TSA's Naked body scanner and pat-down procedures.

[Yuki-Anne]

I have a problem with this because you don't have a choice. If you want to fly, you have to 1. let someone see you naked or 2. let them touch you in uncomfortable areas. This is a violation of our 4th amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, and has no legal precedent. If they have probable cause against me, then I will submit to a search, but me choosing to use an airplane is NOT probable cause.

My problem with this is in principle. If we allow the government to seize this kind of liberty, liberties we as regular citizens do not have and have not as a body voted to grant them, we are by inaction setting a precedent that they can increase surveillance to intolerably intrusive levels and we will not object because it's "for our own safety." I shudder to think what they'll pull next "for our own safety."

Also, these machines are apparently in over 60 US airports now.

[Radical Dreamer]

Also guys, steer clear of tap-dancing on the politics line. This is a thread that could easily turn political, and I'd rather not have to lock it on our "no politics" rule.

[Nate]

I have a problem with this because you don't have a choice.

You do have a choice. Submit to the search, or don't fly. See? Choice.

You may say "But that's not fair!" Well guess what? If you want to go to a job, you have to submit to drug testing. If you refuse, you don't get the job. Sucks, huh? But that's the way it works.

If you want to fly, you have to 1. let someone see you naked

That's not exactly true, as evidenced by other posts people have made.

or 2. let them touch you in uncomfortable areas.

Well if you won't let them look at you through the scanner, what else are they supposed to do? They're not mind-readers.

This is a violation of our 4th amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure

Debatable.

If they have probable cause against me, then I will submit to a search, but me choosing to use an airplane is NOT probable cause.

So what's probable cause? Hmm? How are you going to justify "I think that person might have a bomb or a weapon" outside of a scanner or a search? Anything you can come up with would be shot down as racist because saying "That guy looks Middle Eastern, he probably has a weapon or bomb" is racial stereotyping. Besides, it's not like middle-aged white men and women have never tried to hijack planes or bring on dangerous materials before. So sorry, but your argument about "probable cause" does not stand.

I'm not even going to touch the last paragraph because of what Corrie said.

[Peanut]

Yay Peanut is a genius!!!

You know normally I would take this as a complement but in this case...

I have a problem with this because you don't have a choice. If you want to fly, you have to 1. let someone see you naked or 2. let them touch you in uncomfortable areas.

Ok, I've been frisked a couple of times at airports before and honestly they aren't really touching you in what I would consider to be uncomfortable areas. I wouldn't call the process comfortable because its still some stranger touching you, but it's not like they're sexually harassing you while they're doing it (well...in the context at least...) and its always a member of the same sex. Obviously my impressions are my own opinion and I can understand someone being way more uncomfortable then I was while having it done, but it's not groping and, frankly, I don't think they do a thorough search if they assume you aren't a threat (which was probably the case with me), which means there is way less touching involved then you would think. I still say that while I don't like what TSA is doing, I'm not complaining about it. It's a lot harder to pull a 9/11 now then it was before 9/11 though that isn't really saying much...

[blkmage]

You do have a choice. Submit to the search, or don't fly. See? Choice.

You may say "But that's not fair!" Well guess what? If you want to go to a job, you have to submit to drug testing. If you refuse, you don't get the job. Sucks, huh? But that's the way it works.

That's not exactly true, as evidenced by other posts people have made.

Well if you won't let them look at you through the scanner, what else are they supposed to do? They're not mind-readers.

Debatable.

So what's probable cause? Hmm? How are you going to justify "I think that person might have a bomb or a weapon" outside of a scanner or a search? Anything you can come up with would be shot down as racist because saying "That guy looks Middle Eastern, he probably has a weapon or bomb" is racial stereotyping. Besides, it's not like middle-aged white men and women have never tried to hijack planes or bring on dangerous materials before. So sorry, but your argument about "probable cause" does not stand.

I'm not even going to touch the last paragraph because of what Corrie said.

This line of reasoning is predicated on the fact that such intrusive searches are necessary for security, which is debatable. The question shouldn't be "what choices do I have for being exhaustively searched?" but "how exhaustive does a search need to be for there to ensure a reasonable amount of security?" So far, the implication is that we should trust this government agency and it can arbitrarily decide what is reasonable without any accountability or transparency.

Ok, I've been frisked a couple of times at airports before and honestly they aren't really touching you in what I would consider to be uncomfortable areas. I wouldn't call the process comfortable because its still some stranger touching you, but it's not like they're sexually harassing you while they're doing it (well...in the context at least...) and its always a member of the same sex. Obviously my impressions are my own opinion and I can understand someone being way more uncomfortable then I was while having it done, but it's not groping and, frankly, I don't think they do a thorough search if they assume you aren't a threat (which was probably the case with me), which means there is way less touching involved then you would think. I still say that while I don't like what TSA is doing, I'm not complaining about it. It's a lot harder to pull a 9/11 now then it was before 9/11 though that isn't really saying much...

Apparently, they're stepping up how aggressively they're supposed to search you in addition to the body scanning, so your prior experience might not apply anymore.

[Lilac#18]

Yeah Im all for keeping our airlines safe as well, but this is just way over the top. Talk about intrusive!

Ew! Talk about a major invasion of privacy!

[color="Plum"]I agree with you two.[/color]

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Usually when I get frisked, I start laughing because I'm really ticklish. XD

[Peanut]

This line of reasoning is predicated on the fact that such intrusive searches are necessary for security, which is debatable. The question shouldn't be "what choices do I have for being exhaustively searched?" but "how exhaustive does a search need to be for there to ensure a reasonable amount of security?" So far, the implication is that we should trust this government agency and it can arbitrarily decide what is reasonable without any accountability or transparency.

True, but I think more invasive searches would equal safer flights. For instance, mandatory strip searches would make it very hard to conceal weapons or explosives when you get on planes however, for obvious reasons, they aren't done because of how major of an invasion of privacy they are. I know these machines are doing basically the same thing, however I think most people would agree that, given the choice between the machine or a strip search, they'd take the machine. Anyway, as you said this whole issue falls on the balancing act between security and privacy. I don't think TSA has done a great job at this but I do think they've done a decent job at it and have shown a good deal of restraint. Then again, I do tend to lean more towards the side of security over privacy especially when it comes to flying. When I was a kid I loved going to the airport and being able to go to the gates without having a boarding pass or having to go through insane security. Now, though, as I look back I realize just how easy it really was for something like 9/11 to happen and as a result, I completely understand and submit to what TSA has done to fix the problem. Now, with that being said, I still do hate going through security at airports so its not like TSA is my favorite government agency in the world...

Apparently, they're stepping up how aggressively they're supposed to search you in addition to the body scanning, so your prior experience might not apply anymore.

Possibly, I kind of like to think that, while they are saying this, the security guards will probably only selectively do it. For instance, one time when I got pulled aside and searched, it was because I had my boarding pass in the front pocket of my hoodie. The search really wasn't all that extensive and I think it was because I didn't look like I was a threat and what seemed to be in my pocket didn't look threatening at all. I still think they're going to do stuff like that since it makes their job easier but who knows.

[Roy Mustang]

This is how I would make most people happy in the pat down search.

Males get a pat down search by former 1980's and up playboy bunnies.

Females get a pat down search by Chippendales


Kids get a pat down by Barney the Dinosaur


Everyone wins!


[font="Book Antiqua"][color="Red"]Col. Roy Mustang [/color][/font]

[blkmage]

True, but I think more invasive searches would equal safer flights. For instance, mandatory strip searches would make it very hard to conceal weapons or explosives when you get on planes however, for obvious reasons, they aren't done because of how major of an invasion of privacy they are. I know these machines are doing basically the same thing, however I think most people would agree that, given the choice between the machine or a strip search, they'd take the machine. Anyway, as you said this whole issue falls on the balancing act between security and privacy. I don't think TSA has done a great job at this but I do think they've done a decent job at it and have shown a good deal of restraint. Then again, I do tend to lean more towards the side of security over privacy especially when it comes to flying. When I was a kid I loved going to the airport and being able to go to the gates without having a boarding pass or having to go through insane security. Now, though, as I look back I realize just how easy it really was for something like 9/11 to happen and as a result, I completely understand and submit to what TSA has done to fix the problem. Now, with that being said, I still do hate going through security at airports so its not like TSA is my favorite government agency in the world...

Right, and it's not just privacy, it's also effectiveness. What are they searching for when they search your person and why do they need to do as exhaustive a search as they do? Are they searching for explosives? Well, that'll get picked up by a metal detector. Are they searching for guns or knives? Again, same thing. Are they searching for sharp pencils? Broken glass? Leather whips? A femur?

Obviously, people will feel safer, but whether or not the security practices actually make things safer is a different story, especially when those resources can be reallocated to more effective and less intrusive security measures.

[Nate]

Wait, how would a metal detector pick up explosives? Last I checked C-4 contains no metal components.

[Peanut]

Wait, how would a metal detector pick up explosives? Last I checked C-4 contains no metal components.

Yeah, Nate's right. Plus, as I recall, there are a number of liquid explosives that can be used which would slip past a metal detector as well. Still, I get your point blkmage and would agree that that it is ideal and is the one thing I wish TSA would improve at. Also...

This is how I would make most people happy in the pat down search.

Males get a pat down search by former 1980's and up playboy bunnies.

Females get a pat down search by Chippendales


Kids get a pat down by Barney the Dinosaur


Everyone wins!


[font="Book Antiqua"][color="Red"]Col. Roy Mustang [/color][/font]

pfffffffffffffffffffffffff...though that last one has some unfortunate implications...

[blkmage]

Okay, fine, I don't know anything about explosives, clearly I would be the worst terrorist.

[Peanut]

Or is that what you want us to think...

[Midori]

Can I bring up another point (that's in opposition to my previous point, haha) that, as of after 9/11, it's pretty much impossible for a terrorist to hijack a plane any more? At least not without sneaking past a cabin full of angry passengers. Remember the guy who had a bomb in his shoe? You can maybe overpower two pilots and a couple flight attendants, but not a hundred ordinary Joes.

[ich1990]

What bothers me most about these scanners is that there are far more efficient and less invasive ways of improving airport security (assuming more security is necessary: we haven't had single successful terrorist attempt on an airplane for the past nine years, despite tens of thousands of flights).

For instance, a couple of flights back I accidentally brought a 12" long steak knife with me and they didn't catch it, despite running it through the scanner. So, for starters, they could improve security by using the equipment they do have, properly.

Maybe after they start catching the steak knives and we continue having problems with terrorists blowing up our planes I will approve of more invasive security. Not before.

EDIT: Make that tens of millions of flights without terrorist incident.

[Yuki-Anne]

What bothers me most about these scanners is that there are far more efficient and less invasive ways of improving airport security (assuming more security is necessary: we haven't had single successful terrorist attempt on an airplane for the past nine years, despite tens of thousands of flights).

For instance, a couple of flights back I accidentally brought a 12" long steak knife with me and they didn't catch it, despite running it through the scanner. So, for starters, they could improve security by using the equipment they do have, properly.

Maybe after they start catching the steak knives and we continue having problems with terrorists blowing up our planes I will approve of more invasive security. Not before.

EDIT: Make that tens of millions of flights without terrorist incident.

Quoted for truth and OMG really?!

Also, I'm sorry, but the whole "don't like it, don't fly" argument doesn't work for somebody in my position. If I ever want to see my friends and family again, I have to fly. You can make the case that I could take a boat, but that would be more expensive, and... well, you look into getting a boat ticket from Japan to America, see what kind of luck you have.

Besides, it's not like middle-aged white men and women have never tried to hijack planes or bring on dangerous materials before.

Not that I'm at all condoning racial profiling, but... really? When was the last time a middle-aged white woman tried to hijack a plane? This question is not snide, I'm really actually kind of curious now.

[Nate]

Also, I'm sorry, but the whole "don't like it, don't fly" argument is actually kind of insulting to somebody in my position.

*shrug* It was your decision to go to Japan. If you didn't want to go through the scanner, you shouldn't have gone. Sorry, but that's just how it is. If I want to go to certain parts of Virginia, I have to take a toll road and pay a toll. Do I like it? Nope, but the toll is there, and I can either pay it and go or not pay and not get to where I want to go.

I'm sorry you feel insulted, but that's just how life works. My mom got a letter from the warden of a prison because one day they were searching people who went into the prison, AND their cars, and she had gardening shears in her car. Now they didn't confiscate them and she didn't get in trouble, but gardening shears CAN be used as a weapon, so it was one of those "Please don't bring these here again." My mom loves gardening and it's a hassle to have to take the shears out of her car when she goes to visit, but them's the rules. She can either follow the rules, or not go see her husband on visitation day.

If I ever want to see my friends and family again, I have to fly.

Okay, but uh...forgive me if I'm wrong, but TSA. Part of the United States Department of Homeland Security. Um...last I checked, the TSA would have zero authorization to operate in Japanese airports. And usually, once you've landed, you don't go through scanners or anything because you've already gotten off the plane and didn't do anything. There's probably Customs, but they're not part of TSA, Customs is its own separate department.

Now of course, TSA would be involved when you wanted to go back to Japan, but then we're in that situation I said before where if you want to do something, you have to follow the rules. You may dislike the rules, but you still are obligated to follow them until they change.

Not that I'm at all condoning racial profiling

Then explain to me how to determine probable cause without racial profiling. Go on. I'll wait around for the rest of time, because there IS no other way other than racial profiling, which is, well, racist. That means everybody gets treated as a suspect, because otherwise you have to choose who's a suspect, and that leads to tons of problems.

When was the last time a middle-aged white woman tried to hijack a plane?

That's difficult to determine, as usually potential hijacks don't have much information on them. There are some hijackings on record that were done by organizations (such as the Japanese Red Army) that could have had females in them, but the reports don't say. However, again, most of the information I can find is about famous or notable hijackings, not all hijackings.

Interestingly enough, in one case, the pilot himself hijacked his own plane. This was in like 1998, but the pilot (who was Chinese) diverted the plane he was flying and went to Taiwan.

assuming more security is necessary: we haven't had single successful terrorist attempt on an airplane for the past nine years, despite tens of thousands of flights

One might say that's because of the increased security. However, that's difficult to determine. I'm not saying it is, otherwise we get into the "This rock keeps tigers away because there aren't any tigers around now are there?" Still, I don't think decreasing security is going to help matters, especially since it would almost certainly be reported on national news, and do you really want potential terrorists to hear "Airports around the country have announced that they've removed lots of security measures because people don't like them"? I know I wouldn't.

[Rusty Claymore]

I have heard that certain groups with certain beliefs in dress code have been able to bypass these new procedures due to taking offence. Anyone herd anything about this?

[Yuki-Anne]

I had heard about this. Islamic women are being advised on how to avoid this due to their religion, based on their 1st amendment rights. I have no objection to this, since Islamic rules are very strict about things of this nature. But it does seem a bit ironic, doesn't it?

Also, I did not go through the scanners on my way to Japan. Most of the changes that have been implemented have happened since I left the States. I'm committed to two years here.

No, the TSA does not have authority in Japan. But there's still flying from my port of entry back to my hometown, and then there's going from my hometown back to Japan.

I'm not objecting to airport security. All I'm saying is, I think there are ways to step up security without being so ridiculously intrusive.

[rocklobster]

I just read Ann Coulter's column about this. This quote expresses my sentiment:

You can't stop a terrorist attack by searching for the explosives any more than you can stop crime by taking away everyone's guns.

Meaning, the terrorists will always find a way.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Ann Coulter makes me want to barf whenever she speaks.

And by the way, since when was privacy so important to our lives? Just to throw this out there.

[blkmage]

Please submit your physical address to CAA and your memberships to other forums so that we can determine whether you are likely to be a troll or not.

Is it within the right of CAA to ask for that otherwise they'll deny you access? Probably. Is it reasonable? Probably not.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

So I guess privacy is a result of being driven by fear?

[blkmage]

Not really. It's like, if you came over to my house and, for whatever reason, I didn't feel like hosting you or whatever. If privacy didn't matter, I would have no legal or moral right to make you leave if you didn't feel like it.

Now, obviously, there are exceptions, which is why we have things like warrants.

And if that little sketch isn't enough to satisfy your curiosity and you have thousands of edge cases that I didn't address, you can always look it up on Wikipedia or something.

[Cognitive Gear]

The ACLU has a pretty good write up on why this is a bad idea.

Yes, the government must zealously work to make us as safe as possible and to take every reasonable step to make sure security breaches like the ones that led to the Christmas Day attempted attack are not repeated. But we need to act wisely. That means not trading away our privacy for ineffective policies. We should be investing in developing technologies such as trace portal detectors (a.k.a. "puffer machines") that provide a layer of security without invading privacy, and in developing competent law enforcement and intelligence agencies that will stop terrorists before they show up at the airport.

Ultimately, it is up to the American people to figure out just how much privacy they want to abandon to block a few particular means of carrying out terrorist attacks. The ACLU represents those who value privacy in this debate. But when Americans make that decision, they should do so with their eyes wide open, without any illusions that this will prevent all attacks on airliners, much less attacks on shopping malls or all the infinite number of other plots and targets that terrorists could come up with if they are not stopped by competent law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

[TopazRaven]

Hm, another thing that bothers me about the scanners though is that you are being exposed to radition. Is that really safe? I honestly don't think even a small amount is competely safe.

[musicaloddball]

Oh here they go again, "Technology is the answer to all our problems! Huzzah!"

:\ Seriously you can have your cake eat it, too. You can make an airport secure without making employees look at naked diagrams of flyers all day. This whole naked body scanner thing is unnecessary intrusion.

The Tel Aviv Airport hasn't had a successful terrorist attack since the 90's. I'm not terribly familiar with the security procedures there, but I know it does not involve naked body scanners. People who go through the Tel Aviv Airport (in my experience) complain that the security officers are paranoid and confiscate random objects for no reason, but they don't complain about privacy issues. The US could probably take a hint from Israel on this one.

Also, what has stopped terrorists in the past? Passengers who fought them. We need to stick to what works. Everyone is so focused on keeping the terrorists off the planes, but passengers need to know what to do if a terrorist does end up on the plane.

[ich1990]

One might say that's because of the increased security. However, that's difficult to determine. I'm not saying it is, otherwise we get into the "This rock keeps tigers away because there aren't any tigers around now are there?" Still, I don't think decreasing security is going to help matters, especially since it would almost certainly be reported on national news, and do you really want potential terrorists to hear "Airports around the country have announced that they've removed lots of security measures because people don't like them"? I know I wouldn't.

Uh, I don't really understand what you are getting at. I said, with our current security, we haven't had a single successful terrorist incident involving planes in the last ten years, despite tens of millions of flights. Why would we need more?

Then you said because we have increased security post 9/11, we haven't had terrorist incidents.

How are we disagreeing?

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I think his point being that you can't prove that terrorists were stopped from hijacking planes. Perhaps increased security deterred people from doing so. If so, nobody would know either way.

And I dunno. It's all still fear to me. Privacy, that is. We are, after all, a very fear-driven nation.