posted
Rakeesh, discouraging TSA agents from investigating things that they shouldn't be investigating by not allowing them to use what they find in investigating is different from "strict oversight" while allowing them to investigate.
That seemed pretty clear to me.
quote:
quote:
When I travel, I consent to have TSA check my person and bags for weapons that might endanger the flight, crew and passengers. I do not consent to have them count the money I'm carrying, test the items in my bags for chemicals (other than explosives), read my mail, check the serial numbers on my electronic devices, sniff my socks or check the size of my bra.
*sigh* Fortunately, I'm not suggesting the TSA should be permitted to do these things. I wonder how many times I have to say that? Do I need to have a bolded disclaimer at the start of every subsequent post in this thread proclaiming it?
It is not all that surprising that folks don't know this when in the previous paragraph you suggested that TSA agents be allowed to test white powder by tasting or smelling it.
quote:They could taste it, or smell it-does cocaine have a distinct smell, and does flour?
quote:Rakeesh, discouraging TSA agents from investigating things that they shouldn't be investigating by not allowing them to use what they find in investigating is different from "strict oversight" while allowing them to investigate.
This is some pretty good double-talk. Oversight is discouragement. Your response was phrased in such a way to suggest I didn't favor pre-emptive discouragement. I do. It's called oversight. That's pretty clear.
quote:It is not all that surprising that folks don't know this when in the previous paragraph you suggested that TSA agents be allowed to test white powder by tasting or smelling it.
I wonder how many 'folks' really were confused as to my meaning. Because, after all, I didn't say items in bags should be tested for chemicals. I suggested that a bag of white powder of the consistency of cocaine discovered taped under one's armpit could be tasted or smelled.
That's another thing I said that was different from what you said I said. Which says nothing about the other five of six things I didn't say should be done.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, "strict oversight" means that they will follow the rules that I don't think are strict enough. So that is not going to help.
quote:Because, after all, I didn't say items in bags should be tested for chemicals. I suggested that a bag of white powder of the consistency of cocaine discovered taped under one's armpit could be tasted or smelled.
How is tasting or smelling different from "testing"?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh, "strict oversight" means that they will follow the rules that I don't think are strict enough. So that is not going to help.
'Strict oversight' also means that I don't, as you replied to me earlier, favor harsh penalties for violations as opposed to proactive discouragement.
That's what you said.
quote:I think that discouraging TSA agents from exceeding their authority in the first place makes more sense than harshly penalizing them afterwards.
And just for kicks, before you spoke of discouraging TSA officers from exceeding their authority. Now you're saying even the authority they have is wrong. Which is it?
Here's another one.
quote:Because, after all, I didn't say items in bags should be tested for chemicals. I suggested that a bag of white powder of the consistency of cocaine discovered taped under one's armpit could be tasted or smelled.
I can see why you'd be confused by the second part. I didn't mean to suggest that tasting and smelling is different from testing. But why, why did you completely ignore the first part - the part where I said that testing the cocaine-like white powder someone is clearly smuggling, as opposed to carrying in their bag normally - in favor of busting me on the apparent quibbling over 'testing'?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because, after all, I didn't say items in bags should be tested for chemicals. I suggested that a bag of white powder of the consistency of cocaine discovered taped under one's armpit could be tasted or smelled.
How is tasting or smelling different from "testing"?
A racist TSA agent can say that he smells or tastes a trace amount of cocaine in the bag of a black traveler. But an objective test won't show that.
Edit: and to preempt the ineveitable response, the racist TSA agent will say that he saw the black traveler acting so suspiciously that he was sure the guy was smuggling something there. That in light of the suspicious behavior, it was no less obvious that something was afoot than if the traveler had had a baggie taped to his body.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
swbarnes, I don't think they should be able to do either. I think the most they should be able to do is to mention it to someone whose job it is to prevent drug smuggling. Someone who, preferably, knows the parameters of his or her authority and can maybe get a warrant for when they guy lands.
Rakeesh, because I think that clearly smuggling is still a subjective judgment call and I don't want TSA agents making subjective judgment calls.
And I don't think that pointing out that tasting or smelling white powder is testing it is a "quibble". I think it is critical to limiting the authority of TSA agents. Testing something a little and unscientifically is still beyond what they should be doing. Unless they have to smell or taste the questionable powder to see if it falls under the TSA list they don't have any business doing it. Unless they have to read a document in order to determine whether it would be a danger to the plane, they shouldn't read even the first page.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh, because I think that clearly smuggling is still a subjective judgment call and I don't want TSA agents making subjective judgment calls.
I just want to be clear here. You're claiming that finding a plastic-wrapped bag of white powder hidden and taped under one's armpit or inner thigh and deeming it smuggling is subjective?
quote: And I don't think that pointing out that tasting or smelling white powder is testing it is a "quibble".
I don't think it's a quibble either, as I acknowledged above. I can see why you thought otherwise, but I clarified myself.
quote: Unless they have to read a document in order to determine whether it would be a danger to the plane, they shouldn't read even the first page.
Again with this sort of thing. Reading documents is something I specifically said they shouldn't be permitted to do!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you don't think it is a quibble either, why is my making a point of it a mystery?
Then how would they know a document said "PLAN TO MURDER MY WIFE WHEN I GET HOME FROM THIS BUSINESS TRIP"?
And, yes, deeming that a bag of white, cocaine-looking powder is smuggling is subjective no matter how or where someone is carrying it. Common sense is subjective. DEA agents could use their subjective judgment to determine if it needs additional testing; they are trained for it and have that authority. Same goes for customs agents. That training and authority should not apply to TSA agents.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you don't think it is a quibble either, why is my making a point of it a mystery?
Your making a point of that only and not addressing the other part was what's strange, as I already said.
quote:Then how would they know a document said "PLAN TO MURDER MY WIFE WHEN I GET HOME FROM THIS BUSINESS TRIP"?
When they're doing an X-Ray of the stuff, they see something that very much looks like explosives. Turns out when they open the briefcase it's actually a bunch of play-doh. The writing is so large they can't help but read it, without moving anything around, or making any effort to read it.
This is quibbling.
quote: And, yes, deeming that a bag of white, cocaine-looking powder is smuggling is subjective no matter how or where someone is carrying it. Common sense is subjective. DEA agents could use their subjective judgment to determine if it needs additional testing; they are trained for it and have that authority. Same goes for customs agents. That training and authority should not apply to TSA agents.
Deciding that a passenger attempting to carry a firearm onto a passenger airliner is also subjective. Maybe they just carry a gun to feel safe. Maybe it's not loaded. Maybe it's been spiked so it cannot be fired. Maybe they're actually a secret agent who got sloppy and had their gun discovered. Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it's automatically disallowed, so your complaint that it's subjective - especially when discussing a lawfully discovered bag of cocaine taped under someone's armpit - is absurd.
'They shouldn't ever get to do anything subjective' falls flat in the face of the fact that most items on the list with the exception of ticking time bombs actually are subjective, up to and including firearms and hand grenades.
quote:That training and authority should not apply to TSA agents.
Actually, I do agree that the TSA officers (actually, I think the correct term is 'screeners') shouldn't be the ones testing it. However, in no way at all does any rational person need DEA or customs training to realize, "Hey, that painstakingly hidden bag of white powder that looks like narcotics is narcotics!"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't quibbling at all. It is the point. Once the door is opened to TSA screeners making subjective judgments, it makes room for subjective judgment calls. One person's reasonable common sense is another person's racial profiling. Clearly some TSA screener thought it reasonable common sense to detain someone for carrying cash.
TSA screeners need to make one objective decision. "Is this item on the list of proscribed items or not?" I suppose that there could be a small number of cases where a TSA agent can't identify an item sufficiently to determine that in which case he or she should call a supervisor.
That the list itself is subjective has nothing to do with TSA screeners.
ETA: I am less concerned with the training needed to recognize narcotics than I am with the training in what constitutes probable cause and a legal search of someone's person and belongings.
quote:It isn't quibbling at all. It is the point. Once the door is opened to TSA screeners making subjective judgments, it makes room for subjective judgment calls. One person's reasonable common sense is another person's racial profiling. Clearly some TSA screener thought it reasonable common sense to detain someone for carrying cash.
It's quibbling because you persist in attempting to recast every single possibility as, "They shouldn't have noticed it in the first place." I'm not talking about finding something while snooping based on an otherwise lawful search, I'm talking about when executing a lawful search no one could help but notice the evidence of a different, non-airline-safety-related crime. The powder under the armpit for one, the child pornography pictures that accidentally fall out of the briefcase for another.
As for subjective judgments, as I've already illustrated, the items on that list are themselves subjective judgments. So your previous objection, that the TSA screeners shouldn't be using subjective judgments, was faulty because the list is subjective. Now you're qualifying that to 'they should be making objective judgments about a subjective list'.
And of course, what would you say if a hypothetical TSA screener was a big-time mechanical and electronics nerd. This guy reads all sorts of periodicals about strange inventions. While conducting a perfectly lawful search, he discovers, "Hey, these two items when combined form a deadly weapon." But because he's such a nerd, his knowledge is on the cutting edge. The two items he's found aren't on the list.
You'd have him say, "Well, it's not on the list. Better let this one go." Note that I'm not using these hypotheticals to support an absolute statement of my own, such as, "TSA screeners should be allowed to use common sense as their basis for searches." (In this thread, it's really important, apparently, that I point that out.) I'm using these hypotheticals to get you to back off your absolute statements.
quote:ETA: I am less concerned with the training needed to recognize narcotics than I am with the training in what constitutes probable cause and a legal search of someone's person and belongings.
There is effectively zero training involved in knowing that someone concealing a bag of powder under their armpits is definitely, unless we're in Bizarro world or the Twilight Zone or something, smuggling narcotics. Your suggestion that the training needed to spot narcotics is thus groundless, given that I'm not suggesting they should, y'know, test a bottle of pills or something.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because, after all, I didn't say items in bags should be tested for chemicals. I suggested that a bag of white powder of the consistency of cocaine discovered taped under one's armpit could be tasted or smelled.
Technically, tasting and smelling are chemical tests, although they are far less accurate than any test that would generally be considered admissible in court. But more to the point, tasting or smelling the powder are not required to determine that it wouldn't be dangerous on an airplane. I don't see how this would be significantly different than reading serial numbers that couldn't possibly be or contain drugs.
Furthermore, there is no law against concealing a bag of powder under your armpit. Knowing that someone is does not constitute knowledege of a crime. Possessing cocaine is a crime, concealing a white powder is not. It isn't a crime even if you can't imagine a legitimate reason for doing it. It just is not a crime, period.
But you are still disregarding my key point. Airport searches are fundamentally different from any search done under a warrant or the investigation of a crime. Airport searches aren't done because there is reason to believe a crime is being committed. There is not probable cause, no oaths or affirmation on which a warrant might ever have been issued. And hundreds of millions of people who are doing nothing more than traveling are required to undergo these searches. There is no comparable example in our society in terms of either scope or magnitude. For this reason, these searches need to be more strictly limited than other legal searches.
The fact remains that in our society we consider the right to privacy sufficiently important that we often exclude evidence obtained in good faith in a warranted search when the warrant did not specify the particular items found. Why then should we admit evidence from airport searches which are unwarranted unless the evidence pertains to airport security? Yes I know that we make exceptions and sometime admit evidence that was not specifically covered under a warrant. But those are exceptions. Since airport search are already exceptional, what reason is there to make further exceptions.
I'll admit that if the airport x-ray machine revealed a dead baby in my bag, we ought to make an exception. But with that single exception, I can't think of anything TSA could discover in a search that would be obviously illegal without requiring more examination than was necessary for airline security.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'll admit that if the airport x-ray machine revealed a dead baby in my bag, we ought to make an exception. But with that single exception, I can't think of anything TSA could discover in a search that would be obviously illegal without requiring more examination than was necessary for airline security.
Thank you. I never felt I would persuade you more to my line of thinking on this, but man it was tough as all get out to get you to acknowledge even the possibility of exceptions!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'll admit that if the airport x-ray machine revealed a dead baby in my bag, we ought to make an exception. But with that single exception, I can't think of anything TSA could discover in a search that would be obviously illegal without requiring more examination than was necessary for airline security.
posted
Sam, If you had been following the thread you would realize that I long ago agree that airport security had the right to use any information that was pertinent to airport security so that is not under debate. The debate has for some time revolved around things that could not reasonably be considered dangerous if carried on board and airplane.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Airport searches are fundamentally different from any search done under a warrant or the investigation of a crime. Airport searches aren't done because there is reason to believe a crime is being committed. There is not probable cause, no oaths or affirmation on which a warrant might ever have been issued. And hundreds of millions of people who are doing nothing more than traveling are required to undergo these searches. There is no comparable example in our society in terms of either scope or magnitude. For this reason, these searches need to be more strictly limited than other legal searches.
You do not have a right to fly on a plane. You do not have a right to be in an airport terminal. By agreeing to fly on a private plane or enter certain areas in an airport you must give consent to screening and being searched. If you do not agree to those conditions, then you cannot board the plane or be in restricted areas. If a grocery store thinks you are stealing items they can inspect your bags. Most schools make you report to the main office and your child is brought to you. You can't just enter and wander where you want. How many people are detained daily in shopping malls for suspicion of theft?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Sam, If you had been following the thread you would realize that I long ago agree that airport security had the right to use any information that was pertinent to airport security so that is not under debate. The debate has for some time revolved around things that could not reasonably be considered dangerous if carried on board and airplane.
Such as a brick of cocaine?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You do not have a right to fly on a plane. You do not have a right to be in an airport terminal.
Whether you do or not - and I don't grant that the right to travel freely doesn't exist - simultaneously the government also doesn't have the right to stop you from doing those things without some sort of cause.
quote:If a grocery store thinks you are stealing items they can inspect your bags.
This isn't actually true either, or at least not entirely true. There are exceptions, qualifications, etc. Lots of people think stores have that right, and lots of stores seem to think so as well...but it's not always true.
quote:How many people are detained daily in shopping malls for suspicion of theft?
Quite a few more than should be, I think. Suspicion of theft is by no means whatsoever grounds for privately-employed mallcops to detain someone. I overuse italics here to illustrate the problems with your statement.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have never been searched in a shopping mall, never had any one at a grocery store look in my bag, I've been a guest in many schools and never had my bags searched. In fact I've never been searched any where except airports. I expect I am not exceptional.
I have never suggested that airports shouldn't search people for things that could be dangerous on a plane. I have suggested that there is a limit to what they can do with what they find. This is certainly true of all the other searches you mentioned.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a TSA screener finds what he thinks is a dead baby, he should contact actual law enforcement people.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ETA: I am less concerned with the training needed to recognize narcotics than I am with the training in what constitutes probable cause and a legal search of someone's person and belongings. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is effectively zero training involved in knowing that someone concealing a bag of powder under their armpits is definitely, unless we're in Bizarro world or the Twilight Zone or something, smuggling narcotics. Your suggestion that the training needed to spot narcotics is thus groundless, given that I'm not suggesting they should, y'know, test a bottle of pills or something.
I do not understand your response to this - maybe there is an extra word?. I am saying that whether or not a law enforcement officer can identify cocaine is less important in this situation than whether a law enforcement officer is aware of the laws regarding searches.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And of course, what would you say if a hypothetical TSA screener was a big-time mechanical and electronics nerd. This guy reads all sorts of periodicals about strange inventions. While conducting a perfectly lawful search, he discovers, "Hey, these two items when combined form a deadly weapon." But because he's such a nerd, his knowledge is on the cutting edge. The two items he's found aren't on the list.
To someone who knows enough engineering, or other skills, pretty much any two items can be combined to form a deadly weapon. Are you really sure, for instance, that a ordinary looking knitting needle and a ponytail holder couldn't be used to blind from a distance?
You really want TSA agents to be able to stop anyone whose items they imagine can be combined into a deadly weapon?
What if the nerd guy is wrong? What if he's read too many comics, and what he thinks is feasible isn't feasible at all?
quote:"TSA screeners should be allowed to use common sense as their basis for searches." (In this thread, it's really important, apparently, that I point that out.)
Say a laptop is reported stolen. It's just common sense that young black guys in jeans wouldn't have laptops of their own, right? So they should be forced to prove that their laptops really are theirs. White guys in suits need not bother.
Well, maybe not common sense to you, but common sense to some TSA agents.
quote:There is effectively zero training involved in knowing that someone concealing a bag of powder under their armpits is definitely, unless we're in Bizarro world or the Twilight Zone or something, smuggling narcotics.
Really? Would you be wililng to bet $1000 that there isn't some alt-med treatment out there that calls for some white powder to be held in some smie-permiable bag close to a sensitive part of the skin? Or some exotic religous sect that requires its members to do odd things? Because if you are wrong, and someone misses their flight, you've just cost someone $1000 of inconvenience.
Are you arguing that he world does not contain lots of Bizarro and Twilight Zone type people?
The really obvious signs are only the tip of the iceberg. Everyone else is worried about what TSA agents will do the 99% of the time when it's not so obvious, but you seem to take for granted that everything will be fine. Maybe you figure no jerk of a TSA is going to single you out for harassment. Not everyone is so lucky.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. And once TSA screeners start to use their common sense, some of them are going to use that common sense to detain people for carrying cash.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I will take one of my upcoming flights this week with a bag of baking soda taped under my armpit. If asked, I could claim it's there to absorb a bad odor I noticed coming from that armpit.
Of course, the state of TSA screening is such that there's almost no chance of me getting caught with the bag. It won't set off the metal detector and I'm pretty good at not skulking (I think).
The problem with such an analogy is that a white powder could be a danger to flight security. I think they need to check into it if they notice it. But the likelihood of them detecting it is small.
TSA security screening is a sham. Anyone with a budget and/or ingenuity could sneak something dangerous onto an airplane. There are plenty of examples available on the web showing how ineffective the screening is. Whatever (if anything) has thwarted terrorist attacks in the last 8 years, it hasn't been ineffectual attempts at making sure I don't have more than 3 oz of mouthwash.
Why we'd even expect TSA ever to catch a serious crime is beyond me. Any efforts or alertness intended to thwart crime is far more likely just to inconvenience people who are legit, and most likely in ways that reflect the prejudices of the TSA personnel.
Best to keep them on a tight leash. Like an aggressive and poorly trained dog, they're more likely to bite someone who poses no danger than someone who deserves it.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem with such an analogy is that a white powder could be a danger to flight security. I think they need to check into it if they notice it. But the likelihood of them detecting it is small.
All they would need to do, is swab it and put the swab in their explosives detector. That would tell them its not explosives but wouldn't tell them whether its baking soda, cornstarch or cocaine.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You think its just a silly hypothetical, but I routinely travel with a suitcase half full of plastic baggies containing white powders.
They contain gluten free flours that I can't get everywhere so I often buy them when I'm traveling. They are often labeled in only chinese characters or with a hand written note. What if some TSA screener finds this suspicious? Should they be able to pass this information along to the police? Should the police be able to use the information that I commonly am traveling with a suitcase of white powder to get a warrant to search my house? The most likely action is that they will ask me why I'm carrying it and what it is. And since my choices will be either to explain my medical history to them or miss my flight, I will likely explain my medical history. The thing is, they have no right to know anything about my medical history. I have a right to keep that stuff private and shouldn't have to tell it to a government agent just so I can get on a plane. At the very least, I deserve the assurance that the TSA agent is required to keep everything they find (except the items that are banned on airplanes) totally confidential. It doesn't work to say "totally confidential" unless the TSA agent suspects it could be connected to a crime. If the TSA agent didn't suspect something he wouldn't have asked the question. If I seem hesitant to explain my private medical issues to him, he might find that even more suspicious. Confidential must mean confidential, period.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If a TSA screener finds what he thinks is a dead baby, he should contact actual law enforcement people.
No he shouldn't. That a) takes time away from his job of screening, and b) involves using his authority to search people in a manner completely unrelated to airline safety, remember?
quote:I do not understand your response to this - maybe there is an extra word?. I am saying that whether or not a law enforcement officer can identify cocaine is less important in this situation than whether a law enforcement officer is aware of the laws regarding searches.
Well, as a standalone statement then, I agree. I thought you were using it as a response to the TSA screener noticing cocaine, though, suggesting that they should rather focus on laws regarding searches rather than being 'trained' to know that plastic bag taped under a guy's armpit is actually a narcotic.
quote:Exactly. And once TSA screeners start to use their common sense, some of them are going to use that common sense to detain people for carrying cash.
Is this addressed to me, kmbboots, or are you just making a general statement? ----
swbarnes,
quote:To someone who knows enough engineering, or other skills, pretty much any two items can be combined to form a deadly weapon. Are you really sure, for instance, that a ordinary looking knitting needle and a ponytail holder couldn't be used to blind from a distance?
Actually, are you allowed to bring knitting needles onto a passenger airliner? I have no idea myself, but it seems strange that if they'll break your chops on a pair of nail clippers as I remember hearing somewhere, a needle would certainly be restricted.
quote:You really want TSA agents to be able to stop anyone whose items they imagine can be combined into a deadly weapon?
I didn't say anything about imagine.
quote:What if the nerd guy is wrong? What if he's read too many comics, and what he thinks is feasible isn't feasible at all?
That's fine, except the guy in my example isn't an idiot.
quote:Well, maybe not common sense to you, but common sense to some TSA agents.
Dude. You didn't actually read my post at all, did you? I specifically said I was not making that claim, that common sense was enough.
quote:Really? Would you be wililng to bet $1000 that there isn't some alt-med treatment out there that calls for some white powder to be held in some smie-permiable bag close to a sensitive part of the skin? Or some exotic religous sect that requires its members to do odd things? Because if you are wrong, and someone misses their flight, you've just cost someone $1000 of inconvenience.
I'd be willing to bet a million dollars that there is no medical treatment out there that involves effectively smuggling a bag of medicine under one's armpit that wouldn't also be avowed by the person being searched.
As for exotic religious rituals, well, Sikhs are supposed to always carry a small dagger if I'm not mistaken.
Anyway, your 'wouldya bet a grand on it?' is a pretty BS argument, swbarnes. Because the fact is, I'm absolutely certain that you wouldn't bet a grand - nor could you find someone who would if I gave you a month - that the random guy with a plastic bag of white powder hidden beneath his armpit is actually taking medicine. Or engaging in a religious ritual.
quote:Are you arguing that he world does not contain lots of Bizarro and Twilight Zone type people?
Of course it does. That means we should gear law enforcement and security towards those people, right? Nonsense.
quote: The really obvious signs are only the tip of the iceberg. Everyone else is worried about what TSA agents will do the 99% of the time when it's not so obvious, but you seem to take for granted that everything will be fine. Maybe you figure no jerk of a TSA is going to single you out for harassment. Not everyone is so lucky.
Maybe what I actually figure is that it's irresponsible to gear our security structure entirely towards the abuses. Potential abuses must be taken into account, but they're not the only part of the picture either.
-----
quote:You think its just a silly hypothetical, but I routinely travel with a suitcase half full of plastic baggies containing white powders.
*sigh* Taped under your armpits, right? Wait. No, you actually said, "In my suitcase." That's...wait, lemme think about it...yeah, that's actually very different.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The really obvious signs are only the tip of the iceberg. Everyone else is worried about what TSA agents will do the 99% of the time when it's not so obvious, but you seem to take for granted that everything will be fine. Maybe you figure no jerk of a TSA is going to single you out for harassment. Not everyone is so lucky.
Maybe what I actually figure is that it's irresponsible to gear our security structure entirely towards the abuses. Potential abuses must be taken into account, but they're not the only part of the picture either.
Sure. Just a part. Your policy, if enacted would be only 99.99% abuse. They might catch one dumb criminal for every 10,000 people who were unnecessarily hararsed.
Picture Rabbit with her baggies of flour. Now imagine Rabbit being male, black with a tattoo, dressed very casually, and having a slight fever, making Rabbit a little fatigued and sweaty. Next in line is a 30 year old white guy with a blister pack of pills, gained with a forged prescription (which he no longer has on him).
Given the reality that some percentage of people are awful racists, what are the odds that Rabbit gets harassed, versus the odds of catching the guy with the illegal pills, under your proposed policy?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure. Just a part. Your policy, if enacted would be only 99.99% abuse. They might catch one dumb criminal for every 10,000 people who were unnecessarily hararsed.
It's crystal clear to me you don't actually have a good idea of what 'my policy' would be. Despite repeating ad naseum to the contrary, you think I support a 'common sense' approach to TSA screening.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, maybe it would be helpful for you to outline exactly what you think TSA agents should do. After all this, I have no idea what you actually are advocating.
I have on a couple of occasions advocated TSA alerting actual law enforcment officers or their own supervisors when something was egregiously suspicious. My objection (which is different than The Rabbit's) is to TSA agents detaining people and investigating (tasting powder, counting money) on their own.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have on a couple of occasions advocated TSA alerting actual law enforcment officers or their own supervisors when something was egregiously suspicious. My objection (which is different than The Rabbit's) is to TSA agents detaining people and investigating (tasting powder, counting money) on their own.
You've also, on at least as many if not more occasions, advocated TSA screeners not taking the slightest action in excess of things only very clearly oriented towards airline safety.
In any event, what you say here is perfectly suitable to me. Ideal, even. Because after all as has been noted, TSA screeners aren't actually law enforcement, and are only narrowly trained.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No action such as asking questions of the passenger (beyond what is required). No tasting or smelling powder to see if it is narcotics no matter how suspicious they are. No reading documents to see if they are about wife murdering or kiddie porn. No investigating of any kind or detaining the passenger.
At the most, calling a supervisor or, if they themselves have access, a police officer to report egregiously suspicious activity. I think this would eventually be self-correcting as police officers would get to know which TSA agents had over active imaginations and won't want to look foolish or get in trouble for investigating ghosts without probably cause.
Given that, I would prefer The Rabbit's position than that of letting TSA agents use their common sense and check anything out themselves.
And knitting needles are allowed on airplanes - even international flights. At least they were last time I flew.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No action such as asking questions of the passenger (beyond what is required). No tasting or smelling powder to see if it is narcotics no matter how suspicious they are. No reading documents to see if they are about wife murdering or kiddie porn. No investigating of any kind or detaining the passenger.
Let's see. I never said documents should be read or hard drives should be investigated, so I'm not sure why that's on your list. I only ever said questions can potentially be asked only if an advising-of-rights is coupled right with those questions. And even then, they're generally going to have more important things to do.
quote:At the most, calling a supervisor or, if they themselves have access, a police officer to report egregiously suspicious activity. I think this would eventually be self-correcting as police officers would get to know which TSA agents had over active imaginations and won't want to look foolish or get in trouble for investigating ghosts without probably cause.
Doesn't this conflict rather directly with your opinion that they should do absolutely nothing not directly related to airline security? The seconds they spend calling a cop are seconds they could spend doing the absolute-minimum job they ought to be doing. Using their knowledge of suspicious behavior to inform a police officer is using their search authority in a way not directly tied to airline safety.
And anyway, I very much suspect that if we had sufficient police in all airports to the point where they really could respond to every warning of 'egregiously suspicious activity', you'd be against the TSA screeners doing that, too. I could be mistaken, though.
quote:Given that, I would prefer The Rabbit's position than that of letting TSA agents use their common sense and check anything out themselves.
This has to be like the third time I've said this today. I don't support a common-sense check-anything approach. Now do I get to complain about words being put in my mouth, or will you lecture me again?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Do you advocate the position where a TSA agent could detain a passenger to taste or smell white powder about which, for whatever reason, he is clearly according to the TSA agent, smuggling?
I do not.
Do you advocate a position where a TSA agent could question a passenger about child pornography found in his luggage?
I do not.
My assumption is that we do not have sufficient police at airports to respond to TSA agent allegations of suspicious behavior and that almost all of the time (barring a plague of dead babies in carry-on bags) police will tell the TSA agents to mind their own business and no action will have been taken.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: You do not have a right to fly on a plane. You do not have a right to be in an airport terminal. By agreeing to fly on a private plane or enter certain areas in an airport you must give consent to screening and being searched. If you do not agree to those conditions, then you cannot board the plane or be in restricted areas. If a grocery store thinks you are stealing items they can inspect your bags.
While technically true, it is also a pointless argument. Air travel is heavily subsidized and government backed. It is heavily regulated, and because of the massive regulation and capital costs it is almost impossible to find acceptable behavior via free market competition.
Given that air travel is massively important means of personal transportation, it is absurd to imply that we should not argue for a policy change since we are free to not use air travel.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you advocate the position where a TSA agent could detain a passenger to taste or smell white powder about which, for whatever reason, he is clearly according to the TSA agent, smuggling?
Personally, I would advocate such a position but for the sake of compromise I'm willing to modify it to something like this: confiscate the material, turn it over to qualified personnel for testing. 'If' (and I use that word with a sigh) it turns out to be contraband, it is destroyed, but cannot be used as evidence of a crime against the passenger. If it's not, it's promptly returned to the passenger with apologies and, I dunno, free tickets or a go to the head of the line at the next TSA screening line ticket or something.
quote:Do you advocate a position where a TSA agent could question a passenger about child pornography found in his luggage?
So long as the child pornography is found in a lawful way, absolutely. Like, absolutely^23 in fact.
quote: My assumption is that we do not have sufficient police at airports to respond to TSA agent allegations of suspicious behavior and that almost all of the time (barring a plague of dead babies in carry-on bags) police will tell the TSA agents to mind their own business and no action will have been taken.
Would you support increased police presence at airports to specifically address this lack? And, again, you're seizing on 'suspicious behavior'. Why in the hell do you keep doing that? You and I rarely see eye to eye on political discussions, but I can't recall such a discussion with you where you so repeatedly - it seems to me - at best respond only to very select portions of my posts, and at worst fully misrepresent me. Like you're doing now. Where have I said TSA screeners should search someone on the basis of 'suspicious behavior'?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'll admit that if the airport x-ray machine revealed a dead baby in my bag, we ought to make an exception. But with that single exception, I can't think of anything TSA could discover in a search that would be obviously illegal without requiring more examination than was necessary for airline security.
Thank you. I never felt I would persuade you more to my line of thinking on this, but man it was tough as all get out to get you to acknowledge even the possibility of exceptions!
Well technically, no. Dead bodies are pretty well covered under things you aren't allowed to carry on a plane for health and safety reasons. Transportation of dead bodies is heavily regulated. It wouldn't be legal to have one in your checked baggage unless you had special transport permits and informed the airlines ahead of time. It wouldn't be legal to have one in your carry on under any circumstances. So even if it turns out the baby died of natural causes, was properly embalmed and being transported somewhere for burial in the family cemetery, you wouldn't be allowed to carry it on board the plane. It's not something that generally posted on the lists, but dead bodies are not allowed in carry-on baggage. And this actual a safety issue. So no, TSA reporting dead bodies in baggage to police is covered under their mandate of securing airline travel along with aerosol cans, fire extinguishes, camp stove fuel, and fireworks.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Carrying your baggie of white powder taped under your arm would be suspicious behavior. Carrying a corpse in your carry-on (a carrion carry-on!) would be suspicious behavior. How am I misrepresenting you?
Perhaps you would like to somehow indicate the parts of your posts that you want me to respond to?
In the positions you are advocating above, TSA agents are far exceeding their authority to keep dangerous items and people off of airlines.
Would you advocate (assuming you didn't have to compromise) a TSA agent tasting or smelling white powder in a baggie in someone's luggage? Pocket? In a vial in someones luggage? Pocket? How about a sort of hidden pocket or in a hidden compartment in the luggage?
What about pills instead of powder in a baggie taped under the arm?
Where would you draw the line?
Here is where I think we get into judgment calls and what is "reasonable" and what is "common sense".
I think that having TSA agents confiscate the property of passengers is a very bad idea. Not only would it screw up actually catching and convicting people with probable cause and chain of evidence issues (since the actual LEO would not be catching the passenger with the stuff on him), it would be a temptation for theft.
Why is it important that this not-dangerous-on-a-plane stuff doesn't get on a plane?
No, I would not support more police at airports. Why would I? I don't think this is a lack! I don't think that passengers should be harassed because TGS agents are exceeding their authority. It is a good thing that police would almost all the time tell TSA agents to mind their own business.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Supporting putting more police at airports means supporting more taxes to pay those police. Of all the places we need more police in the US, the airports are pretty low on my list of priorities. Customs agents would handling anything like drugs or porn if its a flight entering the country. If you are worried about catching drug smugglers, spending money putting more police in airports is certainly not the best investment.
quote:Personally, I would advocate such a position but for the sake of compromise I'm willing to modify it to something like this: confiscate the material, turn it over to qualified personnel for testing. 'If' (and I use that word with a sigh) it turns out to be contraband, it is destroyed, but cannot be used as evidence of a crime against the passenger. If it's not, it's promptly returned to the passenger with apologies and, I dunno, free tickets or a go to the head of the line at the next TSA screening line ticket or something.
As much as I appreciate your willingness to compromise on this, I'm not sure how that address the concerns about right to privacy on minimizing inconvenience to travelers. Suppose that what TSA confiscates turns out to be a legal owned prescription drug. Suppose the person needs that drug with them while they are traveling. The simple threat of confiscation will create pressure for people to disclose medical information they have the right to keep private.
Consider me and my baggies of flour. I buy them when I travel because I can't get them where I live. If they are confiscated, it is a big inconvenience for me. And its food stuff, so after its been opened for laboratory testing -- its not simple to return safe and uncontaminated.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I only ever said questions can potentially be asked only if an advising-of-rights is coupled right with those questions. And even then, they're generally going to have more important things to do.
Let's say that 10 people are at the airport with $5000, and all 10 say they work for Ron Paul, but googling can't prove that. What would your TSA agent be authorized to do then? If he can't do anything, then what you've got is a completely useless and pointless excuse for racist and cruel TSAs to hassle and harass innocent travelers.
quote:confiscate the material, turn it over to qualified personnel for testing. 'If' (and I use that word with a sigh) it turns out to be contraband, it is destroyed, but cannot be used as evidence of a crime against the passenger. If it's not, it's promptly returned to the passenger with apologies and, I dunno, free tickets or a go to the head of the line at the next TSA screening line ticket or something.
Wait, so you think TSA agents should be testing contraband, but not prosecuting smugglers? So it's not about catching criminals, it's just about stopping a tiny vial of cocaine from going from one city to another? Thousands of innocent people will be harrassed for doing legitimate things, and this won't result in the prosecution of a single criminal?
Maybe if your "You don't have to answer these questions" caveat also contains "If you do answer these questions, and nothing contraband is confiscated from you, TSA gives you $1000, half of which comes from my paycheck", that system would probably work. Put some signs up to that effect, that would curb abuse much better than some rubber stamp "oversight".
quote:Like you're doing now. Where have I said TSA screeners should search someone on the basis of 'suspicious behavior'?
How is the TSA agent supposed to find a baggie taped under an armpit if he's not searching people? How is he supposed to determine whom to search that closely? A lottery?
You said that the job of TSA agents was to be curious. I don't think you meant that they shoud be curious about where travelers bought their tourist sweatshirts, or where their favorite BBQ place in Memphis is, or whether they prefer hearts to gin rummy. You meant that TSA agents should be curious if they see travelers doing things that the TSA agents don't think they should be doing.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wait, so you think TSA agents should be testing contraband, but not prosecuting smugglers? So it's not about catching criminals, it's just about stopping a tiny vial of cocaine from going from one city to another? Thousands of innocent people will be harrassed for doing legitimate things, and this won't result in the prosecution of a single criminal.
quote:Well technically, no. Dead bodies are pretty well covered under things you aren't allowed to carry on a plane for health and safety reasons. Transportation of dead bodies is heavily regulated.
Heh, don't narcotics fall under the same area, for similar (though not identical) reasons? Isn't transportation of narcotics heavily regulated?
quote: And this actual a safety issue. So no, TSA reporting dead bodies in baggage to police is covered under their mandate of securing airline travel along with aerosol cans, fire extinguishes, camp stove fuel, and fireworks.
I wonder how most folks would classify 'drug smugglers' on a range of safety concerns, Rabbit.
quote:As much as I appreciate your willingness to compromise on this, I'm not sure how that address the concerns about right to privacy on minimizing inconvenience to travelers. Suppose that what TSA confiscates turns out to be a legal owned prescription drug. Suppose the person needs that drug with them while they are traveling. The simple threat of confiscation will create pressure for people to disclose medical information they have the right to keep private.
A right to privacy is a crucial element. 'Minimizing inconvenience', on the other hand, is not. As for the 'medicine'...you're asking me to suppose a passenger would carry a legally owned prescription that is, in fact, a several-kilos pound plastic bag of white powder, and that they'd carry that taped under their armpit?
What legally carried prescription is even issued in several-kilos amounts to a private citizen? What legally carried prescription is carried in a plain plastic bag taped under someone's arm?
quote:Consider me and my baggies of flour. I buy them when I travel because I can't get them where I live. If they are confiscated, it is a big inconvenience for me. And its food stuff, so after its been opened for laboratory testing -- its not simple to return safe and uncontaminated.
I have considered you and your bags of flour. At least once in this thread already in fact. As I asked you before, where do you store your baggies of flour? Do you tape them to your body and hide them beneath your clothes?
Didn't think so.
-------
kmbboots,
quote:Carrying your baggie of white powder taped under your arm would be suspicious behavior. Carrying a corpse in your carry-on (a carrion carry-on!) would be suspicious behavior. How am I misrepresenting you?
Because these things aren't found because of 'suspicious behavior' in the situations I've been talking about. They've been found through purely lawful searches by TSA screeners. Maybe they show up on the X-ray machine. Maybe they fall out of a guy's coat. Maybe another passenger sees it and reports it to a TSA screener.
quote:Perhaps you would like to somehow indicate the parts of your posts that you want me to respond to?
Maybe when you actually quote me, you could respond to the entire quote instead of just a part, particularly when the entire quote refutes your own rebuttal.
quote:In the positions you are advocating above, TSA agents are far exceeding their authority to keep dangerous items and people off of airlines.
In your opinion.
quote:Would you advocate (assuming you didn't have to compromise) a TSA agent tasting or smelling white powder in a baggie in someone's luggage? Pocket? In a vial in someones luggage? Pocket? How about a sort of hidden pocket or in a hidden compartment in the luggage?
Well, actually if I were completely running the show, I'd still say have `em call the police, because the cops are better trained. I'd also say, however, that if someone were lawfully caught smuggling something that looks very much like drugs (even if - ha! - it turns out they had a special kind of flour taped under their arms), they'd be permitted to detain them until the police arrive.
quote:What about pills instead of powder in a baggie taped under the arm?
Pills too. If it's being smuggled, confiscate, detain, call the police. If it's lawfully discovered that is.
quote:Here is where I think we get into judgment calls and what is "reasonable" and what is "common sense".
Given that your and Rabbit's responses to situations involving substances being smuggled under armpits has included, "What if it's special flour?" frankly I'm dubious that your hold on 'common sense' on this issue is very tight.
quote: I think that having TSA agents confiscate the property of passengers is a very bad idea. Not only would it screw up actually catching and convicting people with probable cause and chain of evidence issues (since the actual LEO would not be catching the passenger with the stuff on him), it would be a temptation for theft.
Well, let's just be clear. Your objection that it would screw up a potential prosecution doesn't hold much water, because frankly you don't want their to be a prosecution in the first place. Or an arrest, or anything. You'd prefer the TSA screeners just hand the guy back his bag of cocaine and wish him well...or maybe call the police, but it's not really clear to me why that doesn't 'exceed their authority'.
As for a temptation for theft, that's addressed with not too much difficulty: extremely thorough surveillance on all TSA screeners. Security cameras watching the watchers as well as the watchees, as it were.
quote:Why is it important that this not-dangerous-on-a-plane stuff doesn't get on a plane?
It's not especially important for cocaine and child pornography not to get on a plane. It is especially important to identify and possibly apprehend and prosecute drug smugglers and child pornographers when and where we find them through lawful means.
quote: No, I would not support more police at airports. Why would I? I don't think this is a lack! I don't think that passengers should be harassed because TGS agents are exceeding their authority. It is a good thing that police would almost all the time tell TSA agents to mind their own business.
Well, I didn't actually think you would. I was just pointing out that your objection, "They should call the police!" was a bit of a cop-out - pun intended - because you wouldn't support there being enough police to respond to such calls in the first place.
And, again, I'm not talking about TSA screeners calling the police because a passenger makes their neck hairs tingle! I'm talking about TSA screeners calling the police if they find coke or kiddie porn on a passenger. Are you seriously telling me that in such cases, cops would say, "Mind your business?"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let's say that 10 people are at the airport with $5000, and all 10 say they work for Ron Paul, but googling can't prove that. What would your TSA agent be authorized to do then? If he can't do anything, then what you've got is a completely useless and pointless excuse for racist and cruel TSAs to hassle and harass innocent travelers.
OK, so when I've said repeatedly that TSA screeners shouldn't be reading documents or asking questions without immediately advising or rights...what happened there? In one ear and out the other, or what?
quote:Wait, so you think TSA agents should be testing contraband, but not prosecuting smugglers? So it's not about catching criminals, it's just about stopping a tiny vial of cocaine from going from one city to another? Thousands of innocent people will be harrassed for doing legitimate things, and this won't result in the prosecution of a single criminal?
Ugh! Goddamnit, no, that's not what I think! I specifically offered that up as a compromise. Read my freaking posts. And 'thousands of people'? Really? Thousands of people conceal little bags of white powder under their armpits that are perfectly legal?
Rabbit, it's not an excellent point, because it's not what I wanted.
quote: Put some signs up to that effect, that would curb abuse much better than some rubber stamp "oversight".
Oh, I see what the problem is. All this time I was talking about rubber stamp oversight! Silly me, how stupid I was.
Wait...no, someone here is behaving in a very stupid manner, but it ain't. me.
quote:How is the TSA agent supposed to find a baggie taped under an armpit if he's not searching people? How is he supposed to determine whom to search that closely? A lottery?
Maybe he sees a strange bulge under the guy's arm. Maybe a drug sniffing dog nearby starts barking. Maybe it shows up on an x-ray machine hidden in a secret pocket of a big jacket.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well technically, no. Dead bodies are pretty well covered under things you aren't allowed to carry on a plane for health and safety reasons. Transportation of dead bodies is heavily regulated.
Heh, don't narcotics fall under the same area, for similar (though not identical) reasons? Isn't transportation of narcotics heavily regulated?
quote: And this actual a safety issue. So no, TSA reporting dead bodies in baggage to police is covered under their mandate of securing airline travel along with aerosol cans, fire extinguishes, camp stove fuel, and fireworks.
I wonder how most folks would classify 'drug smugglers' on a range of safety concerns, Rabbit.
quote:As much as I appreciate your willingness to compromise on this, I'm not sure how that address the concerns about right to privacy on minimizing inconvenience to travelers. Suppose that what TSA confiscates turns out to be a legal owned prescription drug. Suppose the person needs that drug with them while they are traveling. The simple threat of confiscation will create pressure for people to disclose medical information they have the right to keep private.
A right to privacy is a crucial element. 'Minimizing inconvenience', on the other hand, is not. As for the 'medicine'...you're asking me to suppose a passenger would carry a legally owned prescription that is, in fact, a several-kilos pound plastic bag of white powder, and that they'd carry that taped under their armpit?
What legally carried prescription is even issued in several-kilos amounts to a private citizen? What legally carried prescription is carried in a plain plastic bag taped under someone's arm?
quote:Consider me and my baggies of flour. I buy them when I travel because I can't get them where I live. If they are confiscated, it is a big inconvenience for me. And its food stuff, so after its been opened for laboratory testing -- its not simple to return safe and uncontaminated.
I have considered you and your bags of flour. At least once in this thread already in fact. As I asked you before, where do you store your baggies of flour? Do you tape them to your body and hide them beneath your clothes?
Didn't think so.
That part is left in just to make you happy even though I am not responding to it.
quote:
-------
kmbboots,
quote:Carrying your baggie of white powder taped under your arm would be suspicious behavior. Carrying a corpse in your carry-on (a carrion carry-on!) would be suspicious behavior. How am I misrepresenting you?
Because these things aren't found because of 'suspicious behavior' in the situations I've been talking about. They've been found through purely lawful searches by TSA screeners. Maybe they show up on the X-ray machine. Maybe they fall out of a guy's coat. Maybe another passenger sees it and reports it to a TSA screener.
What do you think I mean by suspicious behavior? Taping a bag of white powder to your arm is suspicious behavior. In and of itself. As in, "this guy taped a baggie of white powder to his armpit. I thought that was suspicious behavior." Or, "The behaviour of carrying a severed hand in her purse made me suspect that the woman was up to something."
quote:
quote:Perhaps you would like to somehow indicate the parts of your posts that you want me to respond to?
Maybe when you actually quote me, you could respond to the entire quote instead of just a part, particularly when the entire quote refutes your own rebuttal.
quote:In the positions you are advocating above, TSA agents are far exceeding their authority to keep dangerous items and people off of airlines.
In your opinion.
quote:Would you advocate (assuming you didn't have to compromise) a TSA agent tasting or smelling white powder in a baggie in someone's luggage? Pocket? In a vial in someones luggage? Pocket? How about a sort of hidden pocket or in a hidden compartment in the luggage?
Well, actually if I were completely running the show, I'd still say have `em call the police, because the cops are better trained. I'd also say, however, that if someone were lawfully caught smuggling something that looks very much like drugs (even if - ha! - it turns out they had a special kind of flour taped under their arms), they'd be permitted to detain them until the police arrive.
quote:What about pills instead of powder in a baggie taped under the arm?
Pills too. If it's being smuggled, confiscate, detain, call the police. If it's lawfully discovered that is.
So someone should be detained until police arrive for carrying a vial of pills in their luggage? How would the TSA agents know it was being smuggled? This is what customs agents are for. Not TSA agents.
quote:
quote:Here is where I think we get into judgment calls and what is "reasonable" and what is "common sense".
Given that your and Rabbit's responses to situations involving substances being smuggled under armpits has included, "What if it's special flour?" frankly I'm dubious that your hold on 'common sense' on this issue is very tight.
Right. People do not agree on what is common sense. That is why I want TSA agents to follow rules rather than make "common sense" judgment calls.
quote:
quote: I think that having TSA agents confiscate the property of passengers is a very bad idea. Not only would it screw up actually catching and convicting people with probable cause and chain of evidence issues (since the actual LEO would not be catching the passenger with the stuff on him), it would be a temptation for theft.
Well, let's just be clear. Your objection that it would screw up a potential prosecution doesn't hold much water, because frankly you don't want their to be a prosecution in the first place. Or an arrest, or anything. You'd prefer the TSA screeners just hand the guy back his bag of cocaine and wish him well...or maybe call the police, but it's not really clear to me why that doesn't 'exceed their authority'.
It does actually. But I could understand that it might be tough for a TSA agent to ignore a corpse, so I thought I would allow a loophole.
quote:
As for a temptation for theft, that's addressed with not too much difficulty: extremely thorough surveillance on all TSA screeners. Security cameras watching the watchers as well as the watchees, as it were.
quote:Why is it important that this not-dangerous-on-a-plane stuff doesn't get on a plane?
It's not especially important for cocaine and child pornography not to get on a plane. It is especially important to identify and possibly apprehend and prosecute drug smugglers and child pornographers when and where we find them through lawful means.
Would you support car searches on highways? Say at toll booths they also searched your car? How about searches before you got onto a bus? If not, why would air travel be different other than the fact that we want to keep dangerous things off airplanes?
quote:
quote: No, I would not support more police at airports. Why would I? I don't think this is a lack! I don't think that passengers should be harassed because TGS agents are exceeding their authority. It is a good thing that police would almost all the time tell TSA agents to mind their own business.
Well, I didn't actually think you would. I was just pointing out that your objection, "They should call the police!" was a bit of a cop-out - pun intended - because you wouldn't support there being enough police to respond to such calls in the first place.
And, again, I'm not talking about TSA screeners calling the police because a passenger makes their neck hairs tingle! I'm talking about TSA screeners calling the police if they find coke or kiddie porn on a passenger. Are you seriously telling me that in such cases, cops would say, "Mind your business?"
I would hope so. Who is talking about neck hair tingling? So are drugs and kiddie porn the only things for which you would have people detained?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QB] swbarnes,
quote:Let's say that 10 people are at the airport with $5000, and all 10 say they work for Ron Paul, but googling can't prove that. What would your TSA agent be authorized to do then? If he can't do anything, then what you've got is a completely useless and pointless excuse for racist and cruel TSAs to hassle and harass innocent travelers.
OK, so when I've said repeatedly that TSA screeners shouldn't be reading documents or asking questions without immediately advising or rights...what happened there? In one ear and out the other, or what?
I don't see that this makes a difference. So the 10 guys with $5000 are all notified of their rights, and all claim to be working for Ron Paul. Your TSA agent google them, as you claimed was appropriate for him to do, and can't back up their story. What happens then?
Everyone else is perfectly happy to explain what they think should happen in this scenario...they think that these guys just shouldn't be questioned, because TSA's job is to protect the physical safety of the travelers, and cash isn't a danger. Why can't you answer it just as straightforwardly?
quote:
quote:Wait, so you think TSA agents should be testing contraband, but not prosecuting smugglers? So it's not about catching criminals, it's just about stopping a tiny vial of cocaine from going from one city to another? Thousands of innocent people will be harrassed for doing legitimate things, and this won't result in the prosecution of a single criminal?
Ugh! Goddamnit, no, that's not what I think! I specifically offered that up as a compromise.
What does that matter? If this is a scenario that you think is acceptable, then you think it's acceptable.
quote:Thousands of people conceal little bags of white powder under their armpits that are perfectly legal?
If you give all TSA agents the right to be "curious", thousands and thousands of people will be harassed. How many people do you think you have to search to find the one-in-a-million guy who is hiding a tiny bag of drugs on his body?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rabbit, it's not an excellent point, because it's not what I wanted.
It may not have been your preference, but it was the compromise you suggested. And swbarnes did in fact make an excellent point about that proposal.
A good compromise isn't simply meeting people half way. Its a solution in which both parties give up some of their less critical desires to achieve the most important objectives for both.
Why do you want TSA agents to be able to report evidence of criminal activity like drug smuggling to the police? What do you see will be the major advantage of this?
What I want is to protect the privacy rights of travelers. Since TSA agents are bound to see and hear things that have nothing to do with airport security, the best we can do to protect our privacy is to demand that the TSA agents keep those things strictly confidential.
Furthermore, I'd like to have as little inconvenience as possible associated with airport searches. I don't want to have TSA open envelopes, unwrap presents, strip search me, confiscate my property or detain me for irrelevant questions, but those are still less important than insuring that they don't share any of my secrets they might find.
You can't add an "unless they suspect it is associated with a crime" and make it workable because far too many completely legal things can look suspicious. You seem to think that some actions, like hiding a white powdery substance in your arm pit, are so highly likely to be associated with a crime that we can clearly distinguish those from other types of suspicion. But that line is anything from clear, that's why there are constant legal battles in this country over the 4th amendment. You haven't even attempted to clearly define where that line other than to give some examples which you thick are definitely over the line. How can we possibly have strict oversight unless the line is very clearly defined?
Furthermore, if you are actually concerned about hamstringing TSA, a set of detailed regulations about what they can and cannot look at, may and may not open or the questions they may not ask, along with the threat of job loss if they do it wrong is going to be far more of a deterrent to them actually doing their jobs than anything I've suggested. After all, the chances that you might harass an innocent traveler are far great than the chances of you actually missing that 1 in a billion bomb in a carry on.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, Why do you think its so important that TSA agents be able to report suspected criminal activity to the police? What is the worst thing you imagine happening if TSA agents were required to keep everything they find secret?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:A good compromise isn't simply meeting people half way. Its a solution in which both parties give up some of their less critical desires to achieve the most important objectives for both.
Except that you're not willing to compromise at all. You've said, repeatedly, that TSA screeners should do and are legally empowered to do only an absolute minimum.
quote:Why do you want TSA agents to be able to report evidence of criminal activity like drug smuggling to the police? What do you see will be the major advantage of this?
...it will stop drug smuggling where we find it, drug smuggling being a crime that's involved in all sorts of other crimes, notably violent crime? Isn't that obvious?
quote:What I want is to protect the privacy rights of travelers. Since TSA agents are bound to see and hear things that have nothing to do with airport security, the best we can do to protect our privacy is to demand that the TSA agents keep those things strictly confidential.
I too want to protect privacy rights of travelers. Where we differ is that you believe that that is an absolutely overriding goal, which completely and effortlessly trumps all other concerns except airline safety. And even that you only grudgingly tolerate what you perceive to be a violation of privacy rights.
As for me, I think the harm done by permitting lawfully-discovered crimes such as drug smuggling or child pornography go unnoticed by law enforcement is greater than the harm done by supposedly violating the right to privacy someone carrying such things has.
quote:Furthermore, I'd like to have as little inconvenience as possible associated with airport searches. I don't want to have TSA open envelopes, unwrap presents, strip search me, confiscate my property or detain me for irrelevant questions, but those are still less important than insuring that they don't share any of my secrets they might find.
I'm not sure why you think you have a right o keep secret criminal activity, if it's lawfully discovered. The fact is you don't.
quote: You can't add an "unless they suspect it is associated with a crime" and make it workable because far too many completely legal things can look suspicious. You seem to think that some actions, like hiding a white powdery substance in your arm pit, are so highly likely to be associated with a crime that we can clearly distinguish those from other types of suspicion. But that line is anything from clear, that's why there are constant legal battles in this country over the 4th amendment. You haven't even attempted to clearly define where that line other than to give some examples which you thick are definitely over the line. How can we possibly have strict oversight unless the line is very clearly defined?
The line is blurry. Yes, I grant that. I've never disputed it. But certain specific actions are so far past the line that it is, frankly, indisputable to any reasonable person that they're illegal. Child pornography and smuggled narcotics being two easy examples.
You're not seriously going to suggest to me that a reasonable person would view a smuggled package under someone's armpit and say, "Y'know, that could be legal, right?" Or that someone could view sexually explicit photographs of children - not just the grandkids in the tub - and say, "Hey, this might not be child pornography, right?" Because if you are, to put it bluntly I don't think you've got a firm grasp on what's reasonable and what isn't either.
The line is blurry. That doesn't mean, however, that when you've stepped fifty yards past the line you don't actually know it.
quote:How can we possibly have strict oversight unless the line is very clearly defined?
We deal successfully with that very same problem in actual law enforcement all the time. Just because the line is blurry doesn't mean the proper response is 'do nothing'.
quote: Furthermore, if you are actually concerned about hamstringing TSA, a set of detailed regulations about what they can and cannot look at, may and may not open or the questions they may not ask, along with the threat of job loss if they do it wrong is going to be far more of a deterrent to them actually doing their jobs than anything I've suggested. After all, the chances that you might harass an innocent traveler are far great than the chances of you actually missing that 1 in a billion bomb in a carry on.
They've already got a list of detailed regulations on what they can and cannot look at, may or may not open, so no, what I've suggested isn't actually much more of a deterrent than already exists.
quote:After all, the chances that you might harass an innocent traveler are far great than the chances of you actually missing that 1 in a billion bomb in a carry on.
The statistics are roughly the same for bombs in luggage too, I imagine, and yet we permit it to be searched without - mostly - complaint.
quote:It may not have been your preference, but it was the compromise you suggested. And swbarnes did in fact make an excellent point about that proposal.
Not especially, because he said it was what I wanted. It wasn't.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well technically, no. Dead bodies are pretty well covered under things you aren't allowed to carry on a plane for health and safety reasons. Transportation of dead bodies is heavily regulated. Heh, don't narcotics fall under the same area, for similar (though not identical) reasons? Isn't transportation of narcotics heavily regulated?
Two big differences, first, narcotics are illegal to transport because they are illegal to possess. To the best of my knowledge there are no regulations regarding the transportation of illicit drugs by commercial aircraft that differ from regulations about transporting illicit drugs by foot. It isn't an airport security issue. For example, if you have legal prescription narcotics, you are not required to get a special permit to transport them by plane. You aren't required to report it to the airlines.
But the really important difference here is that that the average person can't unambiguously determine if a white powder is an illicit drug without doing something that need not be done to secure the airplane. In contrast, the average person can pretty easily identify a body when it goes through an x-ray machine. I suppose its possible someone might be carrying a skeleton for a medical class or something but the difference between that and a dead body would be immediately obvious on opening the bag -- something they would do if they thought they'd found a bomb or a gun.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
