
Problems with the TSA - grief
http://saizai.com/tsa
======
javert
My mother can't travel by plane, because she has aphasia (can't speak) and a
leg brace, due to her stroke.

If I go through the airport with her, there is no guarantee the agents will
let me stay with her and explain the situation. She can't remove the leg brace
on her own for them to make sure it's not a weapon, and TSA agents can't do it
properly.

So, basically, taking her to the airport is a recipe for having her verbally
abused (treated like a mentally handicapped or non-cooperative person), and
then physically abused (TSA agents going under her clothes to determine that
she's just wearing a leg brace).

Maybe there's some special procedure for dealing with this, but it's easier to
just not travel than risk it.

The TSA is a direct, overt violation of the 4th amendment (search and
seizure). Thus, the US federal government is not legitimate under the US
Constitution. (No, I am not advocating rebellion, violent or otherwise.)

If we simply let the airlines handle their own security, which is not a
violation of the 4th amendment, none of this would be an issue. Moreover, it
would make air travel and security screening a voluntary relationship between
consenting parties (travellers and airlines), instead of a coercive
relationship between two consenting parties and government agents.

~~~
anigbrowl
_The TSA is a direct, overt violation of the 4th amendment (search and
seizure). Thus, the US federal government is not legitimate under the US
Constitution._

Don't be so fucking stupid. Apart from the obvious argument that flying is a
privilege and not a right, and that you don't need to fly (however impractical
this is), even if you were right on the 4th amendment argument it doesn't mean
'the US federal government is not legitimate.' That's just magical thinking.
Please, do yourself a favor and read up on the concept of severability. I'm
sorry to be so blunt but when you make absurd claims like that then you just
chuck your entire argument into the toilet and pointlessly marginalize
yourself.

Now what _would_ be worth exploring is a constitutional challenge to the TSA
under the equal protection clause because of your mother's disability. But
declaring the entire government illegitimate? Don't you think that with so
many lawyers in the US and almost 12 years since the TSA was created, if your
idea held any water that it would have been the subject of a major legal
battle by now?

~~~
coin
Here we go again, another "flying is a privilege" argument.

Flying is a right: " A citizen of the United States has a public right of
transit through the navigable airspace." From
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40103>

I choose to exercise that right by hiring air travel with an airline.

Airspace is a public resource that belongs to everyone.

~~~
bisrig
I think you are confusing the right to public transit with the right to
transit with any commercial carrier through any engagement of your choosing...

Which is unfortunate, because I agree with your point but I don't think the
law backs you up here.

~~~
trhtrsh
So, I have a right to fly, and American Airlines has a right to fly, but the
two of together lose that right?

------
DannyBee
I was with him until I watched the actual video, where he basically comes off
like a guy deliberately looking for a fight who gets one. He tries to pull the
"i don't have to explain why it's a medically necessary liquid, you fuckers
should screen it".

All they did was ask why it was medically necessary, which is reasonable, in
order to prevent people from abusing the policy.

His citation that the special needs memo says things like "a doctors note" are
recommended, not required, doesn't say anything to the contrary. Nowhere in
the memo does it say "you will not be asked to explain why it's medically
necessary", and in fact, the reason they probably recommend doctors notes/etc,
is to avoid having to repeat a verbal explanation 100x over.

Realistically, if he challenges this in court, he's likely to end up making
bad law.

People don't like to hear that non-sympathetic plaintiffs and bad actors often
cause bad law to be made, but it's reality. Judges aren't automatons, and the
law isn't that rigid in most cases (which is yet another thing engineers/etc
don't like to hear).

He seems to act like fourth amendment law is not open to interpretation, or
that fourth amendment law has not changed over time (in fact, to his
detriment, since there are a lot more exceptions related to border searches
and searches used to ensure security than their used to be). By doing this he
misses the one mildly likely result: _He will be the cause of a new exception
to the 4th amendment_.

~~~
iandanforth
I'm not sure what video you watched. Here's a guy who, to the extent of his
non-lawyer knowledge, stands up for his rights in the face of bureaucratic
harassment. He doesn't yell, scream, or cry, he just insists on people
following their own rules, not having his possessions taken, and being treated
like a citizen whose rights should be respected.

The above comment implies that it is reasonable for TSA contractors to inquire
about medical conditions. That is a huge grant of personal information no one
should have to make. The above comment also makes the assumption that instead
of authority proving it has a need to restrict rights, individuals must prove
they deserve freedoms. It is that reversal of attitudes that scares me more
than anything.

~~~
ricardobeat
If you ignore the fact that the guy was trying to board with 2 liters of
liquid, when the limit is 100ml, then yes. Imagine he was trying to board with
a 2kg pack of sugar instead. Just saying it is 'medical' is not enough,
otherwise anything would go through just by saying the magic word.

From the agent's perspective, some guy with a camera showed up with 2L of
juice, clearly not allowed, and didn't want to give any further explanation.
What should he do?

~~~
erikpukinskis
According to his blog post, there is no limit on volume. I don't know where
you're getting this 100ml number.

~~~
ricardobeat
There is no volume limit for medication. The issue here is that in his case
store-bought juice is his 'medicine'.

~~~
silencio
My father travels with a bottle of juice/soda regularly because it is a
reliable, known, and fast way of raising his blood sugar when it gets too low,
and it is far more palatable than non-liquid methods of doing so. He has never
been hassled when it is explained to a TSA agent (and he has a doctor's note
too). Just because it's not prescribed or regulated doesn't mean it can't be
medically necessary.

Not to mention I have personally traveled with all kinds of things including
Costco-sized bottles of contact lens solution and gigantic aerosol cans... it
is what it is and with screening I don't see why TSA can't let people through
with it.

~~~
gambiting
My question is(I honestly don't know) - do you not get shops behind the
security screening like any country in the EU does? I don't bring anything to
drink with me, but immediately after going through security I go to the
nearest duty-free shop in the departure lounge and just buy a bottle of juice
or whatever. Problem solved.

~~~
saraid216
The prices are generally higher back there, for what I hope are obvious
reasons.

------
ShabbyDoo
I have a prosthetic leg and travel weekly. Apparently, the TSA's official
policy is (or at least was) that, if asked my me if I am allowed to remove my
leg and place it on the x-ray conveyor belt, they are to tell me doing so is
forbidden. However, if I simply do so, they are not to stop me. I presume the
theory to be that travelers might somehow mis-understand and create a PR
disaster by claiming that an amputee was forced to remove his leg.

If I leave my leg on and walk through the metal detector, I must wait around
until a male agent is available to swab me, check for explosive residue, and
determine that I am not carrying a weapon. It's much more efficient to take
the leg off and waddle on my knees through the metal detector.

Most of the TSA agents know me at this point, but occasionally a new person
will be caught off guard. Usually, they are speechless in fear of breaking two
seemingly conflicting rules: (1) don't offend, humiliate, etc. and (2) don't
allow passengers to do stuff they aren't supposed to do. I see some panicked
motioning to a supervisor and hear, "Oh, he comes through here all the time!
...Yes, it's allowed." Occasionally, a new agent will tell me, "You can't do
that, sir!" When I reply that I've done so well over a hundred times in the
past couple years, they defer to a supervisor who informs them of my "rights."
[Quotes to convey the absurdity of the situation, of course.]

It is because of my experiences in hearing TSA agents make-up a rule out of
thin air that I do not doubt the author of the blog posting. Interestingly, I
suspect that my notoriety actually has lead to less scrutiny over time -- the
frequency at which my carry-ons are hand inspected has decreased over time.

~~~
trust-me
"Apparently, the TSA's official policy is (or at least was) that, if asked my
me if I am allowed to remove my leg and place it on the x-ray conveyor belt,
they are to tell me doing so is forbidden. However, if I simply do so, they
are not to stop me. I presume the theory to be that travelers might somehow
mis-understand and create a PR disaster by claiming that an amputee was forced
to remove his leg."

Wow, I was reading a few books on USSR lately and this is exactly how the
soviet low enforcement functioned. It's very hard for servicemen to find
balance between common sense and social traditions on one side and the madness
of totalitarian authority.

------
w1ntermute
We complain about the TSA on here all the time, but it's important to remember
that _the average American sees absolutely nothing wrong with what the TSA
does. They genuinely and wholeheartedly believe that the TSA is helping to
make the skies safer for Americans, and that it is doing so without violating
any civil liberties._ The idea that "if you have nothing to hide, why do you
care if the authorities search you?" is a widely held belief.

If we are to dismantle the TSA from its core (rather than just poke holes in
it every now and then for specific grievances), public education is the first
step, not litigation.

~~~
rdtsc
Americans (and I am painting with a very wide brush here) I find are very
authoritarian. For all the propaganda about freedom, independence, personal
rights and property, they are very willing to support authority, very
obedient, and most of all would not lift a finger to protect or step up if
they see authority overstepping its bounds.

As a bit of a background, I grew in a former communist dictatorship so I am
familiar a bit with oppression, keeping your mouth shut, not saying the wrong
thing and listening to authority. That is why I have a smell test and a
perspective to compare between.

Anyone think I am off the mark completely? Obviously in this forum most people
aren't but am I completely off the mark in respect to the average Joe Sixpack?
What is the reason for that? Kids do learn in schools about fighting for
independence from England, about Founding Fathers, etc etc. so where does
blind submission to authority come from?

~~~
_delirium
I think it's vaguely true in an absolute sense, but I haven't lived anywhere
else where people are _less_ submissive to authority, except in countries
which have obviously corrupt governments. It seems like a general feature of
first-world countries. I live in Denmark now, and if anything people defer to
the authorities here even more than in the US.

I have some friends in Greece who don't trust the authorities, but it had to
get to a pretty bad state there for that to happen (e.g., infiltration of the
police by far-right organizations).

~~~
jennyjenjen
I can understand that in some Nordic countries where there is a little more
civic involvement and participation in government all around. They have a
multi-party system and the population trusts the government a lot more - not
because they are sheep, but because the government is highly transparent and
cooperation between parties is encouraged. People feel well-represented there
and in Sweden, from my observations.

------
rdtsc
I have a speech impediment. Sometimes, especially when I am tired or upset I
can't talk to save my life. I have in the past written note cards to hand out
and I carry a notepad and a pen with me. I had not idea they would refuse
someone to use them. Well, I guess I should say I am not surprised. To be
politically incorrect (insensitive) a good number of TSA employees don't seem
to be very bright.

I hope your case is successful. Over the years TSA has caused nothing but
pain, waste, and abuse without catching a single terrorist red-handed with a
bomb.

~~~
victorh
Of course not; if they trained TSA agents beyond having a simple state machine
there wouldn't be so much money left to buy Rapiscan machines. I highly doubt
being assholes is due to anything but poor training and their salaries are
probably too low for them to really want to put any effort into anything. I'd
remove the machines and give them higher wages and better training if I had
any say in the matter.

~~~
Samuel_Michon
According to a former TSA screener: _“Did you know you don’t need a high-
school diploma or GED to work as a security screener? [...]

[Most screeners] are only there for the paycheck and generous benefits.
Screeners start at $15 per hour, and there is tons of overtime — mainly
because they are filling in for the many screeners who don’t bother coming to
work. For every 40 hours you work, you receive four hours of vacation and four
hours of sick time.

One screener didn’t come to work for four weeks. When he finally reappeared,
he asked for another week off. The answer was no. So what did this brainiac
decide to do? He took another week off — and didn’t get terminated. People
have been caught falling asleep on the job. They get written up, it’s put in
their file, and that’s it.

New hires see how bad it is working there, and, believe it or not, TSA does
manage to hire some pretty decent people. They just don’t last because they
can get a normal job. It’s the people who’ve been there a good number of years
who could never find employment elsewhere. When you have a real job, it
usually means you have to actually work and think, which a lot of them have a
hard time doing.”_

[http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/confessions_of_tsa_agent_...](http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/confessions_of_tsa_agent_we_re_bunch_OhxHeGd0RR9UVGzfypjnLO)

------
tokenadult
I've been flying since the 1960s, and internationally since the early 1980s.
I've written about this general issue (crazy TSA rules that don't appear
actually to make any of us safer) for years now on Hacker News.

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5216204>

Here's the tl;dr version: It would be better to go back to the "old days" when
we could bring all kinds of unlikely things with us onto airliners. The best
way to keep the public safe is not to inconvenience air travelers but to
relentlessly pursue and kill leaders of terrorist networks who try to make
flying dangerous and frightening rather than safe and routine. Exercise your
rights by not letting terrorists change your lifestyle, and ask your elected
officials to ease up on needless inconvenience for air travelers. (Please
don't complain if this is brief and doesn't cover all the details; I linked to
the long version.)

Best wishes to all of you for safe and dignified travel by the means of your
choice.

------
DigitalSea
I get the guy was standing up for his rights and all, and I am all for human
rights (especially those with disabilities) but you have to admit the guy was
baiting them quite a bit. I felt as though he was intentionally trying to take
it as far as possible. The guy was trying to take a 2 liter bottle onto the
plane, I understand he needed it, but where was he going that required a 2
liter bottle of Aloe Vera juice? If it's the sugar, could he not have sufficed
with sugar mixed with water or perhaps some kind of confectionery on the plane
to tie him over?

Taking a 2 liter bottle onto the plane of store bought juice is silly no
matter which way you look at it. If it were a prescribed liquid, they would
have let him on no questions asked. But as far as the TSA or "their
representatives" know, he's just some guy with a bottle of juice and camera. I
know someone suffering as equally medically and they don't try and carry 2
liter bottles of juice onto planes, they always have backup sugar pills for
when they need them and if he was nice and made his needs known to flight
staff, they would have been more than accommodating to his needs on the plane
opposed to risking a potential PR storm if there were to be an in-air medical
emergency.

~~~
Vivtek
<i>If it were a prescribed liquid, they would have let him on no questions
asked.</i>

This is incompatible with juice just being silly - unless they test both the
prescribed liquid and the juice for absence of explosives, they have no way of
knowing that the liquid in a prescription bottle is in fact a prescribed
liquid.

Do you think terrorists just wouldn't think of labeling their mythical liquid
explosives? Or do you implicitly believe that defying authority is what is
"silly"?

------
coudron
Wow. Was thinking Sai had a logical complaint until I watched the video of him
interacting with the TSA (or whatever company does security in SFO).

It's clear by the video, he was trying to troll TSA rather than get through
security with his medical liquids.

He can't expect to not justify and explain why his liquids are considered
medical. Otherwise, every person who paid $4.50 for a soda before security
would just pull the "It's medical! You can't ask questions card"

~~~
zobzu
I think the issue is just that the TSA policy is not "good enough"

And that's exactly how people see americans, by the way. Some random dudes try
to piss of a bunch of people, and maybe make some money in court, because a
document, law, whatever didn't specify something that was common sense.

Then you end up with ridiculously long documents that attempt to cover every
single tiny case - and of course, generally taking the road "against" the
consumer, customer, whatever - because it's _safer_.

So yeah. By watching the video, the guy does appear as a douche. He should
just ask TSA to make their papers clearer about the policy. He could also
split his liquids into smaller liquids or just bring the doctor note. But
nooope.. let's piss off TSA to "make a point". Except, it's not a very good
point.

\--

For the record I travel through the US every now and then, and I bring
sensitive items, that always get scanned, but always go through. I sometimes
even get this little "TSA inspected this bag" from checked-in luggage due to
the contents.

Never had any issue. But such behavior, I fear, actually work toward
restricting all items I travel with, and thus, effectively forbidding me
travel with those in the future.

~~~
saraid216
> He could also split his liquids into smaller liquids

This isn't actually true, and you'd see that if you watched the video all the
way through. Part of the treatment is the _weight_ of the liquid container.

------
cj
I really don't like most of the TSA's procedures either, but watching the
hidden camera video, it seems like the OP went in to the situation expecting
to have an issue with the TSA. If you approach the TSA adversarially, it's
logical that they'd respond unpleasantly.

OP: _In a patronizing tone_ : "You're required to accept it, and to screen it.
You have the means available to screen it, namely xray and explosive trace
detection"

TSA: "Sir, where are you going?"

OP: "That's none of your business"

~~~
Samuel_Michon
_“If you approach the TSA adversarially, it's logical that they'd respond
unpleasantly.”_

Why? Aren't they trained to deal with all kinds of people and types of
behavior, like anyone in a customer facing profession? If I go to an Apple
Store to buy a product while I'm in a bad mood and don't feel up for chit-
chat, the sales rep isn't going to make me play nice.

Also, I think Sai was very courteous and patient, given the situation. He
obviously knew that if he had actually raised his voice or made a scene, he'd
be giving them an excuse not to cooperate. Nonetheless, in the video one of
the TSA agents told him to calm down while he was clearly quite calm. That's
the kind of shenanigans we see again and again from the TSA.

~~~
cj
If a cop stops you on the street because he thinks you look suspicious, how do
you respond?

1) "It's none of your business. I'm going to start recording you to make sure
you handle this situation legally"

2) "I'm just rolling a cigarette. Don't worry it's not weed!"

Although most people don't like answering to authority, especially when they
aren't required to, option #2 is the path of least resistance. That said, I do
respect people like the OP who take the first approach and challenge
authority.

~~~
nandemo
Here's a slightly different example that's still hopefully in the spirit of
yours.

You're walking in a busy area and a pair of cops stops you and asks you to
show your ID and the contents of your bag.

1) Show the ID (which you're required to in this country, if you're a non-
citizen), but not the contents of your bag. 1a) Optionally, ask the
policemen's ID and write down their names.

2) Show both the ID and the contents of your bag.

This happened to me a while ago, in Tokyo. Apparently most people do #2. The
cops were very surprised that I chose option #1a. It took 15 minutes for them
to give up. Apparently most people either don't know that cops cannot search
you without probable cause, or they know but don't care. I don't think you
need to be particularly courageous to say "no" to a cop, when it's your right
to do so and you live in a place where the law is upheld.

Incidentally, I would never antagonize a TSA person or an US immigrant officer
like that, as I have no idea of what laws (if any) would protect me, as a non-
citizen.

------
xutopia
To those thinking that he's just causing a fuss for no reason. The same could
be said of Rosa Parks. We need people like him to move our rights forward.

------
js2
_On March 1, 2013, San Francisco TSA_

FYI, "Covenant Aviation Security, a private company under contract with the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), provides passenger and baggage
screening at SFO." Per <http://www.flysfo.com/web/page/atsfo/saf-sec/>

~~~
travisp
True, but you can't pin it entirely on Covenant -- If you watch the video, the
Covenant representative who staffs the security checkpoint bring in the TSA
agent for the airport to the checkpoint. The Covenant representative basically
denies any authority to interpret the rules or make a decision other than to
get the TSA agent. The TSA agent appears no better.

------
xenophanes
Lots of good points. But he does state his disability in public on the web, no
problem, while also complaining that he doesn't want to be outed at airports.
I'm unclear on why being outed at airports is so bad if telling the whole
world is ok. If he addressed this apparent contradiction I'd sympathize even
more.

~~~
dthunt
Context is important.

Speech by choice is very different than being unlawfully questioned and to
have your possessions, medical liquid or otherwise, held hostage contingent on
your reply.

~~~
coudron
I think it's safe to say juice is traditionally not considered a medical
liquid. In that situation, he is asking for an exception. It is his
requirement to justify the request that his juice should be considered a
medial liquid. It's unreasonable to say that he shouldn't have to justify its
reclassification as a medical liquid without a few facts and disclosing a few
details of his situation. Otherwise, every person would claim their soda/juice
is a medical liquid and say they don't have answer questions because it is a
medical thing.

~~~
dthunt
I might agree, if juice were a regulated substance, and if people were
required to walk around with documentation about their medical issues.

As far as reasonability - he's correct in noting that the TSA is not entitled
to your medical history. Moreover, TSA screeners are generally not doctors
(some may be), they're not YOUR doctor, and they're certainly not in a
position to decide what is or isn't medically necessary for you.

Does this mean that you should be able to get your juice past security by
claiming to have a medical condition? No.

It means you should be able to do that without having to disclose anything
about your health, and the only remedy that should be available is for the TSA
to screen the liquid if they feel it is necessary to ensure passenger safety.

Is that unfair? Maybe, but so is a ridiculous ban on a liter bottle of safe
substances.

------
peteforde
What I wouldn't do for some of the folks that have accumulated wealth via tech
exits to get together and create a pool of $20-50M to start an organization
that will both lobby to dismantle the TSA and provide education and defence
for those who are bullied in the meantime.

Look at the good that the EFF and Creative Commons have done. It's time for
people to reclaim their freedom of movement.

FWIW, I'm Canadian and I would sign up for a regular donation if such an
organization existed. That's how frustrated I am by the global chill that the
TSA/DHS has created, all without a single documented terrorist caught.

------
pandaman
The problem is not with the TSA per se but with the representative democracy.
Every elected official that has a choice to repel some stupid rule or law is
present with the following game-theoretic matrix:

repel then some incident happens that can be somehow associated with this -
it's a catastrophe even if the association is completely superficial, the
media will manage to spin it to cause enough damage.

repel then nothing happens - there is a minor positive outcome but incumbents
already have an overwhelming advantage.

don't repel - there is a minor negative outcome but incumbents already have an
overwhelming advantage.

Until incumbents start routinely losing elections repelling any "safety"
regulation is the worst move you could make. There is very minor upside and a
huge downside. So we will have to keep our kindles showing the splash screen
while the plane is waiting at the gate and throw out toothpaste at the TSA
checkpoints. Any possible relief will come either from the money pressure
(e.g. confiscation of lighters apparently had been interfering with the
airports operation so much that it had to be repelled) or political stunts
(e.g. Obama showing the terrors of sequester by allowing pen knives and hokey
sticks on-board).

------
grownseed
This is appalling, and not only from a medical or legal standpoint. I fly a
lot, mostly internationally, and this isn't a problem with just the TSA (I'm
not a US citizen). Airports around the world have to be the least humane
places I've ever encountered. Anybody who knows me would say I'm not one for
stirring up trouble for the sake of it, but having people power-tripping on
the little uneducated authority they have has to be the most vile experience
ever.

I could probably write an essay on the number of moral abuses I've seen in
airports, from the typical inappropriate "you need to calm down" to seeing
people in clear medical or mental distress (gladly few, but some of these
experiences being mine).

We would never expect this sort of behavior anywhere else in society, yet
we're letting this go on as if it were normal. I personally wonder how this is
even legal, but I suppose that's beyond the point. This may be an overused
quote, but "those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither" rings
very true in this instance.

How is oppressing the vast majority of flyers any better than the terrorism we
are supposedly preventing? I would even go as far as saying that this sort of
behavior is most likely what encourages terrorism in the first place, but I
digress.

Airports are one of those far-too-regular cases where "you're guilty until
proven innocent" has become the norm. Anybody in their right minds know full
well that if somebody really wants to make anything happen on a plane, it
will. It's clear that restrictions against foods, liquids and whatever else
are more about perceived security than actual security (also very possibly
about purchases...).

I truly understand the reason (beyond medical) the OP was driven to shoot that
video. People saying he was picking a fight may or may not be right.
Similarly, his legal reasoning may or may not be biased. But that's not the
point, the law is there to protect freedom, not obstruct it.

------
SquareWheel
He was clearly looking for a fight, but I wish everybody would do what he has
done. This security theater wouldn't be feasible if everybody took a stand.

I just hope he is correct in his legal interpretations.

------
nathanlil13
This is disturbing. I'm in awe at the TSAs complete failure here.

------
sybhn
Would be interesting to see if a parallel private system could work. The state
could maintain standard to which the private network should adhere, i.e. min
basic security, etc. In other words break down the monopoly of travel from the
state, you know, like in a free society? I generalize on air travel this
because all other forms of travel aren't really adequate in a country as big
as ours.

~~~
holdenk
That was actually tried for a little while. Airports could opt-out of the TSA
but still had to meet the screening guidelines. For example if you fly out of
SFO you are going to be screened by not the TSA. As of 2011 however the TSA
stopped allowing new airports to opt-out (
<http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41391509/> ).

~~~
sybhn
I was actually thinking of a parallel airport system. A monopoly outsourcing
screening activities to a private company doesn't provide more alternative to
the consumer.

~~~
ibejoeb
Airports generally are privately operated, but it's not about that. Air travel
is federally regulated, so the situation isn't even addressable on the ground.
For instance, you can't build your own runway, pile 50 people onto a plane,
and be free and clear of FAA and DHS.

------
saizai
Howdy all. I'll respond in summary to some of the comments in the thread so
far.

First off I want to stress: I complied 100% with TSA policy. They did not.
Yes, I politely but firmly insisted on my right to privacy. That doesn't mean
I have any less right to travel with medical liquids.

But… I might as well answer some of the specific issues brought up, so here
goes. My apologies if I've missed something, and I'm not going to full case
citations etc here in comments (sorry).

I'll try to come back later to try another summary comment, but I have to
sleep (and go househunting tomorrow), so I won't be able to do point-by-point
responses on everything.

1\. FOIA vs lawsuits

They're separate things. I'm pursuing the policies & procedures FOIA because I
think the public has a right to know what the TSA is doing, and what they
demand that you do. Something as basic as their current screening management
SOP is not currently public, which IMO is unacceptable.

(Not to mention that courts have found that the TSA is in violation of the
Administrative Procedures Act for failing to actually give the public a say on
whether to institute electronic strip searches as their primary screening
tool, but that's another issue… see EPIC v TSA for that one; it's not my
fight.)

I do expect that some of the documents I obtain via FOIA will also help me
personal cases, but that's just a bonus. I have separate FOIA requests dealing
with my own cases.

I should also note that I have not yet filed civil suit against the TSA — I'm
doing what I'm supposed to, namely giving them a chance to handle it
administratively first. I've done everything that I can to handle it amicably.
So far, they're refusing to cooperate. Continued refusal is what would trigger
a civil suit.

2\. Administrative law etc

Yes, the TSA has the right to deference in interpretations of the law that it
regulates. However, the Davis standard is an interpretation of the 4th
amendment by the courts, one that's been repeatedly upheld, and which limits
the TSA's purview. In Bierfeldt, the TSA settled — because they admitted that
subjecting someone to search based on carrying a lot of money is not something
they're allowed to do.

In particular, the TSA does not get to interpret the 4th Amendment; courts do.
The TSA gets to interpret only their own administrative law, not to decide
what is "reasonable".

I actually support the Davis standard; I agree that the TSA should have a
limited exemption for administrative searches narrowly tailored to the search
for weapons or explosives (and not for e.g. drugs, money, juice, documents,
etc). I agree that that very narrow scope of search "reasonable", and that it
doesn't require probable cause or suspicion.

However, in both of my incidents, there simply was no question of weapons or
explosives. The SFO liquids had been thoroughly screened and were denied
anyway; the BOS bags were x-rayed and then subjected to search of _documents_
, which the TSA is forbidden from doing (see e.g. Aukai, Fofana, Bierfeldt).

Re. choice of law: it's arguable whether the ADA applies, but the
Rehabilitation Act is more or less equivalent here. Same goes for Bivens vs 42
USC 1983. I didn't get into every legal nicety here; that's what a formal
pleading is for, not a summary webpage & youtube clip. :-P

Also, this wasn't a border search — I was flying within the US. And the TSA is
not authorized to search or seize anything other than weapons or explosives.

What it comes down to is simple: juice is not a weapon or explosive.

The TSA has absolutely no authority to seize it, when they are capable of
telling the difference between juice and explosives, which they are (and did).
Questioning me about my medical information has no bearing whatsoever on
whether they can distinguish juice from an explosive, and therefore it is not
permitted under the Davis standard.

3\. Liquid limits

I don't think I can do anything but quote the TSA's own policy here:

"Medically necessary liquids are allowed through a checkpoint in any amount
once they have been screened." [http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-
information/medically-necessary-...](http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-
information/medically-necessary-liquids)

There is no limit on medical liquids. Period. There is no ambiguity in that
statement, and it's not just my interpretation.

And the Special Needs Memo says clearly that juice (and water!) is a medical
liquid.

As for why I travel with 3L of liquid: it's a cross country flight. Flights
get delayed; I've occasionally had to stay overnight in an airport. I need to
drink on a very regular basis. I carry enough liquids with me to ensure that
I'm covered for contingencies. (I also carry with me extra food, snacks, etc.
I don't want to be dependent on airport concessions for things I need to stay
healthy.)

Splitting it into separate 3 ounce bottles is absurd, irrational, and not
something I could even do. (Who carries a bunch of empty 3 ounce bottles to
drink from? O.o)

BTW, there's no such thing as a "prescription" for juice. It's doctor
recommended, but you buy it in a grocery store, and you buy whatever sort you
prefer. I happen to prefer aloe vera 'cause it's soothing.

4\. Is juice medical for me?

Frankly, that's none of your business. And it sure as hell isn't the TSA's.
They aren't HIPAA compliant, medically trained, or anything of the sort. Their
job is simply to screen for weapons, not to determine medical necessity.

I did discuss this with my actual neurologist, who did recommend that I have
juice on hand.

Why aloe juice in particular? My three favorite juices to travel with are aloe
juice, Odwalla Superfood, and strong ginger beer. I find that they help
alleviate side effects like nausea, while ensuring that I have about the right
amount of sugar in easy form. I don't claim that any of them are specifically
anticonvulsants or the like; they're just the juices I prefer to use.

5\. Why not just give up my liquids and/or tell them medical info?

Because it's a violation of my 4th amendment rights, and because the law
(including TSA rules) do not require me to do so. (Not to mention, they're not
HIPAA compliant…)

I tried to be extremely polite throughout, even though I was pretty angry. I
don't think that yelling helps anything. But there's a big difference between
being polite, and giving in to an unlawful demand.

I don't believe that I should have to give up my privacy _or_ my ability to
bring with me liquids of my choice. Their job is simply to make sure that what
I bring isn't an explosive, and I totally support that. If they want to x-ray,
ETD, LCS scan, whatever, I'm perfectly cool with it.

What I'm not cool with is the intrusive questions or the seizure of something
that's not a weapon.

Yes, I could probably have gotten through this situation easier if I had just
given up my right to privacy. But I would rather change the system by standing
up for all my rights, so that nobody has to get harassed and coerced, than get
by one particular incident.

Yes, under the law they're allowed to _ask_ — just like cops are allowed to
"ask" to search your car and you're allowed to tell them "no". I find both
"requests" to be offensive attempts to intrude on someone's privacy, and I
choose to say no.

Honestly, I shouldn't have to even out myself as disabled in the first place,
let alone be subjected to medically ignorant scrutiny about the legitimacy of
my disability or the things I use to alleviate it.

They can and should simply test whether or not my stuff is dangerous.

6\. Covenant

Yes, the people screening me up through the assistant manager were all
Covenant employees. TSM Smith was not, nor was DFSD Adams.

Regardless, they are TSA agents, uniformed as such (co-branded with Covenant)
and with all the same duties / responsibilities. There are some minor
technical differences about how it falls out legally, but it isn't really
relevant to any big picture questions, so I didn't bother to mention it.

7\. Looking for a fight?

As I mention on the website, I've had similar things happen to me many times
before. This time I came prepared to document it.

I followed the letter of the law, I was courteous. I demanded that they follow
the law too.

I don't think that in any system that truly obeys rule of law those actions
should be considered "looking for a fight". If they obeyed the rules, there
would have been no problem. They didn't. My response to that was as measured
as it could be without giving up my rights.

Cheers, Sai

~~~
adyio
First of all thanks for doing what you're doing, trying to make a positive
change. I can imagine it requires a lot of your time, financial resources and
causes additional stress. Most people (including me) would probably just give
in to avoid the hassle.

Nowadays I only fly to the US if I absolutely have to. Being treated as if
you're a criminal and having seen how the US border control shouted at a woman
in a wheelchair and made her cry was enough for me to choose other holiday
destinations in the future, where you are more welcomed as a tourist.

------
duncan_bayne
It fascinates me that so many people think that States operate according to
the rule of law.

The OP cites a series of violations of law, followed by his complaints,
followed by further violations of law in relation to his complaints.

There is a pattern here, and it is not one that can be fixed by further
appeals to the State to obey the law.

------
holograham
While I agree with your arguments and grievances I disagree with your methods.
Too adversarial. Just an opinion.

~~~
drivebyacct2
How so? What else are we supposed to do? They're going to do as they please
until someone with authority makes it expensive or impossible for them to do
so.

~~~
holograham
specifically the tone of the overall post and the lack of fact citing for his
policy recommendations. Why the 1 quart rule? Why not 2 quarts? 3 quarts? ...
I am in 100% agreement that the TSA's policies are mostly erroneous and devoid
of logic but my recommendation is combat them with objective facts and logic
with a touch of social awareness.

~~~
mgkimsal
The 1 quart may have been specifically tailored to his own requirements, but I
can imagine that many people, for most flights, would be fine with medical
liquid amounts of 1q or smaller. Trying to bring a gallon or two of something
on a plane just may not be practical, regardless of the medical necessity, and
other transport might be required. But... the 3oz rule has struck me as stupid
from day one.

~~~
pekk
Can you provide any more specific justification for the specific measure of
liquid to allow, or is it just going to be what you can imagine seems
reasonable to you?

~~~
saizai
My basis was just their current policy: you're allowed 1 quart of non-medical
liquids separated into 3 ounce containers. (/eyeroll)

I'd be fine if they want to change the limit. My point is simply that they
should test the liquid for whether it's an explosive or not, rather than
limiting non-explosives you can carry or who can carry them.

