TSA - Going too Far?

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

Now this I don't agree with.

[EvilMonkey]

http://gizmodo.com/5688087/the-tsas-sense-...akes-me-nervous

 

[LittleHurt05]

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."

 

Well that makes it sound a little different. I am not advocating an entire Big Brother operation where the govt. watches you 24-7 or anything like that. As far as my phone conversations go, if for whatever dumb reason they feel like my convos need to be listened to in order to save the world, then no, it honestly doesn't really bother me all that much.

[Balta1701]

[southsider2k5]

On the bright side, if I want to get fondled for cheap, I know where to go now...

[Rex Kickass]

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.

 

I don't see that in the constitution anywhere. There is no expectation or right to not consent to a cursory security search to board a privately owned aircraft. I fail to see where any amendment or article in the constitution would cover this.

 

That's like saying you have the right to free speech so it should be ok to tell your boss to f*** off and expect no consequence.

 

IMO, putting US Citizens on a No-Fly list restricting the right to travel freely within our borders is an awful lot closer to a constitutional violation than having to essentially get an X-Ray photo taken of you.

[BigSqwert]

It's not the privately owned airline that is asking that we get searched in order to use their services. It's the government who does not own the airlines.

Edited November 16, 2010 by BigSqwert

[Rex Kickass]

My favorite part of this is that the picture I see most often looks like the woman has had her spleen replaced with a beer bottle.

[Balta1701]

On the bright side, if I want to get fondled for cheap, I know where to go now...

Air travel is cheap?

[StrangeSox]

It's not the privately owned airline that is asking that we get searched in order to use their services. It's the government who does not own the airlines.

 

The same is true for any critical infrastructure regulated by the federal government under the CFR.

[southsider2k5]

Air travel is cheap?

 

no carry ons.

[StrangeSox]

Nate Silver with some thoughts:

 

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-body-backlash/

[EvilMonkey]

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.

This was using the older, unclear version, but the fact is they weren't supposed to save ANY. Yet it happened. Kust imagin if it were the more enhanced versions that could be photoshopped.

http://gizmodo.com/5690749/

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't see that in the constitution anywhere. There is no expectation or right to not consent to a cursory security search to board a privately owned aircraft. I fail to see where any amendment or article in the constitution would cover this.

 

That's like saying you have the right to free speech so it should be ok to tell your boss to f*** off and expect no consequence.

 

IMO, putting US Citizens on a No-Fly list restricting the right to travel freely within our borders is an awful lot closer to a constitutional violation than having to essentially get an X-Ray photo taken of you.

 

So what's the line then? What if the TSA decides that due to recent terrorist chatter, they're now going to perform random body cavity searches. Too far? Or are we going to use this bulls*** "well there are other modes of travel" excuse?

 

I seriously find it baffling that people are ok with this. A metal detector is one thing. But being fondled just to get on a stupid plane is another. And I don't buy this nonsense that it's just like an x-ray. First, it's not just like an xray, it's basically a naked picture of your body that you KNOW is going to be out there in public by some creepy perv. And second, an x-ray is PRIVATE, between you and your healthcare provider. There's a reason we protect the s*** out of our medical information, including x-rays, because it's PRIVATE information.

 

If this was the ONLY option to protect us from the dips***s out there trying to blow us up, then fine. But it's not. So it shouldn't be tolerated.

[Balta1701]

So what's the line then?

Didn't I ask you that earlier?

[Jenksismyhero]

Didn't I ask you that earlier?

 

I think me saying that body scans and pat down searches is over the line is your answer. What more do you want?

Edited November 16, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[EvilMonkey]

Profiling would work better than these patdowns and scanners.

[StrangeSox]

I think me saying that body scans and pat down searches is over the line is your answer. What more do you want?

 

A definition of where that line is?

[StrangeSox]

Profiling would work better than these patdowns and scanners.

 

No, it doesn't.

[EvilMonkey]

No, it doesn't.

Keep telling yourself that every time they grope a 3 year old.

[Balta1701]

Keep telling yourself that every time they grope a 3 year old.

Keep ignoring all the Americans who headed off to Somalia to join AQ.

[StrangeSox]

Keep telling yourself that every time they grope a 3 year old.

 

Evidence of TSA groping three year olds?

 

Evidence of profiling actually being effective?

[southsider2k5]

And I want to know exactly where "far" is?

[StrangeSox]

I think me saying that body scans and pat down searches is over the line is your answer. What more do you want?

 

How do we prevent people from carrying dangerous non-metallic items onto planes?

[Soxbadger]

So what's the line then? What if the TSA decides that due to recent terrorist chatter, they're now going to perform random body cavity searches. Too far? Or are we going to use this bulls*** "well there are other modes of travel" excuse?

 

I seriously find it baffling that people are ok with this. A metal detector is one thing. But being fondled just to get on a stupid plane is another. And I don't buy this nonsense that it's just like an x-ray. First, it's not just like an xray, it's basically a naked picture of your body that you KNOW is going to be out there in public by some creepy perv. And second, an x-ray is PRIVATE, between you and your healthcare provider. There's a reason we protect the s*** out of our medical information, including x-rays, because it's PRIVATE information.

 

If this was the ONLY option to protect us from the dips***s out there trying to blow us up, then fine. But it's not. So it shouldn't be tolerated.

 

I agree with you.

 

The problem is our Supreme Court does not.

 

So as a practical matter, how do you propose we get rid of Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas?

 

Because they consistently have sided with the govt in terms of expanding the govt's power and decreasing the rights of people.