Ask Slashdot: What's the Best Way To Deal With Roving TSA Teams? 1059
An anonymous reader writes "I live in Boston, and I have noticed the TSA performs random security checks at the Copley T (subway station) and other locations. I routinely travel with a laptop, iPhone, and other gadgetry. What are my rights when asked by one of the TSA agents to 'come over here'? Can I say no and proceed with my private business? What if a police officer says that I 'must go over there and cooperate'? Can I decline or ask for a warrant? Like the majority of the population, I turn into an absolute shrinking violet when pressured by intimidating authority, but I struggle with what I see to be blatant social devolution. Has anybody out there actually responded rationally, without complying? What were your experiences?"
Just keep calm... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Hell that's nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
How about Free Speech Zones? [wikipedia.org]
They put you in a chain link fence box a couple of miles away from whatever it is you happen to be protesting, so politicians don't see anything that might upset them.
Got news for ya. We're in the declining days of our Republic. A lot of the great ideas the founding fathers had at the beginning are pretty much gone now.
Re:Hell that's nothing (Score:5, Informative)
I'm a Democrat and I'll tell you, I actually kind of like Ron Paul. If we lose, but lose to him, I wouldn't be too sad. Wouldn't have minded McCain too much either until he picked Sarah Palin as his VP pick. The only real problem I have with the GOP are the Christian fundies that seem to get traction there. They gotta go. Palin, Santorum, Bachmann - not on my watch. That's what makes me a Democrat. But yeah I agree, Paul is pretty cool.
But unfortunately I kind of agree with George Carlin on this one. Shuffling around these politicians every couple of years doesn't do much. The real power is in the corporations. They buy the politicians (oops I meant "lobby") and get their way every single time. We erode the Bill of Rights and nobody bats an eye at it. We can now indefinitely imprison anyone that might be a terrorist. So there goes Habeas Corpus. First amendment is shot to hell. What do you think the founding fathers would think of "free speech zones"? I have a feeling they'd be loading muskets. Second amendment? Also boned. Nagin after Katrina went through the gun licenses and ordered the national guard to confiscate every gun in the city. And they did. It goes on and on. Warantless wiretaps, GPS tracking devices without a court order, Carnivore...you no longer have hardly any rights at all, but you don't even notice it. They really did a number on us. A real pro job.
I hope you're right, that things will be better. But I doubt they ever will be. I think lobbyists and lawyers and greedy assholes and lazy cops have already pretty much doomed us.
Re:Hell that's nothing (Score:5, Interesting)
I voted for Obama and his performance has been horrifying on civil liberties, wars, his treasonous betrayal of what he promised on medical marijuana, his casual arrogance and assumption that everyone will support him again because they have no other choice.. fuck him. I wouldn't say that he is actually a paid undercover republican operative, but if he were, he'd probably be doing the same things, if he were smart. He has exercised less executive power than
I have never supported a republican in my life before, but I just registered as one to support Ron Paul. If they don't make him their nominee, they are idiots, I'll support him anywhere. I disagree with him on abortion, on some issues of environmental regulation, and other minor things, but I have never agreed with any presidential candidate on more - except for Dennis Kucinich.
Other than Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, and Al Franken, most of the rest of the group of people 'on his side of the aisle' don't deserve to be called democrats, or for that matter representatives of their people. Ron Paul would be a better democrat than the rest of them combined, and he's not even a democrat.
Where the hell is the rest of congress on civil liberties? We all know TSA is security theater, how come only a few people are screaming about it? Those people need to be elected, it's the least we can do.
If we don't elect Ron Paul, we will get the endless war we have had for the last few decades. If we do, it ends here. There is only one choice.
Re:Hell that's nothing (Score:5, Informative)
If the Democrats you support are Kucinich, Sanders, and Franken, then I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you're pretty far to the left. And Paul is going to be one of the worst picks you can make.
He's a complete nutjob. He's opposed to practically every single government agency, including the Dept of Education, EPA, NIH, and the Social Security Administration. He's a racist who opposes the Civil Rights Act and has a pretty devoted following of neo-Nazis and white supremacists. He's against consumer legislation. He wants to go back to the gold standard. He also compared Social Security and Medicare to slavery. WTF?
He's an obstetrician/gynecologist who opposes abortion. That doesn't even make sense. He claims to be a libertarian, yet wants to prevent women from getting abortions? He wouldn't care for a patient who couldn't afford his services (and he pretty much said this in an earlier debate on TV). His son is an ophthalmologist who decided to quit the national opthalmology licensing board to start his own.
Look, I don't like Obama at all. But Ron Paul (and his son) are crazy as shit and I sure as hell won't vote for him.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Insightful)
The best part of your linked article:
"There are notices posted at the entrance to the station that the inspection is in progress."
Terrorist in Boston: "Well, I guess we should bring our bombs to Downtown Crossing instead of Park St!"
I mean, the way they're doing this, they're absolutely guaranteeing they won't actually catch a reasonably non-stupid terrorist.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly.
This, and TSA appearing at bus terminals to pat down children is just the current administration's way of slowly inuring you to the "your papers please" gestapo tactics they seek to impose on the american public.
With congress rolling over and approving every dime in the TSA budget [slashdot.org] there seems no likelihood this will stop any time soon.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly.
This, and TSA appearing at bus terminals to pat down children is just the current administration's way of slowly inuring you to the "your papers please" gestapo tactics they seek to impose on the american public.
With congress rolling over and approving every dime in the TSA budget [slashdot.org] there seems no likelihood this will stop any time soon.
Pedophiles need jobs too, and the TSA was hiring that day.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not likely. I despised "W" giving the okey-dokey to invade the persons and privacy of people in the US then and feel betrayed that our current President has done nothing to fix the problem.
Terrorist: Look at that! 600 people waiting in the security check point line at LAX!!! More than they can fit on any plane!!!
Terrorist: *BOOM*
CNN: 100s dead, 100s wounded in LAX bombing.
See the problem?
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah every time i'm at an airport security checkpoint surrounded by hundreds of people waiting in line to check their shoes I get a good laugh thinking how perfect a target the checkpoint line makes. You can shove a lot of explosives into a carry on bag when you know it'll never be checked because your target is the line of people waiting to be checkedd...
I wonder what they'll do besides mandating clear luggage or banning carry on items all together.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Security checkpoints aren't to protect normal people. They're to protect the pentagon, white house and financial centers from having planes dropped on them.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Because it isn't the citizens in the airport they're protecting, and if you thought it was, you've been had.
First, they are protecting the aircraft, which represents millions of dollars as well as a portion of the transport infrastructure. Second, they are protecting anything on the ground (such as the world trade center) which might be damaged in a very costly way if a heavy aircraft plowed into it at high speed.
You, they don't give a flying fuck about. That's over. Any remarks to the contrary are propaganda, nothing else. All you need to do is look at what they've done to your rights. Even a cursory look will come to the conclusion that you now have none that aren't more than a temporary illusion maintained for no other reason than to keep you calm until the time comes when you get in the way, at which point you will be brushed aside like the fly you are to them.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Civil liberties know no "right" or "left". It's one of the few common causes we have left.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Informative)
These liberal blogs that I am following have been very critical of Obama:
http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/ [salon.com]
http://www.americablog.com/ [americablog.com]
http://agonist.org/ [agonist.org]
http://crooksandliars.com/ [crooksandliars.com]
http://www.juancole.com/ [juancole.com]
Dailykos mission is too elect Democrats. They are more partisan than the progressive blogoshpere at large.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Funny)
Go up to the TSA team...
"Hey guys, I saw some guy read the sign, turn around and head toward Downtown Crossing"
"Nah, I didn't get a good look at him, but he had a beard and a backpack"
--
BMO
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Funny)
That's not a very nice thing to do to RMS, dude.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Funny)
You've made clear the problem that Boston's subway stations tend to be within walking distance of each other. But there's no such problem in DC, where you usually have to drive a long way between stations. And only some kind of homicidal maniac would want to drive in DC traffic!
Wait a sec...
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Insightful)
The best part of your linked article:
"There are notices posted at the entrance to the station that the inspection is in progress."
Terrorist in Boston: "Well, I guess we should bring our bombs to Downtown Crossing instead of Park St!"
I mean, the way they're doing this, they're absolutely guaranteeing they won't actually catch a reasonably non-stupid terrorist.
Our government would not pat people down for safety. They are patting people down to scare them and make them feel powerless. They are reinforcing the fact that we do not have rights or control over the situation. The only reason our government would want us to think that they are protecting us is to avoid future liability when something actually does go wrong. That way, they can say "look, look, we were trying to prevent this all along..." Even if they are full of crap.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Informative)
FYI, I think this is the U.S. Law [cornell.edu] that authorizes TSA VIPR teams which I'm assuming the TSA teams in Boston are. This law ran through 2011 though I think it was extended in the 2012 TSA budget:
TITLE 6 > CHAPTER 4 > SUBCHAPTER II
 1112. AUTHORIZATION OF VISIBLE INTERMODAL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE TEAMS
(a) In general The Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, may develop Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (referred to in this section as âoeVIPRâ) teams to augment the security of any mode of transportation at any location within the United States. In forming a VIPR team, the Secretaryâ"
(1) may use any asset of the Department, including Federal air marshals, surface transportation security inspectors, canine detection teams, and advanced screening technology;
(2) may determine when a VIPR team shall be deployed, as well as the duration of the deployment;
(3) shall, prior to and during the deployment, consult with local security and law enforcement officials in the jurisdiction where the VIPR team is or will be deployed, to develop and agree upon the appropriate operational protocols and provide relevant information about the mission of the VIPR team, as appropriate; and
(4) shall, prior to and during the deployment, consult with all transportation entities directly affected by the deployment of a VIPR team, as appropriate, including railroad carriers, air carriers, airport owners, over-the-road bus operators and terminal owners and operators, motor carriers, public transportation agencies, owners or operators of highways, port operators and facility owners, vessel owners and operators and pipeline operators.
(b) Authorization of appropriations
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section such sums as necessary for fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're called "Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response" teams? Seriously? That has got to be a backronym [wikipedia.org].
"OK, so we put these teams together. What do we call them?"
"I dunno. Should probably be something that sounds all scary and badass. You know, to scare the bad guys when they hear you're coming."
"Snakes are badass. How about COBRA teams? Cobras are scary."
"Nah, that sounds like a GI Joe episode. I like the general idea though."
"OK then, how about VIPER teams?"
"Ooh, that's good. VIPER. I like it."
"Great. Now we just need to figure out what the hell VIPER stands for."
"I can't think of a word for the E either. Screw it, we'll just leave it out. VIPR teams. Same difference."
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Funny)
Of a man named Charlie
On a tragic and fateful day...
He put ten cents in his pocket, kissed his wife and family
Went to ride on the MTA.
Well did he ever return, no he never returned
And his fate is still unlearned (what a pity)...
He may hide forever in the cells of gitmo,
He's the man who never returned.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Funny)
Here's a good tip: strip down naked, lather yourself up in goose fat, then jump arse-first into the nearest large bin so you can fellate yourself. Won't help you with the TSA, but I'm always happy to share good ideas.
What rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless I'm mistaken, you don't have rights anymore. If the TSA thinks you're a terrorist based on your evasiveness and defiance they can detain you indefinitely.
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Edmund Burke said all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Yeah but fighting back against police or TSA agents isn't the thing that needs done. The thing to do is to convince our Congressmen that we actually care about civil rights more than protection from terrorists. Fight the stupid laws not the people paid to enforce them
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Fight the stupid laws not the stupid people paid to enforce them.
FTFY
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
"Your" Congressmen?
Commence laughter now.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is based on the US legal system the way to challenge the Constitutionality of these laws is to break them, and then (after a likely horrible reaming by the justice system) appeal to the Supreme court to try to get it overturned.
Unless someone stands up to the violation of their civil rights, these things never get tested. Relying on the useless Congress that passed the law in the first place to overturn it is pretty much futile.
and thats why you cant do shit : (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing to do is to convince our Congressmen
those 'congressmen' do not give zit about what you think. so you cant 'convince' them either. they have been elected there by the monetary backing of private interest groups who are much richer than rest 95% of the population. only they have their ear.
you have 2 choices at this juncture :
- be richer than 5% or so of the population, that controls 72% of the wealth. (in contrast you have only 15% - so its impossible - there would be enough who made it that much up till this point if it would work)
- get rid of the economic system that allows tiny minority of population to command 70-80% of economic wealth.
- get rid of the current existing political system, in which only those who are extremely rich or have the backing of extremely rich can get elected.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed, contacting your elected representatives is the only reasonable way to achieve meaningful change.
Just like the people did in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain.
American Politics (Score:5, Insightful)
You really think you can get anyone impeached? Unless they are busted in a FBI corruption sting, I'd say your chances are about zero.
The reason why we are stuck with these idiots and petty tyrants leading us is because 70% of the population just doesn't give a fuck. They want their SUVs and big screen cable TV, and they don't give a damn if somebody passes a law that allows indefinite detention of 'Terrorists'.
Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the answer to either of those questions is "No", then you better do what they tell you.
Sure, they're violating your rights. But in the United States, you have no recourse except to go to court. Which will costs LOTS of money. More than you have, probably. And don't forget that the cops and TSA will make your life hell while the case slowly progresses.
This country is so fucked.
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Informative)
your comment needs modification in a post NDAA United States (habeus corpus has been revoked)
Once Senator Palpatine's bill is passed [govtrack.us] they'll be able to revoke your citizenship and throw you in Gitmo (or a domestic camp) as well.
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Insightful)
I just can't help thinking, Osama (assuming he's dead) is laughing in his grave so f'in hardddddd right now.
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Informative)
What rights are being violated exactly?
We can start with the 4th Amendment and go from there.
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Insightful)
Devil's advocate, and one of the reasons I think the constitution needs an updating for the modern age. Sadly, I'm afraid to let people currently in charge do such a rewrite.
4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizures. It says nothing about not letting you on said mode of public transportation that is technically merely subsidized, and thus faux-public, that you need to go to work. You can invoke your fourth, but don't expect to be getting to work on time.
The letter is upheld, the spirit isn't.
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say that even the letter isn't.
Consider this case: let's say there was a law that to acquire food, you needed to submit to a search. That would mean that you get searched, or you starve. Most folks would agree that in this case, the letter is being violated.
I'd argue that all that's happened here is that the chain has been extended a bit. To ride the train to get to work to get the check to buy the food, you need to submit to a search.
Also:
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.
If you look at the text, you'll note that it is actually in direct violation. People are not secure in their persons, and there is no warrants being issued, with our without probable cause, let alone sworn.
With all this said, it probably doesn't matter. It looks to me that we may have passed the tipping point, and I'm probably a fool for even posting this.....
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Insightful)
Again - I maintain that if you cannot preform your normal day to day activities; activities required to get to work, to feed your family, and to move about the city in which you live without submitting to random searches that you are most certainly not secure in your person.
VIPR deployed on TN Highways (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/15725035/officials-claim-tennessee-becomes-first-state-to-deploy-vipr-statewide [newschannel5.com]
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Informative)
"The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. . . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.
These two cases were in the 1950's, but Supreme Court case law on this goes back to at least 1823.
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Insightful)
TSA VIPR teams are already working the highways in Tennessee for their pilot program, though they are focusing more on trucks and busses as they ease people in to the idea of the pervasive police state.
The new TSA budget added money for more VIPR teams so they will, no doubt, be extending their reach over time and as their budget allows. They really need to enlist state and local police to be able to afford doing this nationwide, considering the current constraints on the Federal budget.
It is nearly inevitable that you will eventually not be allowed to move in this country unless you have your papers in order and are not on the DHS "Do Not Travel" (a.k.a. "You Are An Enemy of the State") list, just like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in their heyday. Presumably they will be using the now pervasive freeway traffic cams and license plate recognition, to track the movements of everyone who is on that list, and will encourage to not get in their cars in the first place.
The introduction of police states in to formerly free countries are often creeping affairs. They chisel away civil liberties slowly so there is no single point in time when everyone realizes they are screwed and revolt en masse. If you do it slowly everyone realizes at a different point in time that they are in a police state. People either revolt one at a time and are crushed, or more typically never revolt at all because no one around them is.
One ray of sunshine is Joe Lieberman is retiring at the end of 2012. He is the person most responsible for the maddness that is DHS and TSA, but his police state has so much momentum now I doubt it will stop just because its Saint-Just is stepping down.
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually it is in the Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law [wikipedia.org]
The Founders weren't stupid.
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Insightful)
The freedom to travel freely with out undue restriction is a corner stone to the idea of a free world...
Per the UN Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
In Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
(1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
(2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
(3) The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
(4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
From US code you have: Corfield v. Coryell, and Paul v. Virginia among others.
If a person can not freely move with in their own country then they may (can) not engaged in other activities seen as being part of a free society. Making a petition of grievance at city hall is once such example. With out freedom of movement I can not be guaranteed that I would be able to make to city hall to file said hypothetical grievance, Then there are rights to life and property. If I'm sick I have a right to seek medical attention at a clinic or hospital of my choosing. With out the ability to freely travel there I can not receive the treatment I need.
With out the freedom to move, we are forced to stay put. In effect our homes would become a jail. If you can't see that as tyranny then your ether a fool, or a dangerous idiot.
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Insightful)
ACLU's guidance (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/tsa-seeks-expand-airport-experience-everyday-life [aclu.org]
And
http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/know-your-rights-when-traveling [aclu.org]
Good links, thanks! Re:ACLU's guidance (Score:5, Insightful)
Americans have lived through civil war, economic collapse, a surprise military attack on U.S. territory, dictators and world war on two fronts, and, for 50 years, the threat of nuclear Armageddon. Through all these threats, we mostly stayed true to our values and preserved our freedom. And when we didn’t, it didn’t make us safer and we always came to regret it.
Don't Ask Slashdot, Ask the EFF (Score:5, Informative)
What are you hiding? (Score:4, Funny)
Why would you want to avoid the TSA? What are you hiding?
You must be a criminal!
Re:What are you hiding? (Score:4, Funny)
I'm Innocent!
TSA:Innocent of what?
Best way... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Best way... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wealthy and influential persons don't ride the subway. I think even the the TSA knows that.
Re:Best way... (Score:5, Insightful)
I ride a commuter train in northern Virginia, and the demographic breakdown of the ridership has shown that the median income of the riders is solid six figures. Trains like these are not being ridden by hobos.
TSA are not officers. (Score:5, Interesting)
TSA agents are NOT law enforcement, even if they pretend to be. They do not have legal authority to arrest you.
Recently, a bill was proposed to prevent the TSA from wearing badges, or otherwise dressing like real cops. Hopefully this passes.
Re:TSA are not officers. (Score:5, Informative)
That's something I wish more people understood. TSA does not have the legal rights that law enforcement officers have, and that includes conducting searches and detaining people. Of course the courts tend to be somewhat squeamish telling the executive branch that they can't do whatever they want, but the reality is that TSA has no more authority to operate than any other group of private security officers.
Re:TSA are not officers. (Score:5, Informative)
Here's what you say (Score:5, Informative)
If the police were confronted by this 90% er 50% more like as little as 10% of the time, it would be such a gigantic waste of their resources that they'd stop violating your rights.
Re:Here's what you say (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here's what you say (Score:5, Interesting)
Officer, am I under arrest?
Answer: Only if you dont let us search you.
Maybe you should be asking the ACLU? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know where they have lawyers and actually might know more than the random crap you'll get here.
Flex Your Rights dot Org (Score:5, Informative)
Start here: http://www.flexyourrights.org/ [flexyourrights.org]
"I do not consent to a search." (Score:5, Informative)
"Am I under arrest?"
"Am I free to go?"
Re:"I do not consent to a search." (Score:5, Insightful)
"I do not consent to a search."
"Why are you detaining "Why are you detaining me?"
"Am I under arrest?"
"Am I free to go?"
that first one is really important and may be overlooked due to hiding in the subject line (I do not understand the tendency of people here to start typing in the subject and then continue in the body)
Re:"I do not consent to a search." (Score:5, Funny)
I'm from Canada and .. to be honest, I've SEEN videos of these questions - I assume the police/TSA have too... I'd be VERY suspect if you started into that.
Why not ask 50 questions and be so pleasant they can't handle you? Like Mr. Rodgers on steroids.
"Why hello officer! How are you today? Made a lot of arrests today??"
"Have you ever tried that little restaurant on 5th street?"
"How long have you been on the job? Really? You must have shot or tazed a lot of people by now!!!" (Even if they respond "its my first day..." )
"Do you find lots of crazies down here in the subway? I saw a guy wearing a paper bag with eye holes cut out earlier this week.. did you catch him?"
"How drunk was the drunkest guy you've ever arrested? Do you think YOU'VE ever been that drunk? Oh come on, you can tell me, I won't tell anyone.."
Continue to ask the stupidest questions you can think of, VERY LOUDLY, drawing lots of attention to yourself and the situation. They'll either think you're nuts and arrest you, ... Since you're clearly not a terrorist -- and were being quite nice, but loud, with plenty of witnesses, you should be fine. right?
Re:"I do not consent to a search." (Score:4, Funny)
My god.... The Canadian Defense has been explained! I hope you realize what you've just unleashed on the world sir.
the advantage of dealing with police (Score:5, Informative)
When it comes to police in most civilized societies, you get to have a very simple dialogue. You can say: "I refuse to volunteer for any such [delay]; but if you order me to do so, I will comply with any order you give."
If you don't volunteer, and you make that an official statement, then the officer needs to decide to make it an order. They aren't allowed to give illegal orders. If they do, you still must comply with it at the time, and without hesitation, but you can fight that later in court.
Basically, it puts everyone on the their best behaviour. If you aren't happy with what winds up happening, and you later discover that they weren't permitted to do so, then you can easily fight it after the fact.
Just remember two things: a) police are allowed to trick you into volunteering, or even kind of volunteering. So make sure you hear the word "order". b) police can be nice and legal, nice and illegal, or mean and legal. Be sure you know what you're risking.
Re:the advantage of dealing with police (Score:5, Funny)
When it comes to police in most civilized societies
You do realize that Boston (mentioned in TFS) is within the USofA, right?
I had no idea the TSA was doing random checks (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the US was turning into a police state, but I didn't realize the TSA gestapo were wandering the subways and accosting people at random.
I weep for the America that once was.
Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
To fight the TSA requires any number of resources in your favor: time, money, influence, or numbers.
Perhaps the easiest way to fight this particular group is by pulling a SEP -> someone else's problem. Attend a city council meeting, and move that the local Boston Police Department have its budget slashed, reasoning that since the TSA is doing their job, the city no longer needs to pay for benefits that the Boston PD is not providing. 3 possibilities are likely -> 1.) the city council will squash the movement (but doing so will draw attention to your plight, and paint the current politicians as being in bed with the TSA -> not a good place to be when the TSA is chafing potential voters), 2.) the city will cut Boston PD's budget (at which point the Boston PD will have to make a tough choice of pissing off the populace because of a pay cut, or letting it slide), or 3.) the Boston PD will become wise to the situation, and take out a jurisdictional grievance against the TSA (they get to keep their budget, remove some competition, and look like the heroes -> kid gloves from the officers reassigned to the public transit beat, something of a junket for the officers concerned as it may be 'easy' compared to other patrols).
This is how you handle problems that you do not have the resources to fight properly -> get someone who has the proper resources to do the fighting for you. It helps if you appeal to this person's / group's best interest in a truthful, sincere way (the untruthful / insincere stuff tends to fall apart before a victory).
And yes, given the Amtrak PD's response to various TSA shenanigans, it has a precedent. And the danger to the Boston PD (or whoever patrolled that beat prior to the TSA) is quite real; you don't want a generation of Bostonians growing up thinking that it takes a guy in tactical gear with a SMG to keep public transportation safe; once they do, the original patrollers will never get that beat back (loss of territory),
Rights? You have no rights. (Score:5, Insightful)
For those not counting, the Federal government has in this one encounter wiped its collective ass with the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and (probably) 9th Amendments, as well as pissing on the grave of habeas corpus.
Have a nice day.
-B
You have the Rights that you will fight for. (Score:5, Interesting)
There will always be someone who wants to take away your Rights.
The question is, to what extent are you willing to fight for your Rights?
Remember, our Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence knowing that their signatures would be used to justify their execution if they lost the fight for their liberty.
What are we willing to risk to defend our Rights?
Call 911 (Score:5, Interesting)
The TSA Are Not Officers (Score:5, Interesting)
The first thing to remember is the TSA are not officers of the law. This isn't my opinion, this is something making its way thought the senate at the moment:
"Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), the lead sponsor of the Stop TSA's Reach in Policy (STRIP) Act, said that TSA has essentially allowed its airport screeners to play dress-up by giving them metal badges and police-like uniforms in recent years. But she said many airport screeners have no "officer" qualifications, and should have this title removed." source [thehill.com]
They've had the ability to abuse rights, previously, because they've had you in confined situations where you've already had certain rights removed. The two most obvious examples being:
You'd like to get on that plane you've already paid a lot of money to travel on? Then, whether you like what we're doing or not, you have to pass through us to get to it. Plus, you've already entered in to a secure screening area. Declining our searches and simply choosing to leave means you violate the security protections and are subject to a $10,000 fine.
You're not on US soil. Until you've passed through customs, you're in magical land where we deny you're actually on US soil and as such have zero consititutional rights. We'd like your phone and laptop to take a copy of all data on it? You have no fourth amendment here, hand it over.
Yes, it's true that the government has basically torn up the constitution in the last few weeks. They can no detain anyone, forgeign or American, indefinitiely, without access to a lawyer, without charging them, without judicial review, just because they say that they're a terrorist threat. They do have a safeguard however: once a year, you're allowed to ask them if they'd like to keep doing it.
The thing is, big brother as that is, it's massively overkill for someone politely telling a TSA goon that the fourth amendment does still apply on the streets of the US and, unless they can provide a legitimate reason for your search and seizure, you will be polite but you will not comply with unreasonable requests from minimally trained screeners who, by the senate's own definition, don't have the qualifications or training to call themselves legitimate officers. If they disappeared every politely spoken person who passively resisted, their jails would rapidly fill and every news channel would run sensational headlines about it. The street goons are going to try to hype their authority a little, they'll most likely call a police officer over to back them up who does have a little more legitimate authority, but you're not going to end up in a secret prison.
So, my take? Stay very polite. Don't get heated. Don't get angry. Simply express that you recognize they are not law enforcement officers, they are essentially an extra type of security guard at this location and that you are happy to comply with reasonable requests that any other security guard makes. If they make unreasonable requests, you will simply leave that location. (If it's a venue, leave, write the management company about how their new security made for a hostile environment and how you'll be encouraging friends not to return until better training or their replacement is arranged - if it's a subway entrance, walk the extra couple of blocks and, again, contact the transportation authority and government to tell them how you were happy to abide by legal requests but their overstepping should not be allowed.)
Politeness, walking away, then slowly burying the decision makers with the weight of the bad decisions usually works far better than shouting and screaming, overstepping in to something you can legitimately get arrested for, then just making their point for them.
Also... The more people politely passively resisting, the harder the abuses become to maintain. I just spent the last week flying. At every scanner, I requested a pat down and was very polite about it. I al
Serious answer: Call a lawyer NOW. (Score:5, Insightful)
Find a lawyer. Get a suggestion from that lawyer. Reach an agreement with that lawyer to represent you should you be arrested during such a stop. (This will probably involve putting money into an escrow account equal to the charge of a few hours of his time - also called a "retainer".)
Research your local laws regarding police stops. (Also called "Terry stops".) In some states, you are under ZERO obligation to do anything unless they are explicitly detaining you, and in those locations, the simple first response is "Am I being detained or am I free to go?" If they say you are being detained, the second response would be "On suspicion of the violation of what law am I being detained?" The third response is "I will not consent to any searches, and will not answer any questions until I have an attorney present." Then you call the lawyer mentioned above. You go to booking, you get searched anyway, you answer *NO* questions that are asked.
Take direct legal advice given by random strangers on the internet with a grain of salt.
Vote for Ron Paul. End the TSA (Score:5, Insightful)
Vote for Ron Paul. End the TSA
Re:Vote for Ron Paul. End the TSA (Score:5, Insightful)
The same thing Obama did about Gitmo. Issue an executive order, get stonewalled by Congress, realize that being president isn't like being king, and give up.
I'm sorry. Haven't you been paying attention? (Score:5, Informative)
See links below. Discuss.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_DEFENSE_BILL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT [ap.org]
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/constitutional-expert-president-obama-says-that-he-can-kill-you-on-his-own-discretion-he-can-jail-you-indefinitely-on-his-own-discretion.html [washingtonsblog.com]
The moment the aforementioned bill was signed, we lost the few rights we still retained after the "Patriot" act.
So remember:
1) You're a terrorist if and when some unelected bureaucrat like a TSA inspector *suspects* you're a terrorist.
2) As a suspected terrorist, you can be detained indefinitely.
Leaving the country with your cash while you can is starting to look pretty good. If you are stopped, you'd be crazy to not comply with the request, but try not to belong to whatever party isn't in power at the time. At the moment, political affiliation isn't a reason for suspected terrorism, but how long do you think that will last?
Remarkable how times change (Score:5, Insightful)
Eastern-Europe immigrants who lived in the communist time might have experience in these matters ask them how best to avoid random searches.
Stop and identify (Score:5, Informative)
Some states have a stop and identify [wikimedia.org] law, which means that for a terry stop or higher, when asked you must truthfully tell the officer your name.
Note that this is only for Terry stops and above. An officer may walk up and simply ask that you identify yourself - in the same manner that any regular citizen could do so - and in this instance you are not required to answer. You are not required to interact in any way with a police officer acting in the manner of a regular citizen. To do this they need suspicion and have to escalate it to Terry status.
Note also that in no instance are you required to prove your identity. You need not "show your papers" to anyone.
The statute may be written in such a way that there are one or two other things that the officer may legally ask and that you must answer. New Hampshire, for example, allows the officer to ask your address, why you are there, and where you are going.
Massachusetts does not have such a law, and so you do not have to respond when asked. Period, end of story.
Many people will point out the difference between theory and practice, in that the police will simply disregard the rules and do it anyway and inconvenience you so-you-might-as-well-submit-andbeasheepandyoucantfightandsoonandsoon...
Be aware that a civil rights violation is a windfall in your favor. If you have good evidence, such as a video clearly showing what happened, you can get a court judgement of from tens of thousands to a couple of million dollars... if you are willing to press the issue. This will require some investment and a lot of inconvenience on your part - think of it as an investment of 10,000 dollars to make a potential million.
It all boils down to the strength of your ethics. There can be no ethics without courage. If everyone had the courage to press the issue, then the practice would stop very quickly.
An Example... (Score:5, Interesting)
A friend of mine in Eugene Or., ended up in a fray with a TSA agent. He has seizures. The result of a brain injury when he was a child (think car accident.) His seizures manifest by loud sometime ranting behavior. He's careful to explain to people not to take it personal or seriously, because he simply can't help it and it doesn't mean anything. While collecting his social security check, he had a dispute with a clerk, which escalated and was asked to go outside. There was a TSA agent in the area who overheard him yelling at the security guard. He explained his problem, what the clerk had done wrong, and why he was yelling.
The TSA agent determined he was a threat and proceeded to beat the ever living hell out of him. When my friend continued to try to explain, he was further charged with resisting and was ultimately charged with over half a dozen felony counts including assaulting a TSA agent. Of course the humorous part is that my friend is about five foot three, one hundred and fifteen pounds soaking wet and the TSA agent was over six foot and more than a hundred pounds heavier. All the while claiming my friend was threatening and menacing. It took two years to finally resolve this in court. It was a ridiculous trial and he escaped jail time by the skin of his teeth and though the agent clearly used excessive force, was never held responsible for his actions.
Our society is shifting in dark and unpleasant ways, and I fear that if the public at large doesn't do something soon, the window of opportunity to put things right may pass us by.
Advice allegedly from a DHS lawyer (Score:5, Informative)
Here's an interesting letter allegedly written by an anonymous DHS lawyer [boardingarea.com]. Summary: DHS knows that the VIPR searches are illegal, and that courts ultimately will not validate TSA's authority to conduct them.
So, if you're a protester-type interested in challenging the constitutionality of VIPR searches in the courts, here's a blueprint for you. If not, I'd just avoid the subway altogether.
Re:just cooperate (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone needs to stand up for their civil rights, or no will have any civil rights anymore. The TSA thinks they're above the law, above the Bill of Rights, and they have to be proven wrong. That, and the TSA needs to be dismantled. If they're "expanding" into non-airport-related areas (train stations, bus stations, docks), how long does anyone think it'll be before they start performing traffic stops at random and committing search-and-seizure without a warrant "because they thought you acted/looked/smelled like a terrorist"?
Re:just cooperate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:just cooperate (Score:4, Insightful)
no need to get into trouble
I love that this was posted by AC.
Re:just cooperate (Score:5, Insightful)
no need to get into trouble
No kidding, the person posting the question seems to have his tinfoil wrapped too tightly. He has a laptop and a smartphone, like that is not an ordinary every day occurrence that draws no interest, except possibly from thieves. The roving teams most likely just want to look in his bag/pack. Nothing looks ilke a block of C4 with a detonator attached, thank you have a nice day.
You completely miss the point. The fourth amendment to the US Constitution [wikipedia.org] guarantees that
The right of the people to be secure in their persons...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. [emphasis mine]
Warrantless street searches clearly violate the spirit and letter of the law.
What about public safety you ask? According to the US government, four times as many people die from lightning strikes every year than from terrorist activities [wordpress.com].
By your logic, we should cover the country with a non-conductive dome.
Nature can't be controlled you say? Okay, how about this: the US government estimated that 730 US persons died as a result of terrorism. [wordpress.com] in 2007
They also report 17,100 murders in the US [wikipedia.org] during the same year.
I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of people who think that we should give up our Fourth amendment protections to stop all the murders. Why then, should we give them up to "fight terrorism."
In any case, I suggest you either grow a brain or stop trolling. Pretty please?
Re:Ask Slashdot? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:One more reason to bicycle... (Score:5, Interesting)
That was the situation in New York City.
You could refuse to allow inspection, but you can't go onto the subway at that entrance.
It seemed to me that it would be possible to leave the subway, and walk down the street to another entrance of the same subway stop. Since the inspections are random spot-checks anyway, they're unlikely to select the same person twice. (Unless you have a beard or are carrying something in Arabic, or just look different.)
There was a college student in New York who let the cops search his bags, and they found a copy of the New York Review of Books, with a cover story, "Jihad." They took him to the station and kept him there most of the day, until somebody realized how ridiculous it was.
The advice I got repeatedly from lawyers was, "Never consent to a search."
Re:One more reason to bicycle... (Score:5, Informative)
Once you've consented to a search you've lost control of your property. And you sure as hell don't want someone with an agenda or a desire for a quick promotion putting stuff in your bags.
There's been more than one case of airport security putting drugs in passenger bags for test purposes, losing track of it, and those people passing through countries with zero tolerance. You're pretty much screwed then. I believe the fellow that spent two years in prison made it on to Slashdot at some point.
Re:One more reason to bicycle... (Score:5, Informative)
The advice I got repeatedly from lawyers was, "Never consent to a search."
Lawyers? I get that advice form cops I know. They all say they would never consent to a search and suggest I do the same. Just say "May I see your warrant?"
Re:Bureaucrats Not Officers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bureaucrats Not Officers (Score:5, Interesting)
It does mean that. And in this case, it's the Massachusetts State Police you should call. And if you're doing this kind of civil disobedience activism, please have the time and patience and ability to see it through. It's not going to be a fun day, either for you, or for the TSA or for the police. Basically at the moment you are under arrest ("not reasonably free to walk away"), what you are looking for next is a Miranda warning. Those need to be the next words you hear, period. You are deaf to anything else, and completely mute from that moment forward, until you are alone with an attorney. If they follow through with an arrest and cannot argue that they had justification, since the TSA operatives are entry-level functionaries, it's the end of their career if they really carry this out.
Re:You have no rights. (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as they are concerned, you have no rights.
Actually, you have three. With eternal thanks to The Clash [youtube.com]