have we discussed

HappyTummy613

FallinAgain:

Not the same thing. The govt. is only searching you if you show up and submit to it to get to do what you want to do.  You still have the right to be secure in your person; you just cannot fly.  It all remains your choice.  Maybe I'm wrong. I'm 99% sure someone will sue and test it out.

Agreed.  I haven't read much, but what I've come across so far jives with what Fallin is saying, e.g.:

Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)]. (emphasis added)

The "but what about people who have to fly for work" argument seems more like a policy argument for legislators than a constitutional argument for courts.

Where's PDXPG?  Maybe she's heard something new and interesting.  Surely professors must be using this as a "teaching moment" at the law schools.

 

skhynes

I would probably be okay with a same-sex person doing a pat down.  But is it same-sex doing the scanning as well?  I doubt it.  I just feel like I don't want some TSA dudes checking out my body under that thing.  You're telling me some guy might not wave his buddy over if it's a hot girl or something? 

salimoo

FallinAgain:

ftnups:

Actually, that's exactly what she said. She would gladly accept any measures they want to enforce for a (my words) false sense of security and illusion of "doing something." So the logical next question is, what would you not accept.

I get that people have their own comfort levels with all this, even if it baffles me, but individual opinions aren't a valid argument for these new measures. I don't really care what one person thinks is fine - good for them - this is objectively wrong and intrusive. And it won't make us any safer, either.

Just because you put "objectively" in front of it, doesn't make it so.  This is much an individual opinion as mine is.

I'm pretty sure Nov was being hyperbolic.  I doubt she means she'd be ok with, say, anal fisting.

And I'm unconvinced that it is an illusion of security or doing something. I think there's an argument that this could have stopped the diaper bomber dude.

Okla--I don't think it violates the 4th b/c you do not have to submit to the search.  You choose to in order to take advantage of the convenience of flying, and flying isn't a right.

I do notice that a few people have mentioned male tsa agents. I haven't read anything suggesting same sex agents won't continue to be policy. Am I missing something?

Now you're being hyperbolic.

Would someone draw the line at, say, a ban on carry-ons? All see-through luggage? Mandatory paper hospital johnnies through checkpoints? Cavity searches? I think these are all more possible than a lot of people think.

ftnups

FallinAgain:

ftnups:

Actually, that's exactly what she said. She would gladly accept any measures they want to enforce for a (my words) false sense of security and illusion of "doing something." So the logical next question is, what would you not accept.

I get that people have their own comfort levels with all this, even if it baffles me, but individual opinions aren't a valid argument for these new measures. I don't really care what one person thinks is fine - good for them - this is objectively wrong and intrusive. And it won't make us any safer, either.

Just because you put "objectively" in front of it, doesn't make it so.  This is much an individual opinion as mine is.

I'm pretty sure Nov was being hyperbolic.  I doubt she means she'd be ok with, say, anal fisting.

And I'm unconvinced that it is an illusion of security or doing something. I think there's an argument that this could have stopped the diaper bomber dude.

Okla--I don't think it violates the 4th b/c you do not have to submit to the search.  You choose to in order to take advantage of the convenience of flying, and flying isn't a right.

I do notice that a few people have mentioned male tsa agents. I haven't read anything suggesting same sex agents won't continue to be policy. Am I missing something?

Fallin, I quoted captain serious not november (or if I didn't that is the post I intended to quote). And her exact words are above. Going on a limb and saying cs wasn't being facetious.

I am certain that same-sex agents will continue to be the policy; can't speak for anyone else, I am just repeating what I hear people saying.

How would it have stopped the diaper bomber dude? The scanners can't see chemicals or plastic, correct? Things like this are implemented in reaction to specific incidents - and like the silly shoe rules, 3 oz rules, toner cartridges etc, it won't catch or stop anyone.

The difference between my opinion and yours is that mine doesn't require other people to "choose" between getting an aggressive pat-down that includes my breasts and crotch (and apparently inside the waistband of my pants) and having an x-ray scan that produces an image of my naked body (and can be saved).

 

FallinAgain

HappyTummy613:

FallinAgain:

Not the same thing. The govt. is only searching you if you show up and submit to it to get to do what you want to do.  You still have the right to be secure in your person; you just cannot fly.  It all remains your choice.  Maybe I'm wrong. I'm 99% sure someone will sue and test it out.

Agreed.  I haven't read much, but what I've come across so far jives with what Fallin is saying, e.g.:

Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)]. (emphasis added)

I suspect that will be the test issue, and I suspect the ability to choose between two options and being able to elect not to fly will make it valid.

 

SarahBethBR

There's a guy who checked the TSA website to see if the machines were in his airport, but it wasn't updated.  When he got there and got selected for a search, he declined and said he wouldn't fly.  They refused to let him leave and threatened him with an $11,000 fine if he did.  That doesn't sound like much of a choice.

http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/kswb-man-faces-fine-for-refusing-tsa-scan,0,7222070.story

salimoo

I would also bet that refusing to submit to a search and declining to fly would get you put on a list.

Novemberrocks

I don't think I ever said I'd be okay with anything they want to do.  I don't get particularly squeamish about others seeing my stuff.  I guess my issue is that I don't fully understand the efficacy of it.  I stand by my initial assertion that common sense is the most effective practice.  I remember going to a talk given by an airport administrator a few years back for work and the guy said their TSA folks are trained to read body language and to really try to engage the passenger.  They are also trained to ask unconventional questions and things that someone wouldn't necessarily expect...ie, "did you see that great game last night? or 'go to any good restaurants while in town?"  It sounds trivial, but apparently these are the types of questions that get really revealing answers or non answers. 

I totally get that the TSA folks are good people just doing their job.  And I think it creates a feeling that we're safer, but are we really?  And is this how we want to be safer?  Hey, I'd love to go to Jamaica, but not if I have to submit to an anal probe to get there. 

ftnups

salimoo:

CaliopeSpidrman:

While I am not up in arms over it, I totally understand the viewpoint of those who are.  I think I would be pissy about it if I had kids.  I wouldn't want my kids to experience a patdown.  On the flipside, I understand that the jackholes who want to do bad things to people wouldn't hesitate to use a baby or kid as a way to get things past security.  So I get the need as well as the outrage. 

I just personally feel sort of apathetic about the scanners.  I haven't experienced the new enhanced patdown, but I don't think that would change my lack of passion about the issue. I'm not really for or against them.

I would be more okay with it if it was at all effective. But it does nothing. 

The blank check handed to the TSA is terrifying because it's like every time we become used to/complacent about a policy, they come up with a new one. I agree with whoever intimated that we aren't far from cavity searches being standard.

I'm not sure if you're referring to me, but I don't really believe that cavity searches will ever be standard. Because 1) I do think the people would refuse that (or dear God I hope so) and 2) who the hell is going to do that job and how much does it pay?? ha

I do think, however, that someone will try the butt route and then it will illustrate the absolute absurdity of it all when we are standing around finally realizing that we can't just chase our tail and expect that to make us safer.

FallinAgain

salimoo:

FallinAgain:

ftnups:

Actually, that's exactly what she said. She would gladly accept any measures they want to enforce for a (my words) false sense of security and illusion of "doing something." So the logical next question is, what would you not accept.

I get that people have their own comfort levels with all this, even if it baffles me, but individual opinions aren't a valid argument for these new measures. I don't really care what one person thinks is fine - good for them - this is objectively wrong and intrusive. And it won't make us any safer, either.

Just because you put "objectively" in front of it, doesn't make it so.  This is much an individual opinion as mine is.

I'm pretty sure Nov was being hyperbolic.  I doubt she means she'd be ok with, say, anal fisting.

And I'm unconvinced that it is an illusion of security or doing something. I think there's an argument that this could have stopped the diaper bomber dude.

Okla--I don't think it violates the 4th b/c you do not have to submit to the search.  You choose to in order to take advantage of the convenience of flying, and flying isn't a right.

I do notice that a few people have mentioned male tsa agents. I haven't read anything suggesting same sex agents won't continue to be policy. Am I missing something?

Now you're being hyperbolic.

Would someone draw the line at, say, a ban on carry-ons? All see-through luggage? Mandatory paper hospital johnnies through checkpoints? Cavity searches? I think these are all more possible than a lot of people think.

Of course, I was being hyperbolic.  That was the point.

I think slippery slope arguments are a waste of time (if we ban AK-47s, next I won't be able to to hunt deer), but I will say I'd effing LOVE a ban on carry-ons. LOVE.

Jen&Joe06

On ML they were saying that the TSA doesn't screen their employees for rapists and pedophiles....so there is that too.

ftnups

Are we all clear now that I was not referring to November? Am I the only one who read CS's post? Did I imagine it? I haven't checked, maybe I mis-quoted.

That's fine to think slippery slope arguments are silly, except that when it comes to airport security lines that's exactly what it has been. One big slippery slope. And we're almost at the bottom of it.

oklagirl

SarahBethBR:

FallinAgain:

Not the same thing. The govt. is only searching you if you show up and submit to it to get to do what you want to do.  You still have the right to be secure in your person; you just cannot fly.  It all remains your choice.  Maybe I'm wrong. I'm 99% sure someone will sue and test it out.

I really, really think you're wrong on this.  It's blowing my mind, honestly.

What if we were told we couldn't bring holy books, pray, or practice religion in an airport or on a plane?  Criticize the government or the TSA?  It's okay because we don't have a right to be there.

Ditto. I didn't go to law school, and I'm sure there are intricacies in the language of it that I don't understand, BUT I don't think my choosing to get on an airplane is probable cause for a search of my person.

FallinAgain

I sincerely wish people got this riled up the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and were as concerned with their communications privacy that they may not even know is being violated and have no choice and basically no recourse to avoid.  Some random person I'll never see again seeing, saving, or laughing about x-rays of my fat rolls seems so small a worry in comparison to me.

lisaiesha

Jen&Joe06:

On ML they were saying that the TSA doesn't screen their employees for rapists and pedophiles....so there is that too.

I don't necessarily buy this. In order to get a job with the TSA, you have to go through a background check, fingerprinting, etc. I assume a criminal record would be found during a background check.

SarahBethBR

FallinAgain:

I sincerely wish people got this riled up the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and were as concerned with their communications privacy that they may not even know is being violated and have no choice and basically no recourse to avoid.  Some random person I'll never see again seeing, saving, or laughing about x-rays of my fat rolls seems so small a worry in comparison to me.

Oh I am plenty pissed about that too.

Plus, stupidest name for a bill ever.

salimoo

ftnups:

Are we all clear now that I was not referring to November? Am I the only one who read CS's post? Did I imagine it? I haven't checked, maybe I mis-quoted.

That's fine to think slippery slope arguments are silly, except that when it comes to airport security lines that's exactly what it has been. One big slippery slope. And we're almost at the bottom of it.

I saw it. I somehow missed that she attributed it to Nov until it got pointed out.

And I 110% THIS all over you with the slippery slope. My prediction still includes cavity searches, however. I mean, how much do corrections officers make? I think that will be the end of this ridiculousness, but I do think it will come up as an option.

salimoo

FallinAgain:

I sincerely wish people got this riled up the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and were as concerned with their communications privacy that they may not even know is being violated and have no choice and basically no recourse to avoid.  Some random person I'll never see again seeing, saving, or laughing about x-rays of my fat rolls seems so small a worry in comparison to me.

You don't think people got riled up enough about the patriot act? Seriously?

oklagirl

FallinAgain:

I sincerely wish people got this riled up the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and were as concerned with their communications privacy that they may not even know is being violated and have no choice and basically no recourse to avoid.  Some random person I'll never see again seeing, saving, or laughing about x-rays of my fat rolls seems so small a worry in comparison to me.

Oh, the Patriot Act pisses me off, too. I had just turned 19 when it was enacted, and was not as firm and confident in my opinions and ideals as I am now, but even then, I disagreed vehemently.

Jen&Joe06

I am interested to see how this will impact certain religious groups where it would be extremely inappropriate to touch a woman in this way.

SarahBethBR

ftnups:

That's fine to think slippery slope arguments are silly, except that when it comes to airport security lines that's exactly what it has been. One big slippery slope. And we're almost at the bottom of it.

Yeah.  We started with not being allowed to carry knives (I forgot that we actually used to be able to carry on knives until I looked it up) and now nine years later, Sheila is sticking her hand down my trousers.  That slope doesn't seem slippery at all

HappyTummy613

SarahBethBR:

There's a guy who checked the TSA website to see if the machines were in his airport, but it wasn't updated.  When he got there and got selected for a search, he declined and said he wouldn't fly.  They refused to let him leave and threatened him with an $11,000 fine if he did.  That doesn't sound like much of a choice.

http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/kswb-man-faces-fine-for-refusing-tsa-scan,0,7222070.story

Again, I know very little about this, and this case could be no good by now, but for sh!ts and giggles, here's a 2007 9th Circuit opinion suggesting that you have to make the choice not to fly before you enter the screening area.  Look at Part III in particular. 

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

 

I bet there are scads of law review and journal articles debating this stuff; they'd be interesting to read. 

salimoo

SarahBethBR:

ftnups:

That's fine to think slippery slope arguments are silly, except that when it comes to airport security lines that's exactly what it has been. One big slippery slope. And we're almost at the bottom of it.

Yeah.  We started with not being allowed to carry knives (I forgot that we actually used to be able to carry on knives until I looked it up) and now nine years later, Sheila is sticking her hand down my trousers.  That slope doesn't seem slippery at all

My mom was meeting me at the gate when I was flying back from a writers conference in June 1999. She set off the metal detector and they eventually found a boxcutter in her back pocket that she forgot she had. All she had to say was "I work for a supermarket, my ID is in my pocket!"

They looked at it and let her go. With the boxcutter.

Can you imagine how that would play out now? Not that I'm saying the way it was then was any better but I imagine now that that would land her in an interrogation room for a bit.

FallinAgain

salimoo:

FallinAgain:

I sincerely wish people got this riled up the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and were as concerned with their communications privacy that they may not even know is being violated and have no choice and basically no recourse to avoid.  Some random person I'll never see again seeing, saving, or laughing about x-rays of my fat rolls seems so small a worry in comparison to me.

You don't think people got riled up enough about the patriot act? Seriously?

Seriously, seriously.  I remember about 3 days worth of news coverage when someone finally figured out, months after it passed, that the Bush administration was wire-tapping without warrant and without even the court overview.  Then nothing. And nothing before it passed. And nothing since.

I tell you what.  When they propose cavity searches, I'll get riuled up with you. As long as I can choose a generic x-ray, I just don't care.

FallinAgain

salimoo:

SarahBethBR:

ftnups:

That's fine to think slippery slope arguments are silly, except that when it comes to airport security lines that's exactly what it has been. One big slippery slope. And we're almost at the bottom of it.

Yeah.  We started with not being allowed to carry knives (I forgot that we actually used to be able to carry on knives until I looked it up) and now nine years later, Sheila is sticking her hand down my trousers.  That slope doesn't seem slippery at all

My mom was meeting me at the gate when I was flying back from a writers conference in June 1999. She set off the metal detector and they eventually found a boxcutter in her back pocket that she forgot she had. All she had to say was "I work for a supermarket, my ID is in my pocket!"

They looked at it and let her go. With the boxcutter.

Can you imagine how that would play out now? Not that I'm saying the way it was then was any better but I imagine now that that would land her in an interrogation room for a bit.

And you think it shouldn't get her interrogated a bit?  If that's your slippery slope, I'm happy to slide on down it.

FallinAgain

As to the religious issue, help me out here HT, but my recollection is that the government can usually pass laws that protect citizens so long as they are not aimed at certain religious groups. So, the state can outlaw a drug and prosecute its possession, even if the defendant claims he only uses it for religious purposes. I assume that the religious would not be immune from this policy.

And again, you can choose not to fly.

salimoo

FallinAgain:

salimoo:

SarahBethBR:

ftnups:

That's fine to think slippery slope arguments are silly, except that when it comes to airport security lines that's exactly what it has been. One big slippery slope. And we're almost at the bottom of it.

Yeah.  We started with not being allowed to carry knives (I forgot that we actually used to be able to carry on knives until I looked it up) and now nine years later, Sheila is sticking her hand down my trousers.  That slope doesn't seem slippery at all

My mom was meeting me at the gate when I was flying back from a writers conference in June 1999. She set off the metal detector and they eventually found a boxcutter in her back pocket that she forgot she had. All she had to say was "I work for a supermarket, my ID is in my pocket!"

They looked at it and let her go. With the boxcutter.

Can you imagine how that would play out now? Not that I'm saying the way it was then was any better but I imagine now that that would land her in an interrogation room for a bit.

And you think it shouldn't get her interrogated a bit?  If that's your slippery slope, I'm happy to slide on down it.

Please note bolded portion.

No, an interrogation room isn't necessary. Ask questions, yes. But as the TSA is now, I wouldn't want to go in a private room with them. No way. I want witnesses.

FallinAgain

salimoo:

FallinAgain:

salimoo:

SarahBethBR:

ftnups:

That's fine to think slippery slope arguments are silly, except that when it comes to airport security lines that's exactly what it has been. One big slippery slope. And we're almost at the bottom of it.

Yeah.  We started with not being allowed to carry knives (I forgot that we actually used to be able to carry on knives until I looked it up) and now nine years later, Sheila is sticking her hand down my trousers.  That slope doesn't seem slippery at all

My mom was meeting me at the gate when I was flying back from a writers conference in June 1999. She set off the metal detector and they eventually found a boxcutter in her back pocket that she forgot she had. All she had to say was "I work for a supermarket, my ID is in my pocket!"

They looked at it and let her go. With the boxcutter.

Can you imagine how that would play out now? Not that I'm saying the way it was then was any better but I imagine now that that would land her in an interrogation room for a bit.

And you think it shouldn't get her interrogated a bit?  If that's your slippery slope, I'm happy to slide on down it.

Please note bolded portion.

No, an interrogation room isn't necessary. Ask questions, yes. But as the TSA is now, I wouldn't want to go in a private room with them. No way. I want witnesses.

Yeah, I read the bolded part but if the point in your mom story wasn't that this is a slippery slope and that is bad and that before was better, I'm not sure I understand what it was. 

That interrogation rooms are bad?  think it's odd to demonize an entire group of workers based on a few, usually unsubstantiated reports, but ok. 

SarahBethBR

What if they put in screening measures like this for trains, for using the interstates?  What about public spaces like shopping malls?

I can choose not to drive on the interstate.  Sure, it means losing my job, but thems the breaks.  For many people, not flying means losing their job.  Or not seeing their family, ever.  It's not really a choice.

FallinAgain

SarahBethBR:

What if they put in screening measures like this for trains, for using the interstates?  What about public spaces like shopping malls?

I can choose not to drive on the interstate.  Sure, it means losing my job, but thems the breaks.  For many people, not flying means losing their job.  Or not seeing their family, ever.  It's not really a choice.

Valid legislative concerns, but not Constitutional ones.