posted
Well, let it never be said my mind can't change...
After thinking this through a bit, I'm not comfortable with the idea of these people having the authority to detain people-- even if those they suspected of money laundering. I don't think we can hold gate security personnel in good faith for making those kind of decisions.
I fairly sure that if I had confidence in their training program, and that if I had confidence that the measures at the gates were effective, I'd be willing to cede them the right to question passengers about large sums of money they're bringing on board.
What would you do if they asked you where the money came from? Would you answer like the Ron Paul guy did? Or would you volunteer the info and move on?
I think I'd probably answer the question and move on... I'm not invested in engaging in a pissing contest with Barry the Hall Monitor.
quote:Asserting that a person will not be allowed to continue his journey without answering questions.
Do you recognize the right of the airlines to deny you service if you don't abide by their regulations?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is one of their regulations that you have to answer any question they ask? Because a very valid answer would of been "none of your business" to asking where the money came from.
They could code up a regulation that says you can't fly with large amounts of cash internally, but until they do, refusing to answer a question wouldn't apply.
By the way, I was a little surprised to see you come down on that side of the issue, considering your attitudes about the Silent Hunt .
Added: I personally would probably have answered, but mostly because I don't have a very solid understanding of my rights in any given situation. Sometime I'd really love to fully understand when I am legally allowed to be detained / searched and by what organizations. For instance, if I was stopped at a Walmart and a person asks if they can search my bags. I assume they are allowed to do so. Can they detain me if I refuse? What about a backpack or purse on my possession? Are they allowed to ask if they can search, and if so, am I allowed to refuse?
I wonder if there are any good books that outline your rights in these situations.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
I mean, I know you're talking about Dag's game, but I'm not sure what I might have said here that would contradict what I said there...
Unless it was that bit about mistrusting authority. I still do mistrust authority. The question is whether or not walking around with thousands of dollars in cash can be reasonably called "suspicious" from the standpoint of a law enforcement organization (or people who *think* they're law enforcement) And the answer is yes, it can be seen as suspicious.
That authority isn't to be trusted does not mean we shouldn't have it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lots of questions, lets see if I can answer some.
1) What is the crime of carrying $4,700 in cash? There is not crime, but it is suspicious behavior mainly because its not something a lot of people do. Its a rarity.
To the paranoid mind, anything that is rare must have dire reasons for it happening. So carrying $4,700 is not a crime, but doing so does set you apart, and that is considered a crime by the paranoid.
2) You can't blow up a plane with cash!. True, but if you are going to pay the terrorists, having a well documented monetary trail is not a good thing. They usually pay or are paid in cash. (They need living money up until they commit suicide.)
3) Why can't we have real Police or FBI agents manning these things instead of these TSA idiots? Money. Paying some big dude slightly more than minimum wage to scan bags and detain suspicious people is much more cost effective than paying the livable wages, overtime, and holiday pay you would be required to if they were professional and trained law enforcement people.
4) He would have answered if the TSA man would have answered first. True, and he did the correct thing. If he would have answered with a lie or with belligerence, he could have been removed from the flight and arrested. He answered demanding to know what his rights officially were. When the TSA agent refused to tell him, the TSA agent made the mistake.
5) Why did the TSA agent not tell him? I don't know but would bet that he didn't know. He was hired and breezed through their training and was basically told, "if there is anything suspicious, bring them in here until they answer the question." He was not informed about the legalities because that is for higher ups to worry about.
6) How did this happen? Because people in charge believe that we will willingly give up our freedoms for the ability to be safe, especially when those freedoms lost only effect usually, someone else.
quote:So carrying $4,700 is not a crime, but doing so does set you apart, and that is considered a crime by the paranoid.
Not quite-- if they'd thought it was a crime, they would have arrested him.
At least try to see things from their perspective a bit-- guy's carrying 5k in small bills. They let him through. Later he's caught dealing meth on a street near a school-- and the press says, "Well, he went through the airport with $5000 cash! Why wasn't he detained?"
You don't have to be paranoid to make the connection, DM. It's not even unreasonable.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"and the press says, "Well, he went through the airport with $5000 cash! Why wasn't he detained?" "
Response: "Because he had 5000 dollars of cash, and hadn't done anything else. Carrying money is not probable cause."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd disagree, but only because what Scott suggested seems crazy to me, so much so that I can't imagine anyone taking a reporter asking it seriously.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not comfortable with the idea of these people having the authority to detain people
As I understand it, the TSA screeners don't have the authority to detain people.
They're a government agency who are authorized to perform the voluntary search that you consent to, seize contraband, and control entrance to the secure area past the screening areas.
Now, they can get away with a lot because people want to get on the planes and they hold the keys to that door, but they don't have legal authority besides what people are willing to submit to to get past the screening process.
They can alter actual law enforcement agencies though and have channels to do so quickly.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to their website, the mission of the TSA:
quote:The Transportation Security Administration protects the Nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.
They are not there to detect crime unless it is a threat to airport or travel security. They are not customs agents who are charged with stopping smuggling. Carrying cash - even if it illegally gotten cash or will be used for illegal purposes later - represents no clear risk to the flight. TSA are not police. Police should know what their constitutional limits are.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair though, a lot of TSA regulations realistically have little to nothing to do with dealing with threats to plane security.
If people's job is largely to enforce stupid regulations for PR purposes, I could see how they could lose sight of their mission, especially considering the low quality of the people we're talking about.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, let it never be said my mind can't change...
I will never say that. (And I don't plan to change my mind on that.)
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: What would you do if they asked you where the money came from? Would you answer like the Ron Paul guy did? Or would you volunteer the info and move on?
I think I'd probably answer the question and move on... I'm not invested in engaging in a pissing contest with Barry the Hall Monitor.
I'd probably meekly answer the question and move on. I think that's because I'm more concerned with having a smooth experience at the airport than personally supporting the bulwark of individual rights against intrusive government. In other words, I'm selfish and not an activist.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Asserting that a person will not be allowed to continue his journey without answering questions.
Do you recognize the right of the airlines to deny you service if you don't abide by their regulations?
Yep. I'm with you there. If mysterious cash in the airport was against a federal regulation, or against an airline policy (one that was disclosed to passengers before money changed hands), I think they'd have justification to stop the person from continuing. The quoted example was not a very good one, since there are definitely times where a person is blocked from going on an airplane that I wouldn't call 'detention'. My bad.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What would you do if they asked you where the money came from? Would you answer like the Ron Paul guy did? Or would you volunteer the info and move on?
I think I'd probably answer the question and move on... I'm not invested in engaging in a pissing contest with Barry the Hall Monitor.
I'd most likely do the same thing, because it's more personally convenient. For me, that's why it is important to support the people who are willing to go through the inconveniences and injustices to stand up to abuses of power like this. Cases like this work as lightning rods to bring all the grievances that people who have had with the TSA over stuff like this to effect. You may not have been willing to go through the hassle that they would put you through at the time, but now you don't have to.
If this becomes a thing, other people may get their chance at redress and it is less likely that it will happen in the future.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:They are not there to detect crime unless it is a threat to airport or travel security. They are not customs agents who are charged with stopping smuggling. Carrying cash - even if it illegally gotten cash or will be used for illegal purposes later - represents no clear risk to the flight. TSA are not police. Police should know what their constitutional limits are.
So you do want the TSA to turn a blind eye to suspected crimes that have nothing to do with aircraft and passenger safety?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think people want them to treat "suspicious" activity in the same way that say the security guard at a building should. They certainly can notify the proper authorities as to these "suspicious" activities if they pass a threshold, but they don't have the authority and shouldn't consider it their purview to look into themselves.
They're security guards whose nominal job it is to keep pointy and explodey things off of planes. When something doesn't fall into this, they should have the same authority as any other security guard, which is pretty much the same as any regular person. They witness something that is definitely criminal or strongly suggestive of crime, but is not related to their job, they can call the cops just like anybody else.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends on what you count as 'look into'. Detaining I agree is beyond their purview for things like this, and they shouldn't have done it.
Pulling someone aside and asking them questions, after advising them of their rights, and then letting them continue on their way without any undue imposition* on the other hand, doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
*That is, no more of a search and questioning than any potential random flier might undergo.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember my Uncle Henry pulling out a wad of bills to pay for a brand-new tractor. Supposedly that's still how he does business, even in this day and age.
There are a lot of folks still around who do things the way they used to do them. Most of them are related to me, I think :-).
Any minute I'm going to break into "and we walked UPHILL in the SNOW", I swear.
Anyway, it wouldn't occur to me to think of someone carrying around a bunch of cash as suspicious. Maybe I just hang around with more rural and old-fashioned folk or maybe I'm just ridiculously pollyannaish.
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyway, it wouldn't occur to me to think of someone carrying around a bunch of cash as suspicious. Maybe I just hang around with more rural and old-fashioned folk or maybe I'm just ridiculously pollyannaish.
It wouldn't to me either.
But if I were in security at an airport, and someone strolled onto a plane with that much money, I'd at least be curious, seeing as how that's part of my job and all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every time I've been through an American airport in the last 3 years, I've been searched, screened and bomb-checked.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:They are not there to detect crime unless it is a threat to airport or travel security. They are not customs agents who are charged with stopping smuggling. Carrying cash - even if it illegally gotten cash or will be used for illegal purposes later - represents no clear risk to the flight. TSA are not police. Police should know what their constitutional limits are.
So you do want the TSA to turn a blind eye to suspected crimes that have nothing to do with aircraft and passenger safety?
They could handle it the way we do at the bank. They could fill out the proper forms and file them with the IRS. Then the IRS looks at your situation as a whole and decides if it's suspicious.
Different amounts are suspicious for different people. I've held $5,000 checks for some people but not others based on how the person received the check, their account history, the strength of the relationship they have with us, and their ability to repay the item if it's fraudulant. I'm sure the IRS has a similar set of parameters. Is it weird for you personally to have this money, not is it suspicious for anyone?
I think this situation annoys me so much because we already have a framework in place to handle it and no one seems to have mentioned it to TSA. Apparently, they need to hire bank tellers to handle airport security. At least we'd finish every transaction with "Have a nice day".
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're still down to what we should consider suspicious behavior -- suspicious enough to call the cops or the IRS and have them brought into the fray, if nothing else.
IMO, the thing that was most suspicious in this situation was not the carrying around of nearly five grand, it was the refusing to say why he was carrying around nearly five grand. I don't know if they put him in a little room before they started asking questions (the report didn't indicate), but I was imagining that they asked, he refused to answer until he heard his rights, they detained him, and we got into the argument.
So then, do I have the right to refuse to answer probing questions into my business?
In this situation, the answer is ultimately no, I don't have that right. At some point, I at least have to inform the IRS about what is going on with all my money.
And as has been pointed out, authorities ask these kinds of questions all the time. Mostly, people answer. If they're doing nothing wrong they tell the truth and if they're doing something wrong, they lie. Either way, they'll get through airport security. This guy was out to prove something and I can't think of any other reason to decline to answer.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if I were in security at an airport, and someone strolled onto a plane with that much money, I'd at least be curious, seeing as how that's part of my job and all.
How would that be part of your job? What threat to air travel does a passenger having around $5000 on them pose?
quote:Pulling someone aside and asking them questions, after advising them of their rights
Part of informing them of their rights is telling them that they are under no obligation to answer your questions. So, are you suggesting they pull someone out of line and say, "So, I'm just curious and you don't have to answer, but why do you have that money?"
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: IMO, the thing that was most suspicious in this situation was not the carrying around of nearly five grand, it was the refusing to say why he was carrying around nearly five grand
See, this is where things go south in a hurry. You can't consider someone exercising their rights as suspicious!
It was none of the TSA's business why he had the cash. Not telling them why was simply exercising his right to privacy. Exercising your right to privacy should not be considered suspicious behavior.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:How would that be part of your job? What threat to air travel does a passenger having around $5000 on them pose?
Being curious is part of their job. Or do you think it's really possible to be effective at security if you're only curious about things that already appear to be related to security matters and are also suspicious?
quote:Part of informing them of their rights is telling them that they are under no obligation to answer your questions. So, are you suggesting they pull someone out of line and say, "So, I'm just curious and you don't have to answer, but why do you have that money?"
I wouldn't phrase it like that, but something along those lines, yes.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Being curious is part of their job. Or do you think it's really possible to be effective at security if you're only curious about things that already appear to be related to security matters and are also suspicious?
I think that encouraging curiosity in things that are clearly not part of their security concerns (and also none of their business) is most likely going to lead to a decrease in performance in their actual job of providing security.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What MrSquicky wrote. They don't have to "turn a blind eye" they could inform people who do have the authority to question someone. They can be a curious as they like; they don't have the authority to indulge that curiousity unless it is a threat to travel safety. If they don't know whether or not it is a risk there is a whole long list of things they are supposed to check.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Being curious is part of their job. Or do you think it's really possible to be effective at security if you're only curious about things that already appear to be related to security matters and are also suspicious?
Are you really arguing that TSA is especially effective now?
And no, I don't think that allowing TSA agents to harass innocent people because they find reading an Arabic newspaper, for instance, to be sucpicious will increase the effectiveness of security. I think that when you give people the green light to harass other people based nothing but their subjective judgment as to what is supicious, that's going to be abused a lot. And it's not going to actually catch anything.
quote:
quote:Part of informing them of their rights is telling them that they are under no obligation to answer your questions. So, are you suggesting they pull someone out of line and say, "So, I'm just curious and you don't have to answer, but why do you have that money?"
I wouldn't phrase it like that, but something along those lines, yes.
Really? What would that accomplish? If a TSA agent thinks that someone reading the book or Mormon is suspicious, and they pull them out of line and asks them if they are a member of the LDS church, but says that they don't have to answer that if they don't want to, what does this accomplish? Besides intimidation of religious minorities, I mean?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of what I wanted to say has been covered... Especially the part about it not being the TSA's job to investigate crimes, just to keep us safe on the plane.
But in what world is $4700 a lot of money? I mean, yes, if I was mugged for $4700 I'd be a mess, but the IRS doesn't even care till you hit $10K.
BTW, as a general rule, anyone in government is a power hungry bully. We just see it most where we interact the most. Police, TSA, etc. Don't think those who have moved up the food chain are any nicer simply because they now how to smile their way into public office.
(edit: qualified a statement to take into account Rakeesh's friends)
quote:I think that encouraging curiosity in things that are clearly not part of their security concerns (and also none of their business) is most likely going to lead to a decrease in performance in their actual job of providing security.
In what way is it clear that carrying large sums of cash cannot in any way ever be linked to a security threat? Just as an easy example, terrorists need to transfer funds somehow, or would you argue that unless someone is boarding a plane to endanger the security of that particular flight, the TSA shouldn't express interest?
Furthermore, depending on how it's implemented, encouraging curiosity can actually help efficiency. People need to be trained, after all, and kept on their toes, just as two easy examples.
----
kmbboots,
quote:They don't have to "turn a blind eye" they could inform people who do have the authority to question someone. They can be a curious as they like; they don't have the authority to indulge that curiousity unless it is a threat to travel safety. If they don't know whether or not it is a risk there is a whole long list of things they are supposed to check.
Since there is often a limited amount of time before the person boards a plane, and since there aren't sky marshals on every single flight, refusing to as you say 'indulge their curiosity' in effect will often amount to turning a blind eye.
As for not having the authority to indulge their curiosity unless there's a threat...how do you imagine they find out if there's a threat? But there are lists, you say. Are we supposed to tell the TSA, "You are only allowed to investigate matters if they show up on this list we've given you?"
I'm not comfortable with the way the TSA is run, and obviously giving too much leeway is a bad thing, but you're suggesting we allow no initiative on their part at all, which strikes me as just as bad (if not worse, should worse come to worst) but in the opposite direction.
-----
quote: BTW, anyone in government is a power hungry bully. We just see it most where we interact the most.
Bullcrap. I know, personally, several people who work for my local government just as an example, and they're not power hungry bullies. But I realize that I'm hardly going to dissuade you from your blanket generalization, so I'll just disagree once.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that encouraging curiosity in things that are clearly not part of their security concerns (and also none of their business) is most likely going to lead to a decrease in performance in their actual job of providing security.
In what way is it clear that carrying large sums of cash cannot in any way ever be linked to a security threat? Just as an easy example, terrorists need to transfer funds somehow, or would you argue that unless someone is boarding a plane to endanger the security of that particular flight, the TSA shouldn't express interest?
Yes.
quote:
kmbboots,
quote:They don't have to "turn a blind eye" they could inform people who do have the authority to question someone. They can be a curious as they like; they don't have the authority to indulge that curiousity unless it is a threat to travel safety. If they don't know whether or not it is a risk there is a whole long list of things they are supposed to check.
Since there is often a limited amount of time before the person boards a plane, and since there aren't sky marshals on every single flight, refusing to as you say 'indulge their curiosity' in effect will often amount to turning a blind eye.
As for not having the authority to indulge their curiosity unless there's a threat...how do you imagine they find out if there's a threat? But there are lists, you say. Are we supposed to tell the TSA, "You are only allowed to investigate matters if they show up on this list we've given you?"
Yes. "This is your authority. Don't exceed that authority."
quote:
I'm not comfortable with the way the TSA is run, and obviously giving too much leeway is a bad thing, but you're suggesting we allow no initiative on their part at all, which strikes me as just as bad (if not worse, should worse come to worst) but in the opposite direction.
I believe that, in the long run, too much leeway is far worse. Power will, by its nature, reach out to grab more power. This is especially true when people are fearful. That tendency needs to be actively and adamantly resisted.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In what way is it clear that carrying large sums of cash cannot in any way ever be linked to a security threat? Just as an easy example, terrorists need to transfer funds somehow, or would you argue that unless someone is boarding a plane to endanger the security of that particular flight, the TSA shouldn't express interest?
Of course not. That seems obviously outside their purview.
Just about anything could conceivably be used to further terrorism. If that's your standard for the limit of their authority, there is no effective limit. Thankfully, it is not the job of a little bit above minimum wage workers to address terrorist conspiracies. Their authority is limited to immediate flight security.
Besides, any substantial sum of money ($10K+) going out of the country is tracked by customs agents who are actually authorized to do things.
---
quote:Since there is often a limited amount of time before the person boards a plane, and since there aren't sky marshals on every single flight, refusing to as you say 'indulge their curiosity' in effect will often amount to turning a blind eye.
I'm not sure, but it looks like you are arguing against yourself here. If there is a limited window for them to ensure flight security, how is them using that time and resources to focus on things not related to flight security not going to degrade their performance?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This whole discussion make mes recall a video on YouTube called "Don't Talk To Police". It's a video of a seminar/lecture or such. A law professor talks for a while about all the reasons you should *never* talk to the police, even if you are completely innocent and how talking to law enforcement can basically screw you. He then turns the stage over to a police officer who starts off his talk by saying "everything he said is true...".
I think the very idea that not answering questions that one is not obligated to answer might be considered suspicious should be deeply disturbing to all of us.
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you elaborate why Samp? I've never seen it, but it sounds interesting to me. May give it a look when I get home tonight.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My stepfather was a cop and he always told me never to answer questions. He told me to do anything I was told to do, like get out of the car, show my license, put my hands behind my back...but to do it all silently. And to tell them, politely, "I do not wish to answer any questions without legal representation. Thank you and please allow me to contact my attorney now." If they pressed me, I was to shrug and say "My father is a cop and made me promise to respond this way if I were ever questioned, I assure you I will cooperate fully once I've had the advice of legal counsel."
It's never come up, because I've never been arrested, but I do absolutely intend to not answer anything without a lawyer. Our rights are there to protect us, and why would I voluntarily give up those rights without the advice of someone whose job it is to look after my best interests?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
'Yes'? And how does a TSA employee know who exactly is going to be a threat and who isn't? Magic 8-ball? Which is pretty much why I'm in favor of encouraging lawfully-applied curiosity.
quote:Yes. "This is your authority. Don't exceed that authority."
Law enforcement and security must, by their natures, include such things as 'probable cause' and 'suspicion'. I'm not saying issue blank checks. I'm saying let's not pretend that this is strictly an academic issue.
quote:I believe that, in the long run, too much leeway is far worse. Power will, by its nature, reach out to grab more power. This is especially true when people are fearful. That tendency needs to be actively and adamantly resisted.
Fortunately I'm not advocating too much leeway. All I'm advocating is that if a TSA employee were to say, "Excuse me sir, we work on security for this flight, and we were wondering why you were carrying so much cash? You don't have to answer this question if you don't want to; we don't have the authority to compel you," that wouldn't be objectionable in the slightest. And to answer Mr. Squicky's question, I think it was, yes, even that would serve some good. Reactions could be gauged. The story could conceivably be checked if the reaction raised red flags.
Just because too much leeway is a bad thing doesn't make every single iota of leeway ever a bad thing.
----
quote:Of course not. That seems obviously outside their purview.
I'm not suggesting they should make it a part of their mission. I'm saying that if they happen across something that might be dangerous in the future, there's nothing wrong with lawfully (such as advising the subject of their rights) asking a few questions.
It's frankly baffling to me that folks appear to think that the TSA should concern themselves only and to the exclusion of all else only things that directly impact airline security, no matter what might stumble into their laps. As well to chastise a firefighter for helping direct traffic or something at a fire they encounter while on vacation abroad.
quote:Just about anything could conceivably be used to further terrorism. If that's your standard for the limit of their authority, there is no effective limit. Thankfully, it is not the job of a little bit above minimum wage workers to address terrorist conspiracies. Their authority is limited to immediate flight security.
Thankfully, I'm not using 'could conceivably further terrorism' as my standard. I'm just rejecting the repeated notion expressed here of, "C'mon, a wad of cash? That cannot possibly be involved with anything dangerous to an aircraft!"
quote:I'm not sure, but it looks like you are arguing against yourself here. If there is a limited window for them to ensure flight security, how is them using that time and resources to focus on things not related to flight security not going to degrade their performance?
Again, it's not always crystal clear what is related to airline security and what isn't. And the TSA will, by nature of their job and the information we're required to submit to board airliners, have quite a bit of a leg up in the 'check this out' department. In this instance, for example. Let's say that the TSA did everything* right, and after advising the guy that he was under no legal obligation to answer their questions, he told them he worked for the Ron Paul campaign, and that the money he had was campaign contributions.
*googles the guy's name* Not especially difficult or time consuming. And that's only if they felt there was something fishy about the guy's story or something.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Fortunately I'm not advocating too much leeway. All I'm advocating is that if a TSA employee were to say, "Excuse me sir, we work on security for this flight, and we were wondering why you were carrying so much cash? You don't have to answer this question if you don't want to; we don't have the authority to compel you," that wouldn't be objectionable in the slightest. And to answer Mr. Squicky's question, I think it was, yes, even that would serve some good. Reactions could be gauged. The story could conceivably be checked if the reaction raised red flags.
No one is disagreeing that they have a right to ask, but perhaps we disagree how much can be gaged by their answer. You see, even though you have tried to explain how the answer can be used, I still insist that it is a pointless question. Unless you think the refusal to answer raises red flags, or unless you think that they will tell you that they got the money from a drug deal, or unless you honestly think that law enforcement has nothing better to do than to check into the story behind why someone has $4700 in cash. As has already been pointed out, the movements of greater than 10k in cash is already tracked. There is already a standard in place for determining how much money is suspicious enough to be worth investigating.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
It's frankly baffling to me that folks appear to think that the TSA should concern themselves only and to the exclusion of all else only things that directly impact airline security, no matter what might stumble into their laps. As well to chastise a firefighter for helping direct traffic or something at a fire they encounter while on vacation abroad.
No one said "no matter what might stumble into their laps." If they find illegal drugs in someone's suitcase, for example, I've got no problems with them detaining a passenger and holding them for regular law enforcement. But that's not what we're talking about here.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I could ask someone why they are carrying lots of cash and they could tell me to mind my own business.
Sure they know - or at least have an exhaustive list - of what is dangerous to carry on an airplane. Cash is not on that list. They have a no fly list that tells them who is dangerous. There are rules for law enforcment. Even - especially - fake law enforcement need to follow those rules.
Tell me how you think lots of paper (which is what cash is minus what it stands for) could be dangerous on an airplane. Should we ban books and magazines as well? He can't buy stuff on an airplane that would be dangerous to have on an airplane.
Where do you think "leeway" should stop?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's frankly baffling to me that folks appear to think that the TSA should concern themselves only and to the exclusion of all else only things that directly impact airline security, no matter what might stumble into their laps. As well to chastise a firefighter for helping direct traffic or something at a fire they encounter while on vacation abroad.
For the first part, I'm not sure if you missed the part where we talked about them being completely able to pass things onto the appropriate authorities, because it would seem to disagree with your characterization of what people said.
For second, I don't understand what thinking leads to drawing that equivalence. Could you explain?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thankfully, I'm not using 'could conceivably further terrorism' as my standard. I'm just rejecting the repeated notion expressed here of, "C'mon, a wad of cash? That cannot possibly be involved with anything dangerous to an aircraft!"
The standard that you seem to be using - "could somehow aid terrorists" - applies to just about any thing in existence. It also exists far, far, far outside the authority and capabilities of the TSA.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: All I'm advocating is that if a TSA employee were to say, "Excuse me sir, we work on security for this flight, and we were wondering why you were carrying so much cash? You don't have to answer this question if you don't want to; we don't have the authority to compel you," that wouldn't be objectionable in the slightest.
What would this accompilsh? Real terrorists will either lie, say nothing, or not have lots of cash to begin with.
But some Mexican-looking guy who speaks poor English, taking a flight from San Diego to Chicago to play in a poker tournament, he's going to be questioned. How does this help again?
quote:And to answer Mr. Squicky's question, I think it was, yes, even that would serve some good. Reactions could be gauged. The story could conceivably be checked if the reaction raised red flags.
Since when are TSA agents trained to accurately read facial expressions?
Prejudiced jerks are going to think that everyone of the wrong race/sex/religion/ethnicity/whatever are guilty. It only takes a small number of prejudiced jerks to impact thousands and thousands of people.
quote:Thankfully, I'm not using 'could conceivably further terrorism' as my standard. I'm just rejecting the repeated notion expressed here of, "C'mon, a wad of cash? That cannot possibly be involved with anything dangerous to an aircraft!"
A 10K engagement ring could very easily be converted to a 5K wad of cash, if necessary. Do you think TSA agents should stop everyone with a big diamond ring, and ask what they intend to do with it?
There are legitimate reason to wear big diamond rings, just like there are legitmate reasons to carry lots of cash. So if you have TSA harass everyone doing that, terrorists will just stop carrying big wads of cash, and will move their money in other ways. Like rolexes. The only people who will be 'caught' are the innocent ones.
quote:Let's say that the TSA did everything* right, and after advising the guy that he was under no legal obligation to answer their questions, he told them he worked for the Ron Paul campaign, and that the money he had was campaign contributions.
*googles the guy's name* Not especially difficult or time consuming. And that's only if they felt there was something fishy about the guy's story or something.
If the TSA agent is anti-Semetic, he's going to think any story told to him by a Jew is going to sound fishy.
And you obviously can't google every person's story.
Real terrorists would make alibis that would survive google scrutiny. Innocent people wouldn't plan that much, nor should they have to!
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'm getting really tired of being responded to as though I'm either a) not upset that this particular event happened, or b) encouraging sweeping expansion of the TSA mandate, or c) other ridiculous notions.
So this reply'll have to do.
----
Mr. Squicky,
quote:For the first part, I'm not sure if you missed the part where we talked about them being completely able to pass things onto the appropriate authorities, because it would seem to disagree with your characterization of what people said.
For the first part on my end, wouldn't that also fall under your and kmbboots's definition of going too far? Remember, the TSA is only supposed to be concerned with things directly impacting airline safety, and not one step further. It's not their business to be concerned about any other sorts of crimes, remember?
Second, getting other authorities involved - better trained, more appropriate authorities - is something I would support. You're welcome to quote me where I said or even suggested anything to the contrary, though. I did make one mistake, though, I didn't say so explicitly. I thought it was a given (from my angle at least).
quote:For second, I don't understand what thinking leads to drawing that equivalence. Could you explain?
It's a shaky comparison, I know, but it stems from the idea expressed here that government employees - law enforcement/security employees specifically - should be concerned only with what is obviously and specifically within their mandate, and anything else that crosses their eye simply isn't any of their business. It smacks of, "It's not their job," to me, and that's an excuse I'm just not very fond of. I don't see why we can't a) encourage initiative and b) discourage unauthorized and unlawful practices simultaneously.
quote:The standard that you seem to be using - "could somehow aid terrorists" - applies to just about any thing in existence. It also exists far, far, far outside the authority and capabilities of the TSA.
That's not the standard I'm using. I only ever brought it up in response to repeated statements on this thread about how carrying large sums of money couldn't possibly be in any way related to a threat to an aircraft.
kmbboots,
quote: Tell me how you think lots of paper (which is what cash is minus what it stands for) could be dangerous on an airplane. Should we ban books and magazines as well? He can't buy stuff on an airplane that would be dangerous to have on an airplane.
Heh, well why don't we just call ammunition 'little bits of metal with some dry chemicals jammed in one end' while we're at it?
Anyway, I never said anything about banning it. The only thing I ever said was that it might inspire curiosity, and that curiosity should sometimes be lawfully acted on.
The horror!
--- swbarnes,
quote:What would this accompilsh? Real terrorists will either lie, say nothing, or not have lots of cash to begin with.
Yeah, you're right. Security and law enforcement should just never ask questions ever, because after all, real criminals will have stuff already prepared.
C'mon.
quote:Since when are TSA agents trained to accurately read facial expressions?
How many cops do you think are 'trained to accurately read facial expressions'? Are the only people we're going to permit to question anyone else people who meet this standard? IRS Agents better get to training!
quote:Prejudiced jerks are going to think that everyone of the wrong race/sex/religion/ethnicity/whatever are guilty. It only takes a small number of prejudiced jerks to impact thousands and thousands of people.
You're right, we should definitely gear our security and law enforcement infrastructure to eliminating anything that, if abused, will negatively impact lots of people.
quote: There are legitimate reason to wear big diamond rings, just like there are legitmate reasons to carry lots of cash. So if you have TSA harass everyone doing that, terrorists will just stop carrying big wads of cash, and will move their money in other ways. Like rolexes. The only people who will be 'caught' are the innocent ones.
Caught me! Man, I was in favor of the TSA harrassing people before, but now I've seen the light.
quote:And you obviously can't google every person's story.
Who ever said anything about every story? I just mentioned that one person's story could be checked with a very quick, painless Internet search, that's all.
quote:Real terrorists would make alibis that would survive google scrutiny. Innocent people wouldn't plan that much, nor should they have to!
Yeah, again, we should totally just not even ask people questions. Because, after all, all criminals are Moriarty, and none are ever foiled by routine checks and procedures.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:For the first part, I'm not sure if you missed the part where we talked about them being completely able to pass things onto the appropriate authorities, because it would seem to disagree with your characterization of what people said.
For the first part on my end, wouldn't that also fall under your and kmbboots's definition of going too far? Remember, the TSA is only supposed to be concerned with things directly impacting airline safety, and not one step further. It's not their business to be concerned about any other sorts of crimes, remember?
Not any more than it is mine. I could mention to someone who has authority that I noticed something suspicious. I could not detain them while I googled them or till they answered my questions. Or intimidate them by flashing a badge and wearing a uniform.
quote: I don't see why we can't a) encourage initiative and b) discourage unauthorized and unlawful practices simultaneously.
It is only a problem when they are using their initiative to exceed their authority.
quote:
kmbboots,
quote: Tell me how you think lots of paper (which is what cash is minus what it stands for) could be dangerous on an airplane. Should we ban books and magazines as well? He can't buy stuff on an airplane that would be dangerous to have on an airplane.
Heh, well why don't we just call ammunition 'little bits of metal with some dry chemicals jammed in one end' while we're at it?
We could. It still has physical properties that are dangerous on an airplane. Cash does not.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that's a good clarification Rakeesh. Although it's clear now that you didn't intend it, it previously seemed that you supported a larger scope of authority for the TSA than to ensure flight security. If all you're saying is that TSA agents should be free to ask casual questions and report suspicious behavior to appropriate authorities when it doesn't fall within their mandate, then, yeah. No big disagreement.
I think most people are objecting to the idea that the TSA should be able to impede someone's travel due to carrying a wad of cash or some other unusual but legal activity, and I think with your last post you pretty much hold the same position. You're just saying you have no problem with them being alert to and reacting to things that seem suspicious, as long as they don't exceed their authority to act on those suspicions. I hope that's a correct understanding.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, I'm getting really tired of being responded to as though I'm either a) not upset that this particular event happened, or b) encouraging sweeping expansion of the TSA mandate, or c) other ridiculous notions.
It did seem to me as if you were defending this particular event and encouraging more authority for the TSA. Seeing that I was mistaken, I don't think there's anything more to say on the matter. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm pretty sure I do want government agencies to have very little zeal and interest outside of their specific purview, to be honest, and after a little thought. I'm leaning toward not caring whether a few crimes go undetected as a result.
For example, money laundering. Banks have to file special reports for cash transactions >$10k, as mentioned before. They are also supposed to report any suspected structuring of transactions to avoid the $10k threshold. I'm sure they are penalized if they don't report obvious structuring, for instance if I withdraw $9950 in cash every day for a month, they are going to be in trouble if they don't report this to the authorities (and the authorities find out anyway).
Suppose I go to the bank a couple of times and by coincidence an INS agent is in there too, for personal reasons, and observes a couple of possibly-structured transactions taking place? Do we want him to follow me when I leave, and try to figure out what I'm doing with all that cash? Or even ask me directly what I'm doing with the cash? Since he's got some governmental authority, and is tasked with helping to enforce immigration laws, does that provide legitimate interest in money laundering? Should he call the FBI?
I'm pretty sure I want that INS agent to mind his own business. I wouldn't want any individual citizen to take it upon himself to spy on me and probe into my personal business. I don't want to live in that kind of climate. I want to be free to withdraw my cash in any sum I please, and while I recognize that the law requires certain entities to react in certain ways to structured transactions, if someone isn't so bound by the law I want them to piss off. None of their damn business.
I recognize that in this hypothetical that if the bank doesn't make the reports, and the INS agent doesn't do anything, then maybe I got away with money laundering. My opinion, as of now, is that society shouldn't really care.* I don't want to live in a police state, and that means I don't want to tolerate incremental moves toward one. Suspicion is poisonous to liberty. I'm sorry to see our society trading more and more freedom for marginal improvements in security, and to make sure nobody gets away with anything.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Exercising your right to privacy should not be considered suspicious behavior.
The people in power (and the idiots that support them) think the only purpose of privacy is to hide wrongdoing.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I'm pretty sure I do want government agencies to have very little zeal and interest outside of their specific purview, to be honest, and after a little thought. I'm leaning toward not caring whether a few crimes go undetected as a result.
Amen. Ben Franklin said "It is better one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer." Bismarck said "It is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape." It used to be that Americans thought more like Franklin. Apparently, that's gone out of vogue.
If the "crime" is a terrorist atrocity, then it's understandable if authorities want to use the Bismarckian position a bit. But money laundering? Really?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The truth is, Americans as a whole never really thought like Franklin. Otherwise it wouldn't have been (and still is) such a constant uphill battle to protect the rights of criminals and suspects.
When did police actually advising suspects being questioned of their rights become law? Hint: not in the 18th or 19th centuries. Just as an easy example.
And as for the two sayings...while I do in fact subscribe to that Franklin outlook, I'm perhaps not as emphatic as you are, Lisa. After all, it's not an abstract. Those one hundred guilty folks are probably going to go on and victimize others.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(And I don't plan to change my mind on that.)
