i have never seen a poll that didnt have the number of votes cast.

also consider the source of the poll...

Precisely what the Israeli security guys say. Think of picking up EVERY straw in a pile of hay to determine if it might be a needle in disguise. That's what we tell the TSA to do. What if you had a metal detector and threw it away, settling for crawling on your needs and pawing at the ground, inch by inch, to discover if anything valuable is there.

TSA has simply forgotten why there are things like supercomputers that are programmed to look for SIGNIFICANT things in the mass of electronic traffic. You DON'T want to look at everything. You want to REDUCE the mass to something that can be scrutinized in a timely way.

Pour yourselves a cup of coffee (or a stiff drink) and read this:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5116&page=34

It's long, but presented without emotion. See also Appendix C which lists the legal precedents (handy reference). However, unless and until it makes it to the Supreme Court, this issue will unfortunately remain very much a gray area.

Why don't you fly out of MHT since it is only an hour away from BOS?

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures (US Const amend IV)." The reasonableness of the search depends on the context within which it takes place (see O'Connor v Ortega, 480 US 709, 719; New Jersey v T.L.O., 469 US 325, 337). Except in certain carefully defined classes of cases, a search of private property without proper consent is unreasonable unless it has been authorized by a valid search warrant (see Camara v Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco, 387 US 523, 528). A search warrant is required for "a routine inspection of the physical condition of private property" (Camara v Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco, 387 US at 530). Thus, ORPS has opined that an assessor, in preparing an assessment roll, should not enter a private residence without first securing the landowner's permission (see Op Counsel SBEA, No. 4; 7 Op Counsel SBEA, No. 19; 2 Op Counsel SBEA, No. 78).

Excerpt from the following link:
http://realestateclips.blogspot.com/...access-to.html

Along with Providence (PVD), Manchester is an alternative, but even if they don't have the scanners now, they will eventually get them. YUL could be the basis of a more long term plan to avoid the TSA and deal with CATSA instead.

I agree that it is a gray area. I was merely commenting on Pyswarrior's absurd assertion that the 4th Amendment applies exclusively to criminal matters. The Amendment itself makes no such argument and courts have, in a variety of cases, ruled that it both applies and does not apply in civil instances.

It's 80% in favor of the TSA right now.