Live data from Hacker News

Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

news.cnet.com

11–20 of 115 posts

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#11
I am not a constitutional scholar, but this seems like a violation of the Fourth Amendment. I would likely put random bag searches, and pat-down searches in that category as well.

As an American citizen, without reasonable suspicion of criminal intent, why are searches of this type legal? Has this been challenged in the Supreme Court?

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#12
post #7
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Object while you can, before it's mandatory to surrender all civil rights in order to fly.

These millimeter wave devices aren't being installed in a secret plot to eliminate everyone's civil rights. They're being installed because regulators sincerely believe that they represent a reasonable compromise between privacy (which is actually not one of your ironclad civil liberties) and safety. Airport security is probably a bad joke. But acting and talking as if that's a foregone conclusion --- or worse, that…

Eliminating civil rights isn't the goal; like much of the evil in the world, it will be a side-effect of people who thought they were doing the right thing.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#13
post #8
post #2

I'm shocked, shocked! that electronic strip searches might be misused by the crack team of professionals at the TSA. This is very simple: (a) call these things what they are: electronic strip searches. (b) refuse to submit to them at the airport. I just did this on a flight from Kansas City. Guess what? Not a big deal. You'll get the same pat-down search you get when you're "randomly selected for additional screening…

To those who suggest that the pat-down searches are as intrusive or more intrusive than the electronic strip searches: no. There's no objective answer to this. I believe you and I have discussed this before. Personally, the scans don't bother me at all. Being patted down doesn't bother me too much, but it does bother me at least some. So, for me, I'd rather walk through a scanner unobstructed than be patted down.

Would it bother you to find a name-attributed copy of your body scan in a zip file on Rapidshare? Why do you assume that won't happen? I assume the opposite.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#14
post #5
post #2

I'm shocked, shocked! that electronic strip searches might be misused by the crack team of professionals at the TSA. This is very simple: (a) call these things what they are: electronic strip searches. (b) refuse to submit to them at the airport. I just did this on a flight from Kansas City. Guess what? Not a big deal. You'll get the same pat-down search you get when you're "randomly selected for additional screening…

Object while you can, before it's mandatory to surrender all civil rights in order to fly.

Already the case in the UK as far as I know. Not everyone is required to go through them, and not all airports have them, but if you're one of the "lucky" ones and you refuse, you don't fly.

Can't seem to find the article from some months ago to back this up, unfortunately.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#15

I am not a constitutional scholar, but this seems like a violation of the Fourth Amendment. I would likely put random bag searches, and pat-down searches in that category as well. As an American citizen, without reasonable suspicion of criminal intent, why are searches of this type legal? Has this been challenged in the Supreme Court?

[deleted]

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#16
post #2

I'm shocked, shocked! that electronic strip searches might be misused by the crack team of professionals at the TSA. This is very simple: (a) call these things what they are: electronic strip searches. (b) refuse to submit to them at the airport. I just did this on a flight from Kansas City. Guess what? Not a big deal. You'll get the same pat-down search you get when you're "randomly selected for additional screening…

It will add 5 minutes for everyone else too. Get in a security line on a busy travel day and 10 extra pat-downs will add up. We need a better solution. I want to arrive, with my carry-on luggage, 30 minutes before takeoff for my 1 hour flight home.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#17

I am not a constitutional scholar, but this seems like a violation of the Fourth Amendment. I would likely put random bag searches, and pat-down searches in that category as well. As an American citizen, without reasonable suspicion of criminal intent, why are searches of this type legal? Has this been challenged in the Supreme Court?

While there should certainly be a limit on the extent of searches at airports, the reason these searches have not been found "unreasonable" is likely that you can refuse to be searched. Sure, it means you're going to have to drive to wherever you're going, but you still have the option to refuse.

If, on the other hand, the police pulled you over and forced you to submit to some sort of full-body scan without reasonable suspicion, that would certainly be ruled in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#18

I am not a constitutional scholar, but this seems like a violation of the Fourth Amendment. I would likely put random bag searches, and pat-down searches in that category as well. As an American citizen, without reasonable suspicion of criminal intent, why are searches of this type legal? Has this been challenged in the Supreme Court?

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1265662.html

We have held that airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are “conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings.”  United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir.1973);  see also United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 945, 127 S.Ct. 111, 166 L.Ed.2d 255 (2006);  Marquez, 410 F.3d at 616.

The unanimous opinion of the 9th (en banc); extremely unlikely to be overturned. Net-net: you concede the reasonableness of TSA searches by opting to get on a commercial airliner, where your personal safety impacts the safety of hundreds of other people. There are plenty of other ways to effect interstate travel without entering into the same risk equation; they're just less convenient.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#19
post #2

I'm shocked, shocked! that electronic strip searches might be misused by the crack team of professionals at the TSA. This is very simple: (a) call these things what they are: electronic strip searches. (b) refuse to submit to them at the airport. I just did this on a flight from Kansas City. Guess what? Not a big deal. You'll get the same pat-down search you get when you're "randomly selected for additional screening…

Refusing these searches is important even if pat-downs are considered more intrusive. If we all do this, and the machines sit idle; eventually they will be removed.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#20
post #7
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Object while you can, before it's mandatory to surrender all civil rights in order to fly.

These millimeter wave devices aren't being installed in a secret plot to eliminate everyone's civil rights. They're being installed because regulators sincerely believe that they represent a reasonable compromise between privacy (which is actually not one of your ironclad civil liberties) and safety. Airport security is probably a bad joke. But acting and talking as if that's a foregone conclusion --- or worse, that…

> (which is actually not one of your ironclad civil liberties)

Not in the US, anyway.

Thankfully, there's Europe, which has progressed considerably further than the U.S. in terms of actually protecting people's rights.

Post reply on HN