Is the TSA going too far?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ I think it's been established that the radiation issue is nil. You'd have to go through the scanners 500 times to get the same radiation content as *one chest X-ray*. Also, you get more radiation just by sitting in the cockpit during one flight.

I'd like to see a link on the last "fact."

You mean like this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or even this?

Any any radiation isn't good for you.

You can't avoid all radiation. Every living person on this planet is exposed to it, every minute of every day. It's unavoidable. Read my second link, particularly this bit:

Radiation is naturally occurring in our environment no matter where you are. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimates that each year, the average adult is exposed to 300 millirems of naturally occurring radiation (300,000 microrems) and 60 millirems (60,000 microrems) of man-made radiation.

Understand? Even if you never go anywhere near an airport for the rest of your life, you will still be exposed to more radiation than the scanners. One scan = .01 millirems. Read that, then go and re-read that last quote. Do it as many times as it takes.

(think: the puny amount of Mercury in a CFL lightbulb that makes you want to don a Hazmat suit only more dangerous)

Oh, we're back to that CFL crap again, are we? Look, I already said I was wrong about that. Can't we let that drop?

 

[Mr Awe]

Mr Awe, you've posted 3 times consecutively which means there's a penalty coming your way.

Which do you want... thalaron x-ray as administered by Holdfast or enhanced pat down as enjoyed ::ahem:: I mean given by T'Bonz?

Decide -- you have on earth minute!

Ohhh, the T'Bonz option definitely!!!

Sorry about the enthusiastic posting!

Mr Awe

 

[Tora Ziyal]

How's that for a bit of idle intellectual masturbation!?

Quite impressive, Holdfast. You clearly didn't have enough to do yesterday.

 

[Holdfast]

How's that for a bit of idle intellectual masturbation!?

Quite impressive, Holdfast. You clearly didn't have enough to do yesterday.

I have a lot of time on my hands these days, and you know how the devil likes to keep folks like me busy...

 

[Subcommander R.]

That was an impressive bit of work Holdfast, bravo.

Now here's another security idea. Would it be preferable to reduce these security measures, and instead triple or even quadruple the number of air marshals onboard?

 

[Nowhere Man]

Having more air marshals would make more sense. They are not invading your privacy and are just there for our protection. It's like the Cavalry escorting wagon trains through Indian territory. The best thing about is they could be undercover, so we don't even know we are there. As long as they are not dicks to people, I think it would be more suitable. Return pre 9/11 screening tactics Which I don't like, but will accept. More air marshals. I dont think it should be tripled though.

 

[Listener4]

Of course the TSA has gone too far. It's clear these new measures have nothing to do with security but are instead acclimatization to ever greater violations of basic rights and liberties by the government.

Where will people draw the line? Will the TSA body scan and pat down every person using any form of transportation?

This is a clear violation of not just the fourth but also ninth and tenth amendments.

Governments do not have rights, only people do. And the government does not have the right to body scan and grope me just because I want to get on or off a plane.

 

[Mr Silver]

In the UK following the 7/7 attacks, those of us who travelled by air were subjected to Shoe Scans, I remember this clearly, I'm usually prone to being "Stop Searched" anyway, but this time round it was really enforced

A couple of years later, the botched attempt to detonate a "Juice Bomb" led to frantic liquid inspection at Airports, Sure it was a sensible measure, but I think confiscating bottles for Babies was a bit too much, a cursory inspection would have sufficed, I'm sure even then they could compromise, a Baby drinking a chemical explosive isn't going to last long, so why insist on unsettling a child?

But yeah I think more Air Marshalls and perhaps enhanced "Checking" Technology, such as incorporating MRI and EM Imaging in conjunction with the X-Ray Technology used at the moment should insure less incidents

 

[Trekker4747]

MRIs. BRILLIANT! Now people have to carry a doctor's note with them that says there's a piece of metal in them that makes it dangerous for them to be in an MRI. And you've got to strip all metal from your body (jewelry, keys, etc.) before entering the thing. Make traveling even MORE of a pain in the ass!

 

[Mr Silver]

I'm sorry lol, ain't been that alert, what I meant to say was using MRI's to image peoples baggage, in conjunction with an EM Spectrum Imager, it can pretty much spot anything that "shouldn't" been inside someones luggage

 

[Nowhere Man]

See, there are better solutions. God forbid the government should have to think before it acts. They expect us to do what they cannot.

 

[Subcommander R.]

Of course the TSA has gone too far. It's clear these new measures have nothing to do with security but are instead acclimatization to ever greater violations of basic rights and liberties by the government.

Where will people draw the line? Will the TSA body scan and pat down every person using any form of transportation?

This is a clear violation of not just the fourth but also ninth and tenth amendments.

Governments do not have rights, only people do. And the government does not have the right to body scan and grope me just because I want to get on or off a plane.

The tenth amendment doesn't apply since air travel is interstate and international. That gives Federal authority.

 

[bluedana]

This is not a "clear violation of the 4th Amendment." The 4th Amendment requires a warrant, on a showing of probable cause, for searches and seizures. But the Supreme Court over the years has carved out exceptions to the warrant/probable cause requirement, such as exigent circumstances (not having the time to get a warrant before something really bad happens), or Terry stops (being able to pat-frisk someone for weapons during an encounter). And officers can be excused for an unconstitutional search after the fact under the "good faith" rule.

Airport screenings, on the other hand, do not require either a warrant or a showing of probable cause because they come under a different exception: the administrative exception. For example, if your car gets impounded because you're arrested for DUI, the police will search it and inventory its contents. And you will have to empty your pockets when booked. Neither requires a warrant or probable cause.

Likewise, the government has the lawful authority to screen you and your checked bags for weapons and explosives, but would need a warrant or probable cause to search you and your carry-on outside of that secure area.

Here's what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said in United States v. Aukai in 2007:

We have held that airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are “conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings.”  United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir.1973);  see also United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 945, 127 S.Ct. 111, 166 L.Ed.2d 255 (2006);  Marquez, 410 F.3d at 616.   Our case law, however, has erroneously suggested that the reasonableness of airport screening searches is dependent upon consent, either ongoing consent or irrevocable implied consent.

 The constitutionality of an airport screening search, however, does not depend on consent, see Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315, 92 S.Ct. 1593, and requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world.  Such a rule would afford terrorists  multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by “electing not to fly” on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found.   This rule would also allow terrorists a low-cost method of detecting systematic vulnerabilities in airport security, knowledge that could be extremely valuable in planning future attacks.   Likewise, given that consent is not required, it makes little sense to predicate the reasonableness of an administrative airport screening search on an irrevocable implied consent theory.   Rather, where an airport screening search is otherwise reasonable and conducted pursuant to statutory authority, 49 U.S.C. § 44901, all that is required is the passenger's election to attempt entry into the secured area of an airport.   See Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315, 92 S.Ct. 1593; 49 C.F.R. § 1540.107. Under current TSA regulations and procedures, that election occurs when a prospective passenger walks through the magnetometer or places items on the conveyor belt of the x-ray machine.  The record establishes that Aukai elected to attempt entry into the posted secured area of Honolulu International Airport when he walked through the magnetometer, thereby subjecting himself to the airport screening process.

To the extent our cases have predicated the reasonableness of an airport screening search upon either ongoing consent or irrevocable implied consent, they are overruled.

IV.
 Although the constitutionality of airport screening searches is not dependent on consent, the scope of such searches is not limitless.   A particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it “is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives [ ][and] that it is confined in good faith to that purpose.”  Davis, 482 F.2d at 913. We conclude that the airport screening search of Aukai satisfied these requirements.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1265662.html

This is the law in the Ninth Circuit, which includes California and Hawaii, and it's persuasive law for the other Circuits until or unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise. The authority to search doesn't have to do with any implied consent by purchasing a ticket, but rather with the authority of the government to conduct administrative searches as part of regulating the airline industry -- therefore, you can't change your mind and revoke it.

Really, the argument that will eventually reach the Supreme Court over these measures is not whether we can be screened but rather "whether the screening is more extensive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology."

 

[Nowhere Man]

This is not a "clear violation of the 4th Amendment." The 4th Amendment requires a warrant, on a showing of probable cause, for searches and seizures. But the Supreme Court over the years has carved out exceptions to the warrant/probable cause requirement, such as exigent circumstances (not having the time to get a warrant before something really bad happens), or Terry stops (being able to pat-frisk someone for weapons during an encounter). And officers can be excused for an unconstitutional search after the fact under the "good faith" rule.

Airport screenings, on the other hand, do not require either a warrant or a showing of probable cause because they come under a different exception: the administrative exception. For example, if your car gets impounded because you're arrested for DUI, the police will search it and inventory its contents. And you will have to empty your pockets when booked. Neither requires a warrant or probable cause.

Likewise, the government has the lawful authority to screen you and your checked bags for weapons and explosives, but would need a warrant or probable cause to search you and your carry-on outside of that secure area.

Here's what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said in United States v. Aukai in 2007:

We have held that airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are “conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings.”  United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir.1973);  see also United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 945, 127 S.Ct. 111, 166 L.Ed.2d 255 (2006);  Marquez, 410 F.3d at 616.   Our case law, however, has erroneously suggested that the reasonableness of airport screening searches is dependent upon consent, either ongoing consent or irrevocable implied consent.

 The constitutionality of an airport screening search, however, does not depend on consent, see Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315, 92 S.Ct. 1593, and requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world.  Such a rule would afford terrorists  multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by “electing not to fly” on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found.   This rule would also allow terrorists a low-cost method of detecting systematic vulnerabilities in airport security, knowledge that could be extremely valuable in planning future attacks.   Likewise, given that consent is not required, it makes little sense to predicate the reasonableness of an administrative airport screening search on an irrevocable implied consent theory.   Rather, where an airport screening search is otherwise reasonable and conducted pursuant to statutory authority, 49 U.S.C. § 44901, all that is required is the passenger's election to attempt entry into the secured area of an airport.   See Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315, 92 S.Ct. 1593; 49 C.F.R. § 1540.107. Under current TSA regulations and procedures, that election occurs when a prospective passenger walks through the magnetometer or places items on the conveyor belt of the x-ray machine.  The record establishes that Aukai elected to attempt entry into the posted secured area of Honolulu International Airport when he walked through the magnetometer, thereby subjecting himself to the airport screening process.

To the extent our cases have predicated the reasonableness of an airport screening search upon either ongoing consent or irrevocable implied consent, they are overruled.

IV.
 Although the constitutionality of airport screening searches is not dependent on consent, the scope of such searches is not limitless.   A particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it “is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives [ ][and] that it is confined in good faith to that purpose.”  Davis, 482 F.2d at 913. We conclude that the airport screening search of Aukai satisfied these requirements.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1265662.html

This is the law in the Ninth Circuit, which includes California and Hawaii, and it's persuasive law for the other Circuits until or unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise. The authority to search doesn't have to do with any implied consent by purchasing a ticket, but rather with the authority of the government to conduct administrative searches as part of regulating the airline industry -- therefore, you can't change your mind and revoke it.

Really, the argument that will eventually reach the Supreme Court over these measures is not whether we can be screened but rather "whether the screening is more extensive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology."

Sounds like a bullshit way to get around the law.

 

[Red Ranger]

Americans have become so paranoid that now anything intended to keep them safe is misinterpreted as an "assault" on their rights. To me, it comes down to a simple equation -- want to be safe? You have to put up with security procedures. But being safe is relative -- some terrorist will figure out a way past these procedures. Might as well worry that, statistically speaking, you're liable to die in a car crash first. You can't live your life in fear!

 

[bluedana]

Sounds like a bullshit way to get around the law.

That's a stupid comment, since the whole point of the federal courts is to determine what the law is by interpreting the Constitution.

 

[Trekker4747]

There's "keeping us safe" and then there's "doing things to make us feel safe."

How many thousands or millions of people have traveled since these latest procedures went into effect? How many have traveled since 9/11?

Now, out of that countless number how many people has TSA caught?! The answer? Virtually NO ONE. Every one who has been caught since was either caught when their device failed to ignite properly or when passengers or flight-crew intervened. TSA has stopped no one and nothing. If it has caught someone (assuming I've forgotten an incident) that number is likely to be tiny compared to the millions of travelers who've been inconvenienced in the intervening time frames. Meaning that the overwhelming majority of people being searched in this manner are being searched for no reason.

Time and time again over the last few weeks I've likened these new procedures to looking under your child's bed for monsters. It does nothing, as there's not likely to be monsters under there, but it makes the kid feel better. That's all this is doing, it's making people feel better that "the government is doing something."

These procedures would not have prevented 9/11 and all they're doing is harming the airline industry by making air-travel that much more of a pain in the ass than it already was before 9/11. Now, carry-on luggage is limited, you can't carry bottles of "liquid", and now you've either got to be irradiated or groped just to get on the damn plane. All because in the last 10 years a handful of people out of millions of travelers have gotten through the cracks and almost stirred up shit.

It's bullshit and doing nothing to keep us safer but it's all beind done in the name of "appearing safe."

Now there may be some "real" intelligence and procedures going on behind the scenes we're not privy too. Fine. But the bullshit at airline security has now gone too far, is flirting with civil-rights violations and is teetering on the line of going overboard. What if someone manages to pull something off using a device concealed in a body cavity? How much further will people then be willing to let TSA go "in the name of safety"?

These procedures are not making us safe, all they're doing is getting Americans to willingly give up freedoms and rights to the government. Give the Government power and it'll be very hard to get it back. If we tell them it is okay to search us in this manner at airline security because "flying isn't a right" (forgetting that while it may not be a "right," the government has less of a right to restrict it in such a manner. Our Rights are not limited to the ones in The Constitution) then how long before there's security checks at bus terminals, subway stops, and highway on-ramps?

When is enough going to be enough? When are Americans going to stop be willing to put up with this bullshit in the name of "feeling safe?" When will the phrase "I've nothing to hide, go ahead and do it" stop being used? When will people realize that you've everything to hide because your privacy is your RIGHT. And that, someday, you WILL have something to hide but government will want to look anyway and will use this other stuff as precedent that most people think that it is okay.

The stuff TSA is doing should not be tolerated in the name of "feeling safe." Because, really, we could've kept the status-quo that was in place on 9/10 and we still wouldn't have suffered a major incident. Because terrorists attacks like what took place on 9/11 are RARE and far in between. It also produced a more diligent and aware public that's done far more to stop future attempts at terrorism than TSA has.

Following 9/11 only two things were needed. An Air Marshal on all (or most) flights, a flight-staff less willing to concede to terrorist demands, a flight-staff better trained to deal with terrorists, and a far more robust cockpit door.

No scanner an airport security would've stopped 9/11 with what was policy and occurring on the planes themselves. An oft-posted video of Adam Savage of Mythbusters showing off that he managed to get through TSA, opting for the scanner, while carrying on his person two razor/saw blades concealed inside a wooden tube should show us how much TSA is useless and couldn't have prevented 9/11.

It's looking under the beds of crying Americans who want to feel safe from the imaginary monsters.

9/11 was a fluke. A conspiracy of coincidences that all worked in a cascade of mis-steps, failures, and poor policies on the aircraft. Following 9/11 with no changes to security it would've been harder to pull it off again with a more aware and alert public and flight crews. Some simple changes to cockpit doors and flight-staff co-operating with terrorists is all that was needed.

What's not needed? To irradiate or grope millions of people every day to maybe, someday, find one person trying to do something -and is somebody who simply forgot to put the Swiss Army Knife in the glove box. Because it's not doing a damn thing to make anyone safe.

But, hey, you've nothing to hide and it makes you feel better, right? So go ahead and just search people for no good reason whatsoever, TSA. Keep fucking that chicken.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

There's "keeping us safe" and then there's "doing things to make us feel safe."

Exactly.

Reminds me of an acquaintance who was telling me about all of the security measures that she and her husband take at home, and how I should be doing all these things, too. And then she ended her little speech by saying that she knows they don't really make their home safer, but they make her and her husband feel safer.

 

[Trekker4747]

There's "keeping us safe" and then there's "doing things to make us feel safe."

Exactly.

Reminds me of an acquaintance who was telling me about all of the security measures that she and her husband take at home, and how I should be doing all these things, too. And then she ended her little speech by saying that she knows they don't really make their home safer, but they make her and her husband feel safer.

They look under the bed for monsters, don't they?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Americans have become so paranoid that now anything intended to keep them safe is misinterpreted as an "assault" on their rights. To me, it comes down to a simple equation -- want to be safe? You have to put up with security procedures.

I'm unsure how not wanting to be ogled in your green-tinted birthday suit or groped just to catch a red-eye to Cleveland (which is punishment enough) makes one paranoid. It seems contradictory since we're calling for less (or preferably smarter) security procedures, not more. People demanding more excessive security measures even though they're not likely to stop terrorists - who know what to avoid now - would seem to fit the paranoid bill more rather than the other way around. I'm not a hot woman, so I'm not too worried if someone wants to see my toned naked physique in all of its glorious splendor, but I could certainly see how a women might feel creeped out by it if she keeps getting singled out, as is actually happening.

I don't think that most people feel more safe from these procedures at all. I think they feel more inconvenienced and harassed and embarrassed due to increasingly pointless and invasive knee-jerk reactive security measures. I already felt perfectly safe flying, but not from the security checks, just because the chances of something happening are so incredibly slim. I stay away from flying now unless I absolutely have to not because of terrorism, but because of the security hassle before you even get on the plane. I guess if the goal is to stop terrorism on airliners by trying to discourage people from flying as much as possible it's the right way to go.

If anything, the fact that their security measures are always reactive to the last incident that actually happened or would have happened if not for incompetence of the terrorist or the reaction of the passengers (but always after the terrorist already got the device on the plane) gives me less confidence in them. They haven't shown an ounce of initiative, forward-thinking, or rationality. They prevent passengers from carrying liquids, nail files, and ink cartridges though, like that's going to stop anything. People joke that the next time when a terrorist carries a bomb in a body cavity that means there are going to be random body cavity searches for passengers, but deep down there's a tinge of seriousness in it because given everything else the TSA has done that's sadly not out of the realm of possibility.

But hey, clearly the TSA knows what they're doing and never goes too far. How could an agency that feels-up children (AKA Terror Tykes) and then tells them it's all part of a "fun game" (you know, like child molesters do) possibly be wrong? Note, I'm not actually calling them child molesters here, I'm calling them incompetent for the fact that they clearly didn't even consult with any child psychologists before coming up with that brainfart of an idea.