Forbidden to Fly for Objecting to Security Taking my Purse from my Possession
May 6, 2002, 5:13 am
#151
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2,392
If you have some time you should check out some of the Klyde Morris comic strips .. . Kinda puts the whole security problems in perspective.
http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cf...ction=newklyde
http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cf...ction=newklyde
May 6, 2002, 6:09 am
#152
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Canada
Programs: AC SE 2MM, HH Dd, SPG; IC Pl/A; AA; DL
Posts: 14,336
May 6, 2002, 7:17 am
#153
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Bethesda, MD USA
Posts: 2,802
Wow. Punki, that letter was, in my personal opinion, way too long. Think about the desk jockey who gets this thing. What's he going to do? He'll see that it's long, and put it aside, and get to it later -- if ever.
I suggest that you keep it short and simple.
If you insist on keeping it as long as it is, then I suggest you give him an executive summary in your opening letter, and then the longer details as an attachment.
Otherwise, your letter will not get read, and you will just get the standard we appreciate your input letter.
When you get dozens, if not hundreds, of letters each day, when you see a long one, you are not going to take the time to wade into it. Okay, sure, you should, but these people are human.
I suggest that you keep it short and simple.
If you insist on keeping it as long as it is, then I suggest you give him an executive summary in your opening letter, and then the longer details as an attachment.
Otherwise, your letter will not get read, and you will just get the standard we appreciate your input letter.
When you get dozens, if not hundreds, of letters each day, when you see a long one, you are not going to take the time to wade into it. Okay, sure, you should, but these people are human.
May 6, 2002, 7:28 am
#154
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: source of weird and eccentric ideas
Posts: 38,749
BlondeBomber, you have it right.
The tragedy of this whole 9/11 thing is that more and more of life in the USA will begin resembling what goes on at airports today.
It will only be a matter of the next terrorist act perhaps someone using a vehicle before we can be stopped and searched randomly on the street.
We begin to resemble what we fight most against. The terrorists are in fact winning as we imprison ourselves in order to fight them.
America is a great place to live and work but you can see the handwriting on the airport wall.
A single act of resistance like Punki's isn't going to be of consequence. Unfortunately, the general public has been drawn in and they love the us vs. them, flag waving, security uber alles point of view.
It reminds me of McCarthyism and the fight against communism. The general public loved that too and believed anything was justified against communism. The war on drugs is another example with widespread public support (shown in polls) of things including random searches of people's houses.
So with public support I don't see things changing for the better anytime soon, to put it mildly.
The tragedy of this whole 9/11 thing is that more and more of life in the USA will begin resembling what goes on at airports today.
It will only be a matter of the next terrorist act perhaps someone using a vehicle before we can be stopped and searched randomly on the street.
We begin to resemble what we fight most against. The terrorists are in fact winning as we imprison ourselves in order to fight them.
America is a great place to live and work but you can see the handwriting on the airport wall.
A single act of resistance like Punki's isn't going to be of consequence. Unfortunately, the general public has been drawn in and they love the us vs. them, flag waving, security uber alles point of view.
It reminds me of McCarthyism and the fight against communism. The general public loved that too and believed anything was justified against communism. The war on drugs is another example with widespread public support (shown in polls) of things including random searches of people's houses.
So with public support I don't see things changing for the better anytime soon, to put it mildly.
May 6, 2002, 7:49 am
#155
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Maryland
Programs: UA MM Gold, Marriott LT Titanium
Posts: 23,764
Robinhood: we pretty much agree then.
Plato90s: The NG are not paid unless on active duty, and the vast majority of those now on active duty were not prior to being called up. So there is additional cost involved and probably not fully budgeted.
I think what frustrates me most about this discussion is the bad-mouthing and name calling of the security people. It serves no purpose and causes me to discount the opinion of the person so writing.
Plato90s: The NG are not paid unless on active duty, and the vast majority of those now on active duty were not prior to being called up. So there is additional cost involved and probably not fully budgeted.
I think what frustrates me most about this discussion is the bad-mouthing and name calling of the security people. It serves no purpose and causes me to discount the opinion of the person so writing.
May 6, 2002, 7:51 am
#156
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by robvberg:
Blondebomber, The reason I am saying that there are no limits is that the constitution and most other government regulations do not apply. This is not strictly a law enforcement issue but is actually more like a prison.</font>
Blondebomber, The reason I am saying that there are no limits is that the constitution and most other government regulations do not apply. This is not strictly a law enforcement issue but is actually more like a prison.</font>
The US Constituition most surely "applies" in airports when agents of the government (every screener in the US is such an agent since the TSA assumed the airlines' contracts) are at issue.
Every appellate case (and I mean, every one of them) upholding US airport searches has rested upon the reasonableness of that search, not because the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution did not somehow "apply." Do you have a cite to the contrary?
Even before the US took over the contracts there was a fairly good argument that the screeners were actually agents of the government - their search was mandated by the FAA, they confiscated everything contained in the 9/13 Security Directives, etc.
And the prison comment? I'm not so sure that Americans will tolerate airports so closely resembling prisons, nor should they.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by sbrower:
I agree, no one yet has cited to any regulation which says that your purse (or anything else) needs to remain in your view.</font>
I agree, no one yet has cited to any regulation which says that your purse (or anything else) needs to remain in your view.</font>
And incivility, of course, would subject me to new penalties under the TSA regs as well as the possiblility of a disorderly conduct prosecution. And, as long as armed NG are present, the distinct possibility of summary execution (at least in Ohio).
May 6, 2002, 8:41 am
#157
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,411
FWAAA (and others): Here is a slightly more detailed explanation of the legal issue. (I am a lawyer, but not a criminal lawyer, so I am happy for someone else to correct me.)
First, the Fourth Amendment does apply if there is governmental action.
Second, you always have the power to *consent* to a search, in which case the Fourth Amendment generally has not been violated. ("Can we look in the trunk of your car, or would you like to wait here for two hours while we get a search warrant?" "No, officer, you can look in the trunk of my car" - if they find something illegal, your Fourth Amendment rights have generally not been violated because you consented.)
Third, regulations have been published (I put them in another thread, but I don't have time to look) which say that the airlines are required to deny boarding to you *unless* you consent to inspection of your person and baggage.
Fourth, the courts are likely (very likely) to find that flying is a "privilege", not a "right". Don't try to apply dictionary logic. These are legal terms. For example, driving a car has definitely been held to be a "privilege". The significance here is that *if* it is a privilege, then you can be required to consent in order to get access. (Example: Free speech is a right. Therefore, the government can only impose reasonable "time, place and manner restrictions" but can't require you to get a permit, etc. in order to exercise that *right*.)
So (remember that I have already said that I think much of the current security is a mistake):
- it is improper for the security staff to be unreasonably rude;
- it is improper for the security staff to retaliate against people who make reasonable requests;
BUT, as long as the requests are rationally related to airline security (in other words, the burden will be on you to show that the request had nothing to do with security, not just that the request wasn't "necessary" for security), the only limit for this particular issue ("keep my things where I can see them") will be your right, at any time, to withdraw your consent to the search.
In other words, consent given to a search can usually be withdrawn (*before* the discovery of the incriminating material). So, for example, you can present yourself at the airport and you can "consent" to going through the magnetometer. Then, if they pick you for further inspection at the gate (or if they want to separate you from your purse) you have the right to say "No, I withdraw my consent." But, once you say that, under the current regulations, they are required to deny you boarding on an airplane.
[edited for minor typo issues]
[This message has been edited by sbrower (edited 05-06-2002).]
First, the Fourth Amendment does apply if there is governmental action.
Second, you always have the power to *consent* to a search, in which case the Fourth Amendment generally has not been violated. ("Can we look in the trunk of your car, or would you like to wait here for two hours while we get a search warrant?" "No, officer, you can look in the trunk of my car" - if they find something illegal, your Fourth Amendment rights have generally not been violated because you consented.)
Third, regulations have been published (I put them in another thread, but I don't have time to look) which say that the airlines are required to deny boarding to you *unless* you consent to inspection of your person and baggage.
Fourth, the courts are likely (very likely) to find that flying is a "privilege", not a "right". Don't try to apply dictionary logic. These are legal terms. For example, driving a car has definitely been held to be a "privilege". The significance here is that *if* it is a privilege, then you can be required to consent in order to get access. (Example: Free speech is a right. Therefore, the government can only impose reasonable "time, place and manner restrictions" but can't require you to get a permit, etc. in order to exercise that *right*.)
So (remember that I have already said that I think much of the current security is a mistake):
- it is improper for the security staff to be unreasonably rude;
- it is improper for the security staff to retaliate against people who make reasonable requests;
BUT, as long as the requests are rationally related to airline security (in other words, the burden will be on you to show that the request had nothing to do with security, not just that the request wasn't "necessary" for security), the only limit for this particular issue ("keep my things where I can see them") will be your right, at any time, to withdraw your consent to the search.
In other words, consent given to a search can usually be withdrawn (*before* the discovery of the incriminating material). So, for example, you can present yourself at the airport and you can "consent" to going through the magnetometer. Then, if they pick you for further inspection at the gate (or if they want to separate you from your purse) you have the right to say "No, I withdraw my consent." But, once you say that, under the current regulations, they are required to deny you boarding on an airplane.
[edited for minor typo issues]
[This message has been edited by sbrower (edited 05-06-2002).]
May 6, 2002, 8:44 am
#158
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,960
Why should anyone just grin and bear this stupid nonsense? It's for the most part window dressing security dictated by inept clowns. Clearly the words "probable cause" have been discarded from the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment at these "random security" checkpoints. For your reference, the Fourth Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It's bad enough these "random searches" are permitted to be conducted in the first place. It's utter nonsense to say "you do not have a right to fly" therefore this Right does not apply. What's next? "You do not have a right to walk down the street"? "You do not have the right to own a home"??
It's time we ended this "random security" crackdown on travelers and instead had a crackdown on the abuses of people's rights by these fascists.
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It's bad enough these "random searches" are permitted to be conducted in the first place. It's utter nonsense to say "you do not have a right to fly" therefore this Right does not apply. What's next? "You do not have a right to walk down the street"? "You do not have the right to own a home"??
It's time we ended this "random security" crackdown on travelers and instead had a crackdown on the abuses of people's rights by these fascists.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by duplojohn:
Sounds to me like Punki failed the attitude test.
I too have experienced diffaculties at PDX and other stations but, discretion can be the better part of valor. besides, you won't miss your flight.</font>
Sounds to me like Punki failed the attitude test.
I too have experienced diffaculties at PDX and other stations but, discretion can be the better part of valor. besides, you won't miss your flight.</font>
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
May 6, 2002, 9:48 am
#159
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Bethesda, MD USA
Posts: 2,802
I'm just curious, folks. Everyone here is calling the security folks names, picking on the TSA and those folks, and so on. And justifiably so.
However, how many of you are willing to go to jail to fight this nonsense?
Because keep in mind that this is a real risk. Argue too much, fuss too much, and you will run the risk of spending the night in jail. And then when you come back the next day, you may very well be denied boarding based upon your behavior the previous day.
I've got better things to do than to spend a night in jail. I don't feel like missing a day's worth of meetings with clients, or a day's worth of vacation, just because I felt like putting an arrogant little security screener in his or her place.
Espcially since they won't be employed in a few months, and they'll have to find another $6 an hour job.
He who laughs last laughs hardest -- and knowing that these petty little tyrants will be out on the street in a few months makes me laugh really hard. Sure, you can subject me to your attitude and such, but come November, I'll be employed, and they will not.
[This message has been edited by mdtony (edited 05-06-2002).]
However, how many of you are willing to go to jail to fight this nonsense?
Because keep in mind that this is a real risk. Argue too much, fuss too much, and you will run the risk of spending the night in jail. And then when you come back the next day, you may very well be denied boarding based upon your behavior the previous day.
I've got better things to do than to spend a night in jail. I don't feel like missing a day's worth of meetings with clients, or a day's worth of vacation, just because I felt like putting an arrogant little security screener in his or her place.
Espcially since they won't be employed in a few months, and they'll have to find another $6 an hour job.
He who laughs last laughs hardest -- and knowing that these petty little tyrants will be out on the street in a few months makes me laugh really hard. Sure, you can subject me to your attitude and such, but come November, I'll be employed, and they will not.
[This message has been edited by mdtony (edited 05-06-2002).]
May 6, 2002, 10:29 am
#160
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
Espcially since they won't be employed in a few months, and they'll have to find another $6 an hour job.
He who laughs last laughs hardest -- and knowing that these petty little tyrants will be out on the street in a few months makes me laugh really hard. Sure, you can subject me to your attitude and such, but come November, I'll be employed, and they will not.</font>
Espcially since they won't be employed in a few months, and they'll have to find another $6 an hour job.
He who laughs last laughs hardest -- and knowing that these petty little tyrants will be out on the street in a few months makes me laugh really hard. Sure, you can subject me to your attitude and such, but come November, I'll be employed, and they will not.</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted in The New York Times:
Officials expect about 40 percent of the federal screeners to be new hires; the rest will be retrained former employees of the contractors that the airlines have used for decades.</font>
Officials expect about 40 percent of the federal screeners to be new hires; the rest will be retrained former employees of the contractors that the airlines have used for decades.</font>
60-40?? I don't like them odds, but maybe the TSA retraining (and bigger paychecks) will make them changed people.
Note to those posters who have trouble distinguishing my opinions from my quotations of others: the quotes are inside the UBB-coded portions or inside quotation marks.
[This message has been edited by FWAAA (edited 05-06-2002).]
May 6, 2002, 10:50 am
#161
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Seattle
Programs: Ephesians 4:31-32
Posts: 10,690
mdtony writes:
If the Government clearly states that passengers do have the right to have their possessions in their sight at all times, and if the National Guard thereafter, being fully informed, refuses to allow me to have my belonings in my sight at all times during security screening, I would most certainly be willing and even anxious to go to jail to fight this nonsense.
I would hope that every American would be willing to sacrifice a few days comfort to do their part to protect all of our personal rights and freedoms.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">However, how many of you are willing to go to jail to fight this nonsense?</font>
I would hope that every American would be willing to sacrifice a few days comfort to do their part to protect all of our personal rights and freedoms.
May 6, 2002, 11:05 am
#162
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Bethesda, MD USA
Posts: 2,802
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Punki:
If the Government clearly states that passengers do have the right to have their possessions in their sight at all times, and if the National Guard thereafter, being fully informed, refuses to allow me to have my belonings in my sight at all times during security screening, I would most certainly be willing and even anxious to go to jail to fight this nonsense.
I would hope that every American would be willing to sacrifice a few days comfort to do their part to protect all of our personal rights and freedoms.[/B]</font>
If the Government clearly states that passengers do have the right to have their possessions in their sight at all times, and if the National Guard thereafter, being fully informed, refuses to allow me to have my belonings in my sight at all times during security screening, I would most certainly be willing and even anxious to go to jail to fight this nonsense.
I would hope that every American would be willing to sacrifice a few days comfort to do their part to protect all of our personal rights and freedoms.[/B]</font>
Let's see. You will have to spend money on fees for a lawyer, unless you want a public defender, which I would not advise. Then there's the loss of business that results as not making your meetings or whatever you were going for if you're travelling for business, or the loss of vacation time if you're on vacation. Add to that the fact that your itinerary will likely be cancelled, and you'll have to rebook and pay all sorts of fees. And then top that off with a likely firing if you're travelling on business, and it's a lot more than a loss of comfort for a few days.
Now, to you, that may be an okay tradeoff in order to put a little pissant security screener in his place. For me, it is not.
I think folks need to think things through before turning what is an annoyance into something that could have some real consequences.
Yeah, it's annoying. Yes, it pisses me off. But I don't plan on going to jail, losing my job, and running up hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in legal fees for it.
And if that makes me a less than patriotic American in your eyes, so be it.
May 6, 2002, 11:05 am
#163
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
Nice thing about the USA is that among our 280 million people, someone cares strongly enough about every issue to go to jail over it. Some are even willing to die for what they believe in. Ridiculous treatment by NG and TSA supervisors is obviously not mdtony's issue. Don't know what mdtony believes in strongly enough to risk arrest or die for, but I'd bet there is such an issue.
May 6, 2002, 11:12 am
#164
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Bethesda, MD USA
Posts: 2,802
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by FWAAA:
Nice thing about the USA is that among our 280 million people, someone cares strongly enough about every issue to go to jail over it. Some are even willing to die for what they believe in. Ridiculous treatment by NG and TSA supervisors is obviously not mdtony's issue. Don't know what mdtony believes in strongly enough to risk arrest or die for, but I'd bet there is such an issue.</font>
Nice thing about the USA is that among our 280 million people, someone cares strongly enough about every issue to go to jail over it. Some are even willing to die for what they believe in. Ridiculous treatment by NG and TSA supervisors is obviously not mdtony's issue. Don't know what mdtony believes in strongly enough to risk arrest or die for, but I'd bet there is such an issue.</font>
This isn't tanks rolling in the streets, with cops kicking down doors and executing people on the spot.
May 6, 2002, 11:31 am
#165
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
But the "security" people don't appear to recognize any limits to their authority: Anything -- ANYTHING! -- done in the name of improved security is justifiable to them and, unfortunately, to many Americans who should know better. No, we don't have tanks rolling through our streets -- yet! -- but, n my opinion, we are beginning to slide down the slippery slope toward exactly that. Someone needs to take a stand, although -- so far at least -- I've followed mdtony's practice of not getting myself arrested. I have been refused boarding, however, for not presenting my shoes in a sufficiently dignified manner! True story.
Bruce
Bruce