5 ms·

Yes. Although there are a lot of sources of ionizing radiation being shot at you, and it generally works out. I'd be worried more about the fourth amendment.

by munin 12y ago

briandear 12y ago
The fouth amendment concern is particularly valid. This amounts to a search as there is penetration into one's protected property and no probable cause exists just by virtue of being in public. A passive detector, on the other hand would be completely reasonable, such as a radiation detector because the material being detected is being emitted, basically being broadcast, while invasive detectors are actually 'entering' the area being targeted. My question is, how many bombs have been discovered? What's the success rate? Probably close to zero; otherwise they'd be trumpeting their successes all over the media to justify further expansion of this type of search. It's funny how the TSA has had virtually zero success in catching terrorists, yet we still allow them to anally probe us in the cause of safety. I'd rather have a hijacking once per decade and go back to the pre 9-11 airport security system than go through a proverbial strip search every time I fly. 9-11 didn't happen because of a catastrophic failure of airport security: it was a failure on multiple levels -- from immigration enforcement, intelligence failures, etc. El Al screening methods are most effective, but TSA's political correctness has then treating an 85 year old black woman from Birmingham with the same level of scrutiny as a 23 year old from Egypt with Yemeni entry stamps in the passport.
- SamReidHughes 12y ago
  > It's funny how the TSA has had virtually zero success in catching terrorists, yet we still allow them to anally probe us in the cause of safety. Yeah, they don't catch terrorists because their presence stops terrorists from trying certain kinds of attacks. That's the whole point. Also I don't know why you think they don't screen the 23 year old arabs more thoroughly -- because by all reports, people that are more "terrorist-looking" do get screened more thoroughly and frequently find themselves subject to "random" inspection.
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    >Yeah, they don't catch terrorists because their presence stops terrorists from trying certain kinds of attacks. Perhaps you'd be interested in purchasing one of my patented elephant whistles. I haven't heard of a single customer who's been the victim of an elephant attack while carrying one. Keep yourself and your loved ones safe for a very low price!
    - SamReidHughes 12y ago
      We have already seen attacks that were stopped because of airline security. One example is Richard Reid, who had to resort to an unusual apparatus in order to get his bomb onto the plane. This resulted in the failure of his attack, which otherwise would have had most likely succeeded.
      - 1stop 12y ago
        He boarded in Paris... so the TSA had very little to do with it... He went through the "normal pre TSA" security... so you are actually disproving your own point...
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ1a0ymGCKA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ1a0ymGCKA
  - cstrahan 12y ago
    > Also I don't know why you think they don't screen the 23 year old arabs more thoroughly I think the parent was saying just that. However, due to the TSA's "political correctness", they also pick other people who don't fit the profile and then subject them to the same level of obnoxious screening. (The idea being that it makes them look a little less prejudiced) At least, that's how I interpreted what the parent said.
  - briandear 12y ago
    Yet toddlers and grandmothers are still getting enhanced screenings.. Behavioral and intelligence-based screening is far more effective than random screening. And enhanced screenings didn't stop the shoe bomber or the underwear bomber. Had they simply ran the underwear bomber's name through, they would have found that his father reported his risk to the U.S. embassy. They have advance notice of every passenger. Why not use that as a means to determine enhanced screening priority? The 9-11 guys were in expired visas-- even a basic check at the airport would have caught that. The point is that the government is so worried about offending certain people that they instead subject everyone through theoretically similar treatment, thus reducing the odds of actually catching bad guys. The only time El Al was hijacked was back in 1968, despite being the flag carrier for one of the most threat-filled countries in the world. They certainly don't employ the Keystone Cops of the TSA and follow some politically correct screening criteria. You also never hear of El Al screeners stealing iPads from passenger bags or wheelchair bound old ladies getting strip searched.
- tesq 12y ago
  "Passive" scanners violate the 4th amendment just as much as "invasive" ones. Kyllo vs United States determined that thermal imaging without a warrant was a search and constituted a violation of a person's 4th amendment rights. "Off the wall" and "through the wall" surveillance are one and the same.
  - briandear 12y ago
    So would the NYPD be subject to a 4th Amendment challenge? I would think the case you cite would say so.
    - tesq 12y ago
      I'm not a lawyer, but I'd say it would hinge on how much the NYPD publicly releases about how they're used in investigations. I expect that if they're used in criminal or FISA Court suits, evidence will be obfuscated, classified or omitted. In Kyllo's case, a person's home has a much better expectation of privacy from invasive surveillance than one's person and property in public. If it becomes public that people's homes are being searched without warrants, then I'd assume that they'd rightly be challenged. It would be interesting and probably frightening to see how invasive surveillance of a person and property, in what might be considered 'public' space, would be challenged in court.
- Stratoscope 12y ago
  > go back to the pre 9-11 airport security system A funny thing happened on my way to CES [1] this week. I showed my mobile boarding pass on my phone to the TSA greeter who said, "OK, sir, you can go down this other line on the right." That line was very short, and I wasn't sure if this was a good thing or a bad thing. I got to the head of that line right away and the next TSA agent said, "Welcome. You don't have to take off your shoes, and probably don't need to worry about your belt either. Just any heavier metal items. And you don't have to go through the scanner, just this metal detector." I thought to myself, this is nice, what did I do to earn this? Then I noticed there was a TSA Pre✓ logo on my boarding pass. I have no idea how that got there. I've never signed up for Pre✓ or anything like it. I can only imagine that when our executive assistant got my tickets, she somehow got me signed up for it to make the trip smoother, just like she signed me up for Southwest's Early Bird check-in. She's very thoughtful about things like that, and I was certainly grateful. Especially since I didn't have to apply for Pre✓ in person or submit any documents like they talk about on the TSA site! The trip back was a bit different. I showed my phone to the TSA greeter and she said, "I'm sorry, dear, you've got Pre✓ but we only accept it here on a paper boarding pass. If you want, you can go back to the Southwest kiosk and print one. I'm really sorry for the inconvenience." (Really, she was that friendly and apologetic - she could have been the kind of old-school waitress who calls everyone "honey" - probably the nicest TSA agent I've ever met.) I guess each airport has its own rules for that? It didn't quite make sense, but at least she was nice about it. :-) [1] I was at CES with AltspaceVR taking pictures of the activity in their booth: http://www.flickr.com/photos/geary/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/geary/
  - saryant 12y ago
    Your assistant didn't sign you up for Pre, given that membership requires an in-person fingerprint scan. You got Pre because Southwest forwarded your information to the TSA which gave you Pre for that trip. I have Pre through the Global Entry program. Others get it day-of because they were "randomly" sent to that line at the airport. Some airports have touchscreens which decide which line to send passengers to (passenger taps the screen and is told which way to go).
    - 12y ago

Yes. Although there are a lot of sources of ionizing radiation being shot at you, and it generally works out. I'd be worried more about the fourth amendment.

by munin 12y ago

Yes. Although there are a lot of sources of ionizing radiation being shot at you, and it generally works out. I'd be worried more about the fourth amendment.

briandear 12y ago

The fouth amendment concern is particularly valid. This amounts to a search as there is penetration into one's protected property and no probable cause exists just by virtue of being in public. A passive detector, on the other hand would be completely reasonable, such as a radiation detector because the material being detected is being emitted, basically being broadcast, while invasive detectors are actually 'entering' the area being targeted. My question is, how many bombs have been discovered? What's the success rate? Probably close to zero; otherwise they'd be trumpeting their successes all over the media to justify further expansion of this type of search. It's funny how the TSA has had virtually zero success in catching terrorists, yet we still allow them to anally probe us in the cause of safety. I'd rather have a hijacking once per decade and go back to the pre 9-11 airport security system than go through a proverbial strip search every time I fly. 9-11 didn't happen because of a catastrophic failure of airport security: it was a failure on multiple levels -- from immigration enforcement, intelligence failures, etc. El Al screening methods are most effective, but TSA's political correctness has then treating an 85 year old black woman from Birmingham with the same level of scrutiny as a 23 year old from Egypt with Yemeni entry stamps in the passport.

SamReidHughes 12y ago
> It's funny how the TSA has had virtually zero success in catching terrorists, yet we still allow them to anally probe us in the cause of safety. Yeah, they don't catch terrorists because their presence stops terrorists from trying certain kinds of attacks. That's the whole point. Also I don't know why you think they don't screen the 23 year old arabs more thoroughly -- because by all reports, people that are more "terrorist-looking" do get screened more thoroughly and frequently find themselves subject to "random" inspection.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  >Yeah, they don't catch terrorists because their presence stops terrorists from trying certain kinds of attacks. Perhaps you'd be interested in purchasing one of my patented elephant whistles. I haven't heard of a single customer who's been the victim of an elephant attack while carrying one. Keep yourself and your loved ones safe for a very low price!
  - SamReidHughes 12y ago
    We have already seen attacks that were stopped because of airline security. One example is Richard Reid, who had to resort to an unusual apparatus in order to get his bomb onto the plane. This resulted in the failure of his attack, which otherwise would have had most likely succeeded.
    - 1stop 12y ago
      He boarded in Paris... so the TSA had very little to do with it... He went through the "normal pre TSA" security... so you are actually disproving your own point...
- jacquesm 12y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ1a0ymGCKA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ1a0ymGCKA
- cstrahan 12y ago
  > Also I don't know why you think they don't screen the 23 year old arabs more thoroughly I think the parent was saying just that. However, due to the TSA's "political correctness", they also pick other people who don't fit the profile and then subject them to the same level of obnoxious screening. (The idea being that it makes them look a little less prejudiced) At least, that's how I interpreted what the parent said.
- briandear 12y ago
  Yet toddlers and grandmothers are still getting enhanced screenings.. Behavioral and intelligence-based screening is far more effective than random screening. And enhanced screenings didn't stop the shoe bomber or the underwear bomber. Had they simply ran the underwear bomber's name through, they would have found that his father reported his risk to the U.S. embassy. They have advance notice of every passenger. Why not use that as a means to determine enhanced screening priority? The 9-11 guys were in expired visas-- even a basic check at the airport would have caught that. The point is that the government is so worried about offending certain people that they instead subject everyone through theoretically similar treatment, thus reducing the odds of actually catching bad guys. The only time El Al was hijacked was back in 1968, despite being the flag carrier for one of the most threat-filled countries in the world. They certainly don't employ the Keystone Cops of the TSA and follow some politically correct screening criteria. You also never hear of El Al screeners stealing iPads from passenger bags or wheelchair bound old ladies getting strip searched.
tesq 12y ago
"Passive" scanners violate the 4th amendment just as much as "invasive" ones. Kyllo vs United States determined that thermal imaging without a warrant was a search and constituted a violation of a person's 4th amendment rights. "Off the wall" and "through the wall" surveillance are one and the same.
- briandear 12y ago
  So would the NYPD be subject to a 4th Amendment challenge? I would think the case you cite would say so.
  - tesq 12y ago
    I'm not a lawyer, but I'd say it would hinge on how much the NYPD publicly releases about how they're used in investigations. I expect that if they're used in criminal or FISA Court suits, evidence will be obfuscated, classified or omitted. In Kyllo's case, a person's home has a much better expectation of privacy from invasive surveillance than one's person and property in public. If it becomes public that people's homes are being searched without warrants, then I'd assume that they'd rightly be challenged. It would be interesting and probably frightening to see how invasive surveillance of a person and property, in what might be considered 'public' space, would be challenged in court.
Stratoscope 12y ago
> go back to the pre 9-11 airport security system A funny thing happened on my way to CES [1] this week. I showed my mobile boarding pass on my phone to the TSA greeter who said, "OK, sir, you can go down this other line on the right." That line was very short, and I wasn't sure if this was a good thing or a bad thing. I got to the head of that line right away and the next TSA agent said, "Welcome. You don't have to take off your shoes, and probably don't need to worry about your belt either. Just any heavier metal items. And you don't have to go through the scanner, just this metal detector." I thought to myself, this is nice, what did I do to earn this? Then I noticed there was a TSA Pre✓ logo on my boarding pass. I have no idea how that got there. I've never signed up for Pre✓ or anything like it. I can only imagine that when our executive assistant got my tickets, she somehow got me signed up for it to make the trip smoother, just like she signed me up for Southwest's Early Bird check-in. She's very thoughtful about things like that, and I was certainly grateful. Especially since I didn't have to apply for Pre✓ in person or submit any documents like they talk about on the TSA site! The trip back was a bit different. I showed my phone to the TSA greeter and she said, "I'm sorry, dear, you've got Pre✓ but we only accept it here on a paper boarding pass. If you want, you can go back to the Southwest kiosk and print one. I'm really sorry for the inconvenience." (Really, she was that friendly and apologetic - she could have been the kind of old-school waitress who calls everyone "honey" - probably the nicest TSA agent I've ever met.) I guess each airport has its own rules for that? It didn't quite make sense, but at least she was nice about it. :-) [1] I was at CES with AltspaceVR taking pictures of the activity in their booth: http://www.flickr.com/photos/geary/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/geary/
- saryant 12y ago
  Your assistant didn't sign you up for Pre, given that membership requires an in-person fingerprint scan. You got Pre because Southwest forwarded your information to the TSA which gave you Pre for that trip. I have Pre through the Global Entry program. Others get it day-of because they were "randomly" sent to that line at the airport. Some airports have touchscreens which decide which line to send passengers to (passenger taps the screen and is told which way to go).
  - 12y ago