I was under the impression that once you begin the security screening process, if you attempt to leave before the screening is complete, you can be arrested.
I'm under the impression that the TSA will call the police in such an event. Probably reporting you for "making a disturbance" or some nonsense, who knows.
(I can see a valid security argument for not letting people do test runs against the security system without consequence, but it's probably not a bigger benefit than the civil liberties lost in doing searches.)
So he "hacked" the system? No? ... Oh, he was the first to do this then? No? ... Hmm, Oh wait, his dad is a candidate for the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination? So it's an advertisement.
I think it is more the irony that Rand has been an outspoken critic of the practice, than it does that his dad is running for president. Rand has probably been more outspoken on the TSA than his father.
Why is this on the front page?
I think that is the more important question, it's politics and politics does not make for health discussion in an environment like HN that want's to promote health discussion.
To understand the relevance of this event in the context of "security" in the US, look no further than Param's comment below:
> I was under the impression that once you begin the security screening process, if you attempt to leave before the screening is complete, you can be arrested.
Why is this Param's impression? Probably because of all the horror stories of people who refused to be screened and were treated to an unhealthy dose of interrogation by the Staatssicherheit... I mean Ministry for State Security... I mean Department of Homeland Security.
edit: apparently I have to elaborate. Rand Paul is a Senator. His run in with the TSA is news because he is a Senator, not because he is Ron Paul's son. This would be in the news if he did not have a relative running for President. We know this because this is not the first time a Congressman has had a run in with the TSA, and those other incidents made the news.
While it is arguably somewhat political and not necessarily the my personal choice as a "most desirable story to have on HN," I think it is on-topic. Security issues - including physical security and topics around the TSA - are generally of interest on HN. And while a more technical article by, say, Bruce Schneier might be more on-topic, this still fits the mold, IMO.
I don't mean this to be insulting to anyone, but, isn't it often the case that these types of security guards are not the highest educated? I don't mean to say that they're are stupid, I think it has more to do with empowerment than intellect. Higher educated people are usually high-achievers and because of it they have a natural sense of being on control of their lives and therefore feel empowered.
For many of the TSA workers its the first time in their lives that they are in a position of power and they will quickly abuse it, especially when group pressure comes into play. It's like the bus driver syndrome.
How is a TSA employee supposed to know if "Rand Paul" is a senator or some random nut (or both)?
For the TSA grunt, it was just another asshole who is making his life miserable. For Rand Paul, it was a publicity stunt designed to raise folksy indignation amongst tea baggers.
Whether or not you agree with Rand Paul if you are for civil liberties, privacy, and tired of the nanny state then this episode is a good thing. Anything that casts the TSA in a bad light or gives media attention to these areas of concern are OK in my book.
One of the bad things about the TSA is that government officials with a security detail (cabinet members, congressional leadership) are allowed to bypass security. Their security details should be allowed to bypass security, perhaps, if they're authenticated law enforcement (usually US Marshals or attached to specific agencies e.g. FBI for the FBI Director), but the principals should go through exactly the same screening, including before flights on government aircraft. IMO this should apply to the President as well (conducted in some kind of secure environment, sure, but just as invasive) -- only by keeping the issue of invasive airport screening something personally relevant to those in power will they have any reason to limit it.
Same goes for any other perks government people get in the name of "security" -- entry/exit to the US should require waiting in lines and putting up with random ICE officers, etc.
16 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 44.9 ms ] thread(I can see a valid security argument for not letting people do test runs against the security system without consequence, but it's probably not a bigger benefit than the civil liberties lost in doing searches.)
Why is this on the front page?
Why is this on the front page?
I think that is the more important question, it's politics and politics does not make for health discussion in an environment like HN that want's to promote health discussion.
> I was under the impression that once you begin the security screening process, if you attempt to leave before the screening is complete, you can be arrested.
Why is this Param's impression? Probably because of all the horror stories of people who refused to be screened and were treated to an unhealthy dose of interrogation by the Staatssicherheit... I mean Ministry for State Security... I mean Department of Homeland Security.
edit: apparently I have to elaborate. Rand Paul is a Senator. His run in with the TSA is news because he is a Senator, not because he is Ron Paul's son. This would be in the news if he did not have a relative running for President. We know this because this is not the first time a Congressman has had a run in with the TSA, and those other incidents made the news.
While it is arguably somewhat political and not necessarily the my personal choice as a "most desirable story to have on HN," I think it is on-topic. Security issues - including physical security and topics around the TSA - are generally of interest on HN. And while a more technical article by, say, Bruce Schneier might be more on-topic, this still fits the mold, IMO.
For many of the TSA workers its the first time in their lives that they are in a position of power and they will quickly abuse it, especially when group pressure comes into play. It's like the bus driver syndrome.
For the TSA grunt, it was just another asshole who is making his life miserable. For Rand Paul, it was a publicity stunt designed to raise folksy indignation amongst tea baggers.
Same goes for any other perks government people get in the name of "security" -- entry/exit to the US should require waiting in lines and putting up with random ICE officers, etc.
(http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/2010-11-23-tsa-politician...)