of the car being important but that a car makes a poor choice as a delivery vehicle. I was just simply pointing out the one of the most successful attacks (that i know of) was via car, not truck or van. Does that mean the TSA should be inspecting cars now? I'd say no. Though the cars may be on airport property they are nowhere near the airplanes (which is probably the whole reason the TSA came into existence). Put the Valet drop-off away from anything important and don't worry about it : )

      You are right though. If someone wires up a car and the car is stored in a parking facility void of people, i doubt anyone would get hurt. Inspecting any vehicle in that kind of situation is an extreme waste of funds.

      Off-topic: I wonder if these kinds of discussions earn us a record in some NSA/FBI sponsored page-scraping project? Probably : /

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    217. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Great post, except for one little thing.

      "Fortunately, the only ones dumber than TSA are the terrorists, and they don't seem to have figured this out."

      There are no terrorists.

      Here is some logic.

      1) As pointed out, there exist many juicy terrorist targets.

      2) There have been no attacks on these juicy targets.

      3) The government has not stopped the terrorists from hitting these juicy targets.

      4) Ergo, there are no terrorists.

      Hate to be the one to break it to you, and I'm just some guy on the internet!

    218. Re:And the story is...? by icebike · · Score: 1

      You're assuming best case scenario: you stop the car, someone runs up to take your keys and help with bags, and immediately drives away. I'm assuming normal situations, like nobody is there to take the car away, and you may not have bags to start with, or they're in the back seat.

      Clearly you've never used valet services. They don't have room for many cars, so they had dozens of drivers. Typically they drive the car away before you even get your bags into the terminal. Your car never sits there longer than it would if you unloaded and parked it yourself. So there is ZERO additional risk, and there has NEVER been a case of a bomb in a car delivered to a valet.

      And the search isn't done right there at the departure curb, its done in the valet parking area, long after the car has left the danger zone, after the woman had left for her flight in the store above.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    219. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My car is over ten years old and my trunk lever next to the seat has a keyhole next to it that can only be unlocked with the main key, and the fold down seats in the back are also released by a keyhole up and behind the seats which are also keyed only to the main key. Which car have you seen that comes with valet keys but still allows unrestricted access to the trunk?

    220. Re:And the story is...? by Dynedain · · Score: 1

      If they're willing to rip open body or interior panels to expose the electronics or cable, then they're going to get into the trunk eventually.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    221. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you want us to be exclusively reactive and only defend against means that we have already be hurt by? I am skeptical of the merits here as well, but it should be argued on a costs/added safety basis - I don't care if no one has ever done X, if it is highly damaging and easily mitigated, then sure mitigate it. If it has been done before, but does minimal damage and is a pain (shoe bomb threat, liquids greater than 3 oz but less than 1 liter or other more reasonable limit) it is probably better to accept the risks.

    222. Re:And the story is...? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      It sounds like that car was loaded up with explosives, however. We're talking about a bomb that has to be hidden away in the parts of the car that won't be immediately obvious to the valet when the car is parked and won't be so heavy that it will obviously change the handling of the car.

      We seem to be in agreement about the likelyhood of massive casualties from a bomb in a parking structure. The 1993 world trade center bombing killed 6 people and it was in a large office building rather than a detached parking structure. Just like the Al Hilah bombing, the obvious target for a bomb is somewhere that large numbers of people are assembled and which can be reached without being searched. Security theatre organizations like the TSA continue to be proficient at closing, locking, boarding up, then sealing in concrete the barn doors after the horses have gotten out. They also seem to be excellent at putting in that one crucial stitch that stops a garment from falling apart after it's already fallen apart.

    223. Re: And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have an expectation of privacy in your car when you hand the keys to the valet to drive it off somewhere, PERIOD.

      He can search it himself (no stealing or damage), or invite anyone he wants to come have a look. Or, if a LEO asks, he can say OK.

        IANAL, it's just common sense when you hand something over to someone else your privacy goes down the drain.

    224. Re:And the story is...? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Actually, I firmly believe the TSA should be destroyed outright. The TSA constantly and consistently violates people's rights; I don't see any reason such an organization should continue to exist.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    225. Re:And the story is...? by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I don't follow, the cite you gave still requires the officer to have probable cause. Where is the probable cause to search every vehicle? Is it the government's claim that every person is a possible criminal? If so, then the Fourth Amendment means nothing.

      Even with the vehicle exception the state actor (and the valet drive is a state actor as they are acting under the orders of the government) still has to have cause to search the vehicle. The government cannot claim that taking advantage of valet parking is a suspicious activity since there are many reasons for people to do this besides attempting to blow up the airport.

      Also, isn't it a bit too late to search the car AFTER it has been parked in front of the airport? Should it not be searched before that point? Seems about as smart as searching for bombs in luggage after the plane is already in flight.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    226. Re:And the story is...? by tibman · · Score: 1

      Their expansion beyond airports is very worrying as well : /

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    227. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google Panel Truck.

      Google Panel Truck? I thought he used a Ryder truck.

      Then Google exactly what McVeigh used.

      Oh, you're using "Google" as a verb? Well, it's too late to monetize and extract valuable information from that truck; the scrap metal industry and FBI (respectively) have already "Googled" the hell out of it.

    228. Re:And the story is...? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      9-11 wasn't a car bomb.

      But ironically, 2-26 was...

      Yes it failed to bring down the towers, but strangely enough it failed as well to alert the authorities that the towers were a target...

    229. Re:And the story is...? by cffrost · · Score: 1

      When your luggage is searched by the TSA they leave notes on it also. It's a courtesy so you don't freak out and think someone illegally ruffled through your belongings.

      Unless that note is a search warrant, someone has illegally rifled through your belongings.

      The full text of the Fourth Amendment reads:

      "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."

      Note the lack of exemptions that would legally permit the TSA to do this. Some might like to point to the ambiguity of the word "unreasonable" — if so, what's reasonable about assuming probable cause to rifle through every single passenger's papers and effects? We're meant to accept that we're all criminal suspects? I don't accept that, and it's one more reason why this post-9/11 hysteria has me deciding never to set foot in an airport again.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    230. Re:And the story is...? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Except that NYS law is in blatant contradiction to the Firearm Owners Protection Act signed by Reagan in '86 (if you're merely passing through New York, that is).

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    231. Re:And the story is...? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Even a Mosin that can no longer fire a bullet is still one hell of a club or spear (if you have the 16 inch bayonet attached).

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    232. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before attempting this stunt besure to consult with your lawyer, the TSA, DHS, all local law enforcement, a Rabbi, a Priest and a duck.

      I dare you to get them to walk into a bar.

    233. Re:And the story is...? by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Actually, it could apply. Color is about the capacity you are working under. A Valet isn't allowed to search anything, he's just a private citizen. If he has been granted a legal right to perform the search (presumed since he's been ordered to do it by a 'competent' authority), then he is searching under the color of law. If he is NOT under color of law then his searches are criminal acts in the first place.

      With no warrants issued nor probable cause, these searches are already criminal acts.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    234. Re:And the story is...? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      So we'll handcuff everyone to their chairs. it will certainly reduce 'bad things'.

      The 'risk' of terrorism is wildly DWARFED by the risk of dying by leaving your house. Better not leave...

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    235. Re:And the story is...? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Oh it's worse than that. Rudy 'noun verb 9/11' Giuliani moved the Emergency Responders HQ INTO the WTC after the first bombing over direct opposition of people who were actually thinking.

      It gave him numerous photo ops walking from his office to the HQ though, so yay.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    236. Re: And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As even the establishment rag the NYT reported almost all of the terrorist attacks since and including OKC were government run. Shouldn't we be more worried about that? If there is a car bomb anywhere and TSA is nearby I know very well who I would immediately suspect = CIA / FBI / DHS / TSA / DOJ.

    237. Re:And the story is...? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      That was my point. I AM worried about that. And I noticed that, however, for some reason, people are not worried about having that happen to their suitcase.

      --
      bickerdyke
    238. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes you are... wait, I just realised we're talking about the USA, where normal common sense principles doesn't apply.

      I stand corrected.

    239. Re:And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      International travel is fine.

      Travelling into or out of the USA is not.

    240. Re: And the story is...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      small crater? really?

    241. Re:And the story is...? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "The same way I know you know jack shit about the real world, Mr. Military Demolitions Expert?"

      No, not me, my Lt. Col USMC Grandfather, who did demolitions.

      And he taught me very well.

      "They used shitty crude fertilizer+diesel bombs because the average Joe can get fertilizer and diesel (and even then, if you don't run a local farm, good luck getting more than a few pounds of ammonium nitrate)."

      No, they used it because it was less complex. If there were simpler bombs that could have the explosive potential, that would've been used instead.
      Oh, and the ammonium nitrate comment? Didn't matter back then during Oklahoma, as the law restricting that didn't exist.

      "No doubt you could! And how, do you suppose, you would obtain that much C4 without raising every red flag in the intelligence community?"

      Pretty easily. It's called the black market. Nice big one here in SoCal, you can find RPGs and LAW rocket launchers with ammunition right down to military-grade explosives. Can't find a black market dealer? Just ask a gang member and show that you're 'down' (because if you're really going to blow shit up killing a couple of random people on the street to get your goods ain't going to stop you.)

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    242. Re:And the story is...? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Joke's on you - I don't support Hollywood and haven't except for the Alien franchise in my 31 years of life, and I also do not watch TV (My TV is just a 32" HD monitor for my computer.) My grandfather, a WWII/Korea/Vietnam vet taught me. Oh, and I paid attention in chemistry class. Any smart high schooler familiar with powerful exothermic reactions could probably make something similarly powerful. Well, any that were around during my years in high school, because the education is now dumbed down so much as to be useless.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    243. Re:And the story is...? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "The problem with his plan is how is he going to fit himself in the car to drive it somewhere with any dangerous amount of explosives?"

      Don't know much about the energy density of gasoline, do you? Let alone cars and how they're built. Two gallons in the tank, the rest of the tank filed with explosives, plus inside the frame, plus behind all panels.

      Do you guys ever bother to try to think with your limited brains, or do you just assume "Nope! Not happening!" and cover your ears going "Lalalala I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" to cover your ignorance?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    244. Re: And the story is...? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "IANAL, it's just common sense when you hand something over to someone else your privacy goes down the drain."

      Actually, no, and there are very likely cases to reflect this in case law throughout nearly every state that holds seat to the circuit court that governs a group of states.

      And that's why you're not a lawyer. Meanwhile, I've taken on EA and won, THC and won, and now I'm going after Papa John's, and I'll win on the sheer amount of the evidence I have. I've had DAs twice (after one court visit) ask me to work as expert testimony and the PD that I naively let handle my case afterwards tell me 'You should've just represented yourself. I know you'd have figured out a way through this." (And I have, too, turns out the supposed threat I sent wasn't possibly sent by me, it just took me forever to think about looking at the headers, which were forged, and the police and courts now know about."

      I've got enough basic experience with the law on contracts, criminal acts, civil torts, personal injury, and done enough research that I might as well go ahead and take the CA Bar Exam.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    245. Re:And the story is...? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      You can't hide a car bomb big enough to cause serious damage to anything outside the car

      Just about every day somebody in Iraq proves you wrong :(

    246. Re:And the story is...? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      wehn you use a valet you trust that they won't mess with your stuff

      I think you've just hit the nail on the head as to why I just cannot think why the fuck I'd use a valet parking service (if I'd ever heard of one before today, which I frankly hadn't).

      I expect that there is a whole suite of "security car camera" footage of car valets doing the equivalent of wanking into your MacSludgeburger to improve the flavour. But I'd literally never considered the possibility that someone would want this sort of service at an airport. I mean ... why?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    247. Re:And the story is...? by airdweller · · Score: 1

      "I haven't heard of a valet 'mode' to put the car in yet."
      " If they've gone to electronic push buttons to open the trunk, see my lack of valet 'mode' to stop trunks from opening."

      I think I can safely vouch for all BMWs, Infinitis, Lexuses and Acuras to have what you call a "valet" mode. I could lock the trunk latches and the glove compartment (where the latch release is) with a key, keep it and give only the fob to the valet in 2006 and 2009 BMW, 2008 and 2009 Infiniti and 2010 Acura.
      Any car over 25k built after 2008 might have this.

    248. Re:And the story is...? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      I don't follow, the cite you gave still requires the officer to have probable cause. Where is the probable cause to search every vehicle? Is it the government's claim that every person is a possible criminal? If so, then the Fourth Amendment means nothing.

      That's, essentially, all they have to have. No warrants. No requirement to pre-clear the search with a court with a claim of probable cause supported by oath. The Fourth Amendment requires a bit more than *just* probable cause.

      Because of that, we have no guarantee that their probable cause was justified. We have no records of why they searched her car, and we most likely never will if they didn't find anything they'd like to use in court against her. She could try filing a section 1983 claim, but that's a bit more hassle than its worth for the small amount of money she has a very unlikely chance of claiming that depends on them not being able to come up with probable cause that passes the sniff test.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    249. Re:And the story is...? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      I'd say that's not a valet 'mode' but I get your point. Locking the glove box where the latch release is stops them from using it, but if that latch is still cable driven that cable can be pulled wherever it snakes through to the trunk latch and it will still open.

      Most cars I've driven have the latch down by the drivers left side along the door jam. Some have a key lock on it, others don't. But even the ones with the key lock can be operated via screwdriver to just pull the cable as I said above.

      For valet 'mode', I'm thinking of cars that have an electronic push button to pop the trunk. If it's not in a lockable compartment like the glove box, then a software 'mode' is needed to prevent a valet from pushing it and opening the trunk.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    250. Re:And the story is...? by crbowman · · Score: 1

      What will they do when I take my bag out of the back seat and hand them the valet key which will only open the doors and activate the ignition. Will they then break into my trunk? If not, then what the F*** good is this anyway? Real terrorist will simply give the valet key. (Not that I think this is useful no matter what they do, it's just more theater.)

  2. The joys of private property ... by Builder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is the problem with more and more property being private and subject to conditions. On true public ground things like the 4th amendment matter. On private property, you're subject to the whims of the owners.

    1. Re:The joys of private property ... by Scareduck · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nonsense. The problem here is using a third, private party to elide the Fourth Amendment.

      --

      Dog is my co-pilot.

    2. Re:The joys of private property ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its hard to tell if your being a typical tool on here railing against private property or not. Either way your a jerk who needs to brush up on private ownership of property, that also includes the car idiot.

    3. Re:The joys of private property ... by jason777 · · Score: 1

      Private property, yes. But the TSA are government employees. So, they are bound by the constitution, specifically the 4th amendment. Right?

    4. Re:The joys of private property ... by MrDoh! · · Score: 1

      Hmm, that's a good point. If following orders from a Government representative, then... Ok, can the person searched now sue the valet company? "Just following orders", or would it be the TSA (as you've not agreed to walk by the checkpoint). The lawyers will be lining up for this one.

      --
      Waiting for an amusing sig.
    5. Re:The joys of private property ... by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      The TSA are ordering searches of the cars. They aren't doing it themselves. A private, untrained, third-party is the one doing the search.

    6. Re:The joys of private property ... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Did they get federal law enforcement training vs administrative upgrades?
      http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/09/politics/tsa-badges

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:The joys of private property ... by azadrozny · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If this becomes a precedent, can the police ask my house cleaner to execute a search warrant for my home?

    8. Re:The joys of private property ... by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 2

      If this becomes a precedent, can the police ask my house cleaner to execute a search warrant for my home?

      They can't ask beforehand, but they can ask about what they saw when they come out.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    9. Re:The joys of private property ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The private, untrained third-party becomes an agent of the government when it does this acting on orders of the TSA. This is the same as the police telling a CI to steal information that they, themselves, couldn't obtain without a warrant. That information is inadmissible in court because the method through which it was obtained violates said bill of rights.

    10. Re:The joys of private property ... by jason777 · · Score: 1

      Oh, that makes it okay then. No problem. Carry on.

    11. Re:The joys of private property ... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm sorry, but the court's ruling on that matter is classified.

    12. Re:The joys of private property ... by Holi · · Score: 2

      That does not make it any less of a violation.

      The government may not skirt the constitution by contracting out the violation, it is still by extension an act of the government.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    13. Re:The joys of private property ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You know who else had a bunch of people end up saying "Just Following Orders" when they got caught? Not trying to Godwin the thread, but how do we have people running the various security theater shows who are so dumb they seem to have thought of saying "Just Following Orders" if they get any legal flack, but not taken it a step farther and thought "That will make me look like a good little ... ."

    14. Re:The joys of private property ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if private citizens act at the behest & direction of the law enforcement officers then the Court considers them law enforcement by proxy and the rules for searches attach.

      As for the parking lot, I suppose it depends what it says on the parking pass you picked up (and probably didn't read): did it require you to agree the vehicle could be opened and/or moved at the discretion of the lot operator?

    15. Re:The joys of private property ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When acting on the behalf of the government, you are a State Actor and subject to nearly the same Constitutional restrictions as the government.

      See mpoultain's post, above.

    16. Re:The joys of private property ... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      Time to start talking to the cleaning staff of all the congress critters.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    17. Re:The joys of private property ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government may not skirt the constitution by contracting out the violation...

      Perhaps there's an Snowden/Booz-Allen-Hamliton/NSA-contractor analogy in there somewhere... anyhow...

      There's obviously a limit to this. All companies withhold federal payroll taxes from employees on behalf of the government and I don't think most folks would consider them contracted agents of the government. I suppose because they don't actually get paid, only coerced with legal penalties if they don't assist the government, which maybe gives the governement a way to skirt this technicality...

    18. Re:The joys of private property ... by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Sez you.

      They say they have a secret court ruling to the contrary.

      You can't see it. It's secret.

      You can't challenge it. It's secret.

      Now shut up and pick up that can.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    19. Re:The joys of private property ... by Cramer · · Score: 1

      No, because your (possibly illegal) house cleaner isn't a LEO. HOWEVER, they can present whoever opens the door the warrant and proceed to search the property. If nobody answers the door... they rarely go away and try again later. (they enter anyway)

  3. bye bye liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'tis a slippery slope :(

    1. Re:bye bye liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Its your own bloody fault! While I don't support terrorists and wish them to rot in hell, this is big brother. And yet Americans say, "its ok because it catches bad guys" RIGHT!!!! I was just reading that the stuff to catch terrorists is now used in crime departments, and who knows where it stops! My answer is that it doesn't. But you folks keep on voting in the people to keep you "safe".

    2. Re:bye bye liberty by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      'tis a slippery slope :(

      Well she was foolish to park on a slippery slope to begin with.

  4. Re:Not a real issue by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    You know the secret of big whoop?

  5. Outrageous by jason777 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This country is out of control. We have no more 4th amendment. Pretty soon the TSA will be expanding their highway searches from commercial trucks to every passenger car. Your freedom is gone. That being said, I would never trust my car to a valet. I park it myself. You are just asking for trouble otherwise.

    1. Re:Outrageous by Stargoat · · Score: 1, Funny

      This country is out of control. My great x 3 grandparents left Germany during the rise of Bismarck. They came to the US. Where's to go now?

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    2. Re:Outrageous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking about colonizing Antarctica before NSA et all claim it for `merica. It is pretty much the only place left... well that and the oceans.

    3. Re:Outrageous by AGMW · · Score: 5, Funny

      This country is out of control. My great x 3 grandparents left Germany during the rise of Bismarck. They came to the US. Where's to go now?

      Ironically, Germany!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    4. Re:Outrageous by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone
      Too late re highway searches.
      Enjoy your Transportation Security Officers at stops under Department of Homeland Security Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) and the next generation of state and federal teams.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:Outrageous by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Informative

      Which makes me want to point out that the last time I was in a German airport there was far less of this nonsense. I was even able to keep my shoes on.

    6. Re:Outrageous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are 13 untainted states. I live in one of them. Sure, it's "fly-over country", but at least I don't have to put up with that crap.

      The states are: Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Kentucky. These are all entirely more than 200 miles from the nearest coastline or international border.

    7. Re:Outrageous by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Forget the 4th Amendment, we have no more Constitution. The Constitution says that the President shall "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Note that it does not say, "except when he does not like the law, or thinks that it is politically inconvenient." The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says that the employer mandate goes into effect January 2014 with no qualifiers or conditions that might lead to a delay, yet President Obama, through his subordinates, has announced that it will not be enforced until January 2015. If the President can unilaterally decide to not enforce a law whenever he feels like it, we do not have a Constitution. Please note that this is different than "prosecutorial discretion", which is the decision not to pursue a particular case because of specifics of that case. This was a decision not to enforce a duly enacted law.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    8. Re:Outrageous by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      I departed from Munich for the US in 2007 and had to pass through three nearly identical security checkpoints. (basically security metal detector lines 3 times).

      It was very odd, the only thing I can think of is that my terminal was nested. ie: first line was for all europe flights, second line was for international, and the third line was for US destinations. ie: had I just been going to Paris, maybe I would have only hit one line?

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    9. Re:Outrageous by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Pretty soon the TSA will be expanding their highway searches from commercial trucks to every passenger car.

      Unless you are clairvoyant you have no idea what they will do. Like every slippery slope argument this one is invalid.

    10. Re:Outrageous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For any flight to the US or over its air space, the security screening is asinine.

    11. Re:Outrageous by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      I often fly to/from US via Europe and yes, this is the shit they do specifically for *flights to US*.

      In Frankfurt they even have a special part of the terminal (like 4-6 or so gates) designated for flights to US and to get into that area you have to get stripped of your dignity.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    12. Re:Outrageous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your mistake is thinking that it was under control at any point. Please study a little more history.

  6. Next thing you know... by cultiv8 · · Score: 1

    We'll be hearing about the TSA searching us while they drive around in vans equipped with backscatter x-ray scanners. Oh, wait, that's old news. .

    --
    sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
  7. Didn't you notice who's doing the searching? by scotts13 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    According to the article, the valets themselves. Mot TSA agents, minimum wage, no-background-check valets. They're the last people to be in the car, and they decide where to park them. Anyone else see the two glaring problems here?

    1. Re:Didn't you notice who's doing the searching? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This being airports we're talking about, I'm surprised every time I come back and the car is actually still there and not on a flight to Novosibirsk.

    2. Re:Didn't you notice who's doing the searching? by snookerdoodle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      BWAHAHA! Keystone Cops outsourcing their "job" to high school students.

      Come to think of it, the valets might be *more* qualified...

    3. Re:Didn't you notice who's doing the searching? by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      Ooh, I know this one!
      4th amendment violation via stupid loophole
      Horribly unqualified sketchy staff

    4. Re:Didn't you notice who's doing the searching? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Funny

      Worst haiku I've seen in weeks.

    5. Re:Didn't you notice who's doing the searching? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy crap, milk just shot through my nose (figuratively, at least)! I typically hate the wasted space of comments like mine, but seriously, funniest comment ever!

  8. liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    oh, so the poor valet schmuck who finds a bomb, and it gets detonated, is the one who will suffer loss of limbs and/or life? I'd hate to be paid minimum wage doing two jobs - one of them being a bomb detector.

    1. Re:liability by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The valet is instructed to look in the trunk when they first get the car. So just set the bomb to detonate when the trunk is opened. That way you guarantee 1) you will be safely away from your bomb and 2) the car will be right where you want it to be when the bomb goes off

    2. Re:liability by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      What happens when I give the valet the valet key to my car, you know the key that cannot open the trunk?

    3. Re:liability by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      oh, so the poor valet schmuck who finds a bomb, and it gets detonated, is the one who will suffer loss of limbs and/or life? I'd hate to be paid minimum wage doing two jobs - one of them being a bomb detector.

      As a bonus, he'll also be the one blamed for anything that goes missing, not the TSA.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    4. Re:liability by Xest · · Score: 1

      Or if you want to plant a bomb at an airport, take a minimum wage job as a valet and let the car owner get blamed when it detonates.

    5. Re:liability by SJHillman · · Score: 2

      If you're setting a bomb to go off when they open the trunk, and you give them a key that can't open the trunk, then you're a really shitty terrorist.

    6. Re:liability by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      If I set the bomb to go off when they open the trunk, asking the valet to open the trunk seems pretty terrible. These poor guys are working for near minimum wage and meager tips day in and out, in all kinds of weather and now you want to try to blow one up?

    7. Re:liability by PPH · · Score: 1

      These poor guys are working for near minimum wage and meager tips

      And iPads, CDs and whatever else they can find in the cars. That's why there are valet keys.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:liability by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      They press the button on the rear seat so it folds down and grants you access to the trunk?

      (I have a hatchback, so it's just vacuum formed plastic on strings segregating my 'trunk' from my passenger area)

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    9. Re:liability by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I have one too now, but in my previous car the back seats did not fold down.

    10. Re:liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can open the trunk from inside the car, you know.

    11. Re:liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why would you give the valet the valet key when you got a bomb in the trunk? O.o

    12. Re:liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really want to plant a bomb at an airpot, take a minimum wage job as an aircraft cabin cleaner and don't get blamed at all.

    13. Re:liability by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      I have one too now, but in my previous car the back seats did not fold down.

      if it has a real separator it's likely not a cheap car, so obviously you're not a terrorist then.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    14. Re:liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, but that key opens the driver's side door and then they open the trunk with the trunk release. What have you never accidentally picked up your valet keys instead of your regular ones?

    15. Re:liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The valet uses the trunk latch that's inside the car, after opening the car door with the valet key.

    16. Re:liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TSA authorizes them to force it open at your expense.

  9. Reasonable Expectation of Privacy by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 4, Interesting
    FTA:

    We found out it happened to her because she valet parked her car. Those are the only cars that get inspected. So if security feels it is necessary to search some cars in the name of safety, why not search all of them?

    They'd probably like to be able to search any car that comes to the airport. Even so, I imagine they restrict searches to valet parked cars for two reasons: 1) they've the keys in hand and so it's easy; 2) more importantly, some lawyer probably told them that they could make the case in court that valet parked cars have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

    1. Re:Reasonable Expectation of Privacy by hogghogg · · Score: 1

      I think this is probably right -- the idea is that a valet-parked car has had its interior presented to a valet, voluntarily. But what about the trunk? Did the valets open the trunk? I think the owner of the car *does* have a reasonable expectation of privacy wrt the contents of the trunk. IANAL

      --
      David W. Hogg -- assoc prof, NYU Physics
    2. Re:Reasonable Expectation of Privacy by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 1

      Once you've voluntarily handed the valet the means of getting into the trunk (i.e. the keys), I think it likely they'd argue you cannot even expect privacy there.

      Mind you, I don't think people surrender their reasonable expectation of privacy by using a valet. It would be different if uniformed TSA agents were acting as valets and you handed them your keys, but that is not the case here. This is more like living in an apartment building and having the maintenance staff, who came in to fix a leaky toilet, turn around and search your house for marijuana under police orders.

    3. Re:Reasonable Expectation of Privacy by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      It's restricted to valet cars because 1) they're left in front of the terminal for up to an hour while other cars are in the middle of a mostly unpopulated parking lot.

    4. Re:Reasonable Expectation of Privacy by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      FTA:

      We found out it happened to her because she valet parked her car. Those are the only cars that get inspected. So if security feels it is necessary to search some cars in the name of safety, why not search all of them?

      They'd probably like to be able to search any car that comes to the airport. Even so, I imagine they restrict searches to valet parked cars for two reasons: 1) they've the keys in hand and so it's easy; 2) more importantly, some lawyer probably told them that they could make the case in court that valet parked cars have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

      What bullshit - just because I give one person permission to park my car does not imply that I'm also giving them and the whole goddamn world permission to go through my shit.

      Just one more reason you'll never find me in an airport. I'll fuckin' walk to another continent before I let some high-school dropout rifle through my personal effects.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:Reasonable Expectation of Privacy by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      My landlord has keys to my apartment, but I still have a reasonable expectation for him not to just show up in the middle of the night. Likewise, I have a domain admin account but I'm expected not to go snooping through every file share. Just because someone has access in order to do a specific job doesn't mean they have permission, implicit or explicit, to do other things.

    6. Re:Reasonable Expectation of Privacy by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 1

      This is also a sensible explanation, but they'd still some need legal justification.

    7. Re:Reasonable Expectation of Privacy by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 2

      If my guess is right about their reason, I couldn't agree more with your objection. But this is the reason you sometimes find police "safety" inspections in poor neighborhoods. If you let them in to check and make sure everything is okay in your house then they can argue you've consented to a search. Of course, their standards for consent are sometimes comparable to those of an unscrupulous drunken frat boy, but this is why the wise deny consent to the police in so many words from the beginning.

    8. Re:Reasonable Expectation of Privacy by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2

      Once you've voluntarily handed the valet the means of getting into the trunk (i.e. the keys), I think it likely they'd argue you cannot even expect privacy there.

      So if I give a restaurant coat-check person my coat and my house keys are in my coat pocket, I shouldn't complain when they go root thru my house? For that matter, I shouldn't be upset if they rifle thru my coat pockets in the first place?

      Similarly, If I hand a waiter my credit card (the means to access my bank account/credit balance), I shouldn't be bothered by seeing charges they decided to make 'looking around'?

      When you give 'the means' of accessing something to someone, their legitimate and legal access can be limited in scope to what is reasonable to accomplish their task.

      Valet - driver's door + ignition. Nothing else.
      Coat check: handle the coat enough to hang it up/down. Nothing else.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    9. Re:Reasonable Expectation of Privacy by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      Pretty much what I was thinking too.

      from TFA:

      John McCaffery, TSA, said, “No, those vehicles that are in the garage, short term long term parking, even if they carry pretty large amounts of explosives, they would not cause damage to the front of the airport. But for those who use the valet, the car could be there for a half hour or an hour so there is a vulnerability.”

      "Oh and it's a lot easier to search them when we already have the keys."

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    10. Re:Reasonable Expectation of Privacy by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      If my guess is right about their reason, I couldn't agree more with your objection. But this is the reason you sometimes find police "safety" inspections in poor neighborhoods. If you let them in to check and make sure everything is okay in your house then they can argue you've consented to a search. Of course, their standards for consent are sometimes comparable to those of an unscrupulous drunken frat boy, but this is why the wise deny consent to the police in so many words from the beginning.

      Verily; I've always felt the six most important words to remember when dealing with government agents are, "I do not consent to searches."

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    11. Re:Reasonable Expectation of Privacy by turp182 · · Score: 1

      In Arizona I regularly had my vehicle searched (the hatch on my CRV, cop looking in my windows) when entering the airport using the departure lanes. Every car was being stopped. This was in the immediately years after 9/11 though, and I haven't flown in years (by choice, flying sucks these days).

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    12. Re:Reasonable Expectation of Privacy by magic+maverick+ · · Score: 1

      So I guess if you locked your trunk and glove compartment, then you would have a reasonable exception of privacy. Because these places would be locked, and thus not easily accessible to the valet. (Assumes your ordinary car key does not open your truck, and that it is not accessible from inside the vehicle.)

      Maybe next time put some small bags of crushed white powder (e.g. corn flour, or crushed paracetamol), under the seats. And maybe a few pieces of plastic with C4 written on them (you know, like plastic explosives, not many people are going to know what plastic means in that context). Sue the airport when your car gets destroyed in a controlled detonation. Buy a new, better, car.

      --
      HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
    13. Re:Reasonable Expectation of Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about you guys, but that's explicitly in my apartment's rental contract. It says something like "during the rental period the landlord will not enter the building bla bla". So probably it's not such a complicated question after all.

    14. Re:Reasonable Expectation of Privacy by hogghogg · · Score: 1

      agreed

      --
      David W. Hogg -- assoc prof, NYU Physics
    15. Re:Reasonable Expectation of Privacy by bmk67 · · Score: 1

      Maybe next time put some small bags of crushed white powder (e.g. corn flour, or crushed paracetamol), under the seats. And maybe a few pieces of plastic with C4 written on them (you know, like plastic explosives, not many people are going to know what plastic means in that context). Sue the airport when your car gets destroyed in a controlled detonation. Buy a new, better, car.

      I'm quite sure that nothing could possibly go wrong with this plan.

    16. Re:Reasonable Expectation of Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The valet key to my Honda won't open the trunk. The latch next to the drivers seat will, but not the key.

      My Subaru Wagon, on the other hand, doesn't have such niceties.

       

    17. Re:Reasonable Expectation of Privacy by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      What about cars where there is a special "valet" key that doesn't allow access to the trunk.

      If the key can't open the trunk, can TSA destroy the car because it is suspicious?

    18. Re:Reasonable Expectation of Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My landlord has keys to my apartment, but I still have a reasonable expectation for him not to just show up in the middle of the night.

      Actually you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy from your landlord. That's why individual states and municipalities had to pass legislation explicitly limiting when your landlord may enter the apartment. Read the landlord/tenant laws for your area sometime: you may be surprised what circumstances allow your landlord to enter the apartment with zero notice.

  10. Ron Paul 2016! by stevegee58 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    He may not live past his first term but at least he'll shut down the TSA.

    1. Re:Ron Paul 2016! by magic+maverick+ · · Score: 0

      How's that hope and change working out for you? You don't really think that Ron Paul, or any politician, would actually change things do you?
      Ron Paul gets elected. He spends a month being briefed on everything. He suddenly ramps up the wars on terrorism and drugs.

      People like you suddenly do what many Obama supporters have done. Oh, he's nothing like the previous bastard. Wiretapping's fine! Our hero can do nothing wrong.

      Realize the truth! The only way to freedom is to destroy the system. You want no TSA or similar? Smash the federal (and state) governments. Introduce true democracy (ground-up, those who are affected get a vote, etc.). Introduce communism. Etc.

      --
      HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
  11. Every airport I've been to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At every airport I have driven in to I have seen large signs on the road leading to the airport that inform the public that their vehicle is subject to search. Your rights don't magically come back just because you paid for a valet to park your car. This is not news to me and I'm not surprised.

    1. Re:Every airport I've been to by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      ... their vehicle is subject to search

      BUT NOT BY UNTRAINED VALETS, FOR PETE'S SAKE. Did you even read the summary???

      Also, since when do any citizens have to comply with government 'orders' besides those given during a legal arrest (and as a stretch, flight attendants/pilots, who are not gov't employees but are operating under the FAAs color of law).

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    2. Re:Every airport I've been to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I read the summary for Pete's sake (bless his soul). The signs don't specify who will search your car, honestly. The valet attendants are actually not the worst people to get in and out of your car. People trust them with their car when they hand over the keys. They are experienced enough to not scratch or damage your car when you hand over the keys and they park it. Whereas, TSA officials are trained in a lot of other things, patting people down, riffling through peoples belongings in luggage at checkpoints, handling firearms, arrests, etc.

      "Untrained valets, for pete's sake", as you say, should never be trusted with even driving a car in the first place. But of course, that's their job and people pay them money to do so.

      If the news here is that the valet attendants are searching vehicles under the TSA's direction that should be in the headline of this post. The headline is sensationalist on the issue of the TSA's overreach. I agree with the "And the story is...?" sentiment.

    3. Re:Every airport I've been to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I drive into an airport I have the expectation that a TSA official or any other police body could stop my car and inspect it. The same goes for valet drivers going from pick up to parking or vice versa. They are in a vehicle at an airpot and TSA or police could ask for a search of the car. It doesn't matter that it's not theirs. Yes, TSA officials should be completing the search personally. However, as the video in the linked article (did you watch the video in the linked article for Pete's sake?) points out at the very end that the "search" is a brief scan of the interior (not including glove box), the trunk, and the engine compartment for "large amounts of explosive" and that they do not go through your personal items. So scary!

    4. Re:Every airport I've been to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the kind of stupidity that has gotten us to this point. The idea that putting up a sign somehow magically removes your rights. No, it does not. This applies to airports. The government CAN NOT unlawfully search my vehicle just because they put up a sign. Even the supreme court has held that rights can not be waived. Putting up a sign does not make it legal, and the sooner spineless government lapdogs like yourself realize it, the better.

  12. Police State? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    If it looks like a police state and it lives like a police state, how is it different from a police state?

    1. Re:Police State? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not limited to any single state. It's a police federation.

    2. Re:Police State? by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 0

      Actually, Amerika is a police republic.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
  13. Re:Not a real issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know the secret of big whoop?

    I love you.

  14. Constitution free zones by swb · · Score: 1

    http://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-constitution-free-zone-map

    Rochester isn't on this map, but I'm sure its in there...

    1. Re:Constitution free zones by legojenn · · Score: 1

      Isn't it right on Lake Ontario between Buffalo and Syracuse or is there a big whoosh that I missed?

      --
      I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
    2. Re:Constitution free zones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should check your prescription, it's there.

  15. TSA Regulations? by intermodal · · Score: 2

    This whole operation falls apart at the words "TSA Regulations." There's no acceptable justification for routine searches of these cars under the fourth amendment. They're not getting on the planes, therefore the (already questionable) reasoning being used to have passengers searched doesn't apply here at all.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  16. Separate locks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what would happen if you had separate keys for the ignition and glove-box/trunk?

    1. Re:Separate locks? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      I wonder what would happen if you had separate keys for the ignition and glove-box/trunk?

      Back in the day, all cars used to (at least all the old cars I ever had). Many cars now have valet keys that only let the driver open the doors and start the engine. Some expensive/fast cars also have a speed limiter engaged when the valet key is used.

      But that does make you wonder if the TSA has the valets bust open locked glove boxes and trunks like they do locked luggage. That would be an even worse surprise.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
  17. well when you don't tip valets like to by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    do burn outs

    change radio presets

    the nicer the car and the lower the tip the more of stuff like that happens.

    1. Re:well when you don't tip valets like to by Golddess · · Score: 2

      Having never let a valet park my car, I never realized it was customary to tip the valet. But now knowing that it is, wouldn't you tip them when they bring your car back? Tipping when you drop the car off, to me, seems like it'd be like tipping your waiter/waitress when they seat you.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    2. Re:well when you don't tip valets like to by Wookact · · Score: 1

      It will probably be a different valet that parks the car then the one that retrieves it. Although I agree with you in principal.

    3. Re:well when you don't tip valets like to by ethanms · · Score: 1

      The few times I've been forced to use valet parking I will usually hand the guy taking the car $2 or something... the idea is that you're saying, hey I'm giving you $2 so that you'd don't destroy my car. It makes no sense to be honest because anyone in that type of a job should want to do a good job in order to keep the job itself--either because of the paycheck or access to other tips.

      But I also drive an 11 year old Honda Civic that has smelled like spoiled milk for the past 2 years that I've owned it, so honestly, there's not much you can do to it that will make me upset...

    4. Re:well when you don't tip valets like to by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      anyone in that type of a job should want to do a good job in order to keep the job itself--either because of the paycheck or access to other tips

      The tips are what they care about, but that doesn't motivate them to be safe; quite the opposite. They drive as fast as they can, turning corners with a rear-axel (if they can) to maximize the number of tips they get. If someone comes back a month later with complaints about their tires or a door ding, "sorry, wasn't there when I drove it" is the mantra. And who takes photos of their cars just before and after the valets park them? Never valet park.

  18. New possibilities by reboot246 · · Score: 2

    All this does is give the TSA a new place from which to steal. Don't leave anything of value in your car; it may (probably) won't be there when you get back. Without a crowd watching them, the agents will be even more tempted to take what isn't theirs.

    1. Re:New possibilities by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      The agents aren't the ones searching the car. And somehow, even though it's untrained valets, I trust them more than if it were TSA agents...

    2. Re:New possibilities by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

      A TFA points out, the TSA aren't doing the searching; the valets are searching under order of the TSA. So, as others have mentioned, when your valuables disappear you have no recourse against the TSA for instructing the valets because "national security" and no recourse against the valet because "just following orders," and no one is generally going to own up to stealing from you. "Look, you left it there, we don't know who searched it or when, just luck of the draw"

  19. Terorists use Valet Parking? by Herder+Of+Code · · Score: 3, Funny

    Am I the only one who think it odd that the TSA is looking for terrorists that.. use Valet parking?

    1. Re:Terorists use Valet Parking? by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      It's because valet cars are left in front of the terminal building for up to an hour, unattended. Whereas everyone else has to leave fairly quickly and go park in a big lot away from everything else. This makes valet cars much easier to deliver a bomb to the terminal.

    2. Re:Terorists use Valet Parking? by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are. The TSA says they're targeting valet parked cars specifically because of proximity to the front of the airport. If there's going to be a terrorist in the airport, search the valet cars. If they parked in the garage, you don't have to worry about it until they get to the terminal.

    3. Re:Terorists use Valet Parking? by alen · · Score: 1

      you leave your car keys with the valet which are probably left in some semi secure area. in theory the valet can be a terrorist or someone can steal the keys and take the car to use it in an attack

      in theory you can give your car keys to a terrorist, but that would mean you are in on the plot and would have to communicate to other terrorists about it. and the NSA has a decent chance of finding out about this

  20. Trapped Boot anyone?? by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    i wonder how long it will take for somebody to start rigging their trunk with some sort of oh Powder Bomb (which would engulf the valet with glowing talc). Of course i would be polite and have the trunk taped shut and a bumper sticker stating "Contents can not be inspected without owner present".

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    1. Re:Trapped Boot anyone?? by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      I'm just wondering what they do if the trunk has a different key from the doors and you don't give them that key. I've known a number of cars (mostly 90's models and older or rebuilt) that use different keys for doors, trunk and ignition.

    2. Re:Trapped Boot anyone?? by neminem · · Score: 1

      And that person would be marked as a terrorist and would go to jail for life, I bet you. So probably never, because they would know it too.

    3. Re:Trapped Boot anyone?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll use the trunk release button in the car...

    4. Re:Trapped Boot anyone?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter if it needs a different key to open the trunk. If you have access to the passenger compartment, you can pull the trunk release.

    5. Re:Trapped Boot anyone?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some cars (with the universal style key) you can also get a concierge key too. That one opens everything like the regular key but the trunk and glove compartment. On my car, the rear seat fold-down releases are in the trunk and the remote release can be disabled by turning off a switch on the trunk lock. So an optional concierge key is a reasonably effective lock-out for any valet. Nice to know the feature is there, even though I haven't had much reason to use it. (And no, not an expensive nor fancy car either. Older model GM midsized car.)

  21. Moral of the story... by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 2

    Don't take your car to the airport unless a family member or good friend drives it home for you. Other option is just take a cab.

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    1. Re:Moral of the story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real moral of the story is to stop using valet parking altogether. Better yet, stop using airplanes if you can.

    2. Re:Moral of the story... by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      Don't take your car to the airport

      So, basically, if TSA decides to start searching random people on the highway near the airports, your recommendation would be "Don't go to the highway, stay home"?

      And what will you do when they start searching random homes (within 100 miles of the airport, for "security")?

    3. Re:Moral of the story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't use a poncy, "look-at-me!!!1!" douchebag font.

    4. Re:Moral of the story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't take your car to the airport unless a family member or good friend drives it home for you. Other option is just take a cab.

      Or, y'know, just don't leave anything valuable in your car at the airport and consign it to the "don't give a shit" part of your mind. Sure thing, Mr. Thieving Valet Douchebag, go ahead and steal the air freshener, jumper cables, and dead car battery when you park my car. Especially the battery; I've been too lazy to get rid of the damn thing, but if you want to haul it somewhere to get the core deposit, that's fine by me.

      Of course, if you're actually paying the extra cash to valet park your car (seriously, people DO that?), you probably have more money than sense and are completely baffled as to why anyone WOULDN'T leave thousands of dollars of tech gadgets sitting in your car at all times.

    5. Re:Moral of the story... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      They might have a laser pointer or other weapon of mass destruction.

  22. Yep! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    He'll shut down the TSA the same way Obama shut down Gitmo.

    1. Re:Yep! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and like the freedom loving American he is he'll remove the shackles of government telling you what you can and can't do.

      Oh except abortion, and gay marriage because he doesn't like those things.

  23. Re:Not a real issue by trnk · · Score: 1

    He is rubber, you are glue.

  24. Thats Invasive. by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    Well I don't mind most of the security measures taken by the TSA, I do have a problem when they blind search someones space. If your going to search a car after someone leaves then fine but at least tell them your going to do it. If you tell me your going to search my car when I book my trip, or when I park the car and I'm given time to prep the car then I don't have an issue. I've had cases where I've had control substances ( not drugs ) in my car, if a TSA agent found those then what was going to happen? First of all the TSA doesn't require a high level or even medium level of intelligence for employees, I don't trust the judgement of most TSA agents and I certainly don't trust them when I'm not present or given time to prepare my space. Someone needs to speak up and ban this practice, it's just completely unfair.

    1. Re:Thats Invasive. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      Not to mention that it's not even the TSA doing the searches. It's the valets. At least we can require TSA agents to have some general knowledge of what they're looking for and have some oversight to prevent this from being a "Grab Anything Valuable In The Trunk" program. I'd have less trust that valets would have that training/oversight. (And my trust of TSA agents is pretty low to begin with.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  25. I have an idea by slashmydots · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well if they're turning a valet parking invitation into a free inspection, there's also nothing stopping you from putting these 100dB contact-break alarms on basically everything including the trunk, glove compartment, etc. Let's see how mister TSA wanna-be likes his job when he gets 100 decibels in his face any time he touches anything but the steering wheel.

    I live in an apartment and it has one of those pathetically insecure chicken wire cages upstairs for additional storage. A $1 wire clipper and you can steal everyone's stuff so I put 4 of those contact break alarms under a cardboard box containing my stuff. Then I drew an arrow and "do not move or touch - pressure-sensitive alarm will sound" and that's the last thing anyone will steal. It'd work just as well for car searches except put the alarm on the inside so instead of a deterrent, it's a punishment of sorts.

    1. Re:I have an idea by hibji · · Score: 1

      Then they impound your car because it might be rigged with booby traps. I'm all for giving it to the man, but unfortunately this is a poor chance at a good outcome.

    2. Re:I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any car that's suspected of being a terrorist will be impounded in Car Gitmo anyways. It's really quite cruel, they won't even clamp them to car batteries!

    3. Re:I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Four 100 dB alarms is only 112 dB

    4. Re:I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoops actually it's 106 dB (4x the power = two doublings, not four)

  26. Valet Key by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    All of the cars that I've purchased in the past 20 years come with a valet key.

    I wonder what would happen if you used that?

    1. Re:Valet Key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the valet key somehow negate the manual trunk release? Honest question, as I own a hatchback.

    2. Re:Valet Key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of the cars that I've purchased in the past 20 years come with a valet key.

      I wonder what would happen if you used that?

      The TSA would simply break the lock on your trunk (or, to maintain plausible deniability, order a bitter, sociopathic minimum-wage valet slave to do it), just like how they break the locks off of suitcases to get in them. Next question?

    3. Re:Valet Key by CelticWhisper · · Score: 4, Informative

      On my car (2008 Subaru Legacy 2.5i SE, USDM) it actually does. There's a keyhole by the trunk-release lever that can be toggled with the "master" key but not the valet key. It will lock out the lever and prevent the trunk from being opened.

      There are keyholes by the rear-seatback-release buttons as well to prevent access to the trunk via folding the rear seats down.

      --
      Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
      http://www.tsanewsblog.com
    4. Re:Valet Key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good question. If they have to use force to break into glove boxes and trunks then they can't use the "no expectation of privacy" defense anymore. On that note should their possession of a key constitute their ability and authority to search your car? I can see a world where TSA agents have master keys to everything including my apartment - does that mean I've given the TSA authority to search my apartment?

      Answer: No. It's just that they have the ability. That's not the same as me consenting to search.

    5. Re:Valet Key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever taken the valet key by mistake in the morning? All it prevents you from doing is opening the trunk with the key. It in no way prevents you from pulling the trunk release once inside the passenger cabin.

      The valet key, like the locks on the doors, are there to make you FEEL secure.

    6. Re:Valet Key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The valet key, like the locks on the doors, are there to make you FEEL secure.

      Most locks are to keep honest people out. That doesn't mean they aren't effective toward that goal.

      It in no way prevents you from pulling the trunk release once inside the passenger cabin.

      On my cars (and every car I've ever driven that had a separate valet key), the manual trunk release has a key slot next to it to render it inoperative. Accessing the trunk through the back seat requires the key as well. The valet key won't open those locks (or the glovebox).

    7. Re:Valet Key by Jonathan_S · · Score: 1

      Does the valet key somehow negate the manual trunk release? Honest question, as I own a hatchback.

      Not automatically, but (most?) cars have a disable switch you can throw to disconnect the trunk release button/lever. It's always behind a lockable area that the valet key can't open - I've seen them in the trunk itself (often a lever on the side of the lock mechanism) or in the glove compartment.

      Hit that disconnect, lock the trunk and glove compartment with the normal key and then the valet key won't be able to access the trunk. (My old car you also had to lock the folding rear seats with the normal key; those weren't linked to the trunk release button, so it was more of a pain)

  27. Why valet? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I had a bomb or other nefarious contraband in my car and wanted to do harm at an airport, why the hell would I valet the car? This is one more example of TSA and other nation security state powers being used for infringing on the rights of people. I mean really...

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    1. Re:Why valet? by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      If I had a bomb or other nefarious contraband in my car and wanted to do harm at an airport, why the hell would I valet the car?

      You're right!
      And as soon as someone from TSA thinks about that, they'll start searching non-valet cars as well. Wouldn't it be fun if locking the car in the airport becomes illegal just like locking the luggage is? Oooh, TSA-approved car locks.... sounds like fun.

    2. Re:Why valet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The valet here is someone that provides a service to take your vehicle from you at an entrance and drives it to a parking space, so you don't have to. When you present your ticket upon leaving said place, they'll bring it back to you at the entrance. I.e. it is a parking and retrieval service.

      This has nothing to do with valeting the vehile.

    3. Re:Why valet? by alen · · Score: 1

      probably because the valet cars are allowed to wait by the terminals unattended

      in NYC no cars are allowed to be left unattended by a terminal at the airports. even if you are in the car, a lot of times the cops will tell you to move

    4. Re:Why valet? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      If I had a bomb or other nefarious contraband in my car and wanted to do harm at an airport, why the hell would I valet the car?

      Because it's the only way to leave your car unattended in close proximity to the terminal building. The TSA still assumes you are a McVeigh "park and run" bomber, not a 9/11 "fie for the cause" bomber. Just put the bomb in the trunk, drive in through the wall of the terminal, and detonate

      Actually, the most effective attack would be to have the bomb in the largest carry-on available, and detonate it in the security line. Do your one attack while 5 others hit other airports, and you'd close airports for a week. Repeat once a week at whatever new security line they make (all will aggregate people and make a good target). With the 20 that tried 9/11, doing what I suggest would end air travel in the US in a month or less, essentially permanently.

      The TSA is not smart enough to figure out how to stop someone, they just try to make them not want to try. That may stop the weak-willed domestic terrorists, but the professional ones would have much better success.

  28. airports are "rights free zones" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Your life and freedom are at the whims of soulless government agents most of which are stupider, less educated, low paid, and resentful of anyone with the means to travel.

    Democrats want to expand this experience to the whole country.

    Republicans want the same thing but give you a pass if you are white and not obviously poor.

    Who can I vote for who will support an addendum to the 4th amendment: Government agents are required to obtain a warrant in order to get ANY information not readily available to the public.

    1. Re:airports are "rights free zones" by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Your life and freedom are at the whims of soulless government agents most of which are stupider, less educated, low paid, and resentful of anyone with the means to travel.

      Democrats want to expand this experience to the whole country.

      Republicans want the same thing but give you a pass if you are white and not obviously poor.

      Who can I vote for who will support an addendum to the 4th amendment: Government agents are required to obtain a warrant in order to get ANY information not readily available to the public.

      If you lean left, vote Green. If you lean right, vote Libertarian. Those parties (at least purport to) support the Bill of Rights; no addendum is necessary, we simply need elected officials who're willing to follow what's written there in plain English. (For those who support the ever-expanding authoritarian police state, keep on voting D/R — and since you're fucking us all over by doing so, you may as well go fuck yourselves while you're at it.)

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  29. bomb sniffing dogs would be more effective by hAckz0r · · Score: 1

    Bomb sniffing dogs would be effective for all vehicles and much less invasive, not to mention constitutional and generally accepted by the public. Must be why they don't do it. :P

    1. Re:bomb sniffing dogs would be more effective by turp182 · · Score: 2

      Bomb sniffing dogs are expensive and can't be worked too hard.

      Valet drivers on the other hand...

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
  30. Coming soon: Leave on trip, search your house... by tekrat · · Score: 1

    If the TSA knows you're away, I guess they will soon consider it OK to enter your house/apartment and perform a search. Of course, they will leave a nice note informing you've they've broken in. It will also explain your missing iPad or other desirable electronics. Good luck reporting *that* to the police.

    When the hell is the government going to learn that 1984 was not an instruction manual?

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  31. Fill the trunk with ticker tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Snowden was here... Snowden was here... Snowden was here...

  32. The TSA steals stuff too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There have been several stories right here on Slashdot about TSA employees stealing stuff from passengers.

    I am too lazy to look the articles up. Sorry.

  33. Re:Coming soon: Leave on trip, search your house.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When we hit back.

  34. How is this different from any other location? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The TSA are there to protect people that get on the plane. They are NOT there to protect people at the airport. They do not have the legal authority to check cars.

    Why? Because going to the airport is not any more dangerous than going to any other place. A police officer would have needed a warrant to check a parked car in that situation (i.e. no obvious threat such as stray wires, count down clocks, wierd boxes attached to the car) , as would the TSA agent or the valet for that matter.

    I personally would sue the TSA and the valet company.

    The mere fact that some psychotic paranoid is afraid of you does not give them the right to search you - not even if they have a badge. They need a specific law (or legal ruling) to do that.

    1. Re:How is this different from any other location? by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      oh but haven't they already taken the right to inspect whatever they want near enough the border?

      there's an imaginary border in every city with an international airport. so coming up: tsa declaring those cities special areas where they can inspect anything anywhere anytime - they'll call it their triple A protection system.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  35. Bank Ink Packs by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Banks have these explosive ink packs that permanently mark everything. They throw them in with the bags of money when they are being robbed. This helps trace the money and often also stains the criminals so that they can be spotted easily.

    I suggest anyone planning on parking at the airport to throw a few of these ink packs in the trunk, and then when you get back you make sure to closely question the kid with the purple face.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  36. Terrorists like you and me use valet all the time by PseudoCoder · · Score: 1

    It sounds conspiratorial, but stories like this make it easier to believe that it's less about the stated goal and more about looking to push the boundaries of authoritarianism. By using a third party they look to blur the lines of legality and constitutionality and giving them a possible out or scapegoat. Not cool...

    --
    "Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
  37. Not the TSA by JelloJoe · · Score: 3, Informative

    The TSA is not involved in the Rochester airport. Little known fact, but airports are allowed to hire private security companies to do the passenger screening again as long as they follow TSA guidelines.

  38. Valet staff are qualified bomb disposal experts??? by TooTechy · · Score: 2

    We are really asking valets guys to "inspect" a car?

  39. TSA makes it too easy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now the valets become the triggering device.

  40. Why is this a surprise? by MugenEJ8 · · Score: 2

    For at least the last 5 years that I've been flying in and out of PHX, and as you drive through the airport thru fare, there's a posted sign every quarter mile that clearly states "Your vehicle is subject to search."

    So if I decided to valet my vehicle and I have handed over my keys and property, I would fully expect them to take advantage of the sign. If they don't have my keys, they're not going to break into my vehicle unless it has triggered some sort of detection device. Valet vehicles are parked in high traffic areas if they're only around for a short time or if the valets are busy, think about the damage that could be done with an explosive.

    It's seriously as simple as that... Last thing I want to do is advocate for the TSA, but c'mon, these signs have been posted for years.

  41. TSA said it was not them by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 4, Informative
  42. Meet the American SS by nxahoward · · Score: 1

    They can do pretty much what ever they want in the name of your safety. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/02/29/the-tsa-is-coming-to-a-highway-near-you/

  43. Ya well by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seems to be how weapons laws go. It is rare to find a country with gun laws that are entirely sensible. I think part of the reason is that when restrictions are enacted, they are often written by people who hate guns and thus know very little about them. They then never trouble themselves to consult with their military or the like to get some information. So, you get a silly law.

    1. Re:Ya well by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Do you really need to consult the military to recognize the absurdity of those laws? I'm not a gun expert nor even a gun fan, but it seems pretty obvious to me still how pointless those laws are.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    2. Re:Ya well by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't think so, but I'm amazed at the ignorance of some law makers. Gun laws just seem to be some of the worst. I've never encountered a country who's gun laws I've looked at (not that I've looked at all of them or anything) where I've said "Ya, those all make sense." They always have some silly shit. Canada can't feel bad there.

      My point on the military was just that law makers have a resource they can consult. They can find weapons experts on the government payroll to ask questions. However those who want gun restrictions usually don't, they design them on their own, and they often end up being stupid and ineffective since the person doing it knows nothing about firearms.

      Just the way it goes, it seems, in Canada, the US, and elsewhere.

    3. Re:Ya well by davester666 · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't have been written by people who hate guns. It'll have been written due to some hot-button issue of the day, like one guy robbing a bunch of banks with a replica weapon, then getting shot and killed by the cops, then his mother pressing for the cops to be charged because her kind son didn't have a real weapon.

      You know, just like 9/11 & the Patriot Act. Total overreaction to a 1-off event.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:Ya well by the_saint1138 · · Score: 1

      Gun laws just seem to be some of the best known.

      FTFY. Gun laws just tend to make for more entertaining stories due to intense feelings on both sides of the issue.

      Please rest assured that your nation's lawmakers are busy making ignorant laws for *all* fields. Being a software developer, I've heard of a good few stupid laws regarding software and computer issues. Being related to an MD, I also know a bit about medical related legislative stupidity. My guess is that since congress is composed of lawyers the same is true of every field of knowledge outside of law itself (although to some degree that too).

      I couldn't agree more that Congress should consult a weapons expert when considering any legislation regarding firearms, but I think we shouldn't stop there. It would be great if it were a requirement for Congress to hear relevant expert opinions before any law is passed.

      P.S. Apologies for the Pelosi rag :/ Couldn't help myself. I really do believe that this is a bi-partisan problem though.

    5. Re:Ya well by Bumbles · · Score: 1

      You are making the assumption that politicians have enough working grey matter between their ears to be able to understand these things. Many of them do not. Many of those most fearful and hateful of firearms are those that know the least about them. At least a very knowledgeable gun hater knows what they are talking about and even they may back silly laws on the principle that any law is better than no law.

    6. Re:Ya well by ottothecow · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I suspect the point of this particular law is really a grandfather clause to allow people to keep things they already own (and encourage people to take firearms out of service), but ban the continued creation of replicas.

      If you have a deactivated souvenir rifle from your service in WWII, then it is no longer really treated as a firearm. It is a sentimental piece like a sculpture sitting on your mantle. Its hard to justify coming back to these people and making them get rid of their guns (which haven't been functional since 1945). People aren't out there producing deactivated weapons so the only way this stock would grow is if people go and deactivate current weapons (thus reducing the number out on the street).

      Replica weapons that look like real guns (and could be used to rob a store or get you shot by the cops when they see you playing with it) are inexpensive and much less likely to run into people who would be angered by losing them.

      --
      Bottles.
    7. Re:Ya well by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      Gun Rights advocate frequently use the reasons of sports, hunting, and collectors as defenses against restrictions. Of course they are going to stand for collector guns (that don't function) for being restricted. But who is going to stand up to banning replicas?

      Gun Lobbyists are far more effective than Replica Lobbyists.

  44. No one here is bothered the search by Stan92057 · · Score: 2

    No one here is bothered the search is conducted by a non law enforcement personal? Ya there needs to be a warrant for every search and it should be done by law enforcement not a car parking attendant.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  45. The story is 'security' creep. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The net change in safety of searching for 'car bombs' after a vehicle has already entered a 'protected area' is effectively zero, and in a free society it is neither possible nor desirable to protect everything that could possibly be attacked at all costs.

    Or are you advocating a search of all of the vehicles prior to arrival in the area they're trying to 'protect', at a hardened entry-point that would prevent a sufficiently-motivated driver from bypassing the search by driving around/through? Maybe we should place these entry points on every highway, and in front of every building, just in case some terrorists have a car bomb!

    This is just another pretext for expanding 'security creep' into ever more arbitrary realms of American society to enrich the security-industrial complex and widen the influence of the security state and its minions.

  46. TSA Orders Searches of Valet Parked Car At Airport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And nothing is done. Not by the left, not by the right. Not by the libertarians nor the socialists.

    Why are we content to allow a security surveillance police state to evolve right in front of our eyes?

  47. Or ONLY glance in the trunk, seats 4 big explosive by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > I don't oppose them giving a quick glance around the interior of the car (you did give them permission to get inside) or underneath it, but opening the trunk is going too far in my opinion.

    I'm thinking you're looking for a bomb that is 25 kilograms or more, it almost makes more sense to look in the window and glance in the trunk - no need to "inspect" the interior of the car.

    Sure, a kg of HE would make a loud, scary bang, but major damage would be hundreds of kilograms - not hard to see by glancing in the window and peeking in the trunk, with no significant "inspection" needed.

  48. It's a Feature by Kilo+Kilo · · Score: 1

    a case of security is good but charging for valet parking is better?

    Not only did we park your car, but we made sure someone didn't sneak 4 tons of explosives in it for free! Don't you feel safer, America?

  49. Obvious reason by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    Iacuzza rhymes with Yakuza. That's too obvious a connection for the TSA to ignore.

  50. Informed? by jklovanc · · Score: 2

    “I was furious. They never mentioned it to me when I booked the valet or when I picked up the car or when I dropped it off.”

    Most people don't read signs. It worked at a festival and that had a camping area. There was a rule that no glass was allowed in the camping area as it was an athletic field. Many times when I told people to put away the glass they replied that no one told them glass was not allowed. This was even though the following had been done to inform them;
    1. It was in the release they signed.
    2. It was in 4 in high letters within 5 feet of the venue entrance.
    3. It was in 4 in high letters within 2 feet of the camping entrance
    4. It was in 1 inch high letters on a 2'x4' placard, that displayed all the rules, next to the camping entrance
    The sign was probably up there but she just didn't read it. This "they didn't tell me" excuse is more indication of the lack of personal responsibility. Inform yourself, read signs, look things up, stop making excuses.

  51. Training by jklovanc · · Score: 2

    The searches are concerned with bombs. Any adult would be suspicious about a bunch of sticks with the explosive has-mat logo on it or a bunch of drums with wires running out of them. I bet the valets are told to contact security if they find something suspicious. It does not take training to do that. Is it perfect? No. Might it be helpful? Yes. Might it help stave of the claim that the TSA failed to use every available asset to protect airport security? Definitely. I can just see the headline;

    TSA fails again to secure airports as massive bomb explodes in valet parking.

    1. Re:Training by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does Obummer's cum taste like?

  52. The Truly Sad Part of the Story by redshirt · · Score: 2

    Is that: "Iacuzza said she doesn't mind the security measure. She just wants to be told if her car is getting searched." Somehow knowing that it happens make her ok with it. After all, she doesn't have anything to hide. She's is consenting to continued violations of the 4th Amendments because she's bought a season pass to the security theater.

  53. when public opinion changes this will end by Dan667 · · Score: 2

    Just like mccarthyism dying, it took people a while to wake up that hunting communists would eventually mean them too. Hopefully, with the nsa spying story we have turned the corner and can start to dismantle the tsa.

    1. Re:when public opinion changes this will end by aztektum · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like how the FBI was dismantled when the communist witch hunt ended.

      Oh wait.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
  54. "Iacuzza, I accuse ya!" -TSA Valet. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I just thought the name was funny.

  55. Then what? by Ardipithecus · · Score: 1

    The valet kid is at best worse trained, if at all, than the TSA droids. Whose attention locks on to mini speakers for mp3 players, shampoo and the like.

    "This looks suspicious" will require TSA to go to the car, reasonably keeping others away while they look.

    Unless obviously harmless, next it's the bomb squad and the airport, or at least the parking, shuts down.

    "Wow, it was some geeky electronic gadget, but better safe than sorry!"

  56. TSA Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TSA does not have the authority to do that. Or at least, nobody has any obligation to follow those so called "orders". First, the TSA are not police, they are security guards.

    Second, your consitutional rights are RIGHTS, which means you can require a court ordered warrant.

  57. Clueless ?? by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    This may be the 1st time the Valet's have been "ordered" to inspect your car, but I assure you they have been doing it all along.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  58. exercise in obedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nothing to see here, please start to get used to this so that it seems normal to you, thank you citizen

  59. Repeat after me: by erroneus · · Score: 1

    Working in support of or in cooperation with the US government is very bad for your business. The government might shut you down for a moment until people start complaining that they can't get service any longer. But eventually the message will be clear and it will be heard. Money interests will cause the government to respond. Especially state and local government.

  60. Liar!!! by dltaylor · · Score: 1

    He did NOT claim to want to shut down the TSA, just to privatize it.

    That way we'd have a completely different class of thugs (not even employable by the current TSA) molesting us.

  61. Fourth box. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's it. It's time for the fourth box - the one for ammo.

  62. Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They do it because they can. It is one more step down the slippery slope (and since the valets already have the keys so there is no evidence if something a TSA agent wants "disappears"). I'm sure that in a few years all cars will be required to have TSA approved locks on them so that they can check them in the other lots as well. A few years after that the police will start using them to do "random" security checks on parked cars. etc.

  63. TSA Has No Limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next up.

    TSA visits homes/apartments of people while they are away.

    Better hid anything that can be pawned off by TSA!

    1. Re:TSA Has No Limits by JBaustian · · Score: 1

      The TSA has an excessively large budget that it must spend each year, in order to justify an even bigger appropriation next year.

      So, the solution to that agency's outrageous behaviors is to slash its budget, sharply. Or, kill it completely.

  64. Eat fruits and vegetables tied to longest lifetime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eat fruits and vegetables tied to longest lifetime
    NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - ingest fewer than 5 servings of fruit and vegetables
      day by day is connected with a better probability of dying early, in line with an outsizes study from Scandinavian nation.

  65. Valet parking at ROC? by nessman · · Score: 1

    Rochester is a small airport - every time I've flown out of there (or Syracuse for that matter), from the time I enter the property, park, walk to the terminal, go through security and get to my gate, no more than 20 minutes has passed.

    If you really need valet parking at a small airport with a parking lot next to the terminal, you're just fucking lazy.

  66. Terrorists are very rare by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

    This just goes to show how unbelievably rare terrorists are. You have this huge, massive, exploitable hole that literally *everyone* know about....yet it goes unexploited.

    That's because the number of terrorists who have the inclination to actually do something like this is almost 0.

    Airport security is a solution looking for a problem. 9/11 was (1) a fluke and (2) airport security is it is now wouldn't have stopped it anyway!

    --
    With the first link, the chain is forged.