I'm not a fan of the groping that people are complaining about but listen....the only change in the last month has been moving from backs of hands to the palm. People didnt bitch when it was the back of hands feeling up the inside of their legs and bumping things.
My other gripe is people using the 4th amendment as justification to complain. Its a poor argument. You dont have those rights in flying. Flying is still a privilege (sorry to say). No precedences in the 4th amendment actually prohibit what the TSA is doing. If there were, you bet your ass the ACLU would have jumped on it the moment the public outrage began! I wish there was an easier and more effective way to conduct screening but right now the options are limited. Should the US go the route of Israel and actively profile? It has drastically sped up their travel times but people in the US would complain about that too.
There is no easy way to fix this. The TSA backs down and something happens, the nation will be up in arms they didnt do enough or failed at their jobs.
Keep watching. New machines are being developed right now for scanning. Siemens is working on one that should be "safe" and wont advertise your junk to the screener in the back.
It is currently Thu Nov 21, 2024 3:35 pm
TSA?
27 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Re: TSA?
by Zancarius » Thu Nov 25, 2010 9:24 pm
Sorry for the wall of text, but I have a need to rant. If you don't want to read this, just scroll passed and ignore my post, please.
As long as you are within the legal boundaries of the United States, the 4th Amendment (and the Bill of Rights) applies regardless of whether you're flying, travelling on the roads, or by rail. You don't waive your Constitutional rights just because you happen to board a commercial aircraft. If that were the case, then by extension anyone who walks into any place of business owned and operated by private agencies (or government) would be stripped of their rights as citizens. While I realize that the 4th Amendment was drafted in a very different time early in our history during which invasive British searches were well remembered as commonplace, I do think that it still holds an important place in our society. Unfortunately, legal forces in our country have slowly been stripping away the power that the 4th Amendment holds, and I think that a great deal of this can be blamed on the complacency most Americans feel.
"I don't care what they do as long as I'm safe," is a quote from someone who disagreed with the ACLU's position on increased security screenings at airports. I think that single statement along explains everything that is wrong with our predisposition as a population and a culture.
There is a good discussion here on the application of the 4th Amendment under various circumstances. Regardless, though, I think this is a matter for the Supreme Courts to decide, and if they decide that invasive searches at airports are not mutually exclusive with the guarantees the 4th Amendment grants, then I suppose we'll have to live with that decision.
It is necessary to remember that the Constitution is important for two reasons. One, the Bill of Rights grants us rights as citizens of the United States that cannot and should not be (but sometimes are) taken away by the Federal government or the States. Two, the Constitution exists not to define what the government cannot do but rather what it can do. This is the intention of the founding fathers when they described the Constitutional system as a "limited government." Remember: Any powers not specifically vested to the Federal government in the US Constitution then belong to the States or the people. Certainly there are arguments to varying degrees that suggest the founding fathers had very different ideas, and there are some that suggest the government should hold specific powers over what the Constitution allows, but it is the supreme law of the land.
Also, I think that if someone actually did manage to take the TSA to court--which they won't, because we have this ridiculous fear of terrorism that has thrown away any sense of reasonableness in our rationale--it would be up to the courts to define what constitutes a "reasonable" search and whether the scrutiny the TSA places passengers under comprises a "reasonable search." Generally, the courts subject this decision to the reasonable man clause--in other words, would the average person find the groping of their genitals a reasonable exception to the 4th Amendment? I don't think they would--or should--because that goes far beyond reasonable search and seizure.
They are and have. If you go to their site, you will find articles dating back to February of this year related to increased screenings at US airports. I think it's not being reported for a couple of reasons, one of which is our reactionary approach to security.
"Profiling" is a dirty word here in the United States, and it doesn't need to be. The individuals who flew planes into buildings on September 11th, 2001 weren't little old black ladies. The individual who tried to detonate a plane with his shoes wasn't an elderly Asian man. The guy who tried to blow up yet another plane by filling his underwear with explosives wasn't a young college student flying home to visit her family. Each of these incidents represent a failure of the government on multiple levels, particularly our capability to gather intelligence, and a failure of our politically correct culture to keep us safe. We're more terrified of lawsuits due to unfair profiling than terrorism itself.
I should also mention that Congress did not directly approve the $25 million the TSA spent on scanners because of their questionable utility--so the government did not necessarily fail to keep our interests at heart. The TSA opted instead to sideline Congress by purchasing the machines using moneys taken from the general stimulus fund that was given to DHS. It speaks volumes of the TSA's general disposition toward accountability, and it probably isn't the brightest thing for an agency already struggling with bad PR to have done. That $25 million could have been better spent on our intelligence apparatus or elsewhere to really keep us safe; instead, it was spent on smoke and mirrors.
Also, yes, we should, because x-ray machines and gloved agents are little more than security theater. The UK was considering purchasing some of the scanners we've deployed at airports nationwide until they conducted a study. They were disappointed to find that more common types of plastic-based explosives weren't detectable by the scanners, and it's doubtful that form-fitting explosives would be detected by hand. While the TSA claims on their blog that "the weapons and other dangerous and prohibited items [they] found during pat downs" are a testament to the success of this new security apparatus, I think the personal experience of Adam Savage of Mythbusters fame strongly suggests otherwise.
The invasive screening is called "security theater" precisely because it is designed exclusively to present a facade of proactive security. It's designed to appear as though it is keeping us safe, and I think what Killem mentioned in addition to his article really explains why this is an absolute failure. Airlines are a high profile target, but the terrorists are demonstrating that they understand lower-tech, cheaper attacks like the recent toner cargo plane bombing attempts would be much more successful in harming US economic interests.
Maybe not, but I honestly don't believe that the TSA is genuinely helping the situation. The Christmas bomber was 11 months ago, and they only recently imposed these new regulations within the last two weeks (or thereabouts; however, they have been thinking about the scanners since at least February). The TSA could argue that they're protecting against another incident of Christmas bombing, but if the screenings continue into the new year (and they will), then I suspect that the actual intent of the TSA is to cow us in to accepting increasingly more aggressive screening techniques. Police states don't make anyone safe, but they do succeed in keeping populations paranoid. I truly believe that's what's happening in this case.
Also, safety starts with intelligence operations overseas. The cargo plane bombing attempts are an example of this. No form of airport security stopped those aircraft from being loaded with dangerous devices, and a couple of them were even loaded onto dual purpose flights (some companies charter cargo in addition to passengers, particularly for long haul operations) with people on board. There were precisely two things that thwarted these incidents from becoming full fledged disasters: 1) The devices didn't work as intended and did not detonate and 2) intelligence operations overseas successfully stopped these aircraft from coming into American territory.
Then again, we Americans love security theater. As Bruce Schneier pointed out: We placed National Guard in airports following 9/11 with guns but they had no bullets. We place RFID tags on infants to reassure parents that their newborn can't be abducted and taken out of the hospital without authorization even though infant abduction rates have been sharply declining. We do all these things for security theater.
Sadly, though, the only casualty in this arms race is our civil rights.
That's my take, but I'm probably in the minority. As the failed "opt-out protest" basically turned into the "flopt-out protest," I suspect that most people don't really give civil rights a second thought as long as they can get to their destination without too much fuss. "Civil rights" is a term that most people imagine as white police officers beating a black man with batons; they don't realize that civil rights extend into other arenas, including their travel plans. It's a shame.
Menacea wrote:My other gripe is people using the 4th amendment as justification to complain. Its a poor argument. You dont have those rights in flying. Flying is still a privilege (sorry to say). No precedences in the 4th amendment actually prohibit what the TSA is doing.
As long as you are within the legal boundaries of the United States, the 4th Amendment (and the Bill of Rights) applies regardless of whether you're flying, travelling on the roads, or by rail. You don't waive your Constitutional rights just because you happen to board a commercial aircraft. If that were the case, then by extension anyone who walks into any place of business owned and operated by private agencies (or government) would be stripped of their rights as citizens. While I realize that the 4th Amendment was drafted in a very different time early in our history during which invasive British searches were well remembered as commonplace, I do think that it still holds an important place in our society. Unfortunately, legal forces in our country have slowly been stripping away the power that the 4th Amendment holds, and I think that a great deal of this can be blamed on the complacency most Americans feel.
"I don't care what they do as long as I'm safe," is a quote from someone who disagreed with the ACLU's position on increased security screenings at airports. I think that single statement along explains everything that is wrong with our predisposition as a population and a culture.
There is a good discussion here on the application of the 4th Amendment under various circumstances. Regardless, though, I think this is a matter for the Supreme Courts to decide, and if they decide that invasive searches at airports are not mutually exclusive with the guarantees the 4th Amendment grants, then I suppose we'll have to live with that decision.
It is necessary to remember that the Constitution is important for two reasons. One, the Bill of Rights grants us rights as citizens of the United States that cannot and should not be (but sometimes are) taken away by the Federal government or the States. Two, the Constitution exists not to define what the government cannot do but rather what it can do. This is the intention of the founding fathers when they described the Constitutional system as a "limited government." Remember: Any powers not specifically vested to the Federal government in the US Constitution then belong to the States or the people. Certainly there are arguments to varying degrees that suggest the founding fathers had very different ideas, and there are some that suggest the government should hold specific powers over what the Constitution allows, but it is the supreme law of the land.
Also, I think that if someone actually did manage to take the TSA to court--which they won't, because we have this ridiculous fear of terrorism that has thrown away any sense of reasonableness in our rationale--it would be up to the courts to define what constitutes a "reasonable" search and whether the scrutiny the TSA places passengers under comprises a "reasonable search." Generally, the courts subject this decision to the reasonable man clause--in other words, would the average person find the groping of their genitals a reasonable exception to the 4th Amendment? I don't think they would--or should--because that goes far beyond reasonable search and seizure.
Menacea wrote:If there were, you bet your ass the ACLU would have jumped on it the moment the public outrage began!
They are and have. If you go to their site, you will find articles dating back to February of this year related to increased screenings at US airports. I think it's not being reported for a couple of reasons, one of which is our reactionary approach to security.
Menacea wrote:I wish there was an easier and more effective way to conduct screening but right now the options are limited. Should the US go the route of Israel and actively profile?
"Profiling" is a dirty word here in the United States, and it doesn't need to be. The individuals who flew planes into buildings on September 11th, 2001 weren't little old black ladies. The individual who tried to detonate a plane with his shoes wasn't an elderly Asian man. The guy who tried to blow up yet another plane by filling his underwear with explosives wasn't a young college student flying home to visit her family. Each of these incidents represent a failure of the government on multiple levels, particularly our capability to gather intelligence, and a failure of our politically correct culture to keep us safe. We're more terrified of lawsuits due to unfair profiling than terrorism itself.
I should also mention that Congress did not directly approve the $25 million the TSA spent on scanners because of their questionable utility--so the government did not necessarily fail to keep our interests at heart. The TSA opted instead to sideline Congress by purchasing the machines using moneys taken from the general stimulus fund that was given to DHS. It speaks volumes of the TSA's general disposition toward accountability, and it probably isn't the brightest thing for an agency already struggling with bad PR to have done. That $25 million could have been better spent on our intelligence apparatus or elsewhere to really keep us safe; instead, it was spent on smoke and mirrors.
Also, yes, we should, because x-ray machines and gloved agents are little more than security theater. The UK was considering purchasing some of the scanners we've deployed at airports nationwide until they conducted a study. They were disappointed to find that more common types of plastic-based explosives weren't detectable by the scanners, and it's doubtful that form-fitting explosives would be detected by hand. While the TSA claims on their blog that "the weapons and other dangerous and prohibited items [they] found during pat downs" are a testament to the success of this new security apparatus, I think the personal experience of Adam Savage of Mythbusters fame strongly suggests otherwise.
The invasive screening is called "security theater" precisely because it is designed exclusively to present a facade of proactive security. It's designed to appear as though it is keeping us safe, and I think what Killem mentioned in addition to his article really explains why this is an absolute failure. Airlines are a high profile target, but the terrorists are demonstrating that they understand lower-tech, cheaper attacks like the recent toner cargo plane bombing attempts would be much more successful in harming US economic interests.
Menacea wrote:There is no easy way to fix this. The TSA backs down and something happens, the nation will be up in arms they didnt do enough or failed at their jobs.
Maybe not, but I honestly don't believe that the TSA is genuinely helping the situation. The Christmas bomber was 11 months ago, and they only recently imposed these new regulations within the last two weeks (or thereabouts; however, they have been thinking about the scanners since at least February). The TSA could argue that they're protecting against another incident of Christmas bombing, but if the screenings continue into the new year (and they will), then I suspect that the actual intent of the TSA is to cow us in to accepting increasingly more aggressive screening techniques. Police states don't make anyone safe, but they do succeed in keeping populations paranoid. I truly believe that's what's happening in this case.
Also, safety starts with intelligence operations overseas. The cargo plane bombing attempts are an example of this. No form of airport security stopped those aircraft from being loaded with dangerous devices, and a couple of them were even loaded onto dual purpose flights (some companies charter cargo in addition to passengers, particularly for long haul operations) with people on board. There were precisely two things that thwarted these incidents from becoming full fledged disasters: 1) The devices didn't work as intended and did not detonate and 2) intelligence operations overseas successfully stopped these aircraft from coming into American territory.
Then again, we Americans love security theater. As Bruce Schneier pointed out: We placed National Guard in airports following 9/11 with guns but they had no bullets. We place RFID tags on infants to reassure parents that their newborn can't be abducted and taken out of the hospital without authorization even though infant abduction rates have been sharply declining. We do all these things for security theater.
Sadly, though, the only casualty in this arms race is our civil rights.
That's my take, but I'm probably in the minority. As the failed "opt-out protest" basically turned into the "flopt-out protest," I suspect that most people don't really give civil rights a second thought as long as they can get to their destination without too much fuss. "Civil rights" is a term that most people imagine as white police officers beating a black man with batons; they don't realize that civil rights extend into other arenas, including their travel plans. It's a shame.
I gave that lich a phylactery shard. Liches love phylactery shards.
-
Zancarius - Site Admin
- Posts: 3907
- Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 3:06 pm
- Location: New Mexico
- Gender: Male
Re: TSA?
by Menacea » Fri Nov 26, 2010 9:01 pm
Tal, I think you have a fantastic argument here and I wish I had the time to write more right now.
One issue I have with the 4th being applied here is the usage in the private sector. People may argue that flying has become a necessity but none the less, it is still optional. If a company deems it necessary that a screening of this nature is needed to use their service, then we don't have much of a choice. If I walked into the office Monday and my job told me that it was needed then I'd have 2 options. Leave my job or go through it. Fortunately, I don't have a job that would require something like this.
Speaking of the constitutionally of the "screening", it is also based upon interpretation much like you alluded to. It really goes to the argument ever so common with the Supreme Court whether the designers wrote the constitution to be an evolving document or not.
There will eventually be a MASSIVE legal precedence set with this. The outcome will shape the definition of the 4th amendment.
One issue I have with the 4th being applied here is the usage in the private sector. People may argue that flying has become a necessity but none the less, it is still optional. If a company deems it necessary that a screening of this nature is needed to use their service, then we don't have much of a choice. If I walked into the office Monday and my job told me that it was needed then I'd have 2 options. Leave my job or go through it. Fortunately, I don't have a job that would require something like this.
Speaking of the constitutionally of the "screening", it is also based upon interpretation much like you alluded to. It really goes to the argument ever so common with the Supreme Court whether the designers wrote the constitution to be an evolving document or not.
There will eventually be a MASSIVE legal precedence set with this. The outcome will shape the definition of the 4th amendment.
Pally hooker
-
Menacea - Retired Goon
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:49 pm
- Gender: Male
Re: TSA?
by Zancarius » Fri Nov 26, 2010 9:52 pm
Menacea wrote:One issue I have with the 4th being applied here is the usage in the private sector. People may argue that flying has become a necessity but none the less, it is still optional. If a company deems it necessary that a screening of this nature is needed to use their service, then we don't have much of a choice. If I walked into the office Monday and my job told me that it was needed then I'd have 2 options. Leave my job or go through it. Fortunately, I don't have a job that would require something like this.
I don't really believe this example applies to the TSA primarily because terms of employment fall under contract law (though you cannot waive your Constitutional rights, even to employers). In most cases, employers can do (much to our detriment) whatever they want precisely because the employee has signed away some of his or her rights under contract. Whether this is technically legal or not has probably been explored in case law, and I don't have the references or the motivation to pull up a few examples. Incidentally, this is also why legal disputes fighting drug tests have always been an uphill battle--most employers have a stipulation in their contracts that authorize them to conduct random periodic testing. With transportation, the issue is muddled because the airline is under obligation to provide you (as a customer) a particular service within certain confines. Of course, there are mutual terms of service that are generally agreed to, and I would argue that if invasive searches are not a part of them, then it is either a breech of contract or doesn't apply. Since the TSA is a third party that provides protection to the airports and not necessarily to the airlines--though by extension they are thus protected--you have made no agreement under binding contract to be searched. That is primarily why I feel the 4th Amendment applies in this circumstance.
Also, humorously, since the airports are essentially customers of the TSA and passengers are not, the TSA is under no obligation to field complaints from angry travelers anymore than a backbone provider is to field complaints from Internet subscribers. The big difference, however, is that the TSA is a branch of the Federal government (the executive branch, I believe), and that is also why they should be placed under greater scrutiny for their actions. I can guarantee you that if private contractors were providing the security, the scanners and pat downs would have stopped within the first day and airports would be unlikely to renew their contract.
But yes, absolutely. This is something that will have to enter the court systems--probably to the Supreme Court--to be resolved. There's been a trend in recent years to trade freedom for liberty, and the 4th Amendment is becoming less valuable as a consequence. I just hope that the SCOTUS won't decide in favor of the terrorists otherwise they will have certainly won.
Slightly related: I believe there were some movements a couple of years ago to have random drug screening tested under the 4th Amendment. I don't think it gained much steam, and while it would certainly lose, this is a gray area that probably ought to be legally and legitimately tested--but I'm sure it already has been. The TSA situation would be similar. After all, since I don't do drugs or bomb planes, then why should I be subjected to screening suitable only for those who have done drugs or have attempted to blow up planes? Is a society that acts on some presumption of guilt on behalf of those screened truly free?
I gave that lich a phylactery shard. Liches love phylactery shards.
-
Zancarius - Site Admin
- Posts: 3907
- Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 3:06 pm
- Location: New Mexico
- Gender: Male
Re: TSA?
by Gnomegrenade » Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:56 pm
Just a link to share for some humor on this issue.
http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_150_ ... ive_p17#17
http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_150_ ... ive_p17#17
-
Gnomegrenade - Retired Goon
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:35 pm
- Location: Virginia Beach, VA
- Gender: Male
Re: TSA?
by Zancarius » Tue Nov 30, 2010 3:43 pm
Gnomegrenade wrote:Just a link to share for some humor on this issue.
http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_150_ ... ive_p17#17
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah those are hilarious!
I gave that lich a phylactery shard. Liches love phylactery shards.
-
Zancarius - Site Admin
- Posts: 3907
- Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 3:06 pm
- Location: New Mexico
- Gender: Male
Re: TSA?
by Killemal » Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:21 pm
It looks like TSA has a 70% failure rate.
The internet made me do it.
Nearing the height of last year's Christmas travel season, TSA screeners at Bush Intercontinental Airport somehow missed a loaded pistol, one that was tucked away inside a carry-on computer bag.
"I mean, this is not a small gun," Seif said. "It's a .40 caliber gun."
Seif says it was an accident which he didn't realize until he arrived at his destination. He says he carries the glock for protection but forgot to remove it from his bag. He reported the incident as soon as he landed, shocked at the security lapse.
The internet made me do it.
-
Killemal - Retired Goon
- Posts: 272
- Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:54 pm
- Location: Boston Mass, Kid.
- Gender: Male
-
Gnomegrenade - Retired Goon
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:35 pm
- Location: Virginia Beach, VA
- Gender: Male
Re: TSA?
by Grimblast » Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:53 am
That guy is a friggan genius. 
Guild Wars 2 Characters
Turalia Gearspark - Asuran Engineer ----------- Turus Gearspark - Asuran Guardian
Thelena Turusian - Norn Warrior ---------------- Jake Turusian - Human Thief
Dililah Turusian - Norn Necromancer ------------ Rahl Braincrusher - Char Mesmer
Star Earthbreaker - Sylvari Elementalist -------- Rylo Preystalker - Char Ranger
Turalia Gearspark - Asuran Engineer ----------- Turus Gearspark - Asuran Guardian
Thelena Turusian - Norn Warrior ---------------- Jake Turusian - Human Thief
Dililah Turusian - Norn Necromancer ------------ Rahl Braincrusher - Char Mesmer
Star Earthbreaker - Sylvari Elementalist -------- Rylo Preystalker - Char Ranger
-
Grimblast - Site Admin
- Posts: 2513
- Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 3:21 pm
- Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico
- Gender: Male
27 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests