TSA - Going too Far?

[Balta1701]

Exactly. And for each one of them there are virtually no actions taken to prevent catastrophic terrorist attacks (see: London Subway Bombing).

This point, of course, is not an argument against the TSA instituting intrusive measures if they're effective...it's an argument that other methods of transportation need securing as well.

[BigSqwert]

This point, of course, is not an argument against the TSA instituting intrusive measures if they're effective...it's an argument that other methods of transportation need securing as well.

And like you mentioned earlier, this particular method can and will likely be breached anyway.

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, an example of security measures being reactive instead of proactive.

[StrangeSox]

And like you mentioned earlier, this particular method can and will likely be breached anyway.

 

There are always holes in security plans. Always. You need to find a reasonable threat basis to design a security plan around, otherwise you can always "what if" a situation forever and spend more and more money or, alternatively, say "f*** it" and do nothing.

[Soxbadger]

Well Florida v. Bostick is pretty clear;

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-1717.ZS.html

 

(a) A consensual encounter does not trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19, n. 6. Even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask the individual questions, Florida v. Rodriguez, 469 U.S. 1, 5-6, ask to examine identification, INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216, and request consent to search luggage, Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 501, provided they do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required. Thus, there is no doubt that if this same encounter had taken place before Bostick boarded the bus or in the bus terminal, it would not be a seizure. Pp. 4-5.

 

So all you have to do is change:

 

Thus if the encounter had taken place in an airport terminal, it would not be a seizure.

 

As long as the person can say no to the search and walk away, it should be perfectly legal under Bostick as it is a "consensual search".

 

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Now we're all suspected criminals?

 

Well according to Scalia's logic law abiding citizens dont have to be concerned because they have nothing to hide.

 

I disagree with Scalia on almost every opinion of his that I have read, so youll get no argument from me.

 

But I cant deny that right now Scalia is on the side that most likely will get to write the law, and in that case expect it to be written in a way that you lose substantial rights to the govt.

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

(1) Since when does having a right to be somewhere suddenly cut off your constitutional protections? Pretty sure illegal immigrants are afforded the protections of the Constitution despite not having the right to be here.

 

There are other ways to travel beyond flight. I think that there's a reasonable argument to be made that this isn't "unreasonable" because its A) applied equally - even flight crew is subject to this and B) because there is no constitutional requirement to give you access to the sterile side of an airport.

 

(2) There will be lawsuits and people will win and society gets to continue picking up yet another tab that doesn't need to be paid. Multi-million dollar lawsuits just means the airlines get to tack on an extra 2 dollar government fee to sit in a fund for those lawsuits. It won't stop employees from doing it, just like criminal threats won't either.

 

There's absolutely no need for these scanners, and there's even less of a need to save the pictures afterwards.

 

I don't really get this part of the argument. There is absolutely no way that airlines can be held liable for the actions of agents who are not employed with the airline or doing business with the airline. The only financial obligation would be the government's, not Delta, JetBlue or Southwest.

 

These backscatter machines, in my opinion will probably detect more than a metal detector which does make them very useful IMO, and frankly given that the images resemble an X-ray more than porn, I don't really know why anyone is that concerned about suddenly masturbating TSA agents to begin with. I just hope that if they are saving these nudie pics of me when I fly that they'll finally put better lighting in the security area. Honestly, CFL's make me look fat.

 

Is airline security a little over the top? Yeah. No need to take off shoes or the liquid limit, IMO, but this seems like a reasonable advance in technology and may actually make us a little safer, unlike most of the other security theatre things we have to go through when we fly.

[Jenksismyhero]

No one is making you fly. If you don't like it, there are tons of other modes of transportation out there available.

 

"No one is making you use a phone. If you don't like the NSA tapping it, there are tons of other modes of communication available."

 

Seriously, if this is our thinking these days, the terrorists have absolutely won.

[Rex Kickass]

You can't fly a train into the side of a building.

 

But the damage inflicted by blowing up say the PATH train tunnel would be pretty devastating to a number of buildings in NYC and Jersey City.

[Steve9347]

The systems weren't supposed to save images. Are they actually doing so?

 

Anyway, it's not like that would stop a person who wanted to save them. Just sit in the room and pull out your cell phone camera.

 

The only thing that will genuinely stop employees from doing so is a combination of penalties and checks of the type of people who get in there. Criminal penalties might. Of course, people will still do so.

 

The illegal immigrant thing is of course a bogus comparison, and frankly you ought to know better. You give up various levels of your constitutional rights all the time. Every time you set foot outside your door, you've given up some measure of your rights. If you set foot into a building that you don't own, you give up more of your rights.

 

The technology has evolved to reduce the clarity of identifying details. The systems blur faces, or they produce body images that look like chalk outlines.

 

Amsterdam's airport is moving ahead with full-body scanners after trying new software that projects a stylized image -- rather than an actual picture -- onto a computer screen. It highlights the area of the body where objects are concealed in pockets or under the clothing.

 

The TSA says it uses logistical methods to safeguard privacy. Full-body images are viewed in a walled-off location not visible to the public. The security officer assisting the passenger cannot view the image, and the officer who views the image doesn't see the passenger. If the officer viewing the image sees something of concern, he notifies the agent who is with the passenger to do further screening.

 

The machines can't store or print images, and the TSA says officers who view the images are not allowed to take cameras or cell phones into the screening rooms.

[BigSqwert]

You can't fly a train into the side of a building.

A bomb detonating during rush hour at Union Station would be pretty damn bad. Probably worse than 200 people dying in a plane crash.

[LittleHurt05]

Exactly. And for each one of them there are virtually no actions taken to prevent catastrophic terrorist attacks (see: London Subway Bombing).

 

Well yeah, and those other methods definitely need to ramp up their security as well, but are much harder to contol. Also, the damage one can do with an airplane is far greater than a train or in the subway.

[Steve9347]

This seems like outrage for the sake of outrage if anyone thinks images like the below are anything to worry about.

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

"No one is making you use a phone. If you don't like the NSA tapping it, there are tons of other modes of communication available."

 

Seriously, if this is our thinking these days, the terrorists have absolutely won.

 

There's a reasonable expectation of privacy when using a phone. "If you have nothing to hide" doesn't fly here imo, regardless of what Scalia says.

 

This clearly does not apply in all cases, such as nuclear plants, military bases and federal buildings. Is an airport another reasonable exception, given past acts and future threat risks?

 

But the damage inflicted by blowing up say the PATH train tunnel would be pretty devastating to a number of buildings in NYC and Jersey City.

 

You could be right, I don't know. This would go back to design basis threats and risk assessment.

[Jenksismyhero]

There are other ways to travel beyond flight. I think that there's a reasonable argument to be made that this isn't "unreasonable" because its A) applied equally - even flight crew is subject to this and B) because there is no constitutional requirement to give you access to the sterile side of an airport.

 

 

 

I don't really get this part of the argument. There is absolutely no way that airlines can be held liable for the actions of agents who are not employed with the airline or doing business with the airline. The only financial obligation would be the government's, not Delta, JetBlue or Southwest.

 

These backscatter machines, in my opinion will probably detect more than a metal detector which does make them very useful IMO, and frankly given that the images resemble an X-ray more than porn, I don't really know why anyone is that concerned about suddenly masturbating TSA agents to begin with. I just hope that if they are saving these nudie pics of me when I fly that they'll finally put better lighting in the security area. Honestly, CFL's make me look fat.

 

Is airline security a little over the top? Yeah. No need to take off shoes or the liquid limit, IMO, but this seems like a reasonable advance in technology and may actually make us a little safer, unlike most of the other security theatre things we have to go through when we fly.

 

I'm saying the availability of some civil remedy as a deterrent for the TSA isn't going to matter. So fine, the government will mandate a new fee be collected to cover the costs. It's the same idea - we'll all pay, but it won't stop anything.

[BigSqwert]

Well yeah, and those other methods definitely need to ramp up their security as well, but are much harder to contol. Also, the damage one can do with an airplane is far greater than a train or in the subway.

 

So you still think they're groups of terrorists to get on a plane to take over the controls and fly them into buildings? I don't see a 9/11 type scenario taking place now that the cockpit doors are locked. A plane blowing up is not as bad as a very large train station blowing up where there could be several hundreds of people.

[Steve9347]

Also, I can understand not wanting some TSA agent "with only a GED" to be able to "see your 15 year old daughter naked... but the scans don't exactly show a great representation of the human body, and the agent doing the scans never sees the person being scanned. They are separated.

[Soxbadger]

Its been our thinking since 1991 at least, which is far before terrorism was even a buzz word.

 

There are consequences to a conservative controlled Supreme Court, one of them is that they do not really believe in "criminal" rights. So they have no problem making arguments that "criminals" have no expectation of privacy so anything goes.

 

I entirely disagree with it, but to act like this is because of terrorism completely ignores that basically the same issue was decided by the Supreme Court 20 years ago. This is about govt control and we lost the battle decades ago, and the current court would probably like to take away more protections if it gets the chance.

 

[Balta1701]

You could be right, I don't know. This would go back to design basis threats and risk assessment.

In terms of damaging other buildings, you'd need one particularly powerful explosive or one very poorly designed structure. Look how well, for example, the WTC took a massive car bomb explosion directly underneath it.

[StrangeSox]

This seems like outrage for the sake of outrage if anyone thinks images like the below are anything to worry about.

 

Hot.

[Steve9347]

I'd rather my future daughter get a full body scan with these safeguards in place than get on a plane with dudes with boxcutters hellbent on f***ing her day up.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Steve9347

[StrangeSox]

In terms of damaging other buildings, you'd need one particularly powerful explosive or one very poorly designed structure. Look how well, for example, the WTC took a massive car bomb explosion directly underneath it.

 

Right, back to DBT. Theoretically, you could pack an entire train full of C4, but is that a reasonable threat to design to? Probably not.

[Balta1701]

So you still think they're groups of terrorists to get on a plane to take over the controls and fly them into buildings? I don't see a 9/11 type scenario taking place now that the cockpit doors are locked. A plane blowing up is not as bad as a very large train station blowing up where there could be several hundreds of people.

If you actually want to kill hundreds of people in a train station with a single weapon, you're probably going to need to use gas.

[BigSqwert]

Its been our thinking since 1991 at least, which is far before terrorism was even a buzz word.

 

There are consequences to a conservative controlled Supreme Court, one of them is that they do not really believe in "criminal" rights. So they have no problem making arguments that "criminals" have no expectation of privacy so anything goes.

 

I entirely disagree with it, but to act like this is because of terrorism completely ignores that basically the same issue was decided by the Supreme Court 20 years ago. This is about govt control and we lost the battle decades ago, and the current court would probably like to take away more protections if it gets the chance.

Indeed.

[BigSqwert]

If you actually want to kill hundreds of people in a train station, you're probably going to need to use gas.

Which is also not being checked for.

[Balta1701]

Which is also not being checked for.

Which is of course an argument for checking for it, not an argument for not doing something.