TSA Body Scanners
11-24-2010, 08:45 AM
#82
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,079
Here's how Bureaucracies work:
Want to hide something from view? Request a pat down.
Bypass the multi-million dollar nudie scanners, and then cite the TSA's own rules that say they cannot ask you to remove a cast or prosthetic.
I cant wait till a terrorist uses a cast to hide a gun or something in, then the TSA bans people with casts or prosthetic from flying on planes...or forces them to be cut off.
Want to hide something from view? Request a pat down.
Bypass the multi-million dollar nudie scanners, and then cite the TSA's own rules that say they cannot ask you to remove a cast or prosthetic.
I cant wait till a terrorist uses a cast to hide a gun or something in, then the TSA bans people with casts or prosthetic from flying on planes...or forces them to be cut off.
Reply
0
0
11-24-2010, 11:36 AM
#85
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,050
Total Cats: 6,615
Inalienable doesn't mean limitless.
I have the inalienable right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. So what if the thing that makes me happy is kidnapping and raping 7 year old girls, cutting their heads off, and mounting them as trophies in my den?
Well, it turns out that I don't have the right to pursue Happiness in that particular way. If I choose to ignore this caveat and go ahead with it anyway, then assuming I get caught, I will almost certainly be deprived of my inalienable right to Liberty, and depending upon what state the trial is held in, my inalienable right to Life as well.
It's one thing to argue that the TSA is an ineffective organization and that its policies are a load of crap. It's a different thing altogether to try and make a constitutional case out of it.
I have the inalienable right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. So what if the thing that makes me happy is kidnapping and raping 7 year old girls, cutting their heads off, and mounting them as trophies in my den?
Well, it turns out that I don't have the right to pursue Happiness in that particular way. If I choose to ignore this caveat and go ahead with it anyway, then assuming I get caught, I will almost certainly be deprived of my inalienable right to Liberty, and depending upon what state the trial is held in, my inalienable right to Life as well.
It's one thing to argue that the TSA is an ineffective organization and that its policies are a load of crap. It's a different thing altogether to try and make a constitutional case out of it.
Reply
0
0
11-24-2010, 11:43 AM
#86
In what way is the person who expects to travel without either revealing their naked body or having their genitals groped encroaching on the rights of others?
We don't let LEO's do full patdowns until they are arresting someone, you know. What the TSA doing is presumption of guilt, across the board. And while you personally may consider it only an inconvenience, the principle of the matter is something much more important -- our government deciding to treat everyone as potential criminal. Are we going to accept our government presuming that all citizens are guilty until a government employee has patted them down?
Reply
0
0
11-24-2010, 12:14 PM
#89
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,079
lol would ensue.
BTW:
Virginia Code > Title 18.2 > Chapter 5 > § 18.2-130
§ 18.2-130. Peeping or spying into dwelling or enclosure.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to enter upon the property of another and secretly or furtively peep, spy or attempt to peep or spy into or through a window, door or other aperture of any building, structure, or other enclosure of any nature occupied or intended for occupancy as a dwelling, whether or not such building, structure or enclosure is permanently situated or transportable and whether or not such occupancy is permanent or temporary, or to do the same, without just cause, upon property owned by him and leased or rented to another under circumstances that would violate the occupant's reasonable expectation of privacy.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to use a peephole or other aperture to secretly or furtively peep, spy or attempt to peep or spy into a restroom, dressing room, locker room, hotel room, motel room, tanning bed, tanning booth, bedroom or other location or enclosure for the purpose of viewing any nonconsenting person who is totally nude, clad in undergarments, or in a state of undress exposing the genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast and the circumstances are such that the person would otherwise have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
C. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a lawful criminal investigation or a correctional official or local or regional jail official conducting surveillance for security purposes or during an investigation of alleged misconduct involving a person committed to the Department of Corrections or to a local or regional jail.
D. As used in this section, "peephole" means any hole, crack or other similar opening through which a person can see.
E. A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(Code 1950, § 18.1-174; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1992, c. 520; 1999, c. 351; 2003, cc. 81, 87.)
TSA agents are skirting our peeping tom laws.
Reply
0
0
11-24-2010, 12:27 PM
#91
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,079
God, next you'll tell me the Asian internment camps during WWII were okay as well, they gave up their rights when they were born Asian.
It's not consent if it's forced. The alternative is being groped; which skirts sexual assault/battery laws. Or not being allow to fly. Lose, Lose, Lose.
And still not one terrorist has been caught.
It's not consent if it's forced. The alternative is being groped; which skirts sexual assault/battery laws. Or not being allow to fly. Lose, Lose, Lose.
And still not one terrorist has been caught.
Reply
0
0
11-24-2010, 12:31 PM
#93
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: VA, Germany, Afghanistan
Posts: 2,945
Total Cats: 3
If the residents of said camps bought tickets and we're there on their own free will, then why the hell not? I don't however think that this was the case, or even remotely close to a good analogy, I'm hoping it was meant to be a joke that just didn't read well through the interwebz.
Reply
0
0
11-24-2010, 12:36 PM
#94
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,079
its a great analogy. They gave up rights "consented" to being forced into prison camps when they decided to live in the USA.
Just because the gov't does something, does not mean it's legal or just. Only that they have the legal monopoly to use force against you at will.
Just because the gov't does something, does not mean it's legal or just. Only that they have the legal monopoly to use force against you at will.
Reply
0
0
11-24-2010, 12:50 PM
#95
Consent would imply knowledge yes? As a Canadian if I purchase ticket to Mexico with Air Canada that happens to have a connector in Seattle, am I made aware by the TSA that I will have to submit to the new security screening?
In 2009 I traveled to Cancun and then about 1 month later traveled to Toronto. Both times I was "Randomly" selected for our version of the extended pat down by the same security guy. Once I made the metal detector go off, the other I made it through with out issue. A pain in the *** mostly for the amount of additional time it took to pass through security.
In 2009 I traveled to Cancun and then about 1 month later traveled to Toronto. Both times I was "Randomly" selected for our version of the extended pat down by the same security guy. Once I made the metal detector go off, the other I made it through with out issue. A pain in the *** mostly for the amount of additional time it took to pass through security.
Reply
0
0
11-24-2010, 12:57 PM
#96
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,050
Total Cats: 6,615
What you've described isn't simply one person exercising their own inalienable rights -- it's someone forcibly encroaching on another individuals inalienable rights. That's the entire point -- we the people have empowered the state to bring justice to those who ignore or encroach upon the rights of others.
Driving fast makes me happy. Unfortunately, the state of Florida has decided that because the very straightest sections of I-75 can only be safely traversed at 70 MPH by 18-wheelers and Cadillacs with underinflated all-season tires driven by stoned people with cataracts, that all motor vehicles shall be limited to 70 MPH on that road, regardless of how much they weigh, what kind of tires they have, and whether or not their occupant has a valid competition license. In essence the government is infringing upon my right to drive fast with the top down on vacant roads at night, an activity which I believe that I can safely partake of without causing harm to others, and yet we simply accept this (albeit begrudgingly) as given.
So, where do we draw the line?
Free speech and privacy... I'm honestly a little bit annoyed by the way that we, as a collective, seem to get so hung up on these two particular things which, if we're honest, are little more than vague academic concepts to the vast majority of us, while saying nothing at all about all of the little institutionalized encroachments which actually do have some impact on the quality of our lives.
I mean, when was the last time that you, personally, marched on Washington? When was the last time that you had the state police show up at your door asking to do an impromptu search apropos of nothing, or had a squad of National Guard troops show up at your house demanding to be fed and quartered for the night?
In what way is the person who expects to travel without either revealing their naked body or having their genitals groped encroaching on the rights of others?
We don't let LEO's do full patdowns until they are arresting someone, you know. What the TSA doing is presumption of guilt, across the board. And while you personally may consider it only an inconvenience, the principle of the matter is something much more important -- our government deciding to treat everyone as potential criminal.
As an example, the second amendment guarantees that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." and yet I am prohibited by both state and federal law from bearing arms in a great number of places- schools, hospitals, courthouses, etc. At the entrance to many of these places, I am forced to submit to a magnetometer scan and an X-ray inspection of my belongings. By your logic, the government has decided that I am a potential criminal and, in doing so, is quite likely to cause my embarrassment and harm to my character by detecting and then displaying for all the world to see the battery-powered stainless steel ***** which I normally keep concealed in my shoulderbag.
Reply
0
0
11-24-2010, 01:03 PM
#97
Joe, I understand your position, but it doesn't really speak to my argument -- most if not all of the examples you provide (speed limits, gun safe zones, etc) I consider to be unreasonable if not outright unconstitutional restrictions.
That we has citizens have accepted the gradually warming water around us doesn't mean we won't get boiled in the end.
That we has citizens have accepted the gradually warming water around us doesn't mean we won't get boiled in the end.
Reply
0
0
11-24-2010, 01:11 PM
#98
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,050
Total Cats: 6,615
§ 18.2-130. Peeping or spying into dwelling or enclosure.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to enter upon the property of another and secretly or furtively peep, spy or attempt to peep or spy into or through a window, door or other aperture of any building, structure, or other enclosure of any nature occupied or intended for occupancy as a dwelling, whether or not such building, structure or enclosure is permanently situated or transportable and whether or not such occupancy is permanent or temporary, or to do the same, without just cause, upon property owned by him and leased or rented to another under circumstances that would violate the occupant's reasonable expectation of privacy.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to use a peephole or other aperture to secretly or furtively peep, spy or attempt to peep or spy into a restroom, dressing room, locker room, hotel room, motel room, tanning bed, tanning booth, bedroom or other location or enclosure for the purpose of viewing any nonconsenting person who is totally nude, clad in undergarments, or in a state of undress exposing the genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast and the circumstances are such that the person would otherwise have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to enter upon the property of another and secretly or furtively peep, spy or attempt to peep or spy into or through a window, door or other aperture of any building, structure, or other enclosure of any nature occupied or intended for occupancy as a dwelling, whether or not such building, structure or enclosure is permanently situated or transportable and whether or not such occupancy is permanent or temporary, or to do the same, without just cause, upon property owned by him and leased or rented to another under circumstances that would violate the occupant's reasonable expectation of privacy.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to use a peephole or other aperture to secretly or furtively peep, spy or attempt to peep or spy into a restroom, dressing room, locker room, hotel room, motel room, tanning bed, tanning booth, bedroom or other location or enclosure for the purpose of viewing any nonconsenting person who is totally nude, clad in undergarments, or in a state of undress exposing the genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast and the circumstances are such that the person would otherwise have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
I suggest that you read up a bit on the Open Fields Doctrine. The case of Hester v. United States (1924) determined that "The protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects," does not extend to open fields", and Oliver v. United States (1984) clarified that "open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance."
Essentially, the standard of privacy which we enjoy in certain areas (such as residences) is understood specifically not to extend to public places. This same doctrine is applied all the time in the media, where one is understood to consent to being photographed or recorded simply by being in a public place, and no release is required to be obtained in order to print or broadcast same, regardless of context.
For instance, if a resident of Arizona (where one may openly carry a firearm without a license) traveled by car into Mexico (where possession of firearms by foreigners is specifically prohibited except in certain narrowly defined situations) and was subsequently arrested and placed in jail, what would your response be to that?
Last edited by Joe Perez; 11-24-2010 at 01:26 PM.
Reply
0
0
11-24-2010, 01:33 PM
#99
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,079
Free speech and privacy... I'm honestly a little bit annoyed by the way that we, as a collective, seem to get so hung up on these two particular things which, if we're honest, are little more than vague academic concepts to the vast majority of us, while saying nothing at all about all of the little institutionalized encroachments which actually do have some impact on the quality of our lives.
You have it completely backwards.
The "Collective", as you put it, holds that the individual has no rights, that his life, his privacy, his genitals belong to the group and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force.
Man is not the rightless slave of the state. Therefore man holds these rights, not from the Collective nor for the Collective, but against the Collective—as a barrier which the Collective cannot cross; . . . these rights are man’s protection against all other men.
Reply
0
0
11-24-2010, 02:07 PM
#100
You have it completely backwards.
The "Collective", as you put it, holds that the individual has no rights, that his life, his privacy, his genitals belong to the group and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force.
Man is not the rightless slave of the state. Therefore man holds these rights, not from the Collective nor for the Collective, but against the Collective—as a barrier which the Collective cannot cross; . . . these rights are man’s protection against all other men.
The "Collective", as you put it, holds that the individual has no rights, that his life, his privacy, his genitals belong to the group and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force.
Man is not the rightless slave of the state. Therefore man holds these rights, not from the Collective nor for the Collective, but against the Collective—as a barrier which the Collective cannot cross; . . . these rights are man’s protection against all other men.
Reply
0
0
