So you think it's unreasonable to stop drug smugglers, crack pipe owners, child pornographers, copyright violators, undocumented immigrants, parking ticket scofflaws, and other criminals, just because a bunch of honest people will be stopped for a moment? If you were given the opportunity to stop everyone and find all those criminals, you'd just let them walk away instead?


This is the first time I've seen the 4th Amendment mentioned in this discussion. I think that stopping everyone who travels via the only means that is feasible in most situations to search them for anything that indicates they might have done wrong is unreasonable.

1) You're changing the subject again. There's no way that TSA bag checkers can tell that most things are illegal; we're talking about suspected illegal items -- those that are sometimes legal, sometimes illegal, like white powder, glass tubes, pictures of naked people, and pets. In each of those cases, there's a chance that the item indicates wrongdoing, and there's a chance that it does not. In almost every circumstance (short of a severed head in a bag) all the have is their suspicion. I think that TSA bag checkers should assume people are innocent of such crimes, and you seem to think that they should assume that people are guilty and hold those people and their belongings until police arrive. 2) if you're confident that you already gave your opinion and it's too much of an inconvenience to restate it, please link to it so I can read it.

Of course. They don't test any substances, suspected of being drugs or not. What they do is see something completely unrelated to the few things we have allowed them to search us for because we have been so scared by their threats of violence, then stop the presumed-innocent-in-eyes-of-law person, restricting his freedom of movement.

Sure I do. Same as I think that when a nudie mag, a homemade DVD, a pet without clear indication of vaccination, or someone with brown skin is found, TSA should leave it, him, or her, alone and move on to searching for dangerous things. It's unreasonable for them to assume that they are likely to have caught a child pornographer, copyright violator, transporter of unvaccinated pets, or undocumented immigrant. In each case, they should move on to looking for dangerous things and leave the law enforcement up to law enforcement agencies.

We wouldn't put up with TSA's crap if they made it clear that they're searching for anything that looks like it might indicate wrongdoing. We let them do what they do because they have threatened that violence will occur if they are not allowed to conduct their searches "for dangerous items".

If you want to stop everyone at the airport, train depot, bus depot, highway entrance ramp, or sidewalk to look for all of the above and it's your understanding that it would be constitutional for you to do so, by all means, try to do so -- you'll probably catch some criminals. I suspect our legislative branch's check on our executive branch would kick in and stop you.

You're putting words in my mouth again.

Do you have a problem with "druggies" taking their drugs on our highways? If not, why are you letting them instead of stopping them and arresting them?

Uh... yeah.

Why, then, do you suppose they specifically allowed TSA to search for weapons, explosives, and incendiary devices, instead of simply having them search for anything that they feel is significant?

You got me there. I agree. Are you similarly okay with anything illegal coming through our highway system, rail system, or sidewalks?

Not that I have any reason to believe you, but you specifically said that TSA is required to do so.

I never suggested otherwise. Besides, it's irrelevant to this discussion.


Do you or do you not think that airport checkpoints should be used to check people for ill-gotten gains, pipes that contain residue of controlled substances, un-vaccinated pets, pornography depicting 17.5-year-olds, digital media players with data obtained via copyright violation, etc.? I've asked you repeatedly, and you still haven't answered. Just check 'yes' or 'no'.


Is that the only reason? Because it would be an inconvenience? So what if the search happened nearly instantaneously; say it was a massively-efficient remote viewer similar to TSA's virtual strip search machines, but with another couple decades of improvement. Then would you think it was a good idea? I'm asking if it would be a good idea if it did not inconvenience the law abiding majority.

But you'll just ignore the potential greater good of all other modes of transportation? Why do you feel so strongly that we should give criminals a free pass on our rails, streets, and sidewalks?

No, we're already there. You say you think anything that indicates possibility of wrongdoing should be reported. I say that is almost everything, and that by simply reporting it, TSA is punishing those who are found with it. I say they should keep looking for dangerous items and not use information gained in their search as reason to conduct an even more intrusive investigation.

Our resident TSA TSO, Dean, says otherwise. He says they only notify law enforcement of some things that they suspect to be illegal, and that they look the other way when they find other things that they suspect to be illegal.

TSA itself contradicts your statement. Most of the "wins" they report are cases of having discovered stolen credit cards, controlled substances, and immigrations violators.

You wrote:

I responded:

Then I asked again, but you still have not answered. Look, there's no use debating whether TSA is conducting a dragnet operation or not if we define "dragnet" differently. For the purpose of this discussion, what do you think a dragnet is?

I asked:

You didn't answer. When they see those pictures, there's a chance that the person is a child pornographer. Do you think they should just let him walk away? Why do you want to facilitate child pornography by letting suspected child pornographers jet around our airspace?