The TSA's FAST Personality Screening Program Violates the Fourth Amendment [pdf]

Only when convenient.

Which is why I find myself reluctantly siding with the vehement nature of gun rights advocates in spite of really desiring a world where guns would not be necessary to possibly keep the "government" (which is increasingly fewer and fewer people with more and more oppressive laws) at bay.

On a side note, I find it ironic that those who would most need guns to both protect themselves from the kind of government that "gun nuts" fear and under possible circumstances of social collapse to protect themselves from "gun nuts", are also the least likely to know how to properly operate with them or want to keep guns for self protection. There is really very little that would allow me to believe our society is even remotely civilized or responsible enough to not necessitate an armed population.

Just take this story for example. Is anyone in the government saying no, you know what, the precursors of mind-reading are too far and not in line with the spirit of the very first and most basic principle of this country. No, you don't and wont hear that, just like you haven't heard that about all the other abuses and violations that have preceded this. Hell, we have the very thing that the "crazies" used to warn about, just even better, self-maintained dossiers on every single person in the country in the form of aggregated social profiles and internet tracking and monitoring.

We are living in the cyberpunk future

Even Henry VIII had to come up with a plausible legal justification for breaking with the Catholic Church.

Being "bound by the Bill of Rights" does not mean that the government must give effect to the broadest interpretations of Constitutional protections. It only means that it must follow clear dictates when they exist, and offer plausible legal constructions when they don't. What we've learned about the NSA programs indicates that the government internally tries to toe what well-defined lines exist without crossing them. Otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about minimization procedures or the distinction between data and metadata.

This article is a great example of the concept. If a police officer walked by your farm in 1789 and saw smoke from a fire, it would not be protected by the 4th amendment. It's totally reasonable for the government to argue that the same principle allows them to observe infrared emissions from inside a house, and it's totally reasonable for the Supreme Court to conclude otherwise. It only becomes unreasonable if the government ignores the dictate once the rule is clear.

FAST seems to be some kind of polygraph-type scanner using cameras. It's very likely that it doesn't work but some military contractor will make millions off of it anyway. Any efficacy data will probably be unavailable or classified. Efficacy doesn't matter to the authorities anyway because having people believe that their minds are being read is almost as good as actually reading their minds.

Also, how would guns help against such a powerful military as the US has?