Airport Body Scans Reveal All

[CrimsonWhite]

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?

Better question. Why is his right to have fear more important than your right to not have some water head with a GED checking out your under carriage with what is essentially X-ray specs?

 

[DiveCon]

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.

then you can choose not to fly
or find another airline that doesnt require it

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

They do not need probably cause to search you. In fact they randomly search people ALL the time. Once again this has nothing to do with the Constitution. You have no rights violated by the REQUIRED search to board an aircraft.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

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.

They do not need probably cause to search you. In fact they randomly search people ALL the time. Once again this has nothing to do with the Constitution. You have no rights violated by the REQUIRED search to board an aircraft.

You correct other than the searches that you are refering to don't entail the potentially embarrassing prospect of a the high school drop out looking over your what nots with an a big pair of X-Ray specs.

 

[DiveCon]

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.

They do not need probably cause to search you. In fact they randomly search people ALL the time. Once again this has nothing to do with the Constitution. You have no rights violated by the REQUIRED search to board an aircraft.

You correct other than the searches that you are refering to don't entail the potentially embarrassing prospect of a the high school drop out looking over your what nots with an a big pair of X-Ray specs.

you DO know that you can be strip searched, right?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

They do not need probably cause to search you. In fact they randomly search people ALL the time. Once again this has nothing to do with the Constitution. You have no rights violated by the REQUIRED search to board an aircraft.

You correct other than the searches that you are refering to don't entail the potentially embarrassing prospect of a the high school drop out looking over your what nots with an a big pair of X-Ray specs.

you DO know that you can be strip searched, right?

Yes, but with due process. A strip search must be done only when there is probable cause. Probable cause is due process. Now if these machines were implemented to be a replacement for a strip search, we wouldn't be having this argument.

 

[Toome]

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.

Condition of carriage is standard across the board. Airlines publish portions of it as it relates to airport security. Sometimes, it's the fine print on the airline boarding document; and other times it's a disclaimer on the web site that usually requires some sort of acknowledgment before the purchase is finalized. The condition of carriage typically informs passengers that they must successfully pass through a screening process before boarding the airplane. This meets the minimum standard for consensual searches, and every single commercial airline passenger has met the standard whether or not they bothered to read the fine print.

There is no constitutional crisis here.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

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.

Condition of carriage is standard across the board. Airlines publish portions of it as it relates to airport security. Sometimes, it's the fine print on the airline boarding document; and other times it's a disclaimer on the web site that usually requires some sort of acknowledgment before the purchase is finalized. The condition of carriage typically informs passengers that they must successfully pass through a screening process before boarding the airplane. This meets the minimum standard for consensual searches, and every single commercial airline passenger has met the standard whether or not they bothered to read the fine print.

There is no constitutional crisis here.

I understand the consentual searches, but passengers know that they will not be subject to a strip search without due process. Due process is denied here with these machines, if they become standard.

 

[YWN666]

Get some metallic based paint and write "TSA sucks" across your belly

 

[Dis]

Tuck in your tampon strings, ladies.

LMFAO!

 

[sitarro]

Go back to Franklin quote. The idea that anyone willing to give up soem form of liberty, here it is privacy, for security will eventually lose aboth. Meaning of course that a government taking a few rights today will take a few more tomorrow. Today it is privacy. Tomorrow will it be security?

Amanda is correct. The airlines are liable for the lives on board, the cost of a 100 million dollar plane and the lawsuits that come after it is brought down, this is a perfectly reasonable way to make sure some asshole isn't trying to bring a nonmetallic weapon on board........ it is for our safety. You aren't allowed to talk on a phone or smoke cigarettes either on a plane, I guess you could try to pretend those are your rights also. The American public are a bunch of spoiled pussies that whine constantly about the few seconds it takes to go through a little security checkpoint, leave a few minutes early, wear new socks, hide your dildo in your checked bag and shut the fuck up ....... or....... take a train.

As for the lame ass quote, don't elect assholes that want to take your rights away(Osamabama). Somehow, I just don't believe Franklin was talking about trying to prevent the hijacking of aircraft by imbeciles that want to die by flying them into skyscrapers.

I know Franklin wasn't talking about preventing terrorist from hijacking airplanes, but he was talking about basic liberites. Liberties that are Constitutionally protected. Smoking and talking on the phone are not Constitutionally protected rights, but privacy is. Personally, i don't mind the extra few minutes it takes to get on an airplane. I also don't really give a shit if the imbecile in the TSA uniform wants to check out my what nots with X-Ray specs, but what I do care about using security as an excuse to chip away at rights that are constitutionally protected, ie. privacy(echelon, these scanners), right to bear arms(confiscation of weapons after Katrina), due process(patriot act), and the list goes on. So the quote from Franklin is not lame, it is relevant in more ways that your short sightedness could possibly realize.

How about voting privacy? Obama is pushing the card check policy to help his buddies in the unions, what about my privacy to say that I don't want the fucking teamster goons to screw up the airline I work for. They are in the process now, as I write this, of pushing their bullshit club on me and the other 4,000 people I work with. We have voted against unions for years, twice a year those leeches show up and lie about our company in order to convince the idiots among us to vote for their strong arm tactics. Obama wants to make it to where we have no privacy when we reject their asses, do you reject that blatant abuse of my privacy? Isn't it my constitutional right to privacy?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

They do not need probably cause to search you. In fact they randomly search people ALL the time. Once again this has nothing to do with the Constitution. You have no rights violated by the REQUIRED search to board an aircraft.

You correct other than the searches that you are refering to don't entail the potentially embarrassing prospect of a the high school drop out looking over your what nots with an a big pair of X-Ray specs.

Now for some REALITY. The viewer is in a room with no ACCESS to view the people being screened. The facial features are obscured. What exactly does it matter who is viewing the scan under those conditions? And how is it an invasion of privacy when the scanner has no idea who he is viewing and the record is destroyed after being viewed?

And again you agree to be searched every time you AGREE to buy a ticket. It is part and parcel of the contract you make in order to voluntarily fly in this and just about EVERY other country.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Amanda is correct. The airlines are liable for the lives on board, the cost of a 100 million dollar plane and the lawsuits that come after it is brought down, this is a perfectly reasonable way to make sure some asshole isn't trying to bring a nonmetallic weapon on board........ it is for our safety. You aren't allowed to talk on a phone or smoke cigarettes either on a plane, I guess you could try to pretend those are your rights also. The American public are a bunch of spoiled pussies that whine constantly about the few seconds it takes to go through a little security checkpoint, leave a few minutes early, wear new socks, hide your dildo in your checked bag and shut the fuck up ....... or....... take a train.

As for the lame ass quote, don't elect assholes that want to take your rights away(Osamabama). Somehow, I just don't believe Franklin was talking about trying to prevent the hijacking of aircraft by imbeciles that want to die by flying them into skyscrapers.

I know Franklin wasn't talking about preventing terrorist from hijacking airplanes, but he was talking about basic liberites. Liberties that are Constitutionally protected. Smoking and talking on the phone are not Constitutionally protected rights, but privacy is. Personally, i don't mind the extra few minutes it takes to get on an airplane. I also don't really give a shit if the imbecile in the TSA uniform wants to check out my what nots with X-Ray specs, but what I do care about using security as an excuse to chip away at rights that are constitutionally protected, ie. privacy(echelon, these scanners), right to bear arms(confiscation of weapons after Katrina), due process(patriot act), and the list goes on. So the quote from Franklin is not lame, it is relevant in more ways that your short sightedness could possibly realize.

How about voting privacy? Obama is pushing the card check policy to help his buddies in the unions, what about my privacy to say that I don't want the fucking teamster goons to screw up the airline I work for. They are in the process now, as I write this, of pushing their bullshit club on me and the other 4,000 people I work with. We have voted against unions for years, twice a year those leeches show up and lie about our company in order to convince the idiots among us to vote for their strong arm tactics. Obama wants to make it to where we have no privacy when we reject their asses, do you reject that blatant abuse of my privacy? Isn't it my constitutional right to privacy?

What makes you think I voted for Obama? Or for that matter agree with him on anything? Furthermore, what the hell does that have to do with the question at hand?

 

[xotoxi]

I wonder if we'll still have to take off our shoes?

I never wear shoes with laces when flying. Too cumbersome.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

They do not need probably cause to search you. In fact they randomly search people ALL the time. Once again this has nothing to do with the Constitution. You have no rights violated by the REQUIRED search to board an aircraft.

You correct other than the searches that you are refering to don't entail the potentially embarrassing prospect of a the high school drop out looking over your what nots with an a big pair of X-Ray specs.

Now for some REALITY. The viewer is in a room with no ACCESS to view the people being screened. The facial features are obscured. What exactly does it matter who is viewing the scan under those conditions? And how is it an invasion of privacy when the scanner has no idea who he is viewing and the record is destroyed after being viewed?

And again you agree to be searched every time you AGREE to buy a ticket. It is part and parcel of the contract you make in order to voluntarily fly in this and just about EVERY other country.

Semantics. With ECHELON, the people on the phone do not know hat anyone is listening yet, it is still an invasion of privacy. If a tree falls in the and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound? Of course it does.

 

[Toome]

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

Condition of carriage is standard across the board. Airlines publish portions of it as it relates to airport security. Sometimes, it's the fine print on the airline boarding document; and other times it's a disclaimer on the web site that usually requires some sort of acknowledgment before the purchase is finalized. The condition of carriage typically informs passengers that they must successfully pass through a screening process before boarding the airplane. This meets the minimum standard for consensual searches, and every single commercial airline passenger has met the standard whether or not they bothered to read the fine print.

There is no constitutional crisis here.

I understand the consentual searches, but passengers know that they will not be subject to a strip search without due process. Due process is denied here with these machines, if they become standard.

I don't think TSA will eliminate the conventional screening method. I think passengers will have a choice. Consider the cost of these machines. I don't see them deployed at every single airport throughout the country. I believe they will be deployed only at certain airports, especially the large hubs that push large volumes of passengers through the gates daily.

By the way, there is no strip search at the airport. No one is required to remove any clothing as part of airport screening. If a matter is referred to airport police, different story. But at that point, Miranda and all the other constitutional obligations already take effect.

Just trying to stick to the real facts.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Condition of carriage is standard across the board. Airlines publish portions of it as it relates to airport security. Sometimes, it's the fine print on the airline boarding document; and other times it's a disclaimer on the web site that usually requires some sort of acknowledgment before the purchase is finalized. The condition of carriage typically informs passengers that they must successfully pass through a screening process before boarding the airplane. This meets the minimum standard for consensual searches, and every single commercial airline passenger has met the standard whether or not they bothered to read the fine print.

There is no constitutional crisis here.

I understand the consentual searches, but passengers know that they will not be subject to a strip search without due process. Due process is denied here with these machines, if they become standard.

I don't think TSA will eliminate the conventional screening method. I think passengers will have a choice. Consider the cost of these machines. I don't see them deployed at every single airport throughout the country. I believe they will be deployed only at certain airports, especially the large hubs that push large volumes of passengers through the gates daily.

By the way, there is no strip search at the airport. No one is required to remove any clothing as part of airport screening. If a matter is referred to airport police, different story. But at that point, Miranda and all the other constitutional obligations already take effect.

Just trying to stick to the real facts.

Real facts which I presented with words "due process." What is difference between these machines and a strip search?

 

[dilloduck]

If I am the one who defines what my privacy is, the government wouldn't even be able to look at a damn thing I have or do.
Cmon folks--it's only a scan. It's not a micro chip implant.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

If I am the one who defines what my privacy is, the government wouldn't even be able to look at a damn thing I have or do.
Cmon folks--it's only a scan. It's not a micro chip implant.

Its only a scan today, because that is what today's technology will allow. What will it be tomorrow?

 

[dilloduck]

If I am the one who defines what my privacy is, the government wouldn't even be able to look at a damn thing I have or do.
Cmon folks--it's only a scan. It's not a micro chip implant.

Its only a scan today, because that is what today's technology will allow. What will it be tomorrow?

I'll worry about tomorrow if it gets here.