Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

news.cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 115 posts

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#91

Post by patio11 »

pyre wrote: post #69
patio11 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thomas speaks much sense here. Relatedly, that is exactly the attitude you should take with cops who try to ask you questions or seize your papers or effects. "I respectfully decline. If you are not arresting me, I am leaving; if you do not have a search warrant, leave my property expeditiously. Have a nice day."

There are a number of charges that you can be arrested for at the sole discretion of the officer. I've heard exchanges like: officer: Don't go anywhere friend: Am I under arrest? officer: No, but don't go anywhere. friend: If I'm not under arrest, then I'm leaving. officer: If you leave, I *will* arrest you with impeding an investigation / obstruction of justice (That exchange followed from someone not involved in a…

If a cop ever pulls that on you, lawyer up instantly. If you're not free to leave, you're under arrest, regardless of what state they say you are in, whether they have mirandized you, etc.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#92

Post by kragen »

tptacek wrote: post #83
_ouxp wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it "isn't even mentioned in the Constitution," (and it's not), then it's protected. The U.S. Constitution enumerates the powers of the U.S. Government. A right does not have to be mentioned in the constitution to be a constitutionally protected right by virtue of a lack of authorization for the government to take it away.

From everything I've read about the "Right To Privacy", starting with Alderman and Kennedy's book in '96 (which got me to start paying attention to what SCOTUS and SCOTUS nominees were saying about privacy as an actual right implied by the 4th amendment), it is very much up for grabs as to whether we have a Constitutionally inviolable right to privacy. I hope we do! But an argument backstopped on the notion that we d…

There are those — including some of the authors of the constitution you're talking about — who believe that rights do not come from written constitutions or governments, but rather that it is to defend the rights that we naturally possess that governments are erected by the peoples of the earth, with written constitutions or without them.

Perhaps this is a naïve view of governments and of rights. But it is this view upon which everything you are discussing is contingent. The alternative would seem to be that might makes right.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#93

Post by roc »

scott_s wrote: post #87
roc wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The burden of justification for new security measures should be on the TSA. And they have failed at this. This sort of thing is a gross violation of personal privacy, entirely without cause. That it adds expense and delay for no demonstrable increase in plane security is but adding insult to injury. Hearing people approach security measures with the argument "whatever would you have to hide, citizen?" is the worst pa…

You misunderstand what I'm saying. I personally find this less invasive than the current security measures.

What default security procedure does an electronic strip search replace, that is more invasive?

Removing your shoes?

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#94

Post by Groxx »

inferno0069 wrote: post #31
tptacek wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It seems worth pointing out that you can affect the safety of as many or more people by walking into a skyscraper, stadium, festival, &c., or by walking near train tracks when a train or two is due to come by, a major bridge during rush hour, &c. The searches may be easiest to do for air travel, but the same thing could be done nearly as easily for any tall building.

A little bit less so though, as planes fall quite easily (and quite quickly) from what would be relatively minor disturbances at those other locations.

It's kind of like saying walking on a wood-bottomed rope bridge is the same as walking on a suspension bridge. Except the rope bridge is a couple miles in the air. Essentially perfectly safe, but if one person cuts the ropes, you all go down. If someone decides to take out a chunk of a road's bridge, there's more danger to the people nearby than to the bridge as a whole; it's much closer to the same risk you run by simply standing near someone else.

Then, there's always those pesky squirrels deciding the rope looks tasty (ie, geese + engine). That's a different problem entirely, though.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#95

Post by statictype »

tptacek wrote: 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…

By and large, the human beings manning the security checkpoints are as squeamish about invading the personal space of another actual human being looking them in the eyes as you are about having your space invaded.

I think this is partly because they are still new at the game. In certain countries, hand-searches have been the norm for decades. And those officers don't feel quite as squeamish as you do while its going on.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#96

Post by scott_s »

roc wrote: post #93
scott_s wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstand what I'm saying. I personally find this less invasive than the current security measures.

What default security procedure does an electronic strip search replace, that is more invasive? Removing your shoes?

Remove shoes, remove belt. Walk through metal detector. Forgot to remove change, so metal detector beeps. Security guy asks if he can scan me with hand-held scanner and I consent. He sweeps it all over, oddly it beeps in places other than my pocket. But it also beeps at my pocket. Security guy asks if he can pat those areas down. I consent. Turn around. More waving, more beeping, maybe more patting down.

Happens to me half the time I walk through a metal detector. Recently, it even beeped when I removed everything I could think of - I don't know what caused the big and small metal detectors to go off. After a simple pat-down, the security guy was satisfied.

If a scanner can even eliminate the time spent doing that, then I'm happy.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#97

Post by evgen »

runjake wrote: post #64
evgen wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you should learn the quote first: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Now you just need to prove that the liberties being abrogated are essential and that the security being provided is temporary.

I hoped you've satiated your pedantry for today, but the quote exists in several re-quoted forms. Jefferson "mis-quoted" Franklin. Everyone mis-quotes Jefferson.

> I hoped you've satiated your pedantry for today

Not quite :)

While many attribute the mis-quote to Jefferson, there is no written record of him making such a statement. In fact, there is actually no direct record of this coming from Franklin either. The earliest references were in an anonymously published book that referenced a letter from the Pennsylvania Assembly to their Governor from 1755 (when later re-published in Philedelphia it was Franklin who printed it...) At that time Franklin was a member of the Assembly and the quote does sound like his sort of wit, but the full quote seems useful and nuanced enough that we should remember it even if it happened to come from some other member of the Assembly that no one happened to remember.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#98

Post by lurchpop »

tptacek wrote: 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…

Good comment! Finally info from someone who actually refused it and it's not a horror story.

Salon http://www.salon.com/technology/dan_gillmor/2010/08/04/body_... today bummed me out. They've got the right POV on it, but he's going along with the rest of the press just saying it's a new shitty reality we're going to have to get used to. fuck that!

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#99

Post by evgen »

kragen wrote: post #92
tptacek wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From everything I've read about the "Right To Privacy", starting with Alderman and Kennedy's book in '96 (which got me to start paying attention to what SCOTUS and SCOTUS nominees were saying about privacy as an actual right implied by the 4th amendment), it is very much up for grabs as to whether we have a Constitutionally inviolable right to privacy. I hope we do! But an argument backstopped on the notion that we d…

There are those — including some of the authors of the constitution you're talking about — who believe that rights do not come from written constitutions or governments, but rather that it is to defend the rights that we naturally possess that governments are erected by the peoples of the earth, with written constitutions or without them. Perhaps this is a naïve view of governments and of rights. But it is this view…

Rights are not absolute out in the real world. There are always tradeoffs, especially when various rights come into conflict with one another. The second amendment clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Does that mean that it is unconstitutional for me to be prevented from bringing an Uzi onto an airplane? The various political and judicial processes that have been established are how we balance these various rights to achieve some condition that most of us are satisfied with. Rights may not come from written constitutions or governments, but those creations are what we use to negotiate amongst ourselves when various rights appear to be in conflict.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#100

Post by nitrogen »

gojomo wrote: post #47

If there any substance -- for example, a deodorant or lotion with a specific ingredient -- which would allow drawing a picture or words on your body for the scan-reviewers to see?

I believe I read somewhere that research into tHz-blocking clothing was done along with the development of these devices. However, I doubt we'll soon see a booming market for metalized underpants in the duty-free zone. I too have thought about sending a harmless message through the scanner, but came to the conclusion that it wouldn't be worth the inevitable harassment.
Post reply on HN