Airport Body Scans Reveal All

[DiveCon]

I think CW has it correct, and so did Ben Franklin.

Also, this only gives the illusion that we are safe...there is hardly any checking of luggage that goes into the belly of the plane. I'd rather take my chances with exploding planes and not have to bother with taking off my shoes, spending an extra hour with security because I had a bottle of asprin in my computer bag, or watching my kids get wanded because TSA was so inept they forgot to stamp MY ticket in the security lane.

Not to mention that this doesn't even alleviate the need for taking off my damn shoes.

of course you wopuld
if i say the sky is blue you would argue that

 

[Ravi]

I wasn't even addressing you, dcon. Looks like you're smarting from the beat down CW gave you.

 

[DiveCon]

I wasn't even addressing you, dcon. Looks like you're smarting from the beat down CW gave you.

nope, he did no such thing
you dont "paraphrase" a quote
or its not a quote
and there is a reason why he said "esential liberty" and temporary safety"
changing that DOES change the meaning

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I wasn't even addressing you, dcon. Looks like you're smarting from the beat down CW gave you.

nope, he did no such thing
you dont "paraphrase" a quote
or its not a quote
and there is a reason why he said "esential liberty" and temporary safety"
changing that DOES change the meaning

Who says you can't paraphrase a quote? MLA, APA, and Chicago Manual of style all allow you to paraphrase as long as it is cited.

 

[Ravi]

dcon, you need a new shovel, you've worn this one out.

 

[DiveCon]

dcon, you need a new shovel, you've worn this one out.

i'm not the one doing the digging, moron

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Since a certain diver has run off with tail between his legs, I will lay out the argument that this obviously leading to. That is whether or not there is Constitutional right to privacy. The term "privacy in public" has been coined to describe this situation, which is absurd in itself. Privacy is privacy, whether it be public or well, private. There are many that do not believe that privacy exists in the Constitution. If you ar eone of those people then the next section is for.

You can search the constitution over for the word privacy, but you will not find it. You will also not find the word marriage. Does this mean that you don't have the right to get married? How about buy foreign goods or read a book? Those aren't specifically mentioned either. Neither is having children. The reason for these are not mentioned is due to a common misconception about the purpose of the constitution. The Constitution isn't about what people can do; it's about what government can do. The Constitution was created to spell out the limited rights or powers given to the federal government. And it was clearly understood that the government had no powers that weren't authorized in the Constitution.

The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government.

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The right to privacy is clearly in these two amendments. The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution. That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to listen to our phone calls; no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution. This includes checking out your jumblies with X-ray specs at the fucking airport.

 

[DiveCon]

Since a certain diver has run off with tail between his legs, I will lay out the argument that this obviously leading to. That is whether or not there is Constitutional right to privacy. The term "privacy in public" has been coined to describe this situation, which is absurd in itself. Privacy is privacy, whether it be public or well, private. There are many that do not believe that privacy exists in the Constitution. If you ar eone of those people then the next section is for.

You can search the constitution over for the word privacy, but you will not find it. You will also not find the word marriage. Does this mean that you don't have the right to get married? How about buy foreign goods or read a book? Those aren't specifically mentioned either. Neither is having children. The reason for these are not mentioned is due to a common misconception about the purpose of the constitution. The Constitution isn't about what people can do; it's about what government can do. The Constitution was created to spell out the limited rights or powers given to the federal government. And it was clearly understood that the government had no powers that weren't authorized in the Constitution.

The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government.

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The right to privacy is clearly in these two amendments. The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution. That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to listen to our phone calls; no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution. This includes checking out your jumblies with X-ray specs at the fucking airport.

stop lying
i havent run from ANYTHING
you are WRONG
you do NOT paraphrase a quote and especially not remove pertenent parts, it changes the whole meaning to do so

 

[Toome]

Who cares? Oh noes someone might see that you don't take care of your body.... um, guess what... everyone already knows.

Wrong direction in thought. The idea is the Consititutionally protected right of privacy(bonus points if you which parts protect privacy, many people don't). This is obviously an invasion of privacy. Some may not care who sees their goodies, but fact is that most do. Therefore these machines pose the question, do they invade on the person's privacy in the name of security? If so, how is it different than echelon? It isn't an I refer back to Franklin.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Ben Franklin

Read the details. The passenger has the option of going through the body scan or through regular screening. And the passenger can also opt not to go through screening (which results in not going aboard the airplane). No one is forced to submit. It's a condition of carriage, a standard that has existed with the airlines long before 9/11.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Who cares? Oh noes someone might see that you don't take care of your body.... um, guess what... everyone already knows.

Wrong direction in thought. The idea is the Consititutionally protected right of privacy(bonus points if you which parts protect privacy, many people don't). This is obviously an invasion of privacy. Some may not care who sees their goodies, but fact is that most do. Therefore these machines pose the question, do they invade on the person's privacy in the name of security? If so, how is it different than echelon? It isn't an I refer back to Franklin.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Ben Franklin

Read the details. The passenger has the option of going through the body scan or through regular screening. And the passenger can also opt not to go through screening (which results in not going aboard the airplane). No one is forced to submit. It's a condition of carriage, a standard that has existed with the airlines long before 9/11.

Unless that condition of carriage violates a constitutional right. Then we have a problem.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I wasn't even addressing you, dcon. Looks like you're smarting from the beat down CW gave you.

nope, he did no such thing
you dont "paraphrase" a quote
or its not a quote
and there is a reason why he said "esential liberty" and temporary safety"
changing that DOES change the meaning

Who says you can't paraphrase a quote? MLA, APA, and Chicago Manual of style all allow you to paraphrase as long as it is cited.

BIG BIG difference between "any" and "essential".

A security check to safe guard the aircraft and the passengers on a flight that is totally voluntary on your part is not "essential". Nor does it violate your right to privacy.

Individual rights do not trump other individuals rights. First there is no evidence you have a right to privacy when CHOOSING to board a COMMERCIAL Aircraft, secondly the right of the other passengers and the airline to be safe trumps your right to claim privacy while VOLUNTARILY agreeing to board a COMMERCIAL flight.

The term in the Constitution is "unreasonable search". These searchers are NOT unreasonable. Thus no violation of your rights. Further, again, you CHOOSE to fly on a Jet owned and operated by SOMEONE ELSE. An endeavor regulated and guarded by the Government. YOU have no right to expect privacy except that which the Carrier agrees to let you have in order to use their aircraft. The Government has a duty and responsibility to safe guard the public. Their procedures are not "unreasonable" given the historic facts of bombings and hijackings.

So much for THAT argument.

 

[DiveCon]

Who cares? Oh noes someone might see that you don't take care of your body.... um, guess what... everyone already knows.

Wrong direction in thought. The idea is the Consititutionally protected right of privacy(bonus points if you which parts protect privacy, many people don't). This is obviously an invasion of privacy. Some may not care who sees their goodies, but fact is that most do. Therefore these machines pose the question, do they invade on the person's privacy in the name of security? If so, how is it different than echelon? It isn't an I refer back to Franklin.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Ben Franklin

Read the details. The passenger has the option of going through the body scan or through regular screening. And the passenger can also opt not to go through screening (which results in not going aboard the airplane). No one is forced to submit. It's a condition of carriage, a standard that has existed with the airlines long before 9/11.

and what do you think about using the word "little" to replace two different words "essential" and "temporary"
think it changes the meaning or not?

 

[DiveCon]

nope, he did no such thing
you dont "paraphrase" a quote
or its not a quote
and there is a reason why he said "esential liberty" and temporary safety"
changing that DOES change the meaning

Who says you can't paraphrase a quote? MLA, APA, and Chicago Manual of style all allow you to paraphrase as long as it is cited.

BIG BIG difference between "any" and "essential".

A security check to safe guard the aircraft and the passengers on a flight that is totally voluntary on your part is not "essential". Nor does it violate your right to privacy.

Individual rights do not trump other individuals rights. First there is no evidence you have a right to privacy when CHOOSING to board a COMMERCIAL Aircraft, secondly the right of the other passengers and the airline to be safe trumps your right to claim privacy while VOLUNTARILY agreeing to board a COMMERCIAL flight.

The term in the Constitution is "unreasonable search". These searchers are NOT unreasonable. Thus no violation of your rights. Further, again, you CHOOSE to fly on a Jet owned and operated by SOMEONE ELSE. An endeavor regulated and guarded by the Government. YOU have no right to expect privacy except that which the Carrier agrees to let you have in order to use their aircraft. The Government has a duty and responsibility to safe guard the public. Their procedures are not "unreasonable" given the historic facts of bombings and hijackings.

So much for THAT argument.

there is no right to privacy in public anyway

 

[DiveCon]

not only that, there is no RIGHT to fly on a private plane

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Who says you can't paraphrase a quote? MLA, APA, and Chicago Manual of style all allow you to paraphrase as long as it is cited.

BIG BIG difference between "any" and "essential".

A security check to safe guard the aircraft and the passengers on a flight that is totally voluntary on your part is not "essential". Nor does it violate your right to privacy.

Individual rights do not trump other individuals rights. First there is no evidence you have a right to privacy when CHOOSING to board a COMMERCIAL Aircraft, secondly the right of the other passengers and the airline to be safe trumps your right to claim privacy while VOLUNTARILY agreeing to board a COMMERCIAL flight.

The term in the Constitution is "unreasonable search". These searchers are NOT unreasonable. Thus no violation of your rights. Further, again, you CHOOSE to fly on a Jet owned and operated by SOMEONE ELSE. An endeavor regulated and guarded by the Government. YOU have no right to expect privacy except that which the Carrier agrees to let you have in order to use their aircraft. The Government has a duty and responsibility to safe guard the public. Their procedures are not "unreasonable" given the historic facts of bombings and hijackings.

So much for THAT argument.

there is no right to privacy in public anyway

Aircraft are not public persay. However there is no right to privacy if one CHOOSES to utilize a service of someone else except that which the provider agrees to allow you. Part of the CONDITIONS of boarding are a required search. It is not a secret, it is public knowledge and has been for YEARS. When one CHOOSES to buy a ticket they are AGREEING to the terms of the contract for service. Part of that contract is that you and your luggage are subject to search prior to boarding.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

nope, he did no such thing
you dont "paraphrase" a quote
or its not a quote
and there is a reason why he said "esential liberty" and temporary safety"
changing that DOES change the meaning

Who says you can't paraphrase a quote? MLA, APA, and Chicago Manual of style all allow you to paraphrase as long as it is cited.

BIG BIG difference between "any" and "essential".

A security check to safe guard the aircraft and the passengers on a flight that is totally voluntary on your part is not "essential". Nor does it violate your right to privacy.

Individual rights do not trump other individuals rights. First there is no evidence you have a right to privacy when CHOOSING to board a COMMERCIAL Aircraft, secondly the right of the other passengers and the airline to be safe trumps your right to claim privacy while VOLUNTARILY agreeing to board a COMMERCIAL flight.

The term in the Constitution is "unreasonable search". These searchers are NOT unreasonable. Thus no violation of your rights. Further, again, you CHOOSE to fly on a Jet owned and operated by SOMEONE ELSE. An endeavor regulated and guarded by the Government. YOU have no right to expect privacy except that which the Carrier agrees to let you have in order to use their aircraft. The Government has a duty and responsibility to safe guard the public. Their procedures are not "unreasonable" given the historic facts of bombings and hijackings.

So much for THAT argument.

Yeah, but you see, I never exchanged the word "any" for "essential." I used the word little. As for the rest of your argument answer me this? what other free enterprise do we allow to infringe on constitutionally protected rights?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

not only that, there is no RIGHT to fly on a private plane

And that is the whole point, one makes a deal with the airlines and the Government in order to fly. A Voluntary agreement with no coercion or force ,No hidden facts, no secret plan to search you with out your knowledge. The Constitution says we are protected from " UNREASONABLE SEARCHES" the search involved in boarding an aircraft is not unreasonable at all.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Who says you can't paraphrase a quote? MLA, APA, and Chicago Manual of style all allow you to paraphrase as long as it is cited.

BIG BIG difference between "any" and "essential".

A security check to safe guard the aircraft and the passengers on a flight that is totally voluntary on your part is not "essential". Nor does it violate your right to privacy.

Individual rights do not trump other individuals rights. First there is no evidence you have a right to privacy when CHOOSING to board a COMMERCIAL Aircraft, secondly the right of the other passengers and the airline to be safe trumps your right to claim privacy while VOLUNTARILY agreeing to board a COMMERCIAL flight.

The term in the Constitution is "unreasonable search". These searchers are NOT unreasonable. Thus no violation of your rights. Further, again, you CHOOSE to fly on a Jet owned and operated by SOMEONE ELSE. An endeavor regulated and guarded by the Government. YOU have no right to expect privacy except that which the Carrier agrees to let you have in order to use their aircraft. The Government has a duty and responsibility to safe guard the public. Their procedures are not "unreasonable" given the historic facts of bombings and hijackings.

So much for THAT argument.

Yeah, but you see, I never exchanged the word "any" for "essential." I used the word little. As for the rest of your argument answer me this? what other free enterprise do we allow to infringe on constitutionally protected rights?

YOU do NOT have a right to fly on an aircraft. You CHOOSE to do so. You make a contract with the airline. Part of that Contract is that you will submit to a search. There is no Constitutional Right involved at all.

 

[Ravi]

Individual rights do not trump other individuals rights.

So why does your right to have your fear catered to trump my right to not be hassled by the government?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

BIG BIG difference between "any" and "essential".

A security check to safe guard the aircraft and the passengers on a flight that is totally voluntary on your part is not "essential". Nor does it violate your right to privacy.

Individual rights do not trump other individuals rights. First there is no evidence you have a right to privacy when CHOOSING to board a COMMERCIAL Aircraft, secondly the right of the other passengers and the airline to be safe trumps your right to claim privacy while VOLUNTARILY agreeing to board a COMMERCIAL flight.

The term in the Constitution is "unreasonable search". These searchers are NOT unreasonable. Thus no violation of your rights. Further, again, you CHOOSE to fly on a Jet owned and operated by SOMEONE ELSE. An endeavor regulated and guarded by the Government. YOU have no right to expect privacy except that which the Carrier agrees to let you have in order to use their aircraft. The Government has a duty and responsibility to safe guard the public. Their procedures are not "unreasonable" given the historic facts of bombings and hijackings.

So much for THAT argument.

Yeah, but you see, I never exchanged the word "any" for "essential." I used the word little. As for the rest of your argument answer me this? what other free enterprise do we allow to infringe on constitutionally protected rights?

YOU do NOT have a right to fly on an aircraft. You CHOOSE to do so. You make a contract with the airline. Part of that Contract is that you will submit to a search. There is no Constitutional Right involved at all.

There is in this case. When flying, you agree to a "screening." This screening may include a search, but the screeners must have probable cause. With this new device, there is no probable cause. You walk through and they check out your twig and berries. That is wher eprivacy comes into play. Right now, it is optional, next year it may not be.