TSA - Going too Far?

[StrangeSox]

Which is also not being checked for.

 

We are not protecting against X, therefore we should not protect against Y isn't exactly a strong argument.

[BigSqwert]

Hot.

These (NSFW) photos look much more revealing if you ask me.

[Jenksismyhero]

There's a reasonable expectation of privacy when using a phone. "If you have nothing to hide" doesn't fly here imo, regardless of what Scalia says.

 

This clearly does not apply in all cases, such as nuclear plants, military bases and federal buildings. Is an airport another reasonable exception, given past acts and future threat risks?

 

 

 

You could be right, I don't know. This would go back to design basis threats and risk assessment.

 

You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy to not be groped and/or recorded naked as part of some bulls*** security measure?

[Balta1701]

You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy to not be groped and/or recorded naked as part of some bulls*** security measure?

You're clearly conflating issues here (whether it's legal and whether it's effective).

[Soxbadger]

Not if you consent to the search.

[StrangeSox]

You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy to not be groped and/or recorded naked as part of some bulls*** security measure?

Your argument against unreasonable search and seizure would apply to all security measures, such as screening your bags and metal detectors, not just back-scatter and pat-downs.

 

Groping is not part of TSA guidelines or rules, though they can get awfully close.

[BigSqwert]

"The explosive device smuggled in the clothing of the Detroit bomb suspect would not have been detected by body-scanners set to be introduced in British airports, an expert on the technology warned last night.

 

The claim severely undermines Gordon Brown's focus on hi-tech scanners for airline passengers as part of his review into airport security after the attempted attack on Flight 253 on Christmas Day.

 

The Independent on Sunday has also heard authoritative claims that officials at the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Home Office have already tested the scanners and were not persuaded that they would work comprehensively against terrorist threats to aviation."

 

via the same link I provided above

[Steve9347]

These (NSFW) photos look much more revealing if you ask me.

In the EXACT LINK you posted.

 

UPDATE: Now that I seem to be getting a lot of links to this post, let me please direct your attention to the second comment in the comment thread below. The commentator points out that the image below is not an actual TSA-created scan, but a stock image that Mr. Drudge used to illustrate his story. I have independently verified this. While this makes the story here less sensational, it does not make the TSA's scanners any less invasive, outrageous, ineffective, or unconstitutional.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Steve9347

[Balta1701]

Not if you consent to the search.

And they don't have to give you access to the plane if you don't consent to the search.

[Jenksismyhero]

You're clearly conflating issues here (whether it's legal and whether it's effective).

 

I believe I have a right to not have my naked body scanned or physically searched in order to get on a plane. It goes too far. As an added bonus, it's also not effective.

[BigSqwert]

In the EXACT LINK you posted.

 

UPDATE: Now that I seem to be getting a lot of links to this post, let me please direct your attention to the second comment in the comment thread below. The commentator points out that the image below is not an actual TSA-created scan, but a stock image that Mr. Drudge used to illustrate his story. I have independently verified this. While this makes the story here less sensational, it does not make the TSA's scanners any less invasive, outrageous, ineffective, or unconstitutional.

[BigSqwert]

And thank goodness I purchased my own hover craft recently.

[Balta1701]

I believe I have a right to not have my naked body scanned or physically searched in order to get on a plane. It goes too far.

Ok, so then, where would you draw the line? Do they have a right to search your possessions? To put you through an X-Ray machine? The Shoes off part? Is this the only place at which you'd draw the line or have other "security theater" efforts gone too far as well?

[Jenksismyhero]

Your argument against unreasonable search and seizure would apply to all security measures, such as screening your bags and metal detectors, not just back-scatter and pat-downs.

 

Groping is not part of TSA guidelines or rules, though they can get awfully close.

 

Good point, make it a violation of my privacy argument then. Clearly checking my bags and whatnot are not invading my...body.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

I believe I have a right to not have my naked body scanned or physically searched in order to get on a plane. It goes too far. As an added bonus, it's also not effective.

 

Courts disagree

 

How do you define x-ray scanning your bag, walking through metal detectors and then a potential pat-down if you fail the MD as "reasonable" while excluding back-scatter?

[StrangeSox]

Good point, make it a violation of my privacy argument then. Clearly checking my bags and whatnot are not invading my...body.

 

Right, but it's still search and seizure. The 4th amendment does not make a distinction between searching a person or searching their things, thankfully.

[NorthSideSox72]

The Constitutional argument here really doesn't exist, as there is no protected right being violated. You can volunteer to not be scanned, and get the pat down instead.

 

Now, if the pat down goes too far, then you might run into issues not Constitutional, and more simply rule of laws.

 

In any case, I agree with the premise that the terrorists truly have won here.

 

Further, I cannot believe we haven't been able to create a scanner for both metal AND explosives, or hell even just thought to put the two one after the other and run through both. I did one of those stupid puffer machines previously, but you STILL have to take off your shoes and all metal to use it, so what's the point?

 

[LittleHurt05]

So you still think they're groups of terrorists to get on a plane to take over the controls and fly them into buildings? I don't see a 9/11 type scenario taking place now that the cockpit doors are locked. A plane blowing up is not as bad as a very large train station blowing up where there could be several hundreds of people.

 

Thats probably true, although if the plane blew up near a large outdoor event, it could be much worse.

 

The problem with comparing plane travel and mass transit is how much easier it is to secure a plane as opposed to a subway train in a large city. There are only a certain amount of people who need to be in an airport at a certain time, while a subway station can have thousands of random people all at once. Ensuring that all those people are secure is levels more difficult than on an airplane.

[StrangeSox]

Further, I cannot believe we haven't been able to create a scanner for both metal AND explosives, or hell even just thought to put the two one after the other and run through both. I did one of those stupid puffer machines previously, but you STILL have to take off your shoes and all metal to use it, so what's the point?

 

Maybe they had you take metal off because you were also going through a metal detector, but the explosives scanners work without removing your shoes.

 

My guess is that the market for a combined machine is going to be limited since most places will already have metal detectors in place.

[LittleHurt05]

"No one is making you use a phone. If you don't like the NSA tapping it, there are tons of other modes of communication available."

 

Seriously, if this is our thinking these days, the terrorists have absolutely won.

 

If the government wants to listen to my wife and I discuss why the dog has the s***s or what I forgot to take out for dinner, then they could go right ahead. This doesnt bother me because there's not gonna be anything worth listening to anyway.

[Balta1701]

Further, I cannot believe we haven't been able to create a scanner for both metal AND explosives, or hell even just thought to put the two one after the other and run through both. I did one of those stupid puffer machines previously, but you STILL have to take off your shoes and all metal to use it, so what's the point?

Scanning for a lot of actual explosives on the human body is really, really difficult, because a lot of explosives are carbon-based. Sulfur, saltpeter, charcoal...you'e still scanning for carbon and salts even in the most basic gunpowder. High explosives are often high energy organic compounds that combust rapidly...they're basically indistinguishable from flesh in a lot of high-energy scans. Science runs into this type of problem all the time; the technique you use to tell 1 type of carbon atom bonding environment from another is a lot more complicated than the process of telling whether something is a carbon atom or an iron atom.

[NorthSideSox72]

Maybe they had you take metal off because you were also going through a metal detector, but the explosives scanners work without removing your shoes.

 

My guess is that the market for a combined machine is going to be limited since most places will already have metal detectors in place.

OK, so why all the body scanners and puffer machines? Why not just a metal detector, followed by the explosive scanner? And why, in that model, do shoes have to come off? I feel like I must be missing something obvious, because it seems to me this technology set already exists.

 

[StrangeSox]

OK, so why all the body scanners and puffer machines? Why not just a metal detector, followed by the explosive scanner?

 

Why the body scanner instead of just a metal detector? You can see non-metallic objects as well as metal. You have to remove everything so that nothing is obstructed and they know what they're seeing. I've only been through these twice, but from what I remember, there wasn't a metal detector, just the body scanner. And I've never been through an explosives scanner at an airport.

 

The puffer is the explosive scanner. The air blowing on you will pick up any traces of explosives, and it is then collected and analyzed by the machine.

 

And why, in that model, do shoes have to come off?

 

This is solely because of the stupid "Shoe Bomber." You take your shoes off so that can run them through the x-ray. Metal detectors, explosives detectors and, presumably, body scanners all work with shoes on.

 

I feel like I must be missing something obvious, because it seems to me this technology set already exists.

 

Like others have said, it's just security theater for the most part.

 

[BigSqwert]

If the government wants to listen to my wife and I discuss why the dog has the s***s or what I forgot to take out for dinner, then they could go right ahead. This doesnt bother me because there's not gonna be anything worth listening to anyway.

I never understood these types of responses with regards to privacy issues.

 

"Who cares if a federal agent looks through my windows occasionally? I always wear a robe after I shower."

 

"Who cares if my phone calls are being listened in on? I NEVER talk about things I don't want others to know about."

 

"Who cares cares if the government opens my mail/email and reads it before I get it. I NEVER have anything to hide."

 

[LittleHurt05]

And thank goodness I purchased my own hover craft recently.

 

When I first read this, I thought you were referring to one of these. I was gonna say, they don't work over water.