By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Alaska Bill Would Criminalize Invasive TSA Pat Downs

SamuelRSmith on 17 February 2012
Kasz216 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Kasz216 said:

You know, i never really had that big of an issue with the TSA pat-downs.

Now the various people they have to administer it to due to "perceived fairness" that's another issue.

When you have to pat down a 4 year old or a 97 year old woman that's never left the country, you've kinda forgotten that there is a big difference between "Racial Profiling" and "Profiling" which does sometimes include race, sex and gender... because some crimes are VERY disproportionately committed by certain races, sexes and genders... and ages for that matter. (And yes, I do mean to have sexes and genders separate... there is a difference.)

Actually as I recall, there is a law banning transgender people from flying that just passed in Canada.

Well, the TSA infringes on your right to privacy, and the freedom to travel (which the Supreme Court determined was protected by the Constitution under the 9th Amendment). Pre-screening (checking up on passengers' activities before the flight) is an infringment on the 4th amendment, and potentially on the first (as they may refuse travel based on something you've said). It also infringes on the 10th amendment, as the ability to regulate such things are not defined in the Constitution, therefore it is a state issue.

The issues of the effectiveness of patdowns/profiling/whatever don't really come into it, until you address the above concerns.

Sure

1) It's not really infringing on your right to travel, you can still travel.   Just not by plane if you don't fit the criteria.

It's no more infiring then forcing someone to pass quaifications to get a drivers liscense.  These are very specific circumstances that can be dangerous.

There's still planes, trains, buses and boats.

Except the TSA are now showing up at train stations, bus stations, and boat ports. If you wish to travel by any of these means, you may have to forgo your other rights. How long until they start appearing on Interstate highways?

 

2) You're protected against unreasonable search and seizure... not all search and seizure.  TSA patdowns happen when you repeatidly fail a metal detector/body scanner or something is picked up on either of those. 

Those are perfectly reasonable criteria considering the above.  Espiecally since you can refuse and just leave.   Like Rand Paul did recently in protest of said policy.

This isn't true. In the OP, the woman who wrote this legislation was forced through a pat-down because of a scar on the breast due to cancer surgery. Just a few weeks ago, Senator Rand Paul was refused to be allowed to rego through the scanner, after the scanner had a technical glitch. He didn't just leave, he was detained and questioned, first. These are just cases that we know about because it's high profile. How many times a day must this happen to unsuspecting passengers.

3)  There isn't a police force in the US who is going to ignore you as a suspect if you say something that indicates you might be guilty of a crime... I'm not seeing how that's any different here.

Because the implication here is that just because you are travelling you are now suspect to a crime. EDIT: Not even suspect to a crime. By the fact that you are travelling, agents can now check up on your actions (such as speech) and prevent you from travelling because you are suspect to a crime that hasn't even been committed.





Around the Network
SamuelRSmith on 17 February 2012
Kasz216 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Here's another example of the States growing tired of the Feds over-reach: http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/state-opposition-to-ndaa-grows/

" the Virginia House overwhelming passed “A BILL to prevent any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the conduct of the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a citizen in violation of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia, or any Virginia law or regulation.”"

"Arizona Senate Border Security, Federalism and States Sovereignty Committee approved SB1182 6-1, bringing it one step away from a full Senate vote. The bill, “prohibits this state and agencies of this state from participating in the implementation of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 and classifies the act of attempting to enforce or enforcing these sections as a class 1 misdemeanor.”"

"Six local governments have passed resolutions condemning sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA. Earlier this week, the Town Council of Macomb, N.Y. unanimously passed a resolution, and Fairfax, Calif. approved a similar resolution 4-1. On Wednesday, New Shoreham, R.I. also passed a resolution opposing NDAA detention."

If you want a more Leftwing issue related to this

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-war-on-pot-20120216

Exactly. The implications of these laws/upcoming lawsuits don't just hurt the Democrats, it hurts all Federalists.

Ron Paul may just get much of what he wants, without even winning anything.



SvennoJ on 17 February 2012
Kasz216 said:
sethnintendo said:
Kasz216 said:

 

2) You're protected against unreasonable search and seizure... not all search and seizure.  TSA patdowns happen when you repeatidly fail a metal detector/body scanner or something is picked up on either of those. 


That is bullshit because I know for a fact that they send random people in the line to the body scanners, and if you don't like the body scanner then you have to get a pat down.  To these random lucky people simply walking through the metal detector isn't an option.

That was metal detector or body scanner.   As in, you have to go through one or the other.  Some places it's just all body scanners.

Body scanners aren't unreasonable.

I didn't even have a choice, I simply got a check on my ticket as I joined the line to go through security, randomly selected for a search. Had to go through the metal detector, stand in a glass cage while my carry on was searched, and get a thorough pat down.
Sure I could refuse and then figure out an alternative way to get home. I went along with it but the next time I had to travel I choose to drive 9 hours instead of taking the plane, screw that.

Body scanners aren't unreasonable?

http://www.google.ca/search?q=body+scanner+status&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=7hE_T5GkJcnm0QHslcWqBw&ved=0CDUQsAQ&biw=1400&bih=862

You know what would be even safer, if we all fly naked, stick the clothes and luggage on a 2nd plane.

And if you don't care about your privacy then maybe about your health, the new backscatter x-ray body scanners
http://ihrrblog.org/2011/12/12/body-scanners-health-risk-and-politics/



Galaki on 17 February 2012
MrBubbles said:
im bothered by the use of "female breast". its sexist.

Yeah. They think it's okay to touch male breasts or something? That's just ridiculous!



Pre-order limited edition Blue Slime Condoms

HappySqurriel on 17 February 2012
Kasz216 said:

You know, i never really had that big of an issue with the TSA pat-downs.

Now the various people they have to administer it to due to "perceived fairness" that's another issue.

When you have to pat down a 4 year old or a 97 year old woman that's never left the country, you've kinda forgotten that there is a big difference between "Racial Profiling" and "Profiling" which does sometimes include race, sex and gender... because some crimes are VERY disproportionately committed by certain races, sexes and genders... and ages for that matter. (And yes, I do mean to have sexes and genders separate... there is a difference.)

Actually as I recall, there is a law banning transgender people from flying that just passed in Canada.  Which doesn't make any kind of sense really.

On the topic of the TSA ...

I (personally) believe that the pat-downs and body scanners are mostly just a big show. I suspect the real security uses profiling to determine likely terrorists long before they get anywhere near an airport; but highly effective invisible security doesn't make people believe that you're keeping them safe.

 

On the transgendered flying ...

I don't really believe the intention was to prevent transgendered people from flying, and the real intent was ensuring that people's identification matched who they were presenting themselves as. I suspect this is really a reaction to how Islamic terrorists have been known to wear burkas to hide in plain sight.



Around the Network
sethnintendo on 17 February 2012
Kasz216 said:
sethnintendo said:
Kasz216 said:

 

2) You're protected against unreasonable search and seizure... not all search and seizure.  TSA patdowns happen when you repeatidly fail a metal detector/body scanner or something is picked up on either of those. 


That is bullshit because I know for a fact that they send random people in the line to the body scanners, and if you don't like the body scanner then you have to get a pat down.  To these random lucky people simply walking through the metal detector isn't an option.

That was metal detector or body scanner.   As in, you have to go through one or the other.  Some places it's just all body scanners.

Body scanners aren't unreasonable.

Unreasonable to me.  Sorry I'd rather not be exposed to anything even if it is deemed "safe".



AdventWolf on 18 February 2012
SamuelRSmith said:

 

The bill introduced by Cissna, HB 262, states;

(1) physical contact by any person touching directly or through clothing the genitals, buttocks, or female breast of the person seeking access; or

 


What about male breasts?



badgenome on 18 February 2012
AdventWolf said:
SamuelRSmith said:

 

The bill introduced by Cissna, HB 262, states;

(1) physical contact by any person touching directly or through clothing the genitals, buttocks, or female breast of the person seeking access; or

 


What about male breasts?





SamuelRSmith on 18 February 2012

In a space of two posts, we went from a discussion about the effectiveness and Constitutionality of a Government program, to a meme with a kid fapping.



Kasz216 on 18 February 2012
SvennoJ said:
Kasz216 said:
sethnintendo said:
Kasz216 said:

 

2) You're protected against unreasonable search and seizure... not all search and seizure.  TSA patdowns happen when you repeatidly fail a metal detector/body scanner or something is picked up on either of those. 


That is bullshit because I know for a fact that they send random people in the line to the body scanners, and if you don't like the body scanner then you have to get a pat down.  To these random lucky people simply walking through the metal detector isn't an option.

That was metal detector or body scanner.   As in, you have to go through one or the other.  Some places it's just all body scanners.

Body scanners aren't unreasonable.

I didn't even have a choice, I simply got a check on my ticket as I joined the line to go through security, randomly selected for a search. Had to go through the metal detector, stand in a glass cage while my carry on was searched, and get a thorough pat down.
Sure I could refuse and then figure out an alternative way to get home. I went along with it but the next time I had to travel I choose to drive 9 hours instead of taking the plane, screw that.

Body scanners aren't unreasonable?

http://www.google.ca/search?q=body+scanner+status&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=7hE_T5GkJcnm0QHslcWqBw&ved=0CDUQsAQ&biw=1400&bih=862

You know what would be even safer, if we all fly naked, stick the clothes and luggage on a 2nd plane.

And if you don't care about your privacy then maybe about your health, the new backscatter x-ray body scanners
http://ihrrblog.org/2011/12/12/body-scanners-health-risk-and-politics/

No Body scanners aren't unreasonable, for boarding an object that weights 45 tons empty, that travels at 600 miles an hour and has around a hundred other people on it.

As for the health risk point... I'd note that your source is a blog... and not a health journal... and there is a very good reason for that.

Because there really isn't a health risk.  The only quote they could get from anyone remotely related to the issue was that there was a "Very small" risk.  Which could be something like .000000001%.

A poweful body scanner is estimated to give someone radiation equivlent to somewhere between  .1% to 1% of a Chest X-ray.

Worst case scenario if you fly 100 times a year , the body scanner is equal to one Chest X-ray... except it's been spread over 100 days.

You actually get more Radiation from the actual act of flying then you do a body scan.  Being higher in the air your exposed to much more radiation then land travel.  So in otherwords, if you are afraid of body scanner radiation... you shouldn't be flying anyway.