"Naked" X-Ray Scans At The Airport.. Your Thoughts?

[legalsea]

You state your case very well Solicitor; however, I believe the courts would decide that this interference does not constitute undue interference in the airlines right to carry on their business.

I rather think you are right. Rather, the courts would state that the government's rules and regulations are valid under the Interstate Commerce Clause (the courts would state that the laws are reasonable, etc).

Of course, in my view, if an airline no longer has passengers then it has no business to carry on.

 

[TinklednPants]

As time goes by, your right to purchase a ticket from a private corporation and use their product (i.e., flying) is being slowly curtailed.

How so? I can agree that it has become less "convenient" to fly but my ability or "right" to fly remains unchanged.

I still choose my carrier, destination, dates, etc. and purchase a ticket for same. My right to do this has not been impacted whatsoever.

 

[testifyoncruises]

Security theatre plain and simple.

Best read on this is here:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/airport_securit_12.html

If you think the Islamic terrorists are not purchasing their own see through detectors to figure out how to defeat them.

Bring on profiling!

 

[legalsea]

How so? I can agree that it has become less "convenient" to fly but my ability or "right" to fly remains unchanged.

I still choose my carrier, destination, dates, etc. and purchase a ticket for same. My right to do this has not been impacted whatsoever.

Well, good for you. Of course, I was not talking about your 'right' to 1) purchase a ticket; 2) choose your carrier; 3) choose your destination; or 4) choose your date of travel.

Come back when you are denied the right to board because your name resembles the name of someone on the 'do not fly' list, or because you declined a more invasive search.

 

[sbell111]

Bosh. You are just arguing for argument's sake. If you don't think that being subject to strip searches after entering a secured area is not under the 'rights' umbrella, well.....

You did not make the case that individual rights were being violated. In fact, you specifically allowed that air travel is completely voluntary. How could security checks to partake in voluntary activities be deemed unconstitutional?

 

[sbell111]

Security theatre plain and simple.

Best read on this is here:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/airport_securit_12.html

If you think the Islamic terrorists are not purchasing their own see through detectors to figure out how to defeat them.

Bring on profiling!

Where do you think they are buying these scanners? Craigslist?

 

[TinklednPants]

Well, good for you. Of course, I was not talking about your 'right' to 1) purchase a ticket; 2) choose your carrier; 3) choose your destination; or 4) choose your date of travel.

Come back when you are denied the right to board because your name resembles the name of someone on the 'do not fly' list, or because you declined a more invasive search.

Well, I wouldn't decline a more invasive search. I'm far more concerned with my right to fly SAFELY. I personally wouldn't give a hoot if a rectal thermometer were part of the screening if it enhanced security somehow.

 

[sbell111]

Well, good for you. Of course, I was not talking about your 'right' to 1) purchase a ticket; 2) choose your carrier; 3) choose your destination; or 4) choose your date of travel.

Come back when you are denied the right to board because your name resembles the name of someone on the 'do not fly' list, or because you declined a more invasive search.

1. Merely having a name similar to someone one the DNF list will not result in a person being turned away. It merely results in additional review to ensure that the person is not the individual on the DNF list.
2. Declining a security search to partake in a voluntary activity does not equate to a violation of one's constitutional rights.

 

[FireDancer]

I guess I will try to answer the question about what ‘rights’ are being violated.

Say you wish to fly from DFW to NYC. You purchase a ticket from American Airlines, a private corporation. You go out to the airport to catch your flight.

Now, in order to board your flight, you must first be searched by personnel of the Transportation Security Administration: a federal government agency.

There is no ‘probable cause’ to search you. The government has stated, however, via laws and regulations, that if you, a private citizen of the United States, wish to board a flight on an airplane you must first submit to searches.

In the early days of flight there was no searching of the body. After the hijackings of the late 1960s and early 1970s the government mandated that metal detectors be installed at all US airports, and that you pass through said metal detector in order to board your flight. Over the years more and more invasive procedures have been placed, all in the name of public safety.

As time goes by, your right to purchase a ticket from a private corporation and use their product (i.e., flying) is being slowly curtailed. Some have spoken of a person having no ‘right to fly’. I am not sure what they mean. I think they confuse it with ‘no right to drive an automobile’, which is, after all different. You are not trying to fly the airplane, but you are hiring American Airlines to fly you to your destination.

True, you may choose to not fly and so not be subjected to any search at all. However, when the government puts such restrictions on people that people choose not to fly, that is interference with the airlines right to operate a business.

Mind, the government relies on the Interstate Commerce Clause as the basis for mandating that you, and the airlines, obey all Federal laws and regulations. However, even if you desired to fly completely within your state, you must still abide by these rules.

There is also the strange fact that once you enter the security area of an airport that you literally give up most Constitutional rights. Once you are in the ‘secured’ area you are subject to even more searches, if the TSA employees wish to. Again, no ‘probable cause’ is needed. You may be stripped –searched and even prevented from leaving the secured area, if you declare that you have changed your mind and do not wish to fly (a Ninth Circuit decision, United States v. Aukai). That Court stated, in part, that airport screening searches are no longer considered a matter of implied consent; they are ‘regulatory’ searches (a huge, huge change in thinking, although the Supreme Court has not addreseed this yet).

So I look at this issue two ways: the right of a private business to carry on its business without undue government interference, and the right of a citizen to conduct business with said business. I only wish to fly to New York City: I do not wish to be probed and humiliated in order to do so. I also do not want to see the airlines driven out of business.

There are plenty of example of having to give up certain rights to partake in an activity or purchase a product. For example, to purchase certain guns (maybe even all, I don't want to misrepresent the law) you have to submit to a background check. If you don't want the background check you can choose to not purchase the gun.

The police would need a warrant to enter your home and search your bags, none is needed when entering an airport and many federal buildings.

If you are pulled over for drunk driving you can have your driver's license administratively suspended immediately even though we are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not on the side of the road with a field test.

However, we know that we have to submit to these things to partake in the activity or purchase the product. No one can go to buy alcohol and then refuse to show their license citing privacy as the reason. We all know that you need to prove your identity and age to purchase alcohol.

There is also no right to purchase anything or use the service of any private corporation. The business can't deny you service based on protected criteria (race for example) but I don't believe the modest are a protected class so even with that stretch it can't be claimed that anyone is being denied something they have a right to.

All privileges are not rights. Many times the two get mistaken for each other and rights get invented. For example, I always hear that people are given the right to be happy. Uh, no. People have the right to pursue happiness provided it doesn't violate the law. Also, all rights aren't absolute. For example, you have the right to property but there are limits to how you can defend it. You have the right to free speech but there are still slander laws.

Regarding a previous poster that likened the scans to a strip search or tapping a phone. Uh, first, no clothing is being removed and the image isn't being displayed for everyone, it is viewed in a room. A phone tap is a tap of your private property, since you are going into a public area (even if the airport is privately owned) the expectation of privacy changes.

 

[testifyoncruises]

Where do you think they are buying these scanners? Craigslist?

They have their methods. Do not underestimate their resolve.

Nothing that the scanners do would have stopped the panty bomber.

 

[TinklednPants]

Ah c'mon Firedancer. There you go making perfect sense again. There's no place for that on these boards.

 

[sbell111]

Come back when you are denied the right to board because your name resembles the name of someone on the 'do not fly' list, or because you declined a more invasive search.

I just checked in my handy dandy copy of the Constitution. As it turns out, none of us have a "right to board" an airplane. We purchase the privilege to board the airplane, but that can be rescinded for all manner of reasons.

 

[TinklednPants]

the panty bomber.

Haven't heard that term yet!

Sounds like someone who snuck into the sorority house!

 

[legalsea]

I just checked in my handy dandy copy of the Constitution. As it turns out, none of us have a "right to board" an airplane. We purchase the privilege to board the airplane, but that can be rescinded for all manner of reasons.

This has gotten too silly.

 

[alamode]

One thing I always find interesting is how people look at the exact same thing and each one sees something totally, completely different.

Public strip searches? Where? I may want to go take a look!

And now this is considered child porn?

I guess I just don't see what you are seeing and I am not even slightly worried about my privacy being invaded and my civil rights being stepped on.

How can these scanners NOT be seen as public strip searches? That's what they do? Plus, I never said that THIS was tied to child porn, I was mentioning it in relation to unwarranted wire and internet tapping. All excuses used by governments to ensure that your privacy is being removed.

And what about the rest of us, who don't live in the US but still have to go through these stupid security circuses? The way to stop terrorism is through better national security intelligence, not more gadgets.

 

[sbell111]

They have their methods. Do not underestimate their resolve.

These machines are only manufactured by a few companies. Tracking their sales is not incredibly difficult. Plus, their purchase includes the delivery and installation. Dontcha think that someone might get suspicious if they want it delivered to someplace other than an airport or similar facility?

Nothing that the scanners do would have stopped the panty bomber.

This is not correct. It has been widely reported that this type of device would probably have detected the crotch bomb.

 

[sbell111]

This has gotten too silly.

It certainly has been silly how a few have somehow invented rights that don't exist only to claim that they have been violated.

 

[sbell111]

How can these scanners NOT be seen as public strip searches?

Because they neither cause the person to strip nor are public?

And what about the rest of us, who don't live in the US but still have to go through these stupid security circuses? The way to stop terrorism is through better national security intelligence, not more gadgets.

Intelligence will always be a part of the solution, but it will never be the perfect solution. After all, intelligence operations are often foiled by the simple ability to keep a secret.

 

[testifyoncruises]

These machines are only manufactured by a few companies. Tracking their sales is not incredibly difficult. Plus, their purchase includes the delivery and installation. Dontcha think that someone might get suspicious if they want it delivered to someplace other than an airport or similar facility?

Know anything about the manufacture of PETN? AMazing how that got the hands of a Islamic terrorist in Yemen. Again, do not underestimate these Islamic terrorists resolve.

This is not correct. It has been widely reported that this type of device would probably have detected the crotch bomb.

Actually it has been widely reported that these feel good devices would have been completely ineffective.

The systems in place are not working because they do not go to the root of the problem. Stopping these Islamic terrorists from even entering the airport is the only way. Profiling works.

 

[FireDancer]

Actually it has been widely reported that these feel good devices would have been completely ineffective.

It has been widely reported that this type of device would probably have detected the crotch bomb.

Both have been reported and both are equally speculative.

How can these scanners NOT be seen as public strip searches? That's what they do?

Public strip search:
Passenger stands at the front of the security line, is forced to disrobe in plain site, TSA agent lifts all manner of body part to check crevasses, you are cleared to fly and redress with a slightly more red complexion and perhaps a bit colder.

Not public strip search:
Passenger stands in front of scanning device, fully clothed. After a couple of second, still completely clothed, he is cleared and continues. Any image viewed is hidden from public view and not only is it a ghost like image that is in no way a photograph, but it is viewed only by the person the passenger gave implicit permission to do so by purchasing the ticket in the first place.

And what about the rest of us, who don't live in the US but still have to go through these stupid security circuses? The way to stop terrorism is through better national security intelligence, not more gadgets.

No, there is no way to stop terrorism, only a way to prevent its success or minimize it. Also, neither intelligence nor gadgets will in isolation maximize this goal. Working together they will do it together. They are the 21st century Ebony & Ivory.