New airport scanners.

[gtmtnbiker]

So you ask what can be done? Let's see... There are better ways to conduct security and still treat the passengers like they're human beings and not all potential criminals. How about more training for actual sensitivity toward the disabled, young, and pregnant for starters? There are plenty of big news stories that have been released in just over the past few months that expose how insensitive the TSA agents are. Sure they have long work hours herding human meat but that doesn't mean they need to make crippled kids drag themselves through metal detectors without parents help or enhanced pat-down young 7 year old girls who are already miserable from traveling.

There are jerks found everywhere. TSA, Gamestop, Police, Schools, etc. Personally, I haven't encountered a rude TSA employee that I can recall. Ditto for a Gamestop worker. Not saying that they don't exist but I haven't experienced it.

Maybe its time to invest in less invasive electronics that aren't as looked down upon as the backscatter scanner and try some better forensics methods that are hyper sensitive to the most destructive chemical bases instead? We already have all the security methods in place to prevent any potential terrorist like the ones back in 9/11 so no more box cutters, knives, sporks, water bottles, and blast doors on the pilot cabin. But you know what? weapons can be fashioned out of anything so unless you bind the passengers hands and give them adult diapers for the flight, you're never going to solve the problem of some nut sharpening an airline tray and stabbing an attendant.

Yes, I understand your point about someone making a weapon out of rope or a plastic knife. I think it would be easier for some passengers to jump on someone who is a threat and not armed with a knife/gun.

I'm sure there is research being done to find better ways of detecting stuff without losing privacy but it doesn't exist yet. Maybe a year from now? Maybe 10 years from now? Maybe never?

I am not saying to stop airport security. Not in the slightest. I think it does help and I don't think it should be scaled back to nothing. The security we have now is a joke. They just let women wearing hijabs a free pass through the scanning at the airport. Great job your beloved scanners did when you can just get an out by religion or dispensation for some special condition.

I don't think that is true. Can you cite a reference that says that someone gets a dispensation from searches because of their religion? I travel about 3-4 times per year by plane. Since 9/11, I've yet to have a pat-down or backscatter search. I just got back from a trip to FL and at both airports (Fort Lauderdale & Boston), it is something like 1 out of every 50-60 passengers that are pulled aside. Most people just put their stuff on the xray conveyer belt and walk through the metal detector. You and others in this thread make it sound like everyone is subjected to a full search. Maybe if you look and act like a "punk", you get singled out more often. Just like driving a red porsche or corvette above the speed limit seems to attract the police.

So with your reasoning everybody should just go back to pre 20th century travel in the name of comfort and security because they don't deserve to speak out about current security standards? That is a very simplistic answer and it makes you sound very close minded to what goes on around you in this giant blue ball we live in.

I don't have any objections to people commenting/complaining to their representatives or on these forums. I don't have any personal objections to the existing security procedures. Yeah, it sucks that it takes 30 minutes longer to board a plane but unfortunately, that's life.

Your reasoning may work for people who live in the US or other large land locked nations rife with resources that are capable of being self reliant with their own domestically created resources (which isn't how things are anymore especially for the great USA regrettably). International travel by cargo freighter is no longer an option in this age of technology. All your games, computer parts, gizmos, and cheap clothes you're probably wearing right now, where do you think they came from? The USA or wherever you live? Not in the slightest, they came from cargo ship from china, indonesia, malaysia, phillipines, etc.

I never said that sea travel was a great option. It is an option though. If you feel the security is too intrusive, you can:

1. travel by ship
2. don't travel at all

Those are options. They're not great if you want to be somewhere quickly but they are still options. You need to weigh the cost/time/inconvenience/principles to determine which option is best for you.

Also I agree with what Hatta said. The TSA is an arm of the Federal Government and they are hand in hand with the private aviation businesses. There are no alternatives for inernational travel equivalent to air travel. You have no choice in air carriers who treat their customers better, everyone is sorted through the same gates before entering the terminal. If we didn't complain the TSA wouldn't improve how it treated the people its supposed to SERVE. The TSA isn't going to just say, oh, we should improve our service to customers because we're so benevolent and kind. That's not the way it works, things don't change till people speak out. And that's why we speak out on this. It's not just bitching as you claim it to be.

So have you actually been mistreated by TSA in your experience? I do agree that people in all jobs should treat people with respect. There are jerks everywhere, not just at TSA. If you are pleasant and don't have a chip on your shoulders, odds are high that you'll have a good interaction with someone such as TSA. Like I said before, I never had a rude person at TSA. Ditto for Gamestop.

[Upsidedown Fuji]

We're obviously not going to agree on this. You are fine with your police state style security because it makes you feel safer and I am against the way security is applied by the federal government.

You want me to just give up international travel cold turkey because I am not in lock-step with the kind of security we are forced to deal with at airports. Give me a break.

Let's agree to disagree then because I am just going to choose the option you never wrote in which is always an option, to protest until it is righted. The last time I checked the USA is still a REPUBLIC and not a democracy.

edit: Yes I have been selectively screened by TSA and they aren't friendly at all when I dealt with them at LAX a few years back. Also 5 years ago I got a nice visit from homeland security which wasn't all that fun to deal with either.

[Upsidedown Fuji]

Also the 4th ammendment says hello:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The government never had the right to have UNREASONABLE searches and VIOLATIONS without probable cause. Just saying everybody is a potential terrorist is not enough to warrant such methods. Innocent till proven guilty not guilty till proven innocent. :/

But-but-but "If you do nothing wrong there's nothing to hide right?" Bullocks!

[GSZX1337]

What ever happened to "land of the free, home of the brave"?

The Government took all of our rights and we turned into giant pussies.

[dedalusdedalus]

Also the 4th ammendment says hello:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Judicial interpretation has carved out a pretty large exception from the 4th Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.

Essentially, SCOTUS says that the 4th Amendment is subject to a balancing test: if there's a "compelling" gov't interest and only a "minimal" intrusion into privacy, the search/seizure withstands 4th Amendment scrutiny. Read these cases to see the balancing test applied in similar circumstances:
-Michigan v. Sitz
-US v. Martinez-Fuente

I'm willing to wager that if a test case regarding full-body scanning were brought before SCOTUS, they'd uphold full-body scanning under this same rationale.

Honestly, anyone who's vehemently against this should just attempt to board a plane, scream OMG UNREASONABLE SEARCH when they try to scan him, then argue his case all the way to SCOTUS.

The Government took all of our rights and we turned into giant pussies.

If anything, blame previous generations for this. SCOTUS began punching holes in the 4th Amendment sometime in the 60s.

[Upsidedown Fuji]

Also the 4th ammendment says hello:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Judicial interpretation has carved out a pretty large exception from the 4th Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.

Essentially, SCOTUS says that the 4th Amendment is subject to a balancing test: if there's a "compelling" gov't interest and only a "minimal" intrusion into privacy, the search/seizure withstands 4th Amendment scrutiny. Read these cases to see the balancing test applied in similar circumstances:
-Michigan v. Sitz
-US v. Martinez-Fuente

I'm willing to wager that if a test case regarding full-body scanning were brought before SCOTUS, they'd uphold full-body scanning under this same rationale.

Honestly, anyone who's vehemently against this should just attempt to board a plane, scream OMG UNREASONABLE SEARCH when they try to scan him, then argue his case all the way to SCOTUS.

The Government took all of our rights and we turned into giant pussies.

If anything, blame previous generations for this. SCOTUS began punching holes in the 4th Amendment sometime in the 60s.

As long as there is room for argument I think this case could work if the right people were involved on the defense. "Minimal intrusion" could mean just about anything.

[dedalusdedalus]

As long as there is room for argument I think this case could work if the right people were involved on the defense. "Minimal intrusion" could mean just about anything.

That might be the wiggle room in the balancing test. In the two cases that I sent, these are the contours of "minimal" intrusion:
a) Sitz = stop/question and a sobriety test.
b) Martinez-Fuente = stop/question at an immigration checkpoint.

The other shoe though is the "compelling gov't interest" half of the balancing test. In this case, we're talking terrorism. On the off-chance something slips through the cracks and a bomb explodes at 20K feet, it's likely that a thousand people will die. Given a much more compelling gov't interest at play than in Sitz (preventing drunk driving) or Martinez-Fuente (enforcing immigration law), courts might well find that more intrusive measures are warranted.

But no point wagging our tongues ad nauseam over this, right? Someone get into a tussle with TSA and bring a test case before the court. Get it done!

[Upsidedown Fuji]

As long as there is room for argument I think this case could work if the right people were involved on the defense. "Minimal intrusion" could mean just about anything.

That might be the wiggle room in the balancing test. In the two cases that I sent, these are the contours of "minimal" intrusion:
a) Sitz = stop/question and a sobriety test.
b) Martinez-Fuente = stop/question at an immigration checkpoint.

The other shoe though is the "compelling gov't interest" half of the balancing test. In this case, we're talking terrorism. On the off-chance something slips through the cracks and a bomb explodes at 20K feet, it's likely that a thousand people will die. Given a much more compelling gov't interest at play than in Sitz (preventing drunk driving) or Martinez-Fuente (enforcing immigration law), courts might well find that more intrusive measures are warranted.

But no point wagging our tongues ad nauseam over this, right? Someone get into a tussle with TSA and bring a test case before the court. Get it done!

Thanks for the info on SCOTUS. It sure does throw a wrench in things when it comes to government interest. I got lot of reading to catch up on. At least I have something to look forward to read tonight.

Hopefully somebody does bring a strong test case to court. It would in the very least bring more press to the issue.

I'm going to go cool off by firing up a copy of Outrun and get my mind all off this for a little bit. XD

[gtmtnbiker]

We're obviously not going to agree on this. You are fine with your police state style security because it makes you feel safer and I am against the way security is applied by the federal government.

To me, you're using a hyperbole. Based on my experience, I haven't seen evidence of the current security procedures being "police state style". Some years ago, I was in the Frankfurt Airport and there I saw lots of police or soldiers brandishing assault rifles walking through the airport. This was before 9/11. That's closer to police state security IMO.

You want me to just give up international travel cold turkey because I am not in lock-step with the kind of security we are forced to deal with at airports. Give me a break.

Travelling via airport under the ideal conditions that you want is not a right.

Let's agree to disagree then because I am just going to choose the option you never wrote in which is always an option, to protest until it is righted. The last time I checked the USA is still a REPUBLIC and not a democracy.

Yes, protesting is fine and is your right. Personally, I think there are bigger issues to worry about than this such as increasing number of jobs, decreasing poverty & hunger, better education opportunities for the non-wealthy, increasing our usage of green energy.

edit: Yes I have been selectively screened by TSA and they aren't friendly at all when I dealt with them at LAX a few years back. Also 5 years ago I got a nice visit from homeland security which wasn't all that fun to deal with either.

I hope I'm wrong but from this thread, it sounds like you have issues with authority and any encounter with them is used as an opportunity for an altercation. If you find yourself being screened each time you go to the airport, I would just go through it as pleasantly as possible. Then afterwards, ask if you could speak to the supervisor and say something like "Hi, I'm so-and-so and I noticed that every time I come to the airport, I'm always pulled aside to be screened. I was wondering why and if there's something that I can do to prevent this?". You can also write to your congress rep and share your experience and ask if there's something that can be done so you don't get searched every time. Their aides will generally look into things like this on your behalf.

[dsheinem]

two smart posts

Thanks for bringing some sources to this thread. Too many people are just talking out of their cavity...

FYI on the radiation issue:

UCSF Letter on Scanner Radiation:

Gov't. Reply: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingPr ... 231857.htm

Frankly I find the government report more convincing, they make a much better supported argument.

I flew this weekend and saw the X-Ray scanners but was not subjected to them. The two people I saw in turbans were.

In any case, I am eager to see these scanners go before the court to determine where they fall under the 4th Amendment clause as cited above. I'm not a fan, and some of the pat-downs have been horrible for passengers ( Even though I haven't been personally picked out of line (and being an average looking white male I probably won't be), I am concerned about how this is affecting others around me and do feel that some of what goes on has been excessive.