Does MCO have the new Body Scanner that everyone is chatting about?

[CPT Tripss]

I thought this was suggested but of course every one screamed that their "privacy" was be violated with all the cameras watching their every move?

Not to be redundant but this is the wall we keep hitting, every body seems to have a problem with almost every measure. You have privacy issues, I'll fight tooth and nail against profiling. What's an agency to do?

I don't recall ever suggesting that cameras watch "every move."

The "agency" can respect my privacy issues and our profiling issues. As far as airport checkpoints go, there are rational, effective and minimally invasive screening measures. I haven't heard of any profiling measues that are effective and can be implemented by the TSAer at the check point.

I truly believe that the profiling that is being done today is strictly to appease a segment of our population (and it ain't the minority segment or the frequent flyer) . . .

 

[bicker]

What's an agency to do?

Yes, this is a critical point. The agency and the government not only have objectives and obligations that most of us choose to ignore, and therefore fail to account for in our advocacy, but putting that aside, even if we try to apply the rule that everyone must be satisfied, we end up with an impossible situation, since we all disagree about what's important and what's valuable and even what's effective.

The "agency" can respect my privacy issues and our profiling issues.

I trust you believe that, but you're not there; you don't have the responsibilities they have; you don't have a full picture of what is involved in operationally addressing the obligations of that agency.

 

[eliza61]

I don't recall ever suggesting that cameras watch "every move."

The "agency" can respect my privacy issues and our profiling issues. As far as airport checkpoints go, there are rational, effective and minimally invasive screening measures. I haven't heard of any profiling measues that are effective and can be implemented by the TSAer at the check point.

I truly believe that the profiling that is being done today is strictly to appease a segment of our population (and it ain't the minority segment or the frequent flyer) . . .

And I repeat this is the wall we keep hitting. Yes, I know you specifically did not mention cameras watching every move but I have heard that argument. specifically at the Philly airport when they wanted to install cameras in the long term parking lot.

Some one, some where will object to every solution. Heck, every year the city of Philadelphia has to defend itself against lawsuits that argue the cameras that take the picture of your license plate if you run a red light invades their privacy. I can image the uproar that will start if cameras are installed in the airport.

So what's you description of minimually invasive?

The two places that I have been too that claim they effective profile really are not concern with any issue people will have with their "constitutional" rights. That's Tel Aviv and Hamburg Germany. both invade your privacy pretty well and don't give a flip whether we like it or not.

 

[sam_gordon]

The two places that I have been too that claim they effective profile really are not concern with any issue people will have with their "constitutional" rights. That's Tel Aviv and Hamburg Germany. both invade your privacy pretty well and don't give a flip whether we like it or not.

I'm pretty sure those two places don't have the same consitution we do... therefore, there's no "right to privacy" to argue about.

 

[eliza61]

I'm pretty sure those two places don't have the same consitution we do... therefore, there's no "right to privacy" to argue about.

I think you're right, it is pretty funny though when you fly out of Israel there usually is one "American" who is very loudly declaring "I am an American citizen" in a complaint and the armed guards along with El Air personnel always look at them like they want to say, "we really don't give a rats $#ss" but are too polite to say so.

 

[derricksonb]

But, do these scanners make us safer? Or do they just require the bad guys to be slightly more innovative.

In reality they do not make us any safer then previous security measures, metal detectors, x-raying of carry on items or screening.

That could be said of security measures that have been proven to work as well. So should we just stop trying to make the flying public safer, because some bad guy with a will will find a way?

The problem with trying to make the flying public safer is that our government is still being reactive whether than proactive. New L3 body scanning machines are being installed in major airports, yet those who wish to harm Americans or American interests are now bypassing those machines and shipping via UPS.

...every body seems to have a problem with almost every measure. You have privacy issues, I'll fight tooth and nail against profiling. What's an agency to do?

I'm pretty sure those two places don't have the same consitution we do... therefore, there's no "right to privacy" to argue about.

Under the Constitution of the United States the Federal Government does have the right to ensure the safety of it's citizens and visitors. The problem that exists in America that does not in Hamburg, Germany or Tel Aviv, Israel is groups like the ACLU who stand in the way of enforcing laws because someone might be offended because they fit a certain profile or because it may potentially violate the civil rights of someone who wishes to cause harm to the United States and it's citizens. Until we as a country can stand up and force our leaders to recognize from whom and where the largest threat to our national security lies then every time we fly out of airports like MCO we will be subjected to body scans, pat downs or other pre-flight screening processes.

 

[eliza61]

In reality they do not make us any safer then previous security measures, metal detectors, x-raying of carry on items or




Under the Constitution of the United States the Federal Government does have the right to ensure the safety of it's citizens and visitors. The problem that exists in America that does not in Hamburg, Germany or Tel Aviv, Israel is groups like the ACLU who stand in the way of enforcing laws because someone might be offended because they fit a certain profile or because it may potentially violate the civil rights of someone who wishes to cause harm to the United States and it's citizens. Until we as a country can stand up and force our leaders to recognize from whom and where the largest threat to our national security lies then every time we fly out of airports like MCO we will be subjected to body scans, pat downs or other pre-flight screening processes.

Sure they do, but they don't get carte blanche to do what ever the heck they want too.
Case in point. The fiasco with the last administration and wiretapping in the name of national security. That was declared illegal. You simply can't do what ever you want simply because we have enemies.

We still have a 4th amendment. The aclu is an organization whose function is to defend the constitution. Many people believe these pat downs are violations to their 4th amendment. we are protected against unreasonable searches and seisures. It's not dependant on whether we have enemies. heck, we had enemies when the thing was written but you can't go around searching citizens simply because they may or maynot fit some profile that you came up with.

I don't think the problem is "recognizing" where our biggest threat comes from. We pretty much got that part figured out. but if I'm a Muslim American I damn sure am not going to allow you to profile me and discriminate against me simply because Al queda (sp) is out to get the country.

You don't get security by making your own people less secure.

 

[safetymom]

You might want to take a look at this article.

http://www.consumertraveler.com/col..._campaign=Feed:+tripso+(Consumertraveler.com)

 

[sam_gordon]

The problem that exists in America that does not in Hamburg, Germany or Tel Aviv, Israel is groups like the ACLU who stand in the way of enforcing laws because someone might be offended because they fit a certain profile or because it may potentially violate the civil rights of someone who wishes to cause harm to the United States and it's citizens.

So it's ok to violate someone's civil rights if they appear middle eastern? What about hispanic or black? Can we violate their civil rights then? Nope. Civil rights are there for a reason. While I don't always agree with the beliefs of who the ACLU defends, I stand behind the ACLU's decision to defend them. It's important that we protect EVERYONE's civil rights, whether we agree with their beliefs or not.

Now, whether the new scanners are a violation of civil rights I'm not convinced of. I don't think Americans have a RIGHT to fly on public airline, anymore than Americans have a RIGHT to a drivers license. If there is no right to be in the secure area of an airport, then the government has some more latitude in what it's allowed to do.

 

[CPT Tripss]

So it's ok to violate someone's civil rights if they appear middle eastern? What about hispanic or black? Can we violate their civil rights then? Nope. Civil rights are there for a reason. While I don't always agree with the beliefs of who the ACLU defends, I stand behind the ACLU's decision to defend them. It's important that we protect EVERYONE's civil rights, whether we agree with their beliefs or not.

Now, whether the new scanners are a violation of civil rights I'm not convinced of. I don't think Americans have a RIGHT to fly on public airline, anymore than Americans have a RIGHT to a drivers license. If there is no right to be in the secure area of an airport, then the government has some more latitude in what it's allowed to do.

The question is, how much latitude. I think it's a stretch to call the TSA "enhanced patdown" an administrative search. But, that's a call for the courts.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Sure they do, but they don't get carte blanche to do what ever the heck they want too.
Case in point. The fiasco with the last administration and wiretapping in the name of national security. That was declared illegal. You simply can't do what ever you want simply because we have enemies.

We still have a 4th amendment. The aclu is an organization whose function is to defend the constitution. Many people believe these pat downs are violations to their 4th amendment. we are protected against unreasonable searches and seisures. It's not dependant on whether we have enemies. heck, we had enemies when the thing was written but you can't go around searching citizens simply because they may or maynot fit some profile that you came up with.

I don't think the problem is "recognizing" where our biggest threat comes from. We pretty much got that part figured out. but if I'm a Muslim American I damn sure am not going to allow you to profile me and discriminate against me simply because Al queda (sp) is out to get the country.

You don't get security by making your own people less secure.

I'm still trying to figure out why you are OK with the WBI and enhanced patdowns. You seem to against all the rationales but forth by the authorities in the agency. Is it the lesser of two evils (the other being profiling)?

 

[CPT Tripss]

Yes, this is a critical point. The agency and the government not only have objectives and obligations that most of us choose to ignore, and therefore fail to account for in our advocacy, but putting that aside, even if we try to apply the rule that everyone must be satisfied, we end up with an impossible situation, since we all disagree about what's important and what's valuable and even what's effective.

I trust you believe that, but you're not there; you don't have the responsibilities they have; you don't have a full picture of what is involved in operationally addressing the obligations of that agency.

So Bicker . . . what's your position on profiling, WBI and enhanced patgowns (that include touching "the junk")?

Does it boil down to

 

[sam_gordon]

The question is, how much latitude. I think it's a stretch to call the TSA "enhanced patdown" an administrative search. But, that's a call for the courts.

I agree with you (that courts need to decide). But (I think) someone would need to file a lawsuit before the courts become involved (hey, that might be the ACLU).

The other problem is I don't think there's "silver bullet" (as someone pointed out).
X-Ray machines allow explosives and plastic weapons (knives/guns) through
Bomb sniffing dogs allow weapons through, and I don't know if they'd find something hidden in body cavities.
Backscatter/etc machines allow powder explosives & items hidden in body cavities through, also POSSIBLY violate civil rights.
"Puffers" allow weapons through
"Pat Downs" allow items hidden in body cavities & POSSIBLY violate civil rights
"Profiling" (as done in Israel) is time consuming and violates civil rights.

This is a prime example of the government being "damned if they do and damned if they don't".

 

[eliza61]

I'm still trying to figure out why you are OK with the WBI and enhanced patdowns. You seem to against all the rationales but forth by the authorities in the agency. Is it the lesser of two evils (the other being profiling)?

Truthfully CPT they are a very non issue with me. I started out early stating pretty much that I think it's up to the individual. What I was totally against is all the TSA agent" branding as molestors, bullies and rapist.

I think I have stated all along that the pat downs and wbi present issues and I can fully see how people who have experienced the "gropes" and "rough" handlings are pissed.

Let me also say again, that I fully respect people not liking them. what concerns me is when I see reports of people saying stuff like "how can I protect my kids from the rapist at TSA without getting arrested" and yes we have seen a bunch of this type of rhetoric being tossed around.

Now I have stated that in my grand scheme of things the scans really don't matter to me all that much as my experiences have been very, very tame. You also have to remember that peoples degree of aversion will depend on their life experiences and philosophies. Call it weird but my civil liberties have been tromped on pretty much my entire life, so in the grand scheme of things, worse things have been done to me. I mean I'm the girl who had to sit in the "colored" section of a movie theater during the summer in Knoxville Tenn, so sorry, I find it really ironic that NOW I should get upset about my personal liberties.

I do respect peoples objection to them but for me it simply boils down to, its no big deal and I fly fairly often. I absolutely don't have any problem with the nudoscope. sorry it's just a very non issue to me. If some one wants to get their jollies from looking at my overweight, middle age, ****ies drooping to my knees picture, they've got bigger issues.

My main contention are these.

1) TSA agents are not the "pyscho- child molesting" agents that people are making them out to be.
2) No "one" method is going to be the "magic" bullet we are looking for. and unfortunately I think we Americans have the horrible habit of wanting 1 thing to hurry up and fix all our problems.
3) I still have the option to fly or not fly. I'm an avid traveler so right now my choices are to comply with the scans and travel, opt out and go with the pat down, or not travel. Not travelling is not an option for me.
4) As quickly as we come out with a new method for security, the bad guys are going to come up with a method to circumvent them, which leads to
IMO, there is no method that is going to be 100% unintrusive, cheap, quick and effective.

 

[derricksonb]

So it's ok to violate someone's civil rights if they appear middle eastern?

For the record I specifically did not identify a nationality, race or geographic location in my original statement pertaining to my disagreement with the policies of the ACLU.

while I don't always agree with the beliefs of who the ACLU defends, I stand behind the ACLU's decision to defend them. It's important that we protect EVERYONE's civil rights, whether we agree with their beliefs or not.

Ironically I also stand behind the ACLU's right to defend the civil right's of citizens, but often times this, and organizations like the ACLU, goes above and beyond in defending the "civil rights" of those who are in the country illegally or those who are here with the sole intention of causing harm.

We still have a 4th amendment. The aclu is an organization whose function is to defend the constitution. Many people believe these pat downs are violations to their 4th amendment. we are protected against unreasonable searches and seisures. It's not dependant on whether we have enemies. heck, we had enemies when the thing was written but you can't go around searching citizens simply because they may or maynot fit some profile that you came up with.

The fourth amendment guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure that is not judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. If a person is not trying to smuggle a weapon or contraband, has emptied his/her pockets, shoes and all metal items into the bins for x-ray and sets off the metal detector that establishes probable cause and pat down or imagery is no longer an unreasonable search. Terry vs. Ohio 392 U.S.1(1968) established that law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless pat-down search search on a level of suspicion that leads that officer to reasonably believe that the suspicious person may have a weapon.

 

[disneyfan55]

I think the problem arose mainly since the enhanced pat down started. Before that, you could opt out (although some have said it was somewhat of an issue and the TSA shouting opt out and delaying) but now that the choice is one of 2 quite extensive searches (one way or another) travellers, pilots and others have rejected it.

 

[sam_gordon]

For the record I specifically did not identify a nationality, race or geographic location in my original statement pertaining to my disagreement with the policies of the ACLU.

I agree you did not. You used the term "fit a certain profile". I ould have used "white, blue eyed, American", but let's be honest, that's not who would be profiled.

Ironically I also stand behind the ACLU's right to defend the civil right's of citizens, but often times this, and organizations like the ACLU, goes above and beyond in defending the "civil rights" of those who are in the country illegally or those who are here with the sole intention of causing harm.

Again, Civil Rights are for everyone. Some of the rights might be rescinded if one is convicted of a crime, but until that conviction they are "innocent until proven guilty". IMO, even if Osama Bin Laden were found and transported to the US, the government shouldn't be able to violate his civil rights, which are the same rights you and I have.

The fourth amendment guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure that is not judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. If a person is not trying to smuggle a weapon or contraband, has emptied his/her pockets, shoes and all metal items into the bins for x-ray and sets off the metal detector that establishes probable cause and pat down or imagery is no longer an unreasonable search. Terry vs. Ohio 392 U.S.1(1968) established that law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless pat-down search search on a level of suspicion that leads that officer to reasonably believe that the suspicious person may have a weapon.

Ah, but is refusal to use the new scanner "probable cause"?

 

[eliza61]

Who has over sight on the TSA. so say Wednesday there is a congressional meeting on this, what happens? does Congress say look guys you have to get rid of the machines. how does this work.

 

[derricksonb]

I agree you did not. You used the term "fit a certain profile". I ould have used "white, blue eyed, American", but let's be honest, that's not who would be profiled.

Minus the eye color I fit the description you provide above. I can't recall many flights where I have simply passed through security at an airport without getting called out for additional security checks. So I suppose I do fit a certain profile....

Again, Civil Rights are for everyone. Some of the rights might be rescinded if one is convicted of a crime, but until that conviction they are "innocent until proven guilty". IMO, even if Osama Bin Laden were found and transported to the US, the government shouldn't be able to violate his civil rights, which are the same rights you and I have.

On this point I think we will have to agree to disagree. I'm not above hurting someones feelings if that means securing the safety of may more. I'm still not quite sure how walking through an body imaging machine violates anyone's civil rights but the next time my doctor wants me to have a CAT Scan maybe I'll call up the ACLU and PETA.

Ah, but is refusal to use the new scanner "probable cause"?

I would equate refusal to use the new scanner along the same lines as refusal to submit to a field sobriety test or breathalyzer during a DUI stop. In most states refusal to submit is not an admission of guilt, but allows the officer(s) to arrest the suspect and requires additional tests that may or may not be more intrusive such as blood test performed at a local hospital. Since a precedent has already been established for use during motor vehicle and DUI checkpoints, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of such provisions and in 2009 Ohio vs. Marshall upheld that these methods do not violate the Fifth amendment protections against self-incrimination and double jeopardy or the Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches.

 

[derricksonb]

Who has over sight on the TSA. so say Wednesday there is a congressional meeting on this, what happens? does Congress say look guys you have to get rid of the machines. how does this work.

TSA falls under DHS which is chaired by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano.