Airport Body Scanners

[LeSellers]

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.

That's hooey!!!

There are few more regulated industries than air travel. I wrote the book, literally, for one new airline, and the governmental involvement was horrific. Virtually every paragraph was subject to governmental scrutiny.

Federal "security" inspections did not begin on 9/12. The box cutters allowed on those three flights were allowed because the federal regulations allowed them. But federal regulations also disarmed all the passengers, who were thus unable to defend themselves. Even the "hero flight" crashed, just not where the terrorists wanted it to. Why? Because the passengers and the flight crew were helpless in the face of trivial weapons, and they were helpless because the federal government rendered them so.

A private company is always more responsive to its customers than any governmental agency because if they do not do the job they were hired to do, and do it in a way that will make their customers happy, they get fired. You cannot fire the government.

However, in this case, there would be little if any difference because, like it or not (and I do not), the federal government would make the private company do exactly the same things TSA does, and do them in exactly the same way (it's in the law). the only difference would be, a private company would do it a lot cheaper. (And it's the airport, not the airlines, that have the governmentally imposed obligation to provide the stupidity called "security". Airports are less responsive to passengers because they are one more level removed from the client than the airlines are. We will not explore the fact that airports are nearly universally owned by governments: 'nuther whole can o'worms.)

Lehi

[webbles]

My issue with the new airport "security" is that they are an absolute waste of money and time (besides a massive violation of our rights). It is slower than the metal detectors and detect not much more than the metal detectors. They don't make flying any safer than it already is. They did tests on the explosives that the Christmas bomber had and if it had been successful, it most likely would have only killed him and a nearby passenger. The plane would have possibly decompressed but would have been safe to land (http://news.discovery.com/tech/underwear-bomber-explosion-plane-test.html).

Also, according to the GAO, it is unclear if these new scanners would have stopped the Christmas bomber (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/63747).

And, then we have Adam Savage going through the new scanners with 2 12-inch steel razor blades and they were not found (http://gizmodo.com/5697222/adam-savage-mythbusting-airport-security-wtf-tsa).

And now that we have these new scanners, what is to prevent a terrorist from using a body cavity to hide the bomb/weapon? What about the security line in front of the security?

I don't understand why we are allowing the TSA to force these useless regulations on us that are expensive, slow, extremely violating, and possibly unhealthy. I'm at a loss on why anybody thinks these new regulations will make us any safer.

[Tribunal]

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.

Vex, we are in agreement here.

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).

Vex, you do realize that by purchasing a ticket, thereby establishing a contract with an airlines, you will be subject to a search by agents of the government? Right? There shouldn't be any surprises here! You accept the terms prior to establishing the contract. Your contract is not negated by the federal government. The federal government is now included in your contract - which I totally disagree with.

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

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.

Vex, I agree with you. But understand that the airport is also a party to the contract because the airlines use the airport. And I agree the airports have been coerced by government - and I totally disagree with this as well.

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

So, Vex, do you feel better after hashing it out with me? Glad I could be of service.

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.

Frankenstein, I'm with Mr. LeSellers on this one. He's way smarter than me and I look up to him so...

I will comment on your statement about "Constitutional rights". Frankenstein, the Constitution doesn't provide anyone with any "rights", it can only provide us with protections, guarantees, and privileges. Also, a private business would be much more respectful with a person's "rights" because they have more to lose than government. You can't sue the government, but you can bury a private business. You also appear to have no clue about 9/11. Private businesses had nothing to do with 9/11 and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Regardless, these electronic screenings and physical searches are wrong, immoral, and will only get worse if people don't take a stand.

[captain-jack]

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.

Yet determining whether or not a TSA agent is doing such is irrelevant. It's just easier to call them names, right? That is what I am irritated at, baseless accusations that TSA agents are just perverts and nothing more. To me it's the same as someone on other 'Christian' boards saying Mormons are cultists and doomed to hell. Both are just idiotic dribble in my eyes.

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 how does this fit with the subject at hand? It doesn't, it's a red herring. If you don't want to be screened at the airport, don't go. That simple. You cite a situation where police come in to your home, which is completely different. Again context, it matters.

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.

Please provide the story and I will evaluate it.

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.

They have to have reasonable suspicion. Whether or not cops actually have that before they detain someone is another matter, but they are supposed to have it before any interaction. And again, this is the behavior I detest. Are you saying that every police officer in the entire country is guilty of just stopping anyone they feel like without any reason other than 'just because'? Are there no good officers in your mind?

Yes, but traveling from "here" to "there" is a human right that government should not interfere with; but it is interfering in this right in major ways.

You're right, they are. How dare they do this, it's not like we are at war or anything. No terrorist is trying to sneak bombs on to a plane in their underwear or shoes. Geez, why does the government feel the need to search people? ...

There is no logical or legitimate reason for these pat downs nor the strip search using the T&A machines. There are too many other ways to protect the flying public, and they are far more effective than these intrusive assaults on human dignity and rights.

Yep, no one has ever thought to hide anything on their person that could be lethal to others. Like I said, no bombs in their underwear or anything...

It's far from that simple. By what right does the state decide that flying is a surrender of personal rights? It's not about security (or there'd be some application of common sense in the process), it's about power and control over subjects.

Government has not been about common sense for a long time, I won't argue that. But something has to be done and the people in power are doing what they think is right. If you dislike it so much, do something about it.

I don't know your father, but there are TSOs who do fit that bill. One of them took a woman to his house, raped her, and sent her off to the cops with his suicide note. Turns out he had a violent rap sheet. There is no screening for the screeners, as it happens.

What I am against is a broad painting that all are molesters, perverts, etc. as was done earlier. I'd like to see this story as well, because as I understood it there was background checks and multiple screenings when my father was hired.

Or, we have this story:

Again, one story. Yes I can see how it can happen, and I am not saying it doesn't happen. I am frustrated that it is insinuated that this happens every time by every agent.

A living they make in a voluntary position. If they don't like the company, they can leave. There is no conscription for the TSA.

No there isn't, but would you give up a position you have worked hard to achieve when the job market is so thin? Are you saying he should just quit and go find something with half the pay? How is that logical? I never said anything about him having to work there.

The IV does apply, precisely because it is a government agent doing the strip search, it is a government agent doing the "enhanced" pat-down. It is the state that mandates that the airlines subject their legitimate passengers to the same scrutiny that only the suspected terrorists should have to submit to. El Al does it right, and they have not had any incidents for decades. They look for terrorists, we look for tools. Stop the terrorists, you stop the atrocities, stop the tools, and the terror will continue.

Spot the terrorist, but do so without racial profiling. Try it. Can you tell the difference between an ethnicity that looks very similar to another? If you can, are you guilty of stereotyping, or being racist? Is it truly that easy, and if so, why aren't you writing to the ACLU about it?

You are right, for the most part, but the only way simple citizens can protest the insanity of the TSA is to make life more complicated for its agents. Maybe enough of us will protest that many agents will leave and the agency will start having to reassess its stupidity. Maybe enough passengers will decide that the humiliation outweighs the convenience of flying and will decide to drive (until Big Sis starts random traffic stops, as she has insinuated she will), or take the train or a bus (until she does what she has already said she will do with regard for these methods of transportation) that the airlines will demand a more rational approach to security, one that will actually work without trampling on the rights I and many others here and elsewhere put our lives on the line to protect, rights my father and generations before him fought to secure, first from the British, then from others bent on destroying them.

Lehi

During a high unemployment you expect people to leave their jobs? Would you do it, cut your pay and start all over at a different company while others try for it? I do not disagree that things are, to put it lightly, far out of hand. But how does it reflect on those making accusations that everyone in TSA is the scum of society? That is my problem. I would like to see changes happen, but do so without demeaning people who are trying to keep food on the table and a roof over their head.

To sum it up:

Is it a violation of the 4th amendment? I don't think so, but I can understand why people would feel it is. This doesn't bother me.

Is the government (top level) out of their mind? Yes, but I don't see it changing anytime soon. Don't blame the man at the bottom.

Is it right to assume every TSA agent is dirty? No. It bothers me when people assume such, and make slanderous remarks.

[Vex]

Vex, you do realize that by purchasing a ticket, thereby establishing a contract with an airlines, you will be subject to a search by agents of the government? Right? There shouldn't be any surprises here! You accept the terms prior to establishing the contract. Your contract is not negated by the federal government. The federal government is now included in your contract - which I totally disagree with.

Surprises no, but since there is no portion of the contract detailing precisely the type of search that is going to be done an individual is free to alter or abolish specific portions of that contract (cross out being searched and if both parties agree then no search can legally be done, however reality shows that a search will be done regardless of the contractual obligation). The government cannot as it's not a party to the contract in question.

Vex, I agree with you. But understand that the airport is also a party to the contract because the airlines use the airport. And I agree the airports have been coerced by government - and I totally disagree with this as well.

The contract is between the airport and the airline. The issue is that the airlines and airport have a contract, not the individual-airport-airline. If such a contract existed all parties would be allowed to alter such a contract until it was agreeable to all. As it stands such an alteration is not available, reducing the 'contractual obligation' to nothing more than a written coercion for the government to mandate a right to travel via a violation of the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment (due process).

So, Vex, do you feel better after hashing it out with me? Glad I could be of service.

A little bit. Somethings I don't think we'll see eye to eye on, but the outcomes agree.

[krose]

There are few more regulated industries than air travel.

Go ahead and call me a socialist, but I want us (a.k.a. the government) to strongly regulate air travel, to make sure it's as safe as we can make it. I also want us to maintain strict regulations on food, drug and product safety, etc. The only moral obligation a corporation has is to maximize its profits for its owners. Therefore, we (a.k.a. the government) have to require and enforce good corporate behavior.

[Vex]

Go ahead and call me a socialist, but I want us (a.k.a. the government) to strongly regulate air travel, to make sure it's as safe as we can make it. I also want us to maintain strict regulations on food, drug and product safety, etc. The only moral obligation a corporation has is to maximize its profits for its owners. Therefore, we (a.k.a. the government) have to require and enforce good corporate behavior.

Than you live in a dream world. Regulation is a reactive stance to take on things and very rarely does not make things safer. Take for instance seat belts, laminated glass, and air bags: were brought about--not because of government but--because of industry trying to make their products better and stopping the loss of lives during a traffic accident. Regulation was then initiated to force all companies to have a specific standard of safety features on a car. This is besides industries costs, target market, and other factors considered when an industry implements a safety feature.

Additionally the intrusion of the FAA and other regulating bodies into flight production, certification, and even application is a farce. Aerospace engineers would design aircraft to meet the required criteria regardless of the regulations, however the FAA mandates specific criteria that had already become long accepted industry practice. Additionally Air traffic controllers would continue to guide and direct aircraft as efficiently as possible, however since the Government regulates every aspect of the airline industry ATC's are stuck using technology that is not the top of the line because the FAA mandates specific machines or criteria on such machines keeping the cost of progress higher and the new machines out of reach. Airline travel would desire higher profits it's true; this would result in more efficient means of not only keeping the customers happy but also the investors. If you have unhappy customers; they won't fly, which leads to unhappy investors. With the FAA efficiency gets thrown out the window.

For the FDA; that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

[Vex]

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

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

Here's an interesting read concerning the health effects of the machine:

http://myhelicaltryst.blogspot.com/2010/11/tsa-x-ray-backscatter-body-scanner.html

[Tribunal]

Go ahead and call me a socialist, but I want us (a.k.a. the government) to strongly regulate air travel, to make sure it's as safe as we can make it. I also want us to maintain strict regulations on food, drug and product safety, etc. The only moral obligation a corporation has is to maximize its profits for its owners. Therefore, we (a.k.a. the government) have to require and enforce good corporate behavior.

Totally disagree. If a private airline provides its own security and permits a terrorist to board, the liability against the airline will cause it to shut down. Who wants to fly on an airplane that doesn't screen its passengers very well?

But, if government provides security and permits a terrorist to board, the liability is against us. People will continue to fly because it was government has the monopoly on air travel.