I have no reference why TSA policies are wrong

[Piggy]

No, but being an unreasonable search or seizure, carried out without a warrant or even probable cause, does make it a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

You're free not to fly, if you so choose.

No one's coming to your house demanding to search it.

No one's stopping your car, demanding to search it.

No one's coming onto your land, demanding to search it.

You can opt out of the search by taking a train, or catching a bus, or driving.

Mind you, I think much of the supposed security measures in the USA are buffoonish, and we'd be much better served by using the same sort of processes used by Israel.

And I recently had to partially disrobe to enter a courtroom, which royally pissed me off, especially under the circumstances, but regardless of that....

I don't see any 4th Amendment violation here.

Clearly, the skyways cannot be unregulated because that would be dangerous. So we recognize the authority of the gov't to regulate air traffic.

And since 9/11 we must recognize the clear public welfare interest of the gov't in screening passengers.

So the reasonableness of some sort of screening is beyond doubt.

The only question is, what sort of screening makes sense?

 

[Ziggurat]

And that is the problem. People being so scared of losing their jobs! It's all about money, isn't it? AMERICA... AMERICA... GOD SHED HIS GRACE ON THEE... OH SORRY, MONEY/DOLLAR BILL/ECONOMY/CAPITALISM SHED YOUR GRACE ON THEE!!

Not only is your anticapitalist screed off-topic and suggestive of a lithium deficiency, it's stupid. You think security agents in a communist regime would feel more free to quit their jobs in protest?

Maybe instead of sitting back and laughing at people complaining about the body scanners, maybe you could take this issue seriously?? Hmmmm?

I haven't laughed at anybody, and I have taken the issue seriously. The most charitable reading of this response I can come up with is that you've confused me with another poster. But in any case, your response makes no sense, and it certainly didn't answer my question. So I'll repeat it, what sort of stand are you expecting me to make here?

 

[dc1971]

So your argument is "were there any major problems besides the major problems?" That's kind of silly. In any case, people are clever and adapt. Security measures need to try to keep ahead of this, so of course they should change.

AGAIN... if you want to call it a counter-proposal why do we not use the same security measure we have been using? Or is this another chance to hail police officers and public authority figures in high regard and produce more television shows glorifying cops?

Given the bad economy and the difficulty getting a job, it makes sense they'd be concerned about maintaining a decent standard of living, taking care of their families, etc.

And you didn't answer his question. Maybe I should turn it around. What do you intend on doing?

Answer my question first!

 

[Region Rat]

You're free not to fly, if you so choose.

No one's coming to your house demanding to search it.

No one's stopping your car, demanding to search it.

No one's coming onto your land, demanding to search it.

You can opt out of the search by taking a train, or catching a bus, or driving.

Mind you, I think much of the supposed security measures in the USA are buffoonish, and we'd be much better served by using the same sort of processes used by Israel.

And I recently had to partially disrobe to enter a courtroom, which royally pissed me off, especially under the circumstances, but regardless of that....

I don't see any 4th Amendment violation here.

Clearly, the skyways cannot be unregulated because that would be dangerous. So we recognize the authority of the gov't to regulate air traffic.

And since 9/11 we must recognize the clear public welfare interest of the gov't in screening passengers.

So the reasonableness of some sort of screening is beyond doubt.

The only question is, what sort of screening makes sense?

I'm thinking about this in terms of established law on wiretaps. It's been established that the government cannot listen in on your phone conversations without a warrant. How does that compare with this?

You're free not to talk on the phone, if you so choose.

No one's coming to your house demanding to search it.

No one's stopping your car, demanding to search it.

No one's coming onto your land, demanding to search it.

You can opt out by talking directly to the other person.

What do lines 2,3,4 have to do with it? Well, if the government listens in to your phone conversation, and you incriminate yourself, they will get a warrant and search your house, car, and land. That's why they do it.

What do lines 2,3,4 have to do with an airport check? Well, it remains to be seen, since there have been no highly published 'catches', but what do you think would happen if someone is caught with contraband when passing through security. I would not imagine that they would just confiscate the contraband and let you go. I would imagine that they would then get a warrant to check your house, car and land to see what else you've got. And I'm not just talking about weapons meant to take a plane down. I'm talking about other things that they would have no business searching you for. It may be illegal stuff, but the 4th amendment is there to keep the gov't from randomly checking citizens to see if they are up to no good. If the argument is that if you're doing illegal stuff, you deserve to get caught, why have the 4th at all?

 

[dc1971]

Not only is your anticapitalist screed off-topic and suggestive of a lithium deficiency, it's stupid. You think security agents in a communist regime would feel more free to quit their jobs in protest?

Ummmmm, no, it's not off topic it's clearly on topic. Using the excuse that people are afraid to lose their jobs is rather trivial and a very typical JREF endorsement of capitalism as well as an endorsement of the norm/robotic lifestyle that most JREFfers are proud of (and you really make me proud... )!!

I haven't laughed at anybody, and I have taken the issue seriously. The most charitable reading of this response I can come up with is that you've confused me with another poster. But in any case, your response makes no sense, and it certainly didn't answer my question. So I'll repeat it, what sort of stand are you expecting me to make here?

Yes, it seems you are taking this issue seriously. After all, it's JREFfers who will stumble head over heels and be cheerleaders for the issues of security, police, law enforcement, and anything else that will allow one person to be allowed to use physical force against another person. It's such FUN, isn't it!!

 

[Piggy]

I'm thinking about this in terms of established law on wiretaps. It's been established that the government cannot listen in on your phone conversations without a warrant. How does that compare with this?

Not at all, because you don't have an expectation of privacy in an airport.

This has already been covered w/ regard to street cams.

If you're on the phone in your house, talking w/ a friend in his house, then yes, you have an expectation of privacy.

On the other hand, if you're talking w/ a friend in an airport, you have no expectation of privacy, and if someone wants to use a parabolic mike to listen in, well, so be it. You could be overheard by someone sitting behind you, so what does it matter that you're overheard by someone across the room?

For many years, law enforcement worked under the assumption that you did not have an expectation of privacy in your car on public roads, but the courts subsequently ruled that your car is something akin to your home, so many types of broad searches were curtailed.

But no court has ever found that we have the same sort of rights when it comes to putting ourselves on airplanes that we do not own, or putting our luggage on airplanes that we do not own.

Therefore, taking measures to detect drugs, weapons, smuggled goods, and so forth at airports has always been judged reasonable.

If you decide to buy a ticket on someone else's plane, and to leave your home and enter a public space in order to do so, then you subject yourself to reasonable measures to prevent mass death.

There is no need for the gov't or the airline or the owner of the airport to establish any reasonable suspicion of you in particular in order to require you to submit your bags for inspection, or to pass through a metal detector, or to have drug- and bomb-sniffing dogs check out you or your luggage.

That being the case, there does not appear to be any reason to put the new scanners or new pat-down procedures into some different category.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ummmmm, no, it's not off topic it's clearly on topic. Using the excuse that people are afraid to lose their jobs is rather trivial and a very typical JREF endorsement of capitalism

First off, it's not an endorsement of anything, it's an observation of reality. You may not like that reality, but you can't wish it away. And second (and this is why it was stupid to try to make this argument), it's not even peculiar to capitalism. People are afraid to lose their jobs under socialism, communism, tribalism, you name it.

Yes, it seems you are taking this issue seriously. After all, it's JREFfers who will stumble head over heels and be cheerleaders for the issues of security, police, law enforcement, and anything else that will allow one person to be allowed to use physical force against another person. It's such FUN, isn't it!!

You don't seem to be responding to anything I actually said. And you sure as hell haven't answered my question about what you actually want me to do.

 

[dc1971]

First off, it's not an endorsement of anything, it's an observation of reality. You may not like that reality, but you can't wish it away. And second (and this is why it was stupid to try to make this argument), it's not even peculiar to capitalism. People are afraid to lose their jobs under socialism, communism, tribalism, you name it.



You don't seem to be responding to anything I actually said. And you sure as hell haven't answered my question about what you actually want me to do.

Why should I worry about you?

 

[Ziggurat]

If you're on the phone in your house, talking w/ a friend in his house, then yes, you have an expectation of privacy.

On the other hand, if you're talking w/ a friend in an airport, you have no expectation of privacy, and if someone wants to use a parabolic mike to listen in, well, so be it. You could be overheard by someone sitting behind you, so what does it matter that you're overheard by someone across the room?

But somebody sitting behind me (or even facing me) can't see my junk. Even in a public place, there's still an expectation of privacy about many things.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why should I worry about you?

Who said anything about worrying about me? But if you're not interested in having a discussion, then why the hell have you been responding to my posts at all? And if you are, then why won't you answer a simple question about what YOU meant by a demand that YOU made of me?

You aren't making any sense.

 

[Drachasor]

AGAIN... if you want to call it a counter-proposal why do we not use the same security measure we have been using? Or is this another chance to hail police officers and public authority figures in high regard and produce more television shows glorifying cops?

...

Answer my question first!

I did answer your question. Security protocols that remain stagnant are much easier to bypass than ones that adapt and evolve. Updating the technology and methods makes a lot of sense. Never changing anything until an incident occurs would be insane.

Now again, how do you intend to fight this?

 

[Piggy]

But somebody sitting behind me (or even facing me) can't see my junk. Even in a public place, there's still an expectation of privacy about many things.

True, which is why I expect we'll have to wait and see what the courts do if there's any serious objection to the new processes.

But I still don't see any objections regarding searches w/out due process or reasonableness.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Sorry if it has been asked previously, but for those that support the new pat down from TSA, when would you start to consider it unreasonable?

When they do a real strip search?
When they do a body cavity search?
When they run you through an MRI to check inside you?

When?

 

[Drachasor]

Sorry if it has been asked previously, but for those that support the new pat down from TSA, when would you start to consider it unreasonable?

When they do a real strip search?
When they do a body cavity search?
When they run you through an MRI to check inside you?

When?

It's a bit like Cruel and Unusual Punishments. It evolves with the attitudes of society. It doesn't have a tightly fixed definition, unchanging with time.* A lot of the Constitution is vague that way.

*Obviously the definition is fixed in a sense, much like the definition of "The Shirt I am Currently Wearing."

 

[PhantomWolf]

It's a bit like Cruel and Unusual Punishments. It evolves with the attitudes of society. It doesn't have a tightly fixed definition, unchanging with time.* A lot of the Constitution is vague that way.

*Obviously the definition is fixed in a sense, much like the definition of "The Shirt I am Currently Wearing."

I'm not asking about what society thinks, I'm asking where you draw the line and say "That's unreasonable."

 

[Drachasor]

I'm not asking about what society thinks, I'm asking where you draw the line and say "That's unreasonable."

Ahh. I'd say that a strip search on everyone would definitely be unreasonable (though obviously great for safety). This technological way to go about the search is good and doesn't have the same issues at all, imho.

Now, in a world were a strip search was the ONLY way to handle it and otherwise hundreds of people would die on planes every year...at that point it might be more debateable. Hard to say. That's pretty hypothetical though. I tend to place a pretty high priority on preserving life.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Ahh. I'd say that a strip search on everyone would definitely be unreasonable (though obviously great for safety). This technological way to go about the search is good and doesn't have the same issues at all, imho.

Can I ask why you'd say a strip search on everyone would definitely be unreasonable, but that when they do that exact thing electronically, it's fine?

 

[Drachasor]

Can I ask why you'd say a strip search on everyone would definitely be unreasonable, but that when they do that exact thing electronically, it's fine?

You seriously don't see a difference between an electronic scan and having to remove all of your clothes and have your cavities searched physically? While the end result in terms of information gathered might be the same, the methodology and experience is quite different.

 

[dc1971]

(though obviously great for safety).

It figures you would say that!

 

[Drachasor]

It figures you would say that!

Are you going to explain what your plan is to combat the scanning now?