If it's so easy to make the jump from "we are allowed to look for identification media" to "we are allowed to search your iPhone and your laptop for whatever we want," then why stop there? Surely, the TSA must also think they're allowed to escort you to your car and search it, right? After all, your car most certainly has identification media (your registration, for example) and it's on airport property. Why didn't the blogger add that possibility to his post of irrational fears and baseless accusations?
Naturally, though, the most efficient identification media are things like your fingerprints and DNA. Surely by arguing what the FSD at that particular station argued, the TSA must certainly be saying they have a right to collect fingerprints and DNA samples and run them against the various national databases to confirm your identity. After all, since the TSA thinks they're allowed to look for drugs, they can also force a urine sample, right? They must already be doing it, right? Well if not, I guarantee it'll be happening in a year.
Why stop midway down a slippery slope? Let's take it as far down as we can. Who cares about rationality when we're fear-mongering about unknowns?
Originally Posted by
RichardKenner
But it most certainly is! I'd suggest you read some typical briefs in legal cases. Whenever somebody claims they have some right, the question is always to ask what they see as the limits of that right. If my neighbor is suing me because I've built something one foot into their property and I claim I have a right do to that, I should most certainly expect the judge to ask me where I think the limit is. One foot, two feet, ten feet? Etc.
(I've read
plenty of legal
briefs. The
difference is in what constitutes an
argument, a
question, and a
ruling, and to how each is
presented.)