Monday, November 14, 2011

Wrapped Presents Are OK, But We Might Have To Open Them For Anomalies Or Alarms

Wrapped Presents
Photo Courtesy of MB
It's not even Thanksgiving yet and as I jumped into the blogosphere this morning, it was all abuzz with posts and tweets about TSA targeting wrapped presents at checkpoints. Names such as "Grinch" and "Scrooge" were being thrown about with reckless abandon. I even saw a reference to the infamous "Heat Miser." Let me assure you, we are not Mr. Green Christmas and we're not Mr. Sun...

Since TSA's inception, we've worked to educate passengers about traveling with wrapped presents. This is nothing new. Wrapped gifts are screened just like any other item. We can see through the paper just like we can see through luggage, but just as we have to open a bag when it requires a search due to an anomaly or an alarm, we have to open wrapped items as well if they alarm or require additional screening.

We want your gift to arrive wrapped just as much as you do. Just know the possibility is there that if the item alarms, we might have to open it to resolve the alarm. We don't enjoy unwrapping presents that aren't for us, but if an anomaly is detected inside, we'll have to unwrap it in order to determine what it is so we can clear it for travel.

This tweet stuck out earlier. It's about a person who had to have their present unwrapped. It was a box of knives! 

TSA Blog Team

If you’d like to comment on an unrelated topic you can do so in our Off Topic Comments post. You can also view our blog post archives or search our blog to find a related topic to comment in. If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact a Customer Support Manager at the airport you traveled, or will be traveling through by using Talk to TSA.

86 comments:

Tony said...

It is hard to even comment on your postings. The net of every policy discussion is that the traveling public must continue to endure the abuses of the day that you think of.

Nadav said...

You can't really educate passengers. Those who fly frequently are used to your policies, and others will keep coming with wrapped knives.

Claiming to educate passengers seems pretty weird, especially when the target audience is several hundred million people.

Nadav

RB said...

And most of us thought the Grinch was just a fairytale.

Seems TSA has no boundaries.

Anonymous said...

Oh no, someone wanted to mail someone else a box of kitchen implements. Clearly this sort of thing requires intervention by the Federal Government.

Even in Nazi Germany people could mail knives to each other without the government opening their presents in transit.

See something, say something, huh? I see a government suspicious of its own citizens holiday gifts on one hand, and handing out weapons to drug cartels with the other. If DHS wants to protect us they should investigate the BATFE.

Anonymous said...

'Heat Miser', you say?

"We missed your razor blades,
We missed your gun.
For every weapon we find,
we missed 100 and 1..."

Anonymous said...

Presents? Who in their right mind does not use the USPS, UPS, FedEx or DHL these days to ship things when they fly? My toolboxes, electronics, and critical possessions go by next day air every time I fly, straight my work-site or my hotel. Nobody, and I mean nobody, in the TSA needs to fat-finger damage or five-finger discount my test equipment, prototypes or training film collection.

Anonymous said...

Don't see how unwrapping presents is "injustice" and "evil". The TSA has for quite a while said DON'T WRAP YOUR GIFTS. Travelers who choose to not listen to this request should expect a search even more.

I like to fly in comfortable loose fitting clothes. That makes me a target for a pat down. Yes it sucks but I expect it. Flying isn't a right it's a privilege.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Don't worry about the critics. Just do the job, and, if they want not to go through security, they want not to fly. It's THAT simple.

Anonymous said...

You just keep on unwrapping any and all presents as you would bags, TSA. I cannot believe half of these posts complaining about the incredible amount of things people have the nerve to try and bring on a flight and then act surprised. I sure hope you are joking when you think they, their grandchildren, or didn't know what they purchased at an antique store. If you believe any of them, you must gone to high school in the 40s or 50s. Continue to do your utmost to keep our nation safe from where you stand or sit. It's a shame people need a real life action movie event to think we need more security. Just continue to think of all you may not be finding that we need you to!

Joann said...

I disagree! If we can all appriciate and fully understand the full scope of the security that is being provided we would understand why they do the things they do. The one day that something is not caught because they slacken up then they will be to blame. We cant have double standards. You want to be safe but dont want them to do their jobs!

Anonymous said...

The best advice the TSA can give holiday travelers is to stay at home and avoid an interaction with your organization all together. Does the TSA need to be reminded of the numerous unseemly incidents involving the TSA workforce throughout 2011? Why would anyone trust you with their holiday gifts, much less their person?

Andy said...

It hink a better title for this post would be, "Wrapped Presents Are OK, Or They're Not, We'll Let You Know."

Anonymous said...

Bob [not the blogger] said...
Don't worry about the critics. Just do the job,

There wouldn't be nearly so much criticism of the TSA if they actually did their (suppossed) job.

But, as has been pointed out innumerable times, their methods are ineffectual, bothersome, and violate Constitutional Rights. Worse yet, they simply don't work. Time after time, after time, the TSA fails tests, letting through up to 70% of the weapons/bombs it was looking for.

Forget tests- Time after time after time, we hear about ordinary citizens getting through the TSA "security", only to discover they had [insert prohibited item here- guns, knives, box cutters, 3.5 ounce shampoo bottles, etc].

Time after time after time, we hear about citizens humiliated by having their -ostomy bags poked and prodded in public, or being handed pliers and told to remove piercings, or being told to drink their own breast milk.

If the TSA cut that... stuff... out, they'd still be violating our Rights, but (sadly, imo) almost no one would have a problem with it.

and, if they want not to go through security, they want not to fly. It's THAT simple.

No- we WANT to fly. We just don't want to be questioned like a criminal, poked, prodded, irradiated, and have our water bottle stolen from us before getting on the plane.

To avoid all that, we choose not to fly.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

If the screener can, with technology, see through the package, another screener won't have-ta open it up.

If the screener cannot, even with technology, see through the package, another screener will have-ta do it the ol' fashioned way -- that is, open it up.

What's the best way to proceed? Don't wrap the packages; or you can send them ahead on Greyhound. Do what's most convenient for you; but, remember, TSA will do its job until somebody with juice tells TSA not to do their job. Then, we'll see what happens.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Flying isn't a right it's a privilege."

Wrong - show me where the constitution says that.

You are allowed to do anything that isn't illegal. There are no laws against flying on an airplane. It's as much a right as walking down the street.

Don't give away your rights - you might never get them back,

Anonymous said...

"I disagree! If we can all appriciate and fully understand the full scope of the security that is being provided we would understand why they do the things they do."

They should tell Congress. Rep Mica and others just released a report describing the TSA as "bloated and inefficient." The calls for more privitization and a large reduction in staff could not have come sooner.

"The one day that something is not caught because they slacken up then they will be to blame."

Statistically, the TSA misses 70% of "prohibited" items so clearly you're wrong.

And, once again, the one to blame will be the one breaking the law. The anticonstitutional activities of the TSA will, in that case, be proven ineffective but we already know that, don't we?

"We cant have double standards. You want to be safe but dont want them to do their jobs!"

Well "standards" of any case would be nice. Your comment also assumes that the TSA makes us safer but it does not.

Anonymous said...

"Flying isn't a right it's a privilege."

Utterly, totally, completely false. Air travel is a right. Do you believe air travel could be denied on the basis of race or religion? If it's a privilege, it could be denied.

If you want this silly comment to be taken seriously, please cite the repeal of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 and appropriate common carrier law.

Does the TSA put this out among its work force? Sounds like a good subject for a FOIA.

This blog should stop doing the nonsensical jokes and address this very real question.

Bob - Is air travel a privilege in the eyes of the TSA?

(And, yes, I realize this will not be answered)

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Of course, flying is a priviledge. No one has a Right to "hijack" a private airliner.

There is no Fourth Amendment issue where there is consent to a search. Passengers entering the secure area, warned by signage all over the airport, expect to be searched. They imply consent by their conduct.

Anonymous said...

They should tell Congress. Rep Mica and others just released a report describing the TSA as "bloated and inefficient." The calls for more privitization and a large reduction in staff could not have come sooner.

-----------------------------------
The reason Mica and his buddies call for privatization is because they receive huge campaign contributions from the same private companies that want to charge the federal government huge amounts of money for the priveledge of having the contract to provide security at the airports.
No thanks, I remember what security was like before TSA. Remember when you had the minimun wage worker who spoke no english, didn't have to be a US citizen, and didnt have any skills at all for doing the job. I know because I used to work for one of those companies. The training was a joke because there was none. You were hired and the next day you were on the floor screening passengers without so much as a single class to teach you anything. I'll take the federal employee that gets extensive training before even working with passengers any day.

Anonymous said...

[[Of course, flying is a priviledge. No one has a Right to "hijack" a private airliner.]]

This is, of course, facile. And you, of course, know it. Flying and hijacking are two different things, and one does not imply the other.

You may as well say that gun ownership is a privilege, not a right, because no one has the 'right' to commit robbery.


[[There is no Fourth Amendment issue where there is consent to a search]]

There is no consent where there is no choice. You know this as well.


[[They imply consent by their conduct.]]

You find "implied consent" in the Constitution and then you'll have a basis for your position; until then it is a facile rationalization.

rwilymz
http://dblyelloline.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

Bob [not the blogger] said...
"Of course, flying is a priviledge. No one has a Right to "hijack" a private airliner.
There is no Fourth Amendment issue where there is consent to a search. Passengers entering the secure area, warned by signage all over the airport, expect to be searched. They imply consent by their conduct."

How can you equate flying on a plane with hijacking? That doesn't even make sense.

Putting up signs doesn't change the law. I can't just put up a sign and then do whatever I want.

RB said...

Bob [not the blogger] said...
Of course, flying is a priviledge. No one has a Right to "hijack" a private airliner.

There is no Fourth Amendment issue where there is consent to a search. Passengers entering the secure area, warned by signage all over the airport, expect to be searched. They imply consent by their conduct.

November 17, 2011 12:36 PM

.................
Travel is certainly a right and the means was not defined making travel by air a right also. If any limitation is present it is in the contract between the person wanting to travel and the person/persons providing the travel, and certainly federal government has no say in this unless a warrant can be produced to arrest a person.

Consent for a search limited expressly to finding WEI and nothing more.

Not an electronic strip search, not a sexual assault pat down search, and definitely not what TSA is doing today.

TSORon said...

Anonymous said…
[["Flying isn't a right it's a privilege."

Wrong - show me where the constitution says that.]]
Please show us where in the constitution, or even in US law, where it says that it is?

Another Anonymous said...
[["Flying isn't a right it's a privilege."

Utterly, totally, completely false. Air travel is a right.]]

Really? Where is that written? Please, show us where in either the constitution or US law where it says that?

Another Anonymous poster (aka rwilymz) said…
[[There is no consent where there is no choice. You know this as well.]]

Walking away is a choice. Never booking the flight is a choice. Taking the train, a boat, or a pogo stick is a choice. Presenting oneself and your property for screening of your own free will is also a choice.
Another anonymous poster quipped…
[[Putting up signs doesn't change the law.]]

Your right, it doesn’t. But it does give you the ability to make the decision to comply or walk away knowing that should you comply that there is a search involved. Hence the “implied consent”, and indeed “informed consent”.

RB said…
[[Travel is certainly a right and the means was not defined making travel by air a right also. If any limitation is present it is in the contract between the person wanting to travel and the person/persons providing the travel, and certainly federal government has no say in this unless a warrant can be produced to arrest a person.]]

Travel is indeed a right. Travel includes but is not limited to: Aircraft (private charter, private aircraft, personal aircraft, balloons, hang gliders, and of course flapping your arms). And the government has a “say” in most of those activities, such as the FAA, licensing, flight plan approval, location, and of course safety of the vehicle used. I kinda figure that the flapping of arms won’t pass the test.

RB also said…
[[Consent for a search limited expressly to finding WEI and nothing more.

Not an electronic strip search, not a sexual assault pat down search, and definitely not what TSA is doing today.]]

WEI can be hidden anywhere on the body. Can be made to look like just about anything else. The only limit is the creativeness of the individual constructing the devices. A toilet seat would not normally be considered a dangerous object, but one made of C4 certainly would be.
We all read stories about smugglers and some of the tactics they use to get their “product” to market, these same methods can be used to smuggle weapons, explosives, and incendiary devices through the checkpoint. Ignoring the obvious is silly.

Anonymous said...

TSORon said...
Walking away is a choice. Never booking the flight is a choice. Taking the train, a boat, or a pogo stick is a choice. Presenting oneself and your property for screening of your own free will is also a choice.

Firstly, many people need to travel for their jobs. Such travel needs to happen in a timely manner- no trains, boats or pogo sticks. Are you seriously saying that they should quit their job in this economy in order to avoid begin irradiated or felt up by the TSA?

"Gee, if you don't wanna be stabbed by the mugger, just hand over your wallet. You have the choice."

Second, many people AREN'T "presenting" themselves. Gee, I wonder why airlines need to charge all these extra fees?

"A June 2008 study by the U.S. Travel Association revealed a deep frustration among air travelers that caused them to avoid an estimated 41 million trips over the past 12 months at a cost of more than $26 billion to the U.S. economy. Air travelers expressed little optimism for positive change, with nearly 50 percent saying that the air travel system is not likely to improve in the near future. The effect of avoided trips cost airlines more than $9 billion in revenue; hotels nearly $6 billion and restaurants more than $3 billion. Federal, state and local governments lost more than $4 billion in tax revenue because of reduced spending by travelers. (Source: Air Travel Survey, 2008)"

Thanks, TSA for helping destroy the Economy.

We all read stories about smugglers and some of the tactics they use to get their “product” to market, these same methods can be used to smuggle weapons, explosives, and incendiary devices through the checkpoint.

And the TSA won't catch them.

And THAT is why the TSA is useless and should be shut down. (Heck, the TSA misses up to 70% of weapons in it's own tests! Imagine the miss rate when the person has a real weapon, and really doesn't want to be caught!)

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Travel is a Right when you use your own vehicle.

If you expect to travel by way of somebody else's vehicle, it is not a Right.

Airlines are private companies. They own, or lease, their aircraft. You pay to fly with them.

Air safety is the job of the State. If you wanna fly, you go through the procedures the State has set up to make flying as secure as possible with the least amount of inconvenience.

If you wanna fly, you go through security. If you want not to go through security, you don't fly. Passengers don't make the rules; they don't know enough to make the rules.

Anonymous said...

TSORon said:
Please show us where in the constitution, or even in US law, where it says that it is?

The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, as amended. Also, common carrier law.

It's appalling that a TSO doesn't know this.

Anonymous said...

"The reason Mica and his buddies call for privatization is because they receive huge campaign contributions from the same private companies that want to charge the federal government huge amounts of money for the priveledge of having the contract to provide security at the airports. "


This one comes up from time to time and is always debunked. There is no "priviledged" group out there bankrolling Mica.

Try again.

Anonymous said...

TSORon said...
[[ Utterly, totally, completely false. Air travel is a right.]]
Really? Where is that written? Please, show us where in either the constitution or US law where it says that?

Anything not explicitly forbidden by law is allowed. No sane person expects the law to list every possible allowed activity.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

OK. Let's say that travel is a "Right."

Even if it is, that Right doesn't let you "hijack" private property -- that is, the modes of travel that belong to somebody else who has nothing to say about it.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

The signage around the airport alerts you to the fact that you are subject to search while on airport property. So, if you continue, you accept that.

There is no Fourth Amendment issue where you even imply your consent by your continuing into a secure area. It's not necessary to give verbal consent, nor sign an agreement. You conduct is enough.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

>>Consent for a search limited expressly to finding WEI and nothing more.<<

Who says they're looking for more than that?

You let the POlice in your house. They are looking for a suspect. They spot heroin on your coffee table, in open view. You're in trouble. They weren't looking for more than the suspect, but they found something more. Do they ignore the heroin? Of course not.

Pre-TSA, before I was supervisor, I was on the x-ray, screening carry-ons. A big piece of luggage came into view. What was inside looked like folded sweaters uniformly packed, and a uniform space around the edges. I stopped the luggage and called the supervisor. The sup called police and the pax ran away. Was I wrong? No. [The POlice found drugs inside. The pax was a "mule." They found him later and arrested him. I was/am happy.]

Anonymous said...

Bob [not the blogger] said...
OK. Let's say that travel is a "Right."
Even if it is, that Right doesn't let you "hijack" private property -- that is, the modes of travel that belong to somebody else who has nothing to say about it.

Strawman alert - no one has ever claimed that. There are lots of valid criticisms of the TSA on this blog - try addressing a real one.

Anonymous said...

Bob [not the blogger] said...
"Airlines are private companies. They own, or lease, their aircraft. You pay to fly with them."

Yes, the airplanes belong to the airlines. So why does the government get to tell the airlines who is allowed to go on those airplanes?

It should be the airlines decision who flies and who doesn't. They should set the level of security. If you don't like their decision, then take your business somewhere else. That's the way a free market is supposed to work.

Anonymous said...

The government gets to tell the airlines cuz the airlines are regulated by the State for the safety of all. It's the same system of regulation that tells us who can fly an airplane and who can drive a car and, for example, how fast they can do them.

The airspace is federally-regulated, and, so, the State gets to say who can be in it.

A free market also works this way: If you don't like the procedures, find another way to get to your destination.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

>>no one has ever claimed that [flying is a Right]. There are lots of valid criticisms of the TSA on this blog - try addressing a real one.<<

I have addressed what has been brought up.

TSORon said...

An Anonymous poster asked…
[[Yes, the airplanes belong to the airlines. So why does the government get to tell the airlines who is allowed to go on those airplanes?

It should be the airlines decision who flies and who doesn't. They should set the level of security. If you don't like their decision, then take your business somewhere else. That's the way a free market is supposed to work.]]

The Constitution of the United States says:
Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have power … To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; … To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Anonymous said...

Regarding Article 1 of the Constitution, I certainly hope TSORon isn't suggesting that the TSA falls under the Commerce Clause. You weren't seriously suggesting that, we're you Ron?

Anonymous said...

"The Constitution of the United States says:
Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have power … To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; … To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

So your argument is that the TSA is the exercise of regulation accorded Congress regarding commerce among the States? I can't believe you mean this seriously. Were you, in fact, seriously making this point?

Anonymous said...

"A free market also works this way: If you don't like the procedures, find another way to get to your destination."

Markets do not define liberties. I suppose you'd say that if the "State" - a poor term to use since the Constitution does not refer to Federal authority by that term - takes away your right to publish a newspaper there's no harm since you could, for instance, publish a web page?

I'm sorry, it simply doesn't work that way.

Anonymous said...

"... who can drive a car and, for example, how fast they can do them."

You seem to be confused regarding the powers claimed by the Federal government and those reserved to the States. The Federal government does not set highway speed limits nor does it set driver eligibility standards.

The Fed does make some funding contingent on max speeds but that is a different (albeit abusive) exercise of Federal authority.

Anonymous said...

"A big piece of luggage came into view. What was inside looked like folded sweaters uniformly packed, and a uniform space around the edges. I stopped the luggage and called the supervisor. The sup called police and the pax ran away. Was I wrong? No."

A close call. Many judges would exclude the evidence you found since you had no reasonable suspicion that the anomaly was related to a threat to air travel. Had the passenger, in fact, not run away, the likelihood of exclusion approaches certainty.

The fact that you were "right" about the anomaly being drugs is immaterial; you have no powers to search for drugs.

Were you ever called to testify or were you deposed? If not, the passenger walked. You can still be happy that the contraband wasn't returned to him.

Anonymous said...

"The signage around the airport alerts you to the fact that you are subject to search while on airport property. So, if you continue, you accept that. "

Not so much, Bob, no.

Anonymous said...

"If you expect to travel by way of somebody else's vehicle, it is not a Right."

Really, Bob? So a hotel could deny a room to someone based on his race? It's a private company, after all, so it can do that right?

Well, Bob, not so much. Or at least not in the last 50+ years. Do some research on common carriers, public accommodations and common law.

Equally ridiculous is the claim that since the airlines are "private" - they are not, all are publically held - means that the Federal government can take away liberties using that as a basis. I own my home. Would you suggest that the Federal government can search my guests prior to entering my home? After all, my guests are entering a privately held property so, by your reasoning, they have no 4th Amendment rights, correct?

"Airlines are private companies. They own, or lease, their aircraft. You pay to fly with them."

Yes, I do. How does this allow Federal intrusion? Are you asserting that the Constitution allows Congress to modify private contracts? Warning, this is a trick question. Look at Art 1, Sect 10 prior to responding.

The law is a wonderful but complex thing. Do your research prior to posting and you won't be so easily embarrassed.

Anonymous said...

"Really? Where is that written? Please, show us where in either the constitution or US law where it says that?"

As I've blogged, the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 and in the common law, ref common carrier and public accommodation.

I look forward to your response.

Anonymous said...

"There is no Fourth Amendment issue where you even imply your consent by your continuing into a secure area. It's not necessary to give verbal consent, nor sign an agreement. You conduct is enough."

Well, not really. Are you suggesting that if I can't read or can't read English, I've still consented? How about if I didn't see the signs? Do blind people consent to the warnings published on signs they are unable to see?

Let's follow your line of reasoning. If a passenger wears a shirt that says, "I do not consent to being searched," has that passenger then expressly rejected the (presumably voluntary) consent that you assert? Or do you think that the passive consent that you assert the pasenger has accepted is stronger than the passive rejection represented by the passenger's t-shirt?

I anxiously await your response.

Anonymous said...

"Even if it is, that Right doesn't let you "hijack" private property -- that is, the modes of travel that belong to somebody else who has nothing to say about it."

Presumably, then, the Federal government would be equally excluded from having "anything to say about it," correct?

Anonymous said...

"OK. Let's say that travel is a "Right."

No, let's not say it. Let's acknowledge the case law and statute that define it as a right.

Anonymous said...

"Air safety is the job of the State. If you wanna fly, you go through the procedures the State has set up to make flying as secure as possible with the least amount of inconvenience."

Another interesting assertion. Can you cite the appropriate Section, Amendment or Law? Does this power you claim for the Federal government include flights that originate and terminate in a single state? If so, why? Can you harmonize your assertion in the latter case with the 10th Amendment?

Anonymous said...

TSORon said...
The Constitution of the United States says:
Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have power … To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

A flight entirely within a single state is required to have exactly the same security. Try again.

Anonymous said...

Bob [not the blogger] said...
>>no one has ever claimed that [flying is a Right]. There are lots of valid criticisms of the TSA on this blog - try addressing a real one.<<
I have addressed what has been brought up.

No, you seriously mis-quoted me.

You claimed that hi-jacking isn't a right. I pointed out that no one here ever claimed it was. Once again you avoid the real issues.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The government gets to tell the airlines cuz the airlines are regulated by the State for the safety of all.

You missed my point. The original post claimed that we don't have any right to fly because we don't own the airplanes. I pointed out that the airlines do own the planes and they don't get to make the decisions either. I was just addressing that specific point, not the general question of government regulation.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

The same kinda fed regulation that imposes rules for flying in each state are relevant for air security in each state. It's the same authority.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

Bob [not the blogger] says:
There is no Fourth Amendment issue where you even imply your consent by your continuing into a secure area. It's not necessary to give verbal consent, nor sign an agreement. You conduct is enough.

Anonymous says:
Well, not really.

Bob {not the blogger] says:
Well, yes really.

Anomymous asks:
Are you suggesting that if I can't read or can't read English, I've still consented?

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Yes. You go to a country -- ANY country -- and it's assumed that you know enough to operate in that country.

You go to the airport and you see signage that you don't understand. It's up to YOU to find out.

Anonymous asks:
How about if I didn't see the signs?

Bob [not the blogger]:
Does that work when you're stopped for speeding?

Anonymous asks:
Do blind people consent to the warnings published on signs they are unable to see?

Bob [not the blogger] says:
Yes. They do not live in a cave, and they are aware of and alert to goings-on in the world.

Anomymous asks:
If a passenger wears a shirt that says, "I do not consent to being searched," has that passenger then expressly rejected the (presumably voluntary) consent that you assert?

Bob [not the blogger]:
That person still can be searched while on airport property. He will not be allowed to fly, if he actually rejects a search.

Anonymous asks:
Or do you think that the passive consent that you assert the pasenger has accepted is stronger than the passive rejection represented by the passenger's t-shirt?

Bob [not the blogger] says:
If that person rejects a search, he will not fly; and, if he rejects a search on airport property, he could be arrested at least for trespassing.

There are conditions for being somewhere secure. You accept the conditions, or, as with any other contract, if you don't accept the terms, you don't belong there.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"No, let's not say it. Let's acknowledge the case law and statute that define it as a right."

No, you need to prove that flying isn't a right. The law isn't expected to list all the things that are allowed. That would be impossible, there are an infinite number of them. It lists the things that are prohibited.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Markets do not define liberties. I suppose you'd say that if the "State" - a poor term to use since the Constitution does not refer to Federal authority by that term - takes away your right to publish a newspaper there's no harm since you could, for instance, publish a web page?
I'm sorry, it simply doesn't work that way."

I think you misunderstood me. I was talking about allowing the airlines to set the airlines to set the security standards rather than the government.

To use your publishing analogy, the publisher of a newspaper should determine what gets in the paper. If you don't like what they publish then buy a different paper.

I was arguing for removing the government from the process and let people decide what they want..

Anonymous said...

"This one comes up from time to time and is always debunked. There is no "priviledged" group out there bankrolling Mica."

Lockheed Martin
Raytheon
FirstLine

All of whom already provide screening at airports that use private security.

Anonymous said...

Bob [not the blogger] said...
"There are conditions for being somewhere secure. You accept the conditions, or, as with any other contract, if you don't accept the terms, you don't belong there."

What contract are you talking about? I never signed any contract with the TSA.

A contract with the airline to fly on the plane has nothing to do with the security screening. The airline is not responsible for that.

Anonymous said...

"No, you need to prove that flying isn't a right. The law isn't expected to list all the things that are allowed. That would be impossible, there are an infinite number of them. It lists the things that are prohibited."

Correct, mostly, and thus the point that the right needs to be acknowledged, i.e., recognizing reality of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 and decades of case law.

Anonymous said...

"The same kinda fed regulation that imposes rules for flying in each state are relevant for air security in each state. It's the same authority."

So you claim that the Federal government controls intrastate commerce as well as interstate commerce? Can you please provide more information? This will revolutionize the Constitutional law I've spent a good part of my life researching!

Caroline Sound said...

Ok I get why some people would be upset at having there beautifully wrapped presents unwrapped but can't believe you found a knife set!!!
Why don't they put them in the hold and if they know they are flying don't buy anyone anything fragile!!! Or wrap it when you get there!!!!!

Anonymous said...

What about wrapped snow-globes?

Anonymous said...

"Ok I get why some people would be upset at having there beautifully wrapped presents unwrapped but can't believe you found a knife set!!!"

And exactly what, Caroline, do you think would have happened had the knife set been allowed aboard the airplane?

Anonymous said...

"Lockheed Martin
Raytheon
FirstLine"

For a grand total of how much? (I know but suspect the original poster doesn't).

Also, please let me know at which airport LM and Raytheon provide security. Again, I know the answer but the poster does not.

TSORon said...

An anonymous poster said…
[[No, you need to prove that flying isn't a right. The law isn't expected to list all the things that are allowed.]]

Being on someone else’s property without their permission is not a right, often it’s a violation of the law. The airport does not belong to you, or any other passenger, nor does the aircraft. The owner is allowing you access to their property when you buy an airline ticket, but that access is subject to “conditions”. Don’t like the conditions, then make another choice.

Travel IS a right. Traveling on someone else’s airplane or using someone else’s property without permission, is not. Adding conditions to that permission is commonplace, and well within the owners rights. Again, don’t like the conditions, then make another choice. Walking is always a good one, and it’s good for you.

Anonymous said...

TSORon said...
"Being on someone else’s property without their permission is not a right, often it’s a violation of the law. The airport does not belong to you, or any other passenger, nor does the aircraft. The owner is allowing you access to their property when you buy an airline ticket, but that access is subject to “conditions”. Don’t like the conditions, then make another choice."

No, I don't own the airplane, the airline does. However, the airline isn't setting the conditions, the TSA is. The airlines have no choice either, they aren't allowed to change the security procedures.

This has nothing to do with ownership of the vehicle. Even if I owned the airline I would still be required to go though your security on a public flight.

Stop trying to use ownership as a smoke screen for the fact that the government is taking away rights.

Bob [not the blogger] said...

==Stop trying to use ownership as a smoke screen for the fact that the government is taking away rights.==


You don't have the Right to board an aircraft owned by somebody else. You pay a fare, and the government has set up a procedure through which you must pass to get to that airplane. Nobody denies your access unless you refuse to pass through security.

How many court cases have you won on that "Rights" argument?

Anonymous said...

Bob [not the blogger] said...
"You don't have the Right to board an aircraft owned by somebody else."

Ownership of the aircraft is irrelevant,

The owners of the aircraft don't set the security requirements, the government does. If the airlines were allowed to set policy I doubt they would follow the TSA's rules.

Even if I owned the airline I would still have to go through security to get on a commercial flight.

If you want to argue that I don't have a right to fly you need to find an excuse other than ownership of the airplane.

Anonymous said...

Ron continues to advertise a complete ignorance of rights:
[[Being on someone else’s property without their permission is not a right]]

You have a store selling merchandise to the public. You own the store building, the property it sits on and the parking lot out front. Can I park in your lot and enter the store?

The answer is yes.

Can you keep me out?

All things being equal: no.

Why not? Because I have a right to access any commercial venue open to the public, regardless whether I buy anything you sell, regardless whether I intend to buy anything you sell, and your ability to eject me is rather limited.

You know this, you know it very very well, and you are being exceptionally dishonest in arguing against it.


[[Traveling on someone else’s airplane or using someone else’s property without permission, is not.]]

Again: dishonest.

By virtue of being open for business the owner is granting permission to the public. The right to contract for goods or services has been upheld countless times.


And B[ntb] can't avoid adding his own continued ignorance to the matter:
[[How many court cases have you won on that "Rights" argument?]]

Thousands.

How many times have you found the Constitutional allowance for the feds to inject themselves into air passenger transportation?

We've got an attempt - feeble though it was and having a significant logical hole in it - to place air passenger transportation under the Commerce Clause [which has grown bloated from over-use, frankly]. But since intRAstate air passenger transportation has the same federal interference as intERstate ditto, the argument doesn't logically wash. ...which is not to say that the idiot federal courts won't buy it.

Because, once again, what the Courts say is simply policy; what the Constitution says is correct.

Policy is not always correct. When it is incorrect it is indefensible.

If you wish to be correct, then cite the Constitution [pertinently - don't be quoting the authority to establish currency when the issue is regulating air transportation]; if you wish to cite Court rulings, then you're simply establishing air passenger transportation as an outlet for machiavellian prerogative, which doesn't support the principles our nation was founded on.

rwilymz
http://dblyelloline.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

"You don't have the Right to board an aircraft owned by somebody else."

Actually, you do. Once again, please address the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. Do you think an airline can deny access based on race or national origin, for instance?

"You pay a fare, and the government has set up a procedure through which you must pass to get to that airplane."

Hold on. The contract you like to refer to is between me as a private citizen and the airline (which you incorrectly claim is a private company). How, then, does the Federal Government get to impose conditions? Are you aware of Article 1, Section 10, regarding impairment of contracts?

"Nobody denies your access unless you refuse to pass through security."

This is a silly, silly argument, Bob, that only makes the TSA look like it is absolutely unaware of even the basic tenets of the law.

Anonymous said...

Regarding Ron's comments, Anon posted:
"You know this, you know it very very well, and you are being exceptionally dishonest in arguing against it."

The truly sad thing is that I doubt that Ron is aware of these rights. Does the TSA train TSOs on basic American rights?

Custom T-Shirt Printing said...

I can understand sometimes security may need to open gifts to check for any alarms they find. But they do not need to completely tear open the packaging. A little bit of care and they can check everything and not upset any passengers by tearing up the packaging. But I guess time is also a factor when doing security checks.

Anonymous said...

The TSA are parasites, and those who support them are nothing more than terrified, whimpering sheep. They stop nothing that ordinary screening measures from ten years ago would have stopped. There is nothing that justifies their bloated budget.

The sooner they are abolished, the better.

Disrespected said...

There is a disconnect between the TSA stated policy on wrapped gifts in checked luggage and reality.

I sent five beautify wrapped gifts home with my parents in their checked luggage yesterday. The gifts included 2 books, a scarf, a plastic ordainment (without any metal clasp or hook), and a wood crafted cutting board – items that I did not think would prompt alarm or anomaly upon screening. Every gift was ripped open thoughtlessly, and their Christmas surprises ruined.

I typically support TSA security measures and realize that the employees often have difficult and thankless jobs – however, the brazen and wonton disregard for the most unimposing wrapped gifts is unacceptable and deserving of the label “Grinch.”

Santa's Little Helper said...

Can the blogger answer this question for me, please? I bought my boyfriend a safety razor for Christmas. We will be flying over the holidays and exchanging gifts at our destination. I am NOT bringing any blades with me--just the razor itself.

That said, if I wrap a package containing this razor, is the baggage screener going to tear off the wrapping, open the box, and check the razor to make sure it has no blade in it? Is it common policy to take out and inspect all safety razors to make sure they have no blades?

Forerunner405 said...

Passengers come in all sizes, shapes, sexes and condition. On top of that, their mental grasp on the realities around them varies between fixated (this is how it must be) through the compliant (you told me so it must be right) to the ignorant and stupid.

Sort out those and get an order to things before all the rest starts!

Tim said...

Ever heard of the poem .....
For the want of a nail, a shoe was lost,
for the want of a shoe, a horse was lost,
for the want of a horse, a knight was lost,
For the want of a knight, a battle was lost,
etc

You can draw direct parallels with it, no?

Anonymous said...

Is this a blog or just a place to post all your new press releases?

Jim Bob said...

Best leave the presents in the post, everyone likes the unwrapping of presents its fun. The idea of someone unwrapping you creative wrapping is not good especially when as you say you can see what's inside. This is good news for local traders and will also keep sales high at the local airports and ferries.

beptucaocap said...

Oh no, someone wanted to mail someone else a box of kitchen implements. Clearly this sort of thing requires intervention by the Federal Government.

Bill said...

I can see this being the norm for a while now. It's certainly an unwelcome chaos for TSA and the entire airport. But what can you do? Passenger safety is and will always be the number one priority for everyone. Hopefully Holiday travelers understand that, and don't become too upset with TSA for doing the right thing.

Realistic said...

Thank you TSA. You didn't invent the threat, and being delayed 15 minutes is better than being dead.

Anonymous said...

Thank you this answered my question and was very helpful. There are a lot of grumpy people out there.... I appreciate you all trying to keep us safe.

Anonymous said...

Hi ,
I notice this may be an old post ... I am flying for Christmas to the beach with my girlfriend and since its a Christmas eve flight we decided to bring one small gift for opening when we land. It is wrapped in my luggage. I don't mind if they open it ... I just wanted to make sure they didn't open it in front of her ?I was going to bring just a carryon... should I check a bag instead?

I do not fly much, so I do not know all the rules.

Thanks!

Anonymous said...

The gifts that I carefully wrapped were torn completely by the airport security and one piece of thing was missing. TSA should educate their own staff before talking about educating other people - seriously. You should think about why you are so unpopular and do some self reflection before people can really respect you as you are from the bottom of the heart.

Cristy Robbins said...

I guess I should start using gift boxes when taking gifts with me on flights. Its difficult enough having to go through all the waiting in lines, removing shoes, belts, etc., and the screenings. Wrapping a present and potentially needing to wrap it up again since it was opened is too much of a hassle.

Anonymous said...

Am I the only one who doesn't mind taking the risk of TSA opening my wrapped presents? I am thankful for the regulations put in place to ensure we have a good chance of being safe when traveling!