Police State Update: Passengers could be asked to give drink samples to TSA (post-checkpoint)

[stockholmer]

http://www.kjct8.com/news/Passenger-could-be-asked-to-give-drink-samples-to-TSA/-/163152/15394098/-/2eprat/-/index.html

Passengers say their problem is not with the rules at the airport. They understand why drinks are not allowed through security, but when they buy one while they wait for their flight, they say the TSA should not ask to test it. Passengers say traveling is a big enough stress, but now some are worried the drinks they are getting are not safe. The TSA would not say what they are testing for or why they are doing it, but travelers say they have a right to know.

"I'm always glad that my safety is a priority, I just think testing drinks after they've already been bought might be a little extreme," infrequent flyer Jennifer Smart said. "The water or or the juices or anything you buy here in the airport, TSA is going to come over and look and check and test it? That's just ridiculous," world traveler Thomas Burgard said.

We asked the TSA about the drink testings and they said, "TSA employees have many layers of security throughout airports. Passengers may be randomly selected for additional screening measures at the checkpoint or in the gate at any time."

Passengers we spoke to also said they think the price of drinks are too expensive. If security is going to test them, it should be before they are purchased, so they do not waste their money.

snip

----------------------------------------------------------------------

At what point do you draw a line in the sand and just say 'NO MORE' to the goons?

[yellowcanine]

1. Personally I have always thought there should be random checks beyond the checkpoints.

And before the checkpoints. But they should use the Israeli method which is using well trained agents to strike up casual conversations with passengers. The key is "well trained", which many TSA agents are not.

[hobbit709]

4. Many? How about practically none of them!

[MattBaggins]

5. Oh please the security thugs who just profile

based on ethnicity? The Israeli model is the last thing we need.

[Skittles]

6. question

what kind of security efforts DO you think should be performed at airports?

[MattBaggins]

9. Engineering solutions

We are simply too cosmopolitan and diverse for profiling to work. I don't need a model that just singles out brown skinned people for extra harassment.

They need to spend the money on having enough checkpoints with safer scanners and have enough of them to handle the traffic. Stop the asinine pat-downs and spend research money on scanners that work and use an open model not lowest bidder that won't release how their crap works.

People are stupid. Engineering solutions are still better than some thug who dislikes various groups of people.

[Skittles]

10. sounds good

yes INDEED

[DCKit]

25. As much as I'd like to agree with you, it's security theater.

Anyone who really wants to get through and crash a plane is going to do so.

It's all bullshit, and we're putting up with it. It's like the old say about locks - they're for honest people.

Ben Franklin had it right - those who would surrender their freedom for security, deserve neither.

[MorningGlow]

29. The last time my family and I flew

My son (8) and I were directed to the regular scanner. My husband was directed to the x-ray scanner. He's 6'2" with long hair and a wardrobe made up exclusively of ripped jeans and black t-shirts. They probably thought they had a live one there.

He's a Republican.

On edit: redundancy is redundant

[yellowcanine]

11. You can do that type of security without harsh profiling.

But let's be real. There has to be some profiling. Six year olds and 85 year old grandmothers don't hijack airplanes. And as I understand the Israeli model, nearly everybody gets questioned at some point in the process. As far as that goes, many Israelis look like Palestinians, so your comments about profiling based on ethnicity don't make a lot of sense.

[MattBaggins]

13. Just like security checks in America

Sure they supposedly question everyone but only African Americans get the special treatment. Just like the voter purges in Florida have an usual high number of Hispanic names on them. The profilers will attract thugs and involve harassment based on ethnicity.

They need to open up challenges to universities to design better scanners for luggage, goods and passengers and actually invest money to have enough to handle the flows in and out of airports. Stop doing stupid crap like random searches after they just scanned someone. If the scanners are that worthless find a better one.

I have never in my entire life been randomly stopped by a cop yet at least 8 times that I was traveling with a Filipino friend of mine, we were stopped and harassed for no reason at all. Cops and security types will deny profiling yet it is the reason in every single case.

The Israeli security profiles just as any group in any part of the world will do. They know who is who in the airport and given the facts on the ground as they say, perhaps that model works there. It will not work America.

[yellowcanine]

14. I have been checked in the U.S and Europe and am a white male. I have been randomly stopped

at DUI checkpoints and just "routine checks" by police on the road. Technology can help a lot but it can be fooled as well. Both is better.

[CreekDog]

8. have you been in an airport? there have been random checks beyond the checkpoints for a decade!

sorry, but your message makes it sound like this has never happened before. it has. it seems like they want to increase it.

[yellowcanine]

12. Very few in the U.S. More in Europe. And more checkpoints in Europe and Japan also.

We have it pretty easy in the U.S. and still whine about it.

[stockholmer]

18. there is no comparison to the amount of police presence in Sweden versus the USA

The level of intrusion and intimidation by the US security state is off the charts compared to here.

Now, if you look at the UK, yes, they are just as thug-like in their power projections. The rest of the western EU not so bad. As for stripping away constitutional rights to privacy and government snooping, again the USA and the UK are the wolfpack leaders.

[yellowcanine]

19. I flew through Munich recently. More security checkpoints, questions than I have ever encountered

in the U.S. Maybe I just hit an unusual period of stepped up security?

[stockholmer]

20. the whole western world, with a few pockets of exceptions, is likely going down 1984-style

Last time I was in Frankfurt, it was nothing like what you encountered in Munich, but I do not doubt that it will just get worse and worse. Sorry for your bad experiences.

[yellowcanine]

23. Yes. Very German also. No smiles. I sensed it would not be a good idea to even hint at a joke.

Wait here - not over there. When did your flight arrive? When is your next flight leaving? For a moment it felt like 1938.

[jberryhill]

26. So you want to rape the Fifth Amendment in exhange for the Fourth?

So, is any statement you make during one of these "casual conversations" admissible in a criminal prosecution?

[yellowcanine]

28. Wow, is that what I said?

Could you point out where I said that? Thanks.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. Well, what kind of 'casual conversations' are you advocating?

Are these agents meant to find out your political views or something? Ask you if you've found Jesus? Show you pictures of their children to get you talking so much you'll say something contradictory?

I find the idea of sending in spies to look for terrorists who will give something away in a casual conversation quite creepy, and a total waste of money. If you have that many agents, put them in the checkpoints where they are actually allowed to look through people's stuff and ask them proper questions, rather than making wild-ass guesses before hauling people off for extra questioning when they're waiting for a plane. Many people don't want to have casual conversations with complete strangers, and any actual terrorist would just behave like one of those. You'd catch no-one this way.

[jberryhill]

32. Yes, it is what you imply

I am an attorney and I travel for business purposes. I'm not going to engage anyone in "casual conversation" about the purpose of my travel beyond that first sentence.

I encounter this regularly entering the US. The customs people are trained in this sort of thing, which is mutually frustrating. On the form, I tick off "business" as the purpose of my travel. When they ask what sort of business, I answer "client consultation". Every now and then, one of the agents fails to understand, and asks me questions about that, so I have to directly state that I decline to discuss it on grounds of privilege. I've had mixed reactions to that, including being sent to secondary inspection.

Now, I don't mind if they look at my stuff, but it is a MUCH bigger issue to me if I am expected to answer questions put to me by a law enforcement official. I realize that some people care more about the contents of their underwear than the contents of their minds, but for me it seems much more intrusive for a law enforcement official to rummage through my head instead of my luggage.

[yellowcanine]

36. I implied no such thing. Note I said "well trained agents" which means they would know

Constitutional rights regarding what they can ask and what they can't. The actual information is not as important anyway as giving the agents a chance to assess who seems to be overly nervous, etc. For me, I would greatly prefer answering a few general questions about my flight plans than being subjected to a pat down, particularly if the questions are posed when I am standing in a line and waiting as opposed to trying to get to my gate.

[jberryhill]

37. "what they can ask and what they can't"

I strongly urge you to bone up on the Fifth Amendment.

A law enforcement officer can ask anything they want. Whether you prefer "casual" interrogations or not, I don't answer random questions of any sort posed by law enforcement officers, nor am I or anyone else required to.

When asked about my "travel plans", I read it off the boarding pass. Who I am going to visit and why is nobody's business, and certainly is not going to get a response from me.

[yellowcanine]

38. I know what the 5th amendment says, thanks. Ok. "What they should ask and what they should not"

Happy now?

[jberryhill]

39. Okay... so...

You also know that even in a non-custodial situation, you can be charged with a crime for lying to a law enforcement officer.

So, you are on your way to visit your mistress in Akron. You told your wife you were going on a business trip. As you are doing curbside check-in standing next to your wife, a friendly well-trained officer of the law says to you, "Hey, nice luggage you have there. Where are you off to today?"

"Oh, I'm going to Akron."

"Akron, what a lovely city. You have friends there?"

Now, mind you, your wife is standing right there.

"Uh, no, I'm going on business."

"Well, you have a nice trip then."

You have now committed a federal crime.

Feel free being truthful about going off to marry your same-sex fiancee or to obtain an abortion because none are available in your state. And you'd better damned well be truthful in any response you provide to a federal law enforcement official, because if you are not truthful during these "casual conversations", they can lock your ass up.

People travel for a variety of highly personal reasons and, in contrast to Israel which has ONE primary airport in which the bulk of traffic is international, the majority of air travel in the US is domestic. In international travel situations, the permissible "administrative" types of questions are different from domestic travel situations.

[leftyohiolib]

2. "At what point do you draw a line in the sand and just say 'NO MORE' to the goons?"

people have and they get arrested. people have put up with all sorts of constitutional violations what's one more. they'll put up with it because, they'll tell you, i HAVE to fly. if enough people stop flying and let the airlines know why , it will change.

[Arctic Dave]

3. Does pouring it on their head count?

T=Totally
S=Stupid
A=Asshats

[avebury]

7. I wonder how long that would last if all passengers

refused to buy and food or beverage in the secured areas which would negatively impact the businesses there.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. But they're a captive market - they can't bring food and beverages in with them

It does seem like (a) a waste of public money (b) an admission that they can't trust the companies in the airport.

[treestar]

15. Bet Jennifer would blame the government right away

if anything did go wrong. They should have checked our drinks!

[littlewolf]

16. another good reason to drive...nt

[flamingdem]

17. I fear

they are working their way towards the anal cavity.



My biggest concern is that they try to radiate me with those Rapiscan machines.
I hope everyone is chosing to Opt Out. If everyone did they'd have to scrap them!

[stockholmer]

21. cavity search, ages 6 and up

[Liberal_in_LA]

22. craziness

[DCKit]

24. The ongoing campaign to prove the TSA and Fatherland Security need to exist.

They're not selling it very well.

[Aerows]

27. This is a lot

more benign than getting felt up or x-rayed. I'd rather share a sip of my beer or my cocktail than the other two, but of course, you don't have any choice if you want to fly.

Don't get me wrong, it all sucks but I'm not nearly so outraged about the drink sample as the overreach the TSA has committed in total. This is a little like complaining about the gnats while the tiger is eating you.

[RC]

33. If the United States were really interested in security, the first thing we would do is

stop interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. Killing men, women and children and calling them terrorists after the fact, when in fact it is our actions in the first place, that are acts of terrorism.
We stir our own shit and then use the results as an excuse to stir it again, either in the same place somewhere else. Talk about your perpetual motion machine.

How about if we stopped our terrorist acts in other countries? You know, respect the borders of sovereign countries? Adhere to International Law? Then the risk of terrorism for retaliation against us, U.S., would drop in return, correct?

[davidpdx]

34. I've traveled around the world

and the security is pretty tight in most place, but more so in the US. I remember flying from Portland to Reno in Feb 2002 (a few months after 9/11) and machine guns were visible. In the Philippines they have a sign in the airport that says "don't even joke about having a bomb". Apparently some famous Filipino star did such a thing and found himself in hot water (this according to the security guy who I asked if I could take a picture of it).

Then again I've had some good experiences as well. Last year I broke my ankle a few weeks before our trip to the US (this is the trip I only take ever two years to go back home!) and had to buy a boot so I could walk. When I went through security both here in Korea and in the US I made a point of being cooperative and letting them know ahead of time about my boot. I don't think I ever had to take it off (though I did offer). Security in Korea tested it for explosive material via a chemical test and in the US they waved a wand over it.

As for the drinks I can sympathize because I tend to get tired and hot when traveling (even during the winter) and have to get a drink. They can be expensive on the concourse. When I was leaving China a few weeks ago, I walked down about 15 flipping gates to where I knew there was a vending machine (I'd seen it the last time I flew) that had Coke for 4 yuan instead of the 15 yuan charged by the restaurants and stores (I'm a cheap bastard, I know). I downed the thing so fast the only thing I had to worry about is getting to the bathroom before the flight.

[LiberalFighter]

35. How much of TSA is run privately and the extra testing is to bilk taxpayers?