Any thoughts on the TSA body scans/pat downs?

P.G.&A.M.

I think it's ridiculous. Seriously where does it end? Where there are people who want to cause harm they unfortunately will likely find a way. When they started making people take off their shoes then we got the underwear bomber. Now that they're checking that what's to stop people from placing things in body cavities. Are we going to then let all people get body cavity searches because we all want to feel safe flying? 

akimbo

eclaires:

here's a post about it that I mostly agree with.  It's in response to someone who posted about not caring about it and said she served in the military (just for some context).

swimbikepuke:

:::Clears throat, smooths front of shirt, cracks neck:::

Here's your primer on the Constitution (you know that document you served to defend and swore to uphold when you enlisted in the military).  So flying is a privilege as are many things we do. Driving is a privilege.  Owning a house is a privilege.  Having a credit card is a privilege.  Going to college is a privilege. Those things are also choices.  You don't have to do any of them and in fact, even if you want to do some of them, you simply might not be able to.  But none of that has even the most remote connection to whether or not the government does or does not have to comply with the limitations of the 4th Amendment.  It does. 

And the 4th Amendment states that people have a right to be free in their persons from unreasonable searches and seizures.  A search is a governmental intrusion into an area where a person has a reasonable and justifiable expectation of privacy (i.e. your lady bits).  A seizure is the exercise of control by the government over a person or thing (like when they tell you you can't leave the airport because you didn't complete the screening process). 

In order to do a warrantless search (which would be these scanners) of someone that the government is simply investigating but does not have probable cause to arrest (called a "stop and frisk"), the government MUST have reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts of criminal activity or involvement in a complete crime. In total, there are SIX exceptions to the requirement that a warrant be issued prior to a search, they are:

1.  Search secondary to lawful arrest.

2.  Search of an automobile that the police have probable cause to believe contained contraband or would be evidence of a crime. 

3. Where evidence of wrongdoing is in plain view

4.  Where the person being searched has given their voluntary and intelligent consent.

5.  As part of a stop and frisk (which is the closest the airport secuirity things come to but are still not on point)

6.  Following a "hot pursuit."

The airport scanners comply with none of these requirements.

So you see, the issue isn't whether flying is a privilege, a right, a choice, or just a figment of your bad acid trip. The issue is whether the government can toss the 4th Amendment out the window just because 10 years ago 15 assholes got on 3 planes and killed 3000 people.  They can't.  The 4th Amendment isn't optional.  If you thought it was, or if you thought it wasn't worth defending, why in hell would you sign up for the military.  When they gave you that lecture about dying for the flag, did you think they were just talking aesthetics, like we have this really pretty flag and no one better mess with it.  IT'S A METAPHOR FOR FREEDOM INCLUDING THE FREEDOM TO BE SECURE IN ONE'S OWN PERSON.

You give your consent as soon as you enter an airport.  Signs are posted outside every airport.

 

kertybird

I have flown over 30,000 miles this year and I have no problem with the extra security.  I know they will never catch everything, but for the lam-o copy cats that can't be as inventive as the real terrorist I feel much safer seeing all the extra precautions.  If I got blown up by a freaking shoe bomb I am sure my DH would be super pissed that they never tried to protect me from that threat.  That being said if I ever got pulled aside for extra security and had my itinerary changed I would be so pissed!

RoxyLynn

Former Congressman Bob Barr (R) had an interesting piece in the Atlanta paper today about why people should opt-out.

"After all, for every traveler who realizes that a full body scan or physical body search conducted after they already passed a weapons and explosives detection device, adds little if anything to their safety, there are others who shrug that, 'if it makes us safer, well, that?s the price we have to pay.'  And for every citizen who understands that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from conducting an intrusive search of one?s persons and possessions without any suspicion they?ve done anything wrong, there?s another who accedes to such searches, because they 'have nothing to hide.'"

It is available here:  https://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/11/22/opt-out/

eclaires

I don't think I buy the argument that planes are "private industry," because doesn't the FAA have some hand in all of this?  As well as the TSA being a government agency and TSA is who conducts this search/seizure.

It's not like Delta is like, okay to ride on my plane you have to go through these screening measures - it's decided on, implemented, and carried out by the government.

As far as consent, it's basically forced on you - it'd be like saying to get on the highway you have to consent to unreasonable searches of your person/car.   But whatever - some people will be bothered by this, some won't.  I'm bothered by it, and I honestly think it will end up in court and we'll see how it plays out from there, I guess.  I know that I likely won't fly until it's no longer a possibility, but that's a luxury I have (family w/in driving distance, don't have to fly to work) and if for some reason, I have to, I will opt out of the screening machines and likely complain my face off.