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?"
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:Here's what you say (Score:5, Interesting)
Officer, am I under arrest?
Answer: Only if you dont let us search you.
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."
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
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
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]
Re:the advantage of dealing with police (Score:4, Interesting)
you get to defend yourself afterwards, to a judge. for various values of catastrophic, yeah, you get to comply first. it's not your decision when it's an official order. officers are offered official office.
that said, police don't tell you to do something, they tell you to not do something or to leave or to let them do something. it can't really be catastrophic for you to leave a place, or to let them search you, or to not cross, or to not punch.
it's a serious thing to give an order, especially for police. it's not taken lightly by anyone. that's why it's an order. if you officially don't volunteer, you'll find yourself quite satisfied by how orders tend to pan out.
just remember, there are plenty of ways for police to trick you into volunteering without actually giving an order. and there are an equal number of ways for them to penalize you for making their jobs more difficult my forcing them to make it an order. you get to decide what you want.
but really, for all of the times I've been stopped, inconvenienced, or otherwise scolded, I can't say that anything actually bad happened. and for the other things that tend to occur in society, it's really easy to avoid such scenarios entirely. I really have no interest in protesting parades.
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:2, Interesting)
Pfft, you make it sound like that declaration means anything. Believe what you want to believe, but the police can and will make your life a living hell if they want to, and restrict you from doing anything they want.
What are you going to do, take them to court? Hope you're rich as hell, and have a truckload of time and patience to spend in order to be let go, everything to be swept under the rug, and nothing happening to the official who did this to you.
North America is already a police state. Thinking otherwise is naive. Thinking one person can make a difference is naive. Thinking a large group of people can make a difference is naive.
Face it, the war on society has long since won against us. All we can do now is just survive.
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.
Re:Vote for Ron Paul. End the TSA (Score:4, Interesting)
Vote for Ron Paul. End the TSA
I don't agree with the majority of Ron Paul's policy, but let's say I agree with this one. Is there any evidence that Ron Paul, as President, would have the power to eliminate the TSA? The TSA was created by an act of the 107th Congress. Presumably it would take another act of Congress to repeal it. We have a sitting Congress right now that is majority Republican, and they're doing nothing. What is Ron Paul going to do about it, realistically?
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.
even if you try and take a ship... (Score:4, Interesting)
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/09/oregon-muslim-on-us-no-fly-list-held-after-sailing-to-britain/1 [usatoday.com]
While not exactly TSA related, more CBP related, there was a gentleman who was on the no fly list, who was in the US. Given he couldnt fly, he took a boat to get back home to europe. Sounds reasonable right? Well, he was removed from the cruise ship prior to the ship arriving in port. You can find more info on the identify projects webpage.
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:Just keep calm... (Score:4, Interesting)
So you think invading middle eastern countries left and right is OK, that the war on drugs is OK, that the TSA's actions are OK?
Paul is out there, but would it be worse to have him massively downsizing the military, killing the TSA and the war on drugs, and along with that withdrawing from the UN, or would it be worse to keep going down the road we're on now?
And how would Paul piss off the allies anyway? He's an isolationist, not an interventionist. Are they going to be all pissed off that the US isn't invading Iran and other such countries? Who cares if they are? I thought all the Europeans were pissed that we were invading those countries, now you're telling me they'll be pissed if we stop?
Finally, as President, Paul's power would be limited by Congress. The great thing is that while a President can't make up new laws (like the NDAA that Obama signed a few days ago), he absolutely does have the power to veto them. So a Paul presidency would probably be characterized as a lot of stupid shit getting vetoed and not much getting done, which isn't great, but it's better than the last two guys by a long shot. I'd rather have nothing get done at the Federal level than have a lot of new laws and bailouts get passed which only make things worse.
The Second Law always wins. Always. (Score:2, Interesting)
Paul is an isolationist, that's the problem.
Saying "Let's stop invading random countries and trying to run the world" is not isolationism. It's being a good neighbor. You ever live next to someone who's poking their nose into your business all the time, criticizing everything you do, threatening to call the police because you didn't shovel the snow properly, etc.? Everyone hates those people. Yet somehow, some people seem to think it's good foreign policy.
One of the things I like about Ron Paul (and believe me, there's plenty I don't like) is that he believes we need to get our nose out of other people's business.
Pulling out of the UN seems like a bit much to me, especially since almost all the UN ever does is talk and pass powerless resolutions. Like I said, I don't agree with all of RP's ideas.
like trying to recolonize iraq.
Yah, see, that's one of the things RP is against.
Most US military spending is domestic, it's a giant jobs programme. Nothing more. There are more efficient ways to accomplish that, but the net effect is money for US things.
Military operations are a horrible way to boost an economy. They siphon a lot of resources away from building useful long-term infrastructure, and the end up sending a lot of resources overseas to where the battle is. Those resources don't come back. It's like a trade deficit, except with more dead people.
... you're saying you'd be better off without the bailouts that saved a few million jobs and prevented your economy from going into a tailspin ...
It can be argued that we would have been better off letting unhealthy, poorly-run companies which screwed over the entire country die off, yes. Especially since it was largely government meddling which set-up the economic collapse in the first place. The more we prop it up, the harder it will fall.
because oh no, they added to the budget deficit (which, by the way, you mostly owe yourselves
Printing more money without regard to resources is classic inflation. It devalues the currency. Everyone who does it hurts themselves. Everyone who has done it a lot has ruined their economy. See Hyperinflation [wikipedia.org] for plenty of case studies.
Did you live through the US government shuts downs of the 90's?
If we don't stop deficit spending, our economy is going to collapse completely, and those shutdowns will look like a bank holiday in comparison.
You cannot keep spending resources you don't have. This is more than just a law of economics, it's a law of thermodynamics. It is probably the single most fundamental concept in the known universe.
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:4, Interesting)
Being opposed to separation of church and state is progressive? Being anti-science is progressive? Being anti-choice is progressive? Wanting to allow states to destroy free speech and privacy rights is progressive? Publishing racist and homophobic gibberish is progressive?
Paul is not progressive. He's not even libertarian. He's merely anti-federalist -- he's happy to have the states and the aristocracy screw us over, just not the feds. And he also wants to take away the feds power to stop the states from screwing us over.
Yes, he would end federal drug laws -- but would leave state ones in place. A real progressive would operate from understanding that the War on (some) Drugs is a violation of the right of privacy, and work to end it at all levels; but Paul doesn't believe that such a right exists.