City Councilors Move to Ban 'Porno Scanners' from NYC Airports

[Hissyspit]

Source: Raw Story

City councilors move to ban porno scanners from NYC airports

By Daniel Tencer
Thursday, November 18th, 2010 -- 6:01 pm

Four New York City councilors have proposed legislation that would ban the TSA's full-body scanners from airports inside New York City, in a sign that lawmakers around the country are heeding calls from travelers outraged at the federal government's intrusive new airport screenings.

If successful, the move could affect airport screenings at JFK, the country's biggest airport for international flights, as well as the busy LaGuardia Airport.

"Just think about whats happening in our community. The next time you want to they want to force you to go through a machine that literally shows your naked body to a TSA employee. It's an outrage, it's unacceptable, it's ineffectual," city councilor David Greenfield told Yeshiva World News. "It violates the privacy of everyone, including small children who go through these scans,” Greenfield told Wired.com. “Which is really outrageous when you think about that.”

Municipal politicians in New York City aren't the only ones who are taking steps to fight the TSA's new procedures. The New Jersey state legislature is considering a resolution calling on the TSA to stop using the body scanners. The Senate's commerce committee held hearings on the matter earlier this week.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/ban-porno-scanners-nyc-airports

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Good news!

Now, let's get that into every damn airport in this country!

Recommended.

[ixion]

2. And Orlando kicked the TSA out all-together...

:woohoo:

Good riddance. Disband the TSA.

[rexcat]

7. That would be the Sanford airport in Sanford, FL...

just outside of Orlando. The Orlando airport is still under the ever watchful "eye" of the TSA. Since the backscatter x-ray machines can see everything under cloths if they are looking at kids they should be charged for child pornography.

That does not mean that the scanners will not be used in Sanford.

[Hawkeye-X]

3. Now if Denver would ban it as well

I'd be happy too.

Hawkeye-X

[roseBudd]

4. For god's sake, if you give a rat's ass that someone who will never be able to recognize your face

on the street, sees you naked, I suggest you also refuse doctor's exams & surgery

This is manufactured outrage coming from prudes

I just got the full treatment 2 days ago. As a woman who used to work in a strip club, I know what copping a feel, feels like. TSA is not copping feels

[rexcat]

8. BULL!

this is a strip search. It is an invasion of privacy. It also is not a very effective screening procedure and there seems to be some indication that it is harmful to one's health. If kids are being x-rayed it is child pornography. Personally I am opposed to child pornography. I am sure the pictures they are saving don't have the faces blurred.

[jberryhill]

16. Double Bull

How about first learning some basics.




http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?PageId=1504

Under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), child pornography1 is defined as any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where

* the production of the visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

* the visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

* the visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.


You are telling me that an image of a child, standing alone in a scanner, is "engaging in sexually explicit conduct"?

That's crackers!

[LisaL]

18. From your link, one of the things

considered as sexually explicit conduct is "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person."

[jberryhill]

22. Yes, class

And can we find a federal case under this law defining "lascivious". Yes we can.

I know it's an "SAT word", but it does have a meaning.

A child in a scanner is not engaging in the "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area", and the resulting depiction does not meet the standard.

[rexcat]

58. So you think it is okay to scan everyone...

Nothing like exposing kids to unnecessary radiation and having some pervert either look at them unclothed or touching their genitals. Hopefully you are not a parent or ever plan on being one. I have kids and there is no fucking way these assholes at TSA are going to use x-rays on them or touch their genitals.

[jberryhill]

65. No, that's not even what I said

You said it was child pornography.

You are incorrect under the definition.

So your conclusion is that I am a bad person.

I have five children (two by a first marriage, and three are children of my wife's first marriage).

I urge you not to permit your children to fly, as it is your opinion that the TSA is making child pornography and/or has a surfeit of perverts.

As a parent who believes that child pornography is being made in your local airport, have you contacted law enforcement to report it?

I believe it should be possible to have a discussion on that subject which is not infused with "CHILD PORN", "PERVERTS", "NAZIS" and so on. The rhetoric around this subject inflames much more than it informs, and what I find disturbing is that I am opposed to an ARRAY of erosions of 4th Amendment rights that date back to the Reagan administration, and sincerely shocked at how little thought people have given to the various circumstances under which warrantless searches are conducted.

My children, of which there is one left under age 18, are well adjusted and do not seem to have been harmed by my participation in raising them. I would sincerely suggest you not make personal aspersions along those lines, as you are not in a position to judge me. Do I make myself clear?

[rexcat]

81. My apoloiges...

There are many issues related to this topic and I got to hot under the collar. Below are my issues with the TSA on this topic

Strip search without probable cause other than having an airline ticket is not right. I think the 4th amendment is at issue here but I have seen people in other threads say the 4th amendment should not apply in this case. I don't agree with them but the argument has been raised.

There are probable health issues with the x-ray machines. The x-rays are concentrated on one organ, the skin. You may or may not agree with this premise but in my opinion I think it is a legitimate issue. My opinion is based on the scientific literature and paradoxically the lack of scientific literature on the subject. A scientist was interviewed in the USA Today (11/18/2010) and he is also concerned with eye exposure and testicle exposure but that is related to the dose of the x-rays and that seems to be in question at this time. There is also s growing group of scientist and physicians who are concerned enough to express their view in public.

It is a health concern for frequent fliers, of which I am one. I fly anywhere from 2-6 times per week. If I were to be x-rayed every time I got on a plane I would probably glow in the dark, not actually but I hope you get the point. Another concern is the machines did not have to go through any regulatory approval process. I found this out when I contacted the FDA and asked a series of question about the x-ray machines. It took the FDA sometime to respond to my questions and it was bumped up several levels but they did answer my questions. The gentleman was candid about what the FDA can and can't do as a regulatory authority.

I had major shoulder surgery last year and if I am not careful will set off the metal detectors. I have had my share of pat downs. I have been hurt twice with pat downs despite the fact that I told the screeners that I had had surgery what type of surgery I had and showed them the large scar on the shoulder and pleaded with them to be gentle. The first time they hurt me it took 12 hours for the pain to subside. My complaints to the main office of the TSA went nowhere. They never responded to my complaint even though I requested follow-up. The second time I was hurt was within the month after they changed their pat down procedures. I complained to the supervisors and all they did was laugh at me.

Janet Napolitano has lied in interviews concerning these machines based on my correspondence with the FDA. Chertoff, while Secretary of DHS approved machines from one company. After he left office he now represents that company. Is there something wrong with this picture? I don't trust Napolitano or the TSA. And of course the US military or the CIA never tortured anyone since 2001. There is a trust factor here and I am not comfortable with what I am hearing from DHS and what I know and what I have read.

TSA is a reactionary organization. They react to what the terrorists are doing, backward looking not forward looking. Because they are reactive they make hasty decisions and for the most part not good decisions IMO. This is base on from what I have seen at the airports. I am a good observer (based on my training as an auditor) and I don't like what I see at the airports. It is amazing what you can observe just by sitting down and looking around.
.
My last point is a virtual strip search of a child is just plain wrong. By definition it is not child porn but definition be damned. It is inappropriate for adults to be seeing these images. It is also inappropriate for adult strangers to be touching the genitalia of children. We teach our children that strangers are not to touch private areas. This goes absolutely against common sense.

[jberryhill]

87. The 4th Amendment always applies

...but many don't realize how contorted 4th Amendment case law has become over the last couple of decades.

I don't like the searches either, and everyone has their list of reasons for not liking them, such as the ones you note. My issue is not with the searches, but with elements of the rhetoric in the reaction.

All of your points are well put. I quibble with the "what about the children" thing, because we do make exceptions, such as medical reasons, and while certain ages might not understand why a nurse they've never met is an exception, it doesn't make them vulnerable to strangers with candy.

Of course we tell them not to take candy from strangers, and then head to the mall in December to plop them onto the lap of a strange man in a disguise, who cuddles them, asks them to share secrets, and gives them candy. Figure, if we dressed a TSA screener as Santa, he could bounce them on his knee to check for concealed items, give them a hug to check the torso, hand them a candy cane, and parents would probably line up to coo and take pictures.

We've developed a ritualized way of making "arguments" that doesn't help:

1. Mention child pornography, call someone or some group child molesters, rapists and perverts, and you "win the argument".
2. Wear a bigger "flag pin" - i.e. declare that you love the Constitution/flag/America more than the other person, another "win"
3. Nazis! Nazis! Nazis!
4. Quote a slave-owning dead white man.
5. Cast aspersions on low wage employees, persons with less formal education, and other "caste" comments. Since you travel often, you know these are people doing their jobs and taking a lot of condescension from those who walk into the airport dripping with contempt for social "subordinates".

If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, his view on the subject would be more along the lines of, "Holy shit! Three hundred people are getting into that thing and it flies?". Other founders would suggest that security would be fine if we shackled people to the deck of the cargo compartment, which was their approach to avoiding passenger disruptions during, say, voyages by ship from Africa.

[rexcat]

88. In response...

(1) I never have called the TSA Nazi's even though I have been tempted.
(2) I don't wear a flag pin. It is false patriotism as I see it. I served in the military (low draft number back in the day) and I don't bring that up in discussion because it typically has no bearing on any given topic except when I am talking to some conservative who never served and is willing to send someone else to do the dirty work.
(3) My family background is from modest means. My father grew up in abject poverty and was the first in his family to graduate from high school and the first to graduate from college. He ended up with a masters degree in engineering with the help of the military. He was a career officer (fighter pilot and engineer for military applications for space). My parents both worked to make ends meet. My wife and I have worked our butts off to get a good education with much sacrifice. We are fortunate that it has paid off for us. There is no guarantee that it would and I am glad that our public education,primary, secondary and at the college level were good. I get annoyed with the elites and how they condescend to working class people. The best measure of a person is to see how they interact with waitstaff at a restaurant. You can spot a kick down kiss up person almost immediately.
(4)The TSA has a few good people working on the lines with a few exceptional supervisors that I have meet over the past 8-9 years but they are few and far between. What the TSA is lacking is proper training and a good supervision. I do expect competence I don't see it but I do have contempt for incompetent people. Shit flows down from the top. My major frustration with the TSA is that security is a joke. It is window dressing and it does not make any sense. I have accepted the premise that it is up to the flight crews and passengers when something goes wrong on a flight because the TSA is always two steps behind the terrorists.
(5) I am guilty of calling TSA agents thugs and child molesters. I will try to tone the rhetoric down but I am only human. That is my bad but you won't change my mind on how I think children are being treated by the TSA. I used to work at a children's hospital as a supervisor and I saw my fair share of children who were abused. That is one thing I will never be able to get out of my head and when adults are touch children in inappropriate ways it makes me sick and I believe that the TSA agents, even though they are just doing their "job" are still wrong! I can't compromise on that one.

Sorry for my lengthy responses. This has been somewhat cathartic for me. Thanks!

[jberryhill]

91. Oh, I didn't mean the numbered items apply to you

And they are broad categories used in lots of context.

By "flag pin", I mean to include things like "you must not care much about the Constitution" simply because they may disagree. There are "virtual flag pins" across the political spectrum.

When the Supreme Court delivers an opinion, usually there is a majority opinion and a dissent. Nobody categorically calls the dissenters "enemies of the Constitution" because they disagree with the majority opinion.

"The best measure of a person is to see how they interact with waitstaff at a restaurant."

Wow. I have to remember that one. That is absolutely true.

You may be aware of the relatively recent news from Delaware about the pediatrician who was engaged in child abuse over a period of years, with dozens of victims. That truly horrific story informs my reaction to the "doctors are different" response to suggesting that we might not assume that "all TSA workers are perverts" trope.

I believe we will see changes in TSA security procedures in the future, and there may be some chance that what is happening right now may relate to the Thanksgiving travel season and actionable intelligence. But I doubt people are going to put up with this for long. There is no reason to make enemies in the meantime.

[rexcat]

104. I understood that the numbers did not apply to me....

If I thought they did my responses would have been a little different! I missed your analogy about the flag pins. I was taking it more literally. I get a visceral reaction when I see them so the analogy was lost on me.

I am glad you like the waitstaff scenario. Some companies take out prospective employees to a restaurant just to see how they interact with the waitstaff. It can make the difference in getting the job or not. Of course if the person doing the interviewing treats the waitstaff poorly that might be clue you may not want to accept a position with that company.

[defendandprotect]

100. Doesn't take much to see this is an EXTREME solution to a NON-PROBLEM ....

There are other ways to do this --

and as for children we have Alito on the SC who voted it was OK to do a

search of a child in a possible "drug" case.

There is the effect of the Xrays to be considered for both adults and kids --

in a doctor's office, for one, a parent can judge what a doctor is doing.

Rather, we have an adult female being patted down who makes clear the patter

felt her vagina THROUGH HER UNDERPANTS!!

If that has happened to any child, no parent would actually know it or be able

to prove it! The child would feel they had been subjected to something quite

questionable and that the parent permitted it -- and they probably wouldn't speak

of it -- or know how to say what had happened.

This reminds me most of all of a "Vatican pat-down," perhaps???

[roseBudd]

27. It is not a strip search, it looks like a negative...

Would you recognize this woman if you saw her walking down the street? No



This is false modesty. No one is seen naked.

[LisaL]

28. Well first of all a negative can be flipped.

And second of all I've seen much clearer images than this one. One's been posted on several threads and the young female would be clearly recognizable.

[NavyDem]

75. If you are referring to this image...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_L5EFG-vZEHo/S1utrTGcH4I/AAAAAAAACFY/ekS265-1a0c/s1600-h/TSA+Nude+Body+Scan.bmp


Then you are wrong. It is a fake made from a stock photo:

stock photo of nude woman in TSA scan

Edit: Here is the link to the stock photo used for the rear view.

stock photo of nude woman in TSA scan - rear view

[smirkymonkey]

89. My concern is with the radiation - I just don't trust that those

machines are healthy for the human body, particularly for those who fly often.

[KansDem]

108. I agree...

I worked as an orderly for three years in a hospital x-ray department. Although I was only an orderly, I was privy to conversations among x-ray techs and radiologists.

The number one concern was safety. As I understood it, x-rays that pass through a human body lit on the film. Those that were stopped were the ones that revealed the bones and organs. But much of the x-rays passed through the body.

These scanners, however, none passes through and is absorbed by the skin. Therein lies the health risk. Human tissue is absorbing much more, if not all, of the x-rays that a routine chest exam would...

Any x-ray techs or radiologists care to weigh in?

[CLANG]

9. Are you equating an unknown TSA employee to my private physician?

That is quite an absurd comparison. Complying with the new DU rules requires me to stop at this point.

[jberryhill]

12. No, but the unknown EMT on the ambulance, perhaps

Splain me how the unknown TSA employee is more likely to be a pervert than the unknown volunteer EMT at the firehouse?

This I gotta hear, since only one of them has a criminal background check.

One of them is going to take your clothes off with scissors while you are unconscious.

[CLANG]

15. Wow, you really feel that way or are you playing devils advocate?

One of those two is saving my life. You can guess which one. And don't try to tell me the TSA is saving me from death by terrorism, because I make my judgments based on the constitution, not the patriot act.

[jberryhill]

17. Okay...

First off, the Patriot Act has nothing to do with the scanners, but let's talk about the Constitution for a moment.

Back in 1999, when in order to board a plane, you had to pass through a metal detector and have your carry-on bag x-rayed, was that a search?

Yes or no?

How was it not a search under the Fourth Amendment in 1999, when it was looking inside your bag and determining if you had any metal on you?

I sincerely want to understand your answers, because I haven't gotten anyone to tell me the Constitutional distinction. (then we'll talk about Davis v. US)

[CLANG]

20. That's not technically a search, it's a metal detector. It's nonintrusive.

[jberryhill]

23. Looking in your bag is a search

And, yes, a metal detector is a search.

You can't be just wanded on the street for no reason, not even under the Terry standard.

You are free to disagree with the courts on this, but a metal detector is a search.

Here's a relatively recent one from the 11th Circuit, outside of airports:

http://soaw.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=920

On Friday, October 15, 2004, the court ruled unanimously that the Columbus City search policy at the SOA Watch protest site violates the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution, and that protesters may not be required to pass through metal detectors to enter the rally site.

...

The court agreed with SOA Watch that the ?mass, suspicionless, warrantless? metal detector searches violate the Fourth Amendment right of people attending the SOA Watch gathering to be free of ?unreasonable searches and seizures,? adding that while the threat of terrorism is real, ?we cannot use it as the basis for restricting the scope of the Fourth Amendment?s protections in any large gathering of people.?

--------

I find it odd that a Fourth Amendment advocate would be arguing "a metal detector is not a search", but.. whatever.

(It's a search under Davis v. US and that is a 1972 airport metal detector case)

So, to recap, you do not believe it is a Fourth Amendment violation for a government official to use a metal detector indiscriminately, or to x-ray packages you are carrying. Is that correct?

[CLANG]

36. Not if I agree to it it isn't.

[jberryhill]

38. In 1999, there was no choice

And neither was there a choice in 1972, when the Davis case was brought by a person who did not agree to the very minimal searches conducted then.

Consent was never a requirement and, obviously, because there were lawsuits about the x-ray bag search LONG prior to 9/11, there were people who did not consent.

Yes, a consent search is anything goes, which is why you should never consent to a search. When you consent to a search, the sky is the limit - you do not get to withdraw consent and say, oh not there. If you consent to a search, then they can go full body cavity on you.

[CLANG]

40. We agree on something

I you don't want to consent to an airport search, that's fine. Just don't demand to get on the airplane, though.

There are many exceptions to the 4th amendment. Here's just one from the WIKIPEDIA :

Searches conducted at the United States border or the equivalent of the border (such as an international airport) may be conducted without a warrant or probable cause subject to the "border-search" exception.<67> Most border searches may be conducted entirely at random, without any level of suspicion, pursuant to U.S. Customs and Border Protection plenary search authority. However, searches that intrude upon a traveler's personal dignity and privacy interests, such as strip and body cavity searches, must be supported by "reasonable suspicion."<68> The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth circuits have ruled that information on a traveler's electronic materials, including personal files on a laptop computer, may be searched at random, without suspicion.<69>

[jberryhill]

42. Two things

First, if that is your position, we agree on a whole lot.

But it is not useful to frame "exceptions" to the Fourth Amendment. What some people pass over is the word "UNREASONABLE" which comes directly before search and seizure.

And, yes, you'll find the word "exception" in legal texts. I don't like that word, because there are no real "exceptions".

What a LOT of case law defines are when an unwarranted search is "reasonable" under the totality of the circumstances.

Nobody seriously believes that we should pull out the metal detectors and bag x-ray, and just stroll right in.

So, really, there is overwhelming agreement that some kind of search is reasonable.

Getting to whether the current procedures are over the line, is not helped by shouting "Fourth Amendment". You are not going to get anyone to think a "no search of any kind" policy is even tolerable or desirable.

The real questions are about "what kind of search", "who to search", "how to search" and so on. Discussing those questions is further not aided by calling people "molesters", "gropers" and so forth, but... whatever.

I thank you for a rational discussion, absent name calling or accusations about motives and whatnot. It's no accident that I care deeply about Fourth Amendment law.

Now, of course, I don't hear ANYONE going on about their SECOND AMENDMENT right to carry a gun onboard, but DU is pretty large. Maybe we'll find one.

[CLANG]

43. Well I'm trying hard to abide by the new DU rules

But I think we agree that some kinds of "searches" are reasonable when getting on an aircraft. The 4th amendment comes into play if someone challenges the new searches as a violation of the 4th amendment, which is just a short matter of time, IMO. Now if I could just get as nice looking young lady to give me the pat down, I would look forward to going to the airport. But that's just me. As it is, if I absolutely had to fly I'd opt for the scanner, because I am repulsed by the thought of another man feeling up my private parts. I can only imagine how they feel about it!

[jberryhill]

44. What I want to know is...

The guys that have non-removable piercings?

I'm guessing they always had problems with the metal detector, but if the agent feels a scrotum bolt, then it's game on.

But, yes, the whole thing is a line drawing exercise under "reasonable". The court is going to be deferential to factual findings of the TSA, however, in that determination, because the doctrine of administrative competence is going to apply to the statutory commitment of certain functions to the TSA.

So, it's kind of tilted.

[CreekDog]

47. As someone who has set off the metal detectors since the mid-80s...

You are crazy if you compare how they handled it then, or 10 years ago to what they do now.

I got wanded a little back then or not at all after explanation.

10 years ago I got wanded a little more intensively.

5 years ago I got wanded carefully and swabbed for explosives.

1-2 years ago I got wanded even more carefully, then swabbed and then padded down.

This year I'm wanded ever so carefully still, but swabbed and the padding now includes looking between the waistband of my pants and my body and padding me down in ways that are so unpleasant that I absolutely loathe going through security and I'm no longer friendly with TSA employees (who are just doing their jobs).

It's so unpleasant and so ridiculous at this point, an ordeal for me really and completely unjustified that if they try to strike up a conversation with me, I tell them I don't enjoy the screening and don't feel like pretending I do with small talk. I used to shoot the breeze with them and chat --no longer. It's dehumanizing and it's unpleasant --I don't have to act like everything's normal. It's not.

That you keep insisting it's not so different is ridiculous and seems to indicate that you are not facing the scrutiny that many of us do EVERY SINGLE TIME WE FLY.

[jberryhill]

50. Under the Constitution, a search is a search

"You are crazy"

How about a civil discussion? If you have a whole list of names for me, try to get them out in a single post, so we don't miss any.

"you keep insisting it's not so different"

No, that is not even what I have been saying.

People are saying "it violates the 4th Amendment".

The 4th Amendment applies to searches. Get that? "Searches" The 4th Amendment is not about whether it is your bags, your pockets, your crotch or whatever.

Anytime the government conducts a search OF ANY KIND, there are 4th Amendment implications.

No shit - the TSA search has become more intrusive. I agree. I don't like it.

But what bothers me is the simplistic type of "analysis" that says, "Oh, THIS WEEK the TSA started violating the Fourth Amendment!" When last week, or in the 90's, or the 80's, or some such, there were no 4th Amendment implications.

My question is about that mindset. Do people really need to talk in bumper stickers?

If you are going to say "THIS violates the 4th Amendment!" then one is going to have to explain why the searches in 1999 were NOT violating the 4th Amendment, or at least explain what kind of a coma one has been in for 11 years.

The mind does not always have to be used as a blunt instrument, and I'm pretty sure that most people here are capable of a more intelligent argument than "Rah! The Constitution means what I say it means! Rah!"

[CreekDog]

61. A search is not a search under the Constitution -and it is "crazy" to say so

"Strip search of teen was unconstitutional, Supreme Court rules
The high court says the search of a 13-year-old girl at an Arizona middle school was unjustified. But justices reject the suit against school employees, saying the law had not been clear.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/26/nation/na-court-strip-search26"

there are constitutional searches and there are unconstitutional searches.

========================

if you think there's no constitutional difference between having you walk through a metal detector and someone feeling your "junk", then I certainly hope you aren't an attorney.

and don't take personal offense at "crazy"...it's a "crazy" opinion --it doesn't mean i think you need psychological help.

but you do need help in appreciating proportionality to understand that there are gradations which are critical to determining whether something is constitutional or not.

[jberryhill]

66. That was a strip search at a school

Which has nothing to do with the administrative search doctrine applying to the TSA checkpoints, and which have applied to airports since the 1972 case of Davis v. US.

No, it is not a question of "gradations" at all. Something is either a search or not a search. In any given context, when a search is conducted, then the 4th Amendment controls.

When you are attending compulsory school, then that is a very different set of circumstances than your voluntary decision to fly. Nobody is legally compelled to enter a TSA checkpoint (unless already in custody and being transported)

The TSA procedure at issue is not a strip search. The type of search, in physical terms, is what is permissible in a situation called a "Terry stop" from the case of Terry v. Ohio.

Now, let's be clear, the TYPE of search is that of a Terry stop. The 4th Amendment CONTEXT of the search is the administrative search doctrine, and in particular that of Davis v. US (and the following cases in that line)

During a Terry stop, an officer can run his/her hands along the entire exterior of your clothed body, to determine whether you are carrying a weapon.

The problem here is that we have a recent incident in which an explosive device was attempted to be used, and which was concealed in underwear.

There are not gradations in determining whether something is or is not a "search". There are gradations once you have established that, yes a search is being conducted, and what search is reasonable under the totality of circumstances.

Coupled with this is the problem that administrative searches cannot be based on profiling, but must be statistically random or based on reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed. Reasonable suspicion cannot be a hunch or that the subject is "that sort of person". That would then pull you clean out of the administrative search doctrine and into an unreasonable search.

Saying "there are gradations" is an observation, but it does not support any particular position on what those gradations are. My participation in this thread started with someone asserting "it violates the 4th Amendment". My question was in what way did procedures in 1999 not violate the fourth amendment.

One person answered by saying a metal detector is not a search. Leaving aside the bag x-ray, a metal detector IS a search.

So here we are faced with a line drawing exercise over what "gradation" is appropriate and what is not.
And, yes, as an attorney, and as a liberal Democrat, I find it disconcerting how little attention that people have paid to what has been going on for a long time now. But even trying to get to the plateau of a rational discussion without being called names is extremely difficult here.

Summing up your accusations, you hope I'm not an attorney. Well, I'm sorry, you are not in a position to judge me. If you have any further commentary on my character, please state it all in one post, so that we can get it out of the way, and then maybe have a conversation.

[jberryhill]

68. DO NOT ENGAGE IN THE CHAT

You shouldn't have been doing that anyway.

From there, we move to the Fifth Amendment. You do not have to answer extraneous questions thrown at you by government officials.

That is not "small talk". You are being sized up.

When a government official starts asking you questions, then its a whole 'nother piece of the Bill of Rights being implicated.

[CreekDog]

72. well played!

:rofl:

[jberryhill]

73. I'm serious

I'm a lot more protective of what's in my mind than what's in my underwear.

If you start answering questions, you may have waived your right to stop answering them.

There are people here who advocate "passenger interrogation" as an alternative to intrusive searching. That is a step in a decidedly wrong direction.

I have a longish story about this, but the bottom line is that a border agent once started asking me about a business trip where I had gone to meet with a foreign client. He probably wasn't thinking, but went to "who is your client and what do they do?" I told him directly, the conversation is over.

[boppers]

Four most important words in the United States....

1. I
2. WANT
3. A
4. LAWYER

[CreekDog]

80. I know you are serious

and it was good advice.

[rexcat]

90. I do believe you are wrong on one point...

you always have the right to stop talking and/or ask for a lawyer. Try going on to the ACLU web site. They have some great teaching tools for these situations.

I make it a habit when talking to the police, TSA, immigration officers or anyone who carries a badge and/or gun and lawyers, especially in a deposition, to be as vague as humanly possible and still answer the questions. My favorite one is when returning from a foreign country they will ask where I came from. I start with the continent and work down from there. They have to ask me very detailed questions or I will be as vague as possible. It goes the same way when they ask me my bithplace. I start out with the continent and work down. I have had a few Immigration officers get frustrated but as long as I am answering the questions truthfully there is nothing they can do and in the long run they will ask me why I am doing this to them I will happily explain that I work in Pharma and if and when we are questioned by FDA officials that is how we are trained to respond. The worst thing anyone can do is talk to much. It can get you in trouble. People have the habit of spilling their guts out when asked a question by someone in authority. For the most part my personal information is none of their business.

[jberryhill]

92. In a non-custodial situation, yes, that's right...

I was confusing a Miranda waiver with a non-custodial interrogation. The thing is, these things get chipped away by degrees, and so the target is always moving. The alternative to keeping up with current case law is - don't start down the road.

While I enjoy wasting the time of telemarketers, and can understand the emotional satisfaction of frustrating border agents, I'm sure they have enough frustration without my help, so I state upfront and politely that I'm not interested in chit-chat.

One of them recently marked my entry form for a luggage inspection, and the customs agent had an interesting strategy. He was trying to get "on my side" by asking if I had any contraband in my bag. I said "no" and he made this comment like, "I understand, this whole thing is just a government shakedown."

I considered saying to him that it is inappropriate for someone in his position to criticize the policy he has a duty to enforce, and to whom I should report his disrespectful comment about the government. But, I just opted for "Am I free to go now?"

[defendandprotect]

101. What? If you are stopped for a traffic violation and asked to agree to a drug search...

that's NOT then a "search"?

[CLANG]

102. No, we were talking about the 4th amendment

I was responding to his last line:

"So, to recap, you do not believe it is a Fourth Amendment violation for a government official to use a metal detector indiscriminately, or to x-ray packages you are carrying. Is that correct?"

Then I said: "Not if I agree to it it isn't."

Which is a true statement. But the type of search at an airport that is consensual isn't even considered a search:

"In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a search occurs only when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable."

So we were not talking about a drug search. That involves probable cause. If there is not probable cause or a search warrant, that is illegal. Your consent, however, makes it legal.

[defendandprotect]

103. If you agree to a drug search, is it still a search?

No, we were talking about the 4th amendment

I was responding to his last line:

"So, to recap, you do not believe it is a Fourth Amendment violation for a government official to use a metal detector indiscriminately, or to x-ray packages you are carrying. Is that correct?"

Then I said: "Not if I agree to it it isn't."

Which is a true statement.


No -- you can't travel anywhere if government officials say you can't UNLESS you agree to a

search -- therefore, your "agreement" is not only an intimidation it is a technicality.

Same if you are stopped for a traffic violation and they ask you to agree to a drug search.

You're not agreeing from free will, you are acting under intimidation.



But the type of search at an airport that is consensual isn't even considered a search:

"In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a search occurs only when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable."

Amazing the power the Supreme Court has to convince you that "up" is "down" .... :eyes:

I think a woman "expects" privacy re her vagina -- her breasts -- in fact, any part of her body.

And that should be so even if you are arrested for some reason.


So we were not talking about a drug search. That involves probable cause. If there is not probable cause or a search warrant, that is illegal. Your consent, however, makes it legal.

There are parallels to a drug search -- OBVIOUSLY -- which is why I brought up the issue!

There is not necessarily "probable cause" involved in a request for a drug search during a pull

over for a traffic violation. The request may simply be made upon suspicion. In fact, for all

we know, it might be made on a dozen other arbitrary reasons -- including your number simply

coming up! Suspicion and "probable cause" are completely different things.

And, while your argument is getting kind of convoluted -- no forced "agreement" should ever

be legal.

Our court decisions are an embrace of "Big Brother" rather than Constitutional freedoms.

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," of course, makes that clear.

"Unalienable rights or sovereign rights of man."

What you are validating is not your consent but your acceptance of this authority over your

personal sovereignity -- and your willingness to be obedient.


The first and second article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776 and written by George Mason, is:

That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they

enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity;

namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Canadian Charter of Rights: "life, liberty, security of the person"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness




This is yet more of citizens willing to sacrifice their personal freedoms for a false

sense of security. And, how easily that happens these days!


Even more so, it is the aim of those who wish control over others to create a society which

is obedient!


In closing, it also occurs to me that this reminds me of the witch hunts and the body searches!!

[CLANG]

105. My argument is convoluted? Well, yours is all over the map.

I think a woman "expects" privacy re her vagina -- her breasts -- in fact, any part of her body.
And that should be so even if you are arrested for some reason.

The very reason I think your example is unreasonable, and I hope the courts agree.

There is not necessarily "probable cause" involved in a request for a drug search during a pull
over for a traffic violation. The request may simply be made upon suspicion.

A search cannot be made based on vague suspicion. The government may not detain an individual even momentarily without reasonable and articulable suspicion, with a few exceptions.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truedelphi]

84. Don't you think there are far more effective ways for the USA to have a bit of security than these

Body searches, be they of the groping sort, or the scanner sort?

I mean, Lawd Almighty,every day a gazillion oversized containers go through every and any port in this nation, without being fully checked out.

As someone who took a device that for all intents and purposes resembled in its physical appearance a handheld detonator, yet no one in Airport Security was concerned or upset, or questioned me at all, I believe we are really lame in the manner that we have these false (and silly) attempts for "security."

[midnight]

86. True....

[LanternWaste]

96. I imagine that in many cases...

I imagine that in many cases, an EMT's examination is directly necessary for the patient's immediate health. I do not think the same can be said about airport scanning and screening.

One necessary, one not necessary. To me, that is a precise and relevant difference.

[Blandocyte]

85. It's an unreasonable search

Americans should object to being forced to appear naked and to being forced to be patted down to prove their innocence just so they can take a plane ride. Maybe the objections have more to do with an objection to the unreasonable search than it has to do with being scared about being seen nekkid.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. Where were all these people when we tried to get rid of the Patriot Act??? n/t

[rug]

6. It's a sad day when there are more peep shows in Laguardia than Times Square.

[CLANG]

11. Your observation is true. And it is very sad.

The airlines must be at their wits end over this. It's going to encourage many people (like me) to NEVER FLY UNLESS SOMEONE DIES!

[LisaL]

10. I don't understand how children under 18 can go through

the X-ray screening at all. What's the difference between viewing an image of a naked body of a 13 year old during airport screening and what would be considered child porn? If a parent took photos of their 13 year old naked (not doing anything sexual but naked) and took it to some pharmacy for development, would anyone be surprised if that parent was arrested?

[jberryhill]

13. Yes, people are surprised to get arrested for that - because it is not child porn

And they bring lawsuits against the photo processors. And win.

"Child porn" has a more precise definition than "pictures of naked children".

Family photographs, including those of nudist families, and medical textbooks are not child porn.

Neither is a LOT of religious art.



Is the news photograph of the girl in Vietnam fleeing a napalm attack "child porn" to you?

[LisaL]

14. Let's say an adult unrelated to the child brough in photos of a

naked 13 year old to be developed? What say you then?

[jberryhill]

19. How about we take a look at the actual law

You need to tell the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that they are seriously off the rails:

http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?PageId=1504

What is Child Pornography?

Under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), child pornography1 is defined as any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where

* the production of the visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

* the visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

* the visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.


If you need help, notice the presence of the phrase "engaging in sexually explicit conduct" at each point in the definition.

If you don't know what that is, further definition is provided:

"Sexually explicit conduct is defined under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256) as actual or simulated sexual intercourse (including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex), bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person."

K? Now you can work out your own hypotheticals. If you need help with "lascivious", let me know.

[LisaL]

21. So it'd be totally fine if an adult male was stopping 13 year olds

in the park and offering them candy or money for taking nude photos? And perfectly legal to boot? He would not be arrested or charged with anything? Is that what you are saying?

[jberryhill]

24. No, that is not what I am saying

That activity is likely to implicate several other laws.

Your point was that the images from the scanner per se are child pornography. You were incorrect.

If you want to discuss state laws such as contributing to delinquency, and so forth, then we can go there, but it's not at all relevant to the situation here, which we've already establish does not fit the federal statutory definition of child pornography.

[LisaL]

25. I am really curious as to what laws he would be breaking

if there is nothing wrong with taking nude photos of 13 years old?

[jberryhill]

29. You included qualifiers such as unrelated and offering candy

It's going to depend on state law, not federal law.

Furthermore, the pictures need not be "nude" to be a lascivious exhibition of the genital area:

"The term "lascivious" is defined as "ending to excite lust; lewd; indecent; obscene; sexual impurity; tending to deprave the morals in respect to sexual relations; licentious." Black's Law Dictionary 882 (6th ed. 1990). Hence, as used in the child pornography statute, the ordinary meaning of the phrase "lascivious exhibition" means a depiction which displays or brings forth to view in order to attract notice to the genitals or pubic area of children, in order to excite lustfulness or sexual stimulation in the viewer. Such a definition does not contain any requirement of nudity, and accords with the multi-factor test announced in United States v. Dost 10 for determining whether certain material falls within the definition of 18 U.S.C. § 2256(E)(2). Nor does such a definition contain or suggest a requirement that the contours of the genitals or pubic area be discernible or otherwise visible through the child subject's clothing.

The genitals and pubic area of the young girls in the Nather tapes were certainly "on display" as the camera focused for prolonged time intervals on close-up views of these body parts through their thin but opaque clothing. Additionally, the obvious purpose and inevitable effect of the videotape was to "attract notice" specifically to the genitalia and pubic area. Applying the plain meaning of the term "lascivious exhibition" leads to the conclusion that nudity or discernibility are not prerequisites for the occurrence of an exhibition within the meaning of the federal child pornography statute."

If you tell me your state, I'll see if I can find a link to the relevant statute in your state.

But, please don't say California. Because of the entertainment industry and the history of "child stars", there is a huge body of law involving modeling or performing contracts with children. Your hypo "pose and I'll give you candy" is a modeling contract and, I mean California has a monster section of code dealing with just that aspect alone - forget the nudity.

[LisaL]

34. You think that proves your point?

Considering that an image of child's pubic area even if the child isn't naked could be considered lascivious?

[jberryhill]

37. Proves what point?

About the TSA thing?

Yes, an image of a child standing in a scanner is not a lascivious display of the genital area, under the applicable standard. If we are back at "naked pictures", then there are those in medical textbooks. We are going in a circle here. "Naked pictures of kids" as pictures per se, are not illegal under the federal CP statute unless it involves "engaging in sexual conduct" or "lascivious display of the genital area". Otherwise, family albums are sending everybody to jail.

By the way, come to think of it, yes, adolescents whose pictures are taken for the purpose of production of medical textbooks involves (a) a stranger, (b) taking nude pictures, (c) under a contract, so there must be some sort of exemption. But, geez, I'm not doing a research project here.

That passage quoted above is from a federal court decision in a case after remand from the Supreme Court. I did want to point out that nudity is not even a requirement for child pornography. The point is on sexualized depiction (i.e. posing provocatively) or, in the instance of clothed photographs, focusing on the genital area in particular.

There are thousands of federal and state prosecutors all over this country, many of which have no more love of the TSA than you do. Why, do you think, are they not rushing to bring a charge?

[LisaL]

39. Why they are not rushing to bring a charge?

I dunno, but these scanners haven't been around that long.

[jberryhill]

41. Okay, just so I'm clear

I'm pretty sure that we agree that there is no "engaging in sexually explicit conduct".

We are on the point of "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area", on which you are still hanging your hat that this is child porn.

The image we are talking about is one of a free standing child, with arms raised.

So, you believe that an image of a nude free standing child with arms raised is "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area", and thus child pornography.

If I have that right, can you 'splain me why we are not busting everyone that has pictures of their kids in the tub?

Or did I misinterpret you initially, and you DO believe that if the kid stands up in the tub, waves hi to mommy, and mommy snaps a picture, then an item of child pornography under the federal criminal code has been produced?

[Devil_Fish]

49. By you definition, it is lascivious if the TSA gets a boehner. NT

[jberryhill]

51. It's not my definition - it is the definition applied by courts

And, no, it is not an "effects test" as you might have otherwise phrased it.


Lascivious exhibition can be CLOTHED if the genital area is particularly featured in a manner which suggest an intent to convey a sexualized or sexually suggestive impression.

In the context of a nude image, it is not limited to an emphasis on the genital area, but includes posing of the subject in a manner suggesting of simulating a sexual act.

A nude image of a child with hands raised and not engaging in any suggestive pose is not child porn. If it is, then mom and dad go to the slammer for the classic "bathtub pictures".

Intent as reflected in the composition of the image is clearly not present in a situation where some guy has to look at 500 identically posed images of a variety of people, and is trying to rapidly determine whether there are any foreign items present on the person. That's called a JOB, and a boring one. But it is strange how some folks think it would be titillating to have to sit there and do that all day.

Nobody says that about radiologist techs who do mammograms. And let me be clear, TSA agents are not radiology techs. But what I want to know is what moral quality do radiology techs have which prevents them from falling under the spell of the continuous excitement of handling breasts all day long for a living.

Can I ask you a question?

If it was your job to look at naked, full color pictures of the gender to which you are attracted - not the scanner pictures, but actual real life pictures of them naked - for, say, 20 seconds a piece. If you had to do this in an eight hour shift every day, how often do you think you'd be getting "turned on"? Really.

[LisaL]

56. So, in your opinion, TSA employees are all complete professionals

with no impure or unprofessional thought to be had? What do you think about this story?

"A TSA worker in Miami was arrested when he "lost his mind" and attacked a colleague who repeatedly made fun of his small penis after the security screener walked through a high-tech scanner that showed his genitalia, according to Miami-Dade police."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/06/tsa-worker-arrested-jokes-fight-size-genitalia/#ixzz15gsl6AZk
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/06/tsa-worker-arrested-jokes-fight-size-genitalia/

[jberryhill]

59. No, there are more doctors and dentists who molest children than TSA screeners

Not comparable at all. Medical professionals are much worse.

The EMT at your volunteer fire house didn't get a federal criminal background check, and is not continuously scrutinized for violations.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/24/eveningnews/main6239943.shtml

Over the last decade alone, in states across the country, nearly 20 pediatricians have been charged with abusing children. Those are the criminal cases, but most complaints never get past state medical boards.

Pediatrician Eli Newberger is a professor at Harvard Medical School. He compares pediatric child abuse to the priest scandal that rocked the Catholic Church.

"We're dealing, I think, with a systemic problem, in which there is a reluctance to act on the part of colleagues for the various business and collegial reasons, and an organized cover-up," Newberger said.

----

Okay, that is 20 pediatricians. I get get you batches of child molesting dentists, EMT's, nurses, nurses aides, and on down the line.

You have one TSA worker who beat up a co-worker. But the link to FOX News is, um, an interesting place to go for your news.

[Devil_Fish]

57. From the definition that you cited:

"Hence, as used in the child pornography statute, the ordinary meaning of the phrase "lascivious exhibition" means a depiction which displays or brings forth to view in order to attract notice to the genitals or pubic area of children, in order to excite lustfulness or sexual stimulation in the viewer."

So if the TSA viewer gets a boehner wile viewing a 17 year old, it is child porn.

[jberryhill]

62. You do not seem to grasp the meaning of "in order to"

i.e. with the intention of doing so.

"in order to attract notice to the genitals" - i.e with the intent to draw attention to them in particular

"in order to excite lustfulness or sexual stimulation in the viewer" - i.e. with the PURPOSE of doing so.

These are words of intent and purpose. It is unlikely that a court is going to find those intents and purposes to be present in a situation where a government worker is required by the federal rules of his job, to look at these images at a rate of hundreds per day.

Will you be calling your district attorney's office tomorrow, or are you just going to sit there and not notify law enforcement of this ongoing crime?

[Devil_Fish]

67. what if the TSA screener has a habit of selecting 17 Y/O girls for the "Random" virtual strip show?

[jberryhill]

69. The screener can't do that

The person viewing the images is not in control of who is selected. You have to have the "SSSS" code on your boarding pass, or set off the metal detector twice.

The person viewing the images also cannot view the clothed person sent to the scanner. If the person viewing the image sees an object, then they have to relay that to another screener for further inspection and identification of the object.

Can we discuss the topic without the use of "boehner" and "strip show"? Just maybe?

[Devil_Fish]

48. So, it's only child porn if the TSA gets a boehner... NT

[Posteritatis]

30. I love how questions starting with the word "so" almost always end in absurd straw men. (nt)

[jberryhill]

32. I think the poster is just curious about a hypothetical

We're well afield from the TSA in that one, and there are reasons why airline unaccompanied minor policies are what they are.

(on edit: it appears my assumption of being able to conduct a good faith civil discussion was incorrect)

[earcandle]

26. I remember reading about a latino family who took pictures of their own babies in a tub

getting a bath with one of the parents and the film processor
turned them over to the police.

The children were taken away from the parents and put into
foster homes.

The adults went to jail.

Fucked up justice system in the last 30 years. 

Paybacks are in order.  

Take those machines out or we don't fly. period.
what will you use the gas for then?  

[jberryhill]

31. The issue was the parent in the bath

If there was, for example, even momentary contact of the defined type in the photos, then it fit the statutory definition.

Taking pictures of one's children is legal.

Here's a real toughie, that requires the court to apply "common sense" (which is unusual in law) - Childbirth videos. That involves actual mutual contact of the genital areas as the child is being delivered, if you think about it.

[earcandle]

33. Give me a fucking break. We are not animals. Our children need to be nurtured.

Are you going to say breastfeeding is bad as well. 

How did our country get so backward? 

[jberryhill]

35. I'm not saying anything is "bad"

Never turn to law as an answer to what is "good" or "bad". Law defines things as offenses or not. It is not a moral code.

I'm not sure where in the thread we are, but I posted the relevant portion of the federal child pornography statute.

It says what it says.

I am not interpreting it for anyone.

What I am saying is that one can interpret a statute to a degree of technical precision that runs right over a cliff.

[Doremus]

45. Does anyone REALLY trust the gov't when they say

the xrays in those machines are safe?

Forget about the naked thing.

It's all about the HEALTH thing for me.

[CLANG]

46. They are probably safe if you only fly a few time a year

But I wonder about people that have to fly around very frequently because of their jobs. You are being exposed to radiation, but how much? And like any exposure to radiation, it's cumulative as to the risk of exposure. Most people don't like being guinea pigs.

[boppers]

70. It's one to ten minutes worth of flight time, depending on whose numbers you use.

The flight exposes you to more radiation than the scan.

[CLANG]

74. Do you have anything to back that up? I'd like to see where you got your info.

[boppers]

77. Sure, have a sampling:

Low numbers:
http://blog.tsa.gov/ "A person receives more radiation naturally each hour than from one screening with a backscatter unit. In fact a traveler is exposed to less radiation from one AIT scan than from 2 minutes of an airline flight."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/news/tsa-screening-pilots-health-fact-check 'The Department of Homeland Security's Office of Health Affairs estimates that the radiation dose from a backscatter full-body scan is equivalent to the dose of radation from "less than two minutes of flight at altitude."'

Higher numbers:
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-12/travel/body.scanning.radiation_1_backscatter-radiological-research-radiation/2?_s=PM:TRAVEL "Based on his analysis, Rez estimates each scan produces radiation equivalent to 10 to 20 minutes of flight."

The CNN article also has this gem:
"But there's really no case to be made for deploying any kind of body-scanning machine, Rez said.

The probability of dying from radiation from a body scanner and that of being killed in a terror attack are roughly the same, he said. About one in 30 million.

"They're both incredibly unlikely events. These are still a factor of 10 lower than the probability of dying in any one year from being struck by lightning in the United States.""

[CLANG]

95. Well, at least that's some good news.

Even though the TSA tries to say it's 10 time less than probably is, it's still apparently not overly dangerous.

Thanks for the info!!

[LisaL]

76. It might not be a lot of radiation, but that radiaton

isn't applied to the entire body, which means a dose to the skin could be high.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ucsf-jph-letter.pdf

[boppers]

78. I wonder what doses the *screeners* are getting...

You know, the people standing next to the machines all day? I haven't seen a lot of numbers for that.

[jberryhill]

93. The FRLA has given TSA workers the right to organize

So in the near future, I believe we are going to hear A LOT about what TSA workers think about their working conditions and the things they are being required to do.

[wordpix]

52. how about banning that guy who felt me up and down in Denver?

I'm a 58 yo grandma with grey hair and definitely not the terrorist type to deserve a going-over like that. I wanted to belt the SOB.

[sarcasmo]

54. Call a lawyer you were violated, imho.

[roseBudd]

55. It's random, I got the full treatment 2 days ago, by a female, the death of everyone on a plane..

are the possible consequence.

I could not care less what a TSA employee sees when I stand in front of the scanner

Nor did I care about the hands that would have detected something stowed in my underwear

[defendandprotect]

99. How about the Xray effects on your body?

[jberryhill]

63. "definitely not the terrorist type"

How old was Ma Barker?

Searches are not permitted to be based on a judgment of who is a "terrorist type".

When the police run a sobriety checkpoint, they cannot pull over anyone they want. The case law in this area says they can do things like "every Nth car", "X% of all cars at random", or any car which has a broken tail light or other violation giving them cause to do so.

They are not allowed to pull over all Mexican-looking-types, or whatever other "types".

The reason is that you can search everyone, a statistical sample of everyone, or anyone who gives an objective indication they are doing something illegal.

That is what courts have determined is the standard imposed by the Constitution under the administrative search doctrine deemed "reasonable search" under the 4th Amendment.

But I am interested in the 'terrorist type'. They are young men who look vaguely middle eastern, right?

[LisaL]

64. If you are a female supposedly they have to provide you

with a female TSA agent for the pat down. Are you saying that you were patted down by a male?

[sarcasmo]

53. Are we the people gonna win one vs the government for a change?

[rexcat]

60. The sad truth...

probably not!

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The abyss]

79. Good story - Thank you for posting Hissyspit! Recommend

For all those posters that support the latest round of physical pat-downs, gropings and recorded kiddie porn please nestle warm in your blanket of insecurity.


<>

[defendandprotect]

82. Insanity should be banned!!! How in the hell did they get this far???

[LisaL]

83. Slowly coming up with more and more procedures.

Like boiling the frog.

[defendandprotect]

98. But, we're not all in the pot .... really think we need our BS meters turned up waaaay higher -- !!!

[daleo]

94. Buffalo Springfield circa 1966 - it's like they time travelled to a 2010 airport

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
...
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, now, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

[somone]

97. Ban Chertoff's radiation machines

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ucsf-jph-letter.pdf

[Blasphemer]

106. I hope they do.... it would be significant for them to be banned at JFK... nt