13 ms·

Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down

459 points by bobf 16y ago

dadkins 16y ago
Does anyone know why the TSA even gives you the choice to opt out of the backscatter machines? You can't opt out of the metal detectors. It seems like the default policy would be for the new machines to be mandatory as well.
- dedward 16y ago
  Because they are controversial, show you naked, expose you to x-ray, and they thought this would be a better way for people to accept it from a PR point of view. Metal detectors are non-invasive, efficient, don't take naked pictures of you, and you are still supposed to opt-out if you have something like a pacemaker where the metal detector represents a possible health risk.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    The government does not have the right to make me submit to a dose of penetrating ionizing radiation, no matter how small the dose! This is invasive. I don't know how a court could find this to be "routine."
- ZachPruckowski 16y ago
  It's a slow-boiling sort of thing. Here was their plan: 1) Implement the backscatter machines with a non-invasive opt-out. Most people won't opt-out, but those that do won't complain, because the opt-out is painless. 2) Now that you've had backscatter machines for nearly a year, make the opt-out much more invasive. The complainers will be seen as crazy, since the Backscatter has been something we've been tolerating for a year and people won't understand the difference between "normal patdown" and "invasive patdown" 3) Come 2012 or 2013 or so, Backscatter machines are deployed pretty much everywhere, the opt-out goes away entirely. Anyone who hates the Backscatter has either stopped flying due to the patdowns or already been broken in by punitive molestation and PR pressure.
  - ZachPruckowski 16y ago
    >Here was their plan: It occurs to me now (after the edit deadline has passed) that this might have implied I have some sort of inside knowledge. That's not the case. The above is conjecture.
param 16y ago
What? I wasn't aware you needed to be irradiated just to enter into the US, even without planning to take any more flights. What is the rationale behind that?
- Lewisham 16y ago
  I haven't been through a TSA checkpoint when landing in the US, but it might depend where you fly from. The airport I usually enter the US from, Schipol (Amsterdam), has the backscatter machines installed at the gates (not the terminal checkpoints)... it is clear that they are only used to meet USA conditions. It might be that flying from a country that is not bowing to pressure from the TSA requires a security scan to be sure it meets their ludicrous requirements.
  - Devilboy 16y ago
    I think he means on arrival in the US, not before you get on the plane.
    - ojbyrne 16y ago
      I think his point is that some other countries don't take the latest TSA requirements seriously, and if you come from one of those countries, the TSA will screen you because of that.
      - chc 16y ago
        I don't understand the point of that point. If the reason for the X-ray machines is to stop people from smuggling dangerous materials onto planes and using them to cause harm, scanning people after they get off the plane is the most literal analogue I've ever seen for shutting the barn door after the horses have fled. Imagine a daycare center that had a policy of running background checks on its employees only once they quit. Would you feel like they were taking the children's safety very seriously?
        16y ago
dpatru 16y ago
The trouble with the Internet is that it's so hard for the government to keep secrets anymore. It's exciting to see in real time how American citizens are working together to challenge and change unreasonable government policy. First by broadcasting government abuse and now by documenting successful tactics.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  One thing that came out in this blog post -- it seems there may be a policy that the TSA employees are specifically forbidden to wear radiation dosimetry badges. What!? How in the world is this a sane policy? Who is this policy meant to protect?
  - AngryParsley 16y ago
    If a lot of TSA employees wore dosimeters, chances are there would be at least one false positive and the media would latch onto it.
    - dpatru 16y ago
      Of course, the chance of there being a true positive is nill. Government equipment never malfunctions. So it's better to ban dosimeters and eliminate the possibility of a media problem.
      - AngryParsley 16y ago
        I did not say anything like what you are suggesting. Those are all things to be concerned about, but dosimeters aren't an effective way to measure or prevent them. If the backscatter machines are completely safe, dosimeters for such a large group will still cause a panic because there will be false positives. There are other devices that can measure radiation more accurately and reliably. I feel contempt for the TSA as much as everyone else around here, but one has to be aware of the halo/horn effect. I don't know if banning dosimeters is the best decision, but I can see why they did it, and it seems rather unobjectionable compared to most of the TSA's actions and policies.
27182818284 16y ago
Really lucky. That situation could have easily turned into a 6 hour detention regardless of legal rights (which are already being ignored)
- qeorge 16y ago
  That's the same threat the TSA agents make. Don't assert your rights or it'll be a huge pain in the ass. Civil disobedience is not for the meek.
  - 27182818284 16y ago
    Oh absolutely and I'm happy to see the momentum building with this issue. That said, he still got lucky. For example, he was able to sit down and use his laptop still. It is a sad reflection on the US and the TSA, but I'm surprised they allowed that even. Had I not read the story and someone asked me to guess what would happen if a person took this attitude, I would have guessed the person was detained and kept in a back, empty room for 6-8 hours.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  So what ? That would be a fantastic way to screw this up, especially if a large fraction of all travelers would do it. Pointing out an absurd law is worth 6 hours of your time.
- gcheong 16y ago
  Sure it could have, but that would have made the TSA look even worse imo. I suppose if you go as far as asserting your rights, you have to be prepared to go through whatever comes up.
- dedward 16y ago
  He started out prepared for that - he had nowhere to be and time to kill, and felt strongly about the issue.
swombat 16y ago
In the 1500's a man called Étienne de la Boétie wrote, in a then-inflammatory "Discourse on Voluntary Servitude": Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude. A people enslaves itself, cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it. (http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html)
- dpatru 16y ago
  Fantastic quote. Thanks!
- acabal 16y ago
  A nice quote, but we've already given the TSA a lot. Now it's a fight to get it back. Hopefully it's not too late.
  - andreyf 16y ago
    The TSA is obviously staffed by bureaucrats who are simply following bad rules. This should call for a restructuring of the organization, not a lash out against The TSA or (worse) The Government. Let's figure out what is wrong with the process, and how we can fix it. Enough being scared and pointing blame.
    - olefoo 16y ago
      How about disbanding it as a waste of tax money, and as an unnecessary institution ill-suited to being part of a society dedicated to the idea of individual liberties?
acabal 16y ago
Oh wow, I had no idea they scan you after re-entering the country. I'm flying to Chicago O'Hare from London Gatwick on Dec 2, and now I'm concerned about this. Does anyone know precisely what my rights are as a US citizen upon re-entering the country to avoid all of this ridiculousness? I know that Customs has some Constitutional power for searches and so on (and there's that insane 100-mile "border" where people can be stopped and searched), but where does the TSA fit into all of this? If asked to do a backscatter OR patdown once I'm on US soil and leaving the airport, is it within my rights to refuse both? It sounds like the guy in the post wasn't claiming his rights, only threatening to call it "assault" if they brushed his genitals. Or have I got it wrong? Edit: I'm extremely curious about this now. Per the wiki article linked in the replies, it seems that x-ray and pat down searches are "unreasonable" without a warrant at a border (i.e. international airport). So I believe I could claim that going through these scanners again after landing on US soil and wanting to exit the airport would infringe on my rights. However, since the scenario is the same for entering a flight on US soil, wouldn't the backscatter/patdowns in those cases also infringe on our rights? Does anyone have any ideas on this? I don't want to give the TSA an inch when re-entering my own damn country.
- swombat 16y ago
  Your mileage may vary, but it sounds to me like he was claiming his constitutional rights... "Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" seems to be a key-phrase of people who know their rights when faced with police officers. That, and verbally not consenting to any search - your person is also protected by constitutional rights, afaik. (note: I'm not American, I may be wrong)
  - acabal 16y ago
    I think that Customs may detain you at a border--they have more leeway in the Constitution for border searches iirc. That's what I'm confused about now, because with each new insane agency that gets created and each new law that alters and amends old law, it's hard for a non-lawyer to get a clear picture of exactly what is and what isn't a right. And if I have the free time upon landing and no flight to catch, I don't want to give TSA an inch. Edit: here's the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception It says that "reasonable" searches, i.e. property searches, can be conducted without warrant by Customs officers at the border. "Unreasonable" searches like x-ray, pat-downs, and strip searches require a warrant. But is TSA allowed to do this as well, or only Customs agents?
aneth 16y ago
If you look at the way this was handled it actually speaks to the professionalism of most of those involved. Regardless of your objection to the policy, which is not the decision of these people, the police and tsa seemed rational and accommodating. Just think how this might have been handled in other countries.
- acabal 16y ago
  Or at a different airport... or if the supervisor was already having a bad day.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  In other countries this idiocy would not have taken place to begin with.
  - aneth 16y ago
    If you refuse to cooperate with security in England, Germany, France, Italy, China, Burma, India, or any other place I can imagine, you would not have a policeman calmly understanding of how you were asserting your constitutional rights.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      Burma, India you are probably right, Italy I can't vouch for, England, France and Germany you'd be fine.
    - ugh 16y ago
      What makes you say that?
    - Vivtek 16y ago
      You've clearly never been to Germany in your life.
dholowiski 16y ago
That's awesome. Ever read Cory doctorow's "little brother"? That's what I think of every time I read one of these stories. I've said it before- there are two easy ways to avoid this 1. Drive, 2. Don't visit the USA. To us residents, especially if you live in hawaii- sucks to be you! Oh, and the rest of the world is laughing at you. Fix your flipping government.
- snowwindwaves 16y ago
  have you been to hawaii? it definitely doesn't suck to live there.
  - dholowiski 16y ago
    I haven't been to Hawaii, but I'm sure it's great to live there. However, if you want to visit anywhere other than the other side of the island, you have to submit to the TSA, or take a boat. That part sucks.
- viraptor 16y ago
  > Oh, and the rest of the world is laughing at you. Well... that's not the only thing. Of course I laugh at what TSA is doing... but on the other hand a lot of ideas from the US are copied in EU. I just hope this isn't one of them. UK already tried experimenting with those scanners, but I haven't heard about them for quite a while.
  - dholowiski 16y ago
    Oh yes, it's a nervous laugh for sure. Already, the DHS requires our contact information and Passport numbers if you're on a flight that goes over the USA, even if it's never going to land in the USA (think flight from Canada to Mexico).
morganpyne 16y ago
I find it appalling that US citizens are forced to such measures to enforce their rights and I'm glad that there are people both patient and stubborn enough to play out scenarios like this. However, as a non-US citizen I always wonder to myself when reading such stories if there are any international rights/laws that may be applicable when entering the States as a foreigner? My understanding is that there are absolutely none, and I would have to submit to any and all egregious and invasive 'requests' (with NO limits) that are demanded of me in order to gain entry (which is why I haven't been there in a while and have no plans to go back). Does anybody have any information to the contrary?
- mthoms 16y ago
  I believe you are correct that there are no limits to what U.S. Customs can do so long as you are being processed within the physical borders of the United States. At a land crossing, once you attempt to gain entry you cannot simply decide "it's not worth it" anymore and return back to the originating country. You have no rights, not even the right to turn around and leave. In an airport setting (most mid-sized and larger Canadian airports have US Customs processing stations before you depart), you can indeed decide to turn around and not proceed with the crossing. From a legal standpoint I believe it has to do with the fact that at a land crossing you are already on U.S. soil by the time you reach Customs. In the airport scenario above you are subject to the laws of the originating country since you haven't left their territory. It goes without saying that refusing to proceed with a crossing at an airport once it has commenced would likely have other very serious implications. The local authorities would almost certainly want to have a word with you and you'd be flagged by U.S. Customs as suspicious.
jwu711 16y ago
I can just imagine that reporters are just going to be flying in and out now so they can get some create articles and stories from all of this
- stcredzero 16y ago
  I hope so. $11,000 is a fine price to pay for a well written story about personal freedom. Hell, why aren't there dozens of Kickstarter journalism projects for this?
trunnell 16y ago
This is what elections are for. Did you know you can be stopped and searched without a warrant within 100 miles of the physical border? [1] Between that and this new screening policy for re-entry at international airports, I think we've crossed a line. Everyone I talk to about this is outraged. If we still have a functioning democracy, these policies will change. It's somewhat expected that now and then the government will overreach (see the Alien and Sedition Acts, etc). But that's why we have elections. [1]: This band around the border happens to include 2/3 of the US population. http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/constitution-free-zone http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/constitution-free...
- RyanMcGreal 16y ago
  >This is what elections are for. Voting once every two or four years and ceding policy to the politicians in the meantime is a recipe for the kind of bipartisan nonsense that pervades the US government. If you want things to get better, you need to get involved between elections.
- aero142 16y ago
  You can't get rid of the constitution just because you won an election. That is why it's the constitution. Unreasonable search is a constitutional issue, not a normal policy issue.
- gaelian 16y ago
  Is this really what elections are still for? I remember the sense of relief and elation of many around me when Obama was elected. Change was coming and many people seemed to feel that the best time for it was when the old system has all but collapsed. I believe Obama himself actually said something to this effect at the time. Fast forward to a few weeks ago just before the US mid-term election and I saw Obama interviewed by John Stuart. His points seemed to boil down to that they couldn't change as much as they wanted to because the US (and by extension the world) was in crisis and that people expected too much. Don't get me wrong, I believe in participating in the political process, I do vote (though I'm not American) and at least try to keep myself informed though I'm no political expert by any means. But I guess my point is that taking into account how things have gone over the last few election cycles both in my country and the US, what this guy did at the TSA security checkpoint seems far more effective than voting if more people were to do it and things like it. But I guess that would mean that we'd all have to handle some amount of inconvenience to protect our rights and that seems to be something that modern citizens of modern societies seem mostly incapable of accepting.
noelchurchill 16y ago
The authors tone is reminiscent of the narrator from Fight Club. Excellent write up btw.
jacquesm 16y ago
For every idiotic law there will be a Rosa Parks. Now, of course there is a huge difference between state sponsored racism and the TSA policies but I'm very happy this guy decided to test the limits. If you have some spare time next time you land in a US airport ;)
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  >Now, of course there is a huge difference between state sponsored racism and the TSA policies Is there? Now instead of disregarding the rights of a portion of the population, we're disregarding them 'equal opportunity' style.
dshep 16y ago
Awesome, more people need to stand up for their rights like this.
Eil 16y ago
I agree entirely with the author's cause and I believe that the guilty-until-proven-innocent mindset of present airport security is wrong and should be unconstitutional. However, upon reading the article I very much got the impression that the author was refusing to be scanned or searched just to make trouble. When asked why he was refusing to be searched, his answers (in his own writing) seemed to be along the lines of, "because I don't feel like it." I'm sorry, but that's just not really a valid defense. Whether you feel it's constitutional or not, the law says you have to go through these checkpoints when selected. If you're going to refuse, you need to have a much better reason than you don't feel like it. Ultimately, it sounded to me like they escorted him out of the terminal simply because they were tired of dealing with him, not because he found a loophole in their logic or rules. Less well-mannered officials would have put him in jail for a judge to deal with in the morning.
- dedward 16y ago
  This was not about airport security - he had already de-planed and was trying to leave the airport, having already passed through immigration. One of the things the US is supposed to be really big on is freedom from Big Brother. Having legally entered his own country, not attempting to get on another plane, and offerring to cooperate as long as someone, under color of authority, would verbally go on record that he was required by law to do so, with specifics. Nobody was willing or able to actually do this. Nobody was clear about jurisdiction. The police wouldn't do anything without the TSAs instructions. The TSA didn't know what's up - and I for one would like the people in charge of security in the airport to know what's up, right? EDIT: From the sounds of things this really was more about poor airport design and people flow as well as misunderstanding of policies.
- dpatru 16y ago
  >I very much got the impression that the author was refusing to be scanned or searched just to make trouble. That's like saying, you are just making trouble when you resist a pick-pocket or robber. You are never "just making trouble" when you assert your rights. On the contrary, government is the one just making trouble. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect rights. However, government seems to be full of people who are eager to take away rights. Somehow, the institution of government appeals to people who like to force their will on others. If you value liberty, you must resist these people.
sandipc 16y ago
I fully agree with most of the civil liberties and health concerns I've been reading online about these "Federal Security Detectors," and it certainly is ridiculous that you have to be scanned AFTER flying and AFTER passing through customs just to get home from the airport, but seeing as TSA agents are really just there to carry out policy given to them from their superiors, it seems a little silly to claim that such an action "prove[s] that it is possible." With an organization with as many employees as the TSA, it seems to me that whether or not one can bypass security really just depends on the specific TSA agents and supervisors dealing with a specific case. This isn't really a blueprint for bypassing TSA security... more like a personal anecdote of a time when the author bypassed security because the TSA/airport security were tired of dealing with him.
- dpatru 16y ago
  The TSA must be able to justify the actions of all its agents at any time in court. The only way to do this is to issue detailed policies and insist that all TSA agents follow the policy. The agents are not free to do as they want.
obiefernandez 16y ago
When you arrive from an international flight at Atlanta airport, you have to go through security to get out of customs because there is no direct exit out to the street. In other words, when you arrive and go through border control and customs, the only way to get out of the airport is to go through the other terminals. I wonder if the same applies at Cincinnati/N. Kentucky airport.
- wiredfool 16y ago
  And SeaTac, and O Hare, if I remember correctly.
- dedward 16y ago
  This makes a lot of sense. Had someone with authority said "Sir, unfortunately, the way the airport is laid out, you must enter the secured area of the airport in order to leave, and therefore we have to put you through our screening process." then there would be no trouble. Equally less troublesome would have been if the TSA had simply realized this and told the police "No problem, he's not connecting anywhere - please just escort him out of the building safely." That seems logical, and seems to be what happened in the end - as soon as someone actually made a decision.
  - syllogism 16y ago
    He can still ask to be escorted through the secured area --- which is what seems to have happened.
    - dedward 16y ago
      Yup - and he was offerred this earlier on in the story - though when he pushed the police on the pat-down procedure, they wouldn't commit to anything. They said they "might" have to pat him down before escorting him (which seems reasonable if they are being asked to securely transport him through the facility. While they didn't insist on groping his nads like the TSA does, they couldn't promise that wouldn't happen at all. There was wiggle room there. Had the cops said "We aren't like the TSA -but if we're going to escort you out of the building, we need to pat you down for weapons like we would any other person we're transporting - are you okay with that?" it might have been over.
ck2 16y ago
Except he'll probably get a surprise $10k fine (civil lawsuit) a few months from now. For anyone else trying to prevent a gate-rape freedom-fondle, do not try the "less clothes" approach, this one ended with an arrest: http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Passenger+Chooses+Strip-Down+Over+Pat-Down+|+NBC+San+Diego&expire=&urlID=441153877&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcsandiego.com%2Fnews%2Flocal-beat%2FPassenger-Chooses-Strip-Down-Over-Pat-Down-109872589.html http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&... There is also some documentation now that the scanners produce TWENTY times the claimed radiation level: http://holt.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=651&Itemid=18 http://holt.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=...
- jacquesm 16y ago
  > Except he'll probably get a surprise $10k fine (civil lawsuit) a few months from now. What do you base that on ?
  - ck2 16y ago
    http://gawker.com/5689925/man-threatened-with-10000-fine-after-refusing-tsa-grope http://gawker.com/5689925/man-threatened-with-10000-fine-aft... https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/enforcement_sanction_guidance_policy.pdf https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.tsa.gov/assets/... https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/Sanction_Guidance_for_Individuals_7-15-2004.pdf https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.tsa.gov/assets/...
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      Nice pdfs, there does not seem to be a single item in there that matches your $10K fine for anything the guy did, in fact he has a bunch of police officers on hand as witnesses that he behaved impeccably. What specific reason (instead of links to a bunch of documents) do you see for them slapping a civil suit on him ? The gawker article reads: "He said that once I start the screening in the secure area, I could not leave until it was completed. Having left the area, he stated, I would be subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine... He again asserted the necessity that I return to the screening area." That is not the same as actually being charged with something and having such a fine levied against you, especially not in a civil suit (which is separate from the fine). I don't see any proof such a suit was brought or the fine was actually levied. There would have to be an infraction and this guy was not detained (he would have been if there were such an infraction, you can just about count on that).
hartror 16y ago
Ah – he’s gotten the Miranda talk. I hide my smile. Anyone know what this is? Edit: Thanks, live in Australia so don't get all the lingo.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  The miranda talk is the formal speech an officer makes before they move on you so that you know your rights.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_rights
- ck2 16y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning When any law enforcement officer in the USA starts asking you questions, become EXTREMELY cautious and serious (even if they do not explicitly state the warning, which they might just say afterwards to cover themselves). People often think they can "talk themselves out of it", and almost always discover that is not the case.
  - mcobrien 16y ago
    Don't talk to cops http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
- seldo 16y ago
  Well, Miranda refers to Miranda Rights, or the Miranda Warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning However, Miranda rights are mostly about the right to avoid self-incrimination. In the article he seems to suggest that the officer must present identification or credentials as part of Miranda, which is not something I'm familiar with.
toast76 16y ago
I just want to know what the TSA supervisor expected would happen if he DID choose to go back to customs. Then what? Where does he go? He has no ticket, no boarding pass. He can't get on a plane. I don't see how refusing could possible end any other way than for him to walk out of there. Surely even as he was saying this, he'd have realised how absurd it was. As a tourist, I wouldn't risk it...too easy to put you back on a plane (unless you have to consent to a search there too?). But if I were a citizen of the USA, there is no chance I'd put up with that when returning to my own country.
- ZachPruckowski 16y ago
  >"I just want to know what the TSA supervisor expected would happen if he DID choose to go back to customs. Then what? Where does he go? He has no ticket, no boarding pass. He can't get on a plane. I don't see how refusing could possible end any other way than for him to walk out of there." The assumption is almost certainly that the passenger either eventually caves due to boredom, hunger, thirst, or need to go to the bathroom. I assume they're figuring the passenger will have to cave before they will - I mean, unless he stays there until he somehow passes out from thirst and is removed, unconscious, by an ambulance days later, he's going to have to cave eventually.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  > Then what? Where does he go? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362227/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362227/
dnsworks 16y ago
I'm curious if any lawyers from the EFF have put themselves through this so that they have good grounds to sue the federal government for violation of constitutional rights?
- frossie 16y ago
  I suspect you are thinking of EPIC - http://epic.org/ http://epic.org/ which has indeed filed a lawsuit - I don't see how this is EFF purview.
  - dnsworks 16y ago
    Never heard about EPIC, but the EFF is part of the engineering community. Our community solves the problems that the rest of the world creates. The EFF should be involved .. maybe somebody can get arrested for planning flash-mobs at the airports Tuesday and Wednesday to decimate holiday travel plans and put the issue into the national spotlight. That's something a bunch of hackers could put together.
techiferous 16y ago
If you do not like the TSA's policies, please take a moment to write your representatives: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_se...
- uptown 16y ago
  You're aware that our representatives aren't required to pass through these sensors, aren't you?
  - Natsu 16y ago
    They are, however, required to get enough votes to get elected.
aubonpanzer 16y ago
Kafkaesque to say the least
kingkawn 16y ago
What is the author's race?
eyeareque 16y ago
I wonder, would they have been able to arrest him if he was shooting video within the security area? Is it legal to record the audio of a cop if you inform them about it first? I need to read up on this before I need to travel again. Someone should create a know your rights quick reference guide for air travel. Side note: I flew from HK to SF yesterday.. No backscatter machines on re-entry of the US border. When I flew from SFO to HK a couple of weeks ago I was lucky enough to have made it into a line that was only a metal detector. They did have some backscatter machines in place. Second side note: On my flight home from HK to SFO they had roped off the waiting area at my gate. There were about 6 Muslim men (hats, bears, speaking arabic gave me this impression) waiting in line with the rest of the passengers to get all of our carry on items physically searched before our flight. I'm sure the extra screening was not due to their being on the flight /sarcasm. I over heard some of the men speaking about how they can fly anywhere in the world and don't have a problem. But as soon as they fly to the US, they get harassed up and down. I truly felt sorry for them.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
icey 16y ago
I wonder how many of these opt-outs are going to end up on the no-fly list.
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  They don't seem to take IDs or boarding passes.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
LiveTheDream 16y ago
I'm surprised there wasn't a big fuss about the audio recording. Just one person asking if there was video being recorded, and a lot of people not wanting to make declarative statements on record. Does this mean that officials have accepted the fact that citizens can legally record them performing their duties?
Vipsy 16y ago
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" - Mahatma Gandhi
smtf 16y ago
If I am understanding this correctly the TSA/Customs officials could submit you to a backscatter/pat-down BEFORE you clear customs and the Constitutional argument evaporates. I imagine that would require an overhaul of the layout of many airports, but perhaps if enough people make a fuss like the author then someone will push for it. Does anyone know of a reason they couldn't do another security screening after you land and just before you clear customs ?
URSpider94 16y ago
Others have hinted at this, but when I read this story, I had a big "HUH?" moment. I just returned into the USA last week at SFO, and I can assure you that I didn't go through any kind of security screening upon re-entering the USA. The USA, unlike many other countries, requires that you clear out through Customs at your first point of entry. This is an operational issue, because after that, you are mixed with domestic passengers. Clearing through Customs requires that you pick up your checked luggage. As such, you are no longer "sterile" from an airport security perspective (you could have pulled a box cutter out of your checked luggage, for example). This means that, if you plan to continue on as a domestic passenger, then you have to be re-screened for security, just like someone walking in from the street. What boggles my mind is that the folks who set up this airport require non-passengers to go through TSA security, just to walk out of the terminal. Not only is this a waste of time and money, but it also introduces people with no legitimate reason to travel into the terminal. Put another way, if I WANTED to pass through a TSA checkpoint at most airports without a ticket for onward travel, I would be turned away. In summary, I guess I can understand why this guy thought that he was being screened to re-enter the country, when in fact he was just the victim of very, very poor airport design.
- dalke 16y ago
  Atlanta airport, for example, is one of several US airports which weren't designed with the current security policies in mind. International arrivals occur at the furthest terminal from the exit, and in order for passengers to get to the exit they must take the shuttle car system or walk, and both are inside the "sterile" area of the airport. I sent a letter to the TSA last week asking about the legality of this search. Can a passenger just after existing customs and immigration decline further screening, and if so, how? If not, when is it presumed that the passenger gave consent to the search and what level of search was consented to? I'm curious as to what their answer will be.
jscore 16y ago
Some companies are making a killing by selling those X-Ray machines to the gov't. The politicians who pushed this are getting a nice cut from this. There's startup for you.
sgt 16y ago
Is it common to say "Sir" when speaking to a police officer in the US? Where I come from, the police officer is expected to call you "Sir" and act as your servant.
- anonymous246 16y ago
  My understanding is that you do that just so they don't book you on phony "disorderly conduct" charges.
- Natsu 16y ago
  At least where I'm from, it's common. It's a sign of respect for the position, not submission.
- bitwize 16y ago
  I say "sir" to the cashier at Starbucks. It's a politeness and showing of respect thing.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - sgt 16y ago
    I don't have that type of respect for the cashier at Starbucks, although I don't have "disrespect" for him/her either, if you can put that way. But come on, I'm friendly to them and that's what counts. How can a "the customer is always right" mindset work, if the customer says "sir"? "A cup of cappuccino, sir" "Yes sir" "How long will it take, sir?" "2 minutes, sir" "Excellent, my good sir. I shall be awaiting my delicious cup of coffee, my liege." Never heard this :-)
dshankar 16y ago
It is incredibly dangerous to write things like this. It encourages rebellious activity during one of the busiest traveling seasons. I understand these are potentially too invasive, but as long as the TSA agent is not being a pervert, I am ok with it for one major reason: It comforts me knowing that it (in some way) helps to ensure the safety of flights, our friends, and family. It's no guarantee but it helps a bit and I'd like it to be a safe traveling season. I blogged more about it here: http://blog.darshanshankar.com/post/1656961705/tsa-backscatter-machine-pat-down http://blog.darshanshankar.com/post/1656961705/tsa-backscatt...
jrs235 16y ago
Here's something that came to mind after reading this article... What would happen if someone prior to boarding declined the AIT and also told any and all TSA agents that they are not allowed to touch their bodies. We know that leaving the checkpoint prior to complete screening can result in an $11,000 civil fine according to TSA (BTW, where is/does contract exist binding an individual to these rules/statues???) So, what would happen if they basically do the same thing as this gentleman. Refuse to leave due to the threat of a fine but also refuse to consent to anything else. If the TSA order you to be removed, perhaps for disorderly conduct or some other bogus offense, then how could they fine you? Since they were the ones that ordered you to leave prior to the complete screening? And how could they arrest you for disorderly conduct if you are behaving in a civil and polite manner? Eventually, the TSA will have to let you go unless they wish to have someone stay overnight with you when the airport closes... see what I'm getting to here? Refuse to voluntarily leave since you are under duress to stay (possible fine for leaving). Does anyone understand what I'm trying to say? I don't think I'm doing a great job explaining. All in all its, just getting yourself to a place/state that you can't leave since in order to leave voluntarily without giving up any of your rights you face possible punishment. Additionally the TSA will say that you are not being detained and you can leave... but you can't. Anyone want to protest by getting into this situation? Perhaps protesting until TSA explicitly says you are free to go and you will not be fined. They can't remove you and then fine you, right?
jrs235 16y ago
Additionally, what happens with a terrorist shoves a [plastic] bomb up his butt? Will they then switch over to only x-ray (as opposed to the radio wave) machines and up the juice to look into our bodies and/or require cavity searches? Or even, how telling are these images from these machines? Could a determined person kill and animal or human, strip the skin and attach it with stitches to their own body to create a cavity to hold contraband? Perhaps making it look like a beer belly? This is getting absurd?

459 points by bobf 16y ago

Does anyone know why the TSA even gives you the choice to opt out of the backscatter machines? You can't opt out of the metal detectors. It seems like the default policy would be for the new machines to be mandatory as well.

dedward 16y ago
Because they are controversial, show you naked, expose you to x-ray, and they thought this would be a better way for people to accept it from a PR point of view. Metal detectors are non-invasive, efficient, don't take naked pictures of you, and you are still supposed to opt-out if you have something like a pacemaker where the metal detector represents a possible health risk.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  The government does not have the right to make me submit to a dose of penetrating ionizing radiation, no matter how small the dose! This is invasive. I don't know how a court could find this to be "routine."
ZachPruckowski 16y ago
It's a slow-boiling sort of thing. Here was their plan: 1) Implement the backscatter machines with a non-invasive opt-out. Most people won't opt-out, but those that do won't complain, because the opt-out is painless. 2) Now that you've had backscatter machines for nearly a year, make the opt-out much more invasive. The complainers will be seen as crazy, since the Backscatter has been something we've been tolerating for a year and people won't understand the difference between "normal patdown" and "invasive patdown" 3) Come 2012 or 2013 or so, Backscatter machines are deployed pretty much everywhere, the opt-out goes away entirely. Anyone who hates the Backscatter has either stopped flying due to the patdowns or already been broken in by punitive molestation and PR pressure.
- ZachPruckowski 16y ago
  >Here was their plan: It occurs to me now (after the edit deadline has passed) that this might have implied I have some sort of inside knowledge. That's not the case. The above is conjecture.

param 16y ago

What? I wasn't aware you needed to be irradiated just to enter into the US, even without planning to take any more flights. What is the rationale behind that?

Lewisham 16y ago
I haven't been through a TSA checkpoint when landing in the US, but it might depend where you fly from. The airport I usually enter the US from, Schipol (Amsterdam), has the backscatter machines installed at the gates (not the terminal checkpoints)... it is clear that they are only used to meet USA conditions. It might be that flying from a country that is not bowing to pressure from the TSA requires a security scan to be sure it meets their ludicrous requirements.
- Devilboy 16y ago
  I think he means on arrival in the US, not before you get on the plane.
  - ojbyrne 16y ago
    I think his point is that some other countries don't take the latest TSA requirements seriously, and if you come from one of those countries, the TSA will screen you because of that.
    - chc 16y ago
      I don't understand the point of that point. If the reason for the X-ray machines is to stop people from smuggling dangerous materials onto planes and using them to cause harm, scanning people after they get off the plane is the most literal analogue I've ever seen for shutting the barn door after the horses have fled. Imagine a daycare center that had a policy of running background checks on its employees only once they quit. Would you feel like they were taking the children's safety very seriously?
      - 16y ago

dpatru 16y ago

The trouble with the Internet is that it's so hard for the government to keep secrets anymore. It's exciting to see in real time how American citizens are working together to challenge and change unreasonable government policy. First by broadcasting government abuse and now by documenting successful tactics.

stcredzero 16y ago
One thing that came out in this blog post -- it seems there may be a policy that the TSA employees are specifically forbidden to wear radiation dosimetry badges. What!? How in the world is this a sane policy? Who is this policy meant to protect?
- AngryParsley 16y ago
  If a lot of TSA employees wore dosimeters, chances are there would be at least one false positive and the media would latch onto it.
  - dpatru 16y ago
    Of course, the chance of there being a true positive is nill. Government equipment never malfunctions. So it's better to ban dosimeters and eliminate the possibility of a media problem.
    - AngryParsley 16y ago
      I did not say anything like what you are suggesting. Those are all things to be concerned about, but dosimeters aren't an effective way to measure or prevent them. If the backscatter machines are completely safe, dosimeters for such a large group will still cause a panic because there will be false positives. There are other devices that can measure radiation more accurately and reliably. I feel contempt for the TSA as much as everyone else around here, but one has to be aware of the halo/horn effect. I don't know if banning dosimeters is the best decision, but I can see why they did it, and it seems rather unobjectionable compared to most of the TSA's actions and policies.

27182818284 16y ago

Really lucky. That situation could have easily turned into a 6 hour detention regardless of legal rights (which are already being ignored)

qeorge 16y ago
That's the same threat the TSA agents make. Don't assert your rights or it'll be a huge pain in the ass. Civil disobedience is not for the meek.
- 27182818284 16y ago
  Oh absolutely and I'm happy to see the momentum building with this issue. That said, he still got lucky. For example, he was able to sit down and use his laptop still. It is a sad reflection on the US and the TSA, but I'm surprised they allowed that even. Had I not read the story and someone asked me to guess what would happen if a person took this attitude, I would have guessed the person was detained and kept in a back, empty room for 6-8 hours.
jacquesm 16y ago
So what ? That would be a fantastic way to screw this up, especially if a large fraction of all travelers would do it. Pointing out an absurd law is worth 6 hours of your time.
gcheong 16y ago
Sure it could have, but that would have made the TSA look even worse imo. I suppose if you go as far as asserting your rights, you have to be prepared to go through whatever comes up.
dedward 16y ago
He started out prepared for that - he had nowhere to be and time to kill, and felt strongly about the issue.

swombat 16y ago

In the 1500's a man called Étienne de la Boétie wrote, in a then-inflammatory "Discourse on Voluntary Servitude": Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude. A people enslaves itself, cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it. (http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html)

dpatru 16y ago
Fantastic quote. Thanks!
acabal 16y ago
A nice quote, but we've already given the TSA a lot. Now it's a fight to get it back. Hopefully it's not too late.
- andreyf 16y ago
  The TSA is obviously staffed by bureaucrats who are simply following bad rules. This should call for a restructuring of the organization, not a lash out against The TSA or (worse) The Government. Let's figure out what is wrong with the process, and how we can fix it. Enough being scared and pointing blame.
  - olefoo 16y ago
    How about disbanding it as a waste of tax money, and as an unnecessary institution ill-suited to being part of a society dedicated to the idea of individual liberties?

acabal 16y ago

Oh wow, I had no idea they scan you after re-entering the country. I'm flying to Chicago O'Hare from London Gatwick on Dec 2, and now I'm concerned about this. Does anyone know precisely what my rights are as a US citizen upon re-entering the country to avoid all of this ridiculousness? I know that Customs has some Constitutional power for searches and so on (and there's that insane 100-mile "border" where people can be stopped and searched), but where does the TSA fit into all of this? If asked to do a backscatter OR patdown once I'm on US soil and leaving the airport, is it within my rights to refuse both? It sounds like the guy in the post wasn't claiming his rights, only threatening to call it "assault" if they brushed his genitals. Or have I got it wrong? Edit: I'm extremely curious about this now. Per the wiki article linked in the replies, it seems that x-ray and pat down searches are "unreasonable" without a warrant at a border (i.e. international airport). So I believe I could claim that going through these scanners again after landing on US soil and wanting to exit the airport would infringe on my rights. However, since the scenario is the same for entering a flight on US soil, wouldn't the backscatter/patdowns in those cases also infringe on our rights? Does anyone have any ideas on this? I don't want to give the TSA an inch when re-entering my own damn country.

swombat 16y ago
Your mileage may vary, but it sounds to me like he was claiming his constitutional rights... "Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" seems to be a key-phrase of people who know their rights when faced with police officers. That, and verbally not consenting to any search - your person is also protected by constitutional rights, afaik. (note: I'm not American, I may be wrong)
- acabal 16y ago
  I think that Customs may detain you at a border--they have more leeway in the Constitution for border searches iirc. That's what I'm confused about now, because with each new insane agency that gets created and each new law that alters and amends old law, it's hard for a non-lawyer to get a clear picture of exactly what is and what isn't a right. And if I have the free time upon landing and no flight to catch, I don't want to give TSA an inch. Edit: here's the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception It says that "reasonable" searches, i.e. property searches, can be conducted without warrant by Customs officers at the border. "Unreasonable" searches like x-ray, pat-downs, and strip searches require a warrant. But is TSA allowed to do this as well, or only Customs agents?

aneth 16y ago

If you look at the way this was handled it actually speaks to the professionalism of most of those involved. Regardless of your objection to the policy, which is not the decision of these people, the police and tsa seemed rational and accommodating. Just think how this might have been handled in other countries.

acabal 16y ago
Or at a different airport... or if the supervisor was already having a bad day.
jacquesm 16y ago
In other countries this idiocy would not have taken place to begin with.
- aneth 16y ago
  If you refuse to cooperate with security in England, Germany, France, Italy, China, Burma, India, or any other place I can imagine, you would not have a policeman calmly understanding of how you were asserting your constitutional rights.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Burma, India you are probably right, Italy I can't vouch for, England, France and Germany you'd be fine.
  - ugh 16y ago
    What makes you say that?
  - Vivtek 16y ago
    You've clearly never been to Germany in your life.

dholowiski 16y ago

That's awesome. Ever read Cory doctorow's "little brother"? That's what I think of every time I read one of these stories. I've said it before- there are two easy ways to avoid this 1. Drive, 2. Don't visit the USA. To us residents, especially if you live in hawaii- sucks to be you! Oh, and the rest of the world is laughing at you. Fix your flipping government.

snowwindwaves 16y ago
have you been to hawaii? it definitely doesn't suck to live there.
- dholowiski 16y ago
  I haven't been to Hawaii, but I'm sure it's great to live there. However, if you want to visit anywhere other than the other side of the island, you have to submit to the TSA, or take a boat. That part sucks.
viraptor 16y ago
> Oh, and the rest of the world is laughing at you. Well... that's not the only thing. Of course I laugh at what TSA is doing... but on the other hand a lot of ideas from the US are copied in EU. I just hope this isn't one of them. UK already tried experimenting with those scanners, but I haven't heard about them for quite a while.
- dholowiski 16y ago
  Oh yes, it's a nervous laugh for sure. Already, the DHS requires our contact information and Passport numbers if you're on a flight that goes over the USA, even if it's never going to land in the USA (think flight from Canada to Mexico).

morganpyne 16y ago

I find it appalling that US citizens are forced to such measures to enforce their rights and I'm glad that there are people both patient and stubborn enough to play out scenarios like this. However, as a non-US citizen I always wonder to myself when reading such stories if there are any international rights/laws that may be applicable when entering the States as a foreigner? My understanding is that there are absolutely none, and I would have to submit to any and all egregious and invasive 'requests' (with NO limits) that are demanded of me in order to gain entry (which is why I haven't been there in a while and have no plans to go back). Does anybody have any information to the contrary?

mthoms 16y ago
I believe you are correct that there are no limits to what U.S. Customs can do so long as you are being processed within the physical borders of the United States. At a land crossing, once you attempt to gain entry you cannot simply decide "it's not worth it" anymore and return back to the originating country. You have no rights, not even the right to turn around and leave. In an airport setting (most mid-sized and larger Canadian airports have US Customs processing stations before you depart), you can indeed decide to turn around and not proceed with the crossing. From a legal standpoint I believe it has to do with the fact that at a land crossing you are already on U.S. soil by the time you reach Customs. In the airport scenario above you are subject to the laws of the originating country since you haven't left their territory. It goes without saying that refusing to proceed with a crossing at an airport once it has commenced would likely have other very serious implications. The local authorities would almost certainly want to have a word with you and you'd be flagged by U.S. Customs as suspicious.

jwu711 16y ago

I can just imagine that reporters are just going to be flying in and out now so they can get some create articles and stories from all of this

stcredzero 16y ago
I hope so. $11,000 is a fine price to pay for a well written story about personal freedom. Hell, why aren't there dozens of Kickstarter journalism projects for this?

trunnell 16y ago

This is what elections are for. Did you know you can be stopped and searched without a warrant within 100 miles of the physical border? [1] Between that and this new screening policy for re-entry at international airports, I think we've crossed a line. Everyone I talk to about this is outraged. If we still have a functioning democracy, these policies will change. It's somewhat expected that now and then the government will overreach (see the Alien and Sedition Acts, etc). But that's why we have elections. [1]: This band around the border happens to include 2/3 of the US population. http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/constitution-free-zone http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/constitution-free...

RyanMcGreal 16y ago
>This is what elections are for. Voting once every two or four years and ceding policy to the politicians in the meantime is a recipe for the kind of bipartisan nonsense that pervades the US government. If you want things to get better, you need to get involved between elections.
aero142 16y ago
You can't get rid of the constitution just because you won an election. That is why it's the constitution. Unreasonable search is a constitutional issue, not a normal policy issue.
gaelian 16y ago
Is this really what elections are still for? I remember the sense of relief and elation of many around me when Obama was elected. Change was coming and many people seemed to feel that the best time for it was when the old system has all but collapsed. I believe Obama himself actually said something to this effect at the time. Fast forward to a few weeks ago just before the US mid-term election and I saw Obama interviewed by John Stuart. His points seemed to boil down to that they couldn't change as much as they wanted to because the US (and by extension the world) was in crisis and that people expected too much. Don't get me wrong, I believe in participating in the political process, I do vote (though I'm not American) and at least try to keep myself informed though I'm no political expert by any means. But I guess my point is that taking into account how things have gone over the last few election cycles both in my country and the US, what this guy did at the TSA security checkpoint seems far more effective than voting if more people were to do it and things like it. But I guess that would mean that we'd all have to handle some amount of inconvenience to protect our rights and that seems to be something that modern citizens of modern societies seem mostly incapable of accepting.

noelchurchill 16y ago

The authors tone is reminiscent of the narrator from Fight Club. Excellent write up btw.

jacquesm 16y ago

For every idiotic law there will be a Rosa Parks. Now, of course there is a huge difference between state sponsored racism and the TSA policies but I'm very happy this guy decided to test the limits. If you have some spare time next time you land in a US airport ;)

burgerbrain 16y ago
>Now, of course there is a huge difference between state sponsored racism and the TSA policies Is there? Now instead of disregarding the rights of a portion of the population, we're disregarding them 'equal opportunity' style.

dshep 16y ago

Awesome, more people need to stand up for their rights like this.

Eil 16y ago

I agree entirely with the author's cause and I believe that the guilty-until-proven-innocent mindset of present airport security is wrong and should be unconstitutional. However, upon reading the article I very much got the impression that the author was refusing to be scanned or searched just to make trouble. When asked why he was refusing to be searched, his answers (in his own writing) seemed to be along the lines of, "because I don't feel like it." I'm sorry, but that's just not really a valid defense. Whether you feel it's constitutional or not, the law says you have to go through these checkpoints when selected. If you're going to refuse, you need to have a much better reason than you don't feel like it. Ultimately, it sounded to me like they escorted him out of the terminal simply because they were tired of dealing with him, not because he found a loophole in their logic or rules. Less well-mannered officials would have put him in jail for a judge to deal with in the morning.

dedward 16y ago
This was not about airport security - he had already de-planed and was trying to leave the airport, having already passed through immigration. One of the things the US is supposed to be really big on is freedom from Big Brother. Having legally entered his own country, not attempting to get on another plane, and offerring to cooperate as long as someone, under color of authority, would verbally go on record that he was required by law to do so, with specifics. Nobody was willing or able to actually do this. Nobody was clear about jurisdiction. The police wouldn't do anything without the TSAs instructions. The TSA didn't know what's up - and I for one would like the people in charge of security in the airport to know what's up, right? EDIT: From the sounds of things this really was more about poor airport design and people flow as well as misunderstanding of policies.
dpatru 16y ago
>I very much got the impression that the author was refusing to be scanned or searched just to make trouble. That's like saying, you are just making trouble when you resist a pick-pocket or robber. You are never "just making trouble" when you assert your rights. On the contrary, government is the one just making trouble. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect rights. However, government seems to be full of people who are eager to take away rights. Somehow, the institution of government appeals to people who like to force their will on others. If you value liberty, you must resist these people.

sandipc 16y ago

I fully agree with most of the civil liberties and health concerns I've been reading online about these "Federal Security Detectors," and it certainly is ridiculous that you have to be scanned AFTER flying and AFTER passing through customs just to get home from the airport, but seeing as TSA agents are really just there to carry out policy given to them from their superiors, it seems a little silly to claim that such an action "prove[s] that it is possible." With an organization with as many employees as the TSA, it seems to me that whether or not one can bypass security really just depends on the specific TSA agents and supervisors dealing with a specific case. This isn't really a blueprint for bypassing TSA security... more like a personal anecdote of a time when the author bypassed security because the TSA/airport security were tired of dealing with him.

dpatru 16y ago
The TSA must be able to justify the actions of all its agents at any time in court. The only way to do this is to issue detailed policies and insist that all TSA agents follow the policy. The agents are not free to do as they want.

obiefernandez 16y ago

When you arrive from an international flight at Atlanta airport, you have to go through security to get out of customs because there is no direct exit out to the street. In other words, when you arrive and go through border control and customs, the only way to get out of the airport is to go through the other terminals. I wonder if the same applies at Cincinnati/N. Kentucky airport.

wiredfool 16y ago
And SeaTac, and O Hare, if I remember correctly.
dedward 16y ago
This makes a lot of sense. Had someone with authority said "Sir, unfortunately, the way the airport is laid out, you must enter the secured area of the airport in order to leave, and therefore we have to put you through our screening process." then there would be no trouble. Equally less troublesome would have been if the TSA had simply realized this and told the police "No problem, he's not connecting anywhere - please just escort him out of the building safely." That seems logical, and seems to be what happened in the end - as soon as someone actually made a decision.
- syllogism 16y ago
  He can still ask to be escorted through the secured area --- which is what seems to have happened.
  - dedward 16y ago
    Yup - and he was offerred this earlier on in the story - though when he pushed the police on the pat-down procedure, they wouldn't commit to anything. They said they "might" have to pat him down before escorting him (which seems reasonable if they are being asked to securely transport him through the facility. While they didn't insist on groping his nads like the TSA does, they couldn't promise that wouldn't happen at all. There was wiggle room there. Had the cops said "We aren't like the TSA -but if we're going to escort you out of the building, we need to pat you down for weapons like we would any other person we're transporting - are you okay with that?" it might have been over.

ck2 16y ago

Except he'll probably get a surprise $10k fine (civil lawsuit) a few months from now. For anyone else trying to prevent a gate-rape freedom-fondle, do not try the "less clothes" approach, this one ended with an arrest: http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Passenger+Chooses+Strip-Down+Over+Pat-Down+|+NBC+San+Diego&expire=&urlID=441153877&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcsandiego.com%2Fnews%2Flocal-beat%2FPassenger-Chooses-Strip-Down-Over-Pat-Down-109872589.html http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&... There is also some documentation now that the scanners produce TWENTY times the claimed radiation level: http://holt.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=651&Itemid=18 http://holt.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=...

jacquesm 16y ago
> Except he'll probably get a surprise $10k fine (civil lawsuit) a few months from now. What do you base that on ?
- ck2 16y ago
  http://gawker.com/5689925/man-threatened-with-10000-fine-after-refusing-tsa-grope http://gawker.com/5689925/man-threatened-with-10000-fine-aft... https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/enforcement_sanction_guidance_policy.pdf https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.tsa.gov/assets/... https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/Sanction_Guidance_for_Individuals_7-15-2004.pdf https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.tsa.gov/assets/...
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Nice pdfs, there does not seem to be a single item in there that matches your $10K fine for anything the guy did, in fact he has a bunch of police officers on hand as witnesses that he behaved impeccably. What specific reason (instead of links to a bunch of documents) do you see for them slapping a civil suit on him ? The gawker article reads: "He said that once I start the screening in the secure area, I could not leave until it was completed. Having left the area, he stated, I would be subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine... He again asserted the necessity that I return to the screening area." That is not the same as actually being charged with something and having such a fine levied against you, especially not in a civil suit (which is separate from the fine). I don't see any proof such a suit was brought or the fine was actually levied. There would have to be an infraction and this guy was not detained (he would have been if there were such an infraction, you can just about count on that).

hartror 16y ago

Ah – he’s gotten the Miranda talk. I hide my smile. Anyone know what this is? Edit: Thanks, live in Australia so don't get all the lingo.

jacquesm 16y ago
The miranda talk is the formal speech an officer makes before they move on you so that you know your rights.
steveklabnik 16y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_rights
ck2 16y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning When any law enforcement officer in the USA starts asking you questions, become EXTREMELY cautious and serious (even if they do not explicitly state the warning, which they might just say afterwards to cover themselves). People often think they can "talk themselves out of it", and almost always discover that is not the case.
- mcobrien 16y ago
  Don't talk to cops http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
seldo 16y ago
Well, Miranda refers to Miranda Rights, or the Miranda Warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning However, Miranda rights are mostly about the right to avoid self-incrimination. In the article he seems to suggest that the officer must present identification or credentials as part of Miranda, which is not something I'm familiar with.

toast76 16y ago

I just want to know what the TSA supervisor expected would happen if he DID choose to go back to customs. Then what? Where does he go? He has no ticket, no boarding pass. He can't get on a plane. I don't see how refusing could possible end any other way than for him to walk out of there. Surely even as he was saying this, he'd have realised how absurd it was. As a tourist, I wouldn't risk it...too easy to put you back on a plane (unless you have to consent to a search there too?). But if I were a citizen of the USA, there is no chance I'd put up with that when returning to my own country.

ZachPruckowski 16y ago
>"I just want to know what the TSA supervisor expected would happen if he DID choose to go back to customs. Then what? Where does he go? He has no ticket, no boarding pass. He can't get on a plane. I don't see how refusing could possible end any other way than for him to walk out of there." The assumption is almost certainly that the passenger either eventually caves due to boredom, hunger, thirst, or need to go to the bathroom. I assume they're figuring the passenger will have to cave before they will - I mean, unless he stays there until he somehow passes out from thirst and is removed, unconscious, by an ambulance days later, he's going to have to cave eventually.
jacquesm 16y ago
> Then what? Where does he go? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362227/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362227/

dnsworks 16y ago

I'm curious if any lawyers from the EFF have put themselves through this so that they have good grounds to sue the federal government for violation of constitutional rights?

frossie 16y ago
I suspect you are thinking of EPIC - http://epic.org/ http://epic.org/ which has indeed filed a lawsuit - I don't see how this is EFF purview.
- dnsworks 16y ago
  Never heard about EPIC, but the EFF is part of the engineering community. Our community solves the problems that the rest of the world creates. The EFF should be involved .. maybe somebody can get arrested for planning flash-mobs at the airports Tuesday and Wednesday to decimate holiday travel plans and put the issue into the national spotlight. That's something a bunch of hackers could put together.

techiferous 16y ago

If you do not like the TSA's policies, please take a moment to write your representatives: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_se...

uptown 16y ago
You're aware that our representatives aren't required to pass through these sensors, aren't you?
- Natsu 16y ago
  They are, however, required to get enough votes to get elected.

aubonpanzer 16y ago

Kafkaesque to say the least

kingkawn 16y ago

What is the author's race?

eyeareque 16y ago

I wonder, would they have been able to arrest him if he was shooting video within the security area? Is it legal to record the audio of a cop if you inform them about it first? I need to read up on this before I need to travel again. Someone should create a know your rights quick reference guide for air travel. Side note: I flew from HK to SF yesterday.. No backscatter machines on re-entry of the US border. When I flew from SFO to HK a couple of weeks ago I was lucky enough to have made it into a line that was only a metal detector. They did have some backscatter machines in place. Second side note: On my flight home from HK to SFO they had roped off the waiting area at my gate. There were about 6 Muslim men (hats, bears, speaking arabic gave me this impression) waiting in line with the rest of the passengers to get all of our carry on items physically searched before our flight. I'm sure the extra screening was not due to their being on the flight /sarcasm. I over heard some of the men speaking about how they can fly anywhere in the world and don't have a problem. But as soon as they fly to the US, they get harassed up and down. I truly felt sorry for them.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

icey 16y ago

I wonder how many of these opt-outs are going to end up on the no-fly list.

chopsueyar 16y ago
They don't seem to take IDs or boarding passes.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

LiveTheDream 16y ago

I'm surprised there wasn't a big fuss about the audio recording. Just one person asking if there was video being recorded, and a lot of people not wanting to make declarative statements on record. Does this mean that officials have accepted the fact that citizens can legally record them performing their duties?

Vipsy 16y ago

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" - Mahatma Gandhi

smtf 16y ago

If I am understanding this correctly the TSA/Customs officials could submit you to a backscatter/pat-down BEFORE you clear customs and the Constitutional argument evaporates. I imagine that would require an overhaul of the layout of many airports, but perhaps if enough people make a fuss like the author then someone will push for it. Does anyone know of a reason they couldn't do another security screening after you land and just before you clear customs ?

URSpider94 16y ago

Others have hinted at this, but when I read this story, I had a big "HUH?" moment. I just returned into the USA last week at SFO, and I can assure you that I didn't go through any kind of security screening upon re-entering the USA. The USA, unlike many other countries, requires that you clear out through Customs at your first point of entry. This is an operational issue, because after that, you are mixed with domestic passengers. Clearing through Customs requires that you pick up your checked luggage. As such, you are no longer "sterile" from an airport security perspective (you could have pulled a box cutter out of your checked luggage, for example). This means that, if you plan to continue on as a domestic passenger, then you have to be re-screened for security, just like someone walking in from the street. What boggles my mind is that the folks who set up this airport require non-passengers to go through TSA security, just to walk out of the terminal. Not only is this a waste of time and money, but it also introduces people with no legitimate reason to travel into the terminal. Put another way, if I WANTED to pass through a TSA checkpoint at most airports without a ticket for onward travel, I would be turned away. In summary, I guess I can understand why this guy thought that he was being screened to re-enter the country, when in fact he was just the victim of very, very poor airport design.

dalke 16y ago
Atlanta airport, for example, is one of several US airports which weren't designed with the current security policies in mind. International arrivals occur at the furthest terminal from the exit, and in order for passengers to get to the exit they must take the shuttle car system or walk, and both are inside the "sterile" area of the airport. I sent a letter to the TSA last week asking about the legality of this search. Can a passenger just after existing customs and immigration decline further screening, and if so, how? If not, when is it presumed that the passenger gave consent to the search and what level of search was consented to? I'm curious as to what their answer will be.

jscore 16y ago

Some companies are making a killing by selling those X-Ray machines to the gov't. The politicians who pushed this are getting a nice cut from this. There's startup for you.

sgt 16y ago

Is it common to say "Sir" when speaking to a police officer in the US? Where I come from, the police officer is expected to call you "Sir" and act as your servant.

anonymous246 16y ago
My understanding is that you do that just so they don't book you on phony "disorderly conduct" charges.
Natsu 16y ago
At least where I'm from, it's common. It's a sign of respect for the position, not submission.
bitwize 16y ago
I say "sir" to the cashier at Starbucks. It's a politeness and showing of respect thing.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- sgt 16y ago
  I don't have that type of respect for the cashier at Starbucks, although I don't have "disrespect" for him/her either, if you can put that way. But come on, I'm friendly to them and that's what counts. How can a "the customer is always right" mindset work, if the customer says "sir"? "A cup of cappuccino, sir" "Yes sir" "How long will it take, sir?" "2 minutes, sir" "Excellent, my good sir. I shall be awaiting my delicious cup of coffee, my liege." Never heard this :-)

dshankar 16y ago

It is incredibly dangerous to write things like this. It encourages rebellious activity during one of the busiest traveling seasons. I understand these are potentially too invasive, but as long as the TSA agent is not being a pervert, I am ok with it for one major reason: It comforts me knowing that it (in some way) helps to ensure the safety of flights, our friends, and family. It's no guarantee but it helps a bit and I'd like it to be a safe traveling season. I blogged more about it here: http://blog.darshanshankar.com/post/1656961705/tsa-backscatter-machine-pat-down http://blog.darshanshankar.com/post/1656961705/tsa-backscatt...

jrs235 16y ago

Here's something that came to mind after reading this article... What would happen if someone prior to boarding declined the AIT and also told any and all TSA agents that they are not allowed to touch their bodies. We know that leaving the checkpoint prior to complete screening can result in an $11,000 civil fine according to TSA (BTW, where is/does contract exist binding an individual to these rules/statues???) So, what would happen if they basically do the same thing as this gentleman. Refuse to leave due to the threat of a fine but also refuse to consent to anything else. If the TSA order you to be removed, perhaps for disorderly conduct or some other bogus offense, then how could they fine you? Since they were the ones that ordered you to leave prior to the complete screening? And how could they arrest you for disorderly conduct if you are behaving in a civil and polite manner? Eventually, the TSA will have to let you go unless they wish to have someone stay overnight with you when the airport closes... see what I'm getting to here? Refuse to voluntarily leave since you are under duress to stay (possible fine for leaving). Does anyone understand what I'm trying to say? I don't think I'm doing a great job explaining. All in all its, just getting yourself to a place/state that you can't leave since in order to leave voluntarily without giving up any of your rights you face possible punishment. Additionally the TSA will say that you are not being detained and you can leave... but you can't. Anyone want to protest by getting into this situation? Perhaps protesting until TSA explicitly says you are free to go and you will not be fined. They can't remove you and then fine you, right?

jrs235 16y ago

Additionally, what happens with a terrorist shoves a [plastic] bomb up his butt? Will they then switch over to only x-ray (as opposed to the radio wave) machines and up the juice to look into our bodies and/or require cavity searches? Or even, how telling are these images from these machines? Could a determined person kill and animal or human, strip the skin and attach it with stitches to their own body to create a cavity to hold contraband? Perhaps making it look like a beer belly? This is getting absurd?