TSA - Going too Far?

[Jenksismyhero]

Is this being discussed somewhere else? Pretty hot topic around the major media outlets. First the body scanners that won't store your picture (oops), and now this I'm surprised there's not more of an outrage on this board.

 

Next step, body cavity searches? I think the terrorists have won this one.

[BigSqwert]

I already refused my first scan a couple weeks back.

 

Couple of article worth reading:

 

Naked Body Scanner Images Of Film Star Printed, Circulated By Airport Staff

 

TSA Opt-Out Day, Now with a Superfantastic New Twist!

[Chisoxfn]

I have no problem with it, but I don't think they should be touching your junk.

[StrangeSox]

I've not noticed anything new lately, and we're usually flying with product samples that get us pulled over to the side for questioning/testing.

 

Also, I immediately assume anything from Prison Planet is crazy bulls***. Pretty safe bet.

 

edit: I felt more uncomfortable being frisked going into a concert this weekend than at any airport.

Edited November 16, 2010 by StrangeSox

[ChiSox_Sonix]

I have no problem with it, but I don't think they should be touching your junk.

 

I also personally don't really have a problem with the scanners.

[BigSqwert]

I've not noticed anything new lately

You haven't seen the fully body scanners yet at O'Hare?

[StrangeSox]

You haven't seen the fully body scanners yet at O'Hare?

 

No, I've been through them there and at other airports. I meant in terms of procedures.

 

I don't care about the body scanners as a "violation," just that it's a PIA to remove everything from your pockets and that it takes longer than walking through a metal detector.

[Chisoxfn]

You haven't seen the fully body scanners yet at O'Hare?

I've went through some of the full body scanners. Not specifically the ones at O'Hare but ones had other airports. As long as they have the resources to keep the lines down (as the scanners tend to take a bit longer), I have no issue with it.

 

Bottom line while flying is inconvenient I'm pretty open as I have nothing to hide and I just want to get from point A to point B safely (most importantly) and hopefully without any significant delays.

[Balta1701]

I have no problem with it, but I don't think they should be touching your junk.

In-between those areas happens to be an ideal place to hide explosives. Also, between the cheeks on the back as well...which isn't covered in a normal pat-down...and frankly, is probably only a matter of time.

[BigSqwert]

Since this scan will not see what's inside your mouth or other orifices what the hell is the point? More exposure to radiation? I'd hate to be a flight attendant that's pregnant and has to walk through one of those everyday.

Edited November 16, 2010 by BigSqwert

[BigSqwert]

I have no issue with it.

 

You obviously don't have a 15 year old daughter. Having some creepy ass TSA agent that probably only has a GED staring at images of my nude daughter is unsettling.

[StrangeSox]

Since this scan will not see what's inside your mouth or other orifices what the hell is the point? More exposure to radiation? I'd hate to be a flight attendant that's pregnant and has to walk through one of those everyday.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X...#Health_effects

 

Other scientists at Columbia University have made the following statements in support of the safety of body scanners:[46]

 

"A passenger would need to be scanned using a backscatter scanner, from both the front and the back, about 200,000 times to receive the amount of radiation equal to one typical CT scan," said Dr. Andrew J. Einstein, director of cardiac CT research at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City. "Another way to look at this is that if you were scanned with a backscatter scanner every day of your life, you would still only receive a tenth of the dose of a typical CT scan," he said. By comparison, the amount of radiation from a backscatter scanner is equivalent to about 10 minutes of natural background radiation in the United States, Einstein said. "I believe that the general public has nothing to worry about in terms of the radiation from airline scanning," he added. For moms-to-be, no evidence supports an increased risk of miscarriage or fetal abnormalities from these scanners, Einstein added. "A pregnant woman will receive much more radiation from cosmic rays she is exposed to while flying than from passing through a scanner in the airport," he said.

[Balta1701]

The fact that they got a person named Einstein to comment means I should just shut up and believe them.

[Balta1701]

Ok, here's my general comment. The TSA is fully within its rights to do whatever the Hell it wants here...because there is no constitutional right to get on a plane. You have the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, but the key is the "unreasonable" part...since there's no guarantee of a right to get on a plane, there is no such thing as an unreasonable search in that case.

 

However...this is obviously messy for the TSA and it's messy in a silly way...because, just like so many other "safeguards", it is more security theater than anything else. Convincing a person dedicated to blowing up a plane that they need to put a bomb in their underwear or frankly, shoved up their colon isn't the hard part; it's convincing them to blow up the plane in the first place. If these scanners were fool-proof, sure, but they're clearly not, they're just a small, additional level of difficulty that a determined terrorist could bypass with a little bit of effort.

 

The reality is...the TSA needs to be very careful here, because frankly, I think we all know it's only a matter of time before the images acquired here are smuggled out, and every time it happens it ought to be a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

[Jenksismyhero]

You obviously don't have a 15 year old daughter. Having some creepy ass TSA agent that probably only has a GED staring at images of my nude daughter is unsettling.

 

I'm literally shocked that more people aren't concerned with this. It's already happen, despite the TSA promising it wouldn't. It's not even fully functional yet in all airports and there are already multiple reports.

 

Again, cavity searches are next. Be prepared.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

Ok, here's my general comment. The TSA is fully within its rights to do whatever the Hell it wants here...because there is no constitutional right to get on a plane. You have the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, but the key is the "unreasonable" part...since there's no guarantee of a right to get on a plane, there is no such thing as an unreasonable search in that case.

 

However...this is obviously messy for the TSA and it's messy in a silly way...because, just like so many other "safeguards", it is more security theater than anything else. Convincing a person dedicated to blowing up a plane that they need to put a bomb in their underwear or frankly, shoved up their colon isn't the hard part; it's convincing them to blow up the plane in the first place. If these scanners were fool-proof, sure, but they're clearly not, they're just a small, additional level of difficulty that a determined terrorist could bypass with a little bit of effort.

 

The reality is...the TSA needs to be very careful here, because frankly, I think we all know it's only a matter of time before the images acquired here are smuggled out, and every time it happens it ought to be a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

 

(1) Since when does having a right to be somewhere suddenly cut off your constitutional protections? Pretty sure illegal immigrants are afforded the protections of the Constitution despite not having the right to be here.

 

(2) There will be lawsuits and people will win and society gets to continue picking up yet another tab that doesn't need to be paid. Multi-million dollar lawsuits just means the airlines get to tack on an extra 2 dollar government fee to sit in a fund for those lawsuits. It won't stop employees from doing it, just like criminal threats won't either.

 

There's absolutely no need for these scanners, and there's even less of a need to save the pictures afterwards.

[StrangeSox]

Maybe it's an expense thing, but I don't know why they don't use explosives scanners. They take no longer than a body scanner and are much less invasive.

 

edit: this thing:

Edited November 16, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

(1) Since when does having a right to be somewhere suddenly cut off your constitutional protections? Pretty sure illegal immigrants are afforded the protections of the Constitution despite not having the right to be here.

 

(2) There will be lawsuits and people will win and society gets to continue picking up yet another tab that doesn't need to be paid. Multi-million dollar lawsuits just means the airlines get to tack on an extra 2 dollar government fee to sit in a fund for those lawsuits. It won't stop employees from doing it, just like criminal threats won't either.

 

There's absolutely no need for these scanners, and there's even less of a need to save the pictures afterwards.

The systems weren't supposed to save images. Are they actually doing so?

 

Anyway, it's not like that would stop a person who wanted to save them. Just sit in the room and pull out your cell phone camera.

 

The only thing that will genuinely stop employees from doing so is a combination of penalties and checks of the type of people who get in there. Criminal penalties might. Of course, people will still do so.

 

The illegal immigrant thing is of course a bogus comparison, and frankly you ought to know better. You give up various levels of your constitutional rights all the time. Every time you set foot outside your door, you've given up some measure of your rights. If you set foot into a building that you don't own, you give up more of your rights.

[Jenksismyhero]

The systems weren't supposed to save images. Are they actually doing so?

 

Anyway, it's not like that would stop a person who wanted to save them. Just sit in the room and pull out your cell phone camera.

 

The only thing that will genuinely stop employees from doing so is a combination of penalties and checks of the type of people who get in there. Criminal penalties might. Of course, people will still do so.

 

The illegal immigrant thing is of course a bogus comparison, and frankly you ought to know better. You give up various levels of your constitutional rights all the time. Every time you set foot outside your door, you've given up some measure of your rights. If you set foot into a building that you don't own, you give up more of your rights.

 

Check out my "oops" link. It was a courthouse body scanner, but they weren't supposed to save the images either. I have about a .001% faith that the TSA will be different.

 

And you ought to know that you don't simply give up your basic constitutional rights simply because you want to travel by air. Last time I checked a stewardess couldn't deny all blacks from flying on their plane. It's the same idea. You have a constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. As it is, they are assuming everyone is a terrorist with a bomb with no probable cause. That's unconstitutional whether you're in your car on the road or whether you're about to board a plane.

[Soxbadger]

I dont love the policy, but its going to be hard to argue against it on constitutional grounds.

 

There already is a sliding scale for protection, you have less rights in your car than in your house, you have less rights on the street than in your car.

 

With the current Supreme Court, there is no way this will ever be a problem. Im pretty sure that Scalia believes that criminals have no right to privacy because if youre committing a crime you had no expectation of privacy. They have given the green light to various other actions that slowly have eroded search and seizure protections.

 

As a practical matter, its a hassle and inefficient, but do I really want to taking flights to be risky because its more convenient?

 

The only reason to want less security would be to bring drugs on vacation. And even I dont believe thats the best argument against more intrusive scans.

[BigSqwert]

Im pretty sure that Scalia believes that criminals have no right to privacy because if youre committing a crime you had no expectation of privacy.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Now we're all suspected criminals?

[LittleHurt05]

No one is making you fly. If you don't like it, there are tons of other modes of transportation out there available.

[StrangeSox]

Check out my "oops" link. It was a courthouse body scanner, but they weren't supposed to save the images either. I have about a .001% faith that the TSA will be different.

 

And you ought to know that you don't simply give up your basic constitutional rights simply because you want to travel by air. Last time I checked a stewardess couldn't deny all blacks from flying on their plane. It's the same idea. You have a constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. As it is, they are assuming everyone is a terrorist with a bomb with no probable cause. That's unconstitutional whether you're in your car on the road or whether you're about to board a plane.

 

You can't enter a nuclear facility (public or private) or military base or federal building without a pretty substantial search. Is that unreasonable search and seizure?

 

I agree that TSA is mostly "security theater," but I don't see it amounting to Constitutional violations. Clearly, access to some areas, even if public, can be controlled and monitored for security reasons.

[BigSqwert]

there are tons of other modes of transportation out there available.

Exactly. And for each one of them there are virtually no actions taken to prevent catastrophic terrorist attacks (see: London Subway Bombing).

[StrangeSox]

Exactly. And for each one of them there are virtually no actions taken to prevent catastrophic terrorist attacks (see: London Subway Bombing).

 

You can't fly a train into the side of a building.