|
On October 16 2009 10:16 mOnion wrote:guarding against search and seizure is not right to privacy. hint: right to privacy is not in the constitution O.O double hint: our right to privacy has been further weakened after 9/11 cuz of the patriot act.
Not explicitly, but the law of our land isn't as much the constitution as it is how the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the constitution and they say the right to privacy exists somewhere in there..
|
On October 16 2009 10:23 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2009 10:16 mOnion wrote:On October 16 2009 10:03 TanGeng wrote:
Due process 4th amendment. guarding against search and seizure is not right to privacy. hint: right to privacy is not in the constitution O.O double hint: our right to privacy has been further weakened after 9/11 cuz of the patriot act. Not explicitly, but the law of our land isn't as much the constitution as it is how the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the constitution and they say the right to privacy exists somewhere in there..
the existence of the right to privacy is an "assumed" right that is supposed to be a product of the amendments as whole.
like if you put them in a pan and baked them, you'd get a cake. obviously cake is not an ingredient for cake, but the parts add up to cake.
fuck im hungry.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Of course, you will not find rights being given by the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is an enumeration of negative rights - which government must not violate... It is clear and consistent in the wording.
In this case, the due process clause protects against violation of privacy (also property rights) - searches and seizure - by federal government without due process, and the TSA is part of the federal government.
The Constitution does not give rights to people. There are natural right of the people which cannot be violated. Freedom of Speech is not given by the constitution. It's protected. The freedom to bear arms is not given by the constitution. It's protected. The freedom from invasion of privacy is not given by the constitution, it's protected.
Unreasonable search and seizure is any search without consent of the individual and without a warrant issued by a Judge constraint to search for evidence of crime as numerated by the warrant. A policeman may as justice of the peace pursue apparent suspicion.
|
The solution seems pretty simple to me -- women officials scanning women and men official scanning men.
|
On October 16 2009 10:37 phosphorylation wrote:
The solution seems pretty simple to me -- women officials scanning women and men official scanning men.
sounds like the worst possible solution to me
|
I tend to agree that a pat-down is an invasion of privacy and i'm surprised that people dispute this statement...
|
On October 16 2009 10:40 JohnColtrane wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2009 10:37 phosphorylation wrote:
The solution seems pretty simple to me -- women officials scanning women and men official scanning men. sounds like the worst possible solution to me
Just like separating locker rooms by gender is the worst idea, right?
|
I would have to take a look at the imagery first, but personally I probably wouldn't mind it too much. However I don't think this is the most ideal solution for security and safety control measure.
.
To all the people who claim that the naked scanning procedure is OK since the imagery is generic and black and white, you have to remember there are lots of people (women especially) who will still be affected by this method.
There are a lot of people with augmentation planted in their body, both for cosmetic and surgical reasons, such as Silicone or Saline. Understandably this may be embarrassing to be revealed in public.
Some people are also very conscious of their body shape. Even revealing the body shape and blurred b&w naked image may be shameful for them.
Moreover as someone pointed out, we also have to take cultural aspects into consideration, while this may be widely acceptable in many western cultures, this can be a very sensitive issue in Muslim environment.
It says there is an option to go for manual check up which involves frisking, but this behavior in some instances may cause officers to be suspicious and go beyond the necessary measure for security check up as most people would just choose to go through the scanner. If you choose to go for manual check up and if you fall under certain characteristics, (Obese, Muslim etc) it itself may create prejudice and make people feel even more embarrassed.
You see an overweight woman and she refuses to go through the scanner, what would you instantly think?
|
This is an unreasonable search, they're using PROBABLY CAUSE that you have explosives up your ass. Yes, that's their reasoning, like I said before, because of the guy who tried to blow up the other. So 1 guy who failed an attempt is justification for the rest of us to have to deal with it?
How about this, let pilots carry guns again. Many pilots in America are former Air Force pilots and are trained anyway. But nope, let's not use logical and practical defenses to this, let's just just lay down and get ass raped by clowns that are known to be overly aggressive in airport security.
Seriously, does anyone have a sense of freedom anymore or am I alone? Well its no big deal my bags get searched, I can't have a bottle of water, they see me naked, and that's if I'm not mysteriously put on a no fly list. One too many of you aren't bothered by anything, like you'll just lay down and let them do as they please. The people from the UK don't surprise me though, they have cameras all over, but hey its all good because they're not committing a crime.
I was going to talk on the mention of what 1tym said and that is suspicion. All of a sudden you break up their routine and it becomes a problem even though its YOUR choice. You don't wanna slow things down and be a trouble maker do you? You don't wanna be THAT guy do you? Its complete bullshit because people stand for it. Its not making us a single bit safer. Quite frankly if someone in America has a bomb shoved up their ass and they can still get it to detonate or threaten people with it, go for it, I'm willing to put up with that.
Live or die free, not scanned like cattle.
|
United States43352 Posts
Obviously some women won't be happy to be scanned. But I think you're misrepresenting how invasive frisking is. My argument isn't that women won't be made uncomfortable by this but that it gives no more information about the shape of a persons body than running your hands over it.
|
On October 16 2009 10:58 phosphorylation wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2009 10:40 JohnColtrane wrote:On October 16 2009 10:37 phosphorylation wrote:
The solution seems pretty simple to me -- women officials scanning women and men official scanning men. sounds like the worst possible solution to me Just like separating locker rooms by gender is the worst idea, right?
watching women undress beats watching men undress
|
i dont see what the big deal is.
just make it optional.
for all of us who aren't self-conscious retards, we can use the expedited scanner lines. Everyone else can use the standard waste-your-time-taking-off-your-belt-shoes-etc, with the occasional pat-down.
what's the problem?
|
Norway28727 Posts
I think one of the good things about this is that it is not discriminatory. random friskings absolutely are. whether it's worth the price or not is up for debate - I think airline security has already gone much too far and the whole no liquid policy is far more annoying than this imo. That's something I've actually been affected by and which has forced me to throw out stuff. 
further I guess self-conscious people might find it invasive, but they should not.. you just have to realize that these people behind the scanners are going to be watching thousands of shapes every day.. you'll have to be pretty fkn weird looking to stand out. ;p
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
telling people what they should and shouldn't find invasive is rather unlike you eri. People with conservative upbringings, religious beliefs or just plain self-consciousness shouldn't be told that their views in regard to their own body and who views it are illegitimate.
|
|
|
Norway28727 Posts
im just saying they would be better off not finding it invasive.. there's just no way the information gotten through these scanners can be harmful towards anyone other than inside their own heads, because they are looked at by someone who looks at thousands of people and whom will become accustomed to all shapes pretty quickly, and then they are deleted from the system. I think this is very different from many other aspects of today's society focus on security rather than privacy.
im not saying people regarding this as invasive, even if I feel they should not regard it as invasive, should be disregarded when deciding whether to apply this or not.
|
I believe you have the option of not going through the "naked" scanner and just go through the usual security check although it's definitely slower.
|
On October 16 2009 12:54 1tym wrote:
You see an overweight woman and she refuses to go through the scanner, what would you instantly think?
that she's fat and self-conscious? lol
certainly not that she's a terrorist and needs a pat down. LOL
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On October 16 2009 20:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:
im just saying they would be better off not finding it invasive.. there's just no way the information gotten through these scanners can be harmful towards anyone other than inside their own heads, because they are looked at by someone who looks at thousands of people and whom will become accustomed to all shapes pretty quickly, and then they are deleted from the system. I think this is very different from many other aspects of today's society focus on security rather than privacy.
im not saying people regarding this as invasive, even if I feel they should not regard it as invasive, should be disregarded when deciding whether to apply this or not.
So another way of saying "If you are innocent, you'll have nothing to hide. - TRUST US." The justifying risk is you might be a terrorist because you want to board the plane to fly somewhere.
Do people find it acceptable to be treated like prison inmates?
its logical extreme of absurdity is to have someone watch every moment of your life on security camera. You should find that acceptable because the watcher will be professional, the watcher will be very accustomed to watching people's private moments, and it will be deleted from the system right away. Trust them. The justifying risk is you just might be a terrorist because you are alive and can apply your skills to makeshift weapons. Your objections are only in your head.
But if images were truly gone - If all persons watching the scan were killed right way and all images deleted, I'd walk through it. Then there would really be no record of it. Although I wouldn't want anyone being forced to watch the scans though. That'd be murder.
|
you are quite the piece of work tangeng
edit - seriously, i get excited when i see that you're the most recent poster in a thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
