Homeland Security Says They Could Strip Search Every Airline Passenger If They Wanted To

from the what-fourth-amendment? dept

Michael Scott points us to Bob Barr highlighting how Homeland Security, in its defense of airport scanners and patdowns, has said that, if it chose to do so, it could strip search every airline passenger, without any 4th Amendment scrutiny. I guess it's only out of their own kindness that they've chosen not to do so. Of course, this raises some pretty key Constitutional questions. If the TSA can strip search anyone with no reason at all, then does the 4th Amendment really exist? Yes, courts have said that the basic scanning of airline passengers is Constitutional, but it does not appear to have set any real limits on that scanning. And that's part of the reason why security theater at the airports just keeps ratcheting up. But at some point, shouldn't we step back and ask if such a scenario, in which everyone who flies is first strip searched, could possibly match with what the framers of the Constitution meant when they said:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It's more than a bit troubling that we keep seeing more and more chipping away at the Constitution, as people (including judges and politicians) make excuses about how it's effectively "okay this time, because..." where the "because" can and will be stretched, twisted and distorted to the point that the original Constitutional keystones no longer really exist.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    william (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 9:34am

    I think the American forefathers should have chose "absolutely not" but they choose the weaker word of "shall not", which sounds less stern.

    Because of the weaker level of the language, judges/politicians get to weasel out of it.

    The constitution is like a dam holding a tide and now judges/politicians/government are punching holes everywhere with their assault rifle.

    How long before the dam finally break and we are all swept away?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      John Doe, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 9:55am

      Re:

      I don't think the words "shall not" are weasel words at all. If it said "should not", then I would agree. To me, there is only one way to interpret "shall not".

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        pixelpusher220 (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:52am

        Re: Re:

        Speaking of 'weasel words'...

        Does anyone have a link to the actual court transcript so this isn't just someone 'saying' they said it?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Jess, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:06am

      Re:

      Thou shalt not murder! Good thing those pesky commandments are less firm...now to go find my neighbor's wife!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:24am

        Re: Re:

        Well, if you look at the interpretations of the commandments we do get a lot off "it's OK this time because..."

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 11:52am

        Re: Re:

        Thou shalt not murder*!

        * Unless it's a non-Jew**.

        ** If you're a Christian, change the above to Christian.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          PRMan, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 12:38pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yes, because all the Christians I know go around murdering everyone.

          They don't build hospitals and schools and homeless shelters and food banks or anything...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 1:42pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            They don't burn heretics and witches. They don't go on crusades or fight in holy wars or create inquisitions. They don't commit ethnic cleansing. They don't kill/physicall attack abortion doctors or homosexuals or muslims. Just look at the bible. Look at Joshua. Look at Deuteronomy. Look at Psalm. Look at the war that George W. Bush called a "crusade."

            There's a difference between "Thou shalt not murder Christians" and "Thou shalt murder non-Christians." It's the first, not the second. Learn English.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              hegemon13, Mar 24th, 2011 @ 7:14am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              People do terrible things, period. Throughout history, every single race and religion has committed horrifying acts against other people.

              I am a Christian, and George W. Bush does NOT represent me. The crusades and witch trials do not represent me. Those are examples of people doing evil things and twisting religion to justify it.

              There are no exceptions to "thou shalt not kill." There are certainly those, whom you have mentioned, that have disobeyed that command. There are those who have used and abused the church to build false authority, and then oppressed others with that power. But they are no less subject to the commandments. It is not Christians or Jews that said "thou shalt not kill" in the Bible. It was God. Yes, the Israelites disobeyed. Yes, people still disobey. Some of the disobedient call themselves Christians or Jews. The disobedience and hypocrisy of people from that point forward just demostrates how distant we are from God.

              If any Christian comes to you with an attitude of superiority, of "I am better because I am Christian," then they have entirely missed the point.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      hegemon13, Mar 24th, 2011 @ 6:53am

      Re:

      How is "shall not" weak? "Absolutely" adds nothing. "Not" and "absolutely not" mean the exact same thing. "Shall not" is, in fact quite strong. It is a command, an absolute statement similar to "will not." It also echoes the language of a certain other set of commandments that many Americans find quite powerful.

      Weak language would be "should not," which would leave room for rationalizations and loopholes. "Shall not" is, by definition, absolute, and it leaves no question that the current activities are unconstitutional.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 9:46am

    People are free to choose not to engage in air travel. Is there some other constitutional right that people are unable to exercise if they so choose?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      trolonymous, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 9:51am

      Re:

      People are free to choose not to engage in air travel. Is there some other constitutional right that people are unable to exercise if they so choose?

      Nice trolling. By that logic, strip searching outside your house is perfectly legal and you can just choose to not leave your house.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:05am

        Re: Re:

        Nice trolling. By that logic, strip searching outside your house is perfectly legal and you can just choose to not leave your house.

        A strip search outside your house would be unreasonable absent exigent circumstances. The reason searches can occur at the airport is because the Supreme Court says they're not unreasonable. The Fourth Amendment only protects people from unreasonable searches.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Steven (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:11am

          Re: Re: Re:

          So well just search you before you get in your car. After all far more people are killed each year by vehicles, you'll be driving on public roads, and you really have no right to car travel.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          :Lobo Santo (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:26am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "A strip search outside your house would be unreasonable absent exigent circumstances. The reason searches can occur at the airport is because the Supreme Court says they're not unreasonable. The Fourth Amendment only protects people from unreasonable searches."
          Hey, there are reasons! Someone, somewhere is a terrorist. And that someone might be planning on doing something, eventually.

          Thus, it's only right that you're strip-searched AND cavity-searched and given an MRI and drug-tested and DNA tested and psych-profiled the moment you step out your front door.

          After that's done, they'll just need to verify your identity against your on-file colonic map and you're on your way.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          velox (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 12:36pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "The Fourth Amendment only protects people from unreasonable searches."

          The 4th amendment gives us guidance as to what enables a reasonable search. It's called Probable Cause

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Mar 24th, 2011 @ 1:33am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The supreme court last I heard was part of the government was it not?

          So the government is saying that it is reasonable to strip search everyone inside an airport if they deem necessary without probable cause or suspicion just because they can?

          That is not what the constitution of the U.S. says at all.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Mar 24th, 2011 @ 1:35am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Well that is settle them we just need to get the supreme court to say strip searching you outside your home in any public setting is ok.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Doug, May 10th, 2013 @ 1:34am

          Airport searches and 4th Amendment.

          Airport searches are considered reasonable because they are performed as a matter of contract law, not statutory law. (49USC44902). They become unreasonable when TSA gets involved.

          Passengers agree to submit to a search of their person and property as part of the contract between the passenger and the airline. TSA is not a party to this contract.

          No contract can lawfully require either party to engage in any unlawful activity (such as submitting to sexual contact and/or an act of public indecency) as a condition of the contract.

          Nothing in the law or passengers contract of carriage grants TSA any authority to molest or irradiate passengers as a condition of flying on any commercial carrier, quite the contrary. Sexual assault is a crime in all 50 states, and the District of Columbia, as well as under federal law.
          TSA employees have a right under federal and state law to refuse to break the law without fear of retaliation. Indeed, any TSA agent who is asked to perform a pat-down can file a sexual harassment action against his/her employer.

          The 4th amendment is very clear and unambiguous. Equally clear is government's increasing tendency to ignore all ten amendments.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            nasch (profile), May 10th, 2013 @ 6:38am

            Re: Airport searches and 4th Amendment.

            Airport searches are considered reasonable because they are performed as a matter of contract law, not statutory law.

            I thought the rationale is that it's reasonable because of the government's/public's interest in ensuring safe travel.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        ppartekim (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 12:06pm

        100 mile strip search

        So if TSA says they can strip search any one they want the 4th amendment is gone. The TSA is part of the US Customs dept and Customs has 100 mile jurisdiction from any US border and borders are defined and any entry point into the US (Sea Ports, Airports, etc). So, since most of the population lives within 100 miles of a airport, TSA could strip search you when you leave the house.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 12:26pm

          Re: 100 mile strip search

          Sorry for my french but..

          Do you really believe that bullshit?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Christopher (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 12:37pm

            Re: Re: 100 mile strip search

            It's not bullshit, Coward (apparently that is why you are posting as a coward, you don't want to justify your position).

            He is espousing exactly what will happen when another terrorist attack happens and the politicians whine that "This is the only way to keep you safe!"

            Remember: they said it couldn't happen in Nazi Germany (which the United States is moving closer and closer to their fascism) and it damned well did!

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Vincent Clement (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 4:57pm

            Re: Re: 100 mile strip search

            Not bullshit. CPB has setup 'checkpoints' well away from the US-Mexico border in Texas and last year I saw CBP agents pulling people over as they were leaving the US to Canada.

            Where are all the small-government Tea Party types on this issue?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Teaparty D-lite, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 7:04pm

              Re: Re: Re: 100 mile strip search

              please, teabaggers couldn't give a rat's ass about this "small government" bullshit they spew. they only care that brown/black people are regulated or (preferably) kicked/kept out of the US and they don't have to spend a dime to do it. they're sold on the what-ifs of the american dream and actively reject having to pay for it.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                hegemon13, Mar 24th, 2011 @ 7:25am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: 100 mile strip search

                Actually, the so-called Tea Party is whatever the hell somebody wants it to be. It means nothing because it stands for nothing. At the beginning, the Tea Party was a Libertarian movement that stemmed from those who were fighting for a Ron Paul presidency. Then Palin stepped in and declared herself the leader of the movement and confused the whole thing by injecting her neo-con vitriol into the mix.

                Now, you're right. There are a lot of racist, anti-government, anti-everything jackasses that call themselves the Tea Party. Just understand that they are there not because Libertarians believe that garbage, but because the movement was hi-jacked by the same neo-cons that it was initially formed to protest.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              hegemon13, Mar 24th, 2011 @ 7:19am

              Re: Re: Re: 100 mile strip search

              www.dailypaul.com


              There you go. Article after article, statement after statement on this issue by the guy who is considered the "father of the Tea Party." Unfortunately, most of the Tea Party has become a bit of a rebellious, ungrateful child that doesn't really understand much of what it's father was actually saying.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 1:07pm

        Re: Re:

        While I admit my tone may have seemed a bit troll-ish, I genuinely wanted an answer to my question. The argument "this search is not unreasonable because if you choose to travel by air, due to serious security concerns you have no reasonable expectation of privacy while doing so" seems unlikely to convince voters that strip searches are a good idea, but I don't see why it definitely wouldn't convince a court about the Fourth Amendment issue.

        My question is meant to differentiate this from strip searching outside your house, because there are a great many other constitutional and statutory rights that I would not be able to exercise without getting strip searched under that regime (e.g. freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, right to vote, right to get an abortion, etc., etc.).

        (Such searches would also clearly be unconstitutional under existing Fourth Amendment law, but again, that's not my question.)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 31st, 2011 @ 1:34pm

        Re: Re:

        Nice trolling. By that logic, strip searching outside your house is perfectly legal and you can just choose to not leave your house.


        Not really. The issue is that they claim they could require a strip search of anyone seeking to board a commercial plane, not that they claim they can strip search everyone anywhere (at least not yet).

        In much the same way you consent to a police-administered sobriety test by the act of driving on a public roadway; you are, in effect, consenting to a search by passing through security at an airport. The ways and means of acceptable search that are used (and what methods should be acceptable, i.e. whether strip searching is OK) can and should be debated, but the fact remains that the choice to fly is giving consent to search you and your stuff.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Steven (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 9:56am

      Re:

      You have it backwards. The constitution doesn't grant us a right to air travel (or any other right for that matter) it limits what the government can do. The government is prohibited by the constitution from search and seizures without at least probable cause.

      The government cannot simply ignore the constitution because you buy a plane ticket. (well they can, but they are not supposed to, and we should be able to get this rolled back).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:15am

        Re: Re:

        You have this right when so many people don't get it. The Bill of Rights is not an outline of what we are allowed to do because the government says we can - its an outline of the limitations of the government's power over us. We have these rights purely as a matter of the natural order and the Bill of Rights is supposed to prevent the government from infringing upon those rights.

        Its sad that not only do so few people understand that, but that the government and the courts continually erode the meanings of these rights.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          halley (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:51am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The Constitution doesn't say what rights you have, it says what powers the Government has (and clarifies some of the powers it explicitly doesn't have).

          I wish we could get a set of public service announcements put on the air, sort of a "Schoolhouse Rock for Citizenry." For instance, this point is covered explicitly by the Ninth and Tenth Amendment. Thirty seconds per Amendment, cycling through all the Amendments on a regular basis, over the course of a few months.

          Also, it's useful to remember that the only Amendment that explicitly removed a right from the people was also the only Amendment to be outright repealed by another Amendment.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            PRMan, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 12:42pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Also, it's useful to remember that the only Amendment that explicitly removed a right from the people was also the only Amendment to be outright repealed by another Amendment.

            The 17th Amendment took away the right to own slaves. Are you saying it was repealed? (I admit I was busy in the office all weekend.)

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              PRMan, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 12:43pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              (I don't agree with slavery, just pointing out that several Amendments have taken away rights.)

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 1:23pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Um, first of all, the 13th Amendment took away the right to own slaves. But I believe halley is talking about the 18th amendment, Prohibition, which was repealed by the 21st amendment.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 1:16pm

        Re: Re:

        Your "constitution grants rights" vs "constitution restricts government" distinction is technically correct but is irrelevant to this hypothetical. Here's a rephrasing of the original question that's hopefully precise enough that you can think about the question instead of attacking the language:

        Suppose that the DHS is correct that mandatory strip searches for all air travelers would not be "unreasonable" under the Fourth Amendment. Would such a policy nevertheless violate other constitutional restrictions on what the government can do?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:21am

      Re:

      Courts have upheld that travel, including air travel, is a right, so yes, if they're saying that you have to be strip-searched to fly, then that is at odds. (I realize that it's not specifically mentioned in the constitution, but it has been interpreted by judges as such)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:34am

        Re: Re:

        Courts have upheld that travel, including air travel, is a right, so yes, if they're saying that you have to be strip-searched to fly, then that is at odds. (I realize that it's not specifically mentioned in the constitution, but it has been interpreted by judges as such)

        The right to interstate travel is the right to enter and to leave another state, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor, and the right to be treated equally if you decide to move there permanently. Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). The right to travel abroad is a liberty guaranteed by due process. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958).

        This right may be regulated within the bounds of due process if the regulation is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The fact that other means of travel are available does not help your position.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          :Lobo Santo (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:38am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "This right may be regulated within the bounds of due process if the regulation is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The fact that other means of travel are available does not help your position."
          You're invalidating your own argument. These searches are not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

          Especially given the fact that the government is allegedly "of the people, for the people" and allegedly exists "to serve the will of the people".

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      wnzook, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 11:09am

      Re:

      there is no choice if you need to travel for work and do it in a timely fashion flying ids the only way. So, you argument is disingenuous. Maybe we should move back to the horse and buggy days... an we only had sailing ships to cross the sea.....

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Cowardly Cowering, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 6:53pm

      Re:

      I think, back then, in the 18th Century, that was "stern language" in the sense that "shall not" meant to them what "absolutely cannot" means to us.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btr1701 (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 8:15pm

      Re: Searches

      > People are free to choose not to engage
      > in air travel.

      Yes, and the TSA is also doing this to people who choose to ride trains instead. And they're also doing it to people who choose to drive cars instead.

      I predict your next idiotic defense of this unprecedented and monstrous violation of the Constitution will be:

      "People are free to choose not to leave their homes. What's the big deal? Oh, wait... they're searching homes now, too? Well, people are free to choose not to... not to... hmmm... I'm sure there's something they're free to choose not to do to keep from being searched against their will. Just can't think of it right now."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      nathan, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 8:57pm

      Re:

      people are free to choose not to engage in car travel, does that mean D.O.T can strip search me before I drive?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 24th, 2011 @ 1:37am

      Re:

      The constitutional right to move freely without fear or undue burdens that is on the constitution it is not?

      There you go everyone has a right to travel using whatever means they want and not be harassed by tugs.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Jack, Mar 24th, 2011 @ 4:59am

      Re: TSA

      If people had any guts in America they would not fly. It would take about two weeks to shutdown the airlines if people would stop supporting this kind of treson. If we don't do something soon we are going to loose what we have and never get it back.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Ben, Mar 24th, 2011 @ 5:12pm

      Re:

      You are correct. People do not have to fly. However, If a private airport wants to have private security at their airport on THEIR dollar that is fine by me. But since when does MY tax dollar run security for a corporate airline company? It's disgusting. If someone bombs a train or a bus are they going to install TSA agents at all of these places? It is a severe infringement on a lot of levels and the "no ones forcing you to fly" argument is a load of propaganda. open your eyes

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        nasch (profile), Mar 24th, 2011 @ 10:22pm

        Re: Re:

        If someone bombs a train or a bus are they going to install TSA agents at all of these places?

        The answer to that question seems pretty clear. :-(

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Brendan, Feb 27th, 2013 @ 7:56am

      Re:

      Only the second if democrats have their way.

      Oh, and that annoying right to worship part of the first.

      DHS searches are kabuki theater. I personally (by mistake) had a box cutter switchblade in my backpack that I went through the X-rays with on 6 round trips. They finally caught it when I forgot to remove a can of soda from my backpack, and the large roundish object attracted their dim attention.

      I'll take the pepsi challenge. Abolish the TSA.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    John Doe, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 9:51am

    They are no longer chipping away at our rights...

    They use to chip away at our rights but now they are making off with them like bandits. It use to be subtle, in the name of drugs, DUI, etc. Now they throw in the word terrorism and they can rob you of your rights in broad daylight.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Mr. Smarta**, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 9:56am

    How far is too far?

    "We've had reports that terrorists are surgically replacing their testicles for explosives, so we'll of course need to castrate all travelers before they get on the planes."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Christopher Gizzi (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:01am

    Travel in Fear

    When you travel in fear of being chosen for strip searches, are you really free? Free from worry, free from emotional trauma, free from questionable searches & changing the law on a whim?

    And if you're not free from fear from your own government taking the clothes off someone and prodding them while naked just to move from place to place, haven't the terrorists already won?

    The real fear I have isn't from an violent attack, it's from my government terrorizing me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      weneedhelp (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 11:08am

      Re: Travel in Fear

      There is a line from a band called Nuclear Assault, in a song appropriately named When Freedom dies:

      We become, the enemy, when freedom dies, for security.
      Nuclear Assault - 1989 - Handle With Care

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Christopher Gizzi (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 1:03pm

        Re: Re: Travel in Fear

        Wow, awesome reference! I haven't thought of Nuclear Assault in a while (after leaving my metal days behind when I graduated high school). I know the song you're talking about. For some reason, I only bought Something Wicked but I'm very familiar with the band and the song you mention.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          weneedhelp (profile), Mar 25th, 2011 @ 2:21pm

          Re: Re: Re: Travel in Fear

          I still love metal to this day and I am 41. In fact, if it was not for the napster days, I would most likely still listen to just Metal.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      PRMan, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 12:44pm

      Re: Travel in Fear

      "naked just to move from place to place, haven't the terrorists already won?"

      Most assuredly yes.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 2:06pm

      Re: Travel in Fear

      When you travel in fear of being chosen for strip searches, are you really free?


      It should be noted that the DHS is claiming that it could strip search everyone who flies, but not necessarily that it could strip search only some people. For border searches, to some extent it's the non-routineness of a search that triggers a requirement for reasonable suspicion.

      (Perhaps a search that might be routine on the Mexican border could be non-routine and require reasonable suspicion on the Canadian border? I don't actually know examples of this, but it seems plausible.)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Mar 24th, 2011 @ 10:27pm

      Re: Travel in Fear

      Perhaps it's when we don't fear it because we've gotten used to it that the terrorists have really won. That would certainly be when we've truly lost, at any rate.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:08am

    Of course, this raises some pretty key Constitutional questions. If the TSA can strip search anyone with no reason at all, then does the 4th Amendment really exist?

    LOL! Classic Mike FUD bomb.

    Of course it exists, professor, the question is how you define the word "unreasonable."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Gwiz (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:26am

      Re:

      Of course it exists, professor, the question is how you define the word "unreasonable."

      I would most definitely define being strip searched every time I wanted to fly as unreasonable, wouldn't you?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:28am

      Re:

      Hint: If you want to search everyone single person, you aren't being reasonable.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:29am

      Re:

      "...with no reason at all..." sounds pretty unreasonable to me.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        The Groove Tiger (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 11:32am

        Re: Re:

        The question is how you define "no" and "at all".

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          harbingerofdoom (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 12:30pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          and the answer, unless you work for cuyahoga county is "no means no and at all means at all"

          if you work for the above mentioned county it may at that point very well mean "puppies are blue, ocean may originate"

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Marcus Carab (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 11:17am

      Re:

      Don't worry, I'm sure there will always be TSA agents out there who will give you a good grope if you ask nicely. But the rest of us would like to avoid it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:10am

    No one is forcing you to fly.

    Next story...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Steven (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:15am

      Re:

      Your not even trying. Troll score = 2/10

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Gwiz (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:30am

      Re:

      No one is forcing you to fly.

      Except perhaps your employer, you know, the guy that signs that paycheck that you need to have to eat.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 11:38am

        Re: Re:

        "Except perhaps your employer, you know, the guy that signs that paycheck that you need to have to eat."

        Get a new employer, you know, the guy that signs that paycheck that you need to have to eat.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Gwiz (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 1:43pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Get a new employer, you know, the guy that signs that paycheck that you need to have to eat.

          So, your argument is that it's OK for full strip searches, because you don't HAVE to fly, even if it costs you your job?

          Wow...just wow. I really have no rebuttal to such ignorance.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Any Mouse (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 5:00pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          That response is beyond arrogant.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Any Mouse (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 5:00pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          That response is beyond arrogant.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          nathan, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 9:17pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          yeah, you know, cause new employers are like a dime a dozen. I mean, I have people knocking down my door to try to hire me... It's totally easy to just get a new job that doesn't require air travel. Whether or not I get strip searched should not depend on what type of field I work in. It should depend on whether or not the government has a reasonable cause to believe that they will find evidence of a crime... that is the whole point

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      DH's Love Child (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:30am

      Re:

      Well, except my employer when I have to travel to Europe or the Middle East for work. They kind of like me to get there in a matter of hours rather than days or weeks.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:42am

        Re: Re: Required to travel?

        You have a choice where to work. No one is forcing you to work at a job that requires travel. If you don't want to cough for Bertha the TSA lady, find a job that does not "require" it.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Michael, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:37am

      Re:

      Nobody is forcing you to drive - so we can strip search you when you do that.

      Nobody is forcing you to walk on the sidewalk - so we can strip search you when you do that.

      Nobody is forcing you to go to the mall - so we can strip search you when you do that.

      Yup - there are lots of things we do that nobody forces us to do. Oh, and strip searching every driver could make driving safer - so take that argument away.

      This has nothing to do with your choice to fly. The question is what is REASONABLE (yup - that pesky reasonable thing in that amendment). And I think people have finally figured out that what the TSA is doing is unreasonable.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 11:46am

        Re: Re:

        ""Nobody is forcing you to drive - so we can strip search you when you do that.

        Nobody is forcing you to walk on the sidewalk - so we can strip search you when you do that.

        Nobody is forcing you to go to the mall - so we can strip search you when you do that.

        Yup - there are lots of things we do that nobody forces us to do. Oh, and strip searching every driver could make driving safer - so take that argument away.

        This has nothing to do with your choice to fly. The question is what is REASONABLE (yup - that pesky reasonable thing in that amendment). And I think people have finally figured out that what the TSA is doing is unreasonable.""

        We are talking about a goverment entity here, not standard transportation. But nice try though, i had a chuckle.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Christopher (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 12:44pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          No, the nice try, Anonymous Coward, is your post and the INSANITY that it exposes from you!

          For goodness sakes, you just cannot realize that the fear of someone committing a criminal act (even a MASS MURDER) does NOT INFINITELY REPEATED mean that the Feds can ignore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

          They just cannot!

          These things are not making America safer. They are trying to make it so that Americans see intrusions into their daily lives for no goddamned reason as regular things, so the next time that the feds want to take it further... the people will just take it up the ass and not challenge it because "IT WILL STOP TERRORISM!" (insane person voice here)

          Terrorism can ONLY be stopped by the United States not supporting dictators in the Middle East and BUTTING THE FUCK OUT of the Middle East.

          All the terrorists today? Created by the United States own actions.

          Hell, Bin Laden was once our ALLY!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          \r (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 12:45pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          A government entity propped up in front of a private one no less. And flying is "standard" transportation ass. Unless of course you're perhaps rickety ancient or still consider air travel a luxury only for the well off.

          No chance you could become a chuckle choker real quick like eh? A shame some are endowed with the ability to breath much less type.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          \r (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 12:46pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          A government entity propped up in front of a public one no less. And flying is "standard" transportation ass. Unless of course you're perhaps rickety ancient or still consider air travel a luxury only for the well off.

          No chance you could become a chuckle choker real quick like eh? A shame some are endowed with the ability to breath much less type.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 12:51pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          oh, you mean like NHTSA? good one

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          btr1701 (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 8:21pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          > We are talking about a goverment entity here,
          > not standard transportation.

          The airlines aren't government entities, genius. They're "standard" transportation, just like the train and your car.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 11:22am

      Re:

      Business travelers? The employer is often the one forcing them to fly.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chosen Reject (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 12:26pm

      Re:

      It doesn't matter whether you fly by force or not. No where in the 4th amendment does it state that it only applies if you are doing something that you have to do. I'm not forced to go to the beach and have fun, and the government can't violate my rights there because of that lack of force. Even if they own the beach.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:12am

    People are not free to choose something other than air travel. My job requires it. Most jobs do in my field.
    Don't give me that crap about how I can choose not to fly.

    I'd rather choose to not be a victim of other people's fears.

    Now, I'm not ok with the stranger who molested me as a kid. Am I supposed to be allowing a stranger to grope me now?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      velox (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 12:44pm

      Re:

      "I'd rather choose to not be a victim of other people's fears. "


      Yes --- Outstanding line!!!

      The supporters of the unconstitutional onslaught are either Cowards or else they are slimeballs with ulterior motives (relating to personal profit or personal power).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 8:08pm

        Re: Re:

        May sound harsh, but I consider them traitors anymore, those that push the onslaught for profit.

        And those that accept the onslaught without question are the most unpatriotic of all.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rick Mahn, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:13am

    Chipping away...

    Mike, they're not simply "chipping away", they are in wholesale slash and burn mode regarding the constitution.

    By the way, "Security Theater" is extremely accurate describing what the TSA (and other agencies) do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jimr (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:24am

    I thought they already where

    Sounds like a plan or maybe a mission statement?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:26am

    For a minute there, I misread "Every Airline Passenger" as "Everyone". That was a very uncomfortable minute.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    sam sin, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:33am

    imagine the chaos it would cause if everyone was strip searched before being allowed to fly. i wonder how long the airlines would put up with it? i wonder how long the people being delayed would put up with it? i wonder how long business would put up with it? i wonder how long the government would put up with the economy being affected? someone from the government and from the judicial service needs to step up to the plate and say 'without proof of illegal acts to be carried out, without probable cause, this needs to stop now!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Mushatsu (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:33am

    I think that everyone should fly naked. Then, while in the safety of our nudity, we could at least have a show. Also, it would open up a lot of concessions like a fuzzy seat upgrade, maybe leather seat restraints. You could even have themed flights. Plus the locker rental at the airport, so you could stow your clothes. Aircraft would be lighter by about two sets of clothes per person so it would save fuel too. I should get a merit badge for being so environmentally and socially conscious. Maybe people would lighten up a bit too.

    Aside from my awesome idea, I think it's stupid to have searches at airports. Nothing good really comes from them because they are ineffictive at really securing the airport. Even if they were 100% effective at searching, they can't search inside you. The next wave of aircraft terrorists will just pack themselves with explosives.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Michael, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:40am

      Re:

      ...or stand outside the fence near the end of the runway with a rocket launcher.

      Clearly a safer, more effective way to blow up a plane.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Mushatsu (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 1:16pm

        Re: Re:

        We could make clones of pilots, train them to die for a cause, then swap them in and have them fly the plane into something. Then no one would have a clue until it was too late.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Michael, Mar 24th, 2011 @ 3:00am

          Re: Re: Re:

          or just hire the pilots.

          The way the airlines are going these days, they are all probably suicidal and certainly need money.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Greevar (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:51am

      Re:

      Where are you going?
      I'm going to the toilet to drop a bomb.
      Oh, okay.
      BOOM!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:35am

    Spewing generalized criticism and blanket ideas isn't necessarily helpful. If you don't like how things are being done, then come up with a better way that can accomplish the same goal. Otherwise, it's just whining and no one likes a whiner.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Greevar (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:55am

      Re:

      I'm sure the government is quite willing to give up their time to listen to people without money. Furthermore, the government isn't entertaining random solicitations from people claiming to have a "better way".

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      weneedhelp (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 11:13am

      Re:

      So you are kinda whining about whiners?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous a-hole, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 3:34pm

      Re:

      If you don't like how things are being done, then come up with a better way that can accomplish the same goal.
      I take a shit every day (some days, two!) and that's as effective as what the TSA is doing.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:40am

    Drive to Canada, we're not as big perverts. We'll only pat you down if you look pretty. We don't care for kids or grannies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    hmm (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:44am

    slowly slowly..

    HOMEland security....
    home = safe place where you live, typically with parents.
    parents = father....

    Fatherland security........privatize it to fatherland security services.....hey lets just shorten it to SS

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    hmm (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:46am

    hygiene

    I know the TSA people wear gloves before they "have a go" on your gonads n titties....but what if someone didn't wash for a month first? thats gotta be annoying, yet not illegal..

    Also I wonder if any famous/rich people have been 'skipped' from all the anal jiggery pokery?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymouse, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 10:58am

    I DEMAND fresh gloves! It's my right to be groped by clean gloves!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 11:11am

    I think its so cute that we still think there is a constitution.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 11:17am

    I can't wait for the new Las Vegas show. After Cirque du Soleil, we will have Mike Masnick standing on the head of a constitutional pin.

    Mike, the legitimate government interest is the safety of air travel, the safety of it's citizens, and the maintaining of the capacity to safely and confidently fly aircraft and citizens from point to point (including all over the world).

    The other option is anarchy, you know, anyone can get on the plane, they can carry anything, and most people end up not flying because it is too dangerous.

    The only thing "unreasonable" here is people like you who keep harping on it. You would also likely be the first person bitching if you place got hijacked without security.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Steven (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 11:30am

      Re:

      "the legitimate government interest is the safety of air travel"

      Except it's been shown over and over again that these tactics do not improve safety. Additionally this does not allow for the government to overstep it's constitutional bounds.

      "the safety of it's citizens"

      What we are protecting against here is such a small blip on the things people are in danger of as to not even provoke more than a very minimal response. We had this fixed with public awareness that hijacking was no longer a sit a wait situation and reinforced cockpit doors.

      "maintaining of the capacity to safely and confidently fly aircraft and citizens from point to point (including all over the world"

      The TSA procedures do not do this in the least bit. Once again even if they were effective (which they're not) that does not grant the government the ability to step beyond their constitutional bounds. Still the deaths from terrorism barely show up over the average death per year from aircraft related accidents.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 11:38am

        Re: Re:

        If they are not effect, are you saying that dropping everything the TSA does tomorrow wouldn't make flying any more dangerous? If we got rid of that security, stopped checking people, and just let them flow to and from the planes without consideration that all would be fine?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Steven (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 11:47am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yes.

          If a terrorist wanted to kill people they are certainly not limited to planes. It's not even the target to have the largest impact.

          In fact the stated goal of at least some terrorist organizations is to push America into collapse through security spending. I don't think that will actually work, but we are certainly spending massive amounts of money that does no good at all.

          The level of security needed at an airport is roughly the security needed at a mall. Maybe a bit more.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 12:50pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            If a terrorist wanted to kill people they are certainly not limited to planes. It's not even the target to have the largest impact.

            I am sure the 2000+ dead in the world trade center would agree with your fully.

            In fact the stated goal of at least some terrorist organizations is to push America into collapse through security spending.

            Citation needed without pointing to a tin foil hat site.

            The level of security needed at an airport is roughly the security needed at a mall

            Enjoy your flight. Oh, by the way, the guy behind you is packing an AK-47 and didn't take his meds this morning.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Steven (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 1:14pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Yes, many people died on 9/11. Since then several attempts to sabotage planes have been stopped by the passengers. What do you think would be more fear inducing, another attack on a plane, or the detonation of a bomb at a pre-school or kindergarden? maybe a mall? how about the security line at the airport?

              http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16971-2004Nov1.html

              And the likely hood of some guy with an AK-47 behind me is more likely on an airplane why? It's more dangerous why? Seems to me there are plenty of random asshats and psychos that kill people in any number of situations, but for some reason airplanes get some magical special treatment. It's illogical.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 8:10pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Ahh, I get your logic. Because we cannot secure everywhere, we should secure nothing. Unless there is a perfect way to fix the problem, we shouldn't do anything that takes away at least one of the possible locations for a terrorist attack.

                Right. Should be also remove all the metal detectors from court house entrances, perhaps no longer bother having security around the White House or Congress? Would you like to sleep with your front door wide open tonight? After all, it's just as likely that someone knocks it down anyway.

                (/ sarc)

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Gwiz (profile), Mar 24th, 2011 @ 8:01am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Would you like to sleep with your front door wide open tonight? After all, it's just as likely that someone knocks it down anyway.

                  I know you were being sarcastic by your use of the sarcmark, but this is a real possibility.

                  Unfortunately, the odds are probably greater that the people knocking down your front door will be armed Federal agents or local law enforcement instead of thugs or terrorists.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Vincent Clement (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 5:09pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yes. Because we reinforced the doors on cockpits and because passengers won't sit idly if their plane is hijacked. There is a reason why they call it security theatre: it's all for show.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          btr1701 (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 8:25pm

          Re: Re: Re: Safety

          > If they are not effect, are you saying that
          > dropping everything the TSA does tomorrow
          > wouldn't make flying any more dangerous?

          Right now, a terrorist can strap on a bomb (or several guys with several bombs), buy a ticket, and get in the line for security and detonate right there in the middle of the crowd, taking out just as many people as if they'd blown up a plane in mid-flight.

          You're an idiot if you think all that dog-and-pony security is making you one whit safer.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      velox (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 12:33pm

      Re:

      "the legitimate government interest is ... the safety of it's citizens..."

      Are you so damn ignorant that you don't know that this it the fundamental lying argument that every single demagogue, totalitarian, and dictator of any stripe -- be it communist, fascist, divine right absolutist, or good old fashioned despot, has used since the dawn of time to try to justify abusive treatment of their citizens, and preserve the level of obedience needed to maintain power.

      If you don't know this, then many quotes from history can be given to you. But, then if I gave some of them to you now, you'd go all Godwin on me.

      What you lack is any sense that the principles of freedom upon which our country is supposed to stand are of absolute prime importance. Those who love freedom judge that freedom is worth taking risk. If that were not so, then our country never would have come to be. Despots on the other hand are inwardly cowards.
      If freedom doesn't concern you, and all you care about it order and maintaining authority, then one doesn't need to guess very hard on whose side you would have stood in 1776.

      As an aside, I suspect the only reason you are here commenting on Techdirt is to make sure that 4th amendment rabble-rousers don't rain on your COICA parade.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 12:46pm

        Re: Re:

        Velox, if we toss "safety of the citizens" out the window, then you remove all the reason for speed limits on highways, licensing of drivers, and all those other things. After all, they are done for the safety of the citizens.

        Perhaps we can get rid of the police force too. Who needs them? They are just there for the safety of the citizens, after all.

        I suspect the only reason you are here commenting on Techdirt is to make sure that 4th amendment rabble-rousers don't rain on your COICA parade

        Nope, I have no horse in the race one way or the other. I just find it incredibly comical to see people spouting off about the various amendments without seeming to understand their actual application and the judgements that have happened over the last couple of hundred years that help define them.

        Freedom in the abstract is an absolute thing. In the real world, freedom is tempered by balance between the rights of each individual towards each other, and also towards the state. If you think you have freedom, the sad truth is you do not. If you think you do, go drive your car down the wrong side of the highway for a few miles at top speed and let me know how it works out for you.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Any Mouse (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 5:21pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Speed limits on highways was not about safety, and they do not make the roads safer. Speed limits were set to conserve fuel. Licensing is about responsibility, not safety. Come on, try some more of those.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Vincent Clement (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 5:26pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          When was the last time the police kept anyone safe? Police, for the most part, are a reactive force. After our house was broken into, the police officers mentioned that there had been a few break-ins in the neighbourhood.

          If they were truly interested in our safety, why not go around the neighbourhood and tell us to keep an eye and to upgrade our locks and such?

          When Montana removed speed limits from highways during the day, the average driving speed actually fell a few miles per hour. That would suggest that the lack of a speed limit made the road safer (based on the false notion that slower speeds mean safer roads).

          In most jurisdictions, once you get your driver's license, it's yours for life (subject to whatever fees). If you don't get caught breaking a law, you never ever have to retest for your license. How is that keeping people safe?

          You are right about the 'balance' part. Problem is that the government tends to shift that balance in their favour based on the incorrect of 'protecting citizens'.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          velox (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 5:47pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "In the real world, freedom is tempered by balance between the rights of each individual towards each other, and also towards the state."
          Ok, I understand that there will always be valued goals which come into conflict with one another, and that judgments must be made as to where to pursue one goal at the expense of another.

          I'd like to point out however that if you are going to make the rational risk assessment, then you do not have a winning argument. The number of terrorist attacks and the number of lives lost is minuscule compared to a host of other risks we face every day.
          It's not logical when you consider the cost -- both in dollars, and also in lost civil liberties.

          As was pointed out elsewhere in today's discussion, I don't want to be a victim of someone else's illogical fears.
          As a taxpayer, I don't want the TSA to be adding billions annually to the federal deficit, and as a citizen, I don't want to be subjected to intrusive searches, and most importantly, I don't like the precedent that is being set, wherein the government thinks it is standard operating procedure to use intrusive searches on law-abiding citizens anytime there is a remote risk.

          This precedent is dangerous because it delivers to the government precisely the powers needed to establish a totalitarian regime at some point in the future. I'm not way out there arguing that Obama is the next Stalin or Hitler.
          I'm arguing that what is being done now will make it harder to resist should someone with those aspirations appear in the future.

          To return to my first point in the post above -- what I said about dictators is exactly true. They have ALL insisted that what they were doing was essential to protect the safety of their country.
          It is dangerous to unquestioningly accept that the government always knows best because the government is looking out for your own safety.
          Our countries founding fathers had principles for a reason. The reason is that they were very familiar with the governmental abuses that had gone on in England and elsewhere in the 150 years the preceded the American Revolution. They were determined to create a system that would be resistant to the failures of the 17th century.

          Let's not sacrifice those principles for a little better safety and short-term risk reduction.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          btr1701 (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 8:29pm

          Re: Re: Re: Safety

          > Velox, if we toss "safety of the citizens" out
          > the window, then you remove all the reason
          > for speed limits on highways

          No, you wouldn't. Despite what they tell you, safety isn't the concern at all with speed limits. It's all about revenue.

          > without seeming to understand their actual
          > application and the judgements that have
          > happened over the last couple of hundred
          > years that help define them.

          That's the point. Those judgements that have defined the 4th Amendment over several hundred years have not to date given the government the power to strip you down and probe you merely because you bought a plane ticket.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Mar 24th, 2011 @ 10:37pm

      Re:

      The other option is anarchy, you know, anyone can get on the plane, they can carry anything, and most people end up not flying because it is too dangerous.

      Are you familiar with the term "false dichotomy"?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 11:34am

    "If the TSA can strip search anyone with no reason at all, then does the 4th Amendment really exist?"

    What a weak, stupid, strawman argument.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    vikodin (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 11:40am

    this whole tsa thing is a joke... i recently traveled back to the united states from europe with 3 packs of cigarettes, a lighter and enough fireworks in my bags to have some really good fun when i got back... the fireworks in this country are sparklers compared to the stuff they sell anywhere else... and strip search???? please.. its the planes going nowhere that get searched... the ones coming in get whatever country they left when it comes to security... everyone is laughing at us about stripping... and the terrorists have won... just look round you...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 11:42am

    When you watch on TV the serving of a search warrant where the paramilitary police unit with automatic weapons and flash bang grenades tap on a door two times, yell police and break down the door and kill the family dog. Thank the Supreme Court for standing up for you rights under the Forth amendment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btr1701 (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 8:33pm

      Re: Warrants

      > When you watch on TV the serving of a search
      > warrant where the paramilitary police unit
      > with automatic weapons and flash bang grenades
      > tap on a door two times, yell police and break
      > down the door

      Yeah, it just ain't fair that the crack dealers don't get enough advance warning to properly flush the evidence and shoot back. How terrible. And it's such a crying the shame that the cops have the stones to actually outnumber and outgun the shitbags that are shooting back at them. You're right. We need to change the law to make it more of a fair fight.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Matt L, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 11:48am

    TSA

    If TSA can strip search anyone for whatever reason we have but two choices, accept the reality or starve the TSA of the fees they get from every airline ticket sold. if no one flies, they do not have work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    DOlz (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 11:51am

    Oh piffle!

    First amendment, fourth amendment who cares. The only amendment that counts is the second.

    This comment brought to you buy* the NRA.

    *yes that's a deliberate spelling error.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Paul Renault (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 11:55am

    Make sure you tell the airlines why you're not flying....

    ...like call a (few) travel agent(s), and ask them if they can advise you how to travel NOT by plane. Start a buzz, get the airlines scared.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 11:59am

    Homeland Security should be abolished along with the patriot act. There is no reason for either to exist in the first place.

    As far as the 4th amendment goes, well...it's been gone for a long time now. If you have something to hide, they will find it, and then they will find a way to legally acquire the information they already have so they can use it to prosecute.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    billofrights, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 1:12pm

    you people are ridiculous

    were you griping about metal detectors invading your privacy before this? the main priority is safety. are metal detectors at schools invading privacy? the truth is that serious weaponry is no longer primarily detectable by these means. the times are changing, you archaic thinkers. sure they implement bio-system in the ducts and might need to scan your body to make sure your undies aren't lined with a carbon-fiber material that becomes a deadly nerve gas when exposed to that "lip balm". who's side are you on? what have you to hide? your nakeds? if so, really?... i mean... reeeally? you're THAT concerned about someone seeing an outline of your nakeds? ever gone swimming? get a grip, people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Any Mouse (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 5:33pm

      Re: you people are ridiculous

      IF the scanners worked, you MIGHT have a point. They don't. That's been shown over and over again, like when Adam Savage of Mythbusters went through with several very large razor blades in his pockets and wasn't caught. Just an example.

      However, your cries of 'if you have nothing to hide' fall on deaf ears. Why should I have anything to hide to want my privacy to remain intact? Why should I sacrifice my dignity for your all-important sense of safety?

      Who's side am I on? I'm on my own damn side, and that of freedom. Not suppression, oppression, and your damned arrogance.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 2:29pm

    They need to highlight the line, and let people decide for themselves whether to cross it. At this point, it is not clear to ppl when they are giving up their rights.

    Is it the parking lot, terminal building, security checkpoint?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 2:37pm

    Then do it DHS, so we can take you to court. Stop allowing your lackeys at the TSA to do your job DHS! oh thats right DHS is still confused on what its job actually is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Stuart (profile), Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 3:29pm

    don't take a shower for a week or two eat lots of beans. Ask to be stripped searched when asked to bend over and cough well fart.

    /juvenile fun

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Carmine, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 3:48pm

    Do away with TSA

    If the American people were smart they would stop flying. Let the strip search
    the no show people. The airlines would make such a fuss they will have to do away with the TSA. Band together and we can beat them at their own game.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    heythere, Mar 23rd, 2011 @ 9:11pm

    "Those who sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will lose both." -Ben Franklin.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 24th, 2011 @ 1:46am

    The real question is, though, would anyone fly if they were to be subjected to a strip search? Really? I guess, maybe some would since many people have been stupid enough to allow the TSA to x-ray them and probably still are willing to go though that even after knowing that many of the machines were mis-calibrated.

    We have a long ride ahead before enough people are willing to put their lives at risk to take to the streets and end this charade of democracy and freedom.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Kansas Coward, Mar 24th, 2011 @ 10:13am

    Re #30...

    "I think that everyone should fly naked. Then, while in the safety of our nudity, we could at least have a show. Also, it would open up a lot of concessions like a fuzzy seat upgrade, maybe leather seat restraints."

    Yeah, that'd be all fun and games until the airlines start charging you $20 for a disposable seat cover.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    BadKahuna (profile), Mar 24th, 2011 @ 11:46am

    Give them what they give you!

    On the way to the airport stop off at Taco bell and eat a couple of burritos before you get to the airport.
    During their pat downs and such let out as many farts as possible and do not try to hide it from them that your farting at them stick your butt out and proudly fart at them.

    Bring along your own gloves and put them on before TSA inspections.
    While they pat you down be sure to pat them down at the same time.
    You have reasonable grounds to believe pat downs are legal in the airport so pat them down too.

    Don't be shy about it their not so give them what they deserve.
    Fight fire with fire, fight pat downs with pat downs and burritos!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Stop TSA, Mar 28th, 2011 @ 9:33am

    How could the supreme court say these searches are constitutional? By definition random searches do not have probably cause.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rwolf, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 8:29pm

    DHS Scanners To Secretly Search Your Body, Vehicle and Home—X-ray Deaths Next?

    Department Homeland Security and Police intend to use hundreds of new X-ray Back Scatter Vans and other scanners with long-distance capability to secretly scan and search lawful persons’ bodies—when driving, walking and X-ray Citizens in their homes. DHS plans to mount X-ray scanners on buildings and utility poles to monitor groups of pedestrians. Citizens that drive or walk to work or lunch in monitored areas may be radiated several times a day.
    There is nothing to stop government agencies and police repeatedly targeting (persons of interest) on the street and in their homes with X-ray scans that may cause cancer or induce other medical problems—including individuals afflicted by poor health. DHS new scanning will record eye and facial features of pedestrians, so subjects can be identified for covert X-ray scanning. Consequently some Americans may be X-ray scanned every time they set foot on the street.

    How could anyone prove his or her cancer was caused by repeated government X-ray scans? Can you think of one U.S. Government agency you would trust to limit the number of times and duration secret Government scanners can penetrate a person’s body with X-ray radiation, when walking, driving; inside their home? Citizens driving or walking to work, that must pass DHS X-ray scanners on buildings and utility poles, could be exposed to radiation several times a day. The press recently reported that X-ray scanners now used at airports are 10-times greater that what U.S. Government told the American People.

    Currently Citizens can purchase small sensitive radiation detectors on key chains that set off different sounding alarms for each radiation level detected. Key Chain radiation detectors sell for about $160.00 and some appear capable of detecting government X-ray scanners penetrating their home, or their body when walking or vehicle when driving. It should be expected more pedestrians might start carrying radiation key chain detectors to learn if X-ray scanners on buildings and utility poles are targeting their neighborhood, the streets they drive or walk. Radiated pedestrians and drivers should protest, especially if they are being hit everyday with X-ray scanners.

    The U.S. can’t become a total Police State until the 4th Amendment is either terminated or so watered down it has no legal effect. That will be the result if government / police are allowed (without probable cause or warrants) to expose the public to covert X-ray scans and scans at airports; train and bus stops and other check points.

    One can’t help wonder if today’s outspoken Americans that lawfully defend the Constitution, e.g., writers and bloggers will be deemed combatants by U.S. Government; constantly stopped, searched, and questioned by TSA and police; forced to endure no warrant searches of their car, body and forced cancer causing X-ray scans. The Nazi Military and Police repeatedly searched and delayed Citizens labeled politically undesirable boarding trains and buses and driving to work to cause targeted Citizens to lose their jobs. Citizens were placed on (Nazi do not hire lists) similar to the lists U.S. Homeland Security started in 2010.

    See: TSA, DHS plan massive rollout of mobile surveillance vans with long-distance X-ray capability, eye movement tracking and more at:
    http://www.naturalnews.com/031603_surveillance_police_state.html#ixzz1GGDd24RG

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Joe, Apr 23rd, 2011 @ 10:50am

    TSA and DHS - Does NOT have the right to strip search

    The TSA does not have the right to strip search anyone. You have to consent. If you say no, they can't. Stop being a sheeple. The TSA has to call in a law enforcement officer (LEO) to detain or arrest you. Only the LEO can force any kind of search and any strip search by a LEO is typically done at the police station. The TSA "threatens" and says they can do things they can't. The TSA can deny you the right to fly - that's IT - nothing else. It is your responsibility as a traveler to know what they can and cannot do and to react politely but firmly in asserting your rights as an American citizen. I suggest getting to airports way in advance to allow time to deal with TSA nonsense. And, be prepared to not fly if you have to push the issue of your rights. Most airlines I know will refund even a non refundable ticket if you write a nice letter to the CEO explaining the situation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    ray, Apr 26th, 2011 @ 8:43am

    home lan sceraty

    it seem that no one has any rite in the usa as your , country is in a state of being so peranod that the one who are in power seen to think that the ward sceraty is the rite to do anything thay wont to any one thay wont like now thay think ok to strip search women and childeren so i wonder were dos any one have the rite to ther periasy of ther bodys as when gril are strip search at school and air ports and yet other say it ok, well to do this to young gril or lady and to make then feel pot doun and inbarest by stranger who may or may not be pefert who get off on this, i would say were dos it stop!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jeff Buske (profile), May 30th, 2011 @ 8:45pm

    Total Recall Scanners are here

    I think what TSA is talking about is a DIGITAL CAVITY search using high powered x-rays head to toe chest x-ray. Learn more

    http://www.rockyflatsgear.com/County-Jails-Deploy-Airport-Whole-Body-Scanners.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jeff Buske (profile), May 30th, 2011 @ 8:55pm

    Total Recall Scanners are here

    I think what TSA is talking about is a DIGITAL CAVITY search using high powered x-rays head to toe chest x-ray. Learn more

    http://www.rockyflatsgear.com/County-Jails-Deploy-Airport-Whole-Body-Scanners.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    BadKahuna (profile), May 31st, 2011 @ 1:22pm

    TSA are pedophiles

    TSA employees are pedophiles and their admitting to it to the whole world by admitting what they do to children!

    Argue over the legality of it ALL you want, don't mean a damn thing to me they are nothing but a bunch of professional pedophiles being paid to molest kids!

    If anyone at the airport see's those TSA pedo's grabbing a child in the wrong way scream at the top of your lungs their PEDOPHILES and beat the crap out of him/her for it, and don't stop yelling PEDOPHILE while to beat the bastards!

    Did TSA admit to x-ray cavity searches? then accuse them of child porn!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), May 31st, 2011 @ 1:37pm

      Re: TSA are pedophiles

      If anyone at the airport see's those TSA pedo's grabbing a child in the wrong way scream at the top of your lungs their PEDOPHILES and beat the crap out of him/her for it, and don't stop yelling PEDOPHILE while to beat the bastards!

      If you want to get tased, handcuffed, arrested, and charged with a felony anyway. If you don't, best to find some other method of protest.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    BadKahuna (profile), May 31st, 2011 @ 2:24pm

    Their gonna do what their gonna do!

    Their gonna do what their gonna do! and I will do what I will do, no threat of arrest or anything else would stop me from protecting a child from a pedophile TSA pedo!

    Their groping children and now their talking x-ray photos of kids cavity's that's all I need to know, and I would be justified in defending children from confessed pedo's it's not like the TSA is hiding their doings and their intentions!

    To threaten me with arrest for making it known I would defend a child amounts to blackmailing me out of fear.

    Good thing I don't fear pedophiles because that's what the TSA people are admitting to.

    Defense of a child and justification is a good defense in any court!

    If I see with my own eye any pedophile groping a child I will have authority of my own accord to defend that child!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), May 31st, 2011 @ 5:04pm

      Re: Their gonna do what their gonna do!

      That's fine, I'm just predicting what's going to happen to you if you attack a TSA agent, however awful their activities are.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Robotic Automation, Sep 17th, 2011 @ 3:17am

    That's extremely well written article. It's very effective and useful blog. Thank you for the great info.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Robotic Automation, Sep 17th, 2011 @ 3:18am

    That's extremely well written article. It's very effective and useful blog. Thank you for the great info.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Document Scanning, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 9:53am

    Scanning Service

    They really need to document the management of this whole program. They should document scanning cost effectiveness as well.I think that our Constitutional rights need to take precedence in this matter. Surely it would be more cost effective to hire two undercover guys to fly on each airplane than this TSA scanning bs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This