POWIP Piece of Work In Progress – Former Abode of Dan Collins

1. 

   Falahime
   November 17th, 2010 - 09:39

   The probable cause is what I am also “confused” about. I rarely fly but was always under the impression you went through the metal detector and IF AND ONLY IF you were extremely suspicious did they proceed to pat downs/strip searches/whatever. It wasn’t just an arbitrary thing.

   The other thing I don’t get about the pat-downs is…gross as it may be, if I were going to take an explosive on a plane, I would take it in my body. Swallow it, tampon-style it, whatever. Wasn’t there that guy in Saudi Arabia or somewhere with one in his ass? (He wasn’t getting on a plane, but if ass-explosive technology is already out there, the problem has already made the pat-down “solution” obsolete). A pat down isn’t going to catch that anyway.

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   ( REPLY )
2. 

   snaqwells
   November 17th, 2010 - 10:07

   I have to ask, if the pat down and/or backscatter screening is a violation of the 4th amendment; isn’t the metal detector also a 4th amendment violation?

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   ( REPLY )
3. 

   SarahW
   November 17th, 2010 - 14:58

   The degree of invasion was relevant in the last court ruling on mandatory searches (re, your right to leave area unsearched).

   I would put forward that there is a difference between the types of searches that makes the searh *unreasonable* Metal detection does not require application of ionizing radiation, nor does it provide a view of your person under your clothing. The alternative (sometimes additional) pat down for example, requires actual touching of the body and looking underneath clothing and palpation of the genitals the most private areas of one’s person, all of this by an agent of the government (not some private firm or business entity).

   I think this might fail the “reasonable” requirement of the fourth amendment, given the additional fact that the searches, do not prevent explosives or ceramic weapons from being brought aboard planes at all. Metal detectors, in contrast detect metal, no matter where it is in the body, without having to explore the body. It works reliably. The pass through the detector is reasonable.

   The remarks of the Israeli security expert linked above only corroborates what the security agency itself has admitted.

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   ( REPLY )
4. 

   snaqwells
   November 17th, 2010 - 15:48

   Now I’m feeling dense. Where’s the link you talked about?
   I’ll add this; I’m pretty sure most of the “probable cause” we’re thinking of here wouldn’t qualify for a warrant in the outside world. The things that triggered a full pat down a year ago couldn’t earn a telephone warrant in an investigation. The point is, the rules are already different.

   I could be wrong, and the fact that I’m not a lawyer makes that possibility significantly higher, but I just don’t see the 4th amendment issue here.

   Again, the idea that they have a point of no return that’s not marked as such is a serious problem.

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   ( REPLY )
5. 

   SarahW
   November 18th, 2010 - 10:11

   There’s a 4th amendment issue because of the calculation of invasion vs. purpose (benefit obtained).

   The searches are performed on persons under no legal suspicion at all, none. Not just failing probable cause, or reasonable suspicion. There is NO suspicion. So the invasiveness of the GOVERNMENT (we’re not talking airline, here) is in any case limited by a test of reasonableness.

   TSA would argue that the government is justifies in irradiating people, reviewing people’s naked forms, or touching their surgical scars or genitals of random persons under no suspicion, because it is a reasonable deterrent to terrorist acts.

   I would argue that it is unreasonable. One reason that it is unreasonable is that it does not prevent what it purports to prevent. Unlike metal detectors, which don’t require nakedness or ionizing radiation to detect metal reliably, the scans and gropes do not reliably reveal explosives or ceramic weapons.

   It’s application is too broad, and for the degree of invasiveness provided too little useul information to prevent explosives or ceramic weapons from passing the gate.

   The tests furthermore create additional risk of passengers being harmed, an ironic result but true nonetheless. Reliance on not quite universal, and ineffective screens, means that a FALSE impression of security is created, justifying the Fed from doing its job in other areas.
   (Profiling, interviews, intelligence, etc)

   Those are alternative methods of security with proven and reliable detection of passengers who pose a threat. Resources are diverted from these more effective methods.

   Worse, the search policies create opportunities for diverson and distraction that can be exploited – a person who resists is swarmed, and others pass through unscreened or minimally screened, so that even someone with external explosives or weapons can pass through.

   Whatever rules have been created, they must still pass constitutional muster.
   I think there is a strong case that currect screening procedures are in violation of the fourth amendment because the search is unreasonable on every level.

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   ( REPLY )
6. 

   SarahW
   November 18th, 2010 - 10:20

   Here is the israeli security expert I quoted ( in another thread).

   Rafi Sela: “I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747.” http://tiny.cc/lhxqh

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   ( REPLY )
7. 

   Dede
   November 20th, 2010 - 13:54

   I think it’s very very simple…the same 4th Amendment that prevents the police from walking up to a random baggy pant wearing kid on the street and search him for weapons or drugs, prevents the TSA from performing a search of my vajayjay because I was number 16 in line or I forgot to take a keyring out of my pocket.

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   ( REPLY )

Leave a comment Cancel reply