[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by The Phantom Mullet

For the record, I do not agree with everything Mr. Paul says. I do not agree with much of his general stance. I may have posted pre-maturely, because I was at work and unable to watch the video. I had seen a textual description of his bill on another site, though. I apologize if I have mis-represented myself in a way that implies otherwise. My first several posts in this thread were mostly... well, stupid. I am not much interested in discussing the complete theoretical ramifications of Mr. Paul's entire platform, because to be honest, I just don't care. He's one congressman, and his ideas will likely be shot down again. While his bill is likely impractical, it is just very nice to see something even resembling the limitation of TSA procedures.

Honestly, this is about how I feel too.

Being moderate is tough. People always assume you're one extreme or the other.

I'm going back to Food and Cooking. See y'all in there.

[S.B.Nichols]

I've opted out of commenting on this thread for a few days so I could gather my thoughts...

The thing that really bothers me here is this: in prison, an inmate can't be patted down like this without cause. Why? Because the government considers it assault. So regardless of whether or not you and I classify it as assault, the government already does....and says it's ok to use on private citizens accused of nothing. That is crazy.

On top of all that, who are these TSA people grabbing my junk? I know that the vast-vast-vast majority are just people doing their job, trying to keep us safe, and doing so in the manner they've been told to do it. But at the same time, I know (personally) of one very bad man who slipped through and was able to get that job. Scary. For me, I don't care. Touch my junk. But then, if I look over and see my wife or a future child of mine getting the same treatment, I can't say I'd be too happy.

There have been studies that have shown that dogs do a far better job at finding explosives. They'll even find explosives hidden in body cavities, which these scans won't do. And it seems far more passive to walk through a metal detector and be sniffed by a dog.

[Art]

I think the Sugar Bear summarizes my thoughts nicely. I can not say I am looking forward to being assaulted next month.

[Ethan.Bassist.]

I'd be much more comfortable with a dog sniffing my junk all day than a person touching my junk for 1 minute. Bring the dogs!!

[mulletman]

Dogs, for sure. I dare say that dogs are more trustworthy than people.

Also, a professor from ASU concluded that your odds of getting cancer from a single scan of the backscatter x-ray to be one in 30 million. See article here:

Cosmic Log - Are airport X-ray scanners harmful?


So, one in 30 million. Just shy of 60 million people went through Hartsfield-Jackson in Atlanta last year. Your odds of getting cancer from the backscatter x-ray machines are higher than your odds of being killed in a terrorist attack. What the hell are we doing to ourselves?

[redbaron]

well given that they expose you to a similar amount of radiation as the actual flight, but due to the shorter wave only penetrate the skin rather than all the way through you, your skin is absorbing a lot more of the dose, or at least that's the way I've been reading the data. Admittedly unless you fly a lot, it's probably not a big risk, but it's still stupid.

Taking off your shoes is stupid, and only done for the illusion of keeping us safe as well. A metal detector and a dog, and getting rid of the policies that make no sense would be a far cry more useful.

Suspending my constitutional rights to some $14/hr drone that can't even speak english most of the time, is not my idea of a good time. When the three options are 'get groped' 'get irradiated' or 'don't fly' It makes me want to drive

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by redbaron

well given that they expose you to a similar amount of radiation as the actual flight, but due to the shorter wave only penetrate the skin rather than all the way through you, your skin is absorbing a lot more of the dose, or at least that's the way I've been reading the data. Admittedly unless you fly a lot, it's probably not a big risk, but it's still stupid.

This was actually the concern of the UCSF scientists. Flight radiation (from what I understand) penetrates the entire body, thus every part of your part of your body shares the burden of dissipating that stuff. In the case of the milliwave/backscatter the concern is that your skin is dissipating all of it. Sure the total dose is lower than the flight, but it's all directed onto a single layer vs. being spread through multiple layers.

[jthomas1600]

I wonder what percentage of people are subject to the additional screening? Not that it makes any of it right, I just wonder. I've flown 12-15 times in the last few years and have done no more than put my shoes and bags in the tote and walk through the metal detector. Actually, in Brazil I don't have to take my shoes off.

On the boat I run we are required to search 25% of our passengers (fortunately we actually aren't carrying passengers at the time) and their bags. We don't actually pat them down. It's just an "open your bags, empty your pockets, pull your pant legs up so I can see if you're hiding something in your socks" kind of thing. As well as being the captain, I am also Ships Security Officer. I got that endorsement for my license by taking a one day class

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

The thing that really bothers me here is this: in prison, an inmate can't be patted down like this without cause. Why? Because the government considers it assault. So regardless of whether or not you and I classify it as assault, the government already does....and says it's ok to use on private citizens accused of nothing. That is crazy.

A couple of my martial arts buddies are prison guards. They strip search inmates for "looking suspicious".

Where are you getting your information from? Because it doesn't seem to resemble reality.

On top of all that, who are these TSA people grabbing my junk? I know that the vast-vast-vast majority are just people doing their job, trying to keep us safe, and doing so in the manner they've been told to do it. But at the same time, I know (personally) of one very bad man who slipped through and was able to get that job. Scary. For me, I don't care. Touch my junk. But then, if I look over and see my wife or a future child of mine getting the same treatment, I can't say I'd be too happy.

Who are these people with guns wandering streets relatively unsupervised in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I think "my privacy is invaded" is a pretty illegitimate counter argument for anyone who has supported either war. It's OK to kill people to protect us from terrorists, but not to pat them down or x-ray. them?

Worse: the people in Iraq and Afghanistan can't avoid it all by choosing to not fly.

So no. While I think there is legitimate argument to be had against this process: I feel the fact that it is intrusive cannot be argued without hypocrisy (the exception being if it's from someone who has also oppose the war)

There have been studies that have shown that dogs do a far better job at finding explosives. They'll even find explosives hidden in body cavities, which these scans won't do. And it seems far more passive to walk through a metal detector and be sniffed by a dog.

I'm a bit leery of your claim, but do agree that the efficacy question is one that remains un-answered.

I believe a combination of the re-enforced cockpit door and handing tazers to passengers as they board will stop everything that's gonna get stopped from the airport on (stopping things before they ever get to the airport is an intelligence matter).

[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

A couple of my martial arts buddies are prison guards. They strip search inmates for "looking suspicious".

Where are you getting your information from? Because it doesn't seem to resemble reality.

We're talking about pat-downs of genitals, not strip searches. Though, it should be noticed that if your buddies are in fact performing strip searches without cause they are going against a half dozen court rulings, violating what few 4th and 8th amendment rights US prisoners are assumed to have. Perhaps looking suspicious is just cause, it probably doesn't matter. I'll let you take that up with your friends though, as I have no desire to engage in that discussion.

The issue, in our case, has been tackled several times. One of the most notable arguments I can think of is Terry V Ohio. This one is especially useful as it direct relates to innocent citizens, not necessarily inmates.

I'm a bit leery of your claim, but do agree that the efficacy question is one that remains un-answered.
.

The TSA said as much earlier this year when they asked congress for 70 some odd million extra for dogs, handlers, and training. The machines and pat downs can find explosives hidden against your skin, the dogs can find explosives stuffed in your body cavities, or detect if you've been in the presence of certain explosives recently (making you an individual for further screening).

Most major airports have the TSA dog teams working behind the scenes. I'm guessing it's more of an issue of implementation to train more dogs (and people) to screen all passengers.

There may also be a cost issue over the effective working lifespan of the animal. Its a complete assumption on my part, but assuming a tsa dog handler is making something around the national average, and the dog can work for ten years, it might exceed the cost of a single machine.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

We're talking about pat-downs of genitals, not strip searches. Though, it should be noticed that if your buddies are in fact performing strip searches without cause they are going against a half dozen court rulings, violating what few 4th and 8th amendment rights US prisoners are assumed to have. Perhaps looking suspicious is just cause, it probably doesn't matter. I'll let you take that up with your friends though, as I have no desire to engage in that discussion.

I do not believe you are making a good-faith argument that a strip-search would be OK under a circumstance where a pat-down would not be.

Try Tindell v. Beard, #09-3063, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 24642 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
or Williams v. Fitch, No. 04-CV-6440, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 36481 (W.D.N.Y.).
or Petersen v. Farnsworth, No. 03-4032, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 11711 (10th Cir). [2004 JB Aug]

The issue, in our case, has been tackled several times. One of the most notable arguments I can think of is Terry V Ohio. This one is especially useful as it direct relates to innocent citizens, not necessarily inmates.

Yes, the Terry stop: which has since been expanded to allow search of your vehicle for "officer safety".

The legal difference here is that you have volunteered to a search as a condition of flying. Unless we can determine that boarding airplanes is a right. I'd actually find a far better case in security measures at court.

The TSA said as much earlier this year when they asked congress for 70 some odd million extra for dogs, handlers, and training. The machines and pat downs can find explosives hidden against your skin, the dogs can find explosives stuffed in your body cavities, or detect if you've been in the presence of certain explosives recently (making you an individual for further screening).

Do the dogs smell knives?

[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I do not believe you are making a good-faith argument that a strip-search would be OK under a circumstance where a pat-down would not be.

I'm not sure anyone has made that argument. I'm also not entirely sure why you would post the three cases in defense...two of them in fact even seem to directly disagree with your assertions that probable cause isn't necessary for these 'enhanced 'searches of inmates or the incarcerated.

Regardless, you'll believe whatever you want to believe---whether or not it actually has to do with the topic at hand or defending your buddies strip searching inmates with or without cause. If my opinion of them is so important to you, I'll just go ahead and cede that 'looking suspicious' is probably reason enough for a strip search in prison.

Yes, the Terry stop: which has since been expanded to allow search of your vehicle for "officer safety".

The legal difference here is that you have volunteered to a search as a condition of flying. Unless we can determine that boarding airplanes is a right. I'd actually find a far better case in security measures at court.

I'll let a lawyer decide how to tackle this in court. In the case of the video that started this whole mess (don't touch my junk), Terry would seem like a good place to start since the passenger was still harassed after opting out of the flight.

Of course the ticket holder agrees to the screening. That's not the issue. The question is why are these methods used if they are inefficient and/or even unnecessary in some cases. Why must commuters accused of nothing be subjected to having their 4th and 8th amendment rights violated. There's just no good reason for the feds to do this.

Do the dogs smell knives?

Metal detectors do. They'll even find them hidden in areas that pat downs will not. If you had bothered to read a few posts up you'll see where I suggested both dogs and detectors. Of course, since a knife won't get one into the cockpit I'm not particularly concerned. Knifes, crossbows, cranberry sauce...not a concern.

[bobthecockroach]

Knives can easily be made out of other materials than metal. But of course... the cockpit door is locked, so a knife is really not that huge a concern.

[JerryLove]

Of course the ticket holder agrees to the screening. That's not the issue. The question is why are these methods used if they are inefficient and/or even unnecessary in some cases. Why must commuters accused of nothing be subjected to having their 4th and 8th amendment rights violated. There's just no good reason for the feds to do this.

You keep falling back into commenting on a violation of rights. I think it's covered ground that rights are not being violated (you volunteered) and that rights are lost to "fight terrorism" (hence a lot of dead civilians).

Now: Is it necessary? *That* I think is the better question.

As far as I can tell: not a single plane take-over has been thwarted at the security gate. I can think of at least a couple ways to bypass with certainty the current security system, So it's a lot of money and fuss but, for little if any gain.

Metal detectors do. They'll even find them hidden in areas that pat downs will not. If you had bothered to read a few posts up you'll see where I suggested both dogs and detectors. Of course, since a knife won't get one into the cockpit I'm not particularly concerned. Knifes, crossbows, cranberry sauce...not a concern.

Not all knives are metal.

But one question that should be asked is "what are we concerned with?". Again, it would not be hard to bypass the existing security (not that, were I a terrorist, I'd even bother; there's better pickings). The only people it would seem to be a problem for are the innocent and the stupid.