Hacker News Reader

Comment by themgt | Hacker News Reader

TSA contractors have absolutely no right to demand intimate medical information from people who simply wish to travel through the air. The fact that you would think otherwise is a symptom of how unhinged the thinking in this country has become.

They prohibited him from drinking juice. He asked to be allowed to drink it in front of them, and they said no. What in the fuck is anyone from anywhere doing telling anyone they aren't allowed to drink juice?

If you answer "safety" or "the law" or really anything, you are utterly, utterly lost.

This is wrong.

View on HN

Let's separate two things: The way I believe the law is right now, and the way i wish the law was right now. You are conflating both. Like most lawyers, I can be dispassionate in my analysis of things, regardless of my personal feelings.

I actually have a very good understanding of what the law says right now. I personally think it's become seriously perverted from its original purpose, but that does not change how the law has developed, it only means we need to fix that.

As it stands right now, the government very likely has the right to demand intimate medical information from people when that intimate medical information is the reason they are citing to avoid legally enacted security rules. Again, i think this is mostly bullshit, and shouldn't be that way, but it doesn't change that it is. The supreme court and others have been very protective of border and transportation searches made for the purpose of security.

Note, btw almost any ADA claim he makes would fail

The ADA does not actually prohibit these inquiries on it's face (it would if they were made for a job related purpose), and aircraft is specifically exempted from most of the ADA's transportation requirements:

"The term "specified public transportation" means transportation by bus, rail, or any other conveyance (other than by aircraft) that provides the general public with general or special service (including charter service) on a regular and continuing basis."

If your hope is to get a court to decide that he won't have to justify it's medically necessary liquid, there is a roughly 10% chance that will happen (maybe less).

If your hope is for a court to decide the TSA needs actual individualized suspicion before fucking groping people, there's an even less percent chance of that happening. In fact, courts have already held exactly the opposite numerous times (due to them being held to be administrative searches)

Your best outcome here is probably that they'll require the TSA offer to ask this stuff in private, and be required to guarantee confidentiality.

At least right now, no court is likely to stop them from doing it.

"Don't drink this explosive liquid! Let us throw it in the bin here, 5 yards away from a long line of people, that also contains supposedly over-sized bottles of equally explosive and dangerous liquids"

> TSA contractors have absolutely no right to demand intimate medical information from people who simply wish to travel through the air.

They're not doing that. They're demanding a doctor's note (official communication from your doctor to people like employers, school administrators... in other words, not intimate information) only in the case that you need an exemption from the rule that prohibits you from carrying on large amounts of liquid. Should they exempt passengers from rules just for saying "naw, it's cool, it's a medical thing"?

It's not an exemption from the rules when the rules explicitly say that it's cool.

Can you point to where it says that? It actually does not say that they can't ask, and you don't have to prove it. The only thing the rules say is that it's "recommended but not required" that you carry a doctors note.

That doesn't mean "welp, i don't have to prove shit, because i am not required to have a doctors note". It means it's recommended, but not required, that you have one. If you don't, there is nothing in these rules that say you won't have to explain yourself.

"I don't have to explain myself" is a reasonable interpretation of "recommended but not required" unless you actually have a case setting precedent on that particular terminology.

It states very specifically in the memo he refers to:

"It is recommended (not required) that passengers bring along any supporting documentation (ID cards, letter from doctor, etc.) regarding their medical needs."

So yeah, it would likely be easier for him if he did have one, but it's certainly not something the TSA can demand.

They can't demand it, but they also aren't obligated to let him through unless it is evident that he meets the condition for the exemption. If it's not evident that he's eligible, how can it come to pass?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com