You would probably have to consent to allowing the TSA to go through those records, even if the government already has them.

I figure that you'll have to submit your fingerprints for a criminal background check, and sign paperwork that allows the TSA or whoever is going to be in charge of establishing the trusted traveller system to go through records from the IRS, Customs, and other government agencies.

Tell that to the Israelis.

Tony,

You are definitely on the right track here. In fact, the Internal Revenue Code has a section that provides severe criminal penalties for unauthorized disclosure of "tax-return information" (as defined by law). The theory -- and I agree with it completely -- is that our country's largely VOLUNTARY tax-reporting system would cease to function if people didn't have some degree of confidence in the government's ability to limit the use of these data to their intended purpose. I don't believe that the TSA has a prayer of getting our tax returns on a wholesale basis without either a subpoena or a signed waiver from the taxpayers involved.

Bruce

A pool cue could be an effective weapon and since there is no reason to need a pool cue in the cabin there's very little lost in requiring them to be checked.

Effective weapon to accomplish what? Knocking one, two people out? You can do that with any number of objects already on board or no objects at all!

I'm not aware of any situation where every home is searched so I don't know what you're babeling about there but there are legal road blocks which search every car with the extent of the search being determined by factors such as what they see, how you act, and random selection.

That's the whole point! We do not search everyone's home, randomly or not randomly! And despite the sad decision that road blocks are legal, what do you think the public acceptance level would be if we encountered a road block on every single automobile trip we took? Yes, you'd see people clamoring to get rid of them ASAP. And if everyone were searched, randomly or not for a walk in the park? Why in the world should we have these stupid searches without probable cause in airports when we don't have them elsewhere, for the most part?

The xray and magnometer searches also lack probably cause. That leaves the degree of search as the only difference. Why does the degree of the search cross the line into "un-American"? Why is one search without probable cause OK with you while another is "un-American" because it lacks probable cause?

The magnetometer and the x-ray are non-intrusive and examples of a reasonable "search". No one is violating your person or your belongings, unless you consider electromagnetic radiation to be a violation of your person and there's not much you can do about that, airport or no airport.

Which prinicpal is that?

Presumption of innocence, no unreasonable searches and seizures, to name a few.

Hockey sticks and cricket bats are quite obvious and easy to find, they also make effective weapons. Looking for them takes no attention away from the search for other weapons. Knives can be quite difficult to find on an Xray and can be very effective weapons in trained hands.

Again, effective to do what? Knock out 1-2 people? Kill 1-2 people? You can accomplish that with many improvised weapons or no weapons at all.

Why are you so hung up on the pool cue? Strong sticks make effective weapons and no airline currently offers inflight pool tournaments so there's little reason to allow them in the cabin. What possible objection could you have to checking a pool cue?

It's an example of another item on the list that our TSA folks have to watch out for: therefore it's a distraction from the real weapons out there.

I've long known that you're an idiot, now you're trying to convince me that you're a socialist idiot?

How do you propose that this money be directed to cancer research? Perhaps the government should stop spending money on anything EXCEPT cancer research? When that's cured we can move on to Spiff's next biggest threat? Seriously, what's the logic to this argument?

Well, it's good to see that you have a higher opinion of me than I do of you. You're the one who stated that one of the post-11 Sept new "security" goals was no deaths. On a # of deaths prevented vs. dollars spent ratio, we could do a hell of a lot better. Cancer research was just an example of a way that the billions of dollars could be better spent if the goal was just to prevent deaths of individuals. Of course, you immediately thought this was some socialist agenda becuase.. well I'll leave it there rather than continue the base insults.

What about them? Busses have brakes. Busses can stop in a few seconds. Busses hold only 30 or 40 people. Busses are not sensational terror targets as are airliners. A bus can be stolen relatively easily so there's little reason to hijack one.

Wow, no one targets buses ever in terrorist attacks? The Israelis will be pleased to hear about that one. So what is your magic cut off number where we suddenly have to restrict people's freedoms? You keep mentioning 3000.. is that it? Obviously 30 or 40 doesn't do it for you. Should we ban/severely restrict access to parades? More than 3000 people usually turn up for those events. And in a densely-packed crowd, the people are essentially helpless against bombs too. No more million-man, -mom, -whatever marches anymore too in the name of safety and security, right? And definitely no more airport terminal evacuations, right? Dumping 10,000 people into the street? You might as well be signing their death warrant.

How about dropping the rediculous hyberbola and talking about the real issues.

It's not ridiculous. There are many legitimate parallels between your example of the "helpless" passengers in the air and other assemblages of people in other places.

Why is one search without probable cause acceptable to you but another is "un-American" because it isn't based on probably cause?

I already answered this. You would not expect to be randomly searched/harassed just about anywhere else in the US; why should you tolerate it at the airport?



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

I have again reached my tolerance limit for this stuff. I'll check in again in a couple of months, when Spiff will be making the same arguments, in the same way, and the same people will be nodding their heads.

Count me in! I'm definitely a Spiff nodder. But I like you, too, Brian!

Bruce

Come on Brian, straighten these guys out! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

And that's the beauty of the trusted traveller program. You do NOT have to disclose information to the TSA if you don't want to. If you want to get through the lines quicker, then consent to giving them access to information already held by the government. If you feel that this is a violation of your rights to privacy, then don't do it!

It is your choice. You can do whatever you want, and there is ZERO violation of your right to privacy since it is voluntary.

Because the courts have held that such searches are legal and do not violate your civil rights. Legally, that's the end of the discussion.

You do NOT have a Constitutional right to air travel. Take a look at the Constitution and point the clause that covers air travel out to me if I'm wrong.

Because air travel is a privilege, not a right, the government can impose restrictions on it and your only recourse is to not fly.

Or, you can get the law changed. Good luck!

You can actually be randomly searched/harassed on any road in the USA. Police can and do set up sobriety checkpoints on pretty much any road they like, as long as they make certain provisions to make it a safe checkpoint.

At the checkpoint, the police is authorized to stop any vehicle, up to 100%, and do a soberity check even if you show no visible signs of driving drunk prior to being checked.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju...l/Checkpt.html

So you can be just driving along at the legal speed limit, with perfect driving manners/form, and the police can tell you to pull over and subject you to a chemical test.

That's legal too, and it happens all over America.

[edit:

Also wanted to add that in the Boston Public Library's main branch in downtown, the staff do take a look through any bag which you take out to check for library books which you didn't check out. That's in additional to magnetic detectors and electronic tags on the books.

That's legal too.[/edit]

[This message has been edited by Plato90s (edited 11-26-2002).]

They bomb busses in Isreal because they are unable to succeffully attack bigger targets such as El Al flights. The impact of those attacks are many orders of magnitude less than the impact (emotional and economic) of the 9/11 attacks. If we can turn the next big attack into a simple bus bombing then we've scored a major victory.

Effective weapon to accomplish what? Knocking one, two people out?

What we have here is a failure of imagination. That is a failure that our advesary does not share.

That's the whole point! We do not search everyone's home, randomly or not randomly!

If that's your whole point then it makes no sense. We DO search everyone who flies on a schedule airline.

Why in the world should we have these stupid searches without probable cause in airports when we don't have them elsewhere, for the most part?

EVERYONE who flies is searched without probable cause. The EXTENT of the search varies based on a number of criteria including the results of the Xray or mangometer screening, profiling, and random selection.

The magnetometer and the x-ray are non-intrusive and examples of a reasonable "search".

So now "reasonable" and "non-intrusive" searches without probable cause are OK but "unreasonable" and "intrusive" searches are only acceptable if probable cause exists and you get to decide what is reasonable or intrusive? What law school did you attend?

Presumption of innocence, no unreasonable searches and seizures, to name a few.

You're making this up as you go along.

Presumption of innocence applies in criminal proceedings. The security screening is not a criminal court. If you were to be arrested based on something found during the security screening then you would be afforded the presumption of innocence during any subsequent criminal trial.

Again, effective to do what? Knock out 1-2 people? Kill 1-2 people? You can accomplish that with many improvised weapons or no weapons at all.

Can you really be THIS stupid? It boggles the mind. Stop with this sensationalized hyperbola and discuss the issues.

And yes, preventing the beating death of one or two passengers, even in a failed hijacking attempt, is a legitimate goal of airport security screening.

There is no need for such items in the cabin so it causes very little inconvienience to require that they be checked.

It's an example of another item on the list that our TSA folks have to watch out for: therefore it's a distraction from the real weapons out there.

That makes no sense whatsoever. How does the prohibition on items which could be used as clubs, such as a pool cue, cause a distraction from finding other weapons?

You're the one who stated that one of the post-11 Sept new "security" goals was no deaths.

So now you're unable to understand context? Good thing I don't apply that standard to your extremist hyperbola.

Wow, no one targets buses ever in terrorist attacks?

No, never. Of course not. (You really ARE an idiot)

You keep mentioning 3000.. is that it? Obviously 30 or 40 doesn't do it for you.

Since it's not possible to prevent every attack the next goal would be to both decrease the number of attacks and to decrease the casualties and property damage inflicted by each attack. The terrorists, of course, have the opposite goal. If we can prevent 9/11 style attacks but those efforts are diverted to suicide bus bombing style attacks then we've decreased the causalties and property damage significantly which would be a good thing.

Should we ban/severely restrict access to parades? More than 3000 people usually turn up for those events.

Attacks in large crowds typically have relatively small casualty counts, and those types of gatherings present rather unique security problems which don't impede airport security, but if you have any practical ideas on how to better protect those activities then there are probably those who'd be interested to hear your ideas.

There are many legitimate parallels between your example of the "helpless" passengers in the air and other assemblages of people in other places.

The differences are even more compelling.

why should you tolerate it at the airport?

EVERYONE is searched at the airport.

LarryJ, I'm done debating this topic with you. Suffice it to say we're never going to agree on this matter and that I've got about as much respect for you as I do Norm Mineta.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Hey, Larry, I'll buy you a drink anywhere, anytime. No flying jokes from the peanut gallery please.

Thanks for taking the time to sort out this whole mess of muddled thinking clearly and dispassionately.

Sounds like you've already had several there.



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry