Hey, there! Log in / Register
Harvard students sue over TSA patdowns at Logan
By adamg on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 11:17am
The Herald reports Jeffrey Redfern and Anant Pradhan claim the procedures violate their Fourth Amendment rights and that the TSA has other, less intrusive ways to try to sniff out explosives and weapons.
The two say they filed their suit, in US District Court in Boston, after undergoing the new "enhanced" patdowns at Logan last month.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
fuckyeah Jeffrey and Anant
.
God bless 'em
Good luck, guys; these new search methods are disgusting, unnecessary, and the sooner we end them, the better.
Since the percentage of
Since the percentage of complaints are so VERY small I think there is a very simple explanation to this.The people against these security measures are either pro terrorism or possibly part of a plot.
This is a issue..
Progressives should be out there working in tandem with libertarians on. It's security theater, a waste of resources, ineffective, and an embarrassment to our liberties.
But they won't, because they're a bunch of chickenshits.
5% of the cargo containers coming into Boston and other port cities are looked at. Less thoroughly. You want to know where the biggest threats are and the need for man power and money to keep threats out, look there.
Whenever I hear . . .
. . . about student lawyers doing something activist like- I always think of the movie Reversal of Fortune- with Ron Silver as Dershowitz- holding court over his eager idealist students as they plot the defense of Claus Von Bulow. Good flick.
i like Ron Silver
as opposed to Dershowitz, who is unreasonable and incapable of seeing another point of view when it comes to defending Israel, here vilifying an author of fiction Susan Abulhawa.
Yeah.
The Dersh of today isn't the Dersh I want to remember.
you make a good point
he's complex. no need to dislike the things we like about him just because of the things we dislike about him.
Ahhhh....
America.
Mired in two false wars. Tanking economy. Health benefits and employment benefits and many other social programs being cut. Schools closing. People losing houses at record rates.
And *this* is where we take a stand and 'press back' against the tyranny.
What a country!
What do you propose?
How would you suggest those two law students take a stand and 'press back' against two false wars? How should they fight back against the tanking economy? Or any of the other issues you mentioned?
There's not really a lot they can do personally and immediately on any of those other issues beyond protesting or contacting their elected officials. Filing a complaint on the TSA stuff, however, could actually be effective. I mean, no one else has filed suit. All there's been is some grainy cell phone videos, lots of complaining, and numerous articles online. I think they should be applauded for at least doing -something-.
US Supremes, here we come!
I'd actually love to see part of their argument include that the TSA's methods have been utterly useless. The internal tests of the TSA show that they unwittingly allowed through bombs, knives, and guns on unannounced field tests. For that reason alone, these security measures are "unreasonable". Reason would suggest that these searches are intended to prevent those acts from happening...and yet they were fully capable of happening anyways. That makes the "need to search" unreasonable.
Kaz
Wouldn't that just mean that a better search tecnique would be needed if they currently can't do the job with the current search techniques?
What's a better search technique?
If they came up with a better search technique that still met all of the other criteria of reasonableness and unwarranted searches, then let's hear it and we can decide then, right?
I'm not opposed to airport searches. I'm opposed to the current, useless airport searches.
I don't know I think that is what they are trying to find out
But we don't know if the "current, useless" airport searches aren't better or not do we since nothing has happend either way beacuse of them? Unless I'm missing something and things have gotten through the new searches and that is what you are talking about.
Symbolic security
The security measures are largely symbolic. After each threat, a symbolic gesture is made relating to, but not preventing, the new threat concept.
-After planes are hijacked with box cutters, knives are banned (which won't prevent you from carrying a mostly plastic box cutter through the metal detector)
-After the Not Ready for Prime Time Bomber tries to blow up a plane with his Nikes, we all have to take off our shoes and run them through the X-Ray (where organic explosives will show up as exactly the same color as organic rubber)
-After the Crotch Bomber tries to take down a plane with exploding man-panties, we all have to put our arms out for the nudie-scan (which does not see through flesh and could not detect a little wad of explosive hidden behind your nut-sack, and has such a high false positive rate that anomalies are readily ignored)
The single measure that actually related to security rather than the symbolism of security is the locking of cabin doors. That's it. You are perfectly able to bring on board a bomb in your knickers, a bomb in your shoes (carry the detonator separately!), and a box cutter. You just have to submit to indignities, inconveniences, and assaults on your pride... and you can't get in the cabin. As Kaz states, the meat of the argument should be that these searches have no actual relation to security. They do not really prevent any of the attacks made previously on our the security of our flights. As such, these searches are inherently unreasonable.
Yea but it is ok to find something reasonable isn't it?
At some point metal dectors were put in for a reason and I'm sure handgun hijackings went down because of it.
Is it wrong to try to do everything possible to stop people from brining bad things onto planes?
It is the "everything possible" part which people are going to disagree with.
Test of reasonableness
It would be reasonable to have a security measure if the threat were actual and sufficient and the measure was proven to counter the threat.
Multiple airplanes have been hijacked with handguns. A handgun can easily be detected by a WTMD. That passes a reasonableness test for the use of WTMDs on passengers.
There is only one known instance of somebody trying to blow up a plane with his underwear. The body imaging machines deployed have not demonstrated that they could detect the bomb configuration used in that single instance. That does not pass the reasonableness test for the use of imaging on passengers.
Yes, it is wrong to do everything possible to stop people from bringing bad things on planes. Everything possible would include banning all baggage, flying nude, and full cavity searches of every passenger. The line must be drawn somewhere short of there.
Not exactly
While I do agree that the locked cabin door is a usefull measure taken, I do not believe it is the only or even the MOST useful change to have occured.
I believe that the most important change is in the other passengers. For decades, public and government policy with regards to hi-jackers amounted to "Sure! Let em have the plane! What are they gonna do, crash it while they are on board? No way!"
That is gone. The terrorists used their ONLY shot at such a plot. Unfortunately, they used that one shot incredibly effectively... but they have ruined the vast majority of other types of plots involving air travel simply because the passengers will NOT allow it to happen. It was passengers that stopped both the underwear bomber, and the shoe bomber, as well as various other malcontents just being drunken idiots. And if a plane does get taken by terrorists via knife or gun instead of bomb, the military will not hesitate in firing a missile at that plane.
I say let everyone bring anything onto planes. Given the number of gung-ho NRA members in this country, I don't think a single plane would go down from terrorist activity. It might go down in self defense as the bullets go flying! But that's simply a matter of not aiming properly...
No contradiction
I agree with you that the change in the passengers is more important than any measure taken by the TSA. The viability of the hijacking/weaponization of an airline lasted only 45 minutes, after which the passengers of the fourth plane put an end to it. It will never happen again. You will stop it, and so will I. It requires the passengers to believe their lives will be spared, and nobody will ever believe that again.
This change, however important, was not made by TSA. It was not planned by anybody. The most important measure (planned policy change) was the reinforcement of cockpit doors. There's only one place you can fly a plane from. And like the change in passengers, no pilot is going to open that door for a hijacker, even if he kills everybody else on the plane. There is no reason to.
These facts help explain why it is a mockery of security to take penknives off of passengers. Less metal was used on 9/11, and it wouldn't do any good at all today. A passenger with a freakin bowie knife is no serious threat to the plane.
This post is so great...
... I wish I could have it crocheted onto a throw pillow.
Maybe a body pillow.
You-
-know the government can listen to all your cell-phones calls without a warrant...yeah? And if they want your e-mails Yahoo, et. al. will gladly turn them over? You have heard that, right?
If the TSA were abolished, we
If the TSA were abolished, we can have the individual airlines be responsible for their own security procedures. Let's see how long an airline lasts that promises a 'no-screening fast-pass lane' to the boarding gate, to accomodate those 4th ammendment absolutists. Or maybe a 'Have It Your Way' promotion - you tell us how you'd like to be screened! Don't want those vials looked at? No problem! The customer's always right. Any 'reasonable' airline exec would put in place security screenings as they see fit - after all, it's their airline, their private property. Don't they have a right to determine if you're a threat before you step on their privately-owned aircraft? It would be very interesting to hear from the litigants if we were talking about a private screening force versus a government-funded one. If everything was privately handled, I know what airline I'm going to pick - the one that does everything short of a body cavity probe before it allows anyone to board a machine that travels 500 mph, 35,000 feet above the earth with only two engines holding it up and only a couple of inches of metal to keep people from being blown out into the lower stratosphere.
You have a greater chance of
You have a greater chance of being blown up in a TSA line than an airplane. After all, it's the perfect target. Low ceilings, no windows, you can walk in with a backpack loaded with bombs and you find yourself surrounded by 200 people packed together.
Amtrak seems pretty popular with their zero screening policy. I think an airline offering the same would do very well. As long as the cockpit door is reinforced, I dont see the issue.
Probably true, but I would
Probably true, but I would probably have a better shot of surviving a bomb in a TSA line than I would if a bomb went off in my plane while it's in flight. Besides, you may as well say I have a better chance dying at the train station, a movie theater or a ballgame - don't see why those would be less of a risk - your advice boils down to 'avoid crowds'. As for Amtrak - there a few people in London and Madrid who could've done with train station screenings, totally impractical as they are. Amtrak would have to be bombed first before they'd do anything - and that anything would no doubt lead to howls of protest.
I think you missed the
I think you missed the point.
You do know the chances of dieing in a terrorist attack, don't you? Now what about the chances of dieing in a terrorist act on a plane?
This security theater is the equivalent of the moms in Christmas Story's protecting Ralphie from the cold. And look at how that turned out.
No, I didn't miss the point -
No, I didn't miss the point - I was trying make another. My point was, you have a greater chance of dying on a plane in flight if a bomb goes off there than you would on the ground, whether it be in a TSA line or a train - I never addressed the chances of either happening at all, which I admit is very small. The chance of a plane crashing for any reason is also incredibly small, but many people (me included) are afraid to fly anyway - I think I read 1 out of 3 people are uncomfortable which the quite un-natural act of flying. No doubt some here would call my concerns about terrorism or flying in general as 'living in fear', but seeing as I travel on a plane only a few times a year, I hardly think that phrase qualifies.
Let me ask you something - if you were a terrorist, and you wanted to kill lots of people on some kind of vehicle, would you gravitate toward an airplane, where there is at least some level of screening before boarding, or a train, which requires no screening?
Finn this was talked about before...
Terrorists that have attacked in the US or have tried to attack, have tried to do it on planes and not trains, or crowded places.
So yes, terrorists actually try to kill people on planes more than they do on trains here in the US up untill this point.
So you're saying that faced
So you're saying that faced with possible exposure at an airport, they would never consider a softer target, like a train, like they did in Madrid and London? And they haven't attacked crowded places, like Times Square or Portland recently? Have you been reading the news?
I'm not saying they would never do it.
I'm just saying it hasn't happend as much in this country. And I'm not saying it wouldn't be easier either. I'ts probably why you don't see metal dectetors on trains or sports stadiums yet. We fear it will never happen, but what do you think will happen once the first 3, 4 or 10 trains get blown up? I assume security will get tighter and possibly metal dectecors will go in.
And they haven't attacked Portland, they set someone up with fake explosives. That is a big difference.
The intention was there to
The intention was there to attack and kill large crowds of people -but the means were bungled in one case and false in the other. Doesn't change the fact that there are people out there with the intent to kill large numbers of people. If they weren't caught they would have kept trying until they succeeded. The fact that both would-be bombers were incompetent and stupid doesn't make them any less of a threat. And when those trains blow up some day, as I hope they won't, we'll be seeing body scanners just like the ones at the airport, and the same complaints about them.
Yea I agree.
I guess I'm just saying that it would be very easy to get a gun and start killing people in the name of whatever cause you wanted to. These psuedo-islamic terrorists don't seem to use those tactics here in the US. They like to hijack planes.
And my point about the Portland kid, was that we really don't know what his intent was. Although I think this kid should be guilty of something, I don't think we can say for sure that he would have found another way to commit a terrorist act. (I don't want to use the word guts, because it is such a cowardly action), but it takes something more to actually go through, plan, and then kill someone and also kill yourself in the process.
If i was a terrorist, there's
If i was a terrorist, there's any means of which I could launch an attack to kill people. And there's NOTHING the TSA or the government could really do to prevent it, absent doing a good job at law enforcement, which is ultimately what the problem is about.
Right now if I was a terrorist with brains, I would have walked up to a TSA screening line with a bomb and set it off a few days before Turkey day, since there were hundreds of people grouped together and in a small area waiting for the valiant TSA to screen them of their soda and hair gels.
There's always around these security measures, because ultimately, they just for show. So my point is, why waste the money? Both the underwear bomber and the shoebomber, along with countless other morons have been stopped and detained by the diligence of normal citizens and good old fashion police work.
If we're going to waste money and time, we should at least be throwing towards the things that work, rather then the things that give us an imaginary "peace of mind"
Live in your fear-based world
I would love this! I couldn't WAIT to support the airline that simply checks my ID, does a simple metal detector scan, and lets me go. The cabins are bolted, the pilots are armed, and, as flight 93 taught us, the passengers are now willing to engage the enemy. I promise, we'll be okay.
Yup.
I would take the "no-screening" airline every-time without so much as blinking. I'd love to see what sort of person chooses to subject themselves and their family to TSA security procedures because of their fear of terrorism.
Meanwhile ...
The TSA people are now so distracted by crotch watching and freedom fondling, they appear to be failing at some key areas of actually important security features:
paying attention to items in screened luggage (I know a UHubber who boarded a plane with a full water bottle recently)
making people feel comfortable and non-anxious enough that those with reason to be anxious stick out
metal detectors (google "Adam Savage Razor Blades")
So much has been put into these scanners as Teh Ultimate Scannerz that there seems to be a loosening of some other important features of the security system - things that have been in place for years and things that are based on some evidence and reality.
I'm waiting for some fully body-scanned terrorist to attack because the crotch watching led to a failure to detect anxiety and a bomb in a carry on.
Consider as well that the underpants bomber didn't get on board because he wasn't put through a Rapescan machine, but because ... PROCEDURES ALREADY IN PLACE FOR FLAGGING PEOPLE WHO HAD MADE THREATS WERE NOT FOLLOWED AND HIS PARENT'S TIP THAT HE WAS GONNA PULL SOME SHIT WASN'T HEEDED.
Water bottle
Either that's me, or you now know two such UHubbers. I totally forgot the bottle was full last week at Logan, and the TSA folks never noticed it (or if they did, they didn't care about it)
I left it to you
To claim that by name.
Another friend got a pocket knife through Manchester last week. Wonderful.
I actually got let on with a
I actually got let on with a can of soda in my backpack. Metal? Yup. Liquidy? Sure. Potentially sharp? Of course. No problem!
(that was last year)
I got let on with a metal
I got let on with a metal wine corkscrew left in a carry on backpack. Didn't even know it until I unpacked at home.
And they're worried about razor blades, ect.
Also, check this out, huge TSA FAIL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8N2EZSpFco (youtube)
You can actually have this
You can actually have this low level of screening today! Just fly in a country that isn't obsessed with "security". You can still arrive at the airport 30 minutes before departure, you can keep your shoes and jacket on, and the laptop can stay in the bag.
See 'living in fear' above.
See 'living in fear' above. It would seem that one man's occasional caution can be construed as a lifetime of cowardice. Thanks for the broad generalization! Also, why are submitting to an unconstitutional metal detector? You have a 2nd ammendment right to bear arms you know! Finally, you are not OK in a plane if someone sitting in a window seat has a bomb strapped somewhere on their body.
I guess I've missed the giant wave of plane bombings
Oh, you clever person with your clever strawman! Let's review:
See the difference? Plus, if the airline itself was conducting the security, as per your scenario, the constitution would be moot, given the airlines are private companies (for now, at least). That also renders moot your 2nd Amendment non sequitor (DRINK!).
Life is risk. Freedom can be messy. If you cannot accept these basic facts, fine, just don't expect the rest of us to cower and acquiesce with you.
OK, one more time. First of
OK, one more time. First of all, you'll have to explain how a metal detector is non-invasive. I have a constitutional right and a license to carry a firearm anywhere I want. Any government who probes me with x-rays against my will to find my legally concealed weapon is going too far. First they make me remove my firearm. Then I have to go through again several times, until they force me to remove my belt, causing my pants to fall down, exposing me to mockery and shame.
So 'non-invasive' is in the eyes of the beholder, isn't it? If you're against the backscatter thing and the pat down, you should be against this as well, if you are a true libertarian. The simple fact is, you're just not comfortable with it. And really, who is living in fear here? It seems you're far more fearful of a masked 3-D rendering of yourself than only one guy can see or a TSA guy feeling your junk than I (and about 70% of the general public) am about a bomb on a plane. The TSA has YOU cowering.
1) You do not have a
1) You do not have a constitutional right to carry a firearm wherever you want. Try walking around with one in DC.
2) A metal detector does not use xrays. There is no radiation, unlike the rapescan machines.
3) Making up percentages is fun! 93% think you're an idiot, for example.
The thread that doesn't die...
1. The Constitution and my license to carry say I do. In some states, I can walk into a Starbucks with my weapon anytime I want, thanks to the NRA. The DC handgun ban was ruled unconstitutional by the SJC. You have your facts mixed up. In any case, you fail to point out how one scanner is an unconstitutional overreach, and yet the metal detector doesn't constitute illegal search and seizure.
2. You say metal detectors don't produce x-rays, I say they do. You bring your experts and I'll bring mine. You're obviously in the pocket of the insidious metal detector lobby, that wants to keep the massive amounts of x-rays emanating from these machines a secret.
3. Making up percentages? I was actually lowballing!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125018/air-travelers-bo...
4. 75% of bloggers who launch ad hominem attacks cannot recognize sarcasm and hyperbole used to make a point, as in point number one and two.
Way to go, Crimson!
I'm an MIT grad and for the first time I admit Harvard does something better. Way to go, guys! Godspeed.
MIT and Harvard agree!
Next thing Israelis and Palestinians will agree too boarders and a two-state solution!
I'm sold on the proposition of this law suit.
Does anyone know when John Pistole took over TSA?
I hope the students who're suing the TSA win their case, but
Here's an idea for the general public: Boycott the airlines and refuse to fly! May, just maybe, if enough people did that, the TSA and the airlines just might clean up their act!
Sorry, can't. Need to fly for
Sorry, can't. Need to fly for work.
I see your point, anon, and
it's one thing if people need to fly for work, but maybe if enough people boycotted recreational flying (just going on vacations, etc.) it would have some positive results.
It's pretty hard to boycott
It's pretty hard to boycott them when they have a captive audience
1) Many people bought their tickets before the new rules
2) You tell your boss "I wont fly to LA for the business deal, Im boycotting the airlines" and see how quickly he boycotts your pay checks.
For transcontinental and trans atlantic flights, there's simply no other option.
I don't fly for work, but you know what?
I opted out of flying years ago, and I'm glad of it!
SIGN THE PETITION
Sign the Petition !!
http://www.senatenj.com/index.php/doherty/tsa-peti...