Stupid Airport mm-wave Scanners

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
seized."[/b]

So, let's dissect it.

"shall not be violated" seems clear
"no warrants shall issue" seems clear too
"probable cause" means what it says
"secure" means just that
"against" not hard to understand either

See how easy it is? It's impossible for thinking individuals to obfuscate the obvious.

OK..I'll bite.

Lets dissect it from another perspective

1. Are they issuing "Warrants"...No
2. Is the search "Unreasonable". No they are trying to make sure people don't have something on them that could kill people. "AND" they tell you ahead of time that you are gonna be searched. Youhave the opportunity to be secure in your person by declining to go on the Airplane.
3. That is your "Right"..."The Right of the People to be secure (you have the right to not be searched and thereby be secure.) I on the other hand have the "Right" to be secure on the Airplane.

4. You can leave your "effects" and "Papers" at home. And
5. They are not searchig your "House"

Oh and btw:

"In 1973, the circuit court ruled that airport searches were valid "only if they recognize the right of a person to avoid search by electing not to board the aircraft." In later rulings, the court began backing off, ruling passengers could not opt out of searches if they had checked luggage or if carry-on items were flagged during the initial screening to enter the terminal area."

The case is United States v. Aukai, 04-10226.

 

[morris]

stop drinking the cool-aid

 

[mpvue]

Originally Posted By: morris
stop drinking the Kool-aid

fixed it.

I'm not really surprised anymore when I hear of stuff the gub'mint is doing.

I don't think I'll ever fly again, can't imagine what it would be like travelling w/ 3 little kids. if I can't drive there, I ain't going (they don't check papers at the state borders yet do they?)

 

[Shannow]

Nah,
that's Oz with the random papers checks on the highways.

 

[Astro14]

I haven't seen the definitive level of radiation...but I am willing to bet that you're getting more exposure from the flight itself than the scan...so, why not stay home? Seriously...if you're that concerned...it's the time spent at 37,000 feet that should worry you...not this thing...

FWIW - I hate them too...let's look at logic. I will take complete control of the airplane when I go to work (I am flying for UAL again). But, on the way there, I will be scanned to prevent me bringing articles on board that could be used to...wait for it...take control of an airplane...

Makes perfect sense...

 

[JHZR2]

Astro,

Please go back to my first post. It's not the radiation content per se. It's the forced irradiation in the name of "safety", which is effectively a warrant less search without probable cause.

If I went through the metal detector and set something off, if I had a prosthesis that they couldn't verify, etc., etc., those are all valid reasons. As is being an uncleared person who may be on a no fly list, acting funny, having strange things in their bag, etc.

But to be disallowed from going through the detector, and then intrusively pay down for what?

Unfortunately, ill bet that a polymer frame pistol can be broken down sufficiently to be his in a carry on. I'll also bet enough folks combining junk would make a nasty concoction despite 3-3-3 rule. It pains me to say it... But in no way do I see this scan as a safety factor, more of an inconvenience and excessive search.

 

[Astro14]

I did read your post...and responded only to the part I thought hadn't been addressed: radiation exposure and logic of searching crew.

The "warrantless search" issue was settled nearly 40 years ago. You consented to the search as a condition of flying...don't want the search? then don't fly...you have complete control over whether or not you're searched...that's a dead issue legally...

And I've seen enough nut-jobs and people with "issues" as well as focused, dedicated bad guys to require that we do the physical security search for potential weapons...

But for me? Any good reason to search me? Whether I have 3.5 oz of shaving cream (gasp!) or a rocket launcher, I end up with control of the airplane...the only reason that I am searched is so that the public "feels" better...and that truly is pointless...I have control of the airplane no matter how thoroughly I am searched...so, what's the point?

 

[Ojustracing]

Went through the full body scanner in Denver and had put my ID in my front pants pocket instead of over my head. Guy with the Ear mic gives me a [censored] whats in your left front pocket. Oh my Driver license. I guess those scanners think a DL is a possible terrorist threat. Also while leaving Albany Airport they were using this test strip that they would put over open beverages to check for what I assume is explosives.

 

[Shannow]

When I went through I had my passport in my pocket, and similarly they flipped right out.

We were told quite clearly to never let our passports out of our sight, and took them from our neck poaches when we had to put the wallets/coins through, but security did everything that they could to make us lose sight of them.

 

[Mr Nice]

Just plan on a nice long road trip and avoid flying.

 

[bigmike]

I refuse to fly. If our freedoms come back, I'll reconsider.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: bigmike
I refuse to fly. If our freedoms come back, I'll reconsider.


We, as a nation, agreed to being scanned in 1973 when the first metal detectors were installed. It's a condition of the ticket that we purchase. Those metal detectors were installed after US airline pilots pressured Congress in response to an increase in hijackings at that time(several per year in the US alone), including many that were fatal to all the passengers on board when the airplane crashed.

Personally, I don't see the loss in freedom in agreeing to be scanned to get on an airplane. You've been able to preserve your freedoms by choosing not to.

But refusing to fly does make getting some places awfully inconvenient...

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
It's a condition of the ticket that we purchase. Those metal detectors were installed after US airline pilots pressured Congress in response to an increase in hijackings at that time(several per year in the US alone), including many that were fatal to all the passengers on board when the airplane crashed.

Personally, I don't see the loss in freedom in agreeing to be scanned to get on an airplane. You've been able to preserve your freedoms by choosing not to.

Pretty much sums it up. Using one's Freedom to not fly until we get you Freedoms back. Is amusing.

 

[bigmike]

Apparently, unreasonable searches are allowable as long as you choose to undergo them.

I see your logic now!

Give me a break.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: bigmike
Apparently, unreasonable searches are allowable as long as you choose to undergo them.

I see your logic now!

Give me a break.


Yeah I think it is an untenable position. You could also say "you consent to be searched if you walk down a public street, enter a shopping mall, drive your car, use public transportation etc". You could basically make the same argument if you do anything.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
You could also say "you consent to be searched if you walk down a public street, enter a shopping mall, drive your car, use public transportation etc". You could basically make the same argument if you do anything.
You probably see the sky falling and I can see why.

Walking down a public street = little expectation to be search.

Going through an airport screening line..hmmmmmm

 

[Shannow]

I guess that it's at what point you draw the line when the frog is in the pot, and the heat turned up.

One could argue that the metal detector, being passive, is completely different to an active radiation source.

Then comes the argument of how much of a potential risk you are prepared to put the public at large to to prevent the tiny risk of terrorists (and it is tiny).

How far do people want to push the risk/benefit ?

How far when the next incident isn't (failed) shoe bombs or underpants, but something that they pulled out of their nether regions in the lavatory ?

Full body X-Rays ?

After all, Drs use them for health benefits, and the risk of one X-Ray is tiny compared to a plane crash.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
You could also say "you consent to be searched if you walk down a public street, enter a shopping mall, drive your car, use public transportation etc". You could basically make the same argument if you do anything.
You probably see the sky falling and I can see why.

Walking down a public street = little expectation to be search.

Going through an airport screening line..hmmmmmm


What

? I'm not saying walking down the street and boarding an air plane is the same risk level. I'm saying the same reasoning that just because you book a flight you have necessarily given up your right to not be subjected unreasonable searches could be applied to anything in the name of "security" by the people who do see the sky falling.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

Then comes the argument of how much of a potential risk you are prepared to put the public at large to to prevent the tiny risk of terrorists (and it is tiny).

How far do people want to push the risk/benefit ?

You are right..and as we all should know..there is a risk benefit to everything we do. Going down to the grocery entails risk. Personally I would say the risk of a cancer from a scan is orders of magnitudes below the possibility of a vehicle accident going to the store.

Originally Posted By: mechanicx

What

? I'm not saying walking down the street and boarding an air plane is the same risk level. I'm saying the same reasoning that just because you book a flight you have necessarily given up your right to not be subjected unreasonable searches could be applied to anything in the name of "security" by the people who do see the sky falling.


Well your presumption of "Unreasonable search" is not shared by the Courts so therefore your conclusion is false. (except to you)

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: bigmike
Apparently, unreasonable searches are allowable as long as you choose to undergo them.

I see your logic now!

Give me a break.


I hope so...if you chose to undergo it...by definition it is not unreasonable (in the Constitutional/Bill of Rights sense...)...you may not like it, but that doesn't make it an "unreasonable search" because you can choose to avoid it. You have the choice, ergo, you retain the right not to be subjected to it.

Look, I have flown over 800,000 miles as a paying passenger, and I am presently employed as a pilot by United Airlines, so I've been through security literally thousands of times...more than almost anyone...

It should be pretty clear from my other posts, that I don't like it either, but that's personal opinion, not a legal position....and I certainly can't petition to change the law on the basis of my dislike.

And I recognize the need to screen passengers...again, more than most...