• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I have no reference why TSA policies are wrong

Just thought of something, sorry if I'm fifty years behind the times, I just made a connection. Does Superman's x-ray vision increase someone's chances of getting cancer?
 
mhaze said:
What you seem to be alluding to is the existence or not of a "reasonable exception" to the 4th amendment regarding airline travel.

Let's recap.

(A) Metal detectors and hand wands were not intrusive and revealing, period. Selective pat downs when the metal detector beeped or when the hand wand showed something was evidence based.

(B) Now we have new machines and new procedures which differ substantially. They are invasive of privacy - the pornoscanners. There is no "selective pat down", if you reject the pornoscan, you get the perp grope.

Clearly the TSA in moving from procedure set (A) to (B) has entered new uncharted grounds regarding the 4th amendment's application to their work.

(B) is unacceptable and solutions to (B) which do not clearly enunciate the need for compliance with the 4th amendment right are unacceptable. (eg the TSA just "backing down" informally).
Click to expand...

I like that argument, but it's not a recap of mine.

Yours attacks from the angle of greater invasiveness being unreasonable, mine from a lack of effectiveness making even previous restrictions unreasonable (limited ounces of liquid, nail file bans, etc).
 
BobTheCoward said:
I guess the best term is implied consent. I would be ok with this stuff in a lot of implied consent situations.

But more backscatter xrays in my life wouldn't bother me. Same with the idea that agreeing to do something involves a pat down including contact with my genitals.


If I may hijack my own thread, I am realizing this is far more a personal thing than I expected. I never knew that people were this bodily conscious. Cat pointed out that it had nothing to do with his penis size or weight. As someone with a small penis and could lose 10 lbs, I can see that we are able to reach two different conclusions unrelated to those factors.
Click to expand...

What about victims of sexual assault or rape? Can you see why they would not want the scan or the new "enhanced" pat down? I sure can.
 
WildCat said:
Why do you say "admitted" profiling? Do you think that profiling means "looks Muslim" or something?

Such profiling as done by Israelis is really no different than what you do (Bikewer is a cop for those who don't know) when you pull over a motorist and notice he's acting suspiciously.
Click to expand...

Despite their current anxieties, Americans also might balk at El Al-style ethnic profiling. Staff scrutinize the passengers' names, dividing them into low-risk (Israeli or foreign Jews), medium-risk (non-Jewish foreigners) and extremely high-risk travelers (anyone with an Arabic name)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/10/01/elal-usat.htm

That sounds a bit more than observing someone acting suspsiciously. Not that I'm against it. Someone suggested military-age men should be prioritized more than any other group for "enhanced" techniques. Too true. Military-age men who also happen to look Middle Eastern would, of course, be the most scrutinized group.
 
quixotecoyote said:
I like that argument, but it's not a recap of mine.

Yours attacks from the angle of greater invasiveness being unreasonable, mine from a lack of effectiveness making even previous restrictions unreasonable (limited ounces of liquid, nail file bans, etc).
Click to expand...

I agree with your argument also. I recognize that in some context of administrative law it can be argued that constitutional rights may have been waived by the implied or explicit contract (in this case it would be the $2.50 security fee you pay along with the airline ticket).

But it would be unacceptable given the general trend of disregard for constitutionality today by this (and the previous) administration to take an extreme violation such as this, ignore constitutionality, and argue the issue based on practicalities.

Look at it this way. The same clowns and thugs that wanted this scheme, could be pressured to back down on this scheme but would just try it again. Getting them to back down without addressing the primary issue is being complicit and agreeing to the abandonment of rights of #4.

That in turn could lead to some very bad places.
 
If you waive your 4th Amendment rights to fly on an airplane, what other Constitutional rights do you waive? Can the government make you say a prayer to Jesus before you board an airplane? Donate to the Democratic party? Search the contents of your laptop computer? Force you to work for the government for free for a day? Make you quarter troops in your home?
 
WildCat said:
If you waive your 4th Amendment rights to fly on an airplane, what other Constitutional rights do you waive? Can the government make you say a prayer to Jesus before you board an airplane? Donate to the Democratic party? Search the contents of your laptop computer? Force you to work for the government for free for a day? Make you quarter troops in your home?
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you say.

The only difference is I don't think there is a waive of 4th amendment rights. I think it is normal and well within reason. But I m coming around to everyone's viewpoint. I am willing to accept my perception is regarded as crazy.
 
There are some who think that this was all generated by the Right in order to privatize and provide corporate welfare for, yet another, industry.

I, personally, don't think they are smart enough to have planned it.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I agree with everything you say.

The only difference is I don't think there is a waive of 4th amendment rights. I think it is normal and well within reason. ......
Click to expand...

I can understand that. A lot of people like supermarkets, but suppose a federal government agency with no law enforcement authority dictated that to go to the supermarket, you took all your clothes off, otherwise you'd be arrested. It's not true that you just can choose to not go to the supermarket, and it's not true that you can just choose to not travel via airline. Many people in a lot of jobs are routinely told that they will travel via airline.

I don't feel like I must shove my personal attitude about something on everyone else. Apparently those in the TSA do.
 
Last edited:
http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/...r-airport-security-measures-violate-any-laws/

The 4th amendment is often cited in airport security cases. Basically, it guarantees people against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. If the government is going to engage in such activity, it must have probable cause and must have obtained a warrant to do so

Early court decisions in the 1970’s established that airport searches did fall under the 4th amendment’s protection, as actions by airport search agents still constituted government action. However, courts still allowed airport searches to go on, despite the lack of individualized probable cause and warrant, by creating exceptions to the 4th amendment.

One of them was the Administrative Search Exception, which applies to searches made under a general regulatory scheme to further an “urgent federal interest.” Thus, airport searches to protect against terrorism and bomb threats clearly meet this requirement, and are exempt from the strict requirements of the 4th amendment. However, the searches must still be carried out in a reasonable fashion and with the minimum amount of intrusion necessary. It is on this last point that passengers opposing the new procedures may have the most compelling arguments.
Click to expand...
 
BobTheCoward said:
I am willing to accept my perception is regarded as crazy.
Click to expand...

You're not crazy.

Every time you fly, you're putting yourself into a temporarily closed society with potentially hundreds of other people. I would argue that each person has a duty to make some sort of assurance (via the screenings and pat-downs) to his or her fellow passengers that he or she does not pose a threat.

For those who feel that assuaging others' worries is an unreasonable imposition on their time or persons, you are more than welcome to get together with others of like mind and charter your own darn plane.
 
Yalius said:
....
For those who feel that assuaging others' worries is an unreasonable imposition on their time or persons, you are more than welcome to get together with others of like mind and charter your own darn plane.
Click to expand...

For those who feel that everyone on their plane should be porno-scanned and grope-raped, you are welcome to get together with others of like mind and charter your own darn plane.
 
mhaze said:
For those who feel that everyone on their plane should be porno-scanned and grope-raped, you are welcome to get together with others of like mind and charter your own darn plane.
Click to expand...

In essence, that's what the majority who do not object to these measures do. So get off our plane if you think we're being unreasonable.

If you're unable to handle what the rest of us feel are entirely reasonable, take another means of transportation.

And incidentally, the expansiveness of your definitions for porn and rape is both surprising and depressing.
 
Last edited:
Yalius said:
In essence, that's what the majority who do not object to these measures do. So get off our plane if you think we're being unreasonable.
Click to expand...

The plane doesn't belong to you, or me. The plane belongs to the airline. But the airline had no say in any of this.

If you're unable to handle what the rest of us feel are entirely reasonable, take another means of transportation.
Click to expand...

Are you really sure that's the standard you want to adopt? Because that hasn't been the case in the past, and the consequences for such a shift will go far beyond just air travel. Think carefully before answering, but I really would like to hear your answer.

And incidentally, the expansiveness of your definitions for porn and rape is both surprising and depressing.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole is hyperbolic.

Nonetheless, these new procedures are intrusive, they often do cause serious distress, and they don't provide any significant improvement to security. They aren't justifiable. And telling people to use alternate forms of transportation or charter a flight is ridiculous. Air travel is too important to too many people's jobs, and the economies of scale for standard commercial flights compared to charter flights is too large, for your suggestion to be taken at all seriously.
 
Yalius said:
In essence, that's what the majority who do not object to these measures do. So get off our plane if you think we're being unreasonable.

If you're unable to handle what the rest of us feel are entirely reasonable, take another means of transportation....
Click to expand...

You speak for no group, except in the shadows of your own mind on an internet forum. There is no we, and no us, to whom you refer, and there is no merit in your totalitarian worldview.
 
mhaze said:
You speak for no group, except in the shadows of your own mind on an internet forum. There is no we, and no us, to whom you refer, and there is no merit in your totalitarian worldview.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is. The "us" to whom I refer is the group of people who don't have a problem with these measures. We're not offended by what we see as reasonable. We don't throw conniption fits where we exaggerate every daily inconvenience into epic proportions, assuming sadistic or malevolent motives behind every single occurrence that doesn't cater to our own sense of self-important vanity.

It's the self-important screeching attention ****** who can't understand they're not heroic rebels fighting against the evil Sith and the emperor evil federal gubmint and those TSA pervs.

Grow up, take your medicine, and get off your high horse.
 
Yalius said:
Actually, there is. The "us" to whom I refer is the group of people who don't have a problem with these measures.
Click to expand...
and mrs. Brady didn't like guns, did she?

Then some events occurred that changed her tune....

So why should you not pay very careful attention to the comments by those who have been outraged by the tsa goons?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom