Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down | Hacker News Reader

Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down

noblasters.com

459 pointsbobf179 comments

In the 1500's a man called Étienne de la Boétie wrote, in a then-inflammatory "Discourse on Voluntary Servitude":

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

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

Fantastic quote. Thanks!

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

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

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

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

Airlines.

Airlines are the key.

I bet you that if someone setup website offering reasons not to fly, along with alternatives to flying - along with a catchy domain - and publicised the hell out of it in stories like these, the pressure from the airlines would become so great that the TSA would be gone (in its current form) within a month.

US Marshals? Actual law enforcement, or some organization that has some standards for admittance?

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

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

And now we criticize the TSA for using "inadequately trained, low-paid employees for something as essential as security."

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

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

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

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

That is simply nonsense, 10 years there was little practical security on domestic US flights. That was the soft underbelly that the 9/11 hijackers exploited. Security on international flights was also lacking compared to e.g. the UK.

The TSA is a hysterical over-reaction.

The only true improvement I've seen are the reinforced cockpit doors. Everything else is just a smokescreen.

Like everywhere else in the world?

In a civilized manner, friendly respectful and efficient?

Maybe by checks conducted by real professionals and not with the aim to have it as cheaply as possible and thus paying minimum wages to badly trained "agents" on a power trip?

Maybe in a way where you're not blackmailed into going through a machine, which effects are very unproven and in whoms installation the former director of the TSA has a financial interest? (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/0...) ?

Just a few bullet points for thought.

They're government workers; their salaries are probably not that bad.

How about REAL security, like the Isreilies implemented? People get through the biggest of airports in 30 or so minutes, no invasive screenings, the worst you will get is a metal detector sweep and an xray of your belongings.

Israel has good security, better than we have, for longer, with less tech, and no liberties violated, and people get through the airport faster. Wait, its cheaper too. Shit with all the cards stacked in their favor we look like idiots not at least modeling security after them. Sure we can improve on it, lets catch up first then 1-up em.

Look at the rest of the world, they've been doing airport security in a reasonably civilised manner since the Palestinians and Cubans started hijacking back in the 60s(?)

The threat profile of "prevent a hijacking" and "prevent a bomb with no metallic content from bringing down a plane" are very different.

I don't see how the TSA (as constituted, see below) can do the latter without the scanners ... it's how they're approaching this, most especially the deliberately punitive enhanced groping if you opt out or if the scanner can't image you properly that's one facet of the problem.

At its base, by looking for weapons instead of terrorists ... well, we've decided that profiling is an ultimate evil and cannot be continenced. Unless we reverse that....

We're not fighting back. The point of the quote is that power comes from the people. If the people don't give the tyrant anything then the tyrant is powerless. As long as the Tyrant knows that if he shoots at us, we shoot back, he can demand and demand and we give nothing and thus he becomes moot.

Same with the TSA. We need a 100% national opt-out day. Not scanners. I mean same statement as the guy made. EVERYONE. The airlines will go nuts as most their passengers will be missing from the flights. Or something to that extent. Its not fighting back, its just refusal to give them power. And I bet we can ask for refunds. Nowhere on the ticket does it say that a delay in the airport due to constitutional rights violations warrants a no-refund.

Just like with 9/11 now is the same issue and we must handle it as Americans, like we did threats before it. Never surrender even an ounce of freedom, they will take our freedom from our cold dead hands only.

I have to quote Franklin on this one "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

LA Times, 2010: "Shut up and be scanned". LA Times, 1942 "shut up and go to your internment camp"

http://www.theagitator.com/2010/11/22/shut-up-and-be-scanned...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, the chance of there being a true positive is nill. Government equipment never malfunctions. So it's better to ban dosimeters and eliminate the possibility of a media problem.

I did not say anything like what you are suggesting. Those are all things to be concerned about, but dosimeters aren't an effective way to measure or prevent them. If the backscatter machines are completely safe, dosimeters for such a large group will still cause a panic because there will be false positives. There are other devices that can measure radiation more accurately and reliably.

I feel contempt for the TSA as much as everyone else around here, but one has to be aware of the halo/horn effect. I don't know if banning dosimeters is the best decision, but I can see why they did it, and it seems rather unobjectionable compared to most of the TSA's actions and policies.

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

You'll get false positives if anyone goes for a cardiac stress test...

That's why you only wear your dosimetry when you're at work.

From all this uproar lately, sounds like work is a cardiac stress test for the TSA.

Not nearly as much as it is for the passengers.

For all the uproar, as of the last time I went through TSA security (about a week before the new "sexual assault" procedures started), the screeners seemed to be perfectly happy in their roles.

Wouldn't matter. Cardiac stress tests usually use technetium or some other radioactive tracer which remains in the body for a day or two after the test. That means that, for the next day or so, you are a "radiation hazard" (not really, but the dosimeters don't know the difference, or at least that's what I was told by the radiation control officer).

Yes, with standardized work-issued dosimeters, training, and strict obedience to policies, you will reduce false positives. They'll still happen, though. Some types of dosimeters will read positive if exposed to heat or sunlight. Some are sensitive to oils or dirt. One nuclear waste disposal facility had false positive rates around 5% per quarter (http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=515496). They eventually found the lights in their building to be a major cause.

Now take that information and extrapolate it to using dosimeters in every airport in the nation. Even if the TSA deployed dosimeters as competently as a nuclear waste disposal facility, they would still get so many false positives that the dosimeters would be useless.

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

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

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

After all this, you don't think the TSA is strict on their policies?

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

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

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

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

[1] Health Physics Society page on radiation exposure on commercial airflights: http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights..... [2] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Backscatter_X... [3] http://hps.org/documents/environmental_radiation_fact_sheet....

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

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

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

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

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

I was under the impression that all of the "x-ray" scanners aren't x-rays. Instead they are high frequency (100GHz+) back scattering machines.

The ones in the MKE air port are L3 ProVisions which fit the description I was aware of (http://www.sds.l-3com.com/products/mmwave.htm). No ionizing radiation means no "x-rays" etc.

I haven't been subjected to them yet, but before I walked into the airport I made my decision if I was going to be scanned or not.

There are 2 classes: millimeter wavelength machines and x-ray backscatter machines. These are definitely backscatter x-ray machines.

And with every challenge, others become more and more confident in trying the same.

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

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

http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&...

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

http://holt.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=...

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

What do you base that on ?

http://gawker.com/5689925/man-threatened-with-10000-fine-aft...

https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.tsa.gov/assets/...

Nice pdfs, there does not seem to be a single item in there that matches your $10K fine for anything the guy did, in fact he has a bunch of police officers on hand as witnesses that he behaved impeccably.

What specific reason (instead of links to a bunch of documents) do you see for them slapping a civil suit on him ?

The gawker article reads:

"He said that once I start the screening in the secure area, I could not leave until it was completed. Having left the area, he stated, I would be subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine... He again asserted the necessity that I return to the screening area."

That is not the same as actually being charged with something and having such a fine levied against you, especially not in a civil suit (which is separate from the fine).

I don't see any proof such a suit was brought or the fine was actually levied.

There would have to be an infraction and this guy was not detained (he would have been if there were such an infraction, you can just about count on that).

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/15/tsa-probe-sca... :

The Transportation Security Administration has opened an investigation targeting John Tyner

Michael J. Aguilar, chief of the TSA office in San Diego, .. said the investigation could lead to prosecution and civil penalties of up to $11,000.

The operative word is 'could'.

I don't see it happening.

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

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

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

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

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

"Wolanyk's attorney said that TSA requested his client put his clothes on so he could be patted down properly...".

If this is true that is the most ridiculous request I have ever heard. If I show up to the airport in a speedo bathing suit are they going to make me put on more clothes to go through security?

The TSA does not have any statutory authority that I can identify to levy $10k civil fines for no reason.

That number isn't pulled out of thin air; it's from 49 USC § 1503.401, and it's the maximum civil penalty the TSA can assess against anyone who isn't actually operating an aircraft.

In other words, $10k is what the TSA has statutory authority to bill you if you hit a TSA agent.

Meanwhile: the specific list of things that 49 USC § 1540 forbids does not include refusing a search (though it does include attempting to board a flight without being searched).

The TSA has made the authority it is claiming up out of whole cloth, in an effort to keep people from fouling up the lines and making more embarrassing Youtube videos.

The "less clothes" approach may be more interesting than it appears at first glance.

Sam Wolanyk is legal rights activist who recently won a suit against the City of San Diego for failing to respect his right to openly carry a handgun in public: http://www.responsiblecitizensofcalifornia.org/profiles/blog...

He's a sharp guy who seems well aware of the relevant laws. He seems to have set up his arrest quite consciously. He may prevail here.

About five years ago I was going through airport security one morning after a healthy night of drinking. A metal buckled belt help up cargo pants that seemed to have every pocket full of some kind of metal debris from the night before. Barely thinking, I reasoned it would be easier to drop my pants into the bin going through the scanner, especially since I was wearing boxers and had to take my shoes off anyway. Of course, while I was putting my pants back on TSA pulled me aside, yelling in my face, almost keeping me off my flight. I never understood why they would get so upset when I was just making their job easier.

It was a work trip, after being released I got a kick out of my boss telling me while she was going through security she heard the lady next to her exclaim "that guy just took his pants off!" to look up and see it was me being pulled away by the TSA.

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

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

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

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

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

I think that Customs may detain you at a border--they have more leeway in the Constitution for border searches iirc. That's what I'm confused about now, because with each new insane agency that gets created and each new law that alters and amends old law, it's hard for a non-lawyer to get a clear picture of exactly what is and what isn't a right.

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

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

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

The TSA is not customs.

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

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution restricts government's ability to seizure people. A person is seized when a reasonable person in that situation would feel that they are not free to leave. Normally, seizure requires a warrant, but there are exceptions, all of which I think require that the seizing officer have probable cause that a crime has been committed and the person who committed the crime is the one being seized.

By asking the police officer if he was free to go, the traveler was triggering this kind of analysis in the officer's head. The officer knows that he cannot seize without probable cause. He can probably temporarily detain the traveler while the TSA investigate the situation, but ultimately, if there's no probable cause, the traveler must be allowed to leave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

You're required to present proof of citizenship and allow a "routine" search of your belongings for contraband. A "non-routine" search requires them to have a reasonable suspicion about you specifically. My own reading is that a backscatter scan or s search of your body would count as non-routine, but of course a court may disagree.

On the Reddit discussion of this, someone pointed out that at the particular airport involved when you leave Customs you have to pass through the secure area to exit the airport. There's no exit path from customs that bypasses going through the secure area. That may be the reason people entering the country are checked.

Here is an article and HN discussion thread that was posted two months ago that describes how one man retained his rights upon re-entering the US:

http://nomadlaw.com/2010/04/i-am-detained-by-feds-for-not-an...

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1681721

This is what elections are for.

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

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

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

>This is what elections are for.

Voting once every two or four years and ceding policy to the politicians in the meantime is a recipe for the kind of bipartisan nonsense that pervades the US government. If you want things to get better, you need to get involved between elections.

You can't get rid of the constitution just because you won an election. That is why it's the constitution. Unreasonable search is a constitutional issue, not a normal policy issue.

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

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

what this guy did at the TSA security checkpoint seems far more effective than voting

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

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

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

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

> but most of all, we can vote.

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

That's awesome.

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

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

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

have you been to hawaii? it definitely doesn't suck to live there.

I haven't been to Hawaii, but I'm sure it's great to live there. However, if you want to visit anywhere other than the other side of the island, you have to submit to the TSA, or take a boat. That part sucks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I haven't been through a TSA checkpoint when landing in the US, but it might depend where you fly from. The airport I usually enter the US from, Schipol (Amsterdam), has the backscatter machines installed at the gates (not the terminal checkpoints)... it is clear that they are only used to meet USA conditions. It might be that flying from a country that is not bowing to pressure from the TSA requires a security scan to be sure it meets their ludicrous requirements.

I think he means on arrival in the US, not before you get on the plane.

I think his point is that some other countries don't take the latest TSA requirements seriously, and if you come from one of those countries, the TSA will screen you because of that.

I don't understand the point of that point. If the reason for the X-ray machines is to stop people from smuggling dangerous materials onto planes and using them to cause harm, scanning people after they get off the plane is the most literal analogue I've ever seen for shutting the barn door after the horses have fled.

Imagine a daycare center that had a policy of running background checks on its employees only once they quit. Would you feel like they were taking the children's safety very seriously?

I'm guessing the issue is that the physical layout of the terminal is designed under the assumption that everyone arriving on an international flight is connecting to a domestic flight, and CVG was not their final airport. In that case, they want people screened by US personnel against US policies before boarding those domestic flights.

It still seems like a waste of time and money for the TSA to screen people who are just going to go out to the bag claim though and not board another flight.

I don't do much (hardly any) international travel, but in my experience, in US airports the international arrivals and domestic departures are physically separate security zones. You can't get off an international flight and hop on a domestic flight without going through security again.

At PDX you need to clear the international arrival zone and go through TSA screening even to depart from an internation gate. Departing from an international gate requires the same screening for domestic flights. Arriving at international gates looks like the following:

Gate -> Corridor -> Customs -> International Baggage Claim (Explicitly so you can get your bags re-screened by US personnel) -> TSA screening -> airport concourse -> onward travel via domestic gates / onward travel via international gates / exit

The last time I went through this was from a flight from AMS. So coming from Schipol does not free you from the requirement to reclear security on the way out of the airport.

The International and Domestic security zones are not distinct, all international arrivals are required to be re-screened by US personnel before rejoining the regular security zone, no matter which onward destination.

It would be a waste of time - but if the airport layout would give those people access to the secured area of the airport, and there was no way to channel the connecting passengers separately from the exiting passengers, then you'd pretty much have no choice but to screen every arrival to your security standards. That would just be poor architectural decisions.

Perhaps the point of scanning the people flying is to justify spending money on the machines? The machines are being pushed in part by people who used to run the TSA, after all.

Back in '02, when people were still at high-paranoia following the initial terrorist attacks, my wife and I were flying to Bali via Japan and the Hong Kong. The plane landed in Japan only for refueling, but they pulled everyone off the place, ran us through metal detectors, and back onto the plane, making our departure an hour late.

I can't imagine what they were trying to do. Were they afraid we had fabricated weapons of our own in the 14+/- hours we'd been on the plane? What if we'd just left those weapons at our seats?

I know they will if you land at your first destination in the US and are catching a connecting flight - they will run you through security a second time before letting you into the secure area of the airport where you might board another aircraft - but that's only if you are connecting.

Then again - my experience travelling says this has a lot more to do with airport layout dictating security procedure more than anything else - some airports seem to change policies every time I fly - one time I have to collect my bags, the next I don't, the next I can actually just catch an international connection, the next time I can't without getting my bags, etc (all through the same airport through the past few years)

I'm theorizing here - maybe someone can answer - would the flight & airport in question be laid out such that, once passing through immigration, you were still in the secure area of the airport and able to board another aircraft, or was there a choice between "connecting flights" and "exit".

The only rational explanation I can come up with would be if the airport layout demanded this - but it seems unlikely.

This also seems like something that the author or someone with authority would have mentioned, as it's a deal-breaker that would likely have diffused the situation immediately.

You would still be in the secure area. The problem is that coming from an international flight you wouldn't necessarily be groped for explosives.

It's a good assumption that if they have explosives on a plane flying over the US, they are going to use it before they land.

The problem then is that the TSA is tasked with protecting an area that also contains people who do not intend to board aircraft - the airport design is faulty - there is no way for people who just need to pass customs and leave the airport to do so without exposing them to the secure departure area. (That shouldn't be an international airport in my book)

Plenty of airports were built before the need (perceived or real) for a security zone was discovered, Cincinnati being one of those. In some cases, airports have managed to come up with a reasonable design to cover all needs, but in some there are some not-very-ideal solutions in use. Cincinnati, again, apparently being one of these.

I recently (in the past month) flew back into the US from a couple of places:

Guadalajara --> Houston: no security besides customs & immigration São Paulo --> Houston: no security besides customs & immigration Brussels --> JFK: no security besides customs & immigration

(sort of off topic, but the thing that's been really annoying me lately is when you are forced -- due to the airport's layout -- to leave the secure area when transferring between terminals. This, coupled with gate areas that don't have arrival/departure boards, is freaking annoying.)

I flew Mexico City-SLC this month and there was no security beyond customs and immigration. My memory of IAH last year from Mexico City is that full TSA screening was required, but that was before backscatter machines.

One more data point. These may be useful for someone looking to enter the USA on a direct flight.

I flew Sydney-LAX last month and no extra security at the SYD gate. In past years doing the same flight there has been extra security, liquid checks, and random pat downs at the gate, and only for US bound flights.

It seems as though the other countries/airlines/airports are either ignoring the TSA requests or there has been a change in policy, given the amount of people who have been saying the same thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, it's a pretty low bar to have a rational basis. Such ought to be apparent. When it is not apparent -- and called into question -- it must be defended, for to acknowledge no rational basis is policy suicide.

The problem is not that this law has no rational basis, it's that it is tenuous.

I can imagine a few: we don't want terrorists to be able to smuggle (dangerous) materiel past our borders when detecting such is relatively trivial (i.e. airport checks are easy). Or we want to condition the general public to accepting invasive behavioral controls.

Clearly some rational bases cannot be acknowledged. And so that is the test. The proponent of the law must acknowledge a rational basis for its existence. Should he fail, it would be devastatingly easy to lobby for its removal.

So the real problem is: let's identify precisely the rational basis here. What is the motivation?

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

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

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

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

The amount of radiation you receive from the backscatter machine is harmless. Take note that you also receive a substantial amount of radiation from simply flying.

Is this a law, though?

What's happening here is that Customs is an unsecured area, because everyone has just picked up their luggage. He's proceeding through a secured area to get out of the airport. Thus, the re-screening, and probable re-checking of bags and all that.

"I wasn't aware you needed to be irradiated just to enter into the US ... What is the rationale behind that?"

It's the end-run around the forthcoming tidal wave of baby-boomer retirees that stand to eviscerate Social Security. Throw some radiation & cancer into the mix, and you maybe they can shave off enough years of longevity to keep things solvent.

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

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

>"I just want to know what the TSA supervisor expected would happen if he DID choose to go back to customs. Then what? Where does he go? He has no ticket, no boarding pass. He can't get on a plane. I don't see how refusing could possible end any other way than for him to walk out of there."

The assumption is almost certainly that the passenger either eventually caves due to boredom, hunger, thirst, or need to go to the bathroom. I assume they're figuring the passenger will have to cave before they will - I mean, unless he stays there until he somehow passes out from thirst and is removed, unconscious, by an ambulance days later, he's going to have to cave eventually.

> Then what? Where does he go?

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

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

Because they are controversial, show you naked, expose you to x-ray, and they thought this would be a better way for people to accept it from a PR point of view.

Metal detectors are non-invasive, efficient, don't take naked pictures of you, and you are still supposed to opt-out if you have something like a pacemaker where the metal detector represents a possible health risk.

The government does not have the right to make me submit to a dose of penetrating ionizing radiation, no matter how small the dose!

This is invasive. I don't know how a court could find this to be "routine."

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

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

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

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

>Here was their plan:

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

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

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

http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_se...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For every idiotic law there will be a Rosa Parks.

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

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

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

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

Anyone know what this is?

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

The miranda talk is the formal speech an officer makes before they move on you so that you know your rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

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

Don't talk to cops

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

Well, Miranda refers to Miranda Rights, or the Miranda Warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

However, Miranda rights are mostly about the right to avoid self-incrimination. In the article he seems to suggest that the officer must present identification or credentials as part of Miranda, which is not something I'm familiar with.

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

And SeaTac, and O Hare, if I remember correctly.

This makes a lot of sense.

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

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

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

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

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

In that case, pat-down wouldn't have been an option!

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

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

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

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

Excellent write up btw.

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

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

This is getting absurd?

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

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

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

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

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

My understanding is that you do that just so they don't book you on phony "disorderly conduct" charges.

At least where I'm from, it's common. It's a sign of respect for the position, not submission.

I say "sir" to the cashier at Starbucks.

It's a politeness and showing of respect thing.

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

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

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

"A cup of cappuccino, sir"

"Yes sir"

"How long will it take, sir?"

"2 minutes, sir"

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

Never heard this :-)

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

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

Civil disobedience is not for the meek.

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

So what ? That would be a fantastic way to screw this up, especially if a large fraction of all travelers would do it.

Pointing out an absurd law is worth 6 hours of your time.

Sure it could have, but that would have made the TSA look even worse imo. I suppose if you go as far as asserting your rights, you have to be prepared to go through whatever comes up.

He started out prepared for that - he had nowhere to be and time to kill, and felt strongly about the issue.

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

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

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

Kafkaesque to say the least

What is the author's race?

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

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

Or at a different airport... or if the supervisor was already having a bad day.

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

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

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

What makes you say that?

You've clearly never been to Germany in your life.

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

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

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

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

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

I blogged more about it here: http://blog.darshanshankar.com/post/1656961705/tsa-backscatt...

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

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

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

This was not about airport security - he had already de-planed and was trying to leave the airport, having already passed through immigration.

One of the things the US is supposed to be really big on is freedom from Big Brother. Having legally entered his own country, not attempting to get on another plane, and offerring to cooperate as long as someone, under color of authority, would verbally go on record that he was required by law to do so, with specifics. Nobody was willing or able to actually do this. Nobody was clear about jurisdiction. The police wouldn't do anything without the TSAs instructions.

The TSA didn't know what's up - and I for one would like the people in charge of security in the airport to know what's up, right?

EDIT: From the sounds of things this really was more about poor airport design and people flow as well as misunderstanding of policies.

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

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

I don't agree with Eil's comment at all, but that is no reason to vote his comment down. Comment voting is to make interesting comments more prominent and to remove noise, not to banish unpopular opinions. I don't interpret Eil's comment as a trolling attempt that warrents down-voting either.

Yes, he was purposely making trouble to test a theory that they don't have specific procedures in place, and that the laws contain holes that you can get through. You might say the law says you have to go through, but in this case nobody could come up with a law that says that. The guy himself asked how this conflates with his constitutional rights - also laws - and how the contradictions are resolved.

Like it or not, this kind of behaviour either strengthens the laws or removes poorly designed ones. Either way, it's important that people do this on a regular basis because laws and procedures are very rarely correct.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com