TSA will soon be "psycho-bullying" people into body scanners

[Alleya]

I know that American conservatives are generally really into private property rights and guns rights, but events of late have taught me that they generally do not give a rat's ass about other rights. So when i see conservatives, staunch ones, complaining about this i very much doubt them.

I think it's more accurate that they only give a rats ass about individual/civil/gun/property rights when it affects them or allows them a vector to indirectly attack people/groups/races/ideas that they do not personally like. The rest of the time they don't give two shits. Hence why so many US conservatives experience no cognitive dissonance when complaining about Christians being persecuted by businesses wishing people "happy holidays" while buying placards to protest the construction of a mosque. Or excusing the failings of capitalism while taking every failing of socialism as a death-blow to the ideology itself.

[Rowe]

http://thebroadside.freedomblogging....onstitutional/
an excerpt
As TSA head John Pistole eluded, it’s the TSA’s opinion that it’s illegal to decline a search that satisfies the TSA once you have entered the security area. This construction of the notion of irrevocable consent clearly violates the 4th Amendment. One must always be allowed to decline a search if one finds it too intrusive. But the quid pro quo is that by declining the search, one may not be permitted to board an aircraft. That’s a choice that Americans clearly have a right to make.
But there is another part of the legal equation that’s not often considered, and that is the TSA’s compliance with the “strict scrutiny” standard of review by the government in formulating its TSA policies.
The strict scrutiny test requires that the government have a “compelling need” to regulate, AND that the regulation be “narrowly tailored” to achieve the “legitimate governmental purpose” without being so over-broad as to encompass things not contemplated by the law. No one can rationally argue that there is not a compelling need to detect and prevent terrorists from blowing up aircraft.
But in the case of enhanced body searches and the scanners, they are unconstitutional because they violate the “legitimate governmental purpose” prong of the strict scrutiny test.
This is the case because the “legitimate governmental purpose” involved is to prevent suicide bombers from getting onto aircraft and detonating their devices, and the current TSA procedures simply cannot actually achieve this legitimate purpose.
This is because neither the scanners nor the gropes can detect a colon-bomb inserted in the rectum.
Such scans do detect underwear bombs and other contraband items that might escape the metal detector, which means that despite their uselessness as a primary protection against plastic explosives on aircraft, they still have a legitimate purpose, even though they are invasive and offensive.
So the question, insofar as the strict scrutiny test is concerned, is whether or not there is a better way to detect not only crotch-bombs and box-cutters but also to effectively detect colon-bombs that is less intrusive than the present procedures?
And the answer is “yes, there is.” It’s an El Al based model that uses layered security, bomb-sniffing dogs, psychological pressure, profiling and interrogation to identify suspicious individuals for further screening using scanners, pat-downs or, if necessary, orifice checks.
And that is what renders both the scanners and the gropes as used now to be unconstitutional. Because there is a better, more effective, less intrusive method of actually detecting suicide bombers or hijackers, what the government is doing now is not “narrowly tailored” to achieve only the “legitimate” government objective.

[bungiefan]

It seems to me that this guy has a much more valid argument than those getting on planes. Freedom of movement has been recognized as a fundamental constitutional right under Article 4 since the 19th century. After a person has passed through customs with a U.S. passport onto American soil, what compelling reason does the government possibly have to perform screenings? At that point, its seems to me no different than if TSA just decided to set up a roadblock at the airport exit and randomly backscatter scan drivers. As part of the terms and conditions in its contract of carriage, an airlines can require passengers to submit to scans. There are no terms and conditions of being a citizen.

On the freedom of movement note, and related to the no-fly list... I have a friend on the no-fly list because TSA didn't have a sense of humor and was excessively harrassing him with questions. Here in Alaska, many locations are only accessible by air. Also, you can't board a boat out of state or drive across the border if you are on that list, and there is no appeals process to get removed from the list. So him being on the no-fly list locks him into this state and keeps him tied to the drivable area of it. That takes away his freedom of movement in the country and state of his citizenship without even giving him any legal procedure to remove himself from the list.

I'm surprised no Alaskans have been publicised protesting this, considering our higher reliance on air travel compared to other states.

[Olo401]

http://thebroadside.freedomblogging....onstitutional/
an excerpt
....
[i]As TSA head John Pistole eluded, it’s the TSA’s opinion that it’s illegal to decline a search that satisfies the TSA once you have entered the security area. This construction of the notion of irrevocable consent clearly violates the 4th Amendment. One must always be allowed to decline a search if one finds it too intrusive. But the quid pro quo is that by declining the search, one may not be permitted to board an aircraft.

There's also the thing about being sued civilly and fined $10k when you refuse all searches, which is an absolute load of shit.

[Amelya]

Now there's reports that after each sexual assault the TSA agents don't change their latex gloves lol.

This wouldn't surprise me at all to be honest. I have yet to see anyone change a pair of gloves in all the footage they've been airing.

I came back from a trip to England right after that bomb scare a few years ago, and I definitely remember being absolutely disgusted at the condition the employees' gloves were in. You could literally see the dirt on them. They were doing some pretty serious pat-downs at the time, and while they weren't going under your clothes, they were still touching under women's bras, in the armpits, and right up to your crotch without ever changing their gloves.

[Byrthnoth]

This is kind of a crock of shit. The workers that enforce these policies are underpaid with a hellish job, so their performance suffers. They end up so focused on ignoring the bullshit they have to put up with that they miss real threats.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...zor-blades.ars

There are also a variety of their policies that just don't make sense. Like confiscating liquids and then combining them in the same waste container. It's all for the sake of "deterrence" but the level of incompetence is just unreal.

[Dayson]

I haven't posted on this website in roughly a year, yet still read the general forums quite regularly. While killing time with you tube I came across a documentary video concerning the failed Christmas day underwear bombing plot. The video gives a detailed account of how America's intelligence community failed to recognize the threat. Also, it details just how the bomber made it through not one, but three different security checkpoints before stepping foot onto that aircraft.

This failed bombing is probably the main cause for the integration of the body scanning equipment and pat downs.

If you have roughly 45 minutes to kill I suggest watching.



Edit: oh and the kicker of the whole thing is they actually tested his bomb on another aircraft and found that if it had worked correctly, all it would've done is kill him and the passenger sitting next to his seat. The plane would've most likely still been airworthy as the fuselage wasn't even punctured. I thought that was interesting to note.

[Talus]

I'm not flying until February, and to me personally I don't care if a stranger can see my junk or the outline of my junk in the name of keeping me safe on planes. Is it an invasion of my privacy? Yes. Do I care? No. I'd rather have my junk imaged than get felt up without them buying me a drink first.

[Max™]

What sort of safety do you gain from getting your junk imaged?

I've got no shame, I'd walk through an airport nude, I really don't care... but the fact that mythbusters guy just busted the myth that the scanners make ANYONE safer is pretty amazing.

Hell, what about this:
http://www.1sks.com/store/media/cold.../cs-92FCAT.jpg

That's plastic, and I'm pretty sure it would cut a person wide open easily, do the backscatter machines see plastic better than they do 12 inch razorblades?

[Maaglin]

This is kind of a crock of shit. The workers that enforce these policies are underpaid with a hellish job, so their performance suffers.

Wow, people with no skills have to work shitty jobs? No wai.

[ZarakiKujata]

Wait hold up is the CEO of Rapescan's parent company THE Deepak Chopra?

edit: nvm, guess not. Would've been funny..

[archibaldcrane]

Working at the TSA is a "hellish" job?

[Norellicus]

I haven't posted on this website in roughly a year, yet still read the general forums quite regularly. While killing time with you tube I came across a documentary video concerning the failed Christmas day underwear bombing plot. The video gives a detailed account of how America's intelligence community failed to recognize the threat. Also, it details just how the bomber made it through not one, but three different security checkpoints before stepping foot onto that aircraft.

This failed bombing is probably the main cause for the integration of the body scanning equipment and pat downs.

If you have roughly 45 minutes to kill I suggest watching.



Edit: oh and the kicker of the whole thing is they actually tested his bomb on another aircraft and found that if it had worked correctly, all it would've done is kill him and the passenger sitting next to his seat. The plane would've most likely still been airworthy as the fuselage wasn't even punctured. I thought that was interesting to note.

So by your own account, the bomb itself was innocuous, but still creates justified need to strip-search every passenger?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

The entire premise is wrong Kuya. Everyone's a potential terrorist, wrong. It's more intrusive than necessary. They don't delete the images like they claim. They haven't caught a single terrorist. It's all worthless.

And what do you mean conservatives don't care about "other peoples rights?"

And aurik, if liberals gave govt. power worth influencing, how is that capitalism's fault?

[Kuya]

The entire premise is wrong Kuya. Everyone's a potential terrorist, wrong. It's more intrusive than necessary. They don't delete the images like they claim. They haven't caught a single terrorist. It's all worthless.

And what do you mean conservatives don't care about "other peoples rights?"

And aurik, if liberals gave govt. power worth influencing, how is that capitalism's fault?

Why is it wrong to assume everyone's a potential terrorist?

Why is it more intrusive than necessary?

I'll give you the point that they don't delete the images like they claim. But the argument that it's useless because they haven't caught a single terrorist is fallacious, but interestingly it is fallacious no matter how you put it: If you say that it's working because there have been no plane highjackings, then you're wrong because that doesn't prove the measures are working. If you say that it's not working because it hasn't caught a terrorist, you're wrong because it doesn't prove the measures aren't working. In every case the problem is a lack of empirical and substantial evidence and the circumstances of the situation do not facilitate a collection of valid evidence.

[kuronosan]

I agree with Swamp again. Totally unnecessary as it has neither deterred nor caught any terrorist.

All it has done is show how irresponsible these people are, just like everyone said they would be, when using these scanners.

Airport security is lol for a reason. Ceramic knives, high-impact plastic knives... disguised properly will be undetectable. Yet they think these body scanners will find what they're looking for?

Don't make me laugh.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

It's not fallacious Kuya because we know it hasn't worked. How do we know? Because it's been passengers who have stopped terrorists or the terrorists themselves fucked up. How else do we know it doesn't work? It's entirely reactive. Until a terrorist does something we don't check for it.

[aurik]

And aurik, if liberals gave govt. power worth influencing, how is that capitalism's fault?

Funny how you blame that roundly on liberals. It's politicians in general. Also, conservatives historically have been big business's bitch when it comes to passing legislation for their corporate overlords. See also the 5-4 "conservative" SCOTUS decision regarding corporate financing of political campaigns.

[Kuya]

It's not fallacious Kuya because we know it hasn't worked. How do we know? Because it's been passengers who have stopped terrorists or the terrorists themselves fucked up. How else do we know it doesn't work? It's entirely reactive. Until a terrorist does something we don't check for it.

The former: not conclusive. The latter: true

You haven't answered the questions i asked you.

[archibaldcrane]

Are you guys really coming down on Swampy for disliking the new TSA searches in a way that displeases you?