I just finished going through “Special” security at SFO for my flight to Las Vegas. When I handed my boarding pass to the gentleman at the gate he circled the last line which read “SSSS” which I initially thought meant “special as in he only has 30 minutes to catch his flight” but turned out to be “special as in he might be a terrorist.” I should have known better.
Apparently, when you purchase a ticket only 5 days in advance this qualifies as “suspicious” activity.
The process is fairly painless as long as you don’t care about your civil liberties.
I was first asked to step into a special (shorter) line which admitted one person at a time.
I placed my belongings on the X-ray machine as usual and when I exited the metal detector a nice gentleman picked up my laptop bag and luggage and moved me to a special screening “tube” (which is the best way to describe it).
This is where things get strange.
The tube was similar to a phone booth but only encloses you by 270 degrees. A nice female voice then says “air blowers engaged - please wait for the green light.” At this point 10 jets of air hit you at about 5 mph. I assume this portion is designed to detect explosive material.
Next comes the search. My screener (a nice young guy who I really think was just doing his job) immediately opened my bag and started searching my belongings. I actually would have initially said something but I was distracted by something in the background. I (politely) said “Excuse me. I did not give you consent to search my bag” at which point he noted that California law says that I implicitly gave consent when I stepped into the tube 30 seconds earlier.
There were no signs posted warning me that I was going to be subject to a drop search. I asked him if there was a sign posted and he said no but that other terminals in the airport had signs posted. I wonder if California law added a provision to require warning (which I think would at least be more reasonable).
My screener then told me that if I were to refuse the search I would be turned over to airport security. I was tempted to refuse the search but it was only 30 minutes to my flight and I was running on 4 hours worth of sleep.
Now if I understand this correctly America West can wave my 4th amendment rights and walking into a magic phone booth can allow a non-government employee to search my bags without a warrant.
Not cool.
-
Spinn3r News- Cornell Researchers Launch Memetracker Powered by Spinn3r
- Spinn3r Sponsors 2009 International Conference for Weblogs and Social Data Challenge
- Spinn3r 2.3.1
- Spinn3r Hiring Director of Sales
- Feed Update Protocols and SUP
- Spinn3r 2.2.5
- Spinn3r 2.2.3
- Spinn3r 2.2.2 Escapes From the Laboratory
- Spinn3r Hiring Senior Systems Administrator
- Spinn3r 2.2.1 Released
-
Subscribe
-
Flickr
More Photos
March 7, 2006 at 11:00 am
I think the first thing that flagged you as suspicious was the fact that you were willing to fly America West. :)
The court’s position is that this is not an unlawful search because it is not a required search. Sure, you have to submit to a search to get on the plane, but you have the choice not to fly on a commercial carrier.
If you choose to take a commercial airline, you have to submit to a search, show ID for intrastate travel, and a host of other violations of your civil liberties. If you din’t like that, then you’re free to choose another mode of transportation.
See Gilmore vs. Gonzales http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/
March 7, 2006 at 11:08 am
If it were a free market it wouldn’t be much of a problem. If I could fly US Air because they DON’T flag me that would be another issue.
This is not a free market. This is the TSA having secret regulations which force the companies to search citizens.
I’ve talked to Gillmore about this here and there.. I think I’m going to attempt to fly anon on the way home.
Kevin
March 7, 2006 at 11:39 am
That does suck, but the 4th Amendment does not apply to America West, it only applies to government entities (the “State”). Perhaps by virtue of the dictates of Homeland Security, this search qualifies as an extension of the state, and then of course they’ll say the search is not unreasonable given the security issues, and therefore the 4th Amendment *still* does not apply.
It’s rough when the only alternative is to not fly!
March 7, 2006 at 12:05 pm
The 4th Amendment said nothing about security issues. I would argue that in times of crisis we have to preserve our freedoms not destroy them.
The issue here is that it’s not America West thats doing this but the TSA. If it was a free market there’s no way any of the airlines would mandate this because its not consumer friendly.
Kevin
March 7, 2006 at 4:20 pm
I agree with you Kevin, I hate the hassle an the privacy invasion too. I’m just saying as a 4th Amendment issue, the search has to be *unreasonable*, and we’re not going to win that argument when it comes to airplanes.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…”
March 7, 2006 at 6:56 pm
The real problem is that such searches can now be considered “reasonable” due to the propoganda of terrorism, invaliding the 4th Amendment which only considers “unreasonable” searches.
That said, I personally feel being able to search anyone getting onto a plane is reasonable, but that’s where the debate lines get drawn when it comes to these issues.
Someone at LAX got the harsh end of this when I was there recently. This guy put his baggage in to be checked and a security attendant attempted to open the bag in the wrong way. This guy shouted over to ask them not to open his bag and it turned into a blazing row with the security threatening to give him back his baggage and kick him off the plane. He relented ;-)
March 7, 2006 at 9:54 pm
MeFi has an interesting post on those machines.
http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/32134#503017
That said, we can thank our lovely Dept. of Homeland Security for the mess that is airtravel today. No safer, just more hassle and bureaucracy. It is a sad state of affairs.
I reccomend this Bruce Schneier essay for more details.
http://www.schneier.com/essay-096.html
March 8, 2006 at 9:42 am
Kevin, it *is* a free market. You can choose how to travel. You’ve chosen a method that transports you quickly and cheaply at the cost of some inconvenience and searches. You could have chosen a cheap, anonymous, and slow method like a bus or even a bicycle. Or you could have chosen a fast method with no searches that’s extremely expensive, like chartering an airplane.
I’m not a fan of the TSA mandates either (they provide a false sense of security), but you can’t argue that you have no choice but to submit to a search. There are alternatives, albeit alternatives that you don’t find attractive.
March 8, 2006 at 10:04 am
“Kevin, it *is* a free market. You can choose how to travel. You’ve chosen a method that transports you quickly and cheaply at the cost of some inconvenience and searches. You could have chosen a cheap, anonymous, and slow method like a bus or even a bicycle. ”
That’s really a weak position. For starters the TSA has already set its eyes on train and buss travel? If the same policies applied to the buss lines would you say it wasn’t a free market?
Once the government mandates that corporations perform tasks that directly interfere with natural consumer goals its no longer a free market. Under no circumstances would the airlines institute these anti-consumer policies unless they were government mandates.
Maybe I’m being naive but I think they’d be more focused on profit and not hurting and angering their customers.
“I’m not a fan of the TSA mandates either (they provide a false sense of security),”
Yes…. of course. they both provide a false sense of security (which is very dangerous btw) and erode our civil liberties at the same time.
“but you can’t argue that you have no choice but to submit to a search. There are alternatives, albeit alternatives that you don’t find attractive.”
It comes down to practice and not theory. In theory you’re right but I can’t personally accept the financial burden here and neither can most Americans.
I don’t have the luxury of suing the US gov since I’m not independently wealthy.
March 9, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Airline bag searches are constitutional according to a 30 year old precedent.
Now, I’m pretty surprised teh TSA guy didn’t ask if he could open your bag.
But I would say he’s full of bluster to say that refusing the search means he can turn you over to the cops.
You could have refused the search and walked out of the airport. Refusing to be searched is not grounds for a search.
But the law is clear that if you want to board an aircraft you have to let your bags be searched by the machines and if the TSA so chooses, by hand.
BTW, that special search. They call that secondary screening.
March 13, 2006 at 11:10 am
Ryan is correct, this is called secondary screening. Surprisingly it’s not up to TSA to decide who qualifies for secondary screening, but up to the airline. I’m not sure if there is a standard procedure for it. I was flagged once when I changed my seat from a normal window seat to an emergency exit seat… But I’ve done that before without being flagged as well. I can’t find a pattern.
TSA is just doing their job so please get off their backs. I agree they should have asked you to search your bags. When I was put through secondary screening the asked me if I had been through it before, when I said no they gave me a full run down of what they were going to do. It took about 5 minutes and it wasn’t too bad in my opinion.
I travel a lot by plane and learned just to put-up with the hassle. Be patient and play your part.