(Also on sharing, it may help to follow me on Twitter @saizai or Google+ +saizai, if you want to stay updated. I also send an aggregate email update about once a month to my Patreons.)
You're welcome. How to help: a) Supporting me financially would be very appreciated (I'm broke and can't legally get paid for the time I spend on this even if I win the lawsuit). Patreon, Bitcoin, PayPal, physical check. b) I need pro bono legal counsel for this case and my BOS case. If you know lawyers who might be interested (or are one), email me. c) Share. TSA HQ does pay attention to social and mainstream media, and the only two things that make them do things are bad PR and litigation. d) Contact your senator/rep to ask them to pass laws to reign in the TSA.
Ironically, corporations would have fewer restrictions. 4th Amendment only applies to the government (or people acting on the government's behalf or directions). If it were a purely company policy to give everyone an ultrasound probe before boarding, unprompted by any government requirement, there'd be nothing illegal about it. (Of course, they also wouldn't be able to force you to do it, which the government can)
That's not what I was citing it for. No US court has ever ruled on a mandatory-AIT policy, because it's never been the policy before (in the US).
Read the comment I was responding to: "Except there is no violation for leaving the airport."
Then read my cite: "The constitutionality of an airport screening search, however, does not depend on consent, see Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315, 92 S.Ct. 1593, and requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world. Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by "electing not to fly" on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found. This rule would also allow terrorists a low-cost method of detecting systematic vulnerabilities in airport security, knowledge that could be extremely valuable in planning future attacks. Likewise, given that consent is not required, it makes little sense to predicate the reasonableness of an administrative airport screening search on an irrevocable implied consent theory. Rather, where an airport screening search is otherwise reasonable and conducted pursuant to statutory authority, 49 U.S.C. 44901, all that is required is the passenger's election to attempt entry into the secured area of an airport. See Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315, 92 S.Ct. 1593; 49 C.F.R. 1540.107. Under current TSA regulations and procedures, that election occurs when a prospective passenger walks through the magnetometer or places items on the conveyor belt of the x-ray machine."
That directly supports what I said: "Once you start, they claim you can't stop. Courts have agreed."
Much appreciated. FWIW, though this motion should be resolved quickly, for me at least, it's just one part of a much larger lawsuit. Will probably take years. Hopefully some sanity may eventually prevail â¦
Let me rephrase: they're ineffective at finding weapons in any way attempted by TSA. The sort practiced by CBP is aimed at discovering drugs, immigration, and smuggling — not weapons. TSA isn't allowed to do that, though that is in fact the main thing that their attempts (e.g. BDO/SPOT) result in. (Source: 2011 TSA validation study on SPOT, which I have from FOIA but haven't yet released; also GAO's public study of SPOT.)
Whether El Al's version is effective is debatable, but in any case irrelevant, because it would neither be practicable nor constitutional in the US.
They haven't stopped a single one, because according to their own "intelligence", there hasn't been a single real threat against domestic flights. But that's SSI (aka "fake classified"; 49 USC 114(r)). It was leaked when TSA fucked up by publicly filing Corbett's sealed brief.
They're also ineffective. Corbett is already suing to block them (Corbett v TSA, No. 15-10757-A 11th Cir). (Full case docs are in my gdrive archive if you're interested. See link on s.ai sidebar -> case law -> tsa / dhs -> corbett -> corbett v tsa no 15-10757-a.)
Actually, it does have force of law. 49 USC 114(v)(2)(A): "A person is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for a violation of a regulation prescribed, or order issued, by the Secretary of Homeland Security under an applicable provision of this title."
Google "VIPR" to see the first generation of it. That's just the start; they're actively expanding their asserted jurisdiction, to cover *all* methods of travel.
Update: according to an anonymous but credible source, this policy was started on 12/20. Will find out more once TSA files its official response to my motion on Tuesday.
TSA does use sniffer dogs, though not a lot of them and not very widely. Neffenger (the new TSA head) told Congress he'd be expanding the TSA's sniffer dog program.
It's pretty common for TSA grunts to violate their policies and try to intimidate people against doing what they're allowed to. And TSA claims that it can issue civil penalties (~$10k) if you exit screening once you've entered. The only case I know of where they actually pursued that was John Brennan, though.
Yeah. Popehat's collection of such stories is pretty disturbing.
And on this case, the APA & 49 USC 46110 don't allow me to recover damages (and Kay v Ehrler says I can't recover for my time spent on it), so I won't be getting a single cent from this litigation.
Possibly from suing them over what happened to me at BOS / SFO (see s.ai/tsa), but that's a whole different thing, and probably will take years.
Slashdot Mirror
TSA has been supported by a majority of reds & blues since inception. Only real progress has been made through litigation.
Wish it weren't so, but it is.
And thanks for that. :-)
There's also Bitcoin if people want it. http://s.ai/btc
Feel free to ask if you have any questions.
TSA response & my reply are now filed. And I've released some FOIA docs as a bonus.
http://slashdot.org/firehose.p...
Plus, you're far more likely to be killed by a horse than a terrorist.
(Also on sharing, it may help to follow me on Twitter @saizai or Google+ +saizai, if you want to stay updated. I also send an aggregate email update about once a month to my Patreons.)
You're welcome. How to help:
a) Supporting me financially would be very appreciated (I'm broke and can't legally get paid for the time I spend on this even if I win the lawsuit). Patreon, Bitcoin, PayPal, physical check.
b) I need pro bono legal counsel for this case and my BOS case. If you know lawyers who might be interested (or are one), email me.
c) Share. TSA HQ does pay attention to social and mainstream media, and the only two things that make them do things are bad PR and litigation.
d) Contact your senator/rep to ask them to pass laws to reign in the TSA.
I've revamped the part of my website about my TSA litigation.
The case with the pending emergency PI/TRO motion now has its own page.
Please use that as the canonical link from now on.
Ironically, corporations would have fewer restrictions. 4th Amendment only applies to the government (or people acting on the government's behalf or directions). If it were a purely company policy to give everyone an ultrasound probe before boarding, unprompted by any government requirement, there'd be nothing illegal about it. (Of course, they also wouldn't be able to force you to do it, which the government can)
Leaving the airport after you passed security is way different than leaving midway through security.
That's not what I was citing it for. No US court has ever ruled on a mandatory-AIT policy, because it's never been the policy before (in the US).
Read the comment I was responding to: "Except there is no violation for leaving the airport."
Then read my cite:
"The constitutionality of an airport screening search, however, does not depend on consent, see Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315, 92 S.Ct. 1593, and requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world. Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by "electing not to fly" on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found. This rule would also allow terrorists a low-cost method of detecting systematic vulnerabilities in airport security, knowledge that could be extremely valuable in planning future attacks. Likewise, given that consent is not required, it makes little sense to predicate the reasonableness of an administrative airport screening search on an irrevocable implied consent theory. Rather, where an airport screening search is otherwise reasonable and conducted pursuant to statutory authority, 49 U.S.C. 44901, all that is required is the passenger's election to attempt entry into the secured area of an airport. See Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315, 92 S.Ct. 1593; 49 C.F.R. 1540.107. Under current TSA regulations and procedures, that election occurs when a prospective passenger walks through the magnetometer or places items on the conveyor belt of the x-ray machine."
That directly supports what I said: "Once you start, they claim you can't stop. Courts have agreed."
PS Insults do not make your argument better.
Once you start, they claim you can't stop. Courts have agreed. United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955, 960 (9th Cir. 2007).
Much appreciated. FWIW, though this motion should be resolved quickly, for me at least, it's just one part of a much larger lawsuit. Will probably take years. Hopefully some sanity may eventually prevail â¦
Let me rephrase: they're ineffective at finding weapons in any way attempted by TSA. The sort practiced by CBP is aimed at discovering drugs, immigration, and smuggling — not weapons. TSA isn't allowed to do that, though that is in fact the main thing that their attempts (e.g. BDO/SPOT) result in. (Source: 2011 TSA validation study on SPOT, which I have from FOIA but haven't yet released; also GAO's public study of SPOT.)
Whether El Al's version is effective is debatable, but in any case irrelevant, because it would neither be practicable nor constitutional in the US.
Don't travel through or over the USA either, or TSA rules will apply to you.
They haven't stopped a single one, because according to their own "intelligence", there hasn't been a single real threat against domestic flights. But that's SSI (aka "fake classified"; 49 USC 114(r)). It was leaked when TSA fucked up by publicly filing Corbett's sealed brief.
Compare:
Redacted
Unredacred
See also:
House oversight hearing
Joint staff report
They're also ineffective. Corbett is already suing to block them (Corbett v TSA, No. 15-10757-A 11th Cir). (Full case docs are in my gdrive archive if you're interested. See link on s.ai sidebar -> case law -> tsa / dhs -> corbett -> corbett v tsa no 15-10757-a.)
It's ongoing, in initial stages.
Perfect response. Thanks!
Actually, it does have force of law. 49 USC 114(v)(2)(A): "A person is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for a violation of a regulation prescribed, or order issued, by the Secretary of Homeland Security under an applicable provision of this title."
Google "VIPR" to see the first generation of it. That's just the start; they're actively expanding their asserted jurisdiction, to cover *all* methods of travel.
Update: according to an anonymous but credible source, this policy was started on 12/20. Will find out more once TSA files its official response to my motion on Tuesday.
TSA is already expanding to trains, busses, & highways. So that's not going to save you for long.
TSA does use sniffer dogs, though not a lot of them and not very widely. Neffenger (the new TSA head) told Congress he'd be expanding the TSA's sniffer dog program.
It's pretty common for TSA grunts to violate their policies and try to intimidate people against doing what they're allowed to. And TSA claims that it can issue civil penalties (~$10k) if you exit screening once you've entered. The only case I know of where they actually pursued that was John Brennan, though.
Yeah. Popehat's collection of such stories is pretty disturbing.
And on this case, the APA & 49 USC 46110 don't allow me to recover damages (and Kay v Ehrler says I can't recover for my time spent on it), so I won't be getting a single cent from this litigation.
Possibly from suing them over what happened to me at BOS / SFO (see s.ai/tsa), but that's a whole different thing, and probably will take years.