Nude Body scanner, Unconstitutional?

[Sensei Payne]

If you have had to go to a Airport lately then you probably had to go through one of these X-Ray Machines.

Is this a enfringement on 4th Amendment rights?

Should have to give up our Freedoms for the "greater good"?


Personally, I would be considered part of the "don't touch my junk" movement...Nor do I belive that anyone should even be able to see even an outline of my private areas without my DIRECT concent.

I disagree with why we go through the scanners...I belive they are unsafe, and a direct violation of the constitution.

Your thoughts?

 

[elder999]

If you have had to go to a Airport lately then you probably had to go through one of these X-Ray Machines.

Is this a enfringement on 4th Amendment rights?

Should have to give up our Freedoms for the "greater good"?


Personally, I would be considered part of the "don't touch my junk" movement...Nor do I belive that anyone should even be able to see even an outline of my private areas without my DIRECT concent.

I disagree with why we go through the scanners...I belive they are unsafe, and a direct violation of the constitution.

Your thoughts?

At more than a few places, including every place I've ever worked since college one cedes their 4th Amendment rights, and subjects themselves to a search. Big old signs at the lab saying that you and your car are subject to a search. Signs at the airport, too. By doing business with them, you've given up a measure of those rights-it's always been that way, and it's just gotten worse. Don't want them to see even an outline? Don't fly. Don't want them to fondle your nether regions? Don't fly. Is it unreasonable? Yes. Is it unconstitutional, or a violation of rights? No.

Your rights end at the airport door.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

At more than a few places, including every place I've ever worked since college one cedes their 4th Amendment rights, and subjects themselves to a search.

Let's keep in mind that the Fourth Amendment states that the federal government 'may not infringe'. Private businesses can do as they wish.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#In_general

"The Fourth Amendment applies to governmental searches and seizures, but not those done by private citizens or organizations who are not acting on behalf of a government.[14] The Bill of Rights originally only restricted the power of the federal government. However, in Wolf v. Colorado, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to state governments by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, all state constitutions contain an analogous provision.[15]"

Big old signs at the lab saying that you and your car are subject to a search. Signs at the airport, too. By doing business with them, you've given up a measure of those rights-it's always been that way, and it's just gotten worse. Don't want them to see even an outline? Don't fly. Don't want them to fondle your nether regions? Don't fly.

Pre-911, I would have to agree with you. Since the federal government took over airport security, I'm not so certain. Not because of the changes in the types of searches done, but because of the change in who is doing them.

Is it unreasonable? Yes. Is it unconstitutional, or a violation of rights? No.

I think this has not yet been decided. There are a number of lawsuits challenging the current techniques being used by the TSA:

http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/third-lawsuit-filed-over-tsa-airport-screening

As far as I know, none have yet resulted in a finding regarding constiutionality.

"Howard Portnoy notes that while the courts are likely to give greater latitude to the federal government in matters where national security is at stake, in 2006 then-Judge Samuel Alito delivered an opinion on behalf of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit that established the terms “minimally intrusive” and “effective” as constitutional benchmarks for airport security measures. Alito supported the two-step procedure of screening passengers with walk-through magnetometers and, in the event they set off an alarm, with hand-held wands, adding that the TSA could proceed to a putative step 3 “in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclose a reason to conduct a more probing search.”
A year later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit refined the language, maintaining that

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.”
​

Portnoy says that an argument could be made that current TSA practices fail the smell test imposed by both lower courts."

Your rights end at the airport door.

I certainly hope that's not the case, in reality or in theory.

However, I also heed your advice; I stay out of airports. At the moment, driving and the train are the options I consider valid. I hope the airlines all go out of business, and I'd love to see the TSA disbanded and their leaders jailed as leaders of a criminal enterprise.

 

[Sensei Payne]

At more than a few places, including every place I've ever worked since college one cedes their 4th Amendment rights, and subjects themselves to a search. Big old signs at the lab saying that you and your car are subject to a search. Signs at the airport, too. By doing business with them, you've given up a measure of those rights-it's always been that way, and it's just gotten worse. Don't want them to see even an outline? Don't fly. Don't want them to fondle your nether regions? Don't fly. Is it unreasonable? Yes. Is it unconstitutional, or a violation of rights? No.

Your rights end at the airport door.

In a perfect world, that would be all well and good.

"Rights ending at the door." "Don't wanna be fondled, don't fly." Etc

All of these phrases are Totalitarian speak. The constitutional 4th amendment rights are clearly being trampled over.

Do I think that NO ONE should be screen..of course not...do I think that security should go away, not at all.

Those with a Criminal backgroud, or come from a hostile nation, such has Lybia, afganistan, etc, should be screened for sure...is it profiling, not at all...simply following a red flag..something called "probable cause"
but if a 56 year old born and raised American is going though airport security because he finally get to go on vacation after years of working and paying taxes, and has never had a criminal background besides maybe a few parking tickets. Its just obsured to put him through the same riggors as a criminal.

And these are just a few of the ethical stand points against the full body scanners.

Not to mention the Medical issues I have with it.

With Cancer being almost epidemic levels among Americans. We need to be doing everything we can to avoid cancer causing agents...but no, my tax dollars are going towards these back scatter devices.

Actual radiation emitted by the machines is far higher than what the TSA claims
John Sedat, a professor emeritus in biochemistry and biophysics at UCSF and the primary author of the letter says, “..the best guess of the dose is much, much higher than certainly what the public thinks.” This indicates the public has been deeply misled by the actual amount of radiation emitted by the machines.
• Peter Rez, the physics professor from Arizona State, says that the high-quality images described by the TSA could not be produced with the low levels of radiation being claimed by the TSA. The images, in other words, don’t match up with the TSA’s cover story. Rez estimates the actual radiation exposure is 45 times higher than what we’ve previously been told.

• The TSA machines are capable of firing even higher levels of radiation into a “region of interest” (such as your anus or scrotum, in which the TSA seems to be taking great interest these days), thereby exposing that region to even higher levels of radiation than the rest of your body.

The don't wanna be scanned don't fly, thing has been tested. There have been serveral airports who have tried to block the scanners, but can't because the TSA is required to be at these airports and the TSA requires the body scanners.

We are moving toward a more Orwellian Socity, and we will continue to move that way until we stand up and speak out against it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian

 

[Twin Fist]

you aint gotta fly, you can DRIVE so any "right" to travel isnt being infringed on.

 

[elder999]

In a perfect world, that would be all well and good.

"Rights ending at the door." "Don't wanna be fondled, don't fly." Etc

All of these phrases are Totalitarian speak. The constitutional 4th amendment rights are clearly being trampled over.

Do I think that NO ONE should be screen..of course not...do I think that security should go away, not at all.

Those with a Criminal backgroud, or come from a hostile nation, such has Lybia, afganistan, etc, should be screened for sure...is it profiling, not at all...simply following a red flag..something called "probable cause"
but if a 56 year old born and raised American is going though airport security because he finally get to go on vacation after years of working and paying taxes, and has never had a criminal background besides maybe a few parking tickets. Its just obsured to put him through the same riggors as a criminal.

And these are just a few of the ethical stand points against the full body scanners.

Not to mention the Medical issues I have with it.

With Cancer being almost epidemic levels among Americans. We need to be doing everything we can to avoid cancer causing agents...but no, my tax dollars are going towards these back scatter devices.



The don't wanna be scanned don't fly, thing has been tested. There have been serveral airports who have tried to block the scanners, but can't because the TSA is required to be at these airports and the TSA requires the body scanners.

We are moving toward a more Orwellian Socity, and we will continue to move that way until we stand up and speak out against it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian

Yes. We're in the endgame. We're moving to a more Orwellian (as though I need a wiki explanation :lfao: ) society-we'll continue to move that way regardless of standing up and speaking out against it-especially when those speaking agianst it have all the credibility of the 9/11 truthers.

Funny thing is that the Constitution will still stand-it'll just be ignored, mostly. In this case, though, there is no Constitutional violation. It's not totalitarian speak, it's the way the law is: if you don't want to submit to a search, don't go to the airport-it's really that simple. Of course, it gets more complicated when they extend that beyond air travel, and make it acceptable in train stations, and bus depots, and at the mall-sure. Have checkpoints on our highways and biways....it'll happen. In the meantime, though, we've been submitting to searches at the airport for decades, already. New technology is a response to new threats. The real problem is the insensitive, uneducated morons who conduct those searches. not the fact of them.

Bill, as always, makes some very cogent points about how-since it's the government making the searches-it might be a Constitutional violation. However, I need to point out that the government also conducts searches at government buildings and facilities, military and civilian, as well as at the federal, state and municipal level. I also need to point out that the TSA, while an agency of the government via the Department of Homeland Security, often allows contract personnel to conduct the searches at airports. Private screening was not eliminated by the TSA-airports can opt out and use private firms. San Fransisco, Jackson Hole, Kansas City and Key West all utilize contract personnel subject to TSA approval: the procedures are the same, but the paychecks are different.

 

[Nomad]

you aint gotta fly, you can DRIVE so any "right" to travel isnt being infringed on.

Last time I checked, one couldn't drive to Europe... or a lot of other destinations. Just sayin'

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Last time I checked, one couldn't drive to Europe... or a lot of other destinations. Just sayin'

They used to have these things called 'boats'. Just sayin'...

 

[Sensei Payne]

They used to have these things called 'boats'. Just sayin'...

Soon its going to be all forms of Transportation that are effected.

http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/tsnm/mass_transit/partnerships.shtm

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The TSA are not LEO.

Let me repeat that.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Are NOT Law Enforcement Officials.
They are CIVILIAN contractors of a Federal Agency.

Where does the US Constitution stand on civilian employees of the FED doing semi random warrantless without probable cause searches?

Because, we know where it stands on on allowing a LEO to do the same thing: It says "NO!".
If it didn't, a certain infamous AZ Sheriff would have been allowed to station his deputies around a certain AZ town and have then search every 10th car that came by.


2 other points: Safety and Effectiveness.
The safety figures are manipulated, been several reports on that.
They are inaccurate. Several reports on that.
TSA stooges aren't allowed to wear rad counters. Wonder why?

As to effectiveness, again, questionable.
They are easily fooled (at least if your butt has enough room), and STILL results in people being rubbed down because 'the images were fuzzy'.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The TSA are not LEO.

Let me repeat that.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Are NOT Law Enforcement Officials.
They are CIVILIAN contractors of a Federal Agency.

Bob, the TSA screeners are federal employees.

And although the screeners themselves are are not law enforcement officers, that does not exempt them from being the 'government' that is enjoined from infringing upon Fourth Amendment rights.

Additionally, the Federal Air Marshal program is now run by the TSA, so they do in fact have law enforcement capability; it's just that screeners are not law enforcement officers.

Where does the US Constitution stand on civilian employees of the FED doing semi random warrantless without probable cause searches?

It makes no distinction. If it is unconstitutional for a federal law enforcement officer, then it is unconstitutional for a civilian clerk who works for the federal government. It would most likely be unconstitutional for a contractor if the federal government controlled their day-to-day activities and supervised them; that's the same as an employee in terms of what the lawyers call 'agency'.

Because, we know where it stands on on allowing a LEO to do the same thing: It says "NO!".
If it didn't, a certain infamous AZ Sheriff would have been allowed to station his deputies around a certain AZ town and have then search every 10th car that came by.

Sorry, the Fourth does not just apply to law enforcement.

2 other points: Safety and Effectiveness.
The safety figures are manipulated, been several reports on that.
They are inaccurate. Several reports on that.
TSA stooges aren't allowed to wear rad counters. Wonder why?

As to effectiveness, again, questionable.
They are easily fooled (at least if your butt has enough room), and STILL results in people being rubbed down because 'the images were fuzzy'.

I think we agree on the TSA and their overall stooginess.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The post man is also a Federal Employee. If I punch him out, I get an assault charge.
If I punch an FBI agent out, I get 12 pages of charges.
If I punch out a NYPD cop, I get 12 pages of charges.
If I punch out a TSA Screener, I get....an assault charge. (and a card from Carlos saying I shoulda taken his picture)


We're in agreement here Bill. I just like the idea of playing snap the whip with a TSA child molestor's neck tie.

 

[PatMunk]

Last time I checked, one couldn't drive to Europe... or a lot of other destinations. Just sayin'

No you can't but then again going to Europe, or using any type of transportation to go anywhere isn't guaranteed by the constitution....

People who state they have the RIGHT to have anything or the RIGHT to drive, fly, or go into a place of business is laughable at best..... All those things are a privilege and not a right.

You don't want to be scanned .. then walk ... last I heard that's not restricted much ...

 

[Bill Mattocks]

People who state they have the RIGHT to have anything or the RIGHT to drive, fly, or go into a place of business is laughable at best..... All those things are a privilege and not a right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

Current US Code addresses air travel specifically. In 49 U.S.C. § 40103, "Sovereignty and use of airspace", the Code specifies that "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."[14]

It is US law. We have the right to travel by air.

 

[JohnEdward]

I agree with Bill, and Bob. As I see it, they show it is a tough call. The framers had it right, but the issue now is so far more complex and complicated, and far more political. How do we balance safety with rights and the role technology plays? How do we stop making it a bi-partisan issue, and make it work within the Framers philosophy. I think it falls on the shoulders of technology to work within Constitutional Rights as well as keeping us safe. Our 3 branches of government shoulders the responsibility is to stop playing politics with this issue and do right by this issue. That is the biggest failure to our government being effective is playing the political game over what could, should, and must be done.

 

[CanuckMA]

Those with a Criminal backgroud, or come from a hostile nation, such has Lybia, afganistan, etc, should be screened for sure...is it profiling, not at all...simply following a red flag..something called "probable cause"
but if a 56 year old born and raised American is going though airport security because he finally get to go on vacation after years of working and paying taxes, and has never had a criminal background besides maybe a few parking tickets. Its just obsured to put him through the same riggors as a criminal.

John Phillip Walker Lindh

With Cancer being almost epidemic levels among Americans. We need to be doing everything we can to avoid cancer causing agents...but no, my tax dollars are going towards these back scatter devices.

You will be exposed to a lot more radiations while in flight.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

John Phillip Walker Lindh

True, and I agree with you.

You will be exposed to a lot more radiations while in flight.

While true, it is also misleading. First, it's a different kind of radiation, which matters, and second, it's like saying waterboarding is OK, because you're exposed to a lot more water when you take a shower or go swimming. Maybe so, but that doesn't make waterboarding OK.

 

[elder999]

While true, it is also misleading. First, it's a different kind of radiation, which matters,

Not so much. The annual exposure for very frequent fliers: flight attendants, pilots, and business travelers, is as high as or exceeds the occupational limits for radiation workers. It's enough that a pregnant flight attendant should be concerned about fetal exposure, though occupationally she isn't under any sort of obligation to limit that exposure any more than radworkers. In any case, such a level of exposure has the same implied consequences: a higher, though nearly unmeasurable and virtually unattributable increase in the chances of devloping cancer. What that means is that your chances of developing cancer go up by something like less than 2%, and that if you do get cancer the doctors simply will be unable to say that you got it because of radiation exposure, rather than genetics, other environmental factors, or simply picking the black marble, with one or two exceptions that are almost always directly attributable to radiation exposure.

So, if you're making an annual trip to Belize, or one of your three times a year trips to Vegas, and you're not a trouble-maker like me, go through the scanner. If you're a trouble maker like me, wear your kilt, and act like you like it when they touch your dangly parts, and watch the looks of horror, shock and awe!!!! :lfao:

and second, it's like saying waterboarding is OK, because you're exposed to a lot more water when you take a shower or go swimming. Maybe so, but that doesn't make waterboarding OK.

True, and I agree with you.

 

[PatMunk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

I didn't say we don't have the right to travel .... but the mode of transportation is what i was referring to ...

It is US law. We have the right to travel by air.

The quote you referred to doesn't state you have the right to fly .. . is says that while flying you have the right to travel through all open air space ...

It doesn't state you have the right to board the plane, that's a privilege offered by the air carrier ...

 

[Carol]

Let's keep in mind that the Fourth Amendment states that the federal government 'may not infringe'. Private businesses can do as they wish.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#In_general

"The Fourth Amendment applies to governmental searches and seizures, but not those done by private citizens or organizations who are not acting on behalf of a government.[14] The Bill of Rights originally only restricted the power of the federal government. However, in Wolf v. Colorado, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to state governments by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, all state constitutions contain an analogous provision.[15]"

If all state constitutions contain an analogous provision, wouldn't that make such searches illegal, given that airports are typically state or municipal government entities? Mine for example is owned by the city, Boston Logan is owned by the state, etc.