An iPhone,the 4th amendment & TSA (airport screening) policy "change"(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
An iPhone,the 4th amendment & TSA (airport screening) policy "change"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/business/17road.html
8 comments
But having 5k in cash isn't evidence of wrong doing, in plain sight or not.
While I doubt you could accumulate the statistics, I'd bet that the carrying of 4700+ dollars correlates very well with participation in the drug trade. Depositing 10k into a US bank earns you a free investigation, even if not face-to-face.
Moreover, we should be ENCOURAGING people to carry large amounts of our nearly-worthless currency.
> For example, a car might be stopped for some minor
> infraction - a broken taillight perhaps - but if the
> officer sees (say) drugs in the back seat, they can change
> their priorities. Evidence in plain view is the general scope.
I recently went through LAX screening. I accidentally left my Leatherman pocket knife in my carry-on bag. It's a stainless steel knife with a 3 inch blade.
Of course, I didn't know this until I arrived at my destination and unpacked my bag. The TSA screening completely missed it, even though it wasn't even remotely hidden.
I think it is time to take a review of the TSA procedures and start to dissassemble the security theatre they produce on a daily basis. Apart from the money and time wasted, it's also completely ineffective.
Of course, I didn't know this until I arrived at my destination and unpacked my bag. The TSA screening completely missed it, even though it wasn't even remotely hidden.
I think it is time to take a review of the TSA procedures and start to dissassemble the security theatre they produce on a daily basis. Apart from the money and time wasted, it's also completely ineffective.
it's also completely ineffective.
It's effective at the theater aspect. To ask for more is, arguably, unreasonable.
I strongly suspect the average traveler or voter would be able to judge between what's good security and what isn't. I recall discussions such as arming flight crew immediately becoming political, overshadowing rational discourse.
It's effective at the theater aspect. To ask for more is, arguably, unreasonable.
I strongly suspect the average traveler or voter would be able to judge between what's good security and what isn't. I recall discussions such as arming flight crew immediately becoming political, overshadowing rational discourse.
I'm not sure that the average traveler/voter can judge what is good security. What seems plain to me is that there is no totally safe place on this planet and that the better alternative to hoping that TSA has caught the bad guys, is to allow everyone the inalienable right to defend themselves. Could there be a downside to this? Yes, but at least they would be responsible for their own defense and would not have been disarmed by their own government.
So, in this brave new world, people that are afraid to use guns have lost the right to live because they didn't take up the responsibility to defend themselves?
Lifting the ban on guns/knives on an airplane is not going to make it safer to fly in a plane because "everyone will just pull out their guns and shoot the terrorist." What if the terrorist has a bomb strapped to him? What if he takes someone hostage? Just shoot through the hostage? What happens when a civilian decides they they are an expert marksman and tries to shoot the terrorist, but hits the hostage instead? Supposing that the terrorist was 'defeated' and everyone was safe, how would the legalities of that situation resolve? Is the person excused from killing an innocent because they were 'defending' their self?
Lifting the ban on guns/knives on an airplane is not going to make it safer to fly in a plane because "everyone will just pull out their guns and shoot the terrorist." What if the terrorist has a bomb strapped to him? What if he takes someone hostage? Just shoot through the hostage? What happens when a civilian decides they they are an expert marksman and tries to shoot the terrorist, but hits the hostage instead? Supposing that the terrorist was 'defeated' and everyone was safe, how would the legalities of that situation resolve? Is the person excused from killing an innocent because they were 'defending' their self?
With 9/11 in recent memory, it becomes clear that "don't let people defend themselves because someone might get hurt" is a weak argument at best.
Oh, and the scene in "Snakes on a Plane" where half the plane gets sucked out because of a few bullet holes is quite false.
The legalities work the same way they would on the ground.
Oh, and the scene in "Snakes on a Plane" where half the plane gets sucked out because of a few bullet holes is quite false.
The legalities work the same way they would on the ground.
If you want good security theater, just install some fancy looking machine that makes cool noises and every once in a while directs someone for a personal screening (regardless of whether they should be pulled out of line or not).
Also have a trained pro sitting on the sidelines pulling out people he finds suspect.
At a later point, maybe you can replace the fancy looking stuff with equipment that actually does something.
Also have a trained pro sitting on the sidelines pulling out people he finds suspect.
At a later point, maybe you can replace the fancy looking stuff with equipment that actually does something.
An article that combines the TSA, iPhones, and Ron Paul. HN gold!
Edit: Geez, people. Lighten up!
Edit: Geez, people. Lighten up!
Hey dude... I upvoted you because I, too, laughed at the title's inclusion of the iPhone that appeared in all of one single sentence in the entire article, but I just wanted to note; be careful next time about breaking the cardinal rule of karma systems: never bellyache about getting downvoted! ;-)
In the spirit of the article, the first real result on http://www.google.com/search?q=A+Constitutional+Case+in+a+Bo... doesn't require registration.
But who will protect us from crochet car cover plots?
http://www.sewgirls.com/yarn/US-Customs-Detains-Citizen-Over...
http://www.sewgirls.com/yarn/US-Customs-Detains-Citizen-Over...
I think that kind of stuff just depends on the border guard that you get. I've gone through that border crossing once. It was the middle of the night and the guard saw that we had an orange with us (crossing Canada -> US), so he took the orange and threw it in the trash and let us through.
It's definitely a lot less intimidating of a border crossing than the ones in Detroit or Niagara Falls.
[ Sort of off-topic: I've had at least two times where I was waved through a border crossing (Detroit) by the guard without even asking to see ID or a passport, but this was back in 2005. On the other hand, I once went across the border for ~20 minutes to drop off a present for someone (sending it in the mail across the border would have taken at least a couple of days) and they told me that I was 'randomly' selected for a full vehicle search once I told them my stay in Canada had been 20 minutes. ]
It's definitely a lot less intimidating of a border crossing than the ones in Detroit or Niagara Falls.
[ Sort of off-topic: I've had at least two times where I was waved through a border crossing (Detroit) by the guard without even asking to see ID or a passport, but this was back in 2005. On the other hand, I once went across the border for ~20 minutes to drop off a present for someone (sending it in the mail across the border would have taken at least a couple of days) and they told me that I was 'randomly' selected for a full vehicle search once I told them my stay in Canada had been 20 minutes. ]
The solution to this problem is to mail your content back to yourself. Customs can search your "papers", but they can't search encrypted packets.
There are tons of other phones that can record a conversation, so I don't understand what's the relevance of the iPhone in the HN title.
"Mr. Bierfeldt, it turns out, was carrying the money because he was returning home from a regional conference of Campaign for Liberty, a group that supports Ron Paul, the former presidential candidate. "
It totally makes sense to me that it was a Ron Paul evangelist who made this bruhaha. I have known a few in my life and this seems like something I could see most of them doing.
Way to stand up for yourself!
It totally makes sense to me that it was a Ron Paul evangelist who made this bruhaha. I have known a few in my life and this seems like something I could see most of them doing.
Way to stand up for yourself!
> Way to stand up for yourself!
I hope you're not being sarcastic. It's a tragedy that these airport screeners feel themselves to be the representatives of the police. It's just like the security guards and retail managers that think they have a right to detain you if they think you've stolen something [They don't have any such right, unless they are holding you for the cops to get there and sort the situation out].
The reason that most people just put up with this stuff is because it's easier to just 'go with the flow' than to resist and have to go through this whole process. Personally, I have respect for the people that are willing to stand up against this crap and push back instead of just bending over.
I hope you're not being sarcastic. It's a tragedy that these airport screeners feel themselves to be the representatives of the police. It's just like the security guards and retail managers that think they have a right to detain you if they think you've stolen something [They don't have any such right, unless they are holding you for the cops to get there and sort the situation out].
The reason that most people just put up with this stuff is because it's easier to just 'go with the flow' than to resist and have to go through this whole process. Personally, I have respect for the people that are willing to stand up against this crap and push back instead of just bending over.
All-in-all it sounds like everyone was really pretty reasonable. I don't see any losers in this. The TSA recognizes that they had a policy mistake and has reacted accordingly. It sounds like the police and the TSA investigators could have been a bit more...nice. Other than that, good for everyone involved:)
The TSA detained the man (possibly illegally), called the police, threatened him, and ultimately only acknowledged their bad behavior under the threat of a lawsuit.
If that's reasonable, I'd hate to see unreasonable.
If that's reasonable, I'd hate to see unreasonable.
> The TSA detained the man (possibly illegally)
Not 100% sure that it was illegal. If you walk out of a retail store and set off those alarms, they do not have the right to search you. They do have the right to detain you iff they are holding you for the cops to get there (it becomes illegal when they detain you without calling the cops). This can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in general I believe this holds true.
Though I believe that the TSA should be held to a higher standard in their jobs (retail employees/managers are not trained to deal with this sorts of issues, at least not well).
Not 100% sure that it was illegal. If you walk out of a retail store and set off those alarms, they do not have the right to search you. They do have the right to detain you iff they are holding you for the cops to get there (it becomes illegal when they detain you without calling the cops). This can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in general I believe this holds true.
Though I believe that the TSA should be held to a higher standard in their jobs (retail employees/managers are not trained to deal with this sorts of issues, at least not well).
I'd say "unreasonable" is not answering the reasonable, banal questions of people employed to protect travellers and the nation at large.
Protect from what? Cash isn't a threat and it isn't contraband. $5k is only half of what it takes to raise bankers' eyebrows, and they're at least qualified to investigate money laundering. The TSA goons had no defensible reason to waste this guy's time, much less go on a fishing expedition into what's usually intensely personal affairs.
The outcome was indeed good, but it took a heroic act to bring it about.
Jobs like TSA screeners often attract a certain type of person who revels in the chance to exert authority over others. It probably delighted this Bardmass fellow to no end to put this stuck up traveler going on about his "rights" in his place.
How many people were bullied into ceding their rights before Mr. Bierfeldt took his stand? A system that simply waits for TSA employees to overstep their bounds and then corrects them may be better than just letting them set up their own little fiefdoms, but lets make sure to remember that it could be much, much better by simply educating TSA employees about the rights of the passengers and proactively making sure that those rights are protected.
Jobs like TSA screeners often attract a certain type of person who revels in the chance to exert authority over others. It probably delighted this Bardmass fellow to no end to put this stuck up traveler going on about his "rights" in his place.
How many people were bullied into ceding their rights before Mr. Bierfeldt took his stand? A system that simply waits for TSA employees to overstep their bounds and then corrects them may be better than just letting them set up their own little fiefdoms, but lets make sure to remember that it could be much, much better by simply educating TSA employees about the rights of the passengers and proactively making sure that those rights are protected.
The screeners weren't reasonable, and it's unreasonable that these surly, unprofessional employees have the power to detain you and ruin your vacation. Their power should be sharply circumscribed to detecting threats to the physical security of the airport and the flights leaving it. They shouldn't have a generic law enforcement mandate that lets them detain and intimidate people they take a dislike to.
Anyway, the gist of his point was that there's a tradeoff between evidence in plain view, and invasive security checking.
Police are allowed to use evidence of other wrongdoings while investigating a completely different matter, and switch their investigation priorities, as it were. For example, a car might be stopped for some minor infraction - a broken taillight perhaps - but if the officer sees (say) drugs in the back seat, they can change their priorities. Evidence in plain view is the general scope.
The other side is that security checkpoints at airports go far further looking into things than would meet an "in plain view" test. The problem with being able to switch investigation priority in this circumstance is that it evades protections against unreasonable search.
His suggestion was that officers could do one or the other, but not both. Security screening should be strictly limited to physical security, and not seek evidence of other wrongdoings.
There is some evidence in any case that judiciary are starting to push back here, even in cases where actual wrongdoing is discovered by security searches:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020455680457426...
> A federal judge in June threw out seizure of three fake passports from a traveler, saying that TSA screeners violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.