wildcatlh

Actually, the right to sacrifice animals as a religious practice has been deemed protected by the Constitution. See Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah.

Also, the cops had better have a darn good reason for a strip search in your other example (including probable cause and a warrant), or they're facing one huge lawsuit.

GUWonder

I have used the machines repeatedly -- many varieties of them in terms of manufacturers, model and/or technology -- but I still find them to be a waste and to be unnecessary to try to improve and/or maintain security.

There are more limitations to the strip search machines than the quacks pushing these machines want to admit. The Chertoffs of the world don't want it to be common knowledge that contraband liquids, gels, powders, and thin plastic, paper and even metal material can be concealed from these machines by way of smart placement; and the Chertoffs of the world are loathe to admit publicly that these machines do not detect explosives.

YVR Cockroach

The manufacturers always have a huge vested interest. And I imagine a lot of public officials pushing for them hope to be employed by them post leaving public service.

PhoenixRev

As noted above, you can sacrifice animals for religious purposes in the U.S.

Additionally, the TSA does not require automatic removal of religious head wear. The Sikh community was instrumental in having those rules challenged. If the TSA believes something is being hidden in religious head wear, the removal and search can be done in private to avoid any embarrassment for the traveler.

And if the cops mistake me for a drug dealer, they better have clear probable cause or a warrant to execute a strip search. A mistaken identity or suspicion doesn't give the cops a pass to strip search anyone they wish. If they do have a warrant or probable cause, then the modesty issue is moot.

homeboy4

Okay, then not sacrifice animals. How about simulaneously marry 12 young women? The point wasn't animals. The point was that some people practice engage in religious practices that others of us think are wrong. How does a pluralistic society handle that?

In private. Maybe like an anonymous WBI scanner?

Of course not. If they knew in advance it was a case of mistaken identity, they wouldn't do it.

But more to the reality of airline security. What of the man who feels it is an invasion of his privacy and will cause embarrassment for him to remove his hat and expose his bald head?

PhoenixRev

Comparing exposure of a bald head for vanity reason to one's genitals for modesty reasons is beyond the pale.

homeboy4

But now you have gotten precisely to the heart of the matter.

You feel removing a hat is a non-issue, but I feel WBI scanners are a non-issue. We clearly disagree but you feel your view should prevail presumably because modesty is very important. Let's say I accept that. Then what do you tell Hatman who turns the same argument on you? Suppose he says, "I'm really embarrassed to show my bad head. It gives me lots of stress and embarrassment to take off my hat in public." I'm not comparing the scan issue and the bad head issue, but I am comparing your feeling about the scan issue and Hatman's feeling about showing his bald head. Suppose he feels as strongly about his issue as you do about yours. But nevertheless each time he goes through security he has to experience the shame and embarrassment of exposing his head -- not from my point of view or yours -- but from his.

What Hatman has called modesty you have rebranded as vanity. I might agree with you. But that's your view and my view. Hatman says it's one of modesty and embarrassment. Do we just discount his feelings as unimportant? You don't want your feelings about modesty to be rebranded as "silly" or "paranoia" would you? Then how can be rebrand Hatman's view as vanity and then dismiss it.

Superguy

Homeboy, did you real Solove's article yet?

PhoenixRev

Because society makes those arbitrary decisions all the time. The age of majority is 18, not 7. In almost every state in the union, men can go topless, but women can't. Etc.

Society makes allowances for head gear for religious purposes, not for vanity.

If you are comfortable having your genitals viewed by some anonymous stranger in a back room who swears no one else will ever see what he or she sees, then step into the machine all you want.

I choose not to and won't.

williamsg4713

You are not playing the intellectual game. Of course we should not spend millions of dollars on them if the machines result in no improvement to security, nor give up modesty or convenience if there is no benefit. But there seem to be people arguing that even if the machines work as advertised, even if they could infallibly pinpoint every threat, they should not be used lest some people be made uncomfortable thereby. That's all I'm disagreeing with at this point.

Superguy

Ok, let's look at it this way. Let's toss aside the privacy argument for a moment.

Flying is already very safe. Easily 99.99999999% of people arrive safely at their destination prior to this, even with airport security as imperfect as it is. Is it worth all this money, hassle, and inconvenience to make it 99.999999999% (added an extra 9)?

Privacy aside, we're really starting to, if not already past, the point of diminishing returns. We need to ask, for what are we really doing this for? Are we really doing it for safety reasons or merely political?

RadioGirl

Well said.

The menswear, ladieswear and lingerie sections of department stores have changing rooms so that people don't have to strip down to their underwear (or beyond) in the view of passersby. (And they do this despite the fact that it makes shoplifting easier.) The shoe and hat departments work on the assumption that you can try on shoes or hats in public. I've never even seen a sign in a shoe store to the effect that you can have a private fitting room if you're embarrassed about someone seeing your socks.

Seems a pretty clear indication of what society has accepted as appropriate exposure. Some people may have extreme opinions in either direction, but the general sense is clear.

RadioGirl

Government's "need to be seen to be doing SOMETHING", meet R&D's "need to make a few (billion) bucks out of Crazy Joe's latest gadget." and yet

homeboy4

Not yet. Went to MN, ND and SD over New Year's. I had planned to read it on the plane, but didn't remember it until I was sitting there with my tray table in it's upright position. I'm not stalling. Just haven't gotten to it.

I have been talking to friends about this issue and trying hard to put myself in you guys' position and I actually think I'm one step closer to understanding. Someone here mentioned extending WBI security to shopping malls. I said I'd have no problem if the same TSA procedures were followed. But I got to thinking about this over the weekend. Suppose a mall bought one of these machines (they probably can't, but suppose they did) and required everyone to walk through it. But suppose rather than being staffed by TSA people with government rules and procedures, they were staffed by teenagers looking for a part time job and the rules of operation, maintenance, calibration, etc. was all handled by the mall. I'm not saying I would never go to that mall, but I would certainly avoid it. I would have much greater concern walking through the mall scanner than the airport one. What's the difference? I still don't care about being seen nude, but I feel I can trust the government not to misuse the images much more than a mall and some teenagers. So now that I think I feel what you feel, I guess you guys have as much respect for the government and TSAs as I do for a shopping center and some kids.

williamsg4713

Perhaps you don't even have to toss the privacy argument aside. I was arguing that if x, y, or z really did make us safer, then modesty and privacy should step aside. Your response is "but how much safer?" and makes the point that even here there are tradeoffs; how much (or how little? as you see it) additional safety for how much loss of privacy?