Colo. lawyer sues over TSA airport screening

[Ravi]

I'm pretty sure the AIT machine is a substitute for the metal detector. In other words, you go through one or the other and if you "fail" either you get a pat down. Or choose the patdown and avoid the machines to begin with.

I am saying that the AIT is unconstitutional because it is more invasive than the metal detector. What part of that argument is so difficult to understand? If it is unconstitutional it does not matter if it is being used to replace something else, does it?

Note:

It is probably constitutional to use it as part of secondary screening if they have some sort of probable cause to step up the scrutiny, but not as the initial search.

If it shows you naked I agree it is more invasive. If it shows you as a stick figure I disagree.

 

[Ravi]

I'm pretty sure the AIT machine is a substitute for the metal detector. In other words, you go through one or the other and if you "fail" either you get a pat down. Or choose the patdown and avoid the machines to begin with.

I am saying that the AIT is unconstitutional because it is more invasive than the metal detector. What part of that argument is so difficult to understand? If it is unconstitutional it does not matter if it is being used to replace something else, does it?

Note:

It is probably constitutional to use it as part of secondary screening if they have some sort of probable cause to step up the scrutiny, but not as the initial search.

AIT or Pat downs are secondary screening as it is. They are not replacing metal detectors.

That is not right. If you go through the ait or the metal detector is determined by which line you happen to be in. Pat downs are either secondary searches for someone that trips the alarm (if the machine beeps or because of some visual trip) or primary searches for those that cannot or will not go through a machine.

 

[The Rabbi]

I am saying that the AIT is unconstitutional because it is more invasive than the metal detector. What part of that argument is so difficult to understand? If it is unconstitutional it does not matter if it is being used to replace something else, does it?

Note:

It is probably constitutional to use it as part of secondary screening if they have some sort of probable cause to step up the scrutiny, but not as the initial search.

AIT or Pat downs are secondary screening as it is. They are not replacing metal detectors.

That is not right. If you go through the ait or the metal detector is determined by which line you happen to be in. Pat downs are either secondary searches for someone that trips the alarm or primary searches for those that cannot or will not go through a machine.

Not so.
My wife and daughter were patted down in Laguardia, given no choice in the matter. Their "crime"? Wearing long skirts.

 

[Ravi]

AIT or Pat downs are secondary screening as it is. They are not replacing metal detectors.

That is not right. If you go through the ait or the metal detector is determined by which line you happen to be in. Pat downs are either secondary searches for someone that trips the alarm or primary searches for those that cannot or will not go through a machine.

Not so.
My wife and daughter were patted down in Laguardia, given no choice in the matter. Their "crime"? Wearing long skirts.

I edited my post for clarity.

Do you believe people that wear burkas should be able to avoid a pat down?

 

[The Rabbi]

That is not right. If you go through the ait or the metal detector is determined by which line you happen to be in. Pat downs are either secondary searches for someone that trips the alarm or primary searches for those that cannot or will not go through a machine.

Not so.
My wife and daughter were patted down in Laguardia, given no choice in the matter. Their "crime"? Wearing long skirts.

I edited my post for clarity.

Do you believe people that wear burkas should be able to avoid a pat down?

Absent any other reason, yes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm pretty sure the AIT machine is a substitute for the metal detector. In other words, you go through one or the other and if you "fail" either you get a pat down. Or choose the patdown and avoid the machines to begin with.

I am saying that the AIT is unconstitutional because it is more invasive than the metal detector. What part of that argument is so difficult to understand? If it is unconstitutional it does not matter if it is being used to replace something else, does it?

Note:

It is probably constitutional to use it as part of secondary screening if they have some sort of probable cause to step up the scrutiny, but not as the initial search.

AIT or Pat downs are secondary screening as it is. They are not replacing metal detectors.

Yes they are.

Body Scanners Used as Primary Screening Technology at Tulsa International Airport | Security Management

These scanners are designed to find things metal detectors miss, so why use them only if a metal detector goes off? I can supply plenty of more links if you insist on a further demonstration of your ignorance.

 

[Common Sense]

I am saying that the AIT is unconstitutional because it is more invasive than the metal detector. What part of that argument is so difficult to understand? If it is unconstitutional it does not matter if it is being used to replace something else, does it?

Note:

It is probably constitutional to use it as part of secondary screening if they have some sort of probable cause to step up the scrutiny, but not as the initial search.

AIT or Pat downs are secondary screening as it is. They are not replacing metal detectors.

Yes they are.

Body Scanners Used as Primary Screening Technology at Tulsa International Airport | Security Management

These scanners are designed to find things metal detectors miss, so why use them only if a metal detector goes off? I can supply plenty of more links if you insist on a further demonstration of your ignorance.

Maybe at Tulsa, but its not a TSA mandate. If it does become required that all screening is AIT, then there may be a problem. But currently its required by law

Direct from the article:

"TSA says the image generated only shows the contours of human private parts and also blurs the traveler's face for added privacy.
The body scanners do take longer than traditional metal detectors so as TSA expands the pilot testing to airports in San Francisco, Miami, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, and Albuquerque, it will watch closely to see if the body scanners lead to longer wait times or trigger other concerns from passengers."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm pretty sure the AIT machine is a substitute for the metal detector. In other words, you go through one or the other and if you "fail" either you get a pat down. Or choose the patdown and avoid the machines to begin with.

I am saying that the AIT is unconstitutional because it is more invasive than the metal detector. What part of that argument is so difficult to understand? If it is unconstitutional it does not matter if it is being used to replace something else, does it?

Note:

It is probably constitutional to use it as part of secondary screening if they have some sort of probable cause to step up the scrutiny, but not as the initial search.

If it shows you naked I agree it is more invasive. If it shows you as a stick figure I disagree.

It is, by design, more invasive than a metal detector. It can see through clothes, even if they degrade the images to make them less invasive than they could be. Metal detectors only react if you have metal on, or in, your person. Your attempt to define invasive on the basis of how much you can see ignores the proper use of the term. You could argue that it is acceptable, and we would have a disagreement based on that, which at least would make sense to me, even if we disagree. If you insist on flat out attempting to redefine words it is not going to work.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not so.
My wife and daughter were patted down in Laguardia, given no choice in the matter. Their "crime"? Wearing long skirts.

I edited my post for clarity.

Do you believe people that wear burkas should be able to avoid a pat down?

Absent any other reason, yes.

As do I. We should profile based on intelligence, and remember that perfect safety is impossible to obtain. More people die in the average month form auto accidents alone than were killed on 9/11, and any change that affects our daily lives and basic civil rights based on a statistical outlier is ridiculous. It is not the job of the government to protect us from every possible danger in the world.

 

[Ravi]

I am saying that the AIT is unconstitutional because it is more invasive than the metal detector. What part of that argument is so difficult to understand? If it is unconstitutional it does not matter if it is being used to replace something else, does it?

Note:

It is probably constitutional to use it as part of secondary screening if they have some sort of probable cause to step up the scrutiny, but not as the initial search.

If it shows you naked I agree it is more invasive. If it shows you as a stick figure I disagree.

It is, by design, more invasive than a metal detector. It can see through clothes, even if they degrade the images to make them less invasive than they could be. Metal detectors only react if you have metal on, or in, your person. Your attempt to define invasive on the basis of how much you can see ignores the proper use of the term. You could argue that it is acceptable, and we would have a disagreement based on that, which at least would make sense to me, even if we disagree. If you insist on flat out attempting to redefine words it is not going to work.

You fail regardless because metal detectors do not "see" plastic explosives and weapons.

 

[Common Sense]

I am saying that the AIT is unconstitutional because it is more invasive than the metal detector. What part of that argument is so difficult to understand? If it is unconstitutional it does not matter if it is being used to replace something else, does it?

Note:

It is probably constitutional to use it as part of secondary screening if they have some sort of probable cause to step up the scrutiny, but not as the initial search.

If it shows you naked I agree it is more invasive. If it shows you as a stick figure I disagree.

It is, by design, more invasive than a metal detector. It can see through clothes, even if they degrade the images to make them less invasive than they could be. Metal detectors only react if you have metal on, or in, your person. Your attempt to define invasive on the basis of how much you can see ignores the proper use of the term. You could argue that it is acceptable, and we would have a disagreement based on that, which at least would make sense to me, even if we disagree. If you insist on flat out attempting to redefine words it is not going to work.

what can you suggest an an alternate form of screening to help detect non metallic materials? if there is no other option than is currently on the table, are we really that naive to think any loophole might be exploited? just look at what americans do with tax loop holes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

AIT or Pat downs are secondary screening as it is. They are not replacing metal detectors.

Yes they are.

Body Scanners Used as Primary Screening Technology at Tulsa International Airport | Security Management

These scanners are designed to find things metal detectors miss, so why use them only if a metal detector goes off? I can supply plenty of more links if you insist on a further demonstration of your ignorance.

Maybe at Tulsa, but its not a TSA mandate. If it does become required that all screening is AIT, then there may be a problem. But currently its required by law

Direct from the article:

"TSA says the image generated only shows the contours of human private parts and also blurs the traveler's face for added privacy.
The body scanners do take longer than traditional metal detectors so as TSA expands the pilot testing to airports in San Francisco, Miami, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, and Albuquerque, it will watch closely to see if the body scanners lead to longer wait times or trigger other concerns from passengers."

You really do insist on proving that you are totally unqualified to discuss this issue, don't you?

Q. Is imaging technology optional?
A. Yes, imaging technology screening is optional for all passengers. Passengers who do not wish to receive imagining technology screening will receive alternative screening, including a physical pat-down.

TSA: Frequently Asked Questions

According to the TSA you have two choices, the AIT or a pat down. This is not a secondary screening option after you alert in a metal detector, and the current intent is to install them at all domestic airports, and in foreign airports with flights into the US. Why do you think there was a massive backlash from pilots and flight attendants because of these machines? Or do you think they choose to go through the extra screening and then protested it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If it shows you naked I agree it is more invasive. If it shows you as a stick figure I disagree.

It is, by design, more invasive than a metal detector. It can see through clothes, even if they degrade the images to make them less invasive than they could be. Metal detectors only react if you have metal on, or in, your person. Your attempt to define invasive on the basis of how much you can see ignores the proper use of the term. You could argue that it is acceptable, and we would have a disagreement based on that, which at least would make sense to me, even if we disagree. If you insist on flat out attempting to redefine words it is not going to work.

You fail regardless because metal detectors do not "see" plastic explosives and weapons.

Neither does the AIT, despite the claims otherwise by the TSA.

 

[Ravi]

Yes they are.

Body Scanners Used as Primary Screening Technology at Tulsa International Airport | Security Management

These scanners are designed to find things metal detectors miss, so why use them only if a metal detector goes off? I can supply plenty of more links if you insist on a further demonstration of your ignorance.

Maybe at Tulsa, but its not a TSA mandate. If it does become required that all screening is AIT, then there may be a problem. But currently its required by law

Direct from the article:

"TSA says the image generated only shows the contours of human private parts and also blurs the traveler's face for added privacy.
The body scanners do take longer than traditional metal detectors so as TSA expands the pilot testing to airports in San Francisco, Miami, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, and Albuquerque, it will watch closely to see if the body scanners lead to longer wait times or trigger other concerns from passengers."

You really do insist on proving that you are totally unqualified to discuss this issue, don't you?

Q. Is imaging technology optional?
A. Yes, imaging technology screening is optional for all passengers. Passengers who do not wish to receive imagining technology screening will receive alternative screening, including a physical pat-down.

TSA: Frequently Asked Questions

According to the TSA you have two choices, the AIT or a pat down. This is not a secondary screening option after you alert in a metal detector, and the current intent is to install them at all domestic airports, and in foreign airports with flights into the US. Why do you think there was a massive backlash from pilots and flight attendants because of these machines? Or do you think they choose to go through the extra screening and then protested it?

Hello??? It's the same with metal detectors and no one, including you, cried over it before.

 

[Ravi]

It is, by design, more invasive than a metal detector. It can see through clothes, even if they degrade the images to make them less invasive than they could be. Metal detectors only react if you have metal on, or in, your person. Your attempt to define invasive on the basis of how much you can see ignores the proper use of the term. You could argue that it is acceptable, and we would have a disagreement based on that, which at least would make sense to me, even if we disagree. If you insist on flat out attempting to redefine words it is not going to work.

You fail regardless because metal detectors do not "see" plastic explosives and weapons.

Neither does the AIT, despite the claims otherwise by the TSA.

Right, they can see your nipples but not that plastic gun taped to your leg.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If it shows you naked I agree it is more invasive. If it shows you as a stick figure I disagree.

It is, by design, more invasive than a metal detector. It can see through clothes, even if they degrade the images to make them less invasive than they could be. Metal detectors only react if you have metal on, or in, your person. Your attempt to define invasive on the basis of how much you can see ignores the proper use of the term. You could argue that it is acceptable, and we would have a disagreement based on that, which at least would make sense to me, even if we disagree. If you insist on flat out attempting to redefine words it is not going to work.

what can you suggest an an alternate form of screening to help detect non metallic materials? if there is no other option than is currently on the table, are we really that naive to think any loophole might be exploited? just look at what americans do with tax loop holes.

I can and have. We should stop concentrating on easily circumvented procedures and concentrate on finding terrorists before they get to an airport.

 

[jillian]

So you dislike lawyers except when you find them useful for you and your causes.

all the idiots hate lawyers until they need one.

then it's all "my lawyer can beat up your lawyer".

loons.

i think the only loons are the ones who love getting their crotch rubbed in a public area by a stranger. Must be the only action you get though right?

stop projecting. you're the one sexualizing this, not me. and i do just fine, thanks. no complaints.

but i can't help it if you spend your time fantasizing about getting touched in airports. do you ever even fly?

i wonder, are you as much a total loser in real life as you appear to be on the board?

I also don't see where my comment had anything to do with being touched by TSO's... I do believe, again, that's your fevered imagination working overtime.

why is it the rightwingnut loons always stoop to making nasty sexual comments about women.

me thinks you're the one who doesn't get any.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe at Tulsa, but its not a TSA mandate. If it does become required that all screening is AIT, then there may be a problem. But currently its required by law

Direct from the article:

"TSA says the image generated only shows the contours of human private parts and also blurs the traveler's face for added privacy.
The body scanners do take longer than traditional metal detectors so as TSA expands the pilot testing to airports in San Francisco, Miami, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, and Albuquerque, it will watch closely to see if the body scanners lead to longer wait times or trigger other concerns from passengers."

You really do insist on proving that you are totally unqualified to discuss this issue, don't you?

Q. Is imaging technology optional?
A. Yes, imaging technology screening is optional for all passengers. Passengers who do not wish to receive imagining technology screening will receive alternative screening, including a physical pat-down.

TSA: Frequently Asked Questions

According to the TSA you have two choices, the AIT or a pat down. This is not a secondary screening option after you alert in a metal detector, and the current intent is to install them at all domestic airports, and in foreign airports with flights into the US. Why do you think there was a massive backlash from pilots and flight attendants because of these machines? Or do you think they choose to go through the extra screening and then protested it?

Hello??? It's the same with metal detectors and no one, including you, cried over it before.

Umm.

First, I was pretty young, and much less concerned with civil rights, when metal detectors were introduced to airports. I apologize for letting that go, but I have learned my lesson.

Second, SCOTUS ruled that administrative searches are not violations of the 4th Amendment. While I disagree with their conclusion, I at least understand their argument and reasoning.

Third, arguing about a technology tht the government is phasing out is a bit stupid, in my opinion.

For the record, I think detectors in schools are stupid. It does little to enhance safety, and does more damage to children emotionally than you get in return for the marginal safety increase. That might explain why so few schools in this country actually use them, despite the court rulings saying they are legitimate.

 

[Common Sense]

It is, by design, more invasive than a metal detector. It can see through clothes, even if they degrade the images to make them less invasive than they could be. Metal detectors only react if you have metal on, or in, your person. Your attempt to define invasive on the basis of how much you can see ignores the proper use of the term. You could argue that it is acceptable, and we would have a disagreement based on that, which at least would make sense to me, even if we disagree. If you insist on flat out attempting to redefine words it is not going to work.

what can you suggest an an alternate form of screening to help detect non metallic materials? if there is no other option than is currently on the table, are we really that naive to think any loophole might be exploited? just look at what americans do with tax loop holes.

I can and have. We should stop concentrating on easily circumvented procedures and concentrate on finding terrorists before they get to an airport.

so youre suggestion is to do nothing at airport then. simple enough.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You fail regardless because metal detectors do not "see" plastic explosives and weapons.

Neither does the AIT, despite the claims otherwise by the TSA.

Right, they can see your nipples but not that plastic gun taped to your leg.

It is not my fault they don't work.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrKvweNugnQ&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

You could carry enough plastic explosives in the mouth of a few people to take down a plane, and these scanners do not see inside your mouth.