Revolt over Full Body Scans and Pat Downs at Airports

[GreyICE]

9/11 wasn't caused by box cutters, it was caused by the same thing most hacking is done with.

Anyway, the full body scans are ridiculous, and you can bet that every time I travel, I'm opting out of them. They're friggin arresting someone and charging them for stripping to his skivvies. They asked him to PUT HIS CLOTHES BACK ON so he could be patted down.

Is that insane, or is that insane?

[Thinking Aloud]

I had a pat down yesterday. They seemed very interested in my achilles tendons.

[Warren Dew]

I thought there was something about a confilict of interest of a government official in procurement.

The way I read it, he is retired from his government job. He's just using his former contacts and friends to sell his goods.

[Trolldor]

9/11 wasn't caused by box cutters, it was caused by the same thing most hacking is done with.

Anyway, the full body scans are ridiculous, and you can bet that every time I travel, I'm opting out of them. They're friggin arresting someone and charging them for stripping to his skivvies. They asked him to PUT HIS CLOTHES BACK ON so he could be patted down.

Is that insane, or is that insane?

Not really. Fullbody scan or patdown, they didn't ask him to strip. He was disobeying the law.

[Trolldor]

9/11 wasn't caused by box cutters, it was caused by the same thing most hacking is done with.

Anyway, the full body scans are ridiculous, and you can bet that every time I travel, I'm opting out of them. They're friggin arresting someone and charging them for stripping to his skivvies. They asked him to PUT HIS CLOTHES BACK ON so he could be patted down.

Is that insane, or is that insane?

I had always thought it was caused by guys hijacking planes not hackers.

[GreyICE]

I had always thought it was caused by guys hijacking planes not hackers.

*sigh*

Point missed. The weapon used was the same for both.

[Trolldor]

The weapons used in 9/11 were computers?

[maiforpeace]

I had a pat down yesterday. They seemed very interested in my achilles tendons.

Robert Dean Cites 4th Amendment Violation, Sues TSA Over Full-Body Scans

[Trolldor]

...but if it's the law, then it ain't an unlawful search or seizure ain't it?

[JimC]

In the very unlikely event I ever flew, I would choose the scan rather than the pat down, but would put up with the pat down if I had to...

[Coito ergo sum]

...but if it's the law, then it ain't an unlawful search or seizure ain't it?

No - that's where the Constitution comes in. The law can't authorize unreasonable searches and seizures. US courts can strike down laws as violations of the Fourth Amendment. I doubt they would in this case, though.

[eXcommunicate]

...but if it's the law, then it ain't an unlawful search or seizure ain't it?

No - that's where the Constitution comes in. The law can't authorize unreasonable searches and seizures. US courts can strike down laws as violations of the Fourth Amendment. I doubt they would in this case, though.

I think reasonable people can disagree on what constitutes "unreasonable" here. But the (dubious) effectiveness of the new methods (the backscatter array and the genital brushes) is inconsequential to me. No doubt Mad Hatter will browbeat me over this stance, but it is what it is.

[Coito ergo sum]

...but if it's the law, then it ain't an unlawful search or seizure ain't it?

No - that's where the Constitution comes in. The law can't authorize unreasonable searches and seizures. US courts can strike down laws as violations of the Fourth Amendment. I doubt they would in this case, though.

I think reasonable people can disagree on what constitutes "unreasonable" here. But the (dubious) effectiveness of the new methods (the backscatter array and the genital brushes) is inconsequential to me. No doubt Mad Hatter will browbeat me over this stance, but it is what it is.

If someone was suggesting something better (other than "keep it the same as what we had in 2008" or words to that effect), then I'd be all ears. Unfortunately, the only other suggestions are not being seriously considered by the State. We hears a lot about "what the Israelis do" - but nobody is even touching that, because that's more intrusive than a pat down, ultimately. Put 5 layers of security at all US airports and you'd have a popular revolt. Americans aren't inclined to take kindly to be having to answer a series of questions, be subject to pat downs, and be behaviorally profiled out the ass (and what that means is that if you fail the behavioral profile, then you get ultra-enhanced scrutiny).

The best of all possible worlds would be to develop technology that would be guaranteed to sense explosive materials. I believe it's technologically feasible.

I would support full body scanners and ion mobility spectrometry machines at every airport. http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/ ... 2010-05-06 - plus, I'd use behavioral profiling to impose enhanced pat downs on people who look suspicious.

[eXcommunicate]

If someone was suggesting something better (other than "keep it the same as what we had in 2008" or words to that effect), then I'd be all ears.

I'm not sure what was entirely wrong with "2008" procedures. Yes, a guy got onto a plane with fifty bucks worth of explosives in his underwear. We respond by spending billions on machines and procedures that aren't even guaranteed to have been able to stop him. If safety was your primary concern, then I think you would be arguing for greater baggage and cargo screening than defending what we're doing now.

[Coito ergo sum]

If someone was suggesting something better (other than "keep it the same as what we had in 2008" or words to that effect), then I'd be all ears.

I'm not sure what was entirely wrong with "2008" procedures.

They tend to let stuff slip through that could, in the wrong hands, be deadly. And, airport security is ineffective - http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columb ... xpert.html and http://www.topnews.in/health/airport-se ... afety-2320

And, our opponents are not stagnant.

Yes, a guy got onto a plane with fifty bucks worth of explosives in his underwear. We respond by spending billions on machines and procedures that aren't even guaranteed to have been able to stop him. If safety was your primary concern, then I think you would be arguing for greater baggage and cargo screening than defending what we're doing now.

The increase in security is not just about one incident. It's about the general ineffectiveness of airport security even post 9/11.

we scan all bags that get on planes now - I'm all for greater baggage and cargo screening, too, though.