In the 1500's a man called Étienne de la Boétie wrote, in a then-inflammatory "Discourse on Voluntary Servitude":<p><i>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.</i><p>(<a href="http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html" rel="nofollow">http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html</a>)
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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
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.
Except he'll probably get a surprise $10k fine (civil lawsuit) a few months from now.<p>For anyone else trying to prevent a gate-rape freedom-fondle, do not try the "less clothes" approach, this one ended with an arrest:<p><a href="http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Passenger+Chooses+Strip-Down+Over+Pat-Down+|+NBC+San+Diego&expire=&urlID=441153877&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcsandiego.com%2Fnews%2Flocal-beat%2FPassenger-Chooses-Strip-Down-Over-Pat-Down-109872589.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&...</a><p>There is also some documentation now that the scanners produce TWENTY times the claimed radiation level:<p><a href="http://holt.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=651&Itemid=18" rel="nofollow">http://holt.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=...</a>
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.<p>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?<p>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?<p>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 <i>entering</i> a flight on US soil, wouldn't the backscatter/patdowns in those cases <i>also</i> 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.
This is what elections are for.<p>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 <i>outraged</i>. If we still have a functioning democracy, these policies will change.<p>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.<p>[1]: This band around the border happens to include 2/3 of the US population.
<a href="http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/constitution-free-zone" rel="nofollow">http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/constitution-free...</a>
That's awesome.<p>Ever read Cory doctorow's "little brother"? That's what I think of every time I read one of these stories.<p>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!<p>Oh, and the rest of the world is laughing at you. Fix your flipping government.
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?<p>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?
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 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.<p>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.
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.
If you do not like the TSA's policies, please take a moment to write your representatives:<p><a href="https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml" rel="nofollow">https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml</a><p><a href="http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_se...</a>
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?
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?<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
For every idiotic law there will be a Rosa Parks.<p>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 ;)
<p><pre><code> Ah – he’s gotten the Miranda talk. I hide my smile.
</code></pre>
Anyone know what this is?<p>Edit: Thanks, live in Australia so don't get all the lingo.
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.
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."<p>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.
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?<p>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?<p>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.<p>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.
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.<p>Just think how this might have been handled in other countries.
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?
It is incredibly dangerous to write things like this. It encourages rebellious activity during one of the busiest traveling seasons.<p>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.<p>I blogged more about it here:
<a href="http://blog.darshanshankar.com/post/1656961705/tsa-backscatter-machine-pat-down" rel="nofollow">http://blog.darshanshankar.com/post/1656961705/tsa-backscatt...</a>
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.<p>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.<p>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.