View Poll Results: Should airports use full-body X-ray machines?

Voters
48. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, you can see that is a roll of quarters in my pocket.

    9 18.75%
  • No, and keep your hands off my junk!

    39 81.25%
Page 11 of 11 First ... 7891011
  1. #101

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Inland Empire, California
    Posts
    1,151
    Style
    Limalama, Judo & BJJ
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Hiro Protagonist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    Did I miss something? Was there a new article posted?
    Sorry I was mistaken. The incident I was referring to appears to be a joke. I had only read the blurb Hiro posted and had not followed the link first. It showcases a big part of the concern I have for this type of technology but its not an actual incident.

    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    My point is if it is in your job description it is not illegal. They are required, as of now, to view these images. Just like LEOs, the forensic techs, the lawyers, the jurists, a computer tech fixing a computer etc etc etc.

    It is the keeping and what you try to do with the images that makes it illegal.
    That clears things up thanks. Do you happen to know what security measures are in place to make sure none of these pictures can be stolen? I've repeatedly read that it is impossible for these pictures to be stolen but I have not seen specifics on how this is accomplished.

  2. #102
    submessenger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    KAUS
    Posts
    4,814
    Style
    BJJ
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Story here...
    Quote Originally Posted by WFTV
    Even if security at OIA were privatized little would change for passengers. They would still have to go through the same explicit security measures.
    Expected, but still unconstitutional. SCOTUS in Katz v. US:

    Quote Originally Posted by SCOTUS
    Because the Fourth Amendment protects people, rather than places, its reach cannot turn on the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure.
    It's slightly cherry-picked, but in other words, you do not lose your rights under the 4th just because you have stepped foot into an airport.
    They go on to say:
    Quote Originally Posted by SCOTUS
    Although the surveillance in this case may have been so narrowly circumscribed that it could constitutionally have been authorized in advance, it was not in fact conducted pursuant to the warrant procedure which is a constitutional precondition of such electronic surveillance.
    You have a reasonable expectation of privacy under your clothing. If you didn't, it would be legal to go nude everywhere anytime. Thus, via Katz, TSA must obtain a bench-issued warrant, including production of probable cause, in order to forcibly search you - that is, to search you without your consent.

    The only thing that is ostensibly allowing what the TSA is doing is consent. It's the same bullshit that most states have pulled with their driver's licensing, your license probably says something along the lines of "operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to search." The populace hasn't really revolted about that power grab, because the governments involved generally haven't abused that power - it's difficult to do so because they can't always stop and search every single car before it enters any roadway. But, that's what the TSA is doing...

    The reality is that it ceases to be consent when you have no viable travel alternative. The reality is that it ceases to be consent when you could be detained and threatened despite doing nothing wrong.

    TSA enhanced patdowns and AITs should be criminal, imho, because you should never be compelled to suspend one of your fundamental rights (privacy) in order to exercise another (free travel). (these auto-rewritten links are buggy and annoying)

    The only real difference between the TSA or one of their hand-picked NGOs engaging in these tactics is which court system an aggrieved traveler might start with. Ironically, it might be far easier to find a DA willing to prosecute a Raytheon employee for molestation than a civil attorney willing to go after DHS for constitutional violations.

    Answers to other privatization questions from earlier in the thread:
    Quote Originally Posted by WFTV
    Even though TSA screeners would not longer (sic) be on the job, TSA officials would choose and pay the private company.
    Seventeen airports across the country have already made the switch to private screening companies.

Page 11 of 11 First ... 7891011

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in