4 ms·

I'm not sure what video you watched. Here's a guy who, to the extent of his non-lawyer knowledge, stands up for his rights in the face of bureaucratic harassmen

I'm not sure what video you watched. Here's a guy who, to the extent of his non-lawyer knowledge, stands up for his rights in the face of bureaucratic harassment. He doesn't yell, scream, or cry, he just insists on people following their own rules, not having his possessions taken, and being treated like a citizen whose rights should be respected. The above comment implies that it is reasonable for TSA contractors to inquire about medical conditions. That is a huge grant of personal information no one should have to make. The above comment also makes the assumption that instead of authority proving it has a need to restrict rights, individuals must prove they deserve freedoms. It is that reversal of attitudes that scares me more than anything.

ricardobeat 14y ago
If you ignore the fact that the guy was trying to board with 2 liters of liquid, when the limit is 100ml, then yes. Imagine he was trying to board with a 2kg pack of sugar instead. Just saying it is 'medical' is not enough, otherwise anything would go through just by saying the magic word. From the agent's perspective, some guy with a camera showed up with 2L of juice, clearly not allowed, and didn't want to give any further explanation. What should he do?
- erikpukinskis 14y ago
  According to his blog post, there is no limit on volume. I don't know where you're getting this 100ml number.
  - lwf 14y ago
    https://www.google.com/search?q=3.4+oz+in+ml https://www.google.com/search?q=3.4+oz+in+ml
  - ricardobeat 14y ago
    There is no volume limit for medication. The issue here is that in his case store-bought juice is his 'medicine'.
    - doctorwho 14y ago
      I'm a type 2 diabetic. The medecine I take affects my blood sugar. The "medecine" that protects me from my medecine is sugar and can be bought anywhere. It's medicinal to me regardless of what any moron TSA agent might think. If my flight is delayed and I can't eat or drink something sugary when I need it, my blood sugar drops and I go into a coma and risk brain damage. Should I depend on the flight attendant to rush me some sugar if I'm about to pass out or should I be allowed to carry it with me? I don't have to rely on sugary drinks in emergencies, I can use sugar pills but his needs are more constant and immediate. I may not agree with this adversarial approach but I sure as hell understand his position.
    - eridius 14y ago
      Are you a doctor? What qualifications do you have to determine that something does not have a valid medical use?
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
    - silencio 14y ago
      My father travels with a bottle of juice/soda regularly because it is a reliable, known, and fast way of raising his blood sugar when it gets too low, and it is far more palatable than non-liquid methods of doing so. He has never been hassled when it is explained to a TSA agent (and he has a doctor's note too). Just because it's not prescribed or regulated doesn't mean it can't be medically necessary. Not to mention I have personally traveled with all kinds of things including Costco-sized bottles of contact lens solution and gigantic aerosol cans... it is what it is and with screening I don't see why TSA can't let people through with it.
      - ricardobeat 14y ago
        I think that's totally fine, but unlike your father he doesn't want to explain at all or carry a doctor's note. You can't show up to the gate with a gallon of water and get through security just by saying "it's medical" with no further explanation.
- hnolable 14y ago
  Just FYI, they tested the liquid in question for explosives and of course it turned up negative (as can be seen near the end of the video). Would requiring a doctor's note or more explanation really make any of us safer. I'm sure the terrorists have doctors too. I think the main point here was this was already decided in court and even put into policy and the TSA just disregarded it.
  - ricardobeat 14y ago
    I'm sure terrorists have chemists too, and would defeat that swab test in a week if it was that easy to take large amounts of unknown substances through security.
    - hnolable 14y ago
      Not necessary. The TSA already gave a better alternative. FTFV: They can put the liquid in several smaller bottles and then let him through with it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m12mLXgO1A&t=11m10s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m12mLXgO1A&t=11m10s
      - bmelton 14y ago
        So what you're saying (and I'm trying to ask this without laughing), is that per TSA rules, I can't bring a liter of potentially explosive liquid, but I can bring several smaller containers of potentially explosive liquid, as well as a dry (empty) 1 liter bottle?
        hnolable 14y ago
        I assume they would probably still _attempt_ to limit the amount of total liquid. But the idea that terrorists can bypass a chemical bomb detector but not figure out a way around the amount of liquid limit is laughable.
        ricardobeat 14y ago
- fuuuuuuuuuuu 14y ago
  > Just saying it is 'medical' is not enough, otherwise anything would go through just by saying the magic word. Legally speaking, just saying it's 'medical' should be enough to trigger a testing for safety, followed by permitting it through. You're not required to reveal a particular disease (or use of something) under the ADA.
DannyBee 14y ago
But he's not actually citing their actual rules, he's citing his interpretation of the rules, and claiming various court decisions support him. He's wrong on both points, AFAICT. Now, he may not like that their is more wiggle room than he likes, but ... As for what is reasonable to inquire about, they can ask about a lot. This is particularly true since it's probably not a custodial interrogation, and they are clearly not asking about evidence of crimes. You can cite "the way the world should be" all you like. I actually agree it would be a great place to live. But expecting the judicial system to transform it into that world is a dream.
- hnolable 14y ago
  Explaining how he's wrong on both points would be very useful.
  - DannyBee 14y ago
    Sure 1. The TSA is legally entitled to deference of its interpretations of its own regulations. See Chevron (for statutes. Yes, they get deference to interpret the statutes congress passed that say what they are allowed to do), or Auer (for their interpretations of their own regulations). It's ridiculous (in the case of Auer deference), but true. However, at least right now, if the TSA says "our regulations mean X", courts give them deference that their regulations mean X, and it takes a lot to overcome that. There is at least some hope that Auer deference will die in the next few years. Humorously, one of the justices most people here seem to hate the most, Scalia, is now the strongest opponent of Auer deference: "For decades, and for no good reason, we have been giving agencies the authority to say what their rules mean, under the harmless-sounding banner of “defer[ring] to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations." (and earlier) "The Court there gives effect to a reading of EPA’s regulations that is not the most natural one, simply because EPA says that it believes the unnatural reading is right. It does this, more- over, even though the agency has vividly illustrated that it can write a rule saying precisely what it means—by doing just that while these cases were being briefed. Enough is enough." (You can also look at his earlier Talk America concurrence on this subject. http://www.volokh.com/2011/06/09/justice-scalia-questions-auer-deference/ http://www.volokh.com/2011/06/09/justice-scalia-questions-au... is a good reference about it) 2. Davis, which he tried to quote, says mostly exactly the opposite of what he wants it to: "airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft." Note, this seems innocuous at first to an outsider, but administrative searches are not subject to the same requirements as general 4th amendment searches. They only have to be reasonable, not have probable cause. In particular, later it gets you down the path to this: "To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with “society’s interest in safe air travel.” [US v. Marquez, 410 F.3d 612]). In a fight between "society's interest in safe air travel" vs "justifying why you need a liter of juice", i know who i would bet on. Again, i think such legal rules are wrong-headed, but it doesn't change my view of the current legal state of the world. But back to US v. Davis: "[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly." This is a zinger for two reasons: 1. Now, remember, the TSA, because they get deference, mostly gets to decide what is "more intensive or intrusive than necessary", and courts will defer to them, for the most part. 2. As long as they let you out by saying you won't fly, they pretty much get a free pass. So there you go. Sucks but true. PS The idea that searches performed by the TSA are automatically administrative, or even that there should be an administrative search exception, was also conjured up out of whole cloth by the courts, so expecting them to suddenly reverse course and apply "the full force" of the 4th amendment (god i wish i didn't have to use that phrase), is well, wrong headed. Barring the supreme court getting a grand urge to stake out a position here (which is rare), if it happens, it will happen when society is less accepting of this kind of thing, not when it is more.
thezach 14y ago
Its illegal for the TSA to inquire about or require proof of a disability.

ricardobeat 14y ago

If you ignore the fact that the guy was trying to board with 2 liters of liquid, when the limit is 100ml, then yes. Imagine he was trying to board with a 2kg pack of sugar instead. Just saying it is 'medical' is not enough, otherwise anything would go through just by saying the magic word. From the agent's perspective, some guy with a camera showed up with 2L of juice, clearly not allowed, and didn't want to give any further explanation. What should he do?

erikpukinskis 14y ago
According to his blog post, there is no limit on volume. I don't know where you're getting this 100ml number.
- lwf 14y ago
  https://www.google.com/search?q=3.4+oz+in+ml https://www.google.com/search?q=3.4+oz+in+ml
- ricardobeat 14y ago
  There is no volume limit for medication. The issue here is that in his case store-bought juice is his 'medicine'.
  - doctorwho 14y ago
    I'm a type 2 diabetic. The medecine I take affects my blood sugar. The "medecine" that protects me from my medecine is sugar and can be bought anywhere. It's medicinal to me regardless of what any moron TSA agent might think. If my flight is delayed and I can't eat or drink something sugary when I need it, my blood sugar drops and I go into a coma and risk brain damage. Should I depend on the flight attendant to rush me some sugar if I'm about to pass out or should I be allowed to carry it with me? I don't have to rely on sugary drinks in emergencies, I can use sugar pills but his needs are more constant and immediate. I may not agree with this adversarial approach but I sure as hell understand his position.
  - eridius 14y ago
    Are you a doctor? What qualifications do you have to determine that something does not have a valid medical use?
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - silencio 14y ago
    My father travels with a bottle of juice/soda regularly because it is a reliable, known, and fast way of raising his blood sugar when it gets too low, and it is far more palatable than non-liquid methods of doing so. He has never been hassled when it is explained to a TSA agent (and he has a doctor's note too). Just because it's not prescribed or regulated doesn't mean it can't be medically necessary. Not to mention I have personally traveled with all kinds of things including Costco-sized bottles of contact lens solution and gigantic aerosol cans... it is what it is and with screening I don't see why TSA can't let people through with it.
    - ricardobeat 14y ago
      I think that's totally fine, but unlike your father he doesn't want to explain at all or carry a doctor's note. You can't show up to the gate with a gallon of water and get through security just by saying "it's medical" with no further explanation.
hnolable 14y ago
Just FYI, they tested the liquid in question for explosives and of course it turned up negative (as can be seen near the end of the video). Would requiring a doctor's note or more explanation really make any of us safer. I'm sure the terrorists have doctors too. I think the main point here was this was already decided in court and even put into policy and the TSA just disregarded it.
- ricardobeat 14y ago
  I'm sure terrorists have chemists too, and would defeat that swab test in a week if it was that easy to take large amounts of unknown substances through security.
  - hnolable 14y ago
    Not necessary. The TSA already gave a better alternative. FTFV: They can put the liquid in several smaller bottles and then let him through with it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m12mLXgO1A&t=11m10s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m12mLXgO1A&t=11m10s
    - bmelton 14y ago
      So what you're saying (and I'm trying to ask this without laughing), is that per TSA rules, I can't bring a liter of potentially explosive liquid, but I can bring several smaller containers of potentially explosive liquid, as well as a dry (empty) 1 liter bottle?
      - hnolable 14y ago
        I assume they would probably still _attempt_ to limit the amount of total liquid. But the idea that terrorists can bypass a chemical bomb detector but not figure out a way around the amount of liquid limit is laughable.
        ricardobeat 14y ago
fuuuuuuuuuuu 14y ago
> Just saying it is 'medical' is not enough, otherwise anything would go through just by saying the magic word. Legally speaking, just saying it's 'medical' should be enough to trigger a testing for safety, followed by permitting it through. You're not required to reveal a particular disease (or use of something) under the ADA.

DannyBee 14y ago

But he's not actually citing their actual rules, he's citing his interpretation of the rules, and claiming various court decisions support him. He's wrong on both points, AFAICT. Now, he may not like that their is more wiggle room than he likes, but ... As for what is reasonable to inquire about, they can ask about a lot. This is particularly true since it's probably not a custodial interrogation, and they are clearly not asking about evidence of crimes. You can cite "the way the world should be" all you like. I actually agree it would be a great place to live. But expecting the judicial system to transform it into that world is a dream.

hnolable 14y ago
Explaining how he's wrong on both points would be very useful.
- DannyBee 14y ago
  Sure 1. The TSA is legally entitled to deference of its interpretations of its own regulations. See Chevron (for statutes. Yes, they get deference to interpret the statutes congress passed that say what they are allowed to do), or Auer (for their interpretations of their own regulations). It's ridiculous (in the case of Auer deference), but true. However, at least right now, if the TSA says "our regulations mean X", courts give them deference that their regulations mean X, and it takes a lot to overcome that. There is at least some hope that Auer deference will die in the next few years. Humorously, one of the justices most people here seem to hate the most, Scalia, is now the strongest opponent of Auer deference: "For decades, and for no good reason, we have been giving agencies the authority to say what their rules mean, under the harmless-sounding banner of “defer[ring] to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations." (and earlier) "The Court there gives effect to a reading of EPA’s regulations that is not the most natural one, simply because EPA says that it believes the unnatural reading is right. It does this, more- over, even though the agency has vividly illustrated that it can write a rule saying precisely what it means—by doing just that while these cases were being briefed. Enough is enough." (You can also look at his earlier Talk America concurrence on this subject. http://www.volokh.com/2011/06/09/justice-scalia-questions-auer-deference/ http://www.volokh.com/2011/06/09/justice-scalia-questions-au... is a good reference about it) 2. Davis, which he tried to quote, says mostly exactly the opposite of what he wants it to: "airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft." Note, this seems innocuous at first to an outsider, but administrative searches are not subject to the same requirements as general 4th amendment searches. They only have to be reasonable, not have probable cause. In particular, later it gets you down the path to this: "To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with “society’s interest in safe air travel.” [US v. Marquez, 410 F.3d 612]). In a fight between "society's interest in safe air travel" vs "justifying why you need a liter of juice", i know who i would bet on. Again, i think such legal rules are wrong-headed, but it doesn't change my view of the current legal state of the world. But back to US v. Davis: "[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly." This is a zinger for two reasons: 1. Now, remember, the TSA, because they get deference, mostly gets to decide what is "more intensive or intrusive than necessary", and courts will defer to them, for the most part. 2. As long as they let you out by saying you won't fly, they pretty much get a free pass. So there you go. Sucks but true. PS The idea that searches performed by the TSA are automatically administrative, or even that there should be an administrative search exception, was also conjured up out of whole cloth by the courts, so expecting them to suddenly reverse course and apply "the full force" of the 4th amendment (god i wish i didn't have to use that phrase), is well, wrong headed. Barring the supreme court getting a grand urge to stake out a position here (which is rare), if it happens, it will happen when society is less accepting of this kind of thing, not when it is more.

thezach 14y ago

Its illegal for the TSA to inquire about or require proof of a disability.