"Naked body" scanners

[MikeG]

Let's assume that most DUI's happen between 0200 and 0400. In the name of "safety" the government says nobody can drive during those hours. It would probably save a few lives... but did/does the government actually have the right to do that?

They close the bars at 2:00 here. Can't buy a drink.

[Cat_Doc]

Uhm, Mike, the last couple of incidents were not takeover attempts. They were trying to take the aircraft down utilizing small body attached explosives for the fear factor.

[Trip]

As I said, I don't fly. But I'm not going to willy-nilly surrender to what I believe to be a blatant 4th Amendment violation to make me feel "safer".

Wisco, with all due respect, if you flew as much as I did, especially out of Dulles and into the places I fly, you'd be happy to submit to it, and I say that as a female. Wait, let me reword this. Yes, when I go through security, I assume a whole bunch of my privacy is invaded, but what goes through my mind each time is that the bad guys are still always one step ahead and my bigger concern is whether our guys are actually doing enough.

[Trip]

And TSA has given me reason to believe they will use it unreasonably unless safeguards are put in.

I'm just catching up with this thread and still on page 1 so I haven't read everyone's arguments.....I do agree with you RDS about TSA needing safeguards and training. That would be my preference. Having said that, TSA does not make the best impression on me when I go thru airports, but I'm still willing to submit to just about anything they ask of me, regardless of what I think of their organization. I think they have an extremely difficult task. But that's probably just because of doing so many international flights in and out of the Mideast.

[MikeG]

Uhm, Mike, the last couple of incidents were not takeover attempts. They were trying to take the aircraft down utilizing small body attached explosives for the fear factor.

Then I would say that the threat then is where the plane can crash (i.e. chosen by bomber). The external threat to airplanes on the ground from outside the sterile area is just too pronounced for the individual aircraft safety to be the primary concern. Could it? It is all just an illusion of safety?

I guess they also put all the effort in airline safety when cars kill a lot more people per person mile. Just not all at once. I never understood the amount of money invested in aircraft safety and the amount of liability juries are willing to award for aircraft accidents that are comparable to car accidents.

[Trip]

Second, it's this kind of rationalization that is pissing a lot of Americans off. You're not fooling me by trying to convince me this is for "my safety". Do what you must to keep this country and its people safe, that is expected. Do not violate my rights to do it.

You're trying to sugar coat a government endorsed violation, it won't fly with me.

Wisco, the people getting pissed off are not the ones taking these flights. Talk to business people who fly a lot, and yes you can look around and see us looking grumpy in the long *** lines, but we look at it differently than you do.

[Cat_Doc]

No doubt about it, car crashes kill way more than aircraft. This is one of the reasons that seatbelts are mandated, but Wisco does not like that either.

I don't like unnecessary government intrusion. But, there are tons of idiots driving cars out there that pose danger to us and there is no doubt there are fanatics out there who wish to intentionally kill us. If they can't kill us, then they want to paralyze us utilizing terror.

I think Wisco would agree with me that I do not want nor need a cop parked in front of my house shaking down visitors and questioning my every move. I can protect my home myself.

However, when voluntarily getting onto a plane with a bunch of strangers, I tolerate the inconveniences in the name of safety.

[Trip]

So you're assuming there will be one?

Wisco, I'm not betraying any classified info by saying this....as all you have to do is turn on CNN or Fox on a daily basis and hear it said all the time by their anchors and guests.....but it was pretty much a given that we were going to have follow-on attacks. Those of us from that community think it's been a fricken miracle we haven't had it. That's a tribute to the amazing job law enforcement, FBI, etc. have done since 2001. I personally think the homegrown threat is going to get worse.

[Trip]

My right against unreasonable searches. Please tell me where it becomes reasonable to see every potential paassenger naked.

I think the general public is very, very insulated from what the real threat is. Ignorance is bliss. If you're unfortunate enough to be more aware about it, you're likely to think, like I do, that we're not even doing enough.

[Trip]

Oy vey. You'ree missing how deep this issue goes. It is yet another government regulation inside private business. It is another intrusion into the free market that has the added bonus of violating privacy.

I never consented to my government mandating body scanners inside a private sector business. If the business choses to do so, it's different. Or let the government build their own airline and scan to their hearts content.

Being the bourgeois capitalist pig that I am, I'm probably one of the most "libertarian" people on this entire forum....wanting a lot less government intrusion in the business and markets like you do, wisco..... but on this issue of scans and flights, it's a whole different matter.

[MikeG]

For example go here: ASRS - Aviation Safety Reporting System

This is voluntary reporting database of safety incidents that acts sort of like "get of jail free card" for pilot and controller errors. Idea is that reporting violations will make it safer and punishing reporters will make them less likely to report.


Look up ACN: 879171 and you will see what I mean. This was just an innocent mistake. Happened in March 2010.

Don't search too much or you'll never fly again.

[Trip]

I think it was you who said you could probably stop a lot more crime if you could enter any house at will, and you would be right. But in keeping with the nature of the 4th Amendment that just isn't possible.

I support the fact that my government wants to keep me safe and I encourage them to do it, so long as it is done within the confines laid out by the Constitution. In this matter, I believe they have crossed that line.

Wisco, I don't want to appear to be piling on as I always like when people offer different thinking on a subject, but I don't think you're understanding the profound impact 911 had on our country, and particularly not its economic impact. Do you know how much it crippled our economy for the short time it did? Do you have any idea how much money it equates to when you ground every single aircraft in the country.....then multiply the many other economic ripples thru the economy......no one remembers, but part of why this recession has been worse is due to some of the decisions that were made to help pull us out of one hell of an economic mess caused by 911....like dropping the interest rates to make up for the fear that stalled the economy back then...which then contributed to the bubbles....and the list goes on....

[retdetsgt]

I think the general public is very, very insulated from what the real threat is. Ignorance is bliss. If you're unfortunate enough to be more aware about it, you're likely to think, like I do, that we're not even doing enough.

That's no doubt true. But still, people are willing to tolerate a lot of intrusion in order to board a plane. BUT, they will not tolerate an infinite amount of it. You can use this stuff only as long as you have public support for it. And there is a line there that people will not cross. After you've been in LE for a while, it's easy to start thinking that the end always justifies the means, but we have to have public support for any actions. That's what this country is all about. And various government agencies have had to relearn that idea periodically.

The executive branch can only do what the legislative and judicial allow them to do. And public opinion has a tremendous influence on Congress regardless of party affiliation. If too many people feel that TSA overstepped a reasonable boundary, they will start complaining to Congress. And it won't be the people who don't fly, but complain they listen to, it will be people who have personal stories of being subjected to unreasonable searches that will get their ear. And if the use of scanners is continually abused, Congress may well not be willing to compromise and that could cost lives down the line. And you can bet that the media is going to keep this a hot button issue.

For example, at some point, if the government is going to store these images, they're going to have to articulate a reason why. Particularly after the aircraft has landed safely at its destination. Once the the flight is completed, the scans are moot. Keeping unnecessary files on the public was successfully challenged in the courts a few decades ago.

That's why you can't talk about the use of them without talking about who will be using them and how. All this is going to make an impact on what the public thinks about it and what they will tolerate. I cooperate with TSA too, it's senseless not to if you want to get on the plane. And I'm one of those who always gets his bags searched, etc. and I don't have a problem with that because it makes sense to me. But watch what will happen if too many Congressmen's mothers are run through a body scan when TSA can't articulate a good reason why.

[Trip]

That's no doubt true. But still, people are willing to tolerate a lot of intrusion in order to board a plane. BUT, they will not tolerate an infinite amount of it. You can use this stuff only as long as you have public support for it. And there is a line there that people will not cross. After you've been in LE for a while, it's easy to start thinking that the end always justifies the means, but we have to have public support for any actions. That's what this country is all about. And various government agencies have had to relearn that idea periodically.

The executive branch can only do what the legislative and judicial allow them to do. And public opinion has a tremendous influence on Congress regardless of party affiliation. If too many people feel that TSA overstepped a reasonable boundary, they will start complaining to Congress. And it won't be the people who don't fly, but complain they listen to, it will be people who have personal stories of being subjected to unreasonable searches that will get their ear. And if the use of scanners is continually abused, Congress may well not be willing to compromise and that could cost lives down the line. And you can bet that the media is going to keep this a hot button issue.

For example, at some point, if the government is going to store these images, they're going to have to articulate a reason why. Particularly after the aircraft has landed safely at its destination. Once the the flight is completed, the scans are moot. Keeping unnecessary files on the public was successfully challenged in the courts a few decades ago.

That's why you can't talk about the use of them without talking about who will be using them and how. All this is going to make an impact on what the public thinks about it and what they will tolerate. I cooperate with TSA too, it's senseless not to if you want to get on the plane. And I'm one of those who always gets his bags searched, etc. and I don't have a problem with that because it makes sense to me. But watch what will happen if too many Congressmen's mothers are run through a body scan when TSA can't articulate a good reason why.

We're in violent agreement, RDS. I'm also one of those people who doesn't hesitate to complain when organizations or people are overstepping their bounds. In fact I'm kinda notorious for it. And I agree with you about images being subject to abuse if there aren't safeguards....and I expect those kinks to be worked out ...at least eventually. One final thought though. I disagree with people in the govt, regardless of their politics, that are saying we're getting much better at handling terrorism. I believe the opposite, and I believe the threat's become even more decentralized. I believe it's only a matter of time before the next "event" and the public will look at things differently at that point. But I do agree totally with your post.

[Joeyd6]

Oy vey. You'ree missing how deep this issue goes. It is yet another government regulation inside private business. It is another intrusion into the free market that has the added bonus of violating privacy.

You have no right to privacy when you drive a car on government owned/maintained/regulated streets. You also have no right to privacy when you fly in government regulated air space. The need of the many outweigh the few. If you don't like it, fly private, not commercial and you don't have go through it. You do all this complaining, yet there are other options there which can suite your desire to avoid security and such. YOU chose not to take them.

I never consented to my government mandating body scanners inside a private sector business.

The government does not need your consent. You only need consent when such applies under Constitutional Law. It does not apply when traveling through a government facility, to a commercial plane, which is then flown above the general population. Airports with commercial airlines are not private. Airports government owned facilities. Airlines rent space from them. Thus your theory is debunked there, as the scanner is inside a government building, not a private sector business.

If the business choses to do so, it's different. Or let the government build their own airline and scan to their hearts content.

There was security pre-9/11. Maybe you don't remember. But as time has passed, PEOPLE and TECHNOLOGY have evolved. You used to have to wind up your car with a crank handle before you drove it and then every so often. Technology advanced and now you don't have to do that and we have engines, which are regulated by the EPA. And now there are more cars on the road we have engineered seatbelts and airbags, which the DOT now regulates and mandates be in each car. Again, government in private business, evolving with the technology.
Are you telling me you are screaming you didn't ask for that or want that? Are you driving an old Ford Model T to protest such? Or are you just a hypocrite making a big deal about one small issue you care about? Or are you somebody who just does not belive this world shoudl progress with times?
If you get in a car and start it with a key, put gas in it, wear a seatbelt, or put your kids in a car seat, and never taken issue about that government intrusion making your life safer, then you realize you are nothing more than a hypocrite complaining.

I see. So if there's an intruder in my home and I call the police, but he shoots me before you get here - can I sue you for not getting here fast enough?

Not for not getting there fast enough, but possibly for a variety of other circumstances, depending on the facts. It has happened and municipalities have paid out for such. Where did you get your law degree? I know where I got mine and I will tell you this, you idealistic thinking would have you failing out your first semester even at the most liberal college. You are using a black and white interpretation of the U.S. Constitution which you forget was designed and is a living document, thus it is shades of gray. You really need to take a Constitutional Law class so you can understand the document and realize the ACLU talking points are flawed. It will also make you not sound as ignorant.

socialistic-nanny-state-cradle-to-grave-hand-holding-non-representative farce of a government that's driving it into the ground using every excuse from "safety" to "sanitation" as justification

You are not going to have your cake and eat it too. You want to complain on here, be consistent in your views or we will point out the flaws. Lets get down to the point. Who did you vote for in the last Presidential election? Is healthcare a right or privilege? Is education a right privilege?

I cannot believe that you would consider any part of a strip search impersonal

Obviously you have never conducted one or been through one. There is no personal between anyone when I tell you in a police cage to strip, bend over and spread your cheeks. It is actually a very impersonal experience and any prisoner who has been one will tell you that.

Joey, there are plenty of other cases regarding the police and duty to protect (or lackthereof) issue.

I live in the real world. Not a website. Not with armchair lawyers. Not a theoretical classroom. I work the law from the street and in court. Referencing a website from a private individual which includes a article dated 1992….some 18 years ago! Try something a little more factual/non-biased and something recent.

I support the fact that my government wants to keep me safe and I encourage them to do it, so long as it is done within the confines laid out by the Constitution. In this matter, I believe they have crossed that line.

You can say it is raining pink elephants outside. But you have to prove it. You have not in 5 pages of discussion backed up your point of view with any sound legal theory. If you believe in this so much, write a “quasi” legal brief/argument on why/how you can back-up your opinions, quoting facts and specific case law, instead of these random “what ifs” or nonsense websites and non-applicable cases. Argue your point on how it is unreasonable and what proof you have it is unreasonable.