From Facebook: How does the TSA reconcile random searches of passengers...
Dec 2, 2010, 7:45 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Seattle & Paris
Programs: AS, BA, AF, SPG and Tivo!
Posts: 2,150
From Facebook: How does the TSA reconcile random searches of passengers...
Taken from that lovely new option on Facebook: Questions.
Honestly, some people just make me want to reach out and punch someone.
Below you'll find the entire thread, since you have to be logged into Facebook to be able to see it.
____
Alessandro Rosa · New York, New York · More
89 people voted up this answer.
Because it is not a violation of the 4th Amendment.
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.
By being made aware that there is a checkpoint in place prior to passing through it you cannot have the expectation of privacy of things searched, nor in the interest of security would society believe that it is reasonable to expect privacy when passing through a security checkpoint.
@Devin- The Constitution is in place as a framework for how to govern justly, without undue interference while maintaining a safe and orderly society. Your mentality of Liberty and supposed "Constitutional Right" over all else, including the security of the nation is irrational, unreasonable and insane. That is why the test is always what reasonable society and a reasonable, responsible person within that society's expectations are. The essential idea behind the American Revolution and The Constitution is that Government should serve the interests of the many and not just the few or the individual. It addresses "Individual" freedoms in the sense that no oligarchy or monarchy is to be established and no one is unduly persecuted. The idea that each person's individual freedom outweighs the good of the many is a misunderstanding of what the framers of the Constitution intended.
October 18 · 9 · See more from Alessandro
Sarah Champion · Washington
22 people voted up this answer.
Additionally, passengers consent to the search; we all have the option of other modes of transportation. The fourth amendment is only implicated when the search is compulsory.
October 18 · 6 · See more from Sarah
David Mondrus · Columbia
33 people voted up this answer.
Wow. I can't believe this is how you guys think.
Ok, first, flying is no longer a "privilege". With the widely distributed business and social lives that most people lead, flying is a necessity in the same way that electricity and the phone are necessities.
Second, my expectation of privacy extends into my pants whether at a checkpoint or not.
Third, the balance of the constitution vs society should also extend into the area of security vs society, something that repressive regimes never do.
As a good solution to the security problem look at El Al. They have the best airline security record over the last 20 years and they are the biggest target.
But I guess what shocks me the most about this thread is how intelligent people, even people obviously more intelligent than me can refuse to see the security state now forming in the US.
I leave you with this quote from Benjamin Franklin: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
October 20 · 10 · See more from David
Devin Adint · Distributed Storage Team Lead at IBM · More
16 people voted up this answer.
The justification should be contingent upon who is doing the searching and what the searching is for. A privately held company has the right to enforce more stringent security requirements then the government is able to according to the constitution. The Airlines are privately owned but this separation of responsibility and power broke down when the government took over airport security from the private sector. The use of the searches should be limited to enforcement of airline and airport safety rules but anything outside of that should be found inadmissible in court. Just because you find evidence of unlawful activities beyond those pertaining to airport security it doesn't justify setting aside our constitutional rights.
@Alesandro - Just because the Supreme Court makes a ruling doesn't mean that justice has been upheld. The implications of this ruling form 1967 are that it essentially gives the government the right to setup check points contrary to the 4th amendment as long as the check point is well advertised so you can turn back and as long as someone can sell it as being reasonable. Ludicrous... Just another clear example of legislation from the bench and breach of the division of power.
@Sarah - to say that you have the choice of another mode of transportation is not true. People have schedules, responsibilities that require them to be at certain places by a certain time for which air travel is the only option. If you were strip searched regularly and someone told you hey if you don't like it buy a horse I'm sure you wouldn't be so cavalier.
October 18 · 2 · See more from Devin
Randy Eichelberger
1 person voted up this answer.
It may or may not be protected by the 4th Amendment. Although, a person reasonably expects privacy when it comes to their person (clothes, both inside pockets and under).
Just because they tell you that there is a checkpoint in which you will be searched does not mean your reasonable expectation to privacy is given up. When the security was privately ran (before around 2002ish) security measures did not have a Constitutional test to them. However, once the US Government took control of security by employing personnel who receive their salary directly from the Federal Government (GS Employees) and whom work directly for a Federal Agency (Department of Homeland Security) the tests must be applied. It is not reasonable to search a person using a full search equal to that which is conducted upon arrest. It is also not reasonable to conduct an x-ray which allows you to see the items below and inside a persons clothes.
There is no test on whether or not the travel by air is mandatory or optional, the test is whether or not an act is being done by the Federal Government (or any other government as, by way of the 14th Amendment, the right outlined in the Constitution can not be infringed by states).
If it's Federally Regulated it must past the Constitution test, before anything else.
Honestly, those that are willing to give up one of the most very basic liberties to the government based on the perceived threat of terrorism (which is not nearly as great as the US Government would lead you to believe) are just inviting a police state. The government has slowly been moving towards a Police State for decades, and it's going so slowly the majority of Americans don't even realize it, and won't until it's too late. They chip a little here, a little there, and eventually, you will not have any rights you do now. Look at Nazi Germany, that's exactly what happened, fear, propaganda, and a slow erosion of rights led to sanctioned genocide.
Don't believe everything the government tells you. They want you to believe the biggest threat to America's way of life is foreign terrorism. However, if you open your eyes you will see that it is actually our own government.
However, on a side note, Ron Paul has drafted a bill to prohibit them.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/b...
A bill
To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1. No immunity for certain airport screening methods.
No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), x-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual's body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual's parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent.
November 27 · See more from Randy
Brittany Kathryn Moore · Atlanta, Georgia · More
10 people voted up this answer.
If Katz v. United States can be used to justify full pat-down searches/body screening tech carried out without cause (i.e. every 10th person through the checkpoint) at an airport under no known imminent threat, then that certainly is moving us toward a security state. The same justifications that are used for airport security could very well be applied to parking garages, shopping malls, and the like... it takes only the simple pairing of public fear and government over-reaching. And alternative transport is not reasonably or practically available for all types of necessary travel.
October 21 · See more from Brittany
Raphael Maiopoulos · Temp at Bank of America Merrill Lynch · More
5 people voted up this answer.
The question about whether the searches are consistent with the 4th Amendment is a factual one. Alessandro responded to the point accurately, and explained the consistency.
Now, whether searches ought to be permissible is a separate point.
I tend to sympathize more with the libertarian point of view on such issues - not because "1 person's right to privacy trumps 300 passengers' right to life", but because the relinquishment of personal liberties is a serious enough matter that it should be vested directly into the public's hands and not into the discretion of the government, albeit an abstractly "representative" one.
The trade-off between security and liberty is the weak point of a representative democracy, but perhaps its overall efficiencies outweigh the costs. That said, on a personal level I don't feel particularly violated when undergoing a search.
October 24 · See more from Raphael
Jemma Lohr McPherson · Wellesley
8 people voted up this answer.
First, on a certain level, you choose to submit yourself to the TSA: you do not have to fly.
Second, the 4th amendment bar on searches and seizures is not unlimited. It reads:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
For example, "reasonable" searches and seizures may be permissible.
Perhaps most importantly are the exceptions to the 4th amendment that the Supreme Court and other federal courts have created. In the case of airports, the adminstrative search exception likely covers most searches and/or seizures. I believe the Supreme Court recently affirmed this, post 9/11.
Finally, some airports constitute a "border" and the 4th amendment has a broad border exception.
October 18 · 4 · See more from Jemma
Marty Cauley · Works at North Carolina Conference of the United Methodist Church · More
7 people voted up this answer.
Flying is a privilege, not an "inalienable right" like life, liberty, and the pursuit of justice. You can alway choose not to fly and opt for an alternative form of transportation. Which is why you also forfeit the "right to bear arms" on a plane or any public place that forbids firearms.
October 18 · 3 · See more from Marty
Simon Salt · Dallas, Texas
1 person voted up this answer.
While, on the surface, it appears a reasonable thing to say that the US is moving toward a police state and that everyone should be more afraid of that than they are of an act of terror, I have to wonder, just what people are frightened of? If you have nothing to hide, just what is the issue with going through a full body scanner, or a pat down search or having your bags searched? I agree this would be a totally different thing if, without reasonable cause they decided to confiscate your cell phone and read your text messages or examine all the emails/documents on your computer. That would be a violation under any circumstance. But seriously, the full body scanner is quick, its convenient and if it stops just one lunatic from trying to take down the plane I am on then I for one want them installed at every airport in the country.
November 12 · See more from Simon
Michael Golrick · Brown
2 people voted up this answer.
I am sorry Alessandro, but I expect to be able to travel without having my private parts looked at or groped.
There is no logical way for TSA to legally justify this incredible intrusion.
In addition, they argue that the "underpants" bomber and the "shoe" bomber give them reason. But they neglect the logic that those flights both originated outside the US, not inside. Even the cargo bombs which are the most recent reason, originated in Yemen.
#Avg_ls_inline_popup{position: absolute;z-index: 9999;padding: 0px 0px;margin-left: 0px;margin-top: 0px;overflow: hidden;word-wrap: break-word;color: black;font-size: 10px;text-align: left;line-height: 130%;}.
November 21 · See more from Michael
Adam Kobler · Ithaca, New York · More
5 people voted up this answer.
They probably reconcile it with the fact that you're voluntarily walking through the scanner and onto an airplane. They're not walking up to you in the parking garage or on the street.
It's a simple "If then" "If you want to get on a plane, then you consent to the search. If not, then you can drive or take a bus or something."
October 18 · 3 · See more from Adam
Daniel Bretoi · Uni. Plymouth
1 person voted up this answer.
@Alessandro Rosa
Your answer would indicate that, unless you're hypocritical, you would also find TSA searches to be perfectly constitutional regardless of their location as long as they post signs since you are "being made aware that there is a checkpoint".
Examples: Check points (CPs) at schools, malls, toll roads ( and non toll roads ), train stations, bus stations and so on.
I'll remind you that the new rules of TSA (days old) state that they will search between your legs until they find "resistance" if you refuse the very intrusive naked scanners. Do you not have a reasonable expectation of privacy between your legs?
I should point out that even former TSA administrators admit it to being a violation of the 4th amendment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni4G...
November 9 · See more from Daniel
Rachel Matthew · University of Southern California · More
@David... Before you use El Al as a soap box... It's true I've never been patted down by their agents, but they've questioned me endlessly about my family to the point where I almost missed a flight. And they do such things regularly to all walks of fliers. And in fact, all across Israel in movie theaters, malls, restaurants, hospitals, and office buildings etc., people are regularly required to walk through metal detectors, and may be patted down if necessary. I was patted down outside of a basketball stadium in Tel Aviv. It was by a woman, but in full view of a bunch of dudes going to the game.... And it happens every minute of every day. Civil rights must be protected, but some standards of safety must be maintained and this happens all over the world with good reason.
November 20 · See more from Rachel
Chuck Milligan · Vancouver, Washington · More
1 person voted up this answer.
1 persons right to privacy does not trump 300 fellow passengers right to life.
October 21 · See more from Chuck
Ryan Brown · Oklahoma City, Oklahoma · More
The Supreme Court has ruled in a variety of cases that where you voluntarily submit to a search, particularly when you know for certain that you will be searched, you have granted permission to the Government to conduct it.
This has been applied to security at airports as well as police check points where you have the option to take another route. The Government can require a search as a condition to use a public service such as the roads or an airport.
November 7 · See more from Ryan
Steve Capone Jr · Salt Lake City, Utah · More
The main reason the TSA searches are not a violation of the 4th amendment, in simple terms, is that you're opting into it by using the service offered by an airline, and that you agree to it when you buy your ticket. The TSA isn't going house to house searching everyone randomly (or selectively, for that matter) - they're doing it after you give them permission to do so.
November 3 · See more from Steve
Honestly, some people just make me want to reach out and punch someone.
Below you'll find the entire thread, since you have to be logged into Facebook to be able to see it.
____
Alessandro Rosa · New York, New York · More
89 people voted up this answer.
Because it is not a violation of the 4th Amendment.
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.
By being made aware that there is a checkpoint in place prior to passing through it you cannot have the expectation of privacy of things searched, nor in the interest of security would society believe that it is reasonable to expect privacy when passing through a security checkpoint.
@Devin- The Constitution is in place as a framework for how to govern justly, without undue interference while maintaining a safe and orderly society. Your mentality of Liberty and supposed "Constitutional Right" over all else, including the security of the nation is irrational, unreasonable and insane. That is why the test is always what reasonable society and a reasonable, responsible person within that society's expectations are. The essential idea behind the American Revolution and The Constitution is that Government should serve the interests of the many and not just the few or the individual. It addresses "Individual" freedoms in the sense that no oligarchy or monarchy is to be established and no one is unduly persecuted. The idea that each person's individual freedom outweighs the good of the many is a misunderstanding of what the framers of the Constitution intended.
October 18 · 9 · See more from Alessandro
Sarah Champion · Washington
22 people voted up this answer.
Additionally, passengers consent to the search; we all have the option of other modes of transportation. The fourth amendment is only implicated when the search is compulsory.
October 18 · 6 · See more from Sarah
David Mondrus · Columbia
33 people voted up this answer.
Wow. I can't believe this is how you guys think.
Ok, first, flying is no longer a "privilege". With the widely distributed business and social lives that most people lead, flying is a necessity in the same way that electricity and the phone are necessities.
Second, my expectation of privacy extends into my pants whether at a checkpoint or not.
Third, the balance of the constitution vs society should also extend into the area of security vs society, something that repressive regimes never do.
As a good solution to the security problem look at El Al. They have the best airline security record over the last 20 years and they are the biggest target.
But I guess what shocks me the most about this thread is how intelligent people, even people obviously more intelligent than me can refuse to see the security state now forming in the US.
I leave you with this quote from Benjamin Franklin: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
October 20 · 10 · See more from David
Devin Adint · Distributed Storage Team Lead at IBM · More
16 people voted up this answer.
The justification should be contingent upon who is doing the searching and what the searching is for. A privately held company has the right to enforce more stringent security requirements then the government is able to according to the constitution. The Airlines are privately owned but this separation of responsibility and power broke down when the government took over airport security from the private sector. The use of the searches should be limited to enforcement of airline and airport safety rules but anything outside of that should be found inadmissible in court. Just because you find evidence of unlawful activities beyond those pertaining to airport security it doesn't justify setting aside our constitutional rights.
@Alesandro - Just because the Supreme Court makes a ruling doesn't mean that justice has been upheld. The implications of this ruling form 1967 are that it essentially gives the government the right to setup check points contrary to the 4th amendment as long as the check point is well advertised so you can turn back and as long as someone can sell it as being reasonable. Ludicrous... Just another clear example of legislation from the bench and breach of the division of power.
@Sarah - to say that you have the choice of another mode of transportation is not true. People have schedules, responsibilities that require them to be at certain places by a certain time for which air travel is the only option. If you were strip searched regularly and someone told you hey if you don't like it buy a horse I'm sure you wouldn't be so cavalier.
October 18 · 2 · See more from Devin
Randy Eichelberger
1 person voted up this answer.
It may or may not be protected by the 4th Amendment. Although, a person reasonably expects privacy when it comes to their person (clothes, both inside pockets and under).
Just because they tell you that there is a checkpoint in which you will be searched does not mean your reasonable expectation to privacy is given up. When the security was privately ran (before around 2002ish) security measures did not have a Constitutional test to them. However, once the US Government took control of security by employing personnel who receive their salary directly from the Federal Government (GS Employees) and whom work directly for a Federal Agency (Department of Homeland Security) the tests must be applied. It is not reasonable to search a person using a full search equal to that which is conducted upon arrest. It is also not reasonable to conduct an x-ray which allows you to see the items below and inside a persons clothes.
There is no test on whether or not the travel by air is mandatory or optional, the test is whether or not an act is being done by the Federal Government (or any other government as, by way of the 14th Amendment, the right outlined in the Constitution can not be infringed by states).
If it's Federally Regulated it must past the Constitution test, before anything else.
Honestly, those that are willing to give up one of the most very basic liberties to the government based on the perceived threat of terrorism (which is not nearly as great as the US Government would lead you to believe) are just inviting a police state. The government has slowly been moving towards a Police State for decades, and it's going so slowly the majority of Americans don't even realize it, and won't until it's too late. They chip a little here, a little there, and eventually, you will not have any rights you do now. Look at Nazi Germany, that's exactly what happened, fear, propaganda, and a slow erosion of rights led to sanctioned genocide.
Don't believe everything the government tells you. They want you to believe the biggest threat to America's way of life is foreign terrorism. However, if you open your eyes you will see that it is actually our own government.
However, on a side note, Ron Paul has drafted a bill to prohibit them.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/b...
A bill
To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1. No immunity for certain airport screening methods.
No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), x-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual's body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual's parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent.
November 27 · See more from Randy
Brittany Kathryn Moore · Atlanta, Georgia · More
10 people voted up this answer.
If Katz v. United States can be used to justify full pat-down searches/body screening tech carried out without cause (i.e. every 10th person through the checkpoint) at an airport under no known imminent threat, then that certainly is moving us toward a security state. The same justifications that are used for airport security could very well be applied to parking garages, shopping malls, and the like... it takes only the simple pairing of public fear and government over-reaching. And alternative transport is not reasonably or practically available for all types of necessary travel.
October 21 · See more from Brittany
Raphael Maiopoulos · Temp at Bank of America Merrill Lynch · More
5 people voted up this answer.
The question about whether the searches are consistent with the 4th Amendment is a factual one. Alessandro responded to the point accurately, and explained the consistency.
Now, whether searches ought to be permissible is a separate point.
I tend to sympathize more with the libertarian point of view on such issues - not because "1 person's right to privacy trumps 300 passengers' right to life", but because the relinquishment of personal liberties is a serious enough matter that it should be vested directly into the public's hands and not into the discretion of the government, albeit an abstractly "representative" one.
The trade-off between security and liberty is the weak point of a representative democracy, but perhaps its overall efficiencies outweigh the costs. That said, on a personal level I don't feel particularly violated when undergoing a search.
October 24 · See more from Raphael
Jemma Lohr McPherson · Wellesley
8 people voted up this answer.
First, on a certain level, you choose to submit yourself to the TSA: you do not have to fly.
Second, the 4th amendment bar on searches and seizures is not unlimited. It reads:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
For example, "reasonable" searches and seizures may be permissible.
Perhaps most importantly are the exceptions to the 4th amendment that the Supreme Court and other federal courts have created. In the case of airports, the adminstrative search exception likely covers most searches and/or seizures. I believe the Supreme Court recently affirmed this, post 9/11.
Finally, some airports constitute a "border" and the 4th amendment has a broad border exception.
October 18 · 4 · See more from Jemma
Marty Cauley · Works at North Carolina Conference of the United Methodist Church · More
7 people voted up this answer.
Flying is a privilege, not an "inalienable right" like life, liberty, and the pursuit of justice. You can alway choose not to fly and opt for an alternative form of transportation. Which is why you also forfeit the "right to bear arms" on a plane or any public place that forbids firearms.
October 18 · 3 · See more from Marty
Simon Salt · Dallas, Texas
1 person voted up this answer.
While, on the surface, it appears a reasonable thing to say that the US is moving toward a police state and that everyone should be more afraid of that than they are of an act of terror, I have to wonder, just what people are frightened of? If you have nothing to hide, just what is the issue with going through a full body scanner, or a pat down search or having your bags searched? I agree this would be a totally different thing if, without reasonable cause they decided to confiscate your cell phone and read your text messages or examine all the emails/documents on your computer. That would be a violation under any circumstance. But seriously, the full body scanner is quick, its convenient and if it stops just one lunatic from trying to take down the plane I am on then I for one want them installed at every airport in the country.
November 12 · See more from Simon
Michael Golrick · Brown
2 people voted up this answer.
I am sorry Alessandro, but I expect to be able to travel without having my private parts looked at or groped.
There is no logical way for TSA to legally justify this incredible intrusion.
In addition, they argue that the "underpants" bomber and the "shoe" bomber give them reason. But they neglect the logic that those flights both originated outside the US, not inside. Even the cargo bombs which are the most recent reason, originated in Yemen.
#Avg_ls_inline_popup{position: absolute;z-index: 9999;padding: 0px 0px;margin-left: 0px;margin-top: 0px;overflow: hidden;word-wrap: break-word;color: black;font-size: 10px;text-align: left;line-height: 130%;}.
November 21 · See more from Michael
Adam Kobler · Ithaca, New York · More
5 people voted up this answer.
They probably reconcile it with the fact that you're voluntarily walking through the scanner and onto an airplane. They're not walking up to you in the parking garage or on the street.
It's a simple "If then" "If you want to get on a plane, then you consent to the search. If not, then you can drive or take a bus or something."
October 18 · 3 · See more from Adam
Daniel Bretoi · Uni. Plymouth
1 person voted up this answer.
@Alessandro Rosa
Your answer would indicate that, unless you're hypocritical, you would also find TSA searches to be perfectly constitutional regardless of their location as long as they post signs since you are "being made aware that there is a checkpoint".
Examples: Check points (CPs) at schools, malls, toll roads ( and non toll roads ), train stations, bus stations and so on.
I'll remind you that the new rules of TSA (days old) state that they will search between your legs until they find "resistance" if you refuse the very intrusive naked scanners. Do you not have a reasonable expectation of privacy between your legs?
I should point out that even former TSA administrators admit it to being a violation of the 4th amendment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni4G...
November 9 · See more from Daniel
Rachel Matthew · University of Southern California · More
@David... Before you use El Al as a soap box... It's true I've never been patted down by their agents, but they've questioned me endlessly about my family to the point where I almost missed a flight. And they do such things regularly to all walks of fliers. And in fact, all across Israel in movie theaters, malls, restaurants, hospitals, and office buildings etc., people are regularly required to walk through metal detectors, and may be patted down if necessary. I was patted down outside of a basketball stadium in Tel Aviv. It was by a woman, but in full view of a bunch of dudes going to the game.... And it happens every minute of every day. Civil rights must be protected, but some standards of safety must be maintained and this happens all over the world with good reason.
November 20 · See more from Rachel
Chuck Milligan · Vancouver, Washington · More
1 person voted up this answer.
1 persons right to privacy does not trump 300 fellow passengers right to life.
October 21 · See more from Chuck
Ryan Brown · Oklahoma City, Oklahoma · More
The Supreme Court has ruled in a variety of cases that where you voluntarily submit to a search, particularly when you know for certain that you will be searched, you have granted permission to the Government to conduct it.
This has been applied to security at airports as well as police check points where you have the option to take another route. The Government can require a search as a condition to use a public service such as the roads or an airport.
November 7 · See more from Ryan
Steve Capone Jr · Salt Lake City, Utah · More
The main reason the TSA searches are not a violation of the 4th amendment, in simple terms, is that you're opting into it by using the service offered by an airline, and that you agree to it when you buy your ticket. The TSA isn't going house to house searching everyone randomly (or selectively, for that matter) - they're doing it after you give them permission to do so.
November 3 · See more from Steve
Dec 2, 2010, 8:26 pm
#2
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 130
That a person can go through an American civics/government class and come out thinking not only that the Bill of Rights is just a set of guidelines that should be set aside because of the "good of the many", but that the founders actually intended it to be so really frightens me. Who the hell is teaching this stuff?
Dec 2, 2010, 9:08 pm
#3
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: BOS
Programs: UA 1P
Posts: 1,356
Simon Salt · Dallas, Texas
1 person voted up this answer.
While, on the surface, it appears a reasonable thing to say that the US is moving toward a police state and that everyone should be more afraid of that than they are of an act of terror, I have to wonder, just what people are frightened of? If you have nothing to hide, just what is the issue with going through a full body scanner, or a pat down search or having your bags searched? I agree this would be a totally different thing if, without reasonable cause they decided to confiscate your cell phone and read your text messages or examine all the emails/documents on your computer. That would be a violation under any circumstance. But seriously, the full body scanner is quick, its convenient and if it stops just one lunatic from trying to take down the plane I am on then I for one want them installed at every airport in the country.
November 12 · See more from Simon
1 person voted up this answer.
While, on the surface, it appears a reasonable thing to say that the US is moving toward a police state and that everyone should be more afraid of that than they are of an act of terror, I have to wonder, just what people are frightened of? If you have nothing to hide, just what is the issue with going through a full body scanner, or a pat down search or having your bags searched? I agree this would be a totally different thing if, without reasonable cause they decided to confiscate your cell phone and read your text messages or examine all the emails/documents on your computer. That would be a violation under any circumstance. But seriously, the full body scanner is quick, its convenient and if it stops just one lunatic from trying to take down the plane I am on then I for one want them installed at every airport in the country.
November 12 · See more from Simon
Why should we be frightened of a police state?
Meanwhile, wonder what he'll say when the TSA starts going through his text messages at the c/p to make sure he didn't just receive final messages to blow up a plane.
Dec 3, 2010, 5:21 am
#4
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 219
"If you have nothing to hide".
I HATE people that think that way. It's a visceral, immediate reaction.
If you have nothing to hide, then the police should be able to search your home and your posessions any time they want to.
If you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't have any problem with your car being searched every time you get into it.
If you have nothing to hide, then you should be just fine with the authorities demanding you carry ID and present it to any government official that asks for it, any time they ask for it, with no compunction and no right to refuse.
If you have nothing to hide.
The government answers to the people. The people have the RIGHT to privacy. The government is restricted from infringing on that RIGHT without reasonable /probable cause/ that a crime has been committed.
I don't understand how people don't get that the Constitution doesn't outline what you can do as a person subject to the authority of the US - it outlines what the government CANNOT DO to those subject to its authority. It's a very, very distinct difference.
I HATE people that think that way. It's a visceral, immediate reaction.
If you have nothing to hide, then the police should be able to search your home and your posessions any time they want to.
If you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't have any problem with your car being searched every time you get into it.
If you have nothing to hide, then you should be just fine with the authorities demanding you carry ID and present it to any government official that asks for it, any time they ask for it, with no compunction and no right to refuse.
If you have nothing to hide.
The government answers to the people. The people have the RIGHT to privacy. The government is restricted from infringing on that RIGHT without reasonable /probable cause/ that a crime has been committed.
I don't understand how people don't get that the Constitution doesn't outline what you can do as a person subject to the authority of the US - it outlines what the government CANNOT DO to those subject to its authority. It's a very, very distinct difference.
Dec 3, 2010, 8:40 am
#6
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,718
If your children have nothing to hide, you should have no problem with the authorities seeing them naked, right?
Most Americans have no idea what their constitutional rights are and would happily trade them for a free order of Chicken McNuggets.
Most Americans have no idea what their constitutional rights are and would happily trade them for a free order of Chicken McNuggets.
Dec 4, 2010, 2:14 am
#7
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,051
My response. Whatever I want to hide is my privilege. Who says I'm obliged to live in some fishbowl. I mean, I could hide my infected gums, my occasional flatulence, my other girlfriend, my escalating credit card debt, my bowling score, or a whole HOST of other things I just don't want to share globally. What the hell business is it of anyone in the government unless there is some law I'm breaking?