whirledtraveler

Authority goes to the head at times.

L-1011

At DFW it started with: "You must understand, Sir, we can't tell you that for security reasons".

It later became: "Do you see that trash can over there? We throw the forms there after the shift is over".

And: "Privacy Act, never heard of it. Now give me the information if you want to fly today".

Bart

I don't think state secrets has anything to do with it at all as much as it is the inefficiency of a huge bureaucracy. I'm not talking about TSA itself but the whole enchilada of federal government. Some of it, I believe, results from standing TSA up so quickly that some of the details just slipped through the cracks, and the PA of 1974 was one of those details. Don't get me wrong, I've sat in classes that made it clear that the things Flies pointed out are supposed to be verbally explained to passengers, but I think a checklist approach was taken without any real follow-up.

Back when I used to lie, cheat and steal for good causes, the PA was drilled into us mostly as a result of the Church Commission hearings and other Congressional and Pentagon investigations of Army and domestic intelligence activities. Army intelligence, out of all the branches, got beat up the most. In fact, it seemed that it was more important that we understood the provisions of the Privacy Act than it was to understand how to administer the rights warning to suspects. (OK, joking here, but not too far from the truth.)

I do strongly encourage anyone reading this to ask questions about why their personal information is being taken, how long it's going to be on file, how it's going to be used, etc. I'm not saying this to encourage any sort of challenge or protest but am saying it to make TSA supervisors do their jobs more competently. You are entitled to this explanation and I loathe laziness and incompetence by TSA supervisors; so make 'em earn their pay, if you will.

Bart

Take it to court then. Challenge this policy to see if it's constitutionally sound. Get back with us, if you please.

AArlington

I hope you are a good lawyer. You've just provided enough information to "make the list". Prepare for a patdown next time you travel...

PTravel

I don't have standing to take it to court, even if I was so inclined, which I am not. Apparently, you're another one who thinks that dissent is somehow suspect or futile under this government. "Get back to us"? Flyer Talk is a public forum, and I will continue to write about what I regard as an unconstitutional abuse, notwithstanding what anonymous TSA supervisors may think about it.

PTravel

DELETED -- Multiple post.

Bart

So you're all talk and no substance, is that it? OK. Fair enough, lawyer.

I don't think that dissent is suspect. I encourage dissent. However, I'm also a put-up-or-shut-up type of guy. If you honestly believe that your constitutional rights are being trampled, then do something about it.

You won't because you know it's not true. You know the law fully supports TSA in its procedures and policies. You just won't admit it and would rather cling to exaggerations and rhetoric to whine about how mistreated you are.

And just to clarify this one point: yes, TSA needs to do a much better job of explaining its policies to passengers whenever the need arises to obtain personal information. Read my posts and you will see that I'm consistent on this point. In fact, I encourage passengers to question supervisors whenever their personal information is requested. Guess you missed that. Gee, I hope you review your legal briefs with a little more attention to detail.

PTravel

No, "standing" is a legal concept that you also apparently don't know.

I am doing something about it -- I'm writing here and challenging people like you who, apparently, know very little about the nature of the United States Constitution.

Absolutely wrong. By the way, I should ask you, what's your legal background?

Well, that's certainly one of the stupidest things I've ever read on FT. That's right -- I think everything TSA does is absolutely legal, and I just like to whine. That's why I made up all that silly Constitution stuff.

Are you for real?

And just to clarify this one point: Collection of personal information in this manner and for this purpose is a violation of the 4th and 5th Amendment. Your "explanation" doesn't change that.

Who cares if you're consistent on that point, because THAT ISN'T THE POINT. Being allowed to question supervisors doesn't render the practice constitutional. Explaining that it's for "quality control purposes" doesn't render the practice constitutional.

I also won't stoop to your level of personal insult, so I'll ignore your smarmy little closing remark.

copwriter

I don't agree. After a self-aggrandizing statement like that, I should think you would be embarrassed.

You know, there are only three true lawyer jokes. The rest are documented case histories.

copwriter

I see. You'll ***** about it, tell everyone that does what they are told to do that they are wrong and violating the constitution, but you won't do anything about it, even though you are in a position to do so. I would think that you would have standing as soon as you were subjected to the objectionable procedure. Your country thanks you for being a great citizen.

whirledtraveler

Right. Not everyone has the time to be arrested to keep the zealots in check. I think that objectively, much of what the TSA does violates the 4th and 5th amendment, but these simply aren't the times to contest. There's a little too much hysteria now, and we could end up with a bad decision.

I have to say, though, that it was nice to PTravel's legal opinion. Screening personnel and LEOs are a little too involved to have unbiased opinions. Luckily, they are just implementers and they don't have the last word. That would be a little too much like letting the fox guard the henhouse.

PTravel

The point of my response to Bart was the United Supreme Court, among others, believes I'm competent to argue Constitutional law, even if Bart (or you) don't think so.

What happens when you give a lawyer Viagra?

He get's taller.

PTravel

Wow.

This is wrong on so many levels.

First, as I've made clear, my objection wasn't to TSA carrying out their super-secret instructions, but to Bart's inability to explain the rationale for collecting personal information in violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments. His explanation came down to: we need the information because we need the information. Perhaps you find that a satisfactory justification for a serious abridgement of your rights. I don't.

Next, I have never experienced a false positive going through inspection, and I fly a lot. Until it happens, and the information is demanded of me, I couldn't do anything, even if I were inclined to do so.

Finally, I have no intention of devoting tens of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours of my time to pursuing a legal action up through Supreme Court review. You're very cavalier about squandering my income, my time and my career. How much contribution can I count on from you? Are you going to pay my mortgage?

I'm doing what is within my means and ability to do, namely discussing the issue, and calling out those people who, apparently, skipped civics in high school and who either don't understand the parameters of the restrictions on government power contained within the Constitution, or simply don't care.

And, while we're on the subject, what do you do for a living? As a lawyer, I am _expected_ to contribute my time, pro bono, to worthy causes. Not only do I do so, but my firm consistently exceeds ABA-recommended pro bono quotas. Indeed, we routinely win awards for the good we do by undertaking pro bono representations. No other profession has a similar pro bono requirement for its practitioners.

So what is it you do that makes you such a good citizen? Why should this country thank you? Other than telling lawyer jokes, that is.

red456

Seems to me that if the ETD thingy picked up even trace amounts of nitrogen, which is the main ingredient in most fertilizers, it would be alarming up the wazoo. So much fertilizer is used in this country that I would venture there are very few people, other than those who never leave the city, who come in contact with grass or paved areas bordering grass, especially in corporate complexes, that don't have traces of it on their shoes and clothing.