Let me try again. Both the passive scanner and the active one "see" through clothing, in the same way that a digital camera "sees" a landscape. A digital camera doesn't really record "a picture", it records a bunch of numbers that correspond (in a complicated way) to the colour and intensity of the light hitting the detector at each pixel. Software turns that bunch of numbers back into an image on your computer monitor. If I open the jpeg file with Notepad, I'd see a bunch of numbers. I wouldn't be able to tell whether it was a landscape or your kid's birthday party.

In a similar way, the mmw scanners (whether active or passive) record digital information of the intensity of the radio energy bouncing off your body (under your clothes) at each pixel of the scene. The manufacturer then has a choice: to turn that information into a picture on a monitor (like your camera does) or to search through it for patterns that indicate something artificial is under your clothes. As I said above, that involves a technical decision about whether a human is better at picking up an anomaly than the computer is. The manufacturers of the passive scanner have chosen the second option. They also have a regular digital camera that takes a regular photo, and the software then puts a marker on top of that photo in the location where the mmw sensor found something under the clothes.

(OT - there was a research effort some years ago to automatically identify pornographic digital pictures by analysing how many of the pixels were some shade of pink. :eek: Didn't really work (for many reasons) but it was an example of analysing a picture without someone having to look at it.)

Just explaining here, okay? I don't support the use of any scanners before the checkpoint, and think that if a scanner is used at the checkpoint, the display should be the type currently used by the passive scanner.

No worries (that's Aussie for "you're welcome"). ;)

Oy! (That's Aussie for "hey!") She's talking about me being perfectly logical and crystal clear. Which I am. And I am NOT TSA! :D

The fact that the SPO-7 does not display a visible image to the operator of what is under the clothes is irrelevant. The fact that the machine indicates to the operator that there MAY be contraband under the clothing is enough to violate the 4th Amendment protections.

The thermo imager in Kyllo did not display a visible image of what was behind the walls. (Thermo photo of Kyllo's residence). Because the thermo imager registered heat that MAY indicate a grow operation the police felt they had enough to search. The Constitution disagreed.

Both technologies have the ability to detect both legal and illegal and because of that ability the false positive results would fall way out of the standard set by the Court with the drug dog sniff exception.

Katz shows that warrantless searches, no matter how unobtrusive, are unconstitutional without probable cause set forth in well defined exceptions.

Interesting argurment. How do you get around the warning sign, though? "You are subject to search" signs and the like tend to be upheld by SCOTUS, no?

BTW, are you a lawyer?

Just as regards the warning signs, Mrs.triehle is blind (and that creates an issue with the signs that's already been raised here). How do the signs help her? She tries to be as independent as she can be, including setting off on travel on her own from time to time. I read her TK's response ("I would assume that a blind person would have someone guide them through the airport.") and that just made her mad, even when I told her TK was a perfectly nice guy.

I hate to raise the issue again, because if TSA took that objection seriously, they'd probably build an audio loop and speakers into the signs to repeat the message endlessly, or worse, put one of their underemployed TSO barkers to work spreading the word orally. Which would make the airport experience just that little bit worse.

As regards the very informative quote TK pulled out of the Katz decision, I think TK put his finger on the larger issue (whether he's a lawyer or just plays one on TV), and I am no lawyer, and I am opposed to roving passive MMW's, but here's my $0.02, worth not a fraction of that: I bet if this ever comes to a head at the Supreme Court, they will make a distinction between someone behind the four walls of a home (or car) and someone anywhere inside the four walls of an airport (even a blind bat like Mrs.triehle), and allow TSA to go about their nasty business.

BTW, here's a link to the pictures the roving passive MMW will deliver:
http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/04/see-...creen-spo.html


and what the nekkid pictures MMW at/near/instead of the WTMD will deliver:
http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2...-naked-bodies/

I am not a lawyer nor do I work in any capacity in the legal profession. My opinions are based on logic, research and being blessed with good reading comprehension.

I searched the Supreme courts rulings for every combination I could think of to find a case that dealt with implied consent searches based on signage by agents of, or in cooperation with, a Government agency. I was unable to find any such case. I did not do a search of the Circuit courts.

If you know of any such case please post as much information as you can so I can look it up.

Great, now I am making OTHER people's wives mad. ;)

I know if I were blind and were unable to take a guide dog with me I would want someone to guide me through an airport. How else would you know where the gates are, what security lane is open or even where your bag is on the carousel.

If your wife can successfully navigate all that by herself I am impressed, I have a hard enough time being a sighted person in a strange airport.

If they put in a audio loop that would still not give them a pass on the signage, the search would still be unconstitutional as some people do not speak or read the language. Not to mention those that are mentally handicap and unable to comprehend the signs or the audio.

I live in Florida, do all these half blind and half deaf Snowbirds lose their constitutional rights?

It just hit me this is an attack on our senior citizens. Quick someone get the AARP lawyers on this. (seriously, if any FT folks are members of AARP please write them about this.)

I think you are wrong about the Supreme court. I think with all the rulings they have made for the right of privacy the likely hood that they would rule the other way is minimal. (assuming the make up pf the court does not change)

I'll be honest I most likely would have ruled the other way on Kyllo. Note, that would not change my opinion of either of these MMW devices.

I've got one: Using an image of a passenger with a continuously variable threat-level-bargraph reading from 0 to 10 gives a near useless entree into whatever search they want to perform.

http://www.tsa.gov/blog/uploaded_ima...004-760352.jpg

The SPO doesn't absolutely rule out anybody as a threat, so they have a mechanical device that can effectively serve as a drug-dog trained to alert on command. BDO+SPO gives TSA a wide-open dragnet in the pre-LEO pre-probable cause portion of the TSA rights-trampling process.

oy! (that's yiddish for my bad [actually oh sh*t, omg etc]) looks like i see the penalty box door opening..... :)

I noticed the sign used the very specific wording to attempt to circumvent the possible Constitutional issues. By claiming the terminal is a "screening area" Francine thinks she can create a legitimate (within the law) place to use the SPO-7.

The definitions in Title 49 § 1540.5 says (Hark did I just hear a thousand TSA employees cheer?)

Too bad the TSA legal team fails to read ALL of the law that they create. Title 49 § 1540.1 Walking through the common area of an airport would not be considered an aviation-related activity no more than walking through a Walgreens would be considered a drug-related activity.

That's my guess too - that they'd make a distinction btw being out in public vs being in an airport. There are certain areas they basically create distinctions. I haven't thought much about it, but the one that pops into mind is border control. It'd be a little stretch to apply that theory to airports within the US, but I can see it working for any airport considered international. It's not that much of a stretch if applied to international airports. The Supreme Court is 5-4 leaning towards conservative. Under the current court, I'd bet the ruling would allow TSA to keep going.

I am a lawyer. I don't remember Con law too well cuz I never use it much. However, if you read cases, you know there really aren't any true fundamentals. It's all based on the opinions of some old folks and they just created some argument to justify their opinions. That's why judges have so much power. The easiest way I can illustrate how absurd it all is is to point to the Griswold v. Connecticut and the "penumbra" of rights, like the right to privacy (pretty critical to this discussion I believe). Read the justifications. If that's not the most glaring example of some old guy pulling crap out his crack, I dunno what is. Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad to have those rights. But that's some seriously shaky legal ground there. It basically opens up the argument that anything can be called a "right" and that's turned out to be the case. There's really nothing to stop some old fart who has a high court position to say eating McDonald's is a fundamental right. Or that TSA can strip search you if you look at them funny.

Seems to me if they can keep carving out exceptions then there really isn't much of a 4th amendment anymore.

With regards to international airports, the only place I can see that happening is wear customs and immigration is. The entire airport isn't international, and you exit into the "border" area as that's all blocked off. One could make the argument that planes do leave from domestic concourses and that's certainly true - look at places like ORD and IAD and you'll see international flights leaving amongst domestic. That doesn't mean that everyone in the airport is traveling internationally though. And arguably, the plane isn't going to leave US airspace for at least a few hours anyway, so I think it'd be hard to argue that that part of the airport is an actual border like customs is - it's the plane that's leaving the US and crossing the boarder at a later time and a different place.

While it's true that SCOTUS is leaning conservative, a couple conservative judges sided with the others in limiting searches (names escape me right now). So I don't know that it'd be an automatic defeat despite the makeup of the court.

Oh, not automatic for sure. It's just that if I was gonna give odds, I'd give better odds to it being allowed.

You can come up with examples and arguments for any way you want. All I'm saying is none of that matters. The only thing that matters is what 5 or more old folks want. They can come up with whatever argument they want and any other argument, valid or not, doesn't mean squat. I dunno. Maybe I've gotten too cynical. I've just come to accept that there is no "right" answer in law, it's just what you can convince the court to back.

Can you cite the case name or provide us with a link?

Actually reading the thread before forcing someone to do the legwork for you may be helpful...However, I will assist for the moment:

Looking back very briefly in this thread, I found some text from the case posted in Post #42. It has also been linked at least one time in this thread and other sections of the text posted in other posts.