4 ms·

These machines are such a blatant violation of our Constitutional rights. We shouldn't be searched like this without probable cause or a search warrant. Wheth

These machines are such a blatant violation of our Constitutional rights. We shouldn't be searched like this without probable cause or a search warrant. Whether they are effective or not is irrelevant.

jodrellblank 12y ago
We don't have a constitution. (Not everyone on the internet is American, and of those who are, none can do anything about erosion of your rights. Complain to your local political representative, who potentially can).
- jonknee 12y ago
  To be fair this paper is about machines deployed by the TSA.
- joshfraser 12y ago
  Sorry for the US-centric comment. All people are created equal with unalienable rights, so we shouldn't be trampling the human rights of foreigners either. It's just easier to point out the abuses when we have governing documents that explicitly say we shouldn't be doing the thing that we're doing.
  - wdewind 12y ago
    > It's just easier to point out the abuses when we have governing documents that explicitly say we shouldn't be doing the thing that we're doing. Can you explain what part of it is unconstitutional? Because while I'm totally against it, I think it is pretty much entirely constitutional because airlines are a private business that no one is being forced to go through. But I clearly don't know much about this and would welcome an education.
    - joshfraser 12y ago
      The TSA is a government agency, not a private organization. Options for flying without undergoing a grope down or subjecting oneself to the nudie photo maker are limited to those wealthy enough to fly private.
      - wdewind 12y ago
        > The TSA is a government agency, not a private organization. Right, but the airlines are private and you are choosing to enter into a contract with them out of your own volition. The TSA is a regulator, but is not requiring that you fly. > Options for flying without undergoing a grope down or subjecting oneself to the nudie photo maker are limited to those wealthy enough to fly private. Which sucks, but doesn't sound like a constitutional violation to me.
        Retric 12y ago
        Freedom of movement is considered a constitutional right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unite... If you live in a remote area where the only option is to fly commercial you may have a strong case. However, my understand is these are only added to major airports to avoid encountering such a situation. As you don't need to fly to get from Chicago or NY to just about anywhere. Which creates another issue. Your not re-screened after traveling from a minor to a major airport which renders these precautions practically useless vs an intelligent advisory.
        wdewind 12y ago
        > 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." This doesn't sound like guaranteed use of commercial airports/airlines, it sounds like you'd have the right to fly yourself from your own airstrip, but not necessarily from an airport. > Which creates another issue. As your not re-screened after traveling from a minor to a major airport which renders these precautions practically useless vs an intelligent advisory. That is interesting.
    - joshfraser 12y ago
      The supreme court ruled 8-1 that strip searches in schools are unconstitutional. How are technology-enabled strip searches at the airport any different? Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/25/AR2009062501690.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06...
      - wdewind 12y ago
        > The supreme court ruled 8-1 that strip searches in schools are unconstitutional. They have not. You'll have to point to a specific case because they have ruled for strip searches to be constitutional under essentially what amounts to probable cause. Edit: you added the link. If the girl in that story had been using or distributing an illegal drug it would've been a (legally) reasonable search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._T._L._O http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._T._L._O. > How are technology-enabled strip searches at the airport any different? Putting aside the question of whether or not MMW scans are actually legally equivalent to strip searches, the government forces you to show up to school. It does not force you to show up to the airport.
        joshfraser 12y ago
        No, "the court ruled 8 to 1 that such an intrusive search without the threat of a clear danger to other students violated the Constitution's protections against unreasonable search or seizure". How would her having illegal drugs be a clear danger to other students?
        wdewind 12y ago
        No what? Nothing I said disagrees with that. Can we go back to the part where you explain how scanners at airports are a "blatant violation of our Constitutional rights"?
    - diafygi 12y ago
      Earlier this year, the ACLU won a case regarding the constitutionally of the no-fly list[1]. Basically, their argument was that you can't give up your Fifth Amendment rights (due process) when you travel internationally. Since this argument won, it implies that Fourth Amendment rights (probable cause searches) also cannot be forfeited. Relevant quote: "Accordingly, the Court concludes on this record that Plaintiffs have a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in traveling internationally by air, which is affected by being placed on the No Fly List." [2] [1] - https://www.aclu.org/national-security/latif-et-al-v-holder-et-al-aclu-challenge-government-no-fly-list https://www.aclu.org/national-security/latif-et-al-v-holder-... [2] - https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/latif_v_holder_opinion_and_order.pdf https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/latif_v_hold...
      - tedunangst 12y ago
        The Fourth Amendment only protects against unreasonable searches without probable cause. The Supreme Court could well decide that airport scanners are reasonable and therefore do not require probable cause.
SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
They aren't a violation when you can ALWAYS "opt out" and get a pat down. Whether a pat down is a rights violation is another question, but I think that mandatory searches for safety reasons have long passed Supreme Court tests.

jodrellblank 12y ago

We don't have a constitution. (Not everyone on the internet is American, and of those who are, none can do anything about erosion of your rights. Complain to your local political representative, who potentially can).

jonknee 12y ago
To be fair this paper is about machines deployed by the TSA.
joshfraser 12y ago
Sorry for the US-centric comment. All people are created equal with unalienable rights, so we shouldn't be trampling the human rights of foreigners either. It's just easier to point out the abuses when we have governing documents that explicitly say we shouldn't be doing the thing that we're doing.
- wdewind 12y ago
  > It's just easier to point out the abuses when we have governing documents that explicitly say we shouldn't be doing the thing that we're doing. Can you explain what part of it is unconstitutional? Because while I'm totally against it, I think it is pretty much entirely constitutional because airlines are a private business that no one is being forced to go through. But I clearly don't know much about this and would welcome an education.
  - joshfraser 12y ago
    The TSA is a government agency, not a private organization. Options for flying without undergoing a grope down or subjecting oneself to the nudie photo maker are limited to those wealthy enough to fly private.
    - wdewind 12y ago
      > The TSA is a government agency, not a private organization. Right, but the airlines are private and you are choosing to enter into a contract with them out of your own volition. The TSA is a regulator, but is not requiring that you fly. > Options for flying without undergoing a grope down or subjecting oneself to the nudie photo maker are limited to those wealthy enough to fly private. Which sucks, but doesn't sound like a constitutional violation to me.
      - Retric 12y ago
        Freedom of movement is considered a constitutional right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unite... If you live in a remote area where the only option is to fly commercial you may have a strong case. However, my understand is these are only added to major airports to avoid encountering such a situation. As you don't need to fly to get from Chicago or NY to just about anywhere. Which creates another issue. Your not re-screened after traveling from a minor to a major airport which renders these precautions practically useless vs an intelligent advisory.
        wdewind 12y ago
        > 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." This doesn't sound like guaranteed use of commercial airports/airlines, it sounds like you'd have the right to fly yourself from your own airstrip, but not necessarily from an airport. > Which creates another issue. As your not re-screened after traveling from a minor to a major airport which renders these precautions practically useless vs an intelligent advisory. That is interesting.
  - joshfraser 12y ago
    The supreme court ruled 8-1 that strip searches in schools are unconstitutional. How are technology-enabled strip searches at the airport any different? Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/25/AR2009062501690.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06...
    - wdewind 12y ago
      > The supreme court ruled 8-1 that strip searches in schools are unconstitutional. They have not. You'll have to point to a specific case because they have ruled for strip searches to be constitutional under essentially what amounts to probable cause. Edit: you added the link. If the girl in that story had been using or distributing an illegal drug it would've been a (legally) reasonable search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._T._L._O http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._T._L._O. > How are technology-enabled strip searches at the airport any different? Putting aside the question of whether or not MMW scans are actually legally equivalent to strip searches, the government forces you to show up to school. It does not force you to show up to the airport.
      - joshfraser 12y ago
        No, "the court ruled 8 to 1 that such an intrusive search without the threat of a clear danger to other students violated the Constitution's protections against unreasonable search or seizure". How would her having illegal drugs be a clear danger to other students?
        wdewind 12y ago
        No what? Nothing I said disagrees with that. Can we go back to the part where you explain how scanners at airports are a "blatant violation of our Constitutional rights"?
  - diafygi 12y ago
    Earlier this year, the ACLU won a case regarding the constitutionally of the no-fly list[1]. Basically, their argument was that you can't give up your Fifth Amendment rights (due process) when you travel internationally. Since this argument won, it implies that Fourth Amendment rights (probable cause searches) also cannot be forfeited. Relevant quote: "Accordingly, the Court concludes on this record that Plaintiffs have a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in traveling internationally by air, which is affected by being placed on the No Fly List." [2] [1] - https://www.aclu.org/national-security/latif-et-al-v-holder-et-al-aclu-challenge-government-no-fly-list https://www.aclu.org/national-security/latif-et-al-v-holder-... [2] - https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/latif_v_holder_opinion_and_order.pdf https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/latif_v_hold...
    - tedunangst 12y ago
      The Fourth Amendment only protects against unreasonable searches without probable cause. The Supreme Court could well decide that airport scanners are reasonable and therefore do not require probable cause.

SomeCallMeTim 12y ago

They aren't a violation when you can ALWAYS "opt out" and get a pat down. Whether a pat down is a rights violation is another question, but I think that mandatory searches for safety reasons have long passed Supreme Court tests.