5 ms·

As an Non-American, While reading the article, I got the vibe, that the ideology at the TSA security check is, Unless proven otherwise, everyone is a terrorist

As an Non-American, While reading the article, I got the vibe, that the ideology at the TSA security check is, Unless proven otherwise, everyone is a terrorist (criminal) IANAL, but where does US constitution/judicatory stand on it?

wrs 16y ago
The purpose of this lawsuit is to answer that question. Though I have to say that for the past 9 years, the constitution, judiciary, and legislative branches of the U.S. haven't seemed to have much influence on anything that is supposedly "needed to fight terrorism".
- tptacek 16y ago
  That's not true. The lawsuit doesn't challenge the doctrine of administrative searches, and goes as far as to concede that full-body scans are constitutional as a secondary screening measure (for people who set off the metal detector, or who can't go through the detector, or have prosthetics, or are on a watchlist, or become random selectees). At issue in this lawsuit is the specific question of whether an electronic strip search can qualify as an administrative search, which must balance the public interest against the intrusiveness of the search.
tptacek 16y ago
The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of "administrative searches", which aren't targeted, don't require a warrant, don't require individual suspicion, and which are used to protect public safety and not to conduct criminal investigations.
- cowboyhero 16y ago
  IANAL, but I believe this also allows the cops to set up random DUI roadblocks (ie, untargeted, no warrant, no individual suspicion, public good, etc).
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Those roadblocks clearly haven't been ruled unconstitutional (they happen in Illinois all the time), but it's worth noting that they're set up expressly in the service of criminal investigations, which is exactly what admin searches aren't supposed to be about. For slightly more context, note that there is a scheme of "primary" and "secondary" moving violations, which is why technically you're not supposed to be able to get pulled over for not having your seatbelt on. Mostly what they're doing at those checkpoints is racking up compliance tickets, which is obviously a load of BS. Fortunately, this is a problem easily addressed by technology.
  - cosmicray 16y ago
    A few months back I went thru just such a 'safety check'. It was on the state line between Alabama and Georgia. Alabama had ~15 units and a portable command post stopping all the traffic east bound into Georgia, while Georgia had ~20-25 units stopping all the traffic west bound into Alabama. They took my license, insurance, examined them carefully, then walked around and looked at my license plate, handed them back (with a smile) and said to have a nice evening. I've never seen so many blue lights in one place in my life. A few days later I described this to a Florida Highway patrol trooper. He chuckled and said it sounded like someone wanted to look good for the 11 o'clock TV news.

wrs 16y ago

The purpose of this lawsuit is to answer that question. Though I have to say that for the past 9 years, the constitution, judiciary, and legislative branches of the U.S. haven't seemed to have much influence on anything that is supposedly "needed to fight terrorism".

tptacek 16y ago
That's not true. The lawsuit doesn't challenge the doctrine of administrative searches, and goes as far as to concede that full-body scans are constitutional as a secondary screening measure (for people who set off the metal detector, or who can't go through the detector, or have prosthetics, or are on a watchlist, or become random selectees). At issue in this lawsuit is the specific question of whether an electronic strip search can qualify as an administrative search, which must balance the public interest against the intrusiveness of the search.

tptacek 16y ago

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of "administrative searches", which aren't targeted, don't require a warrant, don't require individual suspicion, and which are used to protect public safety and not to conduct criminal investigations.

cowboyhero 16y ago
IANAL, but I believe this also allows the cops to set up random DUI roadblocks (ie, untargeted, no warrant, no individual suspicion, public good, etc).
- tptacek 16y ago
  Those roadblocks clearly haven't been ruled unconstitutional (they happen in Illinois all the time), but it's worth noting that they're set up expressly in the service of criminal investigations, which is exactly what admin searches aren't supposed to be about. For slightly more context, note that there is a scheme of "primary" and "secondary" moving violations, which is why technically you're not supposed to be able to get pulled over for not having your seatbelt on. Mostly what they're doing at those checkpoints is racking up compliance tickets, which is obviously a load of BS. Fortunately, this is a problem easily addressed by technology.
- cosmicray 16y ago
  A few months back I went thru just such a 'safety check'. It was on the state line between Alabama and Georgia. Alabama had ~15 units and a portable command post stopping all the traffic east bound into Georgia, while Georgia had ~20-25 units stopping all the traffic west bound into Alabama. They took my license, insurance, examined them carefully, then walked around and looked at my license plate, handed them back (with a smile) and said to have a nice evening. I've never seen so many blue lights in one place in my life. A few days later I described this to a Florida Highway patrol trooper. He chuckled and said it sounded like someone wanted to look good for the 11 o'clock TV news.