Is the TSA going too far?

[Robert Maxwell]

I understand that it is a private service and that will always be the standard argument for anything. The problem I have is how far should we allow private sevices to go in usurping our rights? You can say, "well you have a choice" all you want, but when the choices are do what we say or don't fly then it's not much of a choice is it? We all may not have to fly, but at some point, you may need to get somewhere faster than a train, bus, boat or car can take you. Look at at&t, if you want a smart phone then you can get any service provider you want. If you want an iphone, you have to choose at&t, so yeah you have a choice, but not really. I think if private companies are going to participate in counter terrorism they should be subject to our lawss including the constitution. How far should they be allowed to go?

You have a very strange definition of the word rights.

If you consider flying on airplanes and owning an iPhone as rights, you have a very different definition of that word than the Constitution does. For many people, plane travel and owning an iPhone are considered luxuries (and out of their reach) rather than rights.

I understand why people don't like it... but don't confuse this with rights.

I never said it is a right to fly on a plane or by an iphone. They are usurping our 4th amendment right of illegal search and seisure. The point I was attempting to make was about choices. Yes, you have a choice to not fly on the plane and take a bus, train, car or boat. The point is, you shouldn't be forced to make that choice. If a choice is bieng made under duress, then it's not really a choice. If my wife tells me I can go to a superbowl party and have fun with my friends or you can stay home with me and cuddle and watch a movie.(no sex) Yeah, I have a choice, but she's going to get pissed and we will fight for a month if I go to the superbowl party. It's not really a choice is it?

If someone wants to visit their family for thanksgiving and they live far away then they need to take a plane. If they only have 3-4 days off because they have a shitty job that doesen't provide vacation days and it would take more time than what it's worth to drive then they have no choice, but fly. They then go to the airport and are picked to be searched without probable cause and they refuse, then they can't get on the plane. There is no choice, you are forced into the system. You can't refuse on the grounds of it bieng unconstitutional because the constitution is bieng usurped.

Another good example of this is DUI stops. In most states, if you refuse a breathalizer test you are automaticaly charged with a DUI. Just because you refuse does not mean you have been drinking, you could be refusing on priciple. If you are charged with a DUI there is no way to fight it, you are automaticaly guilty without even going to court. Samething with trafic tickets. So, yeah you have a choice, take the breathalizer or don't, but if you don't you will be charged anyway. What kind of choice is that? It's a way to weasel around the law and like I said, it will always be the excuse to do whatever.

It is not a choice "under duress." You know full well when you go to the airport that there are extensive security measures. Don't like it? Don't fly.

You could make an argument that people who bought tickets before the new measures were put in place should be entitled to a refund if they don't like it--and I would agree. But going forward, people know what's up and they can take it or leave it.

 

[Chaos Descending]

So the consensus here is that you don't have a "right" to fly. Do you have a "right" to drive a car on a public roadway?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

So the consensus here is that you don't have a "right" to fly. Do you have a "right" to drive a car on a public roadway?

Nope.

 

[Lindley]

So the consensus here is that you don't have a "right" to fly. Do you have a "right" to drive a car on a public roadway?

Well, no, that's what licenses are about.

However, the term "fly" is being thrown around generically as if commercial airlines are the entirety of airborne options. They aren't.

 

[Holdfast]

All this airport security has tipped the balance too much in favour of annoying legitimate passengers.

Truth is, you can't eliminate the risk of terrorism. More controversially, I also disagree with the current popular thesis that "one should always try to reduce it as much as possible". That degree of reduction requires increasingly extreme levels of intervention in daily life. The tipping point of acceptability is NOT at the point of maximum reduction of risk, but actually arrives significantly before that point. We're seeing that with the public resistance to these pat-downs. Yes, they would probably increase security... but so what if it is unacceptable to our quality of life?

The greatest victory of terrorism isn't killing people, it's altering people's lifestyles sufficiently that the issue behind the terrorism become predominant in people's thinking. Losing a plane, say, every 20 years is far less intrusive on the average person's life than increasing airport security to a point where the risk drops to say, once every 30 or 40 years.

Of course, some security is required, but the systems currently in place are confused, partially redundant and efficient. Streamline and simplify to achieve a less intrusive balance between security and ease of travel, should be the watchword now.

 

[Chaos Descending]

So the consensus here is that you don't have a "right" to fly. Do you have a "right" to drive a car on a public roadway?

Nope.

So the consensus here is that you don't have a "right" to fly. Do you have a "right" to drive a car on a public roadway?

Well, no, that's what licenses are about.

Nevertheless, I still have a right to not be searched while driving my car, except in certain "reasonable suspicion / probable cause" type scenarios.

Just being out and driving is not enough for them to pull me over and search me, but buying an airline ticket and showing up to fly actually is. I find that odd.

However, the term "fly" is being thrown around generically as if commercial airlines are the entirety of airborne options. They aren't.

Are you suggesting that the average person has a serious alternative to commercial flight for their flying needs?

 

[Shaw]

If someone wants to visit their family for thanksgiving and they live far away then they need to take a plane. If they only have 3-4 days off because they have a shitty job that doesen't provide vacation days and it would take more time than what it's worth to drive then they have no choice, but fly. They then go to the airport and are picked to be searched without probable cause and they refuse, then they can't get on the plane. There is no choice, you are forced into the system. You can't refuse on the grounds of it bieng unconstitutional because the constitution is bieng usurped.

The operative word there is want.

I want to be with my Aunt for Thanksgiving... I've wanted to see her many times in the last 15 years... but wanting isn't equivalent to a right to fly to see her. I couldn't afford the plane ticket, so no matter how much I wanted to see her, I couldn't.

If you want to fly enough to pay the high ticket prices, then you also want to fly enough to put up with the searches.

Luxuries (like flying) are not rights. Confusing them as such diminishes the meaning of the word rights to something trivial... and that is more dangerous to the Constitution and the rights it protects.

 

[Arrqh]

It is not a choice "under duress." You know full well when you go to the airport that there are extensive security measures. Don't like it? Don't fly.

And again, when I buy an airplane ticket it is a contract between me and a private company that is providing me with the service of transportation. If the government wants to regulate this contract between two private parties, then they need to respect the constitutional rights of the people involved... in this case, the right to not be unreasonably searched without a warrant.

I've said this elsewhere, but telling people "don't fly" is pretty much the same as telling Rosa Parks "don't take the bus". Just because you know that there's a chance that you will be forced to do something against your will before hand doesn't make the policy okay.

This, of course, doesn't even touch the issue that the TSA's policies are completely ineffectual. Reactive security is bad security and it only works if we correctly guess the exact plot before hand. Many security experts worldwide, most notably those involved in Israeli airport security, agree that none of the TSA's measures are actually effective. It damages our dignity, it damages our rights, and it costs us billions of dollars a year for no benefit.

 

[Nowhere Man]

It's a form of duress if you are forced to make that choice. All of us are bience forced to make that choice even if we don't fly because we have to accept that others are bieng subject to this system, therefore we don't have a choice when we do decide to fly. Don't like, don't fly is a shitty attitude for a company to have towarsds consumers. As I mentioned before it's a way to weasel around the law to say, "don't like it, don't fly." Yeah and then I don't get to go where i'm trying to go. The bigger issue is the TSA, which you yourself argued could be subject to the law. Even if it was a private security force, it still should be subject to law. They are participating in counter terrorism messures. I think it's interesting that people get worked up over a kid that wasen't allowed to fly an american flag in school, yet doesen't get worked up over this, which is a much bigger issue.

 

[Nowhere Man]

If someone wants to visit their family for thanksgiving and they live far away then they need to take a plane. If they only have 3-4 days off because they have a shitty job that doesen't provide vacation days and it would take more time than what it's worth to drive then they have no choice, but fly. They then go to the airport and are picked to be searched without probable cause and they refuse, then they can't get on the plane. There is no choice, you are forced into the system. You can't refuse on the grounds of it bieng unconstitutional because the constitution is bieng usurped.

The operative word there is want.

I want to be with my Aunt for Thanksgiving... I've wanted to see her many times in the last 15 years... but wanting isn't equivalent to a right to fly to see her. I couldn't afford the plane ticket, so no matter how much I wanted to see her, I couldn't.

If you want to fly enough to pay the high ticket prices, then you also want to fly enough to put up with the searches.

Luxuries (like flying) are not rights. Confusing them as such diminishes the meaning of the word rights to something trivial... and that is more dangerous to the Constitution and the rights it protects.

Again, I never said it is a right, if you would have read my entiure post, you would know that. I can imagine a scenerio where you would need to fly. That is not the issue so much as the TSA usurping the 4th amendment which is a right. Again, you should read whole posts and not take quotes out of context and apply new meanings to them.

 

[Lindley]

Are you suggesting that the average person has a serious alternative to commercial flight for their flying needs?

Not immediately. But they could if they wanted to. Becoming a pilot and owning, co-owning, or renting a plane isn't nearly as hard or as expensive as many people assume. Granted, the ones most people could afford won't get you to Singapore, but for hops of a few hundred miles they're a perfectly viable option. All it takes is the interest, discipline to complete the training over a year or two, and a reliable cash flow during that time.

More interestingly to me, though, there are many private pilots out there who would be glad to fly you to your destination for a fee not substantially different from what the airlines charge. Trouble is, there's no central place to look for such options. Perhaps there should be.

 

[Conner_D]

I think the security procedures are getting to be too intrusive. Scaring children and humiliating people is not worth it. Besides terrorists will just switch to hiding explosives in body cavities. Are we going to start doing cavity searches? At some point we have to accept that another terrorist attack may occur and go on with our lives.

Motorcycle accidents killed 5,290 people in 2008 which is more than died in the 911 attacks. How come we aren't stopping motorcycle riders?

 

[Chaos Descending]

I think this whole "flying is not a right" argument is a red herring anyway. It's completely besides the point. I do not believe that the goverment has the legal power to infringe upon your rights just because you are engaging in a completely normal economic activity.

I saw the Rosa Parks example above. That's exactly the sort of thing that comes to mind.

 

[Shaw]

Again, I never said it is a right, if you would have read my entiure post, you would know that. I can imagine a scenerio where you would need to fly. That is not the issue so much as the TSA usurping the 4th amendment which is a right.

Yes you have... you say it every time you invoke the 4th amendment.

Drop the 4th amendment stuff, and I'll assume you know the difference between wants and rights. Otherwise, I think you need to learn the difference between the two.

Arrqh: I've said this elsewhere, but telling people "don't fly" is pretty much the same as telling Rosa Parks "don't take the bus". Just because you know that there's a chance that you will be forced to do something against your will before hand doesn't make the policy okay.​

... And this is a perfect example of the dangers of rights becoming trivialized. Arrqh has already lost the meaning of what happened to Rosa Parks.

This is a slippery slope... rights is not a term to be tossed around lightly, or soon it loses its meaning and importance.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Shaw, you have it completely right, but backwards. Failing to treat every abuse of someone's rights as a serious, horrible breach, THAT'S what leads us down the slippery slope.

The problem is that our rights already ARE trivialized. I don't think anyone has lost the meaning of what happened to Rosa Parks. But the fact of the matter is that this was considered perfectly normal for a long time until SHE did something about it. It was the law of the land, and most people, if asked, would have sided against her. They of course had it wrong, and so does anyone else that doesn't stand up for even the least significant of our rights.

 

[Arrqh]

And this is a perfect example of the dangers of rights becoming trivialized. Arrqh has already lost the meaning of what happened to Rosa Parks.

Nonsense, and I find your allegation offensive.

I believe that the TSA is violating our 4th amendment rights, and I think I have clearly and concisely explained why. Civil rights groups such as the ACLU and EPIC agree with me and members of Congress have also expressed similar concern. For you to blithely tell me that I don't understand the relevant meaning of people standing up for their civil rights is very much unfair, inappropriate and incorrect.

 

[Nowhere Man]

Again, I never said it is a right, if you would have read my entiure post, you would know that. I can imagine a scenerio where you would need to fly. That is not the issue so much as the TSA usurping the 4th amendment which is a right.

Yes you have... you say it every time you invoke the 4th amendment.

Drop the 4th amendment stuff, and I'll assume you know the difference between wants and rights. Otherwise, I think you need to learn the difference between the two.

Arrqh: I've said this elsewhere, but telling people "don't fly" is pretty much the same as telling Rosa Parks "don't take the bus". Just because you know that there's a chance that you will be forced to do something against your will before hand doesn't make the policy okay.
​

... And this is a perfect example of the dangers of rights becoming trivialized. Arrqh has already lost the meaning of what happened to Rosa Parks.

This is a slippery slope... rights is not a term to be tossed around lightly, or soon it loses its meaning and importance.

You know what, I do think I have a right to fly, as a matter of fact I think I have the right to chose any mode of transportation I want. I also believe I have a right to not be searched without my consent or a warrant or reasonable cause. I also think that nobody is allowed to take that right from me privately or publicly. I also think that once power is given to government it becomes very hard to take that power back. I also think that you give the government a inch, they take a mile. That is the slipery slope. I also think Arrgh's Rosa parks example is a perfect example why we should stand up against this.

 

[Nowhere Man]

And this is a perfect example of the dangers of rights becoming trivialized. Arrqh has already lost the meaning of what happened to Rosa Parks.

Nonsense, and I find your allegation offensive.

I believe that the TSA is violating our 4th amendment rights, and I think I have clearly and concisely explained why. Civil rights groups such as the ACLU and EPIC agree with me and members of Congress have also expressed similar concern. For you to blithely tell me that I don't understand the relevant meaning of people standing up for their civil rights is very much unfair, inappropriate and incorrect.

Amen, brotha!

 

[SPOCKED]

The TSA owes me a left testicle, dammit! Creepy grab-asses!

 

[Shaw]

...and I find your allegation offensive.

Couldn't be as offensive as you trivializing what happen with Rosa Parks.

I also think Arrgh's Rosa parks example is a perfect example why we should stand up against this.

You know, I absolutely believe this is a true and accurate statement by you... and would expect no less.