2% The Two Percent Company
[ - ]
| Large Type Edition |
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Navigate the Rants




Categories

Special Collections
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
Subscribe to the
2%Co Rants:



Syndicate this site:
ATOM
RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| The Usual Suspects
On Hiatus
Carnivals
Carnival of the Godless
Skeptics' Circle
Tangled Bank

Gone But Not Forgotten
Lost to the Mists of Time
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Archives (Weekly)
% 2016.11.06 » 2016.11.12
% 2009.04.05 » 2009.04.11
% 2009.03.15 » 2009.03.21
% 2009.03.08 » 2009.03.14
% 2009.03.01 » 2009.03.07
% 2009.02.15 » 2009.02.21
% 2009.01.25 » 2009.01.31
% 2009.01.18 » 2009.01.24
% 2009.01.04 » 2009.01.10
% 2008.12.21 » 2008.12.27
% 2008.11.16 » 2008.11.22
% 2008.11.09 » 2008.11.15


Archives (Monthly)
% 2016 November
% 2009 April
% 2009 March
% 2009 February
% 2009 January
% 2008 December
% 2008 November
% 2008 October
% 2008 September
% 2008 July
% 2008 June
% 2008 April
% 2008 January
% 2007 November
% 2007 October
% 2007 August
% 2007 July
% 2007 June
% 2007 May
% 2007 April
% 2007 March
% 2007 February
% 2007 January
% 2006 December
% 2006 November
% 2006 October
% 2006 September
% 2006 August
% 2006 July
% 2006 June
% 2006 May
% 2006 April
% 2006 March
% 2006 February
% 2006 January
% 2005 December
% 2005 November
% 2005 October
% 2005 September
% 2005 August
% 2005 July
% 2005 June
% 2005 May
% 2005 April
% 2005 March
% 2005 February
% 2005 January
% 2004 December
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
« Hypocritical Advice is the Best...Oh, Skip it The RantsAnd Now For Something Completely Different »

And The Rubber Band Played On...
2006.11.14 (Tue) 14:55

Pure absurdity. A hapless traveller using the handle "eastwest" on FlyerTalk related a tale of incoherent and incompetent airport "security," as personified by that wretched hive of scum and villainy, the TSA. eastwest's good-sized rubber-band ball was seized at the security checkpoint; the skillful terrorist-foilers claimed it had something metal in the center (it didn't) and that it was coated in explosive chemicals (more likely just leaked gas or oil from the trunk of eastwest's car).

This had gone on for about 1/2 an hour and I knew the flight was leaving soon. I repeated, "you can have the rubber band ball. I just need to get home, so I need to get going." The LEO said, "you're not going anywhere." At that point, I knew I was in trouble.

He pulled out his pocket-sized flashlight and said, "take off your sunglasses, I think you're on drugs." I said, "what?!" He replied, "I am ordering you to take off your sunglasses." So I did. He shined the light in my eyes, and said, "Yep, you're on something. Anything you need to tell me?" I was incredulous. I said, "Look! I showed you my SIDA badge, I'm in the random drug test pool, I get tested regularly, I don't use drugs. Now or ever." He said, "I don't believe you. Turn around and put your right hand behind your back." He snapped on handcuffs and said I was under arrest for suspicion of being under the influence of a controlled substance.

For nothing more than an affinity for a monotonous hobby, eastwest spent half a day in jail. Sure, he got the royal treatment once they chopped open his rubber-band ball (to reveal no metallic objects) and took a blood sample (to reveal no drugs), but he still had to sit in jail for 12 hours of "observation." Great.

You know, if there were more stories about how effective airport security has been in stopping terrorism (which we agree is a good goal) and/or smuggling (which is only a crime because of the inappropriate and arbitrary contraband laws), and less stories like this one where some poor innocent shmoe gets fucked over by a piggy-eyed plastic badge on a power trip, then maybe we'd admit that Homeland Security has been doing a smashing job.

But we don't live in that world. And in this one, there are far, far more of the latter kind of story than the former.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


— • —
[  Filed under: % Civil Liberties  % Greatest Hits  ]

Comments (22)

Jason Spicer, 2006.11.15 (Wed) 01:46 [Link] »

Remember that hilarious video with George W looking under the furniture for weapons of mass destruction? The TSA is kinda like that. While they're sniffing the crotches of the obviously innocent, anybody with a mind to mayhem would not be hard pressed to circumvent the alleged security.

The really funny thing is how deadly seriously they take their Potemkin jobs. I was going thru security at the San Diego airport recently. A pair of TSA clowns at a table with an array of toiletries and sundries demonstrating three-ounceness for those in line incapable of reading labels actually hassled a woman in lind behind me eating a TCBY yogurt cone. "You'll have to finish that before you get to the scanner or throw it away, ma'am. It's liquid and it's more than three ounces." I thought they were joking at first. She was actually in the process of consuming the thing, and they thought maybe it was dangerous. Or just really cold and delicious and thus a dangerous distraction to the pilots.

When I got to SeaTac, I walked out past the traffic jam of the security line thru the wide, open, and sparsely populated exit guarded by a single TSA agent on a stool. While she wasn't actually dozing, I thought it would be awfully easy for somebody to distract her while 20 or 30 bad guys slipped in. And then it would be all over--TCBY cones everywhere!

The TSA: Dumb enough to think they're protecting a public dumb enough to think they're being protected. It probably says that in Latin on their badges in fine print. It's not like anybody would ever find out.



Akusai, 2006.11.15 (Wed) 05:46 [Link] »

I had a similarly disconserting but far less extreme experience with the TSA back in 2005, before even the liquid silliness.

I was taking a flight out to San Francisco, where I used to live, and was bringing my guitar with me for a little bit of amateur street performance. I put the guitar through the x-ray (I wasn't about to put my fragile baby into the cargo bay), gave them my shoes, wallet, and dignity, and on my way out was stopped by a beady-eyed, balding 40-something a foot shorter than me and half as wide (shoulders here, not waist).

He looked at me snidely and said "Sir, do you have any tools with you?"

"Tools?" I replied. "I don't think so, no."

"Well, sir," said the snide little man, "The x-ray shows tools in one of your bags."

Confused, I thought for a moment, then realized that I had both needle-nosed pliers and a pair of wire-cutters in the front pocket of my guitar bag for emergency string changes. I never thought of them as "tools;" they were simply part of my guitar, same as strings, picks, and tiner, hence my denial.

I apologized, and Mr. Snide ran his beep-wand over me, detecting nothing. Angrily, he tore the pliers and cutters out of my bag and gave me a speech abour security and terrorism and all that jazz. I quietly took it; SF is one of the most beautiful cities in America, and I wasn't about to let this limp-dicked nobody ruin my vacation.

When he was finished, I politely asked "So how do I pick them up? Can I get them on my return? Will they be behind the counter?"

I saw black flames of glee dancing in his dark little eyes as he replied "Sorry, sir, you can't have them back. They've been confiscated."

Mr. Snide had himself some new tools.

After the liquid silliness, I wonder how many security employees got drunk on somebody else's bottle of Italian wine?

I've never understood how any of this is the least bit constitutional. The search itself is invasive and humiliating, completely without probably cause or legal warrant, but to confiscate, without chance of return, a person's private property? It's utterly disgusting.

Next time I fly I'm carrying a pocketful of these babies. Found the link on Penn and Teller's website. Nice little playing-card sized reproductions of the Bill of Rights with the fourth amendment highlighted in red. I don't even mind if they keep them. They need it more than I do.



Infophile, 2006.11.15 (Wed) 09:09 [Link] »

The problem is that by choosing to fly you're tacitly giving them your consent to perform those searches and confiscations. It's a trap, as few people realize this, but it's not unconstitutional.



Akusai, 2006.11.15 (Wed) 18:27 [Link] »

See, I believe it still is. The government does not have the power to say "Well, you can choose other methods of travel, therefore we're justified in treating you like garbage on airplanes." Nowhere do I sign away my rights when I buy a plane ticket. They just assume that it's okay to attach this process to the flight industry. Tacit consent doesn't work. That's like saying that by watching TV you tacitly consent to FCC standards, and so their laws against free speech aren't unconstitutional. The constitution holds 100% of the time, whether the government wants to let it or not.



Akusai, 2006.11.15 (Wed) 19:35 [Link] »

Apologies for the double post; this isn't in the spirit of meanness. I'm simply dissatisfied with my original response to Infophile, as it was made about ten minutes after I woke up, so I'd like to make a clarification.

What the TSA (and Homeland Security) is doing is making a statement like this: "If you, an American citizen, want to do X, you must undergo a humiliating, unconstitutional process," where "X" is any legal, perfectly allowable activity, i.e. flying in a plane, buying a gumball, having a child. It is forced upon us for making what should be a free choice.

Imagine the following situation: Homeland Security passes a law that says "Past this date, if you want to buy a house in American, we will install phone taps and security cameras to watch you, and we will do it without a warrant." The conditional "if statement" doesn't make this unconstitutional activity any more constitutional. It just restricts the application of the unconstitutionality, leaving you other choices. You could rent a house or apartment, buy a motorhome, get a time-share, and you wouldn't be forced to undergo warrantless surveillance.

However, limited applicability doesn't make an unconstitutional action constitutional, either. The fourth amendment is very clear about these things:

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 leaves no room for if statements or limited applicability of unconstitutional actions. Only upon probably cause should a person be subject to searches and seizures of their private property. Not with probably cause or "tacit approval because he wants to fly Northwest."

Say the government passes another law: "In America, it is now illegal to watch TV on Sunday." I have 6 other days on which to watch TV, and hell, there are plenty of other things to do on Sunday, so I don't have to watch TV. But what if I want to watch TV on Sunday? That's the rub. Sure, I could road-trip to my destination, or take a train, but what if I want to fly? We shouldn't be penalized and humiliated for making that choice.

And besides that, limited applicability doesn't hold. The FCC was original deemed constitutional because it only regulated information broadcast over the airwaves. If you wanted nudity and cussing, that's fine, there's cable and satellite TV, and later the internet and satellite radio and all sorts of things. But recently the FCC has been trying to extend its jurisdiction to cover the internet and cable TV and satellite radio and basically all forms of communication. Give them and inch and they'll take a parsec.

This is all moot if someone explicitly waives their rights. In that case, if someone says "Yeah, search me, I'm okay with that," then the TSA can do whatever it wants. But what about all of us who don't explicitly waive our rights? Choosing to fly, when in making that choice we cannot but give up our rights, is not explicit or even tacit agreement. It is coercion, and it is unconstitutional.



Fan-man, 2006.11.15 (Wed) 22:00 [Link] »

Our ridiculous and litigious society requires "special" attention.

I'm a season ticket holder for the Cincinnati Bengals. Last season, most NFL cities began pat downs for all people entering stadiums across the league, including here in Cincinnati. A few strongly challenged what they perceived to be violations of their constitutional rights. The Bengal's organization and their landlord (Hamilton County) then got rid of the pre-game pat downs to avoid the inevitable and impending legals issues. But if or when someone ever sneaks a bomb into the stadium and blows a few sections to fuck and back, guess who's getting sued? Everything's about money. Same goes for airlines, airports etc. etc. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but get used to it. The lobby of the Empire State Building in New York is like a maximum security prison. Same goes for the Statue of Liberty, the Sears Tower in Chicago and just about any Cincinnati public school. The constitution is always getting drubbed for the safety of the very people it's in place to protect.

Alright.... let me have it.....



Jason Spicer, 2006.11.16 (Thu) 02:59 [Link] »

I agree that the Constitution has been taking a beating of late, and not least in the Fourth Amendment, the vulnerable kidney of the document. But at the risk of sounding like I'm defending the paranoid right, I would like to point out that the actual expansion joint in the Fourth Amendment is the word "unreasonable". Searches or seizures without warrant are constitutional if they are "reasonable".

Of course, this begs the question of what is reasonable, and the answer seems to be whatever the courts more or less agree on at a given point in history. By courts, I mean juries, judges, appellate panels, etc, in aggregate. In practice, this comes down to precedent and a sort of imaginary composite reasonable person that judges and juries try to keep in mind when deciding cases.

Clearly, what's reasonable differs from person to person, especially in the fuzzy middle area. Most people agree that pitchforking babies for fun is unreasonable, but the distinction is less clear when it comes to say, driving five miles per hour over the posted speed limit.

And unfortunately, personal security, particularly vis a vis fiery plane crashes, is an issue on which people rather quickly abandon reasonableness. In short, if you brought suit against the TSA for violating your Fourth Amendment rights, you might be hard pressed to seat a jury that would vote their ideals instead of their fears. At which point, you could well assert that in a climate of (largely manufactured) fear, most people are unreasonable. But that doesn't mean you get your pliers back.



Akusai, 2006.11.16 (Thu) 05:36 [Link] »

While I agree that these policies are views as reasonable thanks to fear of fiery death by terrorism, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that, even given that, most people would rather just get on the fucking plane.

I'd like to see an experiement: two lines to get on the plane. One with the current humiliating security restrictions, and one with little to no restriction; perhaps just the x-ray and metal detector like the years before shoe bombers and evil hair gel, perhaps even less. See how many people take the line that asks them to take off their shoes and be subject to probing questions and possible arrest, and we'll see how many people are really ruled by fear.

Most people, I suspect, just accept it as part of life without really agreeing to it at all, like Fan-man. Given the opportunity to just get on the fucking plane, they'd do it in a heartbeat and not worry too badly about some evil Muslim with a toothpaste bomb in his Nikes.



Infophile, 2006.11.16 (Thu) 20:40 [Link] »
I'd like to see an experiement: two lines to get on the plane. One with the current humiliating security restrictions, and one with little to no restriction; perhaps just the x-ray and metal detector like the years before shoe bombers and evil hair gel, perhaps even less. See how many people take the line that asks them to take off their shoes and be subject to probing questions and possible arrest, and we'll see how many people are really ruled by fear.

You do realize this completely removes the point of having security at all, right? The only reason people put up with it is that they know that terrorists have to as well. Imagine this scenario (and so it makes sense, imagine the President actually has a brain and is fluent in English):

President: Well, we've performed a thorough investigation into the matter, and we've found out how the terrorist bypassed security and got onto the plane: He used the no-security line.

Media: But, what about all the people who put up with searches who died on that plane?

President: Their patriotism is appreciated. Unfortunately, the fact that they put up with the security had no bearing on the fact that the terrorist didn't, and then boarded the same plane.

Media: Well, why wasn't he forced to go through security?

President: Because some idiot out there thought it would be an interesting experiment to see how many people would actually go through security if they had the option.



Akusai, 2006.11.16 (Thu) 21:09 [Link] »

Yes, I understand that. I think it's obvious that I don't really care about the needs of security, as the actual threat by terrorists is so minuscule as to be nonexistent. I'd rather be treated like a human being than be "safe from terror." I do, however, understand that I am in a considerable minority as regards my rather extreme views on the subject.

Even given a larger threat, though, the current reactionary measures are absurd. Treating everybody like a potential criminal just because some people might be just isn't right.

That being said, I know and completely understand that these things are here to stay, at least for the time being, and probably for a lot longer than that, and next time I fly, I'll be more conscientious about what I carry on. I just don't like any of it one bit.



The Two Percent Company, 2006.11.16 (Thu) 21:10 [Link] »

As a note, we don't think that Akusai was proposing that we literally attempt this "two line" experiment. Rather, we read it as a way to make the point that most people would choose convenience and lack of harassment over the potential safety of security checks that may or may not be effective. We believe that the point can certainly be debated, but we tend to doubt that Akusai meant it to be taken literally.

In our opinion, the short answer is that you're all correct. Security procedures are, by nature, a delicate balancing act between protecting our civil liberties on one hand and ensuring our safety on the other. The problem with the current system is twofold.

First, some of the measures being taken go too far. They sacrifice some of our freedom without a good reason for doing so. No tweezers or nail clippers on the plane? Come on, every reasonable person knows that's patently absurd. There's no logic in that policy at all. Who the hell could take over a plane with a pair of tweezers? And while denying a person the right to carry these items may seem trivial, it's the principle of what it represents — a useless restriction of freedom for no logical reason — that matters, here. Therefore, we find it unacceptable. But take the liquid restrictions we're going through now. Instead of banning the liquids outright, they implemented a policy to limit the capacity of containers, and mandated that the containers be carried in clear plastic bags. To us, this is acceptable — not ideal, but acceptable — because the restriction is both fairly inconsequential and logical.

Second — and this is the part that makes this shit so hard to swallow — the security in place today has been shown to be incredibly ineffective. Even if we can all agree that a threat exists, and that heightened security is warranted, the fact that our current security isn't working very well renders any argument in its support quite moot. For example, if the liquid restriction that we just nodded at above still results in three out of four explosive liquids being allowed onto planes, suddenly the extra time and effort involved in this check are not worthwhile at all.

And while choosing to fly does mean that we have given our applied consent to undergo these security measures, it doesn't follow that they are legal and constitutional. Yes, from a common sense perspective, the purchase of the ticket does come with the realization and acceptance that we will have to shuffle barefoot through a checkpoint, drain our laptop battery to show them it's not a bomb, and scramble like a lunatic on the other side to gather up our stuff, put our shoes on, and get to the gate; but giving consent — either implicitly or explicitly — does not mean that an illegal act can then legally take place. In general, consent does not trump the fact that something is illegal, and the person who is searched can still take legal action, if they desire. Your landlord could easily put a clause in your lease allowing him to break into your apartment and take whatever he likes; you could even sign the lease, thus providing your explicit consent to its terms; but you would still be able to press charges if he actually broke the law by breaking in and stealing your stuff. Your signature on the lease wouldn't protect him.

Look, we're not among the people who decry any form of security as a violation of our constitutional rights. We freely admit that security checks, in the abstract, are there to protect us all. But the current mix of completely illogical security measures coupled with the demonstrable failures of the system, and the abuses of this system that we've read about and experienced ourselves (that was a damn fine — and bone-dry empty — Zippo, you damn TSA whore), make it clear to us that the current system just isn't working.



Jason Spicer, 2006.11.16 (Thu) 21:15 [Link] »

I would happily jettison the meaningless "security" operations of the TSA so I could just get on the plane. Many people would. The better experiment would be to set up a competing airline that didn't bother with the TSA nonsense, and see whether it thrived or foundered.

In fact, I'm surprised that precisely this, or some high-falutin' variant of it has not already occurred. I haven't researched it, but how expensive can it be to charter flights on bizjets? I'm thinking all those people who can afford $10-15K first class tickets could form an air-travel "club" (best not call it an airline, or the TSA might insist on inspections) with some regular routes or some kind of ride-sharing web site to put together ad hoc itineraries. Only pre-vetted members could fly, fees would be steep, and no stinking security. Don't even bother with the terminal, just have your limo drop you off outside the hangar at the end of the runway.

And before you accuse me of elitism, the actual goal of this plan is to force the airlines to rethink security after all their first-class passengers bail on them, taking most of the airlines' profitability with them.



Akusai, 2006.11.16 (Thu) 21:36 [Link] »

Thanks to the Two Percenters for putting it all in perspective.

For the record, it was indeed more of a thought experiment than anything. Any actual attempt to do that would, by necessity require that nobody actually boards the planes; it would merely be a setup to test the hypothesis that people really don't care that much about security. Of course, forcing people through either procedure with no actual flight, well, that's kind of unethical and so the whole thing couldn't really ever happen anyway.

If, in my anger, I seemed to want a 100% ban on all security, I apologize. I never had a problem with pre-9/11 airport security. It's only this modern nonsense that bugs me. Yes, it would be very nice if there wasn't any at all, but that's not gonna happen, and an x-ray machine and metal detector don't really put anybody out.

Confiscating private property, however (be it pliers, Zippo, or a rubber band ball), does. If they're going to do that, they least they could do is check it somewhere and make sure we get it back upon our return. Instead they essentially steal things from innocent American citizens. As the original post shows, TSA officials are by no means above gross abuses of power.

And Jason, if I ever make a few hundred grand, I'll drop you a line and we can try that out.



Infophile, 2006.11.16 (Thu) 23:18 [Link] »

Akusai: A poll might actually work to get an idea of how people feel about that. Simply poll a large sample on rather they would choose to go on an airline with no security hassles but a risk of terrorism, or one with security hassles and a reduced risk. No reason to set up an experiment.

Frankly, I guess I'm just a bit more cynical about the human race than you guys. With no security, I believe that it's just a matter of time before someone takes advantage of it. The security we have works as a good bluff at the least; if people knew there was none and they had to do nothing to get around it, I suspect a lot more would make the attempt.

That being said, I think, as 2% Co. said, what we should really be doing is focusing on effective security. A ton of the things they're doing make no sense, and they aren't even doing some logical things that would help. Here are two suggestions off the top of my head:

1. Increase the sensitivity of the metal detectors. I've heard of people who have brought Exacto knives with them onto planes, and the American metal detectors rarely catch them. The Canadian detectors, on the other hand, almost always do. Tweezers may not be an effective means of taking over a plane, but an Exacto knife to the carotid is quite dangerous.

2. Stop serving cans of pop on planes. Often they open them up for the passenger so they can't be used as a blunt object, but they miss another use. Once emptied, you can fold a can back and forth a couple times, then tear it apart using nothing but your bare hands. The resulting edge from this is quite sharp, and could also be quite threatening.

But hey, at least we aren't executing terrorists by means of an overly complicated, unnecessarily slow-moving, easily escapable trap monitored by a single inept guard... yet.



Akusai, 2006.11.16 (Thu) 23:36 [Link] »

Who knows? There may be overly elaborate interrogation techniques under development by the US Government that involve sharks, laser beams, and slow-moving dipping mechanisms.

And, you know, I thought of the poll idea, too, not too longer after I posted. Damn hindsight.

Far as metal detectors go, I agree. A metal detector, when powerful enough, is a great way to find many types of dangerous objects.

I don't think I'm too much less cynical than you. I'm just willing to live with the risk.



Glintir, 2006.11.17 (Fri) 13:27 [Link] »

Akusai and Infophile: I think you guys have overlooked something fairly fundamental in your discussions of Exacto kinves and killer pop cans. While you are correct that a sharp object can hurt someone, a sharp object can no longer take over a plane.

And this has nothing to do with the new security measures or TSA. It has to do with two things. One, the only effective new security measure, tougher cabin doors. Two, passenger awareness. Even if TSA didn't exist, and the old system were in place, and you got a freakin' machete on board, the door isn't doing to be easy to knock down, the pilots aren't going to open it, and the passengers WILL kill you. If letting you bang on that door means we all die, then we'll get over our primal fear of being hacked to bits, and bring you down.

The only new measures that were really needed, if you take the longer view, were better bomb detection, better in plane security, and Actually DOING the job of looking for weapons. 1 out of 3 aint' bad.\

oh wait....



Jason Spicer, 2006.11.22 (Wed) 13:35 [Link] »

Now that Infophile mentions it, the TSA is precisely "an overly complicated, unnecessarily slow-moving, easily escapable trap monitored by a single inept guard." I knew there was something comically familiar about airport security. So that's why they want to confiscate our toothbrushes and floss.

Glintir's post is right on target. Now that cabin doors are reinforced and passenger awareness has been raised, the threat of a 9/11-style attack is essentially nonexistent. Keep in mind that well-trained martial artists would not have needed any weapons at all to carry out the 9/11 attacks.



dikkii, 2006.11.22 (Wed) 16:49 [Link] »

You're all right.

Might I just add, that airport security appears to be largely for show.

The London and Madrid bombings were on their subway systems - I don't see any even partially serious attempts to extend this type of security to suburban rail lines.



constanze, 2006.11.26 (Sun) 15:07 [Link] »

After reading the rant and the comments (though not the original article, sorry), one thing is puzzling me, and two are completly surprising me:

1. What is a rubber band ball, and to what hobby does it relate?

2. If the TSA - is that the airport security, or the authority that oversees them? - is only responsible for security (and since they aren't cops, right?), why are they interested in drugs??
Yes, I can undertand that possesion and/or smuggling of drugs is illegal, so police would arrest these persons, but being under the influence for a traveller? He isn't going to drive for the next several hours - the pilots will fly the plane -, so why does it matter? Where's the law that it's illegal to be on drugs in your spare time?

3. How in the heck can security get away with confiscating completly legal items, just because they don't meet the security guidelines?? I could understand keeping them (as others have said, at the counter till return), or allowing the traveller to mail them, or put them in the hold-lugage, but keeping them??
How come the ACLU hasn't made a big stinking case out of this?



The Two Percent Company, 2006.11.26 (Sun) 18:54 [Link] »

Sorry about that, constanze — a rubber-band ball is, quite simply, a ball made of a multitude of rubber bands, wrapped around one another, usually with a solid center (like a marble or a coin) to make it easier to get it started. The elastic properties of the rubber bands make for a very nice and round ball, and the things bounce like nobody's business.

The TSA is a federal outfit, part of the Homeland Security organization that was set up after September 11, 2001. They oversee and organize the security for all forms of transportation in the United States, from highways and railroads to sea- and airports. Most Americans only notice their presence at airports, where they're kind of hard to overlook.

Why the TSA — set up to maintain security — should give a damn about drugs is a good question, but the fact remains that, no matter how stupid it is, it is illegal in this country to be under the influence of any criminalized substances. Presumably the TSA has some kind of mandate to enforce the law as well as security measures. We feel that's rather a waste of their time, but we feel that way about most of what TSA agents are doing.

As for the permanent confiscation, you're damn right the ACLU should be looking into this. The TSA supposedly has some regulations that account for this — allowing operatives to indiscriminately and permanently confiscate any items for any reason (or, more accurately, no reason). Of course, if that doesn't trample all over the Fourth Amendment, we don't know what does.



constanze, 2006.11.27 (Mon) 16:19 [Link] »

Thanks for your quick answer.

That explanation about the rubber band ball still doesn't quite explain to me why adult people would play with it (if it bounces crazily, as you wrote) :-) As a kid, I had a small ball (about the size of a marble, or triple that size for the larger ones), called "Flummy", made completly from rubber, that bounced everywhere, too, but I know how annoyed people got when it bounced away...

but the fact remains that, no matter how stupid it is, it is illegal in this country to be under the influence of any criminalized substances.

Oh, I didn't know that being under the influence was also a crime, I thought only sale and posession was.

Presumably the TSA has some kind of mandate to enforce the law as well as security measures.

You mean, you personally don't know, or that no law clearly outlines how far the mandate of the TSA goes??



The Two Percent Company, 2006.12.01 (Fri) 13:07 [Link] »

No, you're absolutely correct, constanze. We were somewhat loose in our wording, and as a result, our actual statement was just wrong. It is not illegal to be under the influence of illegal drugs in most cases. A crime is only committed via possession (with or without intent to distribute), and in some cases by production (as we've discussed with regard to the production of methamphetamine, which, by the way, also criminalizes the purchase of the legal ingredients of methamphetamine, but that's another Rant). Of course, this doesn't necessarily prevent the police from using other laws to detain or arrest you, if possible.

Regarding the TSA, you can check out their official mission statement, look into their screening guidelines, peruse the current list of banned items, and see some information on what they do, in their own words. These links, and in particular that last one, made three things clear to us:

  • The banned item list is not definitive, and it is up to the security people on duty to decide whether to allow any given item on board. In other words, they can make any arbitrary decision at their discretion, and their word is apparently final.
  • It is illegal to bring a prohibited item to the checkpoint, even by mistake. Combine this little gem with the point above, and it seems pretty easy for anyone to bring a "prohibited item" to the checkpoint given that the list can include anything the security guard decides on the spot, whether it's on the list or not.
  • If you do bring a prohibited item to the checkpoint, it is entirely up to the security person on duty to decide what to do with you, including: consulting with the airlines for help to put the prohibited item in checked baggage, taking the item away from the screening checkpoint, making other arrangements for the item such as taking it to your car, or having you abandon the item at the checkpoint. It is their call, and their call alone. They may also decide to arrest you, even if all you did was accidentally bring a lighter with no fuel to the checkpoint (check the list — lighters are prohibited, even without fuel).

The TSA web site also states that it is their function to prevent terrorism or other "criminal activity." So, that's their justification for going beyond preventing terrorism and into pretty much anything they feel like, if it's illegal in any way.

Of course, this isn't a law that we're citing, it's the TSA's own statement about what they do. We haven't specifically looked into the TSA's charter to see if what they say is true, but we have no reason to doubt it.

Are the policies that they have stated above downright illegal? As far as we're concerned, yes. To us, they are a clear violation of our constitutional rights, on many levels. The fact that a security guard can decide to confiscate our personal property and to arrest us just for bringing a completely harmless un-fueled lighter (for example) to the security checkpoint is outright ridiculous.

In addition, we've never been given any options for prohibited items other than confiscation with no chance of return. The fact that other options exist but are seemingly never even offered is infuriating.

All of this would be slightly more palatable if it weren't for the fact that the security screening is completely and hopelessly ineffective. Forget the fact that media outfits keep sneaking mock "bombs" on planes to demonstrate the lack of security, and set aside the official reports which have consistently shown that the security is not working — one of our friends regularly brings his Swiss Army knife on the plane with him every time he flies. No, he's not about to take over the plane with the three-inch blade or the corkscrew, but the fact that he can get it on board every single time rather puts a lie to the whole laughable security rigamarole in the first place, doesn't it?




— • —

|
[ - ]


Terms of Use — • — Privacy Policy — • — FAQ
[ - ]
| Protecting our Civil Liberties
ACLU
EFF: Support Bloggers' Rights!
Individual-i

Bullshit Busters
JREFSkeptic's Dictionary
QuackwatchSnopes.com
SymantecMcAfee
SophosSnopes.com

|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
Buy 2%Co Products
2%Co Stores


Visit the 2%Co Wish List
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Where can you find 2%Co?

Site MeterGlobe of Blogs
Atheism OnlineThe Truth Laid Bear
BlogwiseBlogarama
BlogsharesTechnorati

2%Co Search Rankings

Link to our Rants
2%Co Rants


Link to our Allison DuBois: Debunked! collection
Allison DuBois: Debunked! (2%Co)


The 2%Co Rants powered by
MovableType
|
[ - ]