During the Cold War, there was this mentality held by leaders on both sides that said you could not show weakness to the enemy. It was this mentality that caused the Cuban Missile crisis, and that allowed it to be resolved by secret communication along privileged back-channels (all the while keeping public posturing such that neither side had to reveal any weakness). As idiotic as this mentality has always seemed to me, as I get older (and hopefully a bit wiser) I've come to understand there is some merit to it.
I travel overseas frequently. One of my favorite airports is Istanbul's Ataturk International Airport. I like it because I can sit in a cafe waiting for my plane to New York, and I can listen to the PA make announcements for flights to Nairobi, Dubai, Singapore, Moscow, Pairs, and Sao Paulo. Istanbul literally connects to the entire world. And yet, there is only one gate in the entire terminal that has "secondary screening", the one for the New York flight. The thought that somehow the threat of terrorism is greater in the United States than anywhere else in the world is laughable to anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention to world events. Yet, it is only the United States that feels the need to have extra security precautions.
I wonder how many Americans see the TSA, the Patriot Act, etc. as evidence of the greatness of America. "Our country must be the greatest in the world if it requires so much effort to protect," I imagine them thinking. "Why would so many people be against us if it were not the case?" In reality, the rest of the world sees a frightened bully, and they're not falling for it any more. They go to places like Istanbul's airport, or any of the hundreds of other airports around the world that have extra screening set up exclusively for US bound flights, and they see weakness.
What's really almost funny about all of this, is that the 4th amendment is uniquely American. It is not at all uncommon in other countries for police (or the Gendarme) to be authorized to stop pedestrians and perform a search without cause. The mere existence of the 4th amendment has, traditionally, been a sign of strength. As if to say: "We're so confident of our security and the resolve of our justice system that we will give our citizens this extra right."
By reducing 4th amendment rights, the US is not gaining security, it is showing weakness...and that can be dangerous to the long term health of a country.
Lots of people commenting here seem to think that just because something appears to have no effect that it was a failure of an exercise and should have never happened. God forbid it cause a minor inconvenience to other humans.
PEOPLE HAVE TO STAND UP FOR WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT. Even if the effect it has seems insignificant. It doesn't matter if your an ass for doing it. It doesn't matter if some people think you were trying to cause trouble. If you don't stand up for what you personally think is right what do you stand up for?
Was she right? Were the officers wrong? That's for you to decide but it doesn't really matter. She had a conviction to do what she thought was right, and hopefully inspired others to do the same. And I can't imagine not respecting her for doing so.
If the only time you could complain about SOPA was in airport security only the brave and scared would complain about SOPA. And you can bet others would find them annoying.
> PEOPLE HAVE TO STAND UP FOR WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT.
> Even if the effect it has seems insignificant.
If a common civilian wishes to help, she can probably find a better way than standing up to some scripted peons.
I wonder what her court costs are going to be. I wish she had donated that money to the EFF. The EFF is in a better position to fight this stuff intelligently, and at the right levels.
When you decide to yell out the words to the 4th amendment at the same exact moment you are being processed through the security checkpoint at an airport, you are intentionally trying to cause a scene. This can and would be construed by any reasonable person as an attempt to disrupt the screening process. The author knew exactly what she was doing. While I'm not sure it was grounds for an arrest, she was maliciously attempting to provoke some sort of response from the TSA.
I hate the TSA as much as anyone, but when you do stupid things on purpose, stupid things happen to you.
These stupid things are also incredibly brave and necessary. If you have no other way of fighting what you know is wrong, you have to provoke a response.
Cops lean on people they've decided are "undesirable" with the intent of provoking them to do something they can be arrested for. The FBI cultivates antisocial young american muslims until they entrap them into doing something so they can trot them out as boogeymen on CNN.
We can disagree with the ethics of such things, but is there disagreement that provoking a response can be a useful tactic?
> When you decide to yell out the words to the 4th amendment at the same exact moment you are being processed through the security checkpoint at an airport, you are intentionally trying to cause a scene.
I can also easily see this kind of behavior causing a panic in the screening line. Maybe this isn't fair, but this is how I would imagine a right-wing domestic terrorist to act right before they blew themselves up.
I'm all for civil disobedience, but this is just oblivious and antisocial to the extreme.
I'm having the same reaction. I hate the TSA so much I avoid flying if at all possible, and indeed haven't been on a plane in three years. But making a scene like this accomplishes nothing. Or, possibly less than nothing -- if the onlookers thought she was a kook.
If, instead of doing this at the security checkpoint, she wanted to stand at the entrance to the airport speaking and handing out leaflets, she would be exercising her First Amendment rights, and I would hope they would accommodate her. (If they didn't, I wouldn't be surprised, but I would be angry.)
Kinda interesting how being 'arrested' is now a form of punishment or reprimand in itself. It goes on record and it may be used as an excuse to hurt you physically.
Also it seems that people can be arrested (held or detained) without being 'arrested'.
This isn't just a DailyKos story about the TSA on the front page of HN. It's a stupid DailyKos story on the front page of HN. It actually demeans well-reasoned, carefully-considered strong objections to the TSA by presenting a categorically bogus objection.
Here's a person who's memorized the 4th Amendment without actually learning what it means, yelling it at the airport in a one-person demonstration, and then doing a victory lap on a blog.
And here's us on HN competing with each other to see who can more stridently agree with her.
Granted, the way she went about it was borderline retarded. Are you saying you agree with the way she was treated by TSA and police? Or will you concede that perhaps this act of defiance (however misguided) was much more productive than the silent consent all of us give every time we shuffle through the cattle stocks?
Thanks I just flagged it too. I'm not sure what that means, I hope it means this is a BS article and let's get back to the stuff that puts food on our tables.
This is a very interesting experiment she decided to conduct on what seems to be little to no research. I'm glad that she didn't get seriously injured or harassed or locked up for several days. From what I can tell, once they got her isolated she was treated very well. But it was dangerous. As far as I'm concerned, once you step into an airport (especially an american airport) you are no longer a citizen of any particular country and have no rights.
Unfortunately, she did not simply read the constitution. She yelled it out loud so that others could hear, thereby causing quite a disturbance. Several times she mentioned that people were staring and I imagine all security processing had come to a halt at that point. I think they had no choice but to remove her from the area because of the disturbance. Also, if somebody nearby was planning on doing something, she would have created the perfect time to do it. She could have become an accomplice in a serious crime.
I agree with all of the statements she was yelling out, and it is unfortunate that things have come to this. But please be careful when considering this kind of action. Especially if you have loved ones at home who are going to worry about you.
"As far as I'm concerned, once you step into an airport (especially an american airport) you are no longer a citizen of any particular country and have no rights."
This. As a tourist, I've found the US to be quite nice and I would like to visit more often.
However, all this theater makes me want to avoid flying as much as possible. I have been treated well so far, but I wonder how much of it boils down to sheer luck.
> This is a very interesting experiment she decided to conduct on what seems to be little to no research.
How do you come to such conclusion?
> But it was dangerous.
In what way? Dangerous as in her constitutional rights might be violated?
> As far as I'm concerned, once you step into an airport (especially an american airport) you are no longer a citizen of any particular country and have no rights.
That is just sad. What's the next step? You don't have any rights in a railway station? Subways?
> ...I imagine all security processing had come to a halt at that point.
On a single line perhaps, not all.
> Also, if somebody nearby was planning on doing something, she would have created the perfect time to do it.
How so? If a simple delay on a check point creates a "perfect time" and it is an actual big risk, then there are bigger problems on that airport.
Some basic Constitutional law would have saved this guy the trouble. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled that travelers do not have the right to refuse searches at an airport [1]. You might disagree with the decision, but if you're going to pull a stunt like this, you should at least be informed on the current state of jurisprudence regarding airport searches.
Likewise, imagine if Rosa Park had thought of her day's jurisprudence when she refused to give up her seat back in 1955. "Man, I am tired from all the work today, but the courts say I should give up my seat."
And, surely you meant "this woman," as she does say she has a husband in the article.
'I yell, “Thomas Jefferson said, 'those who would give up their liberty for their security deserve neither.'”'
Actually that was Ben Franklin. But otherwise, bravo.
For all the talk of moving your domains on the 29th to boycott godaddy's support of SOPA, I wish an 'assert your 4th Amendment right while flying' day would work, but I don't think it would because the vast majority of people (even those who are supposedly activist-minded) are only willing to protest when the cost to do so is very low.
That's why godaddy is a whipping boy and the TSA is more powerful than ever.
Should the author have expected to have the glamor of martyrdom without the inconveniences attached? This question is left as an exercise for the reader.
The inconvenience IS the glamour of martyrdom. If the TSA had calmly and politely carried out the hands-on search as she recited the constitution, there would have been no effect. No inconvenience, no martyr.
Without citizens like this to assert and reassert our rights in the face of violent psychological bullying at areas of great injustice, nobody reading this would have any rights at all. I don't get to call this country mine as much as she does. The fact that psychological blitzkrieg is the response to holding up a screening line means something is terribly wrong here.
The odds of a terrorist attack aboard a plane are so low because of heightened security. Get rid of it, and those odds are likely to increase.
You can't possibly believe that. First, she read the freaking Constitution and was treated like a terrorist, and there's a name for that - and it's not security. Or American. Second, that "heightened security" is - with the exception of keeping cockpit doors closed - 100% pure, unadulterated bullshit. Liquids in a plastic baggie? Give me a break. I get so tired of people not willing to think for a minute.
There are hidden costs to increased airport security. Money spent on increased airport security could be spent elsewhere.
The expected cost of a unwanted event should be less than or equal to the expected cost of preventing that event. The choice to implement a security policy should be a rational one.
I found this all pretty pointless... The TSA people were just doing their job. I will gladly be quiet or even assist them in any reasonable screening duties if it means keeping us safe. That is all they are trying to do, it's not like they have some malicious intent. In my opinion we are not giving up many rights by letting people see if we have any weapons us. If you do not want to go through the new body scanners than thats fine, ask for a pat down but dont make a big commotion about it and start preaching to people that are only trying to do their job.
I think you're missing the point. She doesn't fault them for "doing their job," she finds fault with the fact that there is a government job in which she sees violations to the Constitution.
Also, if you would like to let someone look at your possessions, that's your right. But, a government official cannot, without reasonable cause, demand to look at your property.
I'm not saying I would have tried to pull this off, but there is something to be said for her continuously asking "do you have a warrant."
For people like me who are afraid of flying, this lady is just disturbing the peace. People should be searched before being let on planes. If people are not searched, there will be more plane attacks and global transport will decline. Planes will always be targets for terrorists because of what they represent.
The law is not about technicalities. It's about reason and sense, and sensible is that when someone is behaving like a crazy person, then take the person and find out why. Technical law is when a fixed sentence is applied for a particular crime (like marijuana possession), that is then applied without sense.
Smile and go through the scanner. There is nothing strange about being seen naked by strangers, most of evolution we've been naked.
Yeah, disturbers of the peace, like that damn black woman who wouldn't move to the back of the bus. My peace > your rights.
> If people are not searched, there will be more plane attacks and global transport will decline.
Damn right, brother! I say we take this a step further, and start searching people when they enter the mall. I mean, a terrorist in the mall is just as dangerous. Especially during the holidays.
Or hell, let's search everyone going to the new years bash in Times Square. Just make 'em strip. As you say, nothing strange about being seen naked by strangers.
And we should also start using these scanners at schools. Clearly, with all the school shootings going on, gotta protect the innocent kids, right?
We can also take the same approach online. Have everyone register their computer's OS with their ISP, and only those registered computers can use the internet. I mean, if you are innocent, you have nothing to worry about, right? This can help stop child pornography, you know. And people distributing files they don't have the right to distribute.
Personally, I'm afraid of dying in cars. Did you know, more people die in an automobile accident then a terrorist attack? Clearly, we need to rid ourselves of these terrorists of the road. Make every car require a breathalyzer. If you've had a drink, you can't drive. Keep it simple. Keep it safe. Save lives! It's reasonable. I mean, I'm afraid of other drivers, and they are just disturbing my peace. I mean, the only people that would disagree are terrorists, child pornographers, drunk drivers, and pirating thieves!
This dichotomy you present holds two points: a) the TSA has full rights to our person, or b) The terrorists win. Please consider there is actually a c-z.
Let me put it this way. There are thousands of mechanical and electronic pieces on a plane, most of which were assembled by private enterprise. You trust them with your life to fly your ass miles through the air, and to land on a strip of tar -- safely, timely, and efficiently. Yet, they're not capable of keeping you safe from "terrorists"?
If this manufactured image of terrorists were actually a real threat to airliners, they would be addressing it themselves, just like they would any other life-threatening safety flaw on their plane.
Take a look at airport security in Israel sometime. They don't have this silly invasive rigamarole that we do. They have highly trained agents that observe peoples' behavior to look for suspicious events. If they search someone, then it's because they have reasonable cause.
We don't want to do that because it's expensive to do it right. So we have the TSA, which is just a jobs program for the most unskilled folks in the population, and creates an illusion of security without having to provide real security.
> There is nothing strange about being seen naked by strangers, most of evolution we've been naked.
What about being bombarded by ionizing radiation? The millimeter wave machines don't bother me so much, but there's a reason they cover you with a lead vest when you're at the dentist. Full-body x-ray scanners are banned across Europe due to cancer concerns.
[+] [-] jballanc|14 years ago|reply
I travel overseas frequently. One of my favorite airports is Istanbul's Ataturk International Airport. I like it because I can sit in a cafe waiting for my plane to New York, and I can listen to the PA make announcements for flights to Nairobi, Dubai, Singapore, Moscow, Pairs, and Sao Paulo. Istanbul literally connects to the entire world. And yet, there is only one gate in the entire terminal that has "secondary screening", the one for the New York flight. The thought that somehow the threat of terrorism is greater in the United States than anywhere else in the world is laughable to anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention to world events. Yet, it is only the United States that feels the need to have extra security precautions.
I wonder how many Americans see the TSA, the Patriot Act, etc. as evidence of the greatness of America. "Our country must be the greatest in the world if it requires so much effort to protect," I imagine them thinking. "Why would so many people be against us if it were not the case?" In reality, the rest of the world sees a frightened bully, and they're not falling for it any more. They go to places like Istanbul's airport, or any of the hundreds of other airports around the world that have extra screening set up exclusively for US bound flights, and they see weakness.
What's really almost funny about all of this, is that the 4th amendment is uniquely American. It is not at all uncommon in other countries for police (or the Gendarme) to be authorized to stop pedestrians and perform a search without cause. The mere existence of the 4th amendment has, traditionally, been a sign of strength. As if to say: "We're so confident of our security and the resolve of our justice system that we will give our citizens this extra right."
By reducing 4th amendment rights, the US is not gaining security, it is showing weakness...and that can be dangerous to the long term health of a country.
[+] [-] Lost_BiomedE|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ibisum|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gerggerg|14 years ago|reply
PEOPLE HAVE TO STAND UP FOR WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT. Even if the effect it has seems insignificant. It doesn't matter if your an ass for doing it. It doesn't matter if some people think you were trying to cause trouble. If you don't stand up for what you personally think is right what do you stand up for?
Was she right? Were the officers wrong? That's for you to decide but it doesn't really matter. She had a conviction to do what she thought was right, and hopefully inspired others to do the same. And I can't imagine not respecting her for doing so.
If the only time you could complain about SOPA was in airport security only the brave and scared would complain about SOPA. And you can bet others would find them annoying.
[+] [-] dustingetz|14 years ago|reply
I wonder what her court costs are going to be. I wish she had donated that money to the EFF. The EFF is in a better position to fight this stuff intelligently, and at the right levels.
[+] [-] phaus|14 years ago|reply
I hate the TSA as much as anyone, but when you do stupid things on purpose, stupid things happen to you.
[+] [-] peterwwillis|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] easp|14 years ago|reply
We can disagree with the ethics of such things, but is there disagreement that provoking a response can be a useful tactic?
[+] [-] jberryman|14 years ago|reply
I can also easily see this kind of behavior causing a panic in the screening line. Maybe this isn't fair, but this is how I would imagine a right-wing domestic terrorist to act right before they blew themselves up.
I'm all for civil disobedience, but this is just oblivious and antisocial to the extreme.
[+] [-] ScottBurson|14 years ago|reply
If, instead of doing this at the security checkpoint, she wanted to stand at the entrance to the airport speaking and handing out leaflets, she would be exercising her First Amendment rights, and I would hope they would accommodate her. (If they didn't, I wouldn't be surprised, but I would be angry.)
But what she chose to do was just pointless.
[+] [-] glenra|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antoinevg|14 years ago|reply
Yes, because we're British and GodForbidWeShouldCreateAScene(tm).
lolololol
[+] [-] doogall|14 years ago|reply
Also it seems that people can be arrested (held or detained) without being 'arrested'.
[+] [-] antihero|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|14 years ago|reply
Here's a person who's memorized the 4th Amendment without actually learning what it means, yelling it at the airport in a one-person demonstration, and then doing a victory lap on a blog.
And here's us on HN competing with each other to see who can more stridently agree with her.
Flagged, of course. You should too.
[+] [-] peterwwillis|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jebblue|14 years ago|reply
Your comment was very articulate thanks.
[+] [-] grannyg00se|14 years ago|reply
Unfortunately, she did not simply read the constitution. She yelled it out loud so that others could hear, thereby causing quite a disturbance. Several times she mentioned that people were staring and I imagine all security processing had come to a halt at that point. I think they had no choice but to remove her from the area because of the disturbance. Also, if somebody nearby was planning on doing something, she would have created the perfect time to do it. She could have become an accomplice in a serious crime.
I agree with all of the statements she was yelling out, and it is unfortunate that things have come to this. But please be careful when considering this kind of action. Especially if you have loved ones at home who are going to worry about you.
[+] [-] outworlder|14 years ago|reply
This. As a tourist, I've found the US to be quite nice and I would like to visit more often.
However, all this theater makes me want to avoid flying as much as possible. I have been treated well so far, but I wonder how much of it boils down to sheer luck.
[+] [-] tommi|14 years ago|reply
How do you come to such conclusion?
> But it was dangerous.
In what way? Dangerous as in her constitutional rights might be violated?
> As far as I'm concerned, once you step into an airport (especially an american airport) you are no longer a citizen of any particular country and have no rights.
That is just sad. What's the next step? You don't have any rights in a railway station? Subways?
> ...I imagine all security processing had come to a halt at that point.
On a single line perhaps, not all.
> Also, if somebody nearby was planning on doing something, she would have created the perfect time to do it.
How so? If a simple delay on a check point creates a "perfect time" and it is an actual big risk, then there are bigger problems on that airport.
[+] [-] quanticle|14 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/08/court-says-trav/
[+] [-] gazrogers|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] felipellrocha|14 years ago|reply
And, surely you meant "this woman," as she does say she has a husband in the article.
[+] [-] rayiner|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] troels|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] georgemcbay|14 years ago|reply
Actually that was Ben Franklin. But otherwise, bravo.
For all the talk of moving your domains on the 29th to boycott godaddy's support of SOPA, I wish an 'assert your 4th Amendment right while flying' day would work, but I don't think it would because the vast majority of people (even those who are supposedly activist-minded) are only willing to protest when the cost to do so is very low.
That's why godaddy is a whipping boy and the TSA is more powerful than ever.
[+] [-] cafard|14 years ago|reply
Should the author have expected to have the glamor of martyrdom without the inconveniences attached? This question is left as an exercise for the reader.
[+] [-] MoreMoschops|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NIL8|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] maeon3|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Vivtek|14 years ago|reply
You can't possibly believe that. First, she read the freaking Constitution and was treated like a terrorist, and there's a name for that - and it's not security. Or American. Second, that "heightened security" is - with the exception of keeping cockpit doors closed - 100% pure, unadulterated bullshit. Liquids in a plastic baggie? Give me a break. I get so tired of people not willing to think for a minute.
[+] [-] grhino|14 years ago|reply
The expected cost of a unwanted event should be less than or equal to the expected cost of preventing that event. The choice to implement a security policy should be a rational one.
[+] [-] BryanB55|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rabidonrails|14 years ago|reply
Also, if you would like to let someone look at your possessions, that's your right. But, a government official cannot, without reasonable cause, demand to look at your property.
I'm not saying I would have tried to pull this off, but there is something to be said for her continuously asking "do you have a warrant."
[+] [-] MoreMoschops|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxklein|14 years ago|reply
The law is not about technicalities. It's about reason and sense, and sensible is that when someone is behaving like a crazy person, then take the person and find out why. Technical law is when a fixed sentence is applied for a particular crime (like marijuana possession), that is then applied without sense.
Smile and go through the scanner. There is nothing strange about being seen naked by strangers, most of evolution we've been naked.
[+] [-] jasonlotito|14 years ago|reply
> If people are not searched, there will be more plane attacks and global transport will decline.
Damn right, brother! I say we take this a step further, and start searching people when they enter the mall. I mean, a terrorist in the mall is just as dangerous. Especially during the holidays.
Or hell, let's search everyone going to the new years bash in Times Square. Just make 'em strip. As you say, nothing strange about being seen naked by strangers.
And we should also start using these scanners at schools. Clearly, with all the school shootings going on, gotta protect the innocent kids, right?
We can also take the same approach online. Have everyone register their computer's OS with their ISP, and only those registered computers can use the internet. I mean, if you are innocent, you have nothing to worry about, right? This can help stop child pornography, you know. And people distributing files they don't have the right to distribute.
Personally, I'm afraid of dying in cars. Did you know, more people die in an automobile accident then a terrorist attack? Clearly, we need to rid ourselves of these terrorists of the road. Make every car require a breathalyzer. If you've had a drink, you can't drive. Keep it simple. Keep it safe. Save lives! It's reasonable. I mean, I'm afraid of other drivers, and they are just disturbing my peace. I mean, the only people that would disagree are terrorists, child pornographers, drunk drivers, and pirating thieves!
[+] [-] smokeyj|14 years ago|reply
Let me put it this way. There are thousands of mechanical and electronic pieces on a plane, most of which were assembled by private enterprise. You trust them with your life to fly your ass miles through the air, and to land on a strip of tar -- safely, timely, and efficiently. Yet, they're not capable of keeping you safe from "terrorists"?
If this manufactured image of terrorists were actually a real threat to airliners, they would be addressing it themselves, just like they would any other life-threatening safety flaw on their plane.
[+] [-] rayiner|14 years ago|reply
We don't want to do that because it's expensive to do it right. So we have the TSA, which is just a jobs program for the most unskilled folks in the population, and creates an illusion of security without having to provide real security.
[+] [-] Pelayo|14 years ago|reply
There are still doubts about the safety of the scanners. They have not been tested.
[+] [-] benmccann|14 years ago|reply
What about being bombarded by ionizing radiation? The millimeter wave machines don't bother me so much, but there's a reason they cover you with a lead vest when you're at the dentist. Full-body x-ray scanners are banned across Europe due to cancer concerns.