
Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down - bobf
http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter
======
swombat
In the 1500's a man called Étienne de la Boétie wrote, in a then-inflammatory
"Discourse on Voluntary Servitude":

 _Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for
he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own
enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to
give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do
anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore
the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own
subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their
servitude. A people enslaves itself, cuts its own throat, when, having a
choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and
takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently
welcomes it._

(<http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html>)

~~~
acabal
A nice quote, but we've already given the TSA a lot. Now it's a fight to get
it back. Hopefully it's not too late.

~~~
andreyf
The TSA is obviously staffed by bureaucrats who are simply following bad
rules. This should call for a restructuring of the organization, not a lash
out against The TSA or (worse) The Government. Let's figure out what is wrong
with the process, and how we can fix it. Enough being scared and pointing
blame.

~~~
olefoo
How about disbanding it as a waste of tax money, and as an unnecessary
institution ill-suited to being part of a society dedicated to the idea of
individual liberties?

~~~
brown9-2
If the TSA is disbanded, then how do you suggest handling airport security?
Who is in charge of it and who is responsible?

~~~
zcid
There was plenty sufficient airport security 10 years ago. The airlines and
airports were perfectly capable of handling it then just as they are now.

~~~
gcv
Far be it from me to defend the TSA (its behavior and policies are
outrageous), but your comment is simply wrong. Before September 11th, private
companies handled airport security. After September 11th, airlines and
airports were heavily criticized for relying on inadequately trained, low-paid
employees for something as essential as security. Everyone in the world agreed
that a federal agency must step in to do a better job, and the TSA is the
result.

~~~
redrobot5050
>After September 11th, airlines and airports were heavily criticized for
relying on inadequately trained, low-paid employees for something as essential
as security

Pro-tip: The same poorly trained, low-paid employees are now federal TSA
goons.

>Everyone in the world agreed that a federal agency must step in to do a
better job, and the TSA is the result.

Clearly, everyone in the world was overreacting to 9/11, and made poor, rash
decisions. I'm sure many libertarians felt that despite 9/11, they would feel
much safer having airport security handled by airlines, and not a bureaucratic
organization that has yet to catch any terrorists in the act, or foil any
terrorist plots.

------
URSpider94
Others have hinted at this, but when I read this story, I had a big "HUH?"
moment. I just returned into the USA last week at SFO, and I can assure you
that I didn't go through any kind of security screening upon re-entering the
USA.

The USA, unlike many other countries, requires that you clear out through
Customs at your first point of entry. This is an operational issue, because
after that, you are mixed with domestic passengers. Clearing through Customs
requires that you pick up your checked luggage. As such, you are no longer
"sterile" from an airport security perspective (you could have pulled a box
cutter out of your checked luggage, for example). This means that, if you plan
to continue on as a domestic passenger, then you have to be re-screened for
security, just like someone walking in from the street.

What boggles my mind is that the folks who set up this airport require non-
passengers to go through TSA security, just to walk out of the terminal. Not
only is this a waste of time and money, but it also introduces people with no
legitimate reason to travel into the terminal. Put another way, if I WANTED to
pass through a TSA checkpoint at most airports without a ticket for onward
travel, I would be turned away.

In summary, I guess I can understand why this guy thought that he was being
screened to re-enter the country, when in fact he was just the victim of very,
very poor airport design.

~~~
dalke
Atlanta airport, for example, is one of several US airports which weren't
designed with the current security policies in mind. International arrivals
occur at the furthest terminal from the exit, and in order for passengers to
get to the exit they must take the shuttle car system or walk, and both are
inside the "sterile" area of the airport.

I sent a letter to the TSA last week asking about the legality of this search.
Can a passenger just after existing customs and immigration decline further
screening, and if so, how? If not, when is it presumed that the passenger gave
consent to the search and what level of search was consented to?

I'm curious as to what their answer will be.

------
dpatru
The trouble with the Internet is that it's so hard for the government to keep
secrets anymore. It's exciting to see in real time how American citizens are
working together to challenge and change unreasonable government policy. First
by broadcasting government abuse and now by documenting successful tactics.

~~~
stcredzero
One thing that came out in this blog post -- it seems there may be a policy
that the TSA employees are specifically _forbidden_ to wear radiation
dosimetry badges.

What!? How in the world is this a sane policy? Who is this policy meant to
protect?

~~~
AngryParsley
If a lot of TSA employees wore dosimeters, chances are there would be at least
one false positive and the media would latch onto it.

~~~
aperiodic
I work at a nuclear reactor, and for the type of dosimeters we wear on the job
(thermoluminescent dosimeters), there's no chance of a false-positive, as far
as I'm aware. The only thing that can cause the crystal to lose electrons is
ionizing radiation in a certain energy range. As long as there were procedures
to ensure that the badges are only worn on the job, false positives shouldn't
be an issue.

~~~
rmc
_As long as there were procedures to ensure that the badges are only worn on
the job, false positives shouldn't be an issue._

And that's how your false positives happen. How many people would have to wear
dosimetres? Would they be mandatory? How many people per year will leave them
at home and borrow their workmate's dosimeter so the boss doesn't give out?
How many will drive home in their uniforms? Go to the shops in their uniforms?
There are loads of ways for errors to happen.

Nuclear reactors are (I'm guessing) very strict on their policys, it's foolish
to extrapolate that to airport workers.

~~~
aperiodic
It's not very hard to solve this problem. At work, we just have a bunch of
small cubbies where everyone keeps their dosimeters. When you come in, you
take it out and put it on; when you leave, you take it off and put it in.
Occasionally people forget to take their dosimetry off, but it's not a big
deal–it's extremely unlikely you're going to receive a significant dose
outside of the facility (although you are constantly receiving a low-level
radiation dose from cosmic rays, and, if you're below ground, from radon gas).
I should mention that I work at a test reactor where the typical dosage is so
low that the Federal Government doesn't even require us to track employee
dose. I get more dose from flying cross-country several times a year[1] than I
do working at the reactor. So, I don't know how dosimetry policy differs at
power reactors.

Regardless, I think it would be particularly illuminating if there <i>were</i>
false positives. Why not have employees who are concerned wear dosimeters
constantly, and at the same time stick reference dosimeters near where they
usually stand while a scanner is in operation. If their dose is roughly the
same as that of the reference dosimetry, there's not much room to complain
about the scanners.

The fact is we are being constantly bombarded by low-level radiation from
cosmic rays and radon gas simply by virtue of standing on the surface of the
earth. The level of radiation these scanners output is much smaller than that.
Wikipedia[2] cites an article in the European Journal of Radiology that gives
a dose range for backscatter machines of between 0.07 and 6 micro-Sieverts.
For reference, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements
reports that the annual radiation dose from naturally occurring radiation is
on the order of several hundred micro-Sieverts [3].

TSA employees have a right to be concerned, because they are involuntarily
being exposed to it as a course of their job, without this being made clear to
them when they were hired. If you're a traveler, you should be much more
concerned about the radiation dose you receive on the plane than the one you
receive from the scanner.

[1] Health Physics Society page on radiation exposure on commercial
airflights:
[http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights....](http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.html).
[2]
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Backscatter_X...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Backscatter_X-
ray#cite_note-37) [3]
[http://hps.org/documents/environmental_radiation_fact_sheet....](http://hps.org/documents/environmental_radiation_fact_sheet.pdf)

~~~
stcredzero
_If you're a traveler, you should be much more concerned about the radiation
dose you receive on the plane than the one you receive from the scanner._

I dislike "spherical cow" assumptions when they are applied to my health. If
you are a government agency, then applying "spherical cow" assumptions by
imposition to large numbers of people is _inexcusable_.

<http://compilerbitch.livejournal.com/218216.html>

Backscatter X-rays are completely unlike the radiation you receive on a cross
country flight. Natural high energy tends to deposit energy evenly throughout
your body. The energies in backscatter are manipulated so that the majority of
the energy is deposited near the surface of your body.

We don't have that much data on the effects of low energy X-rays, because we
didn't have many applications for them until recently. We _do not understand
in complete detail_ the mechanisms by which radiation causes cancer. We have
equations for predicting cancer rates for radiation doses, but these are
entirely _adhoc and empirical_! We don't have a first-principles understanding
of this stuff yet. We don't know enough to say for sure that this application
of X-rays is safe. I'd only feel safe if there were experiments on a bunch of
lab animals.

------
ck2
Except he'll probably get a surprise $10k fine (civil lawsuit) a few months
from now.

For anyone else trying to prevent a gate-rape freedom-fondle, do not try the
"less clothes" approach, this one ended with an arrest:

[http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&...](http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Passenger+Chooses+Strip-
Down+Over+Pat-
Down+|+NBC+San+Diego&expire=&urlID=441153877&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcsandiego.com%2Fnews%2Flocal-
beat%2FPassenger-Chooses-Strip-Down-Over-Pat-Down-109872589.html)

There is also some documentation now that the scanners produce TWENTY times
the claimed radiation level:

[http://holt.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=...](http://holt.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=651&Itemid=18)

~~~
detst
> Except he'll probably get a surprise $10k fine (civil lawsuit) a few months
> from now.

It's actually $11k apparently and I hope someone with the money, time and
energy does get brought into one of these suits. I hope it happens soon so it
can gain the media attention that this whole thing is getting right now.

But considering this man was escorted out of the airport and told he is free
to go, I can't see how they could possibly get away with it in this case.

~~~
jseliger
_It's actually $11k apparently and I hope someone with the money, time and
energy does get brought into one of these suits._

I actually joined the ACLU recently precisely because they're the kind of
organization with the deep pockets and infrastructure for running suits like
this.

------
acabal
Oh wow, I had no idea they scan you after re-entering the country. I'm flying
to Chicago O'Hare from London Gatwick on Dec 2, and now I'm concerned about
this.

Does anyone know precisely what my rights are as a US citizen upon re-entering
the country to avoid all of this ridiculousness? I know that Customs has some
Constitutional power for searches and so on (and there's that insane 100-mile
"border" where people can be stopped and searched), but where does the TSA fit
into all of this?

If asked to do a backscatter OR patdown once I'm on US soil and leaving the
airport, is it within my rights to refuse both? It sounds like the guy in the
post wasn't claiming his rights, only threatening to call it "assault" if they
brushed his genitals. Or have I got it wrong?

Edit: I'm extremely curious about this now. Per the wiki article linked in the
replies, it seems that x-ray and pat down searches are "unreasonable" without
a warrant at a border (i.e. international airport). So I believe I could claim
that going through these scanners again after landing on US soil and wanting
to exit the airport would infringe on my rights. However, since the scenario
is the same for _entering_ a flight on US soil, wouldn't the
backscatter/patdowns in those cases _also_ infringe on our rights? Does anyone
have any ideas on this? I don't want to give the TSA an inch when re-entering
my own damn country.

~~~
swombat
Your mileage may vary, but it sounds to me like he was claiming his
constitutional rights... "Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" seems to be a
key-phrase of people who know their rights when faced with police officers.
That, and verbally not consenting to any search - your person is also
protected by constitutional rights, afaik. (note: I'm not American, I may be
wrong)

~~~
acabal
I _think_ that Customs may detain you at a border--they have more leeway in
the Constitution for border searches iirc. That's what I'm confused about now,
because with each new insane agency that gets created and each new law that
alters and amends old law, it's hard for a non-lawyer to get a clear picture
of exactly what _is_ and what _isn't_ a right.

And if I have the free time upon landing and no flight to catch, I don't want
to give TSA an inch.

Edit: here's the Wikipedia article:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception>

It says that "reasonable" searches, i.e. property searches, can be conducted
without warrant by Customs officers at the border. "Unreasonable" searches
like x-ray, pat-downs, and strip searches require a warrant. But is TSA
allowed to do this as well, or only Customs agents?

~~~
jacquesm
The TSA is not customs.

~~~
stcredzero
Unfortunately, this is vulnerable to a bit of bureaucratic sleight of hand. I
say we hold it against the politicians who aid and abet such shenanigans.

------
trunnell
This is what elections are for.

Did you know you can be stopped and searched without a warrant within 100
miles of the physical border? [1] Between that and this new screening policy
for re-entry at international airports, I think we've crossed a line. Everyone
I talk to about this is _outraged_. If we still have a functioning democracy,
these policies will change.

It's somewhat expected that now and then the government will overreach (see
the Alien and Sedition Acts, etc). But that's why we have elections.

[1]: This band around the border happens to include 2/3 of the US population.
[http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/constitution-
free...](http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/constitution-free-zone)

~~~
gaelian
Is this really what elections are still for? I remember the sense of relief
and elation of many around me when Obama was elected. Change was coming and
many people seemed to feel that the best time for it was when the old system
has all but collapsed. I believe Obama himself actually said something to this
effect at the time. Fast forward to a few weeks ago just before the US mid-
term election and I saw Obama interviewed by John Stuart. His points seemed to
boil down to that they couldn't change as much as they wanted to because the
US (and by extension the world) was in crisis and that people expected too
much.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in participating in the political process, I do
vote (though I'm not American) and at least try to keep myself informed though
I'm no political expert by any means. But I guess my point is that taking into
account how things have gone over the last few election cycles both in my
country and the US, what this guy did at the TSA security checkpoint seems far
more effective than voting if more people were to do it and things like it.
But I guess that would mean that we'd all have to handle some amount of
inconvenience to protect our rights and that seems to be something that modern
citizens of modern societies seem mostly incapable of accepting.

~~~
trunnell
_what this guy did at the TSA security checkpoint seems far more effective
than voting_

I would agree that's effective, but civil disobedience is just different than
voting. I was not denigrating the OP's effort in any way; in fact I find it
commendable (much more so than Tyner who took a similar position but was too
combative and rude).

My point is simply that if we Americans don't like TSA's policies _we can do
something about it._ We can opt-out, we can complain, we can get media
attention, but most of all, we can vote. Our complaints wouldn't mean much if
we couldn't vote.

~~~
gaelian
> I was not denigrating the OP's effort in any way

Sorry if it seemed line I was implying this. I didn't mean to.

> but most of all, we can vote.

I guess this sentiment is what I was replying to, though. I'm starting to
think that beyond a certain threshold of imposition on one's personal
liberties, voting - while surely important - is no longer "most of all" what
we should be doing. But I guess you American's have to decide what that
threshold is for yourselves. Hopefully it won't be too much further past where
you are currently... you're setting a bad precedent for the rest of us. :)

------
dholowiski
That's awesome.

Ever read Cory doctorow's "little brother"? That's what I think of every time
I read one of these stories.

I've said it before- there are two easy ways to avoid this 1. Drive, 2. Don't
visit the USA. To us residents, especially if you live in hawaii- sucks to be
you!

Oh, and the rest of the world is laughing at you. Fix your flipping
government.

~~~
viraptor
> Oh, and the rest of the world is laughing at you.

Well... that's not the only thing. Of course I laugh at what TSA is doing...
but on the other hand a lot of ideas from the US are copied in EU. I just hope
this isn't one of them. UK already tried experimenting with those scanners,
but I haven't heard about them for quite a while.

~~~
dholowiski
Oh yes, it's a nervous laugh for sure. Already, the DHS requires our contact
information and Passport numbers if you're on a flight that goes over the USA,
even if it's never going to land in the USA (think flight from Canada to
Mexico).

------
morganpyne
I find it appalling that US citizens are forced to such measures to enforce
their rights and I'm glad that there are people both patient and stubborn
enough to play out scenarios like this. However, as a non-US citizen I always
wonder to myself when reading such stories if there are any international
rights/laws that may be applicable when entering the States as a foreigner?

My understanding is that there are absolutely none, and I would have to submit
to any and all egregious and invasive 'requests' (with NO limits) that are
demanded of me in order to gain entry (which is why I haven't been there in a
while and have no plans to go back). Does anybody have any information to the
contrary?

~~~
mthoms
I believe you are correct that there are no limits to what U.S. Customs can do
so long as you are being processed within the physical borders of the United
States.

At a land crossing, once you _attempt_ to gain entry you cannot simply decide
"it's not worth it" anymore and return back to the originating country. You
have no rights, not even the right to turn around and leave.

In an airport setting (most mid-sized and larger Canadian airports have US
Customs processing stations before you depart), you can indeed decide to turn
around and not proceed with the crossing.

From a legal standpoint I believe it has to do with the fact that at a land
crossing you are already on U.S. soil by the time you reach Customs. In the
airport scenario above you are subject to the laws of the originating country
since you haven't left their territory.

It goes without saying that refusing to proceed with a crossing at an airport
once it has commenced would likely have other very serious implications. The
local authorities would almost certainly want to have a word with you and
you'd be flagged by U.S. Customs as suspicious.

------
param
What? I wasn't aware you needed to be irradiated just to enter into the US,
even without planning to take any more flights. What is the rationale behind
that?

~~~
dpatru
This is exactly the question that they should have to answer before a judge.
Laws at minimum must have a rational basis, there must exist some scenario in
which the law makes sense. Irradiation before a flight may protect against
terrorist attack. Irradiation after the time of danger has past makes no sense
at all.

~~~
carbocation
I'm not sure that laws in general really _need_ a rational basis[1], but
invasive exceptions to your Fourth Amendment right require a rational basis
(i.e., a reasonable suspicion).

[1] What seems rational to some might seem irrational to others.

~~~
dpatru
There are three "levels of scrutiny" used to determine if a law is valid. The
lowest level, the level which every law must meet is rational basis.
Government may not enforce a law which makes absolutely no sense. See
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review>.

~~~
carbocation
>There are three "levels of scrutiny" used to determine if a law is valid. The
lowest level, the level which every law must meet is rational basis.
Government may not enforce a law which makes absolutely no sense.

The article that you linked to indicates that "rational basis review" applies
to laws which may be related to the 5th or 14th Amendments, which is
substantially narrower than what you've appeared to say. I'm not a lawyer, so
can you clarify?

~~~
dpatru
Both the fifth amendment and the fourteenth mention "due process" as in: no
person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law. The fifth fifth applies to the federal government, and the fourteenth to
the state governments. When the government passes a law that infringes on a
person's right, one way a person can challenge it is to claim that the law
violates (substantive) due process. The idea is that government has to have a
reason for depriving a person of his right.

How important the government's reason has to be depends on the importance of
the right being infringed. If the right is "fundamental" (1st amendment,
voting, interstate travel, or privacy,) then the government must have a very
good reason for infringing the right and it must not infringe more than
necessary. This is "strict scrutiny". If the right involved is not very
important, the government need only show that it had some acceptable reason
(the law must be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.) This
is rational basis. Every law that fails rational basis must also fail strict
scrutiny. But not every law that fails strict scrutiny must also fail rational
basis. The vast majority of the laws pass rational basis.

It's true that the law being challenged has to relate to the fifth or
fourteenth amendments, but that's not a very hard test to meet. Almost anytime
a person would legitimately want to challenge a law, it would be because the
law is depriving him of some right. And in every such case, the law must at
least have a rational basis.

This is case here. The traveler has a right to travel, the government was
going to deprive the traveler of this right. The government must have a
rational basis at least.

------
toast76
I just want to know what the TSA supervisor expected would happen if he DID
choose to go back to customs. Then what? Where does he go? He has no ticket,
no boarding pass. He can't get on a plane. I don't see how refusing could
possible end any other way than for him to walk out of there. Surely even as
he was saying this, he'd have realised how absurd it was.

As a tourist, I wouldn't risk it...too easy to put you back on a plane (unless
you have to consent to a search there too?). But if I were a citizen of the
USA, there is no chance I'd put up with that when returning to my own country.

~~~
jacquesm
> Then what? Where does he go?

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362227/>

------
dadkins
Does anyone know why the TSA even gives you the choice to opt out of the
backscatter machines? You can't opt out of the metal detectors. It seems like
the default policy would be for the new machines to be mandatory as well.

~~~
ZachPruckowski
It's a slow-boiling sort of thing. Here was their plan:

1) Implement the backscatter machines with a non-invasive opt-out. Most people
won't opt-out, but those that do won't complain, because the opt-out is
painless.

2) Now that you've had backscatter machines for nearly a year, make the opt-
out much more invasive. The complainers will be seen as crazy, since the
Backscatter has been something we've been tolerating for a year and people
won't understand the difference between "normal patdown" and "invasive
patdown"

3) Come 2012 or 2013 or so, Backscatter machines are deployed pretty much
everywhere, the opt-out goes away entirely. Anyone who hates the Backscatter
has either stopped flying due to the patdowns or already been broken in by
punitive molestation and PR pressure.

~~~
ZachPruckowski
>Here was their plan:

It occurs to me now (after the edit deadline has passed) that this might have
implied I have some sort of inside knowledge. That's not the case. The above
is conjecture.

------
techiferous
If you do not like the TSA's policies, please take a moment to write your
representatives:

<https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml>

[http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_se...](http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm)

~~~
uptown
You're aware that our representatives aren't required to pass through these
sensors, aren't you?

~~~
Natsu
They are, however, required to get enough votes to get elected.

------
jrs235
Here's something that came to mind after reading this article... What would
happen if someone prior to boarding declined the AIT and also told any and all
TSA agents that they are not allowed to touch their bodies. We know that
leaving the checkpoint prior to complete screening can result in an $11,000
civil fine according to TSA (BTW, where is/does contract exist binding an
individual to these rules/statues???) So, what would happen if they basically
do the same thing as this gentleman. Refuse to leave due to the threat of a
fine but also refuse to consent to anything else. If the TSA order you to be
removed, perhaps for disorderly conduct or some other bogus offense, then how
could they fine you? Since they were the ones that ordered you to leave prior
to the complete screening? And how could they arrest you for disorderly
conduct if you are behaving in a civil and polite manner? Eventually, the TSA
will have to let you go unless they wish to have someone stay overnight with
you when the airport closes... see what I'm getting to here? Refuse to
voluntarily leave since you are under duress to stay (possible fine for
leaving). Does anyone understand what I'm trying to say? I don't think I'm
doing a great job explaining. All in all its, just getting yourself to a
place/state that you can't leave since in order to leave voluntarily without
giving up any of your rights you face possible punishment. Additionally the
TSA will say that you are not being detained and you can leave... but you
can't. Anyone want to protest by getting into this situation? Perhaps
protesting until TSA explicitly says you are free to go and you will not be
fined. They can't remove you and then fine you, right?

------
dshep
Awesome, more people need to stand up for their rights like this.

------
eyeareque
I wonder, would they have been able to arrest him if he was shooting video
within the security area? Is it legal to record the audio of a cop if you
inform them about it first?

I need to read up on this before I need to travel again. Someone should create
a know your rights quick reference guide for air travel.

Side note: I flew from HK to SF yesterday.. No backscatter machines on re-
entry of the US border. When I flew from SFO to HK a couple of weeks ago I was
lucky enough to have made it into a line that was only a metal detector. They
did have some backscatter machines in place.

Second side note: On my flight home from HK to SFO they had roped off the
waiting area at my gate. There were about 6 Muslim men (hats, bears, speaking
arabic gave me this impression) waiting in line with the rest of the
passengers to get all of our carry on items physically searched before our
flight. I'm sure the extra screening was not due to their being on the flight
/sarcasm. I over heard some of the men speaking about how they can fly
anywhere in the world and don't have a problem. But as soon as they fly to the
US, they get harassed up and down. I truly felt sorry for them.

------
jwu711
I can just imagine that reporters are just going to be flying in and out now
so they can get some create articles and stories from all of this

~~~
stcredzero
I hope so. $11,000 is a fine price to pay for a well written story about
personal freedom. Hell, why aren't there dozens of Kickstarter journalism
projects for this?

------
jacquesm
For every idiotic law there will be a Rosa Parks.

Now, of course there is a huge difference between state sponsored racism and
the TSA policies but I'm very happy this guy decided to test the limits. If
you have some spare time next time you land in a US airport ;)

~~~
burgerbrain
>Now, of course there is a huge difference between state sponsored racism and
the TSA policies

Is there? Now instead of disregarding the rights of a portion of the
population, we're disregarding them _'equal opportunity'_ style.

------
hartror

        Ah – he’s gotten the Miranda talk.  I hide my smile.
    

Anyone know what this is?

Edit: Thanks, live in Australia so don't get all the lingo.

~~~
ck2
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning>

When any law enforcement officer in the USA starts asking you questions,
become EXTREMELY cautious and serious (even if they do not explicitly state
the warning, which they might just say afterwards to cover themselves). People
often think they can "talk themselves out of it", and almost always discover
that is not the case.

~~~
mcobrien
Don't talk to cops

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik>

------
obiefernandez
When you arrive from an international flight at Atlanta airport, you have to
go through security to get out of customs because there is no direct exit out
to the street. In other words, when you arrive and go through border control
and customs, the only way to get out of the airport is to go through the other
terminals. I wonder if the same applies at Cincinnati/N. Kentucky airport.

~~~
dedward
This makes a lot of sense.

Had someone with authority said "Sir, unfortunately, the way the airport is
laid out, you must enter the secured area of the airport in order to leave,
and therefore we have to put you through our screening process." then there
would be no trouble. Equally less troublesome would have been if the TSA had
simply realized this and told the police "No problem, he's not connecting
anywhere - please just escort him out of the building safely." That seems
logical, and seems to be what happened in the end - as soon as someone
actually made a decision.

~~~
syllogism
He can still ask to be escorted through the secured area --- which is what
seems to have happened.

~~~
dedward
Yup - and he was offerred this earlier on in the story - though when he pushed
the police on the pat-down procedure, they wouldn't commit to anything. They
said they "might" have to pat him down before escorting him (which seems
reasonable if they are being asked to securely transport him through the
facility. While they didn't insist on groping his nads like the TSA does, they
couldn't promise that wouldn't happen at all. There was wiggle room there. Had
the cops said "We aren't like the TSA -but if we're going to escort you out of
the building, we need to pat you down for weapons like we would any other
person we're transporting - are you okay with that?" it might have been over.

~~~
epo
I don't understand this. Clearly a search may be necessary to detect smuggled
contraband, but that is the job of Customs. What grounds are there for the TSA
to search someone not boarding a flight?

If there is a worry about carrying concealed weapons out of the airport then
surely the appropriate agency is the police. Why do the TSA have to do
anything with someone who has disembarked and is entering US soil?

------
sandipc
I fully agree with most of the civil liberties and health concerns I've been
reading online about these "Federal Security Detectors," and it certainly is
ridiculous that you have to be scanned AFTER flying and AFTER passing through
customs just to get home from the airport, but seeing as TSA agents are really
just there to carry out policy given to them from their superiors, it seems a
little silly to claim that such an action "prove[s] that it is possible."

With an organization with as many employees as the TSA, it seems to me that
whether or not one can bypass security really just depends on the specific TSA
agents and supervisors dealing with a specific case. This isn't really a
blueprint for bypassing TSA security... more like a personal anecdote of a
time when the author bypassed security because the TSA/airport security were
tired of dealing with him.

~~~
dpatru
The TSA must be able to justify the actions of all its agents at any time in
court. The only way to do this is to issue detailed policies and insist that
all TSA agents follow the policy. The agents are not free to do as they want.

------
noelchurchill
The authors tone is reminiscent of the narrator from Fight Club.

Excellent write up btw.

------
jrs235
Additionally, what happens with a terrorist shoves a [plastic] bomb up his
butt? Will they then switch over to only x-ray (as opposed to the radio wave)
machines and up the juice to look into our bodies and/or require cavity
searches?

Or even, how telling are these images from these machines? Could a determined
person kill and animal or human, strip the skin and attach it with stitches to
their own body to create a cavity to hold contraband? Perhaps making it look
like a beer belly?

This is getting absurd?

------
smtf
If I am understanding this correctly the TSA/Customs officials could submit
you to a backscatter/pat-down BEFORE you clear customs and the Constitutional
argument evaporates. I imagine that would require an overhaul of the layout of
many airports, but perhaps if enough people make a fuss like the author then
someone will push for it. Does anyone know of a reason they couldn't do
another security screening after you land and just before you clear customs ?

------
LiveTheDream
I'm surprised there wasn't a big fuss about the audio recording. Just one
person asking if there was video being recorded, and a lot of people not
wanting to make declarative statements on record.

Does this mean that officials have accepted the fact that citizens can legally
record them performing their duties?

------
jscore
Some companies are making a killing by selling those X-Ray machines to the
gov't. The politicians who pushed this are getting a nice cut from this.
There's startup for you.

------
sgt
Is it common to say "Sir" when speaking to a police officer in the US? Where I
come from, the police officer is expected to call you "Sir" and act as your
servant.

~~~
bitwize
I say "sir" to the cashier at Starbucks.

It's a politeness and showing of respect thing.

~~~
sgt
I don't have that type of respect for the cashier at Starbucks, although I
don't have "disrespect" for him/her either, if you can put that way.

But come on, I'm friendly to them and that's what counts.

How can a "the customer is always right" mindset work, if the customer says
"sir"?

"A cup of cappuccino, sir"

"Yes sir"

"How long will it take, sir?"

"2 minutes, sir"

"Excellent, my good sir. I shall be awaiting my delicious cup of coffee, my
liege."

Never heard this :-)

------
27182818284
Really lucky. That situation could have easily turned into a 6 hour detention
regardless of legal rights (which are already being ignored)

~~~
qeorge
That's the same threat the TSA agents make. Don't assert your rights or it'll
be a huge pain in the ass.

Civil disobedience is not for the meek.

~~~
27182818284
Oh absolutely and I'm happy to see the momentum building with this issue. That
said, he still got lucky. For example, he was able to sit down and use his
laptop still. It is a sad reflection on the US and the TSA, but I'm surprised
they allowed that even. Had I not read the story and someone asked me to guess
what would happen if a person took this attitude, I would have guessed the
person was detained and kept in a back, empty room for 6-8 hours.

------
Vipsy
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you
win" - Mahatma Gandhi

------
icey
I wonder how many of these opt-outs are going to end up on the no-fly list.

~~~
chopsueyar
They don't seem to take IDs or boarding passes.

------
aubonpanzer
Kafkaesque to say the least

------
kingkawn
What is the author's race?

------
aneth
If you look at the way this was handled it actually speaks to the
professionalism of most of those involved. Regardless of your objection to the
policy, which is not the decision of these people, the police and tsa seemed
rational and accommodating.

Just think how this might have been handled in other countries.

~~~
jacquesm
In other countries this idiocy would not have taken place to begin with.

~~~
aneth
If you refuse to cooperate with security in England, Germany, France, Italy,
China, Burma, India, or any other place I can imagine, you would not have a
policeman calmly understanding of how you were asserting your constitutional
rights.

~~~
jacquesm
Burma, India you are probably right, Italy I can't vouch for, England, France
and Germany you'd be fine.

------
dnsworks
I'm curious if any lawyers from the EFF have put themselves through this so
that they have good grounds to sue the federal government for violation of
constitutional rights?

~~~
frossie
I suspect you are thinking of EPIC - <http://epic.org/> which has indeed filed
a lawsuit - I don't see how this is EFF purview.

~~~
dnsworks
Never heard about EPIC, but the EFF is part of the engineering community. Our
community solves the problems that the rest of the world creates. The EFF
should be involved .. maybe somebody can get arrested for planning flash-mobs
at the airports Tuesday and Wednesday to decimate holiday travel plans and put
the issue into the national spotlight. That's something a bunch of hackers
could put together.

------
dshankar
It is incredibly dangerous to write things like this. It encourages rebellious
activity during one of the busiest traveling seasons.

I understand these are potentially too invasive, but as long as the TSA agent
is not being a pervert, I am ok with it for one major reason: It comforts me
knowing that it (in some way) helps to ensure the safety of flights, our
friends, and family. It's no guarantee but it helps a bit and I'd like it to
be a safe traveling season.

I blogged more about it here:
[http://blog.darshanshankar.com/post/1656961705/tsa-
backscatt...](http://blog.darshanshankar.com/post/1656961705/tsa-backscatter-
machine-pat-down)

------
Eil
I agree entirely with the author's cause and I believe that the guilty-until-
proven-innocent mindset of present airport security is wrong and should be
unconstitutional.

However, upon reading the article I very much got the impression that the
author was refusing to be scanned or searched just to make trouble. When asked
why he was refusing to be searched, his answers (in his own writing) seemed to
be along the lines of, "because I don't feel like it." I'm sorry, but that's
just not really a valid defense. Whether you feel it's constitutional or not,
the law says you have to go through these checkpoints when selected. If you're
going to refuse, you need to have a much better reason than you don't feel
like it.

Ultimately, it sounded to me like they escorted him out of the terminal simply
because they were tired of dealing with him, not because he found a loophole
in their logic or rules. Less well-mannered officials would have put him in
jail for a judge to deal with in the morning.

~~~
dpatru
>I very much got the impression that the author was refusing to be scanned or
searched just to make trouble.

That's like saying, you are just making trouble when you resist a pick-pocket
or robber. You are never "just making trouble" when you assert your rights. On
the contrary, government is the one just making trouble.

The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect rights. However,
government seems to be full of people who are eager to take away rights.
Somehow, the institution of government appeals to people who like to force
their will on others. If you value liberty, you must resist these people.

~~~
gtufano
I, as European, always find fascinating when US people says: "The only
legitimate purpose of government is to protect rights"... I feel the purpose
of government is to protect and nurture the community and give the citizen
common services. Different personal opionions and exceptions apply of course,
but I feel this is probably the biggest difference in culture between US and
EU.

~~~
dpatru
There is no reason why payment for community nurturing and common services
needs to extracted by force and administered by a monopoly.

