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.
> If I go through the airport with her, there is no guarantee the agents will let me stay with her and explain the situation.
I am - without being an expert - pretty sure there is a procedure for care givers.
The last time I flew - 2010 - it was a few months after my wife had bi-lateral knee surgery. She was mobile, but not spry, not able to walk more than fifty yards at a go.
We had an airport provided wheel chair, a guy or gal to push. My role was care-giver and I got to be with her throughout the procedure. 'Is this your care giver - step this way, Sir.'.
Worked pretty well: the pusher person knew where to go, the TSA goons got us to the head of the line and it worked out.
I don't know about the leg brace, though. That might be a problem.
I'm with you on the TSA being bad news and a worse idea. The day it was announced I knew it would be a goat rope, a hit against the 4th amendment and would never, ever, go away.
But I am old enough to remember when airports had observation decks for the public, anyone could march down to the gate with only a nod to the sleepy airport guy running the scanner, and if you'd told anyone what's going on in 2013 they'd snort and say
'Maybe in the USSR, it's run by commies. But never in the USA.'
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?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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?
Yes! I commented a few weeks ago about listening to an NPR ToTN segment about the loosening of the pocketknife ban. ToTN even got a guest for the duration of the segment to argue the case for relaxing TSA regulations. As I recall: every caller called to complain that the TSA was relaxing requirements.
Do you have some evidence for this assertion? I see it commonly given here -- treated almost axiomatically -- but is there any actual evidence that 'the average American sees absolutely nothing wrong'? Or are we just assuming we know the mind of 'average' American... and that we are not they... and that they are simple, and complacent?
Public education would lead to... what... mass civil disobedience against the TSA's practices? Maybe, I don't know. Fighting the TSA's de facto policies with legal battles is an appropriate response (that doesn't at all require majority public attention).
Oh I am quite sure the average American DOES see something wrong with the TSA, however they are resigned to grousing about it as individually they cannot see anything they can do but accept it.
It would take a new political group to arise and challenge those in power, which isn't going to happen anytime soon. The Tea Party got branded by its kooks because both Republicans and Democrats saw the threat is posed to them. Republicans because it directly challenged them and Democrats who desperately didn't want the same to come up and challenge them from within.
So I think Americans care, but are resigned to the fact that short of a major upheaval or serious blunder by the TSA not much will change.
"the average American sees absolutely nothing wrong with what the TSA does"
I keep seeing variants of this claim, but that's not my experience. Everyone I know hates it (and I'm pretty sure that some of those people are "average Americans").
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.
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.
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.
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.
<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"?
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"
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"
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.
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/
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.
Yes. This is true. At least on March 1st, 2013, San Francisco Airport utilized Covenant Aviation Security, a private company under contract with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
I don't think you get to shirk responsibility just because you contract the job out. Even if TSA contracts out security at this airport, the contractor is still operating under TSA rules and TSA is ultimately responsible for their behavior.
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.
You fail to address the fact that it is him choosing to disclose it. That is very different from being forced to.
The serious problem I see here is that even after he indicated he is not able to talk to them they refused him to use pen and paper. I also have a speech impediment and carry those with me. Taking them away and not letting someone use them when they are already frazzled and upset is like asking someone in the wheelchair to just "stop being a pussy and get up and walk" or accusing them of "being uncooperative".
Different contexts are different. While at an airport, few are likely to connect his face with his website and have it known that he has a disability. Even if he's talked about it on his site, that doesn't mean it's automatically known to every person everywhere, humanity is not a hivemind.
Furthermore, he's attempting to advocate for others who may also not want their disability known. He gives up his privacy in a certain setting in order to (hopefully) allow many others to never have to give up theirs.
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.
I think he means he doesn't want to be ostracized at airports. Just because you are out about something doesn't mean you should have to declare it at the airport and make a scene. Plenty of gay people are out but they don't have to be questioned about it at the airport.
Shame? Having to get patted down and trying to explain your disability and why you need exceptions in a place where TSA acts like God? It's entirely different. It's as different as choosing to come out or being outed. I sympathize with people with disabilities, they know that people are sympathetic and it's very awkward to have to make excuses for yourself for a disability you have no control over.
On the other hand, in your own forum while making a point, it makes perfect sense to use that context to explain why it was embarrassing and is in need of proper training or policy modification.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
[+] [-] javert|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] bdunbar|13 years ago|reply
I am - without being an expert - pretty sure there is a procedure for care givers.
The last time I flew - 2010 - it was a few months after my wife had bi-lateral knee surgery. She was mobile, but not spry, not able to walk more than fifty yards at a go.
We had an airport provided wheel chair, a guy or gal to push. My role was care-giver and I got to be with her throughout the procedure. 'Is this your care giver - step this way, Sir.'.
Worked pretty well: the pusher person knew where to go, the TSA goons got us to the head of the line and it worked out.
I don't know about the leg brace, though. That might be a problem.
I'm with you on the TSA being bad news and a worse idea. The day it was announced I knew it would be a goat rope, a hit against the 4th amendment and would never, ever, go away.
But I am old enough to remember when airports had observation decks for the public, anyone could march down to the gate with only a nod to the sleepy airport guy running the scanner, and if you'd told anyone what's going on in 2013 they'd snort and say
'Maybe in the USSR, it's run by commies. But never in the USA.'
[+] [-] zapdrive|13 years ago|reply
Freedom and rights have never been offered on a platter. You have to fight for them. And you have to keep fighting to maintain them.
[+] [-] rhizome|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colanderman|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|13 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] DannyBee|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ShabbyDoo|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clebio|13 years ago|reply
Public education would lead to... what... mass civil disobedience against the TSA's practices? Maybe, I don't know. Fighting the TSA's de facto policies with legal battles is an appropriate response (that doesn't at all require majority public attention).
[+] [-] Shivetya|13 years ago|reply
It would take a new political group to arise and challenge those in power, which isn't going to happen anytime soon. The Tea Party got branded by its kooks because both Republicans and Democrats saw the threat is posed to them. Republicans because it directly challenged them and Democrats who desperately didn't want the same to come up and challenge them from within.
So I think Americans care, but are resigned to the fact that short of a major upheaval or serious blunder by the TSA not much will change.
[+] [-] revelation|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Turing_Machine|13 years ago|reply
I keep seeing variants of this claim, but that's not my experience. Everyone I know hates it (and I'm pretty sure that some of those people are "average Americans").
[+] [-] rdtsc|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] tokenadult|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
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"?
[+] [-] dyno12345|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swalsh|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coudron|13 years ago|reply
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"
[+] [-] cj|13 years ago|reply
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"
[+] [-] xutopia|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] js2|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sargun|13 years ago|reply
Source: http://www.flysfo.com/web/page/atsfo/saf-sec/
[+] [-] mikeash|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xenophanes|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdtsc|13 years ago|reply
The serious problem I see here is that even after he indicated he is not able to talk to them they refused him to use pen and paper. I also have a speech impediment and carry those with me. Taking them away and not letting someone use them when they are already frazzled and upset is like asking someone in the wheelchair to just "stop being a pussy and get up and walk" or accusing them of "being uncooperative".
[+] [-] steveklabnik|13 years ago|reply
Furthermore, he's attempting to advocate for others who may also not want their disability known. He gives up his privacy in a certain setting in order to (hopefully) allow many others to never have to give up theirs.
[+] [-] dthunt|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] whathappenedto|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mgkimsal|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drivebyacct2|13 years ago|reply
On the other hand, in your own forum while making a point, it makes perfect sense to use that context to explain why it was embarrassing and is in need of proper training or policy modification.
[+] [-] peteforde|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
I just hope he is correct in his legal interpretations.
[+] [-] nathanlil13|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sybhn|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saizai|13 years ago|reply
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-...
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
[+] [-] duncan_bayne|13 years ago|reply
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.