This isn't a partisan issue. Majority of both blues and reds have wholeheartedly supported all the TSA legislation since inception. The only ones who didn't were the minority of socialists and libertarians.
Thanks.:-) FWIW, I am in fact not a lawyer, though I am applying to law school this year, and I've managed to win a fair amount of legal proceedings without a JD.
FWIW, I actually very much don't want to have personal fame. I like having a semi-private personal life. I filed this because it's illegal and I actually believe in upholding civil rights. If you're too cynical to believe m on that, I doubt there's anything I can say that'd convince you.
Depends on exactly what the 1st Circuit rules. I very strongly doubt they would rule I don't have standing (which would be the worst case outcome for my ability to prosecute this).
It's possible they might not want to allow an emergency PI/TRO, in which case it'll get delayed on fuller briefing, probably ~1-6 months. They also might deny preliminary injunction and TRO, without prejudice to an ordinary motion for injunction, in which case we're talking 6-12 months.
It's also possible that they'll rule that yes the TSA violated the APA (again) but they'll let 'em get away with it anyway (like in EPIC v DHS, 653 F3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011)). That would be the worst case outcome on substance. I'd probably try for SCOTUS cert petition if that happens.
We'll find out in about a week, anyway, so no need to speculate too much. Follow me on G+ or Twitter, or watch my TSA litigation page if you want updates.;-)
Previously, anything that would show up on x-ray - e.g. lead or barium sulfate. Don't know whether they would work on the new millimeter wave scanners. (Anyone have a spare one lying around to test?:-P)
I've not watched the video yet; will try later. But the only things I've ever read about "natural law" have seemed to me to be fundamentally philosophically unsound, and basically just ways to bootstrap "I like / don't like this" into a claim of objective morality. I reject that philosophy.
Fair question, but with a simple answer: I've not said anything online that I haven't already said in court and/or isn't very blatantly obvious. I don't disclose pending litigation strategy or the like that might be damaging, nor anything private, privileged, etc.
I think it's beneficial to raise public awareness. Part of why they responded to me at all was because TSA's PR people (howdy, Curtis!) read the 2013 BoingBoing article about my SFO experience and had a subsequent internal shitstorm. (How do I know? Several hundred pages of FOIA docs — ones I haven't published yet.)
The FEC did NOT say that PACs can't accept Bitcoin. They pretty much unanimously agreed during the meeting (audio) that PACs *can* accept Bitcoin, and the Libertarians and some candidates already were and continue to do so.
They just couldn't decide *how* PACs should accept Bitcoin, and CAF (the requester) didn't ask about accounting standards or the like, so they didn't approve the request. FEC decisions are ternary: yes, no, and nil. This is nil, not no.
Full disclosure: my PAC's comments explaining a bunch of problems with the proposal were one of the primary reasons why they didn't rule on it, and we're intending to file a new request in the very near future. (Comments welcome on our draft of a new safe harbor policy.)
Disclosing it to the TSA makes me subject to discrimination and retaliation in an official context, and violates 4th amendment rights.
Disclosing it here is me trying to stand up for those rights, so that others don't have to be subjected to the same kind of mistreatment. If people weren't willing to do that, nobody would ever speak up, and everyone would continue to be abused.
No doubt it's more complicated. However, turns out there are actually standards for reasonable response times, and they're more like a month. If they don't respond to me, I can get a court to make 'em.
Definitely not my preferred route, and I actually like the contact person I have in their FOIA office, but I'm not interested in being ignored.
Rather than disambiguating "tropical energy drink" from "medically necessary liquid", I'd suggest the TSA do their job: disambiguate "explosive" from "non explosive liquid".
It shouldn't matter whether it's medical or not. If it's safe, it should be allowed to fly, period.
I actually agree — which is why I think that everyone's liquid should get screened the same way. They can do it, they have the machines there, they just don't.
I'm very sorry to hear about your friend. Anomic aphasia is pretty bad; having Wernicke's would be horrifying to me. I can testify that it's frustrating enough just dealing with my mutism.
FWIW, my condition is a production problem, not aphasia. I just can't make my voice work sometimes (couple times a month, lasts a few hours). I can still sign, write, type, etc just fine so long as my arm isn't physically spasming too badly or the like, and I still have full cognition / linguistic ability / etc.
I figure that as neurological disorders go, I'm pretty lucky. There are people who have it way worse than me, and your friend's one of 'em.
I've tried to address some of the questions people raised @ http://saizai.com/tsa#FAQ
If you have more, please add them as responses to this. I don't guarantee I'll answer 'em all individually, but I'll try to make sure the FAQ addresses all substantive issues raised.
Cheers,
Sai
I've added two links to the top of the page which should convince you otherwise.
You may be a doctor, but you are sure as hell not *my* doctor. I have in fact had a pretty thorough medical evaluation.
(This includes full addresses, phone #s, a rundown of the relevant laws they're breaking [TCPA, TSR, CA CLRA], etc.)
Key info:
James C. "Jim" Sletner (info@safedatainc.com)
SafeData Management Services, Inc C2330112 (CA)
530 722 9099 (work)
Jim's lawyer: Jennifer Shaw
legalcompliance@cdwsnow.com / 800 209 3755 x197
They also have a Nevada front:
Consumer Direct Warranty Services aka AA Auto Warranty Services aka Manufacturer's Direct Warranty Services aka Warranty Administration Services, Inc. C306269
(702) 207-1001
In MY CASE (which may not be yours), the telemarketers were:
National Dealers Warranty Service *** DIRECT LINE 949 309 3750 x0 ***
They also have 3751,3752, etc. I haven't mapped out the full set, but feel free to do so and email me if you do. I'll add the info to my post above.
If you call the direct line above, they will react EXACTLY as if their autodialer called you, because they can't tell the difference! Again, if you do this, email me your recordings.:-) (Hint: Skype + Audio Hijack Pro)
PLEASE NOTE: The caller ID that you are getting is FAKE. They spoof it. Whoever's it is in actuality, it's just some poor bastard who happened to have that number - don't bother the person. Go after the real ones.
What you can do:
1. Lie to them. Pretend like you're interested. Get three critical pieces of info: the COMPANY NAME, a DIRECT phone number (they first give you an 800 number, ask if you can have a direct line), and a MAILING ADDRESS where you can send a check. Remember, pretend you have an actual car that you want to warranty, and you're just really mistrustful of this whole newfangled interweb thing, so you'd rather send a check in by mail. (Worked for me!)
2. Call your phone service provider and demand the ANI and PBX records about the calls, saying that they spoofed Caller ID and violated the TCPA. (Look those all up on Wikipedia.) Your demand will probably have to come in the form of a subpoena, alas. (I'm sending one to AT&T as part of my suit.)
3. Using that info (most importantly, you need their actual business name and address), go sue them in your local small claims court for $2500-$7500.
If you really want, you can sue them in superior civil court for all that plus injunctions, damages, lawyer fees, etc etc etc - but it's more of a pain. Small claims court is pretty easy, at least in CA. Just look up your county court's website for info.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't a partisan issue. Majority of both blues and reds have wholeheartedly supported all the TSA legislation since inception. The only ones who didn't were the minority of socialists and libertarians.
FWIW on pronouns: male or gender neutral, please. Kudos for not assuming, though. :)
Thanks. :-) FWIW, I am in fact not a lawyer, though I am applying to law school this year, and I've managed to win a fair amount of legal proceedings without a JD.
Re. Australia: do you have a pointer to the law or regulation that says so? (First I've heard of it.)
As far as I know, at least US, Canada, UK, & EU law all permit opt-out if you submit to "patdown". However, IANAL, especially for non-US law.
You might enjoy this video of a German guy demonstrating he could smuggle an entire bomb past the scanners (German w/ subtitles).
I think any machine capable of telling whether or not someone is circumcised is a strip search under the 4th Amendment, regardless of whether it shows the image to a human or not.
FWIW, I actually very much don't want to have personal fame. I like having a semi-private personal life. I filed this because it's illegal and I actually believe in upholding civil rights. If you're too cynical to believe m on that, I doubt there's anything I can say that'd convince you.
Depends on exactly what the 1st Circuit rules. I very strongly doubt they would rule I don't have standing (which would be the worst case outcome for my ability to prosecute this).
It's possible they might not want to allow an emergency PI/TRO, in which case it'll get delayed on fuller briefing, probably ~1-6 months. They also might deny preliminary injunction and TRO, without prejudice to an ordinary motion for injunction, in which case we're talking 6-12 months.
It's also possible that they'll rule that yes the TSA violated the APA (again) but they'll let 'em get away with it anyway (like in EPIC v DHS, 653 F3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011)). That would be the worst case outcome on substance. I'd probably try for SCOTUS cert petition if that happens.
We'll find out in about a week, anyway, so no need to speculate too much. Follow me on G+ or Twitter, or watch my TSA litigation page if you want updates. ;-)
FWIW, there's no evidence of congressional involvement. My personal guess is that it was just dictated by Peter Neffenger, the new head of the TSA.
Previously, anything that would show up on x-ray - e.g. lead or barium sulfate. Don't know whether they would work on the new millimeter wave scanners. (Anyone have a spare one lying around to test? :-P)
I've not watched the video yet; will try later. But the only things I've ever read about "natural law" have seemed to me to be fundamentally philosophically unsound, and basically just ways to bootstrap "I like / don't like this" into a claim of objective morality. I reject that philosophy.
Perhaps my manifesto on civil obedience would answer your question?
Thanks. :-)
Fair question, but with a simple answer: I've not said anything online that I haven't already said in court and/or isn't very blatantly obvious. I don't disclose pending litigation strategy or the like that might be damaging, nor anything private, privileged, etc.
I think it's beneficial to raise public awareness. Part of why they responded to me at all was because TSA's PR people (howdy, Curtis!) read the 2013 BoingBoing article about my SFO experience and had a subsequent internal shitstorm. (How do I know? Several hundred pages of FOIA docs — ones I haven't published yet.)
did you read the comment you replied to? If yes, please ask a more specific question.
Gladly done. (Wish I had more resources, but I do what I can.)
Sai here (OP & person who filed this lawsuit). Feel free to ask if you have any questions.
I've filed an emergency motion for preliminary injunction / temporary restraining order.
http://slashdot.org/firehose.p...
The FEC did NOT say that PACs can't accept Bitcoin. They pretty much unanimously agreed during the meeting (audio) that PACs *can* accept Bitcoin, and the Libertarians and some candidates already were and continue to do so.
They just couldn't decide *how* PACs should accept Bitcoin, and CAF (the requester) didn't ask about accounting standards or the like, so they didn't approve the request. FEC decisions are ternary: yes, no, and nil. This is nil, not no.
Full disclosure: my PAC's comments explaining a bunch of problems with the proposal were one of the primary reasons why they didn't rule on it, and we're intending to file a new request in the very near future. (Comments welcome on our draft of a new safe harbor policy.)
Context matters.
Disclosing it to the TSA makes me subject to discrimination and retaliation in an official context, and violates 4th amendment rights.
Disclosing it here is me trying to stand up for those rights, so that others don't have to be subjected to the same kind of mistreatment. If people weren't willing to do that, nobody would ever speak up, and everyone would continue to be abused.
No doubt it's more complicated. However, turns out there are actually standards for reasonable response times, and they're more like a month. If they don't respond to me, I can get a court to make 'em.
Definitely not my preferred route, and I actually like the contact person I have in their FOIA office, but I'm not interested in being ignored.
Rather than disambiguating "tropical energy drink" from "medically necessary liquid", I'd suggest the TSA do their job: disambiguate "explosive" from "non explosive liquid".
It shouldn't matter whether it's medical or not. If it's safe, it should be allowed to fly, period.
I actually agree — which is why I think that everyone's liquid should get screened the same way. They can do it, they have the machines there, they just don't.
Actually no, the document check was totally uneventful. The people involved in my screening never saw my ID nor knew my name.
(OP subject here)
I'm very sorry to hear about your friend. Anomic aphasia is pretty bad; having Wernicke's would be horrifying to me. I can testify that it's frustrating enough just dealing with my mutism.
FWIW, my condition is a production problem, not aphasia. I just can't make my voice work sometimes (couple times a month, lasts a few hours). I can still sign, write, type, etc just fine so long as my arm isn't physically spasming too badly or the like, and I still have full cognition / linguistic ability / etc.
I figure that as neurological disorders go, I'm pretty lucky. There are people who have it way worse than me, and your friend's one of 'em.
I've tried to address some of the questions people raised @ http://saizai.com/tsa#FAQ If you have more, please add them as responses to this. I don't guarantee I'll answer 'em all individually, but I'll try to make sure the FAQ addresses all substantive issues raised. Cheers, Sai
I've added two links to the top of the page which should convince you otherwise. You may be a doctor, but you are sure as hell not *my* doctor. I have in fact had a pretty thorough medical evaluation.
See more info on these scum & outcome of my suit against them @ my blog: http://saizai.livejournal.com/896354.html
:-) (Hint: Skype + Audio Hijack Pro)
:-)
(This includes full addresses, phone #s, a rundown of the relevant laws they're breaking [TCPA, TSR, CA CLRA], etc.)
Key info:
James C. "Jim" Sletner (info@safedatainc.com)
SafeData Management Services, Inc C2330112 (CA)
530 722 9099 (work)
Jim's lawyer: Jennifer Shaw
legalcompliance@cdwsnow.com / 800 209 3755 x197
They also have a Nevada front:
Consumer Direct Warranty Services aka AA Auto Warranty Services aka Manufacturer's Direct Warranty Services aka Warranty Administration Services, Inc. C306269
(702) 207-1001
In MY CASE (which may not be yours), the telemarketers were:
National Dealers Warranty Service
*** DIRECT LINE 949 309 3750 x0 ***
They also have 3751,3752, etc. I haven't mapped out the full set, but feel free to do so and email me if you do. I'll add the info to my post above.
If you call the direct line above, they will react EXACTLY as if their autodialer called you, because they can't tell the difference! Again, if you do this, email me your recordings.
PLEASE NOTE: The caller ID that you are getting is FAKE. They spoof it. Whoever's it is in actuality, it's just some poor bastard who happened to have that number - don't bother the person. Go after the real ones.
What you can do:
1. Lie to them. Pretend like you're interested. Get three critical pieces of info: the COMPANY NAME, a DIRECT phone number (they first give you an 800 number, ask if you can have a direct line), and a MAILING ADDRESS where you can send a check. Remember, pretend you have an actual car that you want to warranty, and you're just really mistrustful of this whole newfangled interweb thing, so you'd rather send a check in by mail. (Worked for me!)
2. Call your phone service provider and demand the ANI and PBX records about the calls, saying that they spoofed Caller ID and violated the TCPA. (Look those all up on Wikipedia.) Your demand will probably have to come in the form of a subpoena, alas. (I'm sending one to AT&T as part of my suit.)
3. Using that info (most importantly, you need their actual business name and address), go sue them in your local small claims court for $2500-$7500.
If you really want, you can sue them in superior civil court for all that plus injunctions, damages, lawyer fees, etc etc etc - but it's more of a pain. Small claims court is pretty easy, at least in CA. Just look up your county court's website for info.
Have fun with them.