Again, who will guard the guards?
This article from Techdirt points out several articles in a nice summary of the situation at Boston’s Logan Airport.
The TSA has promoted “behavioral profiling” as a way to catch terrorist. Bruce Schneier said it wasn’t good at finding terrorist (number of terrorist caught by behavioral profiling? Zero), but that it was good at catching crooks.
The New York Times recently pointed out that managers at Boston wanted a body count to prove the TSA was doing its job. As a result, the TSA employees started targeting minorities under the suspicion that those people were more likely to have drugs and outstanding arrest warrants or to be illegal aliens.
These stops were reported to Washington to prove that behavioral profiling works. The problem, of course, is that this is not behavioral profiling, it’s racism. So the focus is on catching “crooks” to prove we’re capable of finding terrorists.
Now here’s the zinger from Techdirt: Our federal courts have allowed searches at airports in violation of normal Constitutional and federal guarantees because the searches are “administrative,” rather than criminal because the searches are aimed at preventing people from carrying weapons and explosives on board an aircraft. The searches must be “confined in good faith to that purpose.” U.S. vs. Davis, 482 F2d 893, as quoted in Techdirt.
Boston’s TSA people are not doing the searches in good faith for the purpose of preventing weapons and explosives from getting on a plane.
Very good analysis by Mike Masnick.
2 years ago
• 0 notes