mikemey

Rather ironic, coming from you.

You don't get to mandate that your opinion is right either, and you've been shown how wrong your opinion is, yet refuse to back down.

I guess that's admirable, if you like getting beaten up constantly.

star_world

I guess that's the point - all I hear here are the same old tired arguments from the same audience, which basically consist of "we hate the TSA" - absolutely nothing to do with the point I'm making. "telling" me that my opinion is wrong and "showing" me are two massively different things - I've seen none of the latter here, nor would I expect it.

flapping arms

I think the number you want is Aleph-null.

mozgytog

I've done things the way that they work in debate. I have provided evidence to support my position and am letting the observers judge which argument they find to be more convincing and factual.

You have provided no evidence, and have attempted to put forth the argument that because you view me as illogical, I must be wrong. Textbook ad hominem - attacking the arguer, not the argument.

You have stated that you do not care what the images actually contain or what the TSA actually sees. You have also stated that regardless of what is depicted, you define them as 'not nude images.'

It's hardly my fault that you defeat yourself with your own statements.


And those are not tanks in Baghdad?

The only thing you're right about in that paragraph is that it's not magic. The science of using X-rays medically to see inside of people has been around since 1896 and is quite well understood. We've been using machines that virtually remove people's skin, muscle, and organs to present them as skeletons for over 114 years, so I can hardly understand your disbelief that a machine that virtually removes clothing and displays the nude human underneath exists.


Is that your hint that you're going to take your ball and go home so that you can repeat the same dishonest, baseless arguments in some other thread? Because I'll be there, too.

Do you think any of us who are opposed to WBI and physical searches would suddenly change our minds if it was the Girl Scouts of America who were performing them?

You have been presented with facts and evidence which you have refused to acknowledge even looking at. You have provided no facts and evidence of your own.

Apparently what is expected here is your utter refusal to see what you are shown.

star_world

Did it just fail to arrive on the screen then? You are picking a fight for no good reason that I can see, and your "evidence" consists of "you are wrong!"

This is getting boring.

You have completely misunderstood the whole point of this thread and my argument. Go back to the beginning and try reading again before you attempt any further weak attempts at "attacking" me further on this. You could not be more wrong.

Please, spare us your weak grasp at making analogies.

Again, you are arguing the wrong fight here. Can I suggest you go do it somewhere else and refrain from hijacking this thread?

Great - now you're going to be omnipotent and ceaselessly fighting the wrong argument. Can't wait

Quite honestly, I don't think you know what you're fighting about. Welcome to my ignore list ^

raehl311

The key there is the word "unreasonable". All rights have to be taken in context and none of them are unlimited. We're protected from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures because searches and seizures can cause great inconvenience or even harm or be used by the government to terrorize/control the citizens. You don't want the government barging into your house at 2 AM and tearing the place apart just because someone in the government doesn't like you. That causes you harm. You don't want the government listening to your phone calls as they might use the content to cause you harm - especially if you're acting against the agents of the government or the agent is acting in an extra capacity.


What's unreasonable about a search that involves standing still for 5 seconds as part of an apparently otherwise unobjectionable search that lasts minutes? Answer: Nothing except puritan paranoia about naked images. There is absolutely no effect on your life whatsoever other than a brief amount of wasted time.


(Again, with the exception that this particular method involves radiation exposure - THAT, I think, is unreasonable.)


In actuality, standing still for a few seconds for a no-contact search is the least-intrusive and probably most reasonable search possible. The only common source for objection seems to be the "naked picture issue", and there's no logical reason for that to be an objection other than for some reason people are uptight about nudity.


If someone could come up with a radiation-less image scan like they have now so I could go through security without anyone touching me AND actually have a scanning process that caught the things metal detectors don't, I'd be all for it. Being the subject of one of millions of totally uninteresting naked images is just plain a non-issue. It's just a naked body - everyone has got one.



It just seems ridiculous to me that with all the problems with this new method that the one that gets everyone's panties in a bunch is "OH MY GOD THEY CAN SEE ME NAKED!"

mozgytog

Being strip searched by the agents of the government when I have done absolutely nothing to provide any sort of suspicion, reasonable or otherwise, or probable cause that I have committed a crime is certainly 'unreasonable'. In fact, it's so unreasonable that actual law enforcement are not allowed to strip search, either physically or with a machine, a person even if that person has been taken into custody because there is probable cause that they have committed a misdemeanor crime.

The courts have been clear that when it comes to law enforcement, a strip search is considered unreasonable even in the case of minor arrests. The idea that an administrative search can be more invasive than what the police are allowed to perform during a misdemeanor arrest is rather ridiculous.


The length of time the strip search takes is immaterial. The fact that it is a strip search is the relevant part. After all, what's five seconds to bend over and spread your cheeks for a gloved finger if it's part of an 'otherwise unobjectionable search that lasts minutes'?

Your attempt to justify an obvious infringement upon civil liberty because 'it doesn't take long' is easily applied to any infringement upon civil liberty that 'doesn't take long', no matter how vile. When you defend the virtual strip searches, keep in mind that the exact same defense can be applied to a cavity search.

Cavity searches don't involve radiation exposure, and they don't really take that long. Do you find them objectionable?


Being strip searched is always intrusive, which is why the police are not allowed to do it to people except under very strictly controlled circumstances.


More people have seen me naked than I can count. None of them, however, have ever been law enforcement. Strip searches are unacceptable.



No, actually, it's the fact that they're going to make me prove that I'm not a criminal by trying to coerce me into a strip search that's the problem.

tanja

If you dont know the diffence between a face and breasts and gentials. I would recommend that you take a few biology classes.

Scareing what they dont teach as basic in schools nowadays.

InkUnderNails

The reasonableness is defined by a following clause, I will bold for emphasis.

Reasonableness is not defined by what either you or I, or particularly the government agency, seeks to define as reasonable. Reasonable is defined as "upon probable cause" and goes forward to further define how the probable cause will be determined in "supported by Oath or affirmation," and continues with the exact needs in the wording of the warrant "and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

As I understand the clause in context, but this is just my rewording and is not definitive:

That,my friend, is a reasonable search, as defined by the text.

There is great uncertainty in pulling single words from a legal document and applying them generally when the defining text is but a few words away. You are correct in that what the 4th amendment has come to mean is what you have described. It does not mean it is a correct application, just common application.

mikemey

Now be careful here - you can waive your 4th amendment rights by permitting a government agent to look at your papers without the warrant - and then everything they find is admissable.

I suppose the issue comes down to this: Do you lose your 4th amendment rights by entering the airport or the secure area? Is there case law that supports this either way?

It is a similar argument that was used when the 1st amendment was an issue in schools. SCOTUS stated that students do not give up their rights upon entering the school.

I'd like to see this battled out.

raehl311

No, you do not. But that is not the real issue.

The 4th amendment is not relevant at all. Everyone is protected from the search and you have no obligation to accept it and no one can force you to submit to it.

But, if you choose not to be searched, then you can't fly. The right being infringed is not the right against unreasonable search; the right being infringed is the right to travel freely.


It is an infringement on my right to travel if I can only travel by accepting a significant risk that someone will be able to blow up my means of travel. It is also an infringement on my right to travel if I can only travel by allowing an agent of the government to conduct a full-body-cavity search to make sure I'm not smuggling explosives up my butt.

Even more complicated than that, it's an infringement on many people's other rights if people are crashing planes into buildings.


The fact of the matter is, you want to get on a plane full of hundreds of other people that could potentially be used as a weapon against thousands of other people. The other people on the plane have the right to be safe, and the other people on the ground have the right to be safe.

What level of infringement on your right to travel is acceptable to preserve everyone else's right to travel?


"THEY CAN SEE ME NAKED!" is a silly objection.

What's unreasonable is comparing a non-identifiable pseudo-naked image on a monitor to a strip search by law enforcement.

Considering they involve an actual physical search of my person, yes. Submitting to physical search is a far more intrusive search than having someone look at a non-identifiable image of you.

mikemey

If I *have* to be searched to travel, then the government is restricting my ability to travel. Mainly by making me unable to travel by the most efficient means available.

I'm not going to get into he-said/she-said with you. We'll agree to disagree, and let the courts settle this.

I'm not advocating a security free airport (tho I'd accept it). I say that virtual strip searches and pat-downs that double as sexual assault are beyond reasonable. Wanna x-ray my bags? Fine. Wanna walk me through a WTMD, great. Wanna do a secondary on me when the WTMD alarms, Ok by me.

But to virtually remove my clothing, or grab my genitals and make it REQUIRED for me to travel rises to beyond reasonable.

I'm sure you disagree, but I'm OK with that too. It's the American way.

I personally don't care if someone sees me naked. I might scar them for life, but hey, not my problem.

However, to make it a REQUIREMENT for traveling by air I *DO* have a problem with.

Spiff

Actually what is a genuinely stupid argument is one based on a false hypothesis.

Everyone cannot see everyone else naked, nor will they ever be able to do so.

IslandBased

Fly frequently then, and become their worst nightmare.

BubbaLoop

The precise privacy problem of the nude-o-scope, in my opinion, is the lack of reciprocity and feedback. If these images are so inoffensive, why am I not allowed to see the peeping Tom in his private booth imaged through the scope? Why am I not allowed to see my own image?