• TSA blocking uncharged mobile devices from flights at some international airports
    93 replies, posted
[QUOTE=GunFox;45318510]Absolutely nothing is reasonable about the TSA. If an actual cop in the US asks you to power on your phone, you can tell him to go suck a dick and be legally well within your rights. This is because the rules apply to police (on paper. How well that is executed is another discussion.). Meanwhile the poster children for abortion over at the TSA can somehow violate all the constitutional protections afforded to people and get away with it. The TSA is not what protects you. The TSA is the GOAL OF TERROR ATTACKS AGAINST AIRCRAFT. The goal is to make us spend stupid amounts of money and sacrifice our liberty in the name of "safety".[/QUOTE] You don't have to cooperate with TSA, you just won't fly. It's not your right to fly, since the airport and the planes are all owned privately and the TSA is invited by the airport shareholders, who at any point could tell the TSA to fuck off and hire their own security firm that could meet federal regulations. So quite simply, airports and airplanes are not public domain and you have no constitutional right to fly, so feel free to tell TSA to fuck off and not handle your shit, just be prepared to take the bus.
[QUOTE=Jsm;45320061]An improvised explosives expert in the UK created a very small plastic explosive (like fitting into a drinks bottle) for a demonstration. They blew a massive hole in the side of an (unpressuirsed) aircraft hull from a seat. Small explosives are a threat to aircraft and shouldn't be overlooked. Edit: Not even a drinks bottle, a 100ml container.[/QUOTE] Punch a hole in the side all you want. The plane will fly just fine. Look at the history of plane bombings, it is extremely rare that a bomb in the passenger compartment manages to do much of anything special. It kills people, but it kills exactly the same number of people it would have killed in any other public place. It gets dangerous when the ground crews plant the bomb or it gets placed in the luggage compartment. Bombs located near the nose of significant size in the luggage compartment have caused several major crashes. If you want to sniff for bomb odors, go ahead. Just like bomb and drug sniffing police K-9 units, is just fine. Scanners and patdowns are where we violate amendments. [QUOTE=outlawpickle;45320137]You don't have to cooperate with TSA, you just won't fly. It's not your right to fly, since the airport and the planes are all owned privately and the TSA is invited by the airport shareholders, who at any point could tell the TSA to fuck off and hire their own security firm that could meet federal regulations. So quite simply, airports and airplanes are not public domain and you have no constitutional right to fly, so feel free to tell TSA to fuck off and not handle your shit, just be prepared to take the bus.[/QUOTE] Because leveraging access to transportation in return for giving up rights is totally okay. The TSA is already gaining ground on buses and trains. I'm not making a slippery slope argument here, I'm just reducing your argument to its logical conclusion, but you don't have a right to use the roadways either. You could exit your house and be met with a scanner and a pat down. Clearly that isn't viable, but your argument suggests that legally that would be entirely plausible. Nowhere in the constitution does it prescribe the federal government the right to search everyone before boarding a plane. Note that I use the word prescribe, because that is what the constitution does. Everything outside of what it says is allowed ISN'T ALLOWED. It is a prescriptive document that ONLY issues the rights it says. But the constitution goes a step further, with the fourth amendment, that [I]specifically[/I][I] forbids[/I] searches without probable cause or a warrant.
[QUOTE=GunFox;45320534][B]Punch a hole in the side all you want. The plane will fly just fine. [/B]Look at the history of plane bombings, it is extremely rare that a bomb in the passenger compartment manages to do much of anything special. It kills people, but it kills exactly the same number of people it would have killed in any other public place. It gets dangerous when the ground crews plant the bomb or it gets placed in the luggage compartment. Bombs located near the nose of significant size in the luggage compartment have caused several major crashes. [/QUOTE] Yeah that totally doesn't fuck with the aerodynamic properties of the plane or potentially sever hydraulic lines. Or potentially cause fault fractures that could tear the plane apart. [QUOTE=GunFox;45320534] If you want to sniff for bomb odors, go ahead. Just like bomb and drug sniffing police K-9 units, is just fine. Scanners and patdowns are where we violate amendments. [/QUOTE] I am glad you are around to lay down the incredibly arbitrary distinction between methods of finding bombs on passengers. [QUOTE=GunFox;45320534] But the constitution goes a step further, with the fourth amendment, that [I]specifically[/I][I] forbids[/I] searches without probable cause or a warrant.[/QUOTE] Yeah, you submit to the search willingly, or you don't get on the plane. Did you get riled up when walmart banned open carry?
[QUOTE=Thlis;45320588]Yeah that totally doesn't fuck with the aerodynamic properties of the plane or potentially sever hydraulic lines. I am glad you are around to lay down the incredibly arbitrary distinction between methods of finding bombs on passengers.[/QUOTE] Again look at the history of plane bombings. It isn't a good time, but the plane is extremely unlikely to crash. Which, again, fails to validate security measures like these. The line isn't arbitrary, it is how it works in the US. Cops can, during a routine traffic stop detain you until a K9 unit sniffs the exterior of your car for drugs. Consent isn't required only reasonable suspicion. [editline]7th July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Thlis;45320588] Yeah, you submit to the search willingly, or you don't get on the plane. Did you get riled up when walmart banned open carry?[/QUOTE] Walmart is a private entity and can conduct business how they please. Why would I give a shit about them banning open carry? You seem to generally be mistaking this for some southern redneck rebel bullshit, which is understandable, particularly if you don't live here, but it isn't. The TSA legitimately violates the rights of the people. They are an actual problem and have failed to accomplish virtually anything, despite vast sums of money being thrown at them. A branch of our government literally does nothing but violate rights. That is a serious, non redneck, concern.
[QUOTE=GunFox;45320654]Again look at the history of plane bombings. It isn't a good time, but the plane is extremely unlikely to crash. Which, again, fails to validate security measures like these. [/QUOTE] Yes because we should be lax about something that [B]MIGHT[/B] kill everyone on board. [QUOTE=GunFox;45320654] The line isn't arbitrary, it is how it works in the US. Cops can, during a routine traffic stop detain you until a K9 unit sniffs the exterior of your car for drugs. Consent isn't required only reasonable suspicion.[/QUOTE] Searching with a person vs searching with a dog being handled by a person is a pretty arbitrary distinction. [QUOTE=GunFox;45320654] Why would I give a shit about them banning open carry?[/QUOTE] Because they aren't allowing a person the right to enter their store based on their possessions? [QUOTE=sloppy_joes;45320708]Serious question gunfox, how many planes have survived a terrorist bombing? Can you point any out? I mean bombs that went off, not bombs that fizzed out.[/QUOTE] The only one I can think of was on Mayday, and that was a really close call. Like, the terrorist was one seat off blowing the entire plane up close call.
Serious question gunfox, how many planes have survived a terrorist bombing with a hole in the side? Can you point any out?
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;45320708]Serious question gunfox, how many planes have survived a terrorist bombing with a hole in the side? Can you point any out?[/QUOTE] Just in a quick five second search: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_830[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_840_(1986)[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434[/url]
Really, the post about "mah fourth amendment"? How about actually do your research and look up administrative searches and how they're completely legal. This is not the government coming into your home or property uninvited and without cause, and to try and make that comparison is downright ignorant of the facts.
[QUOTE=GunFox;45320755]Just in a quick five second search: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_830[/URL] [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_840_(1986)[/URL] [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434[/URL][/QUOTE] so if you're going by Wikipedia, 12 survived out of 34.
[QUOTE=outlawpickle;45320792]Really, the post about "mah fourth amendment"? How about actually do your research and look up administrative searches and how they're completely legal. This is not the government coming into your home or property uninvited and without cause, and to try and make that comparison is downright ignorant of the facts.[/QUOTE] For which you require probable cause and for the invasiveness to match the reason for the search. Searching millions every day when no evidence has been found to suggest they have accomplished anything clearly fails to meet the requirement for an administrative search.
[QUOTE=Scot;45316676]Surely you can't blow up a plane with a phone sized bomb. Even the galaxy note 8.0[/QUOTE] The outter skin of an aircraft is about 2mm thick. That's it. It wouldn't take much to damage it enough to let explosive decompression do the rest. explosive decompression isn't a guarantee it'll bring the aircraft down, but it has before [editline]7th July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;45320882]For which you require probable cause and for the invasiveness to match the reason for the search. Searching millions every day when no evidence has been found to suggest they have accomplished anything clearly fails to meet the requirement for an administrative search.[/QUOTE] The judicial system ruled in the 70's that limited parts of the 4th amendment are suspended at airports during security checks. Constitutional or not, I don't think our founding fathers foresaw metal tubes carrying hundreds of people flying at mach .78 at 40,000 feet, or people stuffing explosives up their ass trying to bring them down
[QUOTE=GunFox;45320882]For which you require probable cause and for the invasiveness to match the reason for the search. Searching millions every day when no evidence has been found to suggest they have accomplished anything clearly fails to meet the requirement for an administrative search.[/QUOTE] [url=http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2005/06/07/0430243.pdf]Here you go.[/url] [quote][1] Airport screenings of passengers and their baggage constitute administrative searches and are subject to the limitations of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)[B] (noting that airport screenings[/B] [B]are considered to be administrative searches because they are[/B] [B]“conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme” where the[/B] [B]essential administrative purpose is “to prevent the carrying of[/B] [B]weapons or explosives aboard aircraft”)[/B]; see also id. at 895, 904. Thus, airport screenings must be reasonable. See Torbet v. United Airlines, Inc., 298 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir. 2002). To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with “society’s interest in safe air travel.” United States v. Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 (9th Cir. 1986).[/quote] If you don't like it, don't fly. Simple as that.
[QUOTE=GunFox;45318510]Absolutely nothing is reasonable about the TSA. If an actual cop in the US asks you to power on your phone, you can tell him to go suck a dick and be legally well within your rights. This is because the rules apply to police (on paper. How well that is executed is another discussion.). Meanwhile the poster children for abortion over at the TSA can somehow violate all the constitutional protections afforded to people and get away with it. The TSA is not what protects you. The TSA is the GOAL OF TERROR ATTACKS AGAINST AIRCRAFT. The goal is to make us spend stupid amounts of money and sacrifice our liberty in the name of "safety".[/QUOTE] That's because airports are not public space to an extent and even less aircraft themselves. Remember that as far a the phone and plane goes you have 3 options what you can do. a) turn it on b) don't enter the space c) leave the item behind. This isn't the same as the TSA coming and saying that you would be taken into custody if you refused to turn on the phone. Due to the private nature to an extent and the fact that you are given a choice, this probably would get validated by most courts I'd wager. Remember that there's always a difference between the police and the TSA. All things the TSA makes you do, are things which you do voluntarily. One can argue that you need to fly, but it's still somewhat voluntary. As such, the ruling for both are different. Both require a certain minimum standard, but the standard for the TSA is going to be broader due to a number of factors, including traditional social fears.
[QUOTE=Dermock;45318774]I dunno about you but I'd rather power off my phone if asked/have others do the same than get blown up by a Radical Nova Soctian Separatist terrorist. [/QUOTE] I'd rather not be a fearmongering pussy
[QUOTE=zakedodead;45321229]I'd rather not be a fearmongering pussy[/QUOTE] turning your phone on/off (which you need to do when you get on the plane anyway) is not a big inconvenience. some of you guys are acting like its a fucking cavity search.
Seems understandable, but they should have phone chargers at the checkpoints so that they can test the devices. I would not be happy if I had to leave my functional but drained for power device at the airport. Especially considering I might be going on a connecting flight, but spent all my power and the previous eight hour flight. [QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;45316432]That's probably a legit means anyways, considering most phone manufactures list the physical specs of their products on their websites nowadays (Or with just a simple datasheet request).[/QUOTE] That might be problematic with phone cases. Some are hard to remove, and when you first remove them (like mine) the phone weighs less because the back part would be missing.
[QUOTE=onebit;45321244]Apply this logic to police brutality.[/QUOTE] How exactly is it even [B]close[/B] to similar? Even completely disregarding the difference in severity between being beaten by police and being asked to turn your fucking phone on before boarding a flight (which is such a significant difference that it really shouldn't be necessary), flying is completely voluntary and the security requirements for flights is something you are informed about ahead of time, and if you don't like it, you can choose not to fly. Comparing airport security to police brutality is an insult to everyone who has ever suffered from police brutality. Even if I agreed with the basic idea of what GunFox was saying, the ruling is still there and hasn't been challenged, airport security is considered legal because it's considered necessary to protect peoples lives.
[QUOTE=GunFox;45318685]How would you blow up a plane with a phone bomb? We will be generous and say you have a phone filled with plastic explosives. The entire thing. You somehow managed to fool the xray, the bomb sniffers, everything. How would you then, from the passenger compartment, blow the plane up?[/QUOTE] i guess if you place it against the right spot of the wall of the plane you could cause explosive decompression if it's at cruising altitude it wouldn't cause the entire aircraft to explode or anything, but for a more extreme example, japan airlines flight 123 suffered a tear in the rear pressure bulkhead (due to an incorrectly done repair) which caused explosive decompression which in turn caused the whole vertical stabiliser to separate from the plane and everyone died (520 people)
[QUOTE=Mega1mpact;45316472]This would probably not 100% work for laptops because some people tend to swap out their hard drive for a bigger one or an ssd or just remove their disk drive en favor of a hdd/ssd[/QUOTE] It wouldn't even work for phones. People embed them in cases, have custom backplates/protective screen covers, extended/nonstandard batteries, add memory cards, cover them in nail polish/paint/stickers.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;45320708]Serious question gunfox, how many planes have survived a terrorist bombing with a hole in the side? Can you point any out?[/QUOTE] Depressurization of a plane won't necessarily cause it to not survive
[QUOTE=Map in a box;45322138]Depressurization of a plane won't necessarily cause it to not survive[/QUOTE] No but a lot of them explode and don't survive, more than half apparently.
The airline industry doesn't focus on one potential threat they have this lock style model for the safety where each risk is a tumbler in the lock. Like lighters and aerosols alone are pretty much harmless but both in the luggage of the plane with all that movement and rolling around could potentially be a risk.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;45322312]No but a lot of them explode and don't survive, more than half apparently.[/QUOTE] Including much, much larger explosives that are placed in luggage or planted on the aircraft. A small hole generated by a phone sized explosive is very different than a large hole generated by a suitcase sized explosive. The discussion is about explosives in the passenger comparent.
For phones, surely it wouldn't be hard to rig up an extremely reduced-sized battery so it can power on and fill the rest of the cavity with explosive in such a way that can fool the X-Ray machine. Heck, with a laptop you could just take out the DVD drive and fill the cavity that it leaves behind.
[QUOTE=Scot;45316676]Surely you can't blow up a plane with a phone sized bomb. Even the galaxy note 8.0[/QUOTE] it's going to do some serious damage and even if its not enough to take out a huge number of people they can probably still breach the cockpit [editline]7th July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;45320534] But the constitution goes a step further, with the fourth amendment, that [I]specifically[/I][I] forbids[/I] searches without probable cause or a warrant.[/QUOTE] oh gosh they're asking me to turn on my phone ;~; i know my rites what is it with this "terrorists are just trying to turn us against each other!!" shit? no, their plan isnt to exact some deep philosophical victory, it's to kill people/establish their own state/get us to stop interfering (which has worked with the vast majority). They dont give a shit about the constitution and whether or not its upheld
and yet we seem to hear stories of people actually sneaking into planes and shit like that if someone wanted to blow something up they fucking would have already, the TSA isn't going to be that helpful
[QUOTE=Scot;45316676]Surely you can't blow up a plane with a phone sized bomb. Even the galaxy note 8.0[/QUOTE] You could definitely do some damage. Hold it against the wall of the plane and detonate it, it'd surely crack open the side of the plane, the plane would depressurize extremely fast, a couple people might even get sucked out. Crash the plane? Probably not. Kill some people? Definitely. I'M NOT A PLANE BOMBER PLEASE DON'T REPORT ME TO THE NSA I LOVE AMERICA APPLE PIE FREEDOM MURRIKA FUCK YEA
[QUOTE=Telepethi;45324527] the plane would depressurize extremely fast, a couple people might even get sucked out. [/QUOTE] Except that doesn't happen. There isn't enough pressure differential for the decompression to have enough force to suck someone out of an aircraft, maybe if they were stood right next to the hole, it might cause them to stumble, and then in turn fall out of the hole, but suck them out? Complete Hollywood fabrication. You could get the same effect of making people panic, killing and injuring people and have everyone worried without even going through the TSA checkpoint by simply blowing up the bomb in the airport long before you reach the TSA.
[QUOTE=RayvenQ;45326676]Except that doesn't happen. There isn't enough pressure differential for the decompression to have enough force to suck someone out of an aircraft, maybe if they were stood right next to the hole, it might cause them to stumble, and then in turn fall out of the hole, but suck them out? Complete Hollywood fabrication.[/QUOTE] You could breach the cockpit door with a cellphone bomb. Pretty much why they're concerned. They arent worried about something if it can't take the plane down/be used to hijack it. That's why they wanted to allow small knives since you can't really do anything but stab maybe one person before you're swarmed by angry people. But obviously airline employees thought differently, and TSA listened to the folks who have a large impact on the shareholders who allow TSA to operate in their airports. And your edited portion: that's why there are cops patrolling the public area of the airport with bomb dogs and guys holding m4's, occasionally with TSA VIPR teams, to look for vehicles, people or bags that seem out of place and dangerous. There's a reason you can't park your vehicle outside the front of an airport for too long before having a police officer come and tell you to move along, they aren't just being dicks trying to force you to say goodbye to whoever you dropped off.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;45316226]Doesn't the indication of the battery being empty that all chemical reactions have finished therefore minimizing the risk of battery exploding?[/QUOTE] But you can reverse the chemical reaction to make it full again, and that can mean reversing america's freedoms!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.