The TSA violates the 4th amendment millions of times a day. I think that covers both grossly, and negligent.
Here's the full text of 4a, see for yourself:
>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There are no exceptions in there for air travel! It's incredibly firmly worded, and is obviously deliberately meant to be very restrictive on government power.
They don't have probable cause to search every single person, let alone a warrant to do so. And their holding people's freedom to travel hostage to do so, and conditioning Americans to a lack of rights that were supposedly enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
The notion that they need to search every single person flying is not remotely "reasonable". It's one more step towards a police state. It's a shame that the 4th amendment isn't defended as strongly as the 1st & 2nd. The patriot act is the reason why flying sucks now when it used to be fantastical.
This just reads like libertarian erotic fanfic. First you write a bad character that is evil at the core, like the TSA, then you write about how it skirts the law knowingly to exact its evil onto the people, and thats by design.
If TSA didn't exist, and airlines were in charge of their own security, every single accident or incident would be blamed on companies trying to raise their profits by cutting costs, and people would be screaming for government to intervene. Just like they are doing currently with Tesla and autopilot.
Also, you don't have to fly if you are going to US. You can drive most places. Flying is using the services of a private company, on their terms, which without TSA would still include TSA like security. If you are going overseas, then it makes sense for security like the TSA because US laws don't apply to other countries.
As an aside, I see more and more reddit-like posts like this on HN - unsubstantiated, baseless wokeposting. Did you guys get tired of your echo chambers on there?
Yes. Between 2003 and 2006, nearly two hundred thousand National Security Letters were issued to obtain personal/financial history of US citizens without any judicial review. This data was only used for one terrorism related conviction, and it is generally considered that this conviction would have happend even without the act.
Why would you expect NSL’s to be used in criminal convictions? What does that have to do with national security?
Isn’t the whole point of an NSL to get something for legitimate national security purposes that couldn’t be legitimately acquired for criminal prosecution?
Well, yeah. The security of Britain's colonies as a wee bit threatened by the War of Independence. The crown very much considered it a crime. But was it wrong?
