What do you think of this idea?

Subscribe
May 26, 2015 | 1:16 am
  #1  
How about TSA agents running their fingers through large beards to ensure that those with large beards (think Duck Dynasty, et al.) do not smuggle anything illicit in their large beards?
Reply
May 26, 2015 | 4:39 am
  #2  
They have no authority to engage in law enforcement (e.g. non-WEI smuggling) related search, and have to use least intrusive means available in light of current technology.

So that means metal detector and ETD swab, OK; hand manipulation, no.
Reply
May 26, 2015 | 7:05 am
  #3  
There's definitely a need, especially at the border, to stop bird smuggling. I've heard of beards with as many as two owls, and a hen, four larks, and a wren.
Reply
May 26, 2015 | 7:19 am
  #4  
Quote: They have no authority to engage in law enforcement (e.g. non-WEI smuggling) related search, and have to use least intrusive means available in light of current technology.

So that means metal detector and ETD swab, OK; hand manipulation, no.

But they run their fingers through women's hair so why not men's beards?
Reply
May 26, 2015 | 7:39 am
  #5  
Quote: But they run their fingers through women's hair so why not men's beards?
IMHO that's illegal too. It's unnecessarily invasive assault.
Reply
May 26, 2015 | 8:16 am
  #6  
Quote: IMHO that's illegal too. It's unnecessarily invasive assault.
Much of what TSA does is not based on legalities. TSA would rather do something and be taken to court than to do the right an honorable thing first.

Of course taking TSA to court is very likely a proposition that most people cannot afford, hence TSA can get away with all manner of illegal acts without challenge.
Reply
May 26, 2015 | 8:40 am
  #7  
Quote: Much of what TSA does is not based on legalities. TSA would rather do something and be taken to court than to do the right an honorable thing first.

Of course taking TSA to court is very likely a proposition that most people cannot afford, hence TSA can get away with all manner of illegal acts without challenge.
Having been the victim thereof, and being in the (long and difficult) process of taking them to court over it, I entirely agree. Their legal strategy seems to be basically to stonewall and dodge to get me to get tired and go away.

I'd bet it works 99% of the time. What can I say, I'm stubborn.
Reply
May 26, 2015 | 9:40 am
  #8  
Quote: Having been the victim thereof, and being in the (long and difficult) process of taking them to court over it, I entirely agree. Their legal strategy seems to be basically to stonewall and dodge to get me to get tired and go away.

I'd bet it works 99% of the time. What can I say, I'm stubborn.
I would say it is even higher than 99% and on top of that most cases settle instead of seeing it to the end.

TSA is in a very strong position and they know it.
Reply
May 26, 2015 | 7:59 pm
  #9  
Isn't the Patriot Act due to expire shortly? What does that mean for TSA?
Reply
May 27, 2015 | 1:27 am
  #10  
Quote: Isn't the Patriot Act due to expire shortly? What does that mean for TSA?
Nothing, AFAIK. The TSA was created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act.

See the 'Notes' tab on Cornell's version of 49 USC 114 (defining the TSA) and 49 USC 44901 (defining air screening, previously under FAA control). The Pub. L. bits at the top ("Public Law") are the actual acts passed by Congress.

ETA: Per Wikipedia (see sidebar; I can't be arsed to read the whole thing myself), the PATRIOT Act:

Created:
18 USC 2712, 31 USC 5318A, 15 USC 1681v, 8 USC 1226A, 18 USC 1993, 18 USC 2339, 18 USC 175b, 50 USC 403-5b, 51 USC 5103a

Amended:
8 USC 1105, 8 USC 1182g, 8 USC 1189, 8 USC 1202, 12 USC 248, 12 USC 1828, 12 USC 3414, 15 USC 1681a, 15 USC 6102, 15 USC 6106, 18 USC 7, 18 USC 81, 18 USC 175, 18 USC 470, 18 USC 471, 18 USC 472, 18 USC 473, 18 USC 474, 18 USC 476, 18 USC 477, 18 USC 478, 18 USC 479, 18 USC 480, 18 USC 481, 18 USC 484, 18 USC 493, 18 USC 917, 18 USC 930, 18 USC 981, 18 USC 1029, 18 USC 1030, 18 USC 1362, 18 USC 1363, 18 USC 1366, 18 USC 1956, 18 USC 1960, 18 USC 1961, 18 USC 1992, 18 USC 2155, 18 USC 2325, 18 USC 2331, 18 USC 2332e, 18 USC 2339A, 18 USC 2339B, 18 USC 2340A, 18 USC 2510, 18 USC 2511, 18 USC 2516, 18 USC 2517, 18 USC 2520, 18 USC 2702, 18 USC 2703, 18 USC 2707, 18 USC 2709, 18 USC 2711, 18 USC 3056, 18 USC 3077, 18 USC 3103, 18 USC 3121, 18 USC 3123, 18 USC 3124, 18 USC 3127, 18 USC 3286, 18 USC 3583, 20 USC 1232g, 20 USC 9007, 31 USC 310 (redesignated), 31 USC 5311, 31 USC 5312, 31 USC 5317, 31 USC 5318, 31 USC 5319, 31 USC 5321, 31 USC 5322, 31 USC 5324, 31 USC 5330, 31 USC 5331, 31 USC 5332, 31 USC 5341, 42 USC 2284, 42 USC 2284, 42 USC 3796, 42 USC 3796h, 42 USC 10601, 42 USC 10602, 42 USC 10603, 42 USC 10603b, 42 USC 14601, 42 USC 14135A, 47 USC 551, 49 USC 31305, 49 USC 46504, 49 USC 46505, 49 USC 60123, 50 USC 403-3c, 50 USC 401a, 50 USC 1702, 50 USC 1801, 50 USC 1803, 50 USC 1804, 50 USC 1805, 50 USC 1806, 50 USC 1823, 50 USC 1824, 50 USC 1842, 50 USC 1861, 50 USC 1862, 50 USC 1863

The TSA is pretty much all under 49 USC. So perusing those bits on the Cornell site:

31305 - General driver fitness, testing, and training
46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants
46505 - Carrying a weapon or explosive on an aircraft (criminal penalties)
60123 - Criminal penalties (for messing with pipelines)

So the PATRIOT Act didn't do anything that affects TSA's operations.*

Besides, the provisions that have sunset clauses are all (AFAIK) surveillance related, not e.g. the 49 USC amendments.

ETA 2: * Unless of course they're getting information from the NSA to feed their secret watch lists, which is actually pretty likely, so there's that.
Reply
May 27, 2015 | 6:55 pm
  #11  
Quote:
Unless of course they're getting information from the NSA to feed their secret watch lists, which is actually pretty likely, so there's that
That is what I was interested in. The sharing of information (and maybe other things) obtained under the Patriot Act might put limits on the TSA.

Back to the topic on beards: as my granddaughter would say, "Gross! How often do they shampoo that thing?!".
Reply