Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

TSA Orders Searches of Valet Parked Car At Airport

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the one-step-forward,-one-step-back dept.

Transportation 453

schwit1 writes "Laurie Iacuzza walked to her waiting car at the Greater Rochester International Airport after returning from a trip and that's when she found it — a notice saying her car was inspected after she left for her flight. She said, 'I was furious. They never mentioned it to me when I booked the valet or when I picked up the car or when I dropped it off.' Iacuzza's car was inspected by valet attendants on orders from the TSA."

cancel ×

453 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And the story is...? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327189)

Valet parked cars may remain in front of the busy area of the airport for a while before being parked.

Already-parked cars aren't near the airport.

If you're going to park a car full of explosives, you can either create a small crater in a car park, or you will go for the airport - so cars that are left outside are checked.

Yes, people who are parking the cars should be informed beforehand. That way they can choose to park themselves and make their own way to the terminal building if they don't want their car searched.

Re:And the story is...? (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44327215)

The problem is when they damage your car they will deny it and you will get nothing.

If they don't just steal everything inside the car as well.

Re:And the story is...? (4, Interesting)

noh8rz9 (2716595) | about a year ago | (#44327259)

the AC's analogy fials because you could just as easily do such an act with just stopping yoru car at the airport. this whole thing is very violating because wehn you use a valet you trust that they won't mess with your stuff. if they can't do that the whole valet thing goes away. i disagree with harrier and that the problem isn't when they damage it, the damage is the breach of trust.

Re:And the story is...? (3, Insightful)

bickerdyke (670000) | about a year ago | (#44327347)

And that's different from what happens to you luggage in WHAT way ??

May I remind you that you are not allowed to use locks that are not easy to open (read. useless) on your suitcase?

Re:And the story is...? (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44327455)

It is not much different. Though people do expect it to be, since they often leave last minute valuables locked in the trunk of their cars.

You can actually prevent those sorts of thefts by use of a gun, not by pointing it at the TSA, but by checking a firearm. Lots of photographers do this to protect their equipment. You can just buy an old useless firearm for pennies at a gun show, weld it up to make it non-functional and then check it as a firearm and place your valuables in the same storage device.

This is of course not going to work with international travel.

Re:And the story is...? (4, Insightful)

Imagix (695350) | about a year ago | (#44327523)

weld it up to make it non-functional

Be careful what you advise... up in Canada this would actually make it _more_ illegal (oddly enough). By welding it so it is non-functional, that changes the class of firearm from Non-restricted (loosely: rifles) or Restricted (loosely: handguns) to Prohibited (it's now a replica firearm....). Be sure to consult appropriate legal advice before attempting this stunt.

Re:And the story is...? (4, Funny)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44327563)

Which is why I advised against international travel.

Also I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on slashdot, if you want legal counsel go pay your own bloodsucker. Before attempting this stunt besure to consult with your lawyer, the TSA, DHS, all local law enforcement, a Rabbi, a Priest and a duck.

Re:And the story is...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327583)

weld it up to make it non-functional

Be careful what you advise... up in Canada this would actually make it _more_ illegal (oddly enough). By welding it so it is non-functional, that changes the class of firearm from Non-restricted (loosely: rifles) or Restricted (loosely: handguns) to Prohibited (it's now a replica firearm....). Be sure to consult appropriate legal advice before attempting this stunt.

Huh? Can you explain this??

Re:And the story is...? (5, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#44327471)

> And that's different from what happens to you luggage in WHAT way ??

Your car isn't being packed into a pressurized metal cylinder that will be flying through the air with thousands of gallons of jet fuel and hundreds of people on board.

There isn't even the pretense of a public safety issue with a car parked at the airport.

Re:And the story is...? (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about a year ago | (#44327551)

And that's different from what happens to you luggage in WHAT way ?? May I remind you that you are not allowed to use locks that are not easy to open (read. useless) on your suitcase?

My car is not being loaded into the cargo hold of the aircraft.

As for locks, I could use a suitcase made of 1/4" thick steel plate, weld the damned thing shut and encase it in 2' of concrete if I choose to do so. If it's not going onto an aircraft, I can lock it however I want.

(As an aside, you CAN use locks that are not easy to open, but that may prevent them from being loaded onto the aircraft, or being loaded without the lock being damaged)

Re:And the story is...? (4, Insightful)

snookerdoodle (123851) | about a year ago | (#44327349)

They can do that already. Without giving you notice. Without the TSA telling them to do anything.

The news isn't that valets have access to your car. The news is that the TSA is having them search it.

Re:And the story is...? (3, Informative)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about a year ago | (#44327621)

They can do that already.

Yes, they can. But if they access the locked compartments and I haven't given them permission, that's illegal.

Capability and legality are not always interchangeable.

well when you don't tip valets like to (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#44327395)

do burn outs

change radio presets

the nicer the car and the lower the tip the more of stuff like that happens.

Re:well when you don't tip valets like to (2)

Golddess (1361003) | about a year ago | (#44327681)

Having never let a valet park my car, I never realized it was customary to tip the valet. But now knowing that it is, wouldn't you tip them when they bring your car back? Tipping when you drop the car off, to me, seems like it'd be like tipping your waiter/waitress when they seat you.

Re:And the story is...? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327599)

No, the problem is the fourth amendment they are ignoring.

Re:And the story is...? (0, Flamebait)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year ago | (#44327319)

Valet parked cars may remain in front of the busy area of the airport for a while before being parked.

Already-parked cars aren't near the airport.

On the other hand the muzzies just try to drive through the terminal door. [wikipedia.org]

Re:And the story is...? (-1, Flamebait)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44327365)

If you are going to be a bigot why not just use the preferred bigot Sand N-word nomenclature?

Why be a bigot and then water down your hate?

Re:And the story is...? (1, Insightful)

Jaysyn (203771) | about a year ago | (#44327457)

If you are going to be a bigot why not just use the preferred bigot Sand N-word nomenclature?

Why be a bigot and then water down your hate?

Because he dislikes Muslims & not Arabs?

Re:And the story is...? (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44327529)

In my experience this type believes those two are interchangeable. They also tend to use that term for all folks of Middle Eastern or North African heritage and not just Arabs. This is likely because they are unaware other such groups exist. Bigotry and ignorance seem to be highly correlated.

Re:And the story is...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327679)

Well I'll have you know, us racists are sick and tired of your prejudices against us.

Re:And the story is...? (0, Offtopic)

RMingin (985478) | about a year ago | (#44327491)

Because "sand n***er" is an American slur, and the GP appears to be of UK origin, where terms like "Paki" or "Muzzie" are the preferred slurs?

Re:And the story is...? (1, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44327597)

Sorry, I appear to not be aware of the ethnic slurs used in the UK. This is an American site after all.

Re:And the story is...? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327659)

If you are going to be a bigot why not just use the preferred bigot Sand N-word nomenclature?

You mean dune coon?

Re:And the story is...? (5, Informative)

LouTheTroll (1093917) | about a year ago | (#44327331)

Living in Rochester, I actually caught this on a local news station and there was a lot more information. The concern (and perhaps the story) isn't so much the searching (as their rational is that those vehicles are often parked at the entrance and exit lanes blah blah blah) but that the searching is being done by the valets instead of TSA or law enforcement. These individuals (at the moment) are not trained and have no oversight. So when the thefts and such start occurring, you have zero recourse and absolutely no hope of resolution. The point being that we have can assume some level of trust with TSA and law enforcement as they have oversight and procedures to reduce these type of theft events but there's nothing in place with this valet program in Rochester atm. (And please don't flame me about assume a level of trust with the TSA and law enforcement, I'm just trying to provide more information and some context.)

Re:And the story is...? (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#44327421)

96.5 interviewed the guy that broke the news story this morning, and one of their big questions was "Do the valets know what the hell to even look for?" and "What would happen if I left a copy of the Koran on the dash or papers written in Arabic on the seat?".

I don't oppose them giving a quick glance around the interior of the car (you did give them permission to get inside) or underneath it, but opening the trunk is going too far in my opinion.

Re:And the story is...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327509)

underneath it, but opening the trunk is going too far in my opinion.

If that's all you object to, then take the time to bring your car's "valet key" which is coded to prevent them from using it to open the trunk.

Re:And the story is...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327617)

"What would happen if I left a copy of the Koran on the dash or papers written in Arabic on the seat?".

How many people in Rochester can tell the difference between Arabic and Cyrillic (or any other non-latin alphabet) anyway? I mean, Slashdot can't, so....

Re:And the story is...? (4, Funny)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44327479)

Living in Rochester, I actually caught this on a local news station and there was a lot more information. The concern... [is] that the searching is being done by the valets instead of TSA or law enforcement. These individuals (at the moment) are not trained and have no oversight.

Wait, I thought you said the TSA wasn't doing the searches...

Re:And the story is...? (1)

LouTheTroll (1093917) | about a year ago | (#44327525)

Sorry for being clear. "These individuals" refers to the valets, not the TSA.

Re:And the story is...? (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44327665)

Yea, no shit. Thanks, Captain Obvious, almost didn't recognize you without the mask and cape.

Sorry for having a sense of humor (oh, wait, no - I'm not sorry at all)

Re:And the story is...? (1)

LouTheTroll (1093917) | about a year ago | (#44327683)

Ha... sorry for "NOT" being clear... (I so hate mornings)

Re:And the story is...? (2)

LouTheTroll (1093917) | about a year ago | (#44327565)

Oh this might very well have been instigated by the Airport and not the TSA. We have a history of craziness here. See this recap of a Director driving drunk in Airport vehicles and another spending Airport funds on cigars and strippers: http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/msg48963.html [californiaaviation.org]

Re:And the story is...? (2)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year ago | (#44327613)

These individuals (at the moment) are not trained and have no oversight. So when the thefts and such start occurring, you have zero recourse and absolutely no hope of resolution.

My suggestion would be an introduction of laws that make theft by anyone authorised to make searches a crime that is punished much more than ordinary theft. Let's say if a police officer with a search warrant enters your house (legally) and steals money from their home, they should be automatically punished a lot harder than a burglar doing the same thing. Same for someone searching luggage at an airport. Lots of one-handed TSA employees on the airport who got caught once; when you're caught twice you lose your job as well.

Re:And the story is...? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44327615)

More to the point, what happens if an untrained but well-meaning valet finds a bomb and tries to be a hero?

Re:And the story is...? (3, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#44327375)

The story is ... that the current government is, in theory, authorized by the People, under certain conditions. One of those conditions is specified in the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution:

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.

The current group of people calling themselves that government (is it really?) has written some stuff down called the USAPATRIOT ACT which says that this condition is no longer relevant. "So, then," the logician asks, "what authorizes that government?" Mao says it's the willingness to aggressively shoot people in the head, which decent people decline to do.

This may all be for the best, ultimately, though. Carlin's hyperbole [youtube.com] has a sound basis. Most people today don't feel that they have to fight for their liberty - they think there's a system in place to protect it. As these things become more common, they may finally realize that it's all a rouse to fleece them of their property, while denying their modern hybrid serf/helot/slave status. Unfortunately, it's going to have to get much uglier before they come to that realization. It'll happen eventually and it won't be pretty. But hopefully, society takes the next step at that point and evolves a better replacement system.

Re:And the story is...? (1)

swb (14022) | about a year ago | (#44327517)

I hate to get flagged by the NSA for some kind of conspiracy charge, but it's not a very complicated tactical challenge to figure out how to use a car to damage at the airport without using the valet service.

If you're just looking for a place to have an explosion, every airport I've ever been to allows you to drive right up to the terminal building. Even better is that these areas are designed on purpose to allow for large vehicles to drive up there, unlike the parking area valets use.

So maximum damage is likely to come from a rogue minibus (the kind that handle shuttles to rental cars or hotels) or a large passenger van at the front of the terminal, not in the valet area.

The idea that the valet would be useful for damage is probably only unique to some airports where the valet parking area is in an underground lot underneath some sensitive area, although I think most of those places have so much steel reinforced concrete that a car just can't carry enough hidden explosives to do any damage.

Now, the valet may be an excellent place to park a car with something secret and non-explosive, like cash or drugs. It allows the car to sit fairly securely for days and for someone to come in and claim the car with little more than a valet ticket and gain plausible deniability by having a boarding pass for a flight that just landed (obviously they didn't park the car).

Not a real issue (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327191)

There's signs going into every airport about how all vehicles are subject to search. You could have taken a cab/limo. Big whoop.

Re:Not a real issue (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44327245)

You know the secret of big whoop?

Re:Not a real issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327317)

You know the secret of big whoop?

I love you.

Re:Not a real issue (1)

trnk (1887028) | about a year ago | (#44327521)

He is rubber, you are glue.

The joys of private property ... (3, Interesting)

Builder (103701) | about a year ago | (#44327199)

This is the problem with more and more property being private and subject to conditions. On true public ground things like the 4th amendment matter. On private property, you're subject to the whims of the owners.

Re:The joys of private property ... (5, Interesting)

Scareduck (177470) | about a year ago | (#44327261)

Nonsense. The problem here is using a third, private party to elide the Fourth Amendment.

Re:The joys of private property ... (1)

MrDoh! (71235) | about a year ago | (#44327361)

Hmm, that's a good point. If following orders from a Government representative, then... Ok, can the person searched now sue the valet company? "Just following orders", or would it be the TSA (as you've not agreed to walk by the checkpoint). The lawyers will be lining up for this one.

Re:The joys of private property ... (3, Insightful)

azadrozny (576352) | about a year ago | (#44327647)

If this becomes a precedent, can the police ask my house cleaner to execute a search warrant for my home?

Re:The joys of private property ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327297)

Its hard to tell if your being a typical tool on here railing against private property or not. Either way your a jerk who needs to brush up on private ownership of property, that also includes the car idiot.

Re:The joys of private property ... (1)

jason777 (557591) | about a year ago | (#44327329)

Private property, yes. But the TSA are government employees. So, they are bound by the constitution, specifically the 4th amendment. Right?

Re:The joys of private property ... (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#44327447)

The TSA are ordering searches of the cars. They aren't doing it themselves. A private, untrained, third-party is the one doing the search.

bye bye liberty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327217)

'tis a slippery slope :(

Re:bye bye liberty (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327333)

Its your own bloody fault! While I don't support terrorists and wish them to rot in hell, this is big brother. And yet Americans say, "its ok because it catches bad guys" RIGHT!!!! I was just reading that the stuff to catch terrorists is now used in crime departments, and who knows where it stops! My answer is that it doesn't. But you folks keep on voting in the people to keep you "safe".

Not really all that surprising (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327241)

Blah, blah, blah: insert privacy advocate rant here.

Blah, blah, blah: insert fear mongering there.

Outrageous (3, Insightful)

jason777 (557591) | about a year ago | (#44327253)

This country is out of control. We have no more 4th amendment. Pretty soon the TSA will be expanding their highway searches from commercial trucks to every passenger car. Your freedom is gone. That being said, I would never trust my car to a valet. I park it myself. You are just asking for trouble otherwise.

Re:Outrageous (1, Funny)

Stargoat (658863) | about a year ago | (#44327291)

This country is out of control. My great x 3 grandparents left Germany during the rise of Bismarck. They came to the US. Where's to go now?

Re:Outrageous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327383)

I was thinking about colonizing Antarctica before NSA et all claim it for `merica. It is pretty much the only place left... well that and the oceans.

Re:Outrageous (5, Funny)

AGMW (594303) | about a year ago | (#44327389)

This country is out of control. My great x 3 grandparents left Germany during the rise of Bismarck. They came to the US. Where's to go now?

Ironically, Germany!

Re:Outrageous (3, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44327407)

Which makes me want to point out that the last time I was in a German airport there was far less of this nonsense. I was even able to keep my shoes on.

Re:Outrageous (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#44327403)

http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone [aclu.org]
Too late re highway searches.
Enjoy your Transportation Security Officers at stops under Department of Homeland Security Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) and the next generation of state and federal teams.

Next thing you know... (1)

cultiv8 (1660093) | about a year ago | (#44327255)

We'll be hearing about the TSA searching us while they drive around in vans equipped with backscatter x-ray scanners. Oh, wait [slashdot.org] , that's old news. .

Didn't you notice who's doing the searching? (5, Interesting)

scotts13 (1371443) | about a year ago | (#44327265)

According to the article, the valets themselves. Mot TSA agents, minimum wage, no-background-check valets. They're the last people to be in the car, and they decide where to park them. Anyone else see the two glaring problems here?

Re:Didn't you notice who's doing the searching? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327367)

This being airports we're talking about, I'm surprised every time I come back and the car is actually still there and not on a flight to Novosibirsk.

Re:Didn't you notice who's doing the searching? (3, Insightful)

snookerdoodle (123851) | about a year ago | (#44327465)

BWAHAHA! Keystone Cops outsourcing their "job" to high school students.

Come to think of it, the valets might be *more* qualified...

Re:Didn't you notice who's doing the searching? (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#44327495)

Ooh, I know this one!
4th amendment violation via stupid loophole
Horribly unqualified sketchy staff

liability (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327267)

oh, so the poor valet schmuck who finds a bomb, and it gets detonated, is the one who will suffer loss of limbs and/or life? I'd hate to be paid minimum wage doing two jobs - one of them being a bomb detector.

Re:liability (4, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#44327483)

The valet is instructed to look in the trunk when they first get the car. So just set the bomb to detonate when the trunk is opened. That way you guarantee 1) you will be safely away from your bomb and 2) the car will be right where you want it to be when the bomb goes off

Re:liability (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44327643)

What happens when I give the valet the valet key to my car, you know the key that cannot open the trunk?

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (4, Interesting)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about a year ago | (#44327287)

FTA:

We found out it happened to her because she valet parked her car. Those are the only cars that get inspected. So if security feels it is necessary to search some cars in the name of safety, why not search all of them?

They'd probably like to be able to search any car that comes to the airport. Even so, I imagine they restrict searches to valet parked cars for two reasons: 1) they've the keys in hand and so it's easy; 2) more importantly, some lawyer probably told them that they could make the case in court that valet parked cars have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Re:Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (1)

hogghogg (791053) | about a year ago | (#44327373)

I think this is probably right -- the idea is that a valet-parked car has had its interior presented to a valet, voluntarily. But what about the trunk? Did the valets open the trunk? I think the owner of the car *does* have a reasonable expectation of privacy wrt the contents of the trunk. IANAL

Re:Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (1)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about a year ago | (#44327475)

Once you've voluntarily handed the valet the means of getting into the trunk (i.e. the keys), I think it likely they'd argue you cannot even expect privacy there.

Mind you, I don't think people surrender their reasonable expectation of privacy by using a valet. It would be different if uniformed TSA agents were acting as valets and you handed them your keys, but that is not the case here. This is more like living in an apartment building and having the maintenance staff, who came in to fix a leaky toilet, turn around and search your house for marijuana under police orders.

Re:Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#44327573)

My landlord has keys to my apartment, but I still have a reasonable expectation for him not to just show up in the middle of the night. Likewise, I have a domain admin account but I'm expected not to go snooping through every file share. Just because someone has access in order to do a specific job doesn't mean they have permission, implicit or explicit, to do other things.

Re:Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#44327493)

It's restricted to valet cars because 1) they're left in front of the terminal for up to an hour while other cars are in the middle of a mostly unpopulated parking lot.

Re:Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (1)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about a year ago | (#44327607)

This is also a sensible explanation, but they'd still some need legal justification.

Re:Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44327561)

FTA:

We found out it happened to her because she valet parked her car. Those are the only cars that get inspected. So if security feels it is necessary to search some cars in the name of safety, why not search all of them?

They'd probably like to be able to search any car that comes to the airport. Even so, I imagine they restrict searches to valet parked cars for two reasons: 1) they've the keys in hand and so it's easy; 2) more importantly, some lawyer probably told them that they could make the case in court that valet parked cars have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

What bullshit - just because I give one person permission to park my car does not imply that I'm also giving them and the whole goddamn world permission to go through my shit.

Just one more reason you'll never find me in an airport. I'll fuckin' walk to another continent before I let some high-school dropout rifle through my personal effects.

Re:Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (2)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about a year ago | (#44327671)

If my guess is right about their reason, I couldn't agree more with your objection. But this is the reason you sometimes find police "safety" inspections in poor neighborhoods. If you let them in to check and make sure everything is okay in your house then they can argue you've consented to a search. Of course, their standards for consent are sometimes comparable to those of an unscrupulous drunken frat boy, but this is why the wise deny consent to the police in so many words from the beginning.

Ron Paul 2016! (1, Offtopic)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about a year ago | (#44327305)

He may not live past his first term but at least he'll shut down the TSA.

Yep! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327445)

He'll shut down the TSA the same way Obama shut down Gitmo.

Every airport I've been to (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327307)

At every airport I have driven in to I have seen large signs on the road leading to the airport that inform the public that their vehicle is subject to search. Your rights don't magically come back just because you paid for a valet to park your car. This is not news to me and I'm not surprised.

Police State? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327315)

If it looks like a police state and it lives like a police state, how is it different from a police state?

Re:Police State? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327459)

If it looks like a police state and it lives like a police state, how is it different from a police state?

Until all the guns are seized from the citizens there is at least the option to shoot back to protect yourself. The USA is now Amerika. Someone ought to drop a bomb into a garbage receptacle inside the airport and then proceed to have the valet return their car.

Re:Police State? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327567)

It's not limited to any single state. It's a police federation.

TSA Regulations? (2)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44327377)

This whole operation falls apart at the words "TSA Regulations." There's no acceptable justification for routine searches of these cars under the fourth amendment. They're not getting on the planes, therefore the (already questionable) reasoning being used to have passengers searched doesn't apply here at all.

Separate locks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327385)

I wonder what would happen if you had separate keys for the ignition and glove-box/trunk?

New possibilities (2)

reboot246 (623534) | about a year ago | (#44327401)

All this does is give the TSA a new place from which to steal. Don't leave anything of value in your car; it may (probably) won't be there when you get back. Without a crowd watching them, the agents will be even more tempted to take what isn't theirs.

Re:New possibilities (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#44327601)

The agents aren't the ones searching the car. And somehow, even though it's untrained valets, I trust them more than if it were TSA agents...

Re:New possibilities (1)

denmarkw00t (892627) | about a year ago | (#44327637)

A TFA points out, the TSA aren't doing the searching; the valets are searching under order of the TSA. So, as others have mentioned, when your valuables disappear you have no recourse against the TSA for instructing the valets because "national security" and no recourse against the valet because "just following orders," and no one is generally going to own up to stealing from you. "Look, you left it there, we don't know who searched it or when, just luck of the draw"

Terorists use Valet Parking? (3, Funny)

Herder Of Code (2989779) | about a year ago | (#44327423)

Am I the only one who think it odd that the TSA is looking for terrorists that.. use Valet parking?

Re:Terorists use Valet Parking? (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#44327619)

It's because valet cars are left in front of the terminal building for up to an hour, unattended. Whereas everyone else has to leave fairly quickly and go park in a big lot away from everything else. This makes valet cars much easier to deliver a bomb to the terminal.

Re:Terorists use Valet Parking? (1)

denmarkw00t (892627) | about a year ago | (#44327669)

Yes, you are. The TSA says they're targeting valet parked cars specifically because of proximity to the front of the airport. If there's going to be a terrorist in the airport, search the valet cars. If they parked in the garage, you don't have to worry about it until they get to the terminal.

Trapped Boot anyone?? (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about a year ago | (#44327425)

i wonder how long it will take for somebody to start rigging their trunk with some sort of oh Powder Bomb (which would engulf the valet with glowing talc). Of course i would be polite and have the trunk taped shut and a bumper sticker stating "Contents can not be inspected without owner present".

Re:Trapped Boot anyone?? (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#44327633)

I'm just wondering what they do if the trunk has a different key from the doors and you don't give them that key. I've known a number of cars (mostly 90's models and older or rebuilt) that use different keys for doors, trunk and ignition.

Moral of the story... (2)

CFBMoo1 (157453) | about a year ago | (#44327435)

Don't take your car to the airport unless a family member or good friend drives it home for you. Other option is just take a cab.

Re:Moral of the story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327623)

The real moral of the story is to stop using valet parking altogether. Better yet, stop using airplanes if you can.

Thats Invasive. (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year ago | (#44327533)

Well I don't mind most of the security measures taken by the TSA, I do have a problem when they blind search someones space. If your going to search a car after someone leaves then fine but at least tell them your going to do it. If you tell me your going to search my car when I book my trip, or when I park the car and I'm given time to prep the car then I don't have an issue. I've had cases where I've had control substances ( not drugs ) in my car, if a TSA agent found those then what was going to happen? First of all the TSA doesn't require a high level or even medium level of intelligence for employees, I don't trust the judgement of most TSA agents and I certainly don't trust them when I'm not present or given time to prepare my space. Someone needs to speak up and ban this practice, it's just completely unfair.

Re:Thats Invasive. (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year ago | (#44327639)

Not to mention that it's not even the TSA doing the searches. It's the valets. At least we can require TSA agents to have some general knowledge of what they're looking for and have some oversight to prevent this from being a "Grab Anything Valuable In The Trunk" program. I'd have less trust that valets would have that training/oversight. (And my trust of TSA agents is pretty low to begin with.)

I have an idea (4, Funny)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#44327579)

Well if they're turning a valet parking invitation into a free inspection, there's also nothing stopping you from putting these 100dB contact-break alarms [newegg.com] on basically everything including the trunk, glove compartment, etc. Let's see how mister TSA wanna-be likes his job when he gets 100 decibels in his face any time he touches anything but the steering wheel.

I live in an apartment and it has one of those pathetically insecure chicken wire cages upstairs for additional storage. A $1 wire clipper and you can steal everyone's stuff so I put 4 of those contact break alarms under a cardboard box containing my stuff. Then I drew an arrow and "do not move or touch - pressure-sensitive alarm will sound" and that's the last thing anyone will steal. It'd work just as well for car searches except put the alarm on the inside so instead of a deterrent, it's a punishment of sorts.

Valet Key (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#44327585)

All of the cars that I've purchased in the past 20 years come with a valet key.

I wonder what would happen if you used that?

Why valet? (3, Insightful)

kilfarsnar (561956) | about a year ago | (#44327653)

If I had a bomb or other nefarious contraband in my car and wanted to do harm at an airport, why the hell would I valet the car? This is one more example of TSA and other nation security state powers being used for infringing on the rights of people. I mean really...

airports are "rights free zones" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327673)

Your life and freedom are at the whims of soulless government agents most of which are stupider, less educated, low paid, and resentful of anyone with the means to travel.

Democrats want to expand this experience to the whole country.

Republicans want the same thing but give you a pass if you are white and not obviously poor.

Who can I vote for who will support an addendum to the 4th amendment: Government agents are required to obtain a warrant in order to get ANY information not readily available to the public.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>