undefined | Better HN

0 pointsphilwelch13y ago0 comments

It's also important to note that you consent to the search by choosing to travel by air in the United States.

0 comments

13 comments · 6 top-level

enjo13y ago· 3 in thread

That's such a bad argument. I do no such thing. However, the reality of my profession requires me to fly. So I "consent" only under considerable duress. The choice is literally "put food on the table" or submit to incredibly intrusive security.

That's not consent, that's coercion.

danielweber13y ago

There are good arguments against "automatic consent" but this isn't one of them.

You consent to lots of things by driving on public roads, yet many people's livelihoods depend on driving on public roads. It doesn't mean that the consent for driving wasn't given.

jackpirate13y ago

The choice is literally "put food on the table" or submit to incredibly intrusive security.

No it's not. You can quit and get a new job. If you can't immediately find a new job, you will be on unemployment and food stamps. You will literally still have food on the table.

Edit: by quit I meant don't get on the plane, resulting in being fired

settrans13y ago

Where would you be eligible for unemployment after voluntarily quitting?

michaelfeathers13y ago· 3 in thread

If someone feels that they can tell me what I consent to, they do not understand the meaning of the word consent.

tptacek13y ago

You can not walk up to the security checkpoint at the airport. To see why this matters, imagine that the TSA could, as soon you bought a ticket, search you in your home. The police can actually do that, if they have a warrant.

lambda13y ago

There is a difference between "consent" and "putting up with because you want something else more."

I generally have a greater need to fly than to avoid being felt up. This does not mean I consent to being felt up. The fact that the Supreme Court mistakes this for consent bothers me greatly.

2 more replies

mikeash13y ago

If this really were the doctrine under which these searches were instituted, wouldn't there have to be a situation where the search procedures are fixed at the point where you bought your ticket, and they can't spring surprises on you by changing procedures between purchase and travel? Maybe I'm being unreasonable, but if the idea is that you implicitly consent when you sign up, then it seems like they should not then be able to change what you consented to later.

1 more reply

tptacek13y ago· 1 in thread

I remember that consent/voluntarism being important to the lawfulness of airport searches, but I thought the big two elements of administrative search were (1) searches not being intended to collect evidence for criminal investigations and (2) officers not having discretion as to who to search.

jpxxx13y ago

Negatory. Consent is not relevant in the case of airports, per the 3rd and 9th circuit courts.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1265662.html

sneak13y ago

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/20/nation/la-na-terror-...

darkarmani13y ago

That's like saying you consent by leaving your house. I guess you also think the airlines consent to having the TSA search their customers? I'd love it if airlines could opt-out. Let the market decide who thinks it is a risk. They could charge more money for the privilege of flying unmolested.

r00fus13y ago

Ah, the clickwrap and EULA argument. I hated it back in the 90s when it was introduced.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse