Brad Ideas - 4th Amendment Shipping Tape - Comments

4th amendment and flying

Mike Kielkopf — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:37:25 -0800

We also voluntarily enter malls populated by thousands, large churches populated by thousands, drive on Interstate highways and city streets and walk on public sidewalks. If you believe it's a good idea to search everyone who voluntarily buys an airline ticket, then it would naturally follow that everyone who voluntarily goes to the mall, a place of worship, drives on a street or highway or walks down a public sidewalk in a crowded Times Square, among thousands of other sites, should also be searched -- and if a person didn't wish to be searched, all they would have to do is avoid going to the mall -- and all those other places.

No one has ever blown up a college basketball arena in the U.S., far as I know, yet I was searched and my wife's purse searched TSA style all because we made the mistake of buying tickets to watch a game to be played between two state universities. State universities are branches of government. Is it reasonable to search college basketball fans, or is such conduct unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment?

Read about Mao and his Revolution and tell me the United States of America isn't experiencing similar government oppressions. Of course, it's all for our own good. The government is smarter than any of us and is our great protector. Sure it is. Ben Franklin knew that when he wrote, "Those who would trade liberty for a little security deserve neither liberty nor security." Can you imagine a barefooted Franklin standing quietly in line at the airport while the TSA searches him and his bags?

God save us all.

The real irony of all this

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:04:00 -0800

The real irony of all this is that for the $6 Billion we spent last year getting our rights violated, we really aren't any safer (nor do we need to be!). As a Vietnam veteran who got regularly mortared and rocketed in a "Secure" base camp of the First Air Cavalry, I can assure you that the element of surprise will get you every time. And the vietcong weren't even suicidal - they wanted to come back and do it again later!

Soooooo....fast forward forty years. Does anybody really think they can anticipate what a terrorist is going to do sometime in the future? Guess again. Think our geniuses in Homeland Security know? Guess again and again. The thing is, the average terrorist is smarter and more motivated than the average baggage screener. Do you think it's "unreasonable" to spend $6 Billion per annum in our tax dollars to catch a coke user or a purveyor of fraudulent checks? I do. But apparently the TSA doesn't, because that's what they advertise on their website as their big accomplishments. Obviously no one in Congress has the guts to object, because they're frightened of public opinion.

And now for the Constitutional question - is the Fourth Amendment being violated? Seems to me that those who have posted the obvious point that many trips are obligatory for job or other reasons have answered that quite well. Please consider: it's a fact that 50% of the population is just scared to death of airplanes. (And those would be the good ones, with good service, maintenance, and friendly faces even. No bombs! But every time they get on board, 50% of us sweat bullets, from takeoff to touchdown. Does that sound voluntary? Of course not. They do it because they have to. So when they go through the security line, is it any more "voluntary?" What do you think? Three guesses, and the first two don't count.

The sheep on this blog that argue for the status quo are not only wrong, they're enablers of an increasingly strident and oppressive government that wants to keep its jobs and is perfectly willing to squander the Constitution, our freedoms, our commercial progress, our taxes, and our troops in an endless war in Iraq. Security is a state of mind, not a state of being. The "guy upstairs" always knows how to use fear to manipulate all of us and keep his power. Machiavelli knew it, as did the founding fathers.

And the rest of us.......we're going to have to do something about it. Talk is cheap. But for heaven sakes write your Congress and give them hell. At least that's a start!

FISA “revisions,” Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter

Smith — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 02:45:27 -0700

I hate to sound melodramatic about it, but while everyone was at the beach or "The Simpsons Movie" on the first weekend in August, the U.S. government shredded the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, the one requiring court-approved "probable cause" before Americans can be searched or spied upon. This is not the feverish imagination of left-wing bloggers and the ACLU. It's the plain truth of where we've come as a country, at the behest of a president who has betrayed his oath to defend the Constitution and with the acquiescence of Democratic congressional headers and leaders who know better. Historians will likely see this episode as a classic case of fear — both physical and political — trumping principle amid the ancient tension between personal freedom and national security.

Ahh where to start. The 4th

JJL — Tue, 01 May 2007 18:40:57 -0700

Ahh where to start.
The 4th Amend only applies to the federal governmental employees. So the 4th Amendment does not apply to you and me as long as we are not governmental employees. So the airline personnel can search the bags as long as they do not do so if acting as an agent of the state; ie A person cannot be seen as participating in the search just to serve the purpose of the governmental agents.

Law has stated as far back as 1921 that private persons are seperate and distinct from searches conducted under state authority. An example of which is if a Fedex guy finds illegal contraband in a damage package he simply notifies the local PD and shows them the evidence. No laws have been broken as the evidence is gained from a private citizen who has not broken the law to obtain the evidence.

Also the 4th Amendment only applies to intracountry travel. As soon as you want to cross the US border the 4th Amend does not apply. They do not need probable cause to conduct a search of the person, vehicle, or propery. I won't even go into the exceptions to probable cause as this subject alone is an entire semester at some uni's.

As far a having stuff taken away just check the bag and be done with it.

Got it rough

brad — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 18:52:05 -0800

On my trip to Aussieland last year, I found the air travel to be a breath of fresh air. I laughed at the notices that they had recently had to put in requirement that you needed to be there 30 minutes before the flight if you wanted to check bags!

How adorable.

Our constitution

Elmaxo — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 12:29:06 -0800

Over here in Australia, our constitution or any of its amendments don't even protect any of the rights of citizens, just the rights of the State & Federal governments...

Alas, our government's quick obedience with the current US administration has seen similar, though not yet as stringent, security measurements being imposed on airline travel. The supposed necessity of airline travel, whether you agree with it being necessary or not, is quite apparent if you ever want to the west coast from the east: there really are little other options. Now we have to endure the 4 hour trip from Sydney to Perth with less than 100mLs of water!

It's perfectly reasonable to assume the government will attempt to provide some security in our airspace, but this responsibility has to stop at some point. In the end, people who travel by air have to realise that there is a risk that something will go wrong, leading to their deaths, when they get on a plane, just like motorists agree to the much higher risk of death of getting in their car. Personally, I would prefer a slightly higher probability of death, well below that of terrestrial transport, than to give up a perfectly good set of nail scissors and my trusty bottle of water. I guess that's just the mathematician in me talking.

That's right, I'd risk the probability of some terrorist stabbing the stewards with nail scissors, commandeering the cockpit, then either getting shot down by jet fighters or incinerated by 1 litre of liquid explosives! It really seems like such a negligible threat in my opinion, and we can't live our lives wondering "what if?".

There's probably hundreds of things that can or are being done to increase security on airliners without inconveniencing passengers who have no intention of doing anything wrong. Innocent until proven guilty - a common idea in a number of countries.

I'm sure there will be people who don't agree with what I said, to them: feel free to pick apart what I have said piece by piece! :P

I know it is a strange analogyâ€¦

A Different Anonymous — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:09:39 -0800

Thomas Jefferson once said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." I would have to agree with him.

It is possible that every person who walks through an airport has a gun shoved up his or her ass. Now, would it not be safer if we all got cavity searched on every trip we took? In theory: Of course. However, no one would ever agree that this is acceptable.
Or, how about this: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/06/backscatter_x-r.html?
Do you want strangers to see you naked? The point isn't that it's inconvenient. The point isn't about not wanting people to take your coke away or any number of other details. The point is that you are being violated and you should care. Just because it isn't bodily, doesn't mean it isn't violating your right to privacy. We have rights for a reason and if you don't protect them, no one else will. If you give them an inch, they will take a mile. Donâ€™t. Trust. Your. Government. They're searching your bags without probable cause now and they're going to be shoving their hands up your ass without probable cause later. I promise you.

In addition, yes, we do have options. We can never leave our houses; we can drive to Poland, or take a train to Hawaii. I am quite tired of hearing you dance on nuances about "options". I should not have to choose to avoid airports, just as I should not have to choose to avoid hydrogenated oils. As far as I'm concerned, the Government is doing a service for the people, just like the food industry. I'm paying you to make me happy. I'm not happy. Do not poison me and call it safe. Do not attack me and call it protection. The only option is for them to change, not me. I am not budging.

In any case, the extra protection that we hear about is just a way to make us feel safe. In actuality, we're not any safer now than we were 10 years ago. We're just more divided and nervous. For example: I was going to Las Vegas with my friend, Lindsay. This was about two years ago, we were 16. They searched her stuff five times because they thought they saw a lighter in her suitcase. They soon figured out that it was inside of her stuffed bunny. They were considering tearing it open, when one of the agents asked her, "Could it ever make noise?" Well, it turned out that it could. Their lighter was actually a battery pack. We spent an hour being prodded because of a stuffed toy. Lindsay had traveled very extensively and had taken that bunny everywhere she went since the day she was born. It was never a problem before. Why was it one now? On the return home from the same trip, her mother had bought a set of butter knives. They took them away. This was expected and not really a problem. However, when we stopped in one of the shops near the terminal, the same knife set was for sale. Interesting? It gets better. Two weeks later, my brother and I were on the way home from my Father's house. He lives in Phoenix. For Christmas, he had received a large arrow (with the head very sharp and intact). He was holding it in his hands, unpackaged and completely visible, as he walked through the security checkpoint. He went through the metal detector, walked through the terminal, and boarded the plane. Nobody noticed. Nobody said one word. It is confusing to me that somebody can easily bring a weapon onto a plane without harassment, but you'll be assaulted if you try to bring a stuffed animal.

The point of terrorism is in its name. If you fall to your knees and bow down to the fear that they are trying to make you feel, then they have already won. We are all Americans and we should not be prosecuting each other and ourselves for being born that way. We are innocent until proven guilty and it should never be the other way around. The best thing this country can do now is to grow a backbone and band together to be One Nation under Who Cares. As it stands right now, we're all running around like chickens with our heads cut off and it's making us weaker rather than safer. Trust your neighbor and hold your head up high in airplanes. Don't let them get to you.

Actually, I think the key

A Different Anonymous — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 02:27:58 -0800

Actually, I think the key word(s) here are "probable cause".

Explain to me why having a pumpkin pie around Thanksgiving is good enough probable cause to have it taken away?

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/11642...

Excuse me?

A Different Anonymous — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 02:07:40 -0800

The pot was not the point of this debate. You would probably know that if you didn't your mind shut from stubborn apprehension. Perhaps you should have a go at reading what you're trying to demystify... as opposed to seizing up at the conjuring of a "taboo" image.

As far as your "friend" who

Anonymous — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:26:54 -0800

As far as your "friend" who had the harmless pot, if you want to do something that is an arrestable offence then go ahead and run with it, but don't whine about how you got arrested for doing something that was clearly illegal. We don't care.

Coercion is not allowed.

Anonymous — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:26:06 -0700

You have an interesting point of view. I beg to differ.

As a person who is required to travel for business, I can't be competitive if I don't use the airlines. Corporate jets are too expensive. Greyhound and Amtrak are too slow. Obviously, I drive whenever it's possible, but I can't drive to Hawaii.

Driving, by the way, is also a privilidge. Would it be constitutional if the government made your drivers license conditional on not voting and/or agreeing not to criticize the government? It amounts to the same thing.

The irony is that the screeners (yes, the underpaid, uneducated and non-Americans included) did their jobs on 9/11. The only things that were insufficient were the list of proscribed items and the airlines procedures on handling hijackings. There was no good reason to Federalize screening, and doing so is a violation of my 4th ammendment liberties.

Right to travel

Anonymous — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 07:18:32 -0700

So, if we have a right to travel, but an option on how to travel, WHY do we have to allow 4th Ammendment violations when flying but not when driving? Where is the line that we ignore the constitution?

Why is it that we comply with the 2nd Ammendment in some places, but not in others? Where is the line that we ignore the constitution?

I SAY NEVER!!!!!

30 Seconds????

Anonymous — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 05:43:26 -0700

Which airports do you use? With the latest knee jerk rules about water and toothpaste, I'm now up to 90 - 120 minutes all of the time!

TSA "keeping the traveling public secure?"

Anonymous — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 05:33:34 -0700

I hope you're joking! At one time, I used to think that security was never a waste of time, but now with my frequent encounters with TSA, I know I was wrong with that assessment. I've seen too many security violations that I wonder how many things the do wrong.

Over the last few years, I have taken a poll of 246 (so far) fellow travelers (at the airport while standing in a TSA line) and over 95% of them think that TSA doesn't provide any real security. Additionally, alnost 70% of passengers are more concerned about TSA harassing them (and possibly detaining them) than they are about terrorists. In 11% of the respondents, they are "terrified" of TSA, which I've recently heard as "America's Own Gestapo!"

I've heard of more "interesting" wording for the TSA acronym:

Terrorism Support Agency
Trouble Securing Anything
Terrible Security Anywhere
Thief Society of America
Troublesome Shameless Antagonists
Tyranical, Sadistic and Amoral
Treacherous, Suspicious and Anti-American

Whether a search is

Sat, 19 Aug 2006 18:52:41 -0700

Whether a search is reasonable or not is moot if there is not a warrant. Do you honestly think there would be a requirement for probable cause if the framers intended for government to be able to search without a warrant?

4th Amendment Shipping Tape

brad — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 17:06:18 -0800

Looking at printed wedding gift ribbon some time ago, Kathryn thought it would be amusing to put the 4th amendment on the ribbon, and tie it around our suitcases.

That turned out to be hard to make, but I did make a design for shipping tape which you can see below. The printed shipping tape has the text slant so that as the pattern repeats, the 4th amendment appears as a long continuous string, as well as a block.

You can put this shipping tape on your packages and your airplane luggage. Every time I fly, my luggage gets a card in it telling me how “for my protection” they have searched it.

Now, when they open my luggage, they will have to literally slice the 4th amendment in half in order to do this.

Too bad we can’t wrap it around our phone wires, but at least the EFF is suing AT&T to stop the NSA wiretaps.

We ordered several cases of this tape for the EFF. You can get it as a gift if you join the EFF or buy it directly from the EFF Store. There is a fat markup of course, which goes to protecting your civil rights. Buy some for your own shipping tape gun, or give the gift of privacy rights to a friend.

And yeah, I know it probably won’t stop them from searching. But if, like John Perry Barlow on his way back from Burning Man, I have to go to court over it, it will be nice to tell the judge that they cut the 4th amendment up to search my bags.

(Minor note: The printer could not always get the repetitions to line up perfectly, so sometimes there’s a vertical gap.)