The concept of the reasonable man is core to large parts of the common law tradition in which US law is grounded, particularly for torts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasona...rson#Rationale

Is it a judgment call? Absolutely. Is it necessary? Absolutely, and it's part of what courts and juries are for.

The problem is that nobody takes the time to decide what is reasonable and what isn't. Some guy embarrassed the TSA by getting past security with the wrong ID? Fine, for PR sake, enact a useless rule. Is it reasonable? Does it make sense? In the rush to CYA, no one cares.

Mike

Analogous situation with Educational Testing Services (the College Board folks), but handled with rationality. False IDs allowed smarter kids to take the tests for dumber kids.

Tom Ewing, a spokesman for ETS, which administers the test for The College Board, said strict security guidelines are in place to prevent cheating. He said students must present an admission ticket and photo ID, which can include a state-issued driver's license; state-issued non-driver ID; a school identification card; a passport or other government-issued document.

In the Great Neck case, the students registered to take the tests at a school outside their local district so they would not be recognized. Eshaghoff then went to the schools and showed a photo ID with his picture, but another student's name on it, Rice said. At least once, Eshaghoff flew home from college primarily to impersonate two students and took the SAT twice in one weekend.

Ewing noted that because instances like the one in Great Neck are rare, there is no need to review security measures ahead of this weekend's exam, the largest of the year with over 700,000 students already signed up.

"We can't allow the actions of a few to dictate unnecessary measures for the majority of honest test takers," he said.

I would suggest that TSA has not been reasonable when developing security procedures designed solely to keep WEI off of airplanes.

ID does not keep WEI off of airplanes.

Questions to a person does not keep WEI off of airplanes.

Groping peoples crotches, breast and buttocks doesn't keep WEI off of airplanes when other forms of screening are available.

Now screening airport workers would prevent introduction of WEI to the sterile area of airports but TSA does not do that.

Screening all cargo loaded on commercial aircraft would keep WEI off of airplanes but TSA has not complied with Congressional directives to do so.

I think the question of asking who and what is reasonable is very pertinent when TSA is the topic.

Surely it is easy enough to determine if something is reasonable by simply providing a cogent reason for doing it?

I've yet to see one.
Hint: incompetence on the part of TSA workers (TDC) is not such a reason.

To me, this standard suggests application of some common sense.

IANAL, but common sense tells me that it is not reasonable to give airport security screeners more powers than the police or even US Customs have.

To be specific, police must have some measure of reasonable suspicion in order to make a Terry stop. TSA has the power to do a lot more (without even a slightest suspecion, at random) than an LEO in a Terry stop situation.

US Customs officers, again, must have at least some measure of suspicion in order to conduct what they call a "non-routine" search. TSA (again, without any suspicion) goes well beyond some of these non-routine searches with its "pat-downs", which seem to be more like full custody searches according to some resident LEOs.

Sorry for going off topic.

The amendment does not "authorize" us to protest. That is one of our rights which does not come from government. As already stated by someone else here, the constitution does not give us rights, it limits the actions of government upon our rights.

Using the example you state, those 50 people can sit down in the middle of the freeway and they can be removed by the authorities.

You are correct... but... the problem with authoritarians and any number of top government officials is that they believe you only have the rights the Constitution authorizes you to have. A constitutional lawyer friend of mine pointed out that courts have allowed so many exceptions as to make the Constitution almost useless.

That is a semantic difference and I fail to see how it is relevant to anything.

The first amendment protects your right to peaceably protest. If that right didn't exist before the amendment was passed, then you could say that it authorizes that right. If it did, then you could say it protects it.

I thought we were talking about "reasonable" in the context of whether it is an invasion of privacy or not. Whether they have a reason for doing it is an entirely separate issue.

I would maintain that being asked your name is reasonable in the sense that it is not a violation of constitutional privacy protections. In order to determine this, you evaluate the impact that it has on the individual. It is obviously not needed from a security perspective, but that does not affect its constitutionality.

Good grief, the U.S. Constitution does not grant or deny any rights. It only sets forth the structure of the U.S. government and sets the limits on its powers.

Kind of hard to keep track of just what 'we' are talking about.

Forgive me if I'm repeating, but providing your name is reasonable[sic] under the dubious reasoning that ID is necessary for security (as opposed to airline revenue protection). Being told (not asked!) to speak your name out loud isn't the same thing, and although I do not regard it as an invasion of privacy, I can see where others might and hence there needs to be a damn' good reason for it.

If you have one I'm sure we'd all appreciate you sharing.

And that is pure sophistry illustrating a woeful lack of grasp of the Bill of Rights in particular and the Constitution in general.

The amendment authorizes nothing. It confirms the right and restrains government.

Let me try to focus this debate...

1) Grossly simplified, the Constitution limits the government from invading people's privacy, unless it is demonstrably reasonable and lawful (there is a law authorizing XYZ). Reasonable is broken down into is it necessary and is it effective (plus other things, like impact, disproportionate impact, etc.--ignore these for now).

2) Being forced to say your name out loud in a public place is an invasion of privacy, IMHO

3) Is it necessary or effective? No.

4) Is it reasonable? No, if you base this on the legal foundation that--having agreed with #2--this process must be authorized by law, must be necessary, and must be effective.

Hopefully there is no disagreement in #1.

If you disagree with #2, the rest of the arguments and discussion are moot. Some people surely think that being forced to say your name in public isn't an issue related to privacy, waste, abuse of power, or a traveling freely. I can easily understand this. It's not a big deal to 99% of the people. If you disagree with #2, SYN is just another administrative thing that TSA is doing (like buying staplers). You can stop at #2 and ignore everything else.

#3 is obvious. This process is a joke that serves no purpose.

Once you get to #4, all hell breaks loose.

If you take the legal (was it properly promulgated) view of things, this is not reasonable; it was not properly promulgated. If you look at it from the courts perspective, they would ask if it was necessary and effective, since no intrusion of privacy can be reasonable unless it is necessary and effective. Unfortunately, the courts would hear a line of bull from the TSA and the rest of the sheeple herders, wrap themselves in a symbolic patriotic flag, and make the wrong decision. But the logic is sound.

Now, the process of fighting back about rights or waste related to SYN, would ordinarily begin with a challenge to the law that authorizes it. Here's were it gets even more sticky, there is no law that authorizes it. It's the whim of a person that started this. IMHO, whims of a person can NEVER, NEVER, NEVER infringe on the privacy of US Citizens.

Conclusion:

If you take the "it's not a big deal" view of this situation, that is all you have done. You can stop at #2. If you do stop short, you don't need to worry about the fundamental legal aspects of why and how this is done. You don't need to worry about the fundamental constitutional arguments or process for how our rights are protected (e.g., what privacy and reasonable mean in the legal/Constitutional sense). TSA is just buying another stapler. However, just because you stop at #2, doesn't mean that reasonable people don't keep playing.

IMO, it is perfectly reasonable to believe there are no Constitutional or rights issues if you disagree with #2 above. For those in this boat, you should understand the rest of the argument for the people that agree with #2.

Happy Thursday! :D

I completely agree, the TSA's actions don't meet, in my view the reasonable person standard. That doesn't, by any means, indicate that we don't need to HAVE a reasonable person standard.