I think, the idea might be, when you choose to travel you voluntarily agree to those conditions.
The question some people are asking is air travel truly voluntary?
If you have to travel great distances for family or work most people have few other options.
None of those are constitutionally protected rights.
Here's the official TSA line:
Do contracted screeners draw their authority from the Aviation Transportation and Security Act PL107-71 (ATSA), or do state and local governments have to codify ATSA to establish their authority to perform Administrative Searches? If so, what if there is a conflict with the State Constitution (e.g., random vehicle searches during heightened alert conditions)? Will the Screening Standard Operating Procedures be modified to accommodate these conflicts?
Even prior to the passage of ATSA and the Federalization of the screening work force, Federal courts upheld warrantless searches of carry-on luggage at airports. 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)].
While the searches at the airport will be conducted by private screening companies, such searches will continue to be subject to the Fourth Amendment requirements of reasonableness because they are conducted at the instigation of the federal Government and under the authority of federal statutes and regulations governing air passenger screening.
I think the other point is that so long as flying is a personal choice, you're entering into an agreement with the airline and airport as to what is allowable and what isn't. If you choose to disagree with those rules, you can opt not to fly.
jesus the stories about air travel/airports are all over the place today, found this on CNN as well:
All-clear at Boston airport after package scare
[Updated at 2:39 p.m.] A security scare at Boston's Logan International Airport ended with an all-clear after the two bags that triggered the alert were found to be harmless, Massachusetts State Police said Tuesday afternoon.
[Updated at 1:45 p.m.] Massachusetts Port Authority spokesman Phil Orlandella tells CNN the evacuation was sparked by a canine unit getting a "hit" on two duffle bags.
The bags had not been loaded onto a plane, Orlandella said.
[Posted at 1:28 p.m.] The cargo building at Boston Logan International Airport has been evacuated as authorities investigate a suspicious package, Massachusetts Port Authority spokesman Phil Orlandella told CNN.
In the age of underwear bombers, I don't consider the sanctity of my crotch to be a defining issue. If I'm getting on a plane, the truth is I want everyone's crotch checked.
Based on what? There's no statistical support for this view.
With one attempted attack every 16.5 million flights, a person is about as likely to be struck by lightning on the 1st of the month.
So is having access to telephone communication a privilege, and not a right as well? Can phone companies require us to consent to monitoring, for the sake of terror prevention, when we sign up for a contract? Isn't this essentially the same reasoning, giving up our rights to privacy, for the sake of security, when we purchase a phone plan?
So is having access to telephone communication a privilege, and not a right as well? Can phone companies require us to consent to monitoring, for the sake of terror prevention, when we sign up for a contract? Isn't this essentially the same reasoning, giving up our rights to privacy, for the sake of security, when we purchase a phone plan?
Completely apples and oranges. Electronic communication and transportation have what in common, exactly?
In the age of underwear bombers, I don't consider the sanctity of my crotch to be a defining issue. If I'm getting on a plane, the truth is I want everyone's crotch checked.
Based on what? There's no statistical support for this view.
With one attempted attack every 16.5 million flights, a person is about as likely to be struck by lightning on the 1st of the month.
Am I the only person sort of amazed that planes don't get bombed more often? Maybe all this security actually IS making a difference.
Not that you could tell by how incompetent the TSA's PR skills are though.
So is having access to telephone communication a privilege, and not a right as well? Can phone companies require us to consent to monitoring, for the sake of terror prevention, when we sign up for a contract? Isn't this essentially the same reasoning, giving up our rights to privacy, for the sake of security, when we purchase a phone plan?
Completely apples and oranges. Electronic communication and transportation have what in common, exactly?
They are both services provided by private companies which are taken advantage of by terrorists.
The point is that the same argument can be made for your privacy to be sacrificed for the good of security. Don't like it? don't use a phone.
1) Making a phone call can't directly harm or kill you. This isn't "The 5th Element." If people had the means to use phone lines to kill people en masse, you can best believe that telephone protocols would change very quickly.
2) I use the phone several times a day. I don't fly several times a day.
Again, apples and oranges.
But hey, if we're going to play the "slippery slope" game, let's go the other way. Why screen people at airports at all? Shouldn't I have the right NOT to have my luggage (or anyone else's luggage) screened? Isn't any violation of my privacy rights?
Ultimately, this comes down to a middle ground - what we can socially accept. And to that degree, I don't see how bringing the 4th Amendment in is going to be a useful way to approach that delicate balance.
1) Making a phone call can't directly harm or kill you. This isn't "The 5th Element." If people had the means to use phone lines to kill people en masse, you can best believe that telephone protocols would change very quickly.
2) I use the phone several times a day. I don't fly several times a day.
Again, apples and oranges.
But hey, if we're going to play the "slippery slope" game, let's go the other way. Why screen people at airports at all? Shouldn't I have the right NOT to have my luggage (or anyone else's luggage) screened? Isn't any violation of my privacy rights?
Ultimately, this comes down to a middle ground - what we can socially accept. And to that degree, I don't see how bringing the 4th Amendment in is going to be a useful way to approach that delicate balance.
I'm just saying that almost *any* search or monitoring can be argued to be "reasonable" if it can help to catch terrorists, which leaves the 4th Amendment pointless in this situation.
Going through a metal detector is reasonable. Having my balls felt, and small children being searched, is not. It's pretty simple.
I do feel sorry for the agents - somewhat. They're just low paid people trying to do their jobs.
Could you imagine if your encounters with people over and over again began with them lifting their arms, and you having to dive into their sweaty armpits and work your way down over their beer gut and love handles to their fetid junk? A lot of whom are undoubtedly harried and stressed by air travel / holidays, and making some rank sweat. Add in all the Old Spice and J Lo Glo people love to douse themselves with...
I know how bad a lot of people smell from a distance. Add in that a lot of these people are hostile...
In the age of underwear bombers, I don't consider the sanctity of my crotch to be a defining issue. If I'm getting on a plane, the truth is I want everyone's crotch checked.
Based on what? There's no statistical support for this view.
With one attempted attack every 16.5 million flights, a person is about as likely to be struck by lightning on the 1st of the month.
Am I the only person sort of amazed that planes don't get bombed more often? Maybe all this security actually IS making a difference.
Not that you could tell by how incompetent the TSA's PR skills are though.
Not unless this is the plan by terrorist of course.
Going through a metal detector is reasonable. Having my balls felt, and small children being searched, is not. It's pretty simple.
Except that it's not. Isn't this entire argument over finding a point along the security spectrum that's somewhere between "metal detector" and "balls felt"? That's hardly simple.
Screening in a socially-accepted, non-invasive manner seems to have worked pretty well so far. If someone is determined to commit a terrorist act, an incompetent TSA agent who feels it is within their job duty to assault people probably won't catch them. Intelligence will.
I mean, people joke about this shit all the time but with shit like this, the terrorists really have won. We're living in fear. People are thinking the government is going to protect us by handing over more and more of our rights and then when something slips through because people just have not been doing their jobs, "security" just gets ratcheted up instead of some accountability. Seriously, wtf do you think is going to happen if someone happens to somehow make it through current security with some shit?
NOT TO MENTION, the horrible way this whole program has been rolled out. When you are dealing with something as sensitive as this you are going to want a smooth roll out. I haven't seen anything indicating that and even if these are .000005% of cases, people should be well aware of how quickly news travels and how much of an effect negative publicity has.
I do feel sorry for the agents - somewhat. They're just low paid people trying to do their jobs.
Could you imagine if your encounters with people over and over again began with them lifting their arms, and you having to dive into their sweaty armpits and work your way down over their beer gut and love handles to their fetid junk? A lot of whom are undoubtedly harried and stressed by air travel / holidays, and making some rank sweat. Add in all the Old Spice and J Lo Glo people love to douse themselves with...
I know how bad a lot of people smell from a distance. Add in that a lot of these people are hostile...
"Much of the reporting on the new threat stems from the publication of the third issue of Inspire, an English-language ???magazine??? that claims to be the work of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). The ???special edition??? details the recent attempt to bomb two cargo planes using tampered-with printers sent from Yemen, a plan dubbed ???Operation Hemorrhage,??? and warns of more to come???a tactic of ???a thousand cuts.??? Inspire???s writers brag about how inexpensive it had been to so thoroughly disrupt and rattle U.S. security. The plot had cost just $4,200, a figure which features prominently on front of the magazine???a crafty cover."
I emphatize with anyone who has a shitty job and is able to properly perform it even under whatever conditions. If all TSA agents were like that, there would much less commotion over this. Not to mention that mufuckaz should be happy they even have a job right now.
Brian: I agree with what you write there. The problem is, as you pointed out, airport security is theater, right? And it's theater that we're all forced to undergo because no one is willing to take the chance (read: liability) that they may have failed to "do enough" to prevent some kind of shit from doing down.
Everyone's trying to cover their asses and "ratcheting up" the stakes to the point where, if you dare suggest we should chill a bit - and something happens? - someone will exploit that to their aim, whether financially or politically.
Going through a metal detector is reasonable. Having my balls felt, and small children being searched, is not. It's pretty simple.
Except that it's not. Isn't this entire argument over finding a point along the security spectrum that's somewhere between "metal detector" and "balls felt"? That's hardly simple.
Yes it is simple. Just because everyone is making it more difficult than it has to be does not mean it isn't simple.
Like Brian said, what was done before was sufficient, and seemed reasonable. No one was seen naked, and no balls were felt. Yes, some guy tried to bring a bomb on under his sack. But that guy was an idiot and did not come close to succeeding. I have a feeling he would've gotten through with that shit in his ass today. If he was going to blow up his own sack, he would shove a bomb up his ass. And there's not much we can do about that.
As it stands now, we are wasting a shitload of money searching a bunch of people who do not need to be searched. And that makes no sense at all.
I do feel sorry for the agents - somewhat. They're just low paid people trying to do their jobs.
Could you imagine if your encounters with people over and over again began with them lifting their arms, and you having to dive into their sweaty armpits and work your way down over their beer gut and love handles to their fetid junk? A lot of whom are undoubtedly harried and stressed by air travel / holidays, and making some rank sweat. Add in all the Old Spice and J Lo Glo people love to douse themselves with...
I know how bad a lot of people smell from a distance. Add in that a lot of these people are hostile...
Can't say I find much to disagree with on this. I completely understand that it's a much more complicated issue than "don't touch my balls bro." Personally I'm just more disgusted with how (or at least it seems) agents have been badly trained with these new procedures, the ridiculous way people have been treated, and how readily people are to surrender their dignity.
If there was hard evidence that these new procedures are actually effective, a public awareness campaign was launched AT LEAST six months in advance, and people were treated properly, I don't think most reasonable people would have a problem with this. Sorry, I really haven't been this disgusted with something in a long time.
Smith, a former police officer, says he doesn't want to talk about what the scanners might not find. He says that could help terrorists.
Other experts, though, say backscatter scanners would probably miss a weapon or explosive concealed in a body cavity.
And that apparent weakness has provided an opportunity for an Indiana company called Nesch LLC, which is developing another low-dose X-ray device that can find contraband where other scanners can't.
This machine is called DEXI, for Diffraction Enhanced X-Ray Imaging.
"To my knowledge it's the only one that very reliably can detect the presence of such substances, explosives or illegal substances that are hidden inside of a human body," says Ivan Nesch, the company's president and CEO.
Comments
None of those are constitutionally protected rights.
Here's the official TSA line:
I think the other point is that so long as flying is a personal choice, you're entering into an agreement with the airline and airport as to what is allowable and what isn't. If you choose to disagree with those rules, you can opt not to fly.
fail on the bomb sniffing dog....
With one attempted attack every 16.5 million flights, a person is about as likely to be struck by lightning on the 1st of the month.
Completely apples and oranges. Electronic communication and transportation have what in common, exactly?
Am I the only person sort of amazed that planes don't get bombed more often? Maybe all this security actually IS making a difference.
Not that you could tell by how incompetent the TSA's PR skills are though.
They are both services provided by private companies which are taken advantage of by terrorists.
The point is that the same argument can be made for your privacy to be sacrificed for the good of security. Don't like it? don't use a phone.
1) Making a phone call can't directly harm or kill you. This isn't "The 5th Element." If people had the means to use phone lines to kill people en masse, you can best believe that telephone protocols would change very quickly.
2) I use the phone several times a day. I don't fly several times a day.
Again, apples and oranges.
But hey, if we're going to play the "slippery slope" game, let's go the other way. Why screen people at airports at all? Shouldn't I have the right NOT to have my luggage (or anyone else's luggage) screened? Isn't any violation of my privacy rights?
Ultimately, this comes down to a middle ground - what we can socially accept. And to that degree, I don't see how bringing the 4th Amendment in is going to be a useful way to approach that delicate balance.
I'm just saying that almost *any* search or monitoring can be argued to be "reasonable" if it can help to catch terrorists, which leaves the 4th Amendment pointless in this situation.
Going through a metal detector is reasonable. Having my balls felt, and small children being searched, is not. It's pretty simple.
Could you imagine if your encounters with people over and over again began with them lifting their arms, and you having to dive into their sweaty armpits and work your way down over their beer gut and love handles to their fetid junk? A lot of whom are undoubtedly harried and stressed by air travel / holidays, and making some rank sweat. Add in all the Old Spice and J Lo Glo people love to douse themselves with...
I know how bad a lot of people smell from a distance. Add in that a lot of these people are hostile...
It's inhumane for all of us!
Not unless this is the plan by terrorist of course.
Except that it's not. Isn't this entire argument over finding a point along the security spectrum that's somewhere between "metal detector" and "balls felt"? That's hardly simple.
I mean, people joke about this shit all the time but with shit like this, the terrorists really have won. We're living in fear. People are thinking the government is going to protect us by handing over more and more of our rights and then when something slips through because people just have not been doing their jobs, "security" just gets ratcheted up instead of some accountability. Seriously, wtf do you think is going to happen if someone happens to somehow make it through current security with some shit?
NOT TO MENTION, the horrible way this whole program has been rolled out. When you are dealing with something as sensitive as this you are going to want a smooth roll out. I haven't seen anything indicating that and even if these are .000005% of cases, people should be well aware of how quickly news travels and how much of an effect negative publicity has.
"Much of the reporting on the new threat stems from the publication of the third issue of Inspire, an English-language ???magazine??? that claims to be the work of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). The ???special edition??? details the recent attempt to bomb two cargo planes using tampered-with printers sent from Yemen, a plan dubbed ???Operation Hemorrhage,??? and warns of more to come???a tactic of ???a thousand cuts.??? Inspire???s writers brag about how inexpensive it had been to so thoroughly disrupt and rattle U.S. security. The plot had cost just $4,200, a figure which features prominently on front of the magazine???a crafty cover."
Fallows nails it here: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/like-a-full-body-massage-thinking-about-the-tsa/66923/
Everyone's trying to cover their asses and "ratcheting up" the stakes to the point where, if you dare suggest we should chill a bit - and something happens? - someone will exploit that to their aim, whether financially or politically.
People trained in the military will check your id picture against your appearance and will look at you while they make small talk.
People trained by the TSA look only at the id and boarding pass and never make eye contact.
Next time that first screener looks at you ask them if they were in the military. Answer will be yes.
Yes it is simple. Just because everyone is making it more difficult than it has to be does not mean it isn't simple.
Like Brian said, what was done before was sufficient, and seemed reasonable. No one was seen naked, and no balls were felt. Yes, some guy tried to bring a bomb on under his sack. But that guy was an idiot and did not come close to succeeding. I have a feeling he would've gotten through with that shit in his ass today. If he was going to blow up his own sack, he would shove a bomb up his ass. And there's not much we can do about that.
As it stands now, we are wasting a shitload of money searching a bunch of people who do not need to be searched. And that makes no sense at all.
If there was hard evidence that these new procedures are actually effective, a public awareness campaign was launched AT LEAST six months in advance, and people were treated properly, I don't think most reasonable people would have a problem with this. Sorry, I really haven't been this disgusted with something in a long time.
Maybe they have already done this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/fear_pays_chertoff_n_787711.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aoG.YbbvnkzU
I mean really?
See also:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122499686
Scanners Could Miss Some Contraband
Smith, a former police officer, says he doesn't want to talk about what the scanners might not find. He says that could help terrorists.
Other experts, though, say backscatter scanners would probably miss a weapon or explosive concealed in a body cavity.
And that apparent weakness has provided an opportunity for an Indiana company called Nesch LLC, which is developing another low-dose X-ray device that can find contraband where other scanners can't.
This machine is called DEXI, for Diffraction Enhanced X-Ray Imaging.
"To my knowledge it's the only one that very reliably can detect the presence of such substances, explosives or illegal substances that are hidden inside of a human body," says Ivan Nesch, the company's president and CEO.
That might help to deter hijackings but it wouldn't do much to stop a suicide bomber.