3 ms·

This has been hashed and rehashed, but again, there is no right to drive (in a normal context). It is a privilege that must be earned and can be taken away. I

by adient 16y ago

This has been hashed and rehashed, but again, there is no right to drive (in a normal context). It is a privilege that must be earned and can be taken away. I really wish people would stop using that comparison to make the case for the 'right to fly' when it is completely false. I don't agree with scanning but I also don't see you winning over many rational people with your comparisons. We need to come up with a better argument against the scanning that isn't so weak and easily shot down.

eof 16y ago
Unfortunately the real argument against the scanning is much harder to digest for the average person. But let me try: 1. The machines are expensive and made by a company with a large lobbyist-budget. 2. The threat is over stated, these machines are overkill. 3. The machines grant marginal-at-best security beyond traditional methods. 4. The slow but steady psychological appeasement to being under closer and closer government scrutiny is a threat to democracy. 5. The airlines and their terminals are not private enterprises, while the security and regulations are pure government entities. Since TSA agents are government officials they ought to be bound by the constitution which protects against unreasonable search. If Macy's was forcing people to get cavity searches to enter their store, I wouldn't have a problem with it, I just wouldn't shop there. Being searched at an airport is a completely different situation than entering into a contract with a private party. 5a. The risk factor being so blown out of proportion makes a virtual-strip search of an average no-record citizen unreasonable.