Hacker News Reader

Comment by derefr | Hacker News Reader

A devil's advocate argument, for people to have something explicit to rebut here:

One of the guises state police operate under in America is the "highway patrol"—a force that searches for terrorists and drug trafficking and the like.

And presumably, air travel is a privilege, not a right, just like driving a car is. (Or is it? Taking public transit is a right that can't be denied to someone unless they explicitly break a rule of the system. But airports are private companies...)

So, given that, is there a legal reason that there is no "airway patrol"?

I'm not suggesting they have the powers of random search & seizure that the TSA seems to have, mind you. But should there be state police that are stationed at airports, who search people when they have probable cause?

View on HN

> Presumably, air travel is a privilege, not a right, just like driving a car is.

Freedom of movement is a privilege, not a right? What can you possibly be talking about?

Did I miss a memo? The United States (and other common law societies) have a long history of enshrining freedom of movement as a fundamental right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit...

Also, be reminded that the USA voted in favor of the UDHR, which reads in part:

* a citizen of a state in which that citizen is present has the liberty to travel, reside in, and/or work in any part of the state where one pleases within the limits of respect for the liberty and rights of others

and

* and that a citizen also has the right to leave any country, including his or her own, and to return to his or her country at any time.

freedom of movement \neq freedom to fly though

In a modern society, disallowing to fly doesn't give full movement rights for a person. You are much less likely to travel to Europe if you have to use a transaltlantic boat for example. :p

yes but you could say that of cars too (and courts have ruled mandatory DUI tests legal)

Just because courts have ruled something legal doesn't make it Constitutional. See: 100 mile border zones that are "exempt" from the 4th Amendment.

Not to mention, just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

what SCOTUS says defines what is constitutional. you may disagree with their ruling but they are the meaningful authority.

DUI tests are only mandatory for people driving a car, not for people who are simply traveling in one.

freedom to "use technology" is the freedom to "participate in society" which is the whole point. In the 80s it may have been permissible to ban those convicted of hacking crimes from computers and touch tone telephones, but today?

ask the supreme court

I'm sure we will.

Freedom of movement was a privilege in the old soviet union. Maybe we are slowly becoming the USSR?

You can move, but not necessarily in car. Or on a plane. And you can't walk on the highways or near the rail road tracks or in the road. And you will be stopped if an officer sees you walking alone on a country road. And that's probable cause right there. Don't go wandering in the woods, lots of privately owned property there as well.

I'm sorry, you said something about moving?

I don't think they can stop you from moving in a car. They can stop you from driving one, though...

Yes you can pre-arrange a ride. Hitch-hiking is illegal in some states. You can pay for a taxi, buy a train or plane ticket. The latter provided you are not on any lists and don't mind your things being x-rayed and/or searched.

Really paying for rides in a car is the last great bastion of free movement (provided you don't get randomly stopped and searched in a checkpoint of some kind) in the U.S. Although, most of those either won't take you on the highway or are prohibitively expensive to do so. Making inter-city and greater travel difficult. But bonus points if you can pay with cash.

I understand, though. There are just so many common sense reasons to restrict free travel. How could one resist?

> Hitch-hiking is mostly illegal in most states

No it isn't. There are only a few states where it's illegal.

You are correct. While it is outright illegal in 6 states and has many different specifications per state, it is not mostly illegal.

I have amended my original comment to reflect this after doing some research.

Freedom of movement no more guarantees your right to purchase a ticket aboard a private, commercial flight, than freedom of speech guarantees your right to post to a private, commercial forum.

What freedom of movement does guarantee, to be clear, is that you're:

1. allowed to own your own plane;

4. allowed to fly said plane over pretty much any American airspace, other than specific little zones cordoned off by the military;

2. allowed to have your own airfield to launch and land your plane;

3. allowed to use the airfield of any American airport to launch/land your plane (at least in an emergency.)

With your own plane—just like with your own car—you have freedom of movement in the US.

You cannot buy a plane and fly it without first asking the government.

It is the government, via TSA, ICE, etc., and not Delta or Lufthansa or whoever, that most impedes the feasibility of air travel. Let us put to bed the notion that freedom of movement means only the freedom to walk on foot or to take absurd measures to avoid contracting with private or public entities that exist expressly for the purpose of serving travelers.

The existence of a pilots license necessary to fly a plane makes this incorrect off the get go

> Freedom of movement no more guarantees your right to purchase a ticket aboard a private, commercial flight, than freedom of speech guarantees your right to post to a private, commercial forum.

It is the government that prevents you from flying on the private commercial airline. Not the airline owner. If the government was preventing people from posting certain messages on private commercial form, that would certainly be a violation of the First Amendment.

That seems reaching to me. After all, highway patrol cannot simply start going through your belongings without probable cause which has a potential to be tested in court. Same rights are clearly not afforded to the air travelers in TSA interactions which seem to exist in a legal limbo right now.

actually they can and do every day!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...

"In May 2010 a couple was driving from New York to Florida and they were stopped by police because of a cracked windshield. During questioning, the officer decided that $32,000 cash in the van was "probably involved in criminal or drug-related activity", seized it, shared it with federal authorities under equitable sharing. The victim hired a lawyer to get back the seized money who urged settling for half of the seized amount, and after the lawyer's fees, the victim got back only $7,000."

As a followup to this (and response to preceding comment), a quick Google search shows that all airports aside from one in the US are owned by the government, which I believe must meet certain standards that we don't require of private entities in terms of rights of access.

that quick google search brings up a site that cites no sources for that claim...

Digging around found a source but I highly doubt its the one that site used. https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_compliance/privatizatio...

> It occurs to me that America has, in every state, a state-run "highway patrol" that searches for terrorists and drug trafficking and the like.

The state-run highway patrol is still subject to the 4th amendment (search and seizure.)

If you get pulled over by a LEO - they need consent, probable cause, or a warrant in order to rifle through your belongings.

> they need consent, probable cause, or a warrant in order to rifle through your belongings.

which they can invent with no problem if they feel like it.

nobody who declines to a search gets away with it; they just call a drug dog to alert and then they can search anyway.

Not consenting to a search isn't really about preventing the search. The police are, by definition, they application of force; if they want to search you, they will. However, not consenting forces them to make up some sort of justification for their actions and gives your lawyer a much better chance of getting the fruits of the search thrown out.

My city Boston will tresspass you from the subway and bus system if you refuse to submit to a search of your bags at the checkpoints they set up at certain stations. So I don't think you are correct about public transportation.

How come that thing that is a thing isn't a thing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Air_Marshal_Service

4,000 law enforcement officers.

But that is separate from what powers we as a society should allow them.

The Air Marshals are literal peace officers—there to stop crime that happens in the air. Completely separate from the idea of a highway patrol, which is there—in essence—to be a permanent dragnet for BOLOs, and to (probabilistically) be witness to statutory crimes/regulatory violations (e.g. dumping of industrial waste) where no individual victim is going to report them.

So the Highway Patrol is there to stop crime that happens on highways, and that's totally different?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com