Airport Body Scanners

[ERayR]

According to one article I read they may be a health hazard.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126833083

[semlogo]

I certainly wouldn't want to risk it. I'm already at risk for skin cancer.

[MorningStar]

I'm curious. Are men less likely to choose the pat downs than women? After giving birth four times, I'll take the pat down. Couldn't be worse than all the medical stuff we go through - pelvic exams, mammograms, etc. I would rather have a woman check me for weapons than think that some pervert is looking at my body from a booth.

[Magyar]

How can I phrase this properly? Should those of us who have been to certain special places be concerned about the exposure of certain elements of our clothing that we are not supposed to display to the world?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I'm curious. Are men less likely to choose the pat downs than women? After giving birth four times, I'll take the pat down. Couldn't be worse than all the medical stuff we go through - pelvic exams, mammograms, etc. I would rather have a woman check me for weapons than think that some pervert is looking at my body from a booth.

Fingers in ears...ice picks in eyes.

[mnn727]

Both the naked picture scanner and the groping pat down violate our 4th ammendment rights.

Amendment 4 of the U.S. Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

[MorningStar]

Both the naked picture scanner and the groping pat down violate our 4th ammendment rights.

Amendment 4 of the U.S. Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

I'm curious about this. Does that go for all situations or are businesses allowed to put conditions on receiving services? There is a water park not too far from my place and they search your bags when you go in to make sure you're not bringing in outside food. I always wondered if that was legal.

People are saying if you don't want to be screened, then don't fly. Not a very reasonable expectation for people who live on islands or have business trips to take.

[Vex]

I'm curious about this. Does that go for all situations or are businesses allowed to put conditions on receiving services? There is a water park not too far from my place and they search your bags when you go in to make sure you're not bringing in outside food. I always wondered if that was legal.

Businesses are free to put any conditions they want to secure their service. However you are free not to secure their services and find another means to get what you want. When you buy a ticket you are entering into a contract (of sorts) for a service. This violation comes from the government interjecting their noses into a business affair.

Take this hypothetical: You have two airline companies doing business (no FAA or TSA). One chooses to do extreme security doing 'enhanced pat-downs' and body scanners, and the other does nothing more than identity verification and makes sure there's no flight risks with the individuals. Individuals may choose to fly the more 'secure' airline and voluntarily give up their 4th amendment to do so, while others may choose to fly the other airline without giving up their right. As such there will be risks in both cases, but more than likely the airlines that don't do the 'enhanced pat-downs' will be in business longer and make more profit than the other.

People are saying if you don't want to be screened, then don't fly. Not a very reasonable expectation for people who live on islands or have business trips to take.

Pretty much. There's other issues as well (as has been posted in the other thread)

[frankenstein]

I'm curious about this. Does that go for all situations or are businesses allowed to put conditions on receiving services? There is a water park not too far from my place and they search your bags when you go in to make sure you're not bringing in outside food. I always wondered if that was legal.

the constitution does not apply to private entities, the constitution only applies to governments and the arms of the government.

[krose]

Both the naked picture scanner and the groping pat down violate our 4th ammendment rights.

Amendment 4 of the U.S. Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

How do these measures violate the Fourth Amendment if previous practices did not (x-rays of all possessions, walking through detectors, wanding, and less aggressive pat downs)? Or do you think airport security has been violating the amendment all along?

Obviously the US judicial branch has determined that travel security does not constitute an "unreasonable" search. They have given wide latitude where national security is involved.

[Vex]

How do these measures violate the Fourth Amendment if previous practices did not (x-rays of all possessions, walking through detectors, wanding, and less aggressive pat downs)? Or do you think airport security has been violating the amendment all along?

Obviously the US judicial branch has determined that travel security does not constitute an "unreasonable" search. They have given wide latitude where national security is involved.

CFR for the judicial rulings on the matter.

[frankenstein]

How do these measures violate the Fourth Amendment if previous practices did not (x-rays of all possessions, walking through detectors, wanding, and less aggressive pat downs)? Or do you think airport security has been violating the amendment all along?

Obviously the US judicial branch has determined that travel security does not constitute an "unreasonable" search. They have given wide latitude where national security is involved.

the issue would be what is reasonable.

when you have a very good, almost concrete idea of who/what you are looking for, random molestations of children is not reasonable.

when you have a very good, almost concrete idea of who/what you are looking for, random molestation is not reasonable.

[krose]

CFR for the judicial rulings on the matter.

Here's a legal article referencing that fact.

... courts still allowed airport searches to go on, despite the lack of individualized probable cause and warrant, by creating exceptions to the 4th amendment.

One of them was the Administrative Search Exception, which applies to searches made under a general regulatory scheme to further an

[krose]

the issue would be what is reasonable.

when you have a very good, almost concrete idea of who/what you are looking for, random molestations of children is not reasonable.

when you have a very good, almost concrete idea of who/what you are looking for, random molestation is not reasonable.

Well, since the ACLU and other privacy advocates are talking about legal challenges, I suppose we will find out, won't we?

Just a side note, your inflammatory, alarmist word choices ("molestation," "porn," "nude centerfold," etc.) do not help facilitate "reasonable" conversation.

[DH]

The airport body scanners are definitely a health hazard--as soon as a TSA agent sees the outline of my body, they are moved to immediately vomit!

Though I can understand that some people would feel uncomfortable going through a scanner, I personally have no problem with it. Seems better than getting patted down, anyway.

[Vex]

Here's a legal article referencing that fact.

This may be more enlightening for you krose;

http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/administrative-search.html

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967), that a reasonable administrative search may be conducted upon a showing of probable cause which is less stringent than that required for a search incident to a criminal investigation. The Court stated that the reasonableness of the search can only be determined by

[Vex]

Does anyone else see an erosion of founding principles with some of our elected/appointed officials (aka; the slippery slope)?

case-in-point:

The "necessary evil" of the TSA invasive groping and naked body scanning of Americans who travel by plane is not necessary. It is not necessary because there is such a thing as profiling. Though we're told that racial profiling is against the Constitution and, therefore, prohibited, we are also shown that invasion of privacy by the government is allowed regardless of the Constitution. (Side note: Targeted criminal profiling is not the same as racial profiling.)

There also is such a thing as trained dogs. Since trained dogs can detect many dangerous items which pat downs cannot, they would do more for our safety than the scans or searches; and they would be a lot less hassle for the average American.

But Janet Napolitano thinks a humiliating invasion enforced by government onto a free people is all fine and good as she calmly relates:

"It's all about security. It's all about everyone recognising their role."

In fact, as she reflects on liberty vs security and that "Terrorists are going to continue to probe the system and try to find a way through," she is thinking of the future and of expanding the program:

"I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime."

TSA Chief John Pistole believes the same thing. He told USA TODAY subways and rail cars can pose an easier target than heavily secured planes.

"Given the list of threats on subways and rails over the last six years going on seven years, we know that some terrorist groups see rail and subways as being more vulnerable because there's not the type of screening that you find in aviation. From my perspective, that is an equally important threat area."

There is also talk of a full body scan at courthouses for those people having to go there to testify, get a restraining order, or even just to pay a ticket.

"Although we have no current plans for deployment, the U.S. Marshals Service believes in the technology," said Washington-based Michael Prout, assistant director for judicial security for the U.S. marshals. "We will continue to explore the use of body scanners as a security measure for the federal judiciary."

While Pistole says that if someone doesn't want to have screening before they board a plane, they have no right to get onto a plane, what is he going to say about someone needing to get into a courthouse?

About this flaky protection racket, Ron Paul has echoed the outrage felt by many, that "If we tolerate this, there is something wrong with us." He is right. As long as we helplessly submit to this intrusion upon our freedom, we drift ever more like cattle away from the American mindset. Then what's next? Whatever it happens to be, it is certain that calculated efforts will be taken to make sure we're primed for it.

Note: Mobile backscatter x-ray scanners are already being mounted in vans and used on American streets.

"In Israel, racial profiling doesn't warrant debate," click here.

Full body scanners popping up at courthouses," click here. "However, privacy became an issue when it was learned the images were stored. The Marshals Service received a request for the information under the Freedom of Information Act, but it wasn't immediately known who made the request."

Yakima Air Terminal

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-yakima/napolitano-s-vision-body-scanners-at-subways-trains-and-federal-buildings

[captain-jack]

I hope you all take a moment to realize that there are many good people who work for TSA, such as my father, who do not make the rules, merely follow them. So all the insinuations you make about molestations and groping, is against my family member.

Both the naked picture scanner and the groping pat down violate our 4th ammendment rights.

Amendment 4 of the U.S. Constitution

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 context need not apply? When the 4th amendment was written, it was to ensure the public that the new government would not be like the British. The United States law enforcement or military would not just grab you off the street for no reason, search your home for whatever they wanted, and take whatever they liked. When you go to the airport, you go there voluntarily. When you fly, you do so voluntarily. If you want to be scanned or searched, don't go. It's just that simply.

the issue would be what is reasonable.

when you have a very good, almost concrete idea of who/what you are looking for, random molestations of children is not reasonable.

Once again, I'd like to remind you that you make those accusations against my family member. Do you honestly think that someone in TSA, such as my father, just simply looks at someone and thinks, "Yeah, I want to get my hands all over that. I'm going to claim they are a 'random' selection for 'enhanced screening'. Yeah, I'll get my jollies off on that."?

when you have a very good, almost concrete idea of who/what you are looking for, random molestation is not reasonable.

If you are talking about the child that had his shirt taken off, my father told me about it and the parent of that child took it off without the TSA agent even touching him. That was the parent's decision, not TSA. Blame the right person.

It irritates me, if you didn't get that already, when people make such slanderous remarks. Someone I once respected asked for ideas on facebook about how to hassle TSA because he didn't like their policies. I reminded him that the people he hassles don't make the rules, and why such immature acts are uncalled for. So please, for the sake of saving some face, think before you post. TSA agents are not pedophiles, molesters, and perverts; they are just good hard working people just trying to earn a living.

[Tribunal]

Both the naked picture scanner and the groping pat down violate our 4th ammendment rights.

Amendment 4 of the U.S. Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

As a cop with almost fifteen years of service I kind of disagree. The 4th applies when an agent of government approaches a subject or property to conduct a search, with or without probable cause. Regardless a warrant is needed. A court cannot authorize a blanket warrant.

The situation we have here are citizens are going to a business (airports and airlines) for a service, and are being screened by agents of government prior to boarding. The business has allowed the screening to take place. The citizen knows full-well that a screening will take place prior to boarding. They have chosen to be violated in order to receive the service. All parties have consented to the search.

What bothers me is private businesses have allowed government to provide security for them. What bothers me is we, the People, have granted government the power to search us they way they do. I don't know how these TSA security agents can get away with the type of searches they are doing. The TSA is the only agency I know that allows its 'officers' to touch private citizens they way they do. What bothers me is government has creeped further into private enterprise, our persons, or houses, our papers, our effects, and our bodies. We chose to be un-secure. We gave them permission to do so.

We don't need agents of government providing this type of service. Private security can do a much better job and without being so intrusive.

Just my opinion.

[akprentice]

The 4th Amendment does not apply to airport screenings. Don't take my word for it or Tribunal's. Test this theory in a court of law yourself.

The "health risk" from backscatter is miniscule. The rad dosing that you could receive from one of those machines is less than the rad dose from background radiation, which is equally ionizing, that you will receive in a few minutes of high-altitude flight.

The risk from backscatter imaging is grossly overstated. A conventional X-Ray machine produces an image by firing high-energy photons through the subject and capturing those photons on a specially prepared photographic or digital plate. How quickly those photons penetrate gives information about the density of the structures that they passed through, or failed to pass through. Backscatter units produce their image by firing low-energy photons AT the subject, and capturing them on a digital plate after they have bounced off. They penetrate only minimally.

The digital images of "backscatter scans" that have circulated the internet recently are, at least in the case of the common ones that I've encountered, all photoshop fakes or images from machines OTHER THAN the ones that TSA is actually installing. The digital images that Gizmodo released to the internet a week or two ago "proving" that scanners can save images came from a millimeter wave scanner at a courthouse. I have yet to see a reputable source with images that are genuinely from either an L-3 or Rapiscan machine.

Here is the American College of Radiology's statement on these scanners: http://www.acr.org/MainMenuCategories/media_room/FeaturedCategories/PressReleases/StatementonAirportFullbodyScanners.aspx

I do not object to these scanners on the grounds of any potential health risk, because they do not add measurably to the risk of flying.

I do not object to these scanners on the grounds that the airplane operator and/or the government do not have the right to scan passengers.

I object to the USE of these scanners when the operator/technician is of the opposite sex to the passenger being screened. I would rather have my wife and daughters screened by hand, by a female screener performing an enhanced pat-down, than have their bodies subjected to visual scrutiny by an anonymous male technician.

[renaissance247]

Though I can understand that some people would feel uncomfortable going through a scanner, I personally have no problem with it. Seems better than getting patted down, anyway.

I agree with choosing the body scanner as the preferred method. I'm uncomfortable with anyone touching me in certain ways, even my girlfriend. And as an added bonus, if I get sick/cancer from the body scanner, I can sue them blind. I see it as win/win... no touching and free money.

[LeSellers]

I hope you all take a moment to realize that there are many good people who work for TSA, such as my father, who do not make the rules, merely follow them. So all the insinuations you make about molestations and groping, is against my family member.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on if your father is doing the least possible to meet the bureaucratic requirements. I assume most screeners are doing nothing more than what their job demands.

When the 4th amendment was written, it was to ensure the public that the new government would not be like the British. The United States law enforcement or military would not just grab you off the street for no reason, search your home for whatever they wanted, and take whatever they liked.

This is not necessarily true, either.

There are a host of errors that can creep into the "law enforcement" effort, not least of which is simple human error. Every year there are a couple of cases where an old man, hearing thugs breaking into his house, pulls out his legal firearm (what's the state doing deciding that some firearms are "legal" and others not, in the first place?), and tries to shoot a police officer who's broken down his door, and then gets shot himself, often with his wife dying along side him. Of course, the fact that the officers were serving a "no knock" warrant at the wrong address is written off as an innocent mistake.

And please tell us how your theory fits with Erik Scott's murder-by-cop (although the coroner found not culpability) at a Costco in Las Vegas.

The police do grab people off the street for no reason, and do illegal searches and seizures frequently. What is the famous Acton quote? All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It applies in USmerica as much as in England or China.

The police now have the legal power to confiscate anything and everything that you own. Without trial, conviction, or even indictment, police are seizing cars, bank accounts, homes, and businesses from at least 5,000 innocent Americans every week. If you resist a police confiscation, they can even cripple or kill you with impunity.

Do you want proof? Every Wednesday, Section D of USA Today newspaper lists the latest confiscations by the Drug Enforcement Administration. There, in tiny 7-point type, you will find the latest list of weekly seizures of pocket cash, bank accounts, cars, and homes, by just this one government agency.

More and more government agencies are joining in this feeding frenzy. You and I are the prey. Agencies now confiscating property from innocent Americans include the FBI, the Coast Guard, the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Post Office, the Bureau of Land Management, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Department of Housing

[Vex]

As a cop with almost fifteen years of service I kind of disagree. The 4th applies when an agent of government approaches a subject or property to conduct a search, with or without probable cause. Regardless a warrant is needed. A court cannot authorize a blanket warrant.

I have some issues with your statement I would like to hash out a little bit; A pat down done by a law enforcement officer is legal only to secure no direct threat to the officer in question. There remains probable cause in the first instance to detain someone for questioning prior to the pat down occurring (this is not so for airports where there is no initial probable cause--desiring to travel via an airplane does not fulfill the prerequisite for probable cause). There is no 'carpet' screening procedure or legality in the processes except at specific federal buildings--which have been subject to recent scrutiny.

The situation we have here are citizens are going to a business (airports and airlines) for a service, and are being screened by agents of government prior to boarding. The business has allowed the screening to take place. The citizen knows full-well that a screening will take place prior to boarding. They have chosen to be violated in order to receive the service. All parties have consented to the search.

There is no statement by either party regarding submitting to unlawful searches. Consequently searches being performed are on individuals who surrender their right to the 4th amendment. Given that cause if I do business with an airlines and refuse to surrender my 4th amendment right, what happens to the business contract I have with the airline? It is either negated by the federal government (unlawful as the interstate commerce act does not apply), or it is unlawfully voided and a federal injunction executed and I am escorted from the premises (a non-federal building has federal employees escorting me out). No matter which way it's sliced, a violation of the 4th amendment is given (please see previously posted link to the supreme court case regarding authoritative searches).

Additionally the issue is compounded as you will see in the next response:

What bothers me is private businesses have allowed government to provide security for them. What bothers me is we, the People, have granted government the power to search us they way they do. I don't know how these TSA security agents can get away with the type of searches they are doing. The TSA is the only agency I know that allows its 'officers' to touch private citizens they way they do. What bothers me is government has creeped further into private enterprise, our persons, or houses, our papers, our effects, and our bodies. We chose to be un-secure. We gave them permission to do so.

This can not be laid at the feet of the airlines, nor the customers of said airlines. The airlines have no control over what security is used at any individual airport. The airport is coerced by the government to supply the security via either 1 of 4 private security firms, or via the TSA. A majority of airports have chosen the TSA regardless of what the airlines desire. Consequently at no point are you required to surrender any right you do not wish to surrender. However the governmental interference placed upon the airports reflects upon the airlines and the customer relations individuals have them. The point will come where Governments need for 'security' will drive the airlines out of business and put additional tax burdens on the public to aid the salaries of the 'security' that no longer needs existing.

We don't need agents of government providing this type of service. Private security can do a much better job and without being so intrusive.

Just my opinion.

It's quite a relevant opinion (just some of the details were a little off kilter is all).

[Vex]

I agree with choosing the body scanner as the preferred method. I'm uncomfortable with anyone touching me in certain ways, even my girlfriend. And as an added bonus, if I get sick/cancer from the body scanner, I can sue them blind. I see it as win/win... no touching and free money.

Your case will fall on deaf ears as you will be de facto suing the federal government.

[frankenstein]

captain-jack: My statements are about the agency and the procedures of the agency.

vex: A pat down done by a law enforcement officer is legal only to secure no direct threat to the officer in question.

A slight clarification, an officer may search a person when the officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that a person has a weapon. see Terry or Terry Stop.

I disagree completely that private business could do better. A private business would do worse. There are few if any Constitutional rights a person can use against a private business. A private business would be even less concerned about public outcry than the Fed. It is important to note that private business is what got us to this point in the first place. had private business been smarter about travel 9/11 likely would not have occurred.