Who Needs the Fourth Amendment Anyway?

[Matriel]

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g2FtU5NbFoqCYHY2j5RB4Mi2xUnQ


I bet you fathers out there can't wait to let your daughters go through these. Now we have a place to put rejects from Chris Hanson's show instead of jail.

[Zanir_zrold]

Well, I know where I am working!

I would just chose the pat down though. You don't have to go in the machines.

[lafayette]

4th Amendment? Whats that? is it some part of a larger bill, perhaps containing rights of some sort?

[Matriel]

Well, I know where I am working!

I would just chose the pat down though. You don't have to go in the machines.

Man, so I get to have someone touch my junk or someone look at my junk. I'm so torn between being a voyeur or getting some.

[alfaroverall]

Does the Bill of Rights apply to private enterprise? Serious question.

Because if not, then they could indeed use this to bar your access into the airplane. It would be illegal to use it as evidence in a trial, or to even accuse you based on the evidence, but they could still use it to bar your access.

[Kheiron]

Big whoop. Someone might see your junk.

Chicks get physically fondled and more by gyno's in the interest of thier health and safety, so why should they balk at another trained profressional getting an R2D2 glimpse at their bits to make sure people aren't looking to blow up planes?

What I dont get though is why this sort of shit is required. If you want to check what a persons got underneath I know a fair easier way then uber xray booths. It's called nudity, and we all love it.

[Zanir_zrold]

4th Amendment? Whats that? is it some part of a larger bill, perhaps containing rights of some sort?

I am assuming you are a troll rather than a Yuropeen

It's called nudity, and we all love it.

Unless they are fatties.

[Kheiron]

Unless they are fatties.


Indeed. Those we'll direct to the new recruits and people we dislike.

[Slypieguy]

THOSE ARE MAI MASHEENZ!!1one

[Camelmix]

Does the Bill of Rights apply to private enterprise? Serious question.

Because if not, then they could indeed use this to bar your access into the airplane. It would be illegal to use it as evidence in a trial, or to even accuse you based on the evidence, but they could still use it to bar your access.

I am almost positive that the Bill of Rights applies to private enterprise. The difference is that, I think, private enterprises can elaborate on these rights to include other things.

[Zanir_zrold]

THOSE ARE MAI MASHEENZ!!1one

What does the scouter say about his post count?

It's over nine THOUSAAAAAAND!

WHAT NINE THOUSAND?

[alfaroverall]

I am almost positive that the Bill of Rights applies to private enterprise. The difference is that, I think, private enterprises can elaborate on these rights to include other things.
I don't know. I asked that question out of personal interest, but I do know that the Bill of Rights, prior to any Supreme Court cases, does not apply to state governments. (Pretty much all of it does now, but it didn't originally.) So why should it apply to private enterprise if it doesn't necessarily apply to state governments per the actual amendments?

[Slypieguy]

I don't know. I asked that question out of personal interest, but I do know that the Bill of Rights, prior to any Supreme Court cases, does not apply to state governments. (Pretty much all of it does now, but it didn't originally.) So why should it apply to private enterprise if it doesn't necessarily apply to state governments per the actual amendments?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Slypieguy]

What does the scouter say about his post count?

It's over nine THOUSAAAAAAND!

WHAT NINE THOUSAND?

http://overninethousandsparta.ytmnd.com/

[lafayette]

I am assuming you are a troll rather than a Yuropeen



You must be new here, let me introduce you to my friend sarcasm.

Sarcasm, meet Zanir

[lafayette]

I don't know. I asked that question out of personal interest, but I do know that the Bill of Rights, prior to any Supreme Court cases, does not apply to state governments. (Pretty much all of it does now, but it didn't originally.) So why should it apply to private enterprise if it doesn't necessarily apply to state governments per the actual amendments?

It shouldnt apply to private enterprise. It most certinly should apply to the TSA.

[Ragnika]

Damn and I just booked a trip back home in August. I feel so safe! :D

[OvanOf Twilight]

http://overninethousandsparta.ytmnd.com/

This is almost as good as rickrolling someone

[GFH_Spike]

So long as it remains a choice, I don't have a problem with the body scanning. Some would rather be patted down, others will appreciate the lack of physical contact.

[Slypieguy]

I wonder how much it would cost to get one of those for... private use :ninja:

[Matriel]

Does the Bill of Rights apply to private enterprise? Serious question.

Because if not, then they could indeed use this to bar your access into the airplane. It would be illegal to use it as evidence in a trial, or to even accuse you based on the evidence, but they could still use it to bar your access.

Since when is the TSA private enterprise?

And until we stop subsidizing the airlines, the fuck if they can do this shit imo. However, this articles is about what the TSA is doing.

[GFH_Spike]

I wonder how much it would cost to get one of those for... private use :ninja:

You're not the only one, and I'm sure that we aren't either.

[Crying Hyena]

Those things are graphic. From what I've heard, it's sort of like watching a black and white nude person walk through. I do know that with the amount of sexual frustration in this country, I bet there will be quite a few TSA workers fapping when they get off from work since they got to see live naked women on a screen. Now if they had a women side and a mens side and the setup was so that women viewed women and men viewed men then it probably would be more acceptable but that's not how it's set up from my understanding.

[Slypieguy]

I'm so getting a job in airport security just so i can steal one of those things. Imagine taking it to the bar or something. Good times

[Kahsikmahn]

here is an image of what they will see.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/04/18/1208025437879.html

[Rainstorme]

here is an image of what they will see.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/04/18/1208025437879.html Hot.

[Everto]

Big whoop. Someone might see your junk.

Whatch'ya gonna do with all that junk? All that junk inside yo' trunk?

[losinglife]

definitly applying to work for that shit. Get to see hot chicks naked without getting into trouble? Thumbs up to that shit!

Also lol at not being able to save the images, i guess noone has heard of a cellphone with a camera around there. Or hell even a straight camera :rolleyes:.

Also also... 20$ no fatty ever gets put in there unless its to piss off who ever the viewer is.

here is an image of what they will see.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/04/18/1208025437879.html

Hahaha she has ugly boobs, and wtf it looks like she is pissing between her legs in that thing hahah

[Porthios]

What does the scouter say about his post count?

It's over nine THOUSAAAAAAND!

WHAT NINE THOUSAND?
epic win

[Arkh]

Stupid.
If I was a suicide bomber, I wouldn't even try to get on a plane to blow like 300 or 400 people. I would bomb the fuckin' airport lobby with all these people nittly packed waiting to pass through these controls.
And as the survivors would be traumatized and all would be recorded on camera - and later broadcast - I would have achieved the goal of terrorism : inspiring terror. With a little thanks to all the media who love to help terrorism by spreading this type of news.

[blemm]

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g2FtU5NbFoqCYHY2j5RB4Mi2xUnQ


the size of their...genitals as a pre-requisite to boarding a plane.

Not only will I be getting on any plane I want but I will be getting upgraded to first class. Nice.

[Tomaj]

i cant say im suprised. so some one can chose to either have some one scope out there genitalia or get felt up...some dont like either. besides i see no point. a pat down, bomb sniffing machine/dog and the metal detector are good enugh. they cover all points that we need to worry about so why spend millions developing this thing so a random person can get there jollies?

[Titus Ultor]

Has a terrorist ever used their enormous wang to hijack a plane? Until that happens, I don't see a need for this.

It's not as if there isn't anything a metal detector wouldn't have already captured and that anything hidden within clothing couldn't also be hidden inside a body cavity. But gj freedom-crushing, TSA!

[The Cougar]

We should use this in schools and in public buildings as well! Go, go fear mongering!

[losinglife]

Stupid.
If I was a suicide bomber, I wouldn't even try to get on a plane to blow like 300 or 400 people. I would bomb the fuckin' airport lobby with all these people nittly packed waiting to pass through these controls.
And as the survivors would be traumatized and all would be recorded on camera - and later broadcast - I would have achieved the goal of terrorism : inspiring terror. With a little thanks to all the media who love to help terrorism by spreading this type of news.

incoming fbi

[Arkh]

incoming fbi
Arg, so that's why there are people trying to break in ?

[[LoD] EE]

Well, I know where I am working!

I would just chose the pat down though. You don't have to go in the machines.

I want both.

Pat me down and then screen me when I am aroused.

[Skree]

I actually laughed.

It makes me wonder just how far we Americans are going to let our rights go before we citizens stand up.

I'm still betting that as long as there is food most of the US will bend over and grab ankle.

Skree

[Metal Wolf]

They want to see if I'm packin a cannon.

Answer, hell yes.

[Khumash-Gor]

cant wait till someone gets arrested for stripping naked right there at the security checkpoint.

security: sir could you please step into the anti-privacy machine.
man: no, ill just /strip right here for you.
security: zomg a penis!! someone call the police.
man: fucking hippocrits.

to hell with giant xray vision machines

[alfaroverall]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Except I learned at some point during my government class that the Constitution technically only applies to the federal government, again prior to any court cases. I don't know if there is any text representing that in the Constitution itself, however.

Though yes, I now see that this is being performed by the TSA. No idea how the fuck the government gets to do things like this without simply providing the airline service themselves (like they do with the postal service).

[Jangang]

I don't think this violated the 4th at all. Its not like they are putting them on public streets, just privately owned airports. Nobody is forcing you to fly after all.

Its the same as if I installed one in my house. You may not like it, but it being my house I can do as I please and force people who enter to do as I tell them or not enter. Which is what is happening here, you don't "have" to go through it, you are free to turn around and go home, or take a train.

If it were put in a court house for example, that would be a problem, and a clear violation.

[Crying Hyena]

Ya the airports may be private but the TSA is a government agency. It's part of the Department of Homeland Security. So your house example doesn't fit.

[Elemancer]

I don't think this violated the 4th at all. Its not like they are putting them on public streets, just privately owned airports. Nobody is forcing you to fly after all.

Its the same as if I installed one in my house. You may not like it, but it being my house I can do as I please and force people who enter to do as I tell them or not enter. Which is what is happening here, you don't "have" to go through it, you are free to turn around and go home, or take a train.

If it were put in a court house for example, that would be a problem, and a clear violation.

Uh...yes...yes, I am forced to fly because of my job. Thanks. It's about economical transportation, and since I use the tax payer's money, I don't have the luxury of choosing my own transportation. Could I quit my job? Sure, but it's absolutely ridiculous that not only am I a federal gov't employee with a clearance, but I'm also a frequent traveler with NO history of anything! I feel sorry for the men and women in uniform that have to go through this shit to get home to see their families after a 12 month deployment. Now they get the pleasure of being fondled/oggled before returning home.

Again, we're one step closer to gov't run airlines. Will I fly? Certainly, but I will avoid it at all costs if I can.

I just don't understand how everyone can be labeled a suspect when trying to get on a bus that flies! Fuck, and then the general aviation folks can load up with gasoline and fly into someone's yard without incident...

[Jangang]

Uh...yes...yes, I am forced to fly because of my job. Thanks. It's about economical transportation, and since I use the tax payer's money, I don't have the luxury of choosing my own transportation. Could I quit my job? Sure, but it's absolutely ridiculous that not only am I a federal gov't employee with a clearance, but I'm also a frequent traveler with NO history of anything! I feel sorry for the men and women in uniform that have to go through this shit to get home to see their families after a 12 month deployment. Now they get the pleasure of being fondled/oggled before returning home.

Again, we're one step closer to gov't run airlines. Will I fly? Certainly, but I will avoid it at all costs if I can.

I just don't understand how everyone can be labeled a suspect when trying to get on a bus that flies! Fuck, and then the general aviation folks can load up with gasoline and fly into someone's yard without incident...

Oh cry more... I've seen the devices, they don't give you a nice shot of tits, n ass... It looks like your skin is made of cloth, but the clothes are made of see through cloth.

I'm sure TSA agents everywhere will be jacking it to those images... (Yea, Right!)

Nobody is forcing anyone to fly. As you said, you have to do it for your job. Don't like that? Get a new job. Airports are not public property, by entering you consent to this, if you don't consent, then you can leave. Its as simple as that.

If what you say happens, and the government starts running the airlines at that point it will be a violation of the 4th. So long as they remain private however, its not.

[Elemancer]

Oh cry more... I've seen the devices, they don't give you a nice shot of tits, n ass... It looks like your skin is made of cloth, but the clothes are made of see through cloth.

I'm sure TSA agents everywhere will be jacking it to those images... (Yea, Right!)

Nobody is forcing anyone to fly. As you said, you have to do it for your job. Don't like that? Get a new job. Airports are not public property, by entering you consent to this, if you don't consent, then you can leave. Its as simple as that.

But it's not the airline doing it! The airlines are forced to have the TSA (which is a FEDERAL AGENCY) do the searching! Furthermore, my tax money is being wasted on searching innocent people!

Furthermore, you haven't addressed the inconsistency with general aviation...there's no point to these searches. To say the gov't is magically able to search you because you decide to fly vice taking the bus, when the gov't isn't providing the transportation is absolutely ridiculous.

[Traep]

This sounds to me like airports are trying to tighten security even more. I don't see this is being unconstitutional since it's voluntary (technically) to fly but I can buy the argument that it's unnecessary. For instance, riding a bus or subway system doesn't require any screening whatsoever yet we pretty much never see terrorists taking control of those.

[Zanir_zrold]

Here's a little tip: nothing like 9/11 will ever happen again. Before 9/11 people would hijack planes and then fly them to Cuba, no one would get hurt. But now that people know planes can be crashed into buildings and kill 3,000 people, they are not going to let some fucker order them around with a gun. They will jump the terrorist. Better for 15 people to get shot on the plane than for 3,000 to be burned alive in a building.

Also, the captain does not open the cockpit door anymore, even to stewardesses. People can drop the bullshit security at airports. I would rather have everyone on board with scissors and knives than one muslim with a plastic air powered gun.

[Rainstorme]

Not to mention that this is completely optional. Anyone that's actually carrying anything illegal will obviously choose the pat down to this because of the lower risk. Waste of money, to be honest.

[Traep]

The airlines are forced to have the TSA (which is a FEDERAL AGENCY) do the searching!

Out of curiousity, are the airlines required to have their customers screened as well or can they just forgo the whole thing? Also, don't some airports still have privately run check points?

I don't think it changes too much about the voluntary argument since flying in general is still voluntary.

[Jangang]

People should also consider that walking through this is going to be A LOT faster then the traditional security checks.

Those of us not willing to fly because we are not willing to spend two hours or more going through security this might just get us back on planes.

[Zanir_zrold]

You can either chose between being patted down ,which I have had done to me and they never touched my penis at all, and not even my butt. If I wanted to hide some crach I would just stick it in a baggy and shove it up my ass.

Anyways, You can chose between being patted down and getting the screen thing done on you. If you don't agree with the screen thing then just get patted down.

[Rainstorme]

People should also consider that walking through this is going to be A LOT faster then the traditional security checks.

Those of us not willing to fly because we are not willing to spend two hours or more going through security this might just get us back on planes. Longest it's taken me to go through security since 2001 was like 15 minutes and I fly every couple of months.

[Zanir_zrold]

Yea really, I spend 3x more time standing in lines for ticket check-in than for security.

[Jangang]

So you are saying this isn't gonna speed things up?

I remember when you bought your ticket online, or over the phone, Had someone drop you off at the terminal and unloaded your bags (5 mins), walked inside and went through security (10 mins) then walked to the gate and boarded the plane (10 mins), which totalled 25ish minutes...

Now I haven't flew for a while, as since 911 the news and airlines always says to be there 2 or 3 hours early. Maybe they are being retarded though, I've never risked it. The furthest I've gone since then was to Vegas, and that's an 8 hour drive is all. I'd much prefer to fly though, so if you are saying it won't take me 3 hours at the airport to take an hour flight maybe I'll start doing that again.

[Rainstorme]

Well, I've never had to be patted down either, so I can't say if it would do anything. They don't pat down everyone. The 2-3 hour thing tends to be worst case scenario, like if it's really busy. I imagine it also depends on what airport. I'd have to guess this is more for people who don't feel comfortable with people touching them, especially if it remains optional.

[Matriel]

This sounds to me like airports are trying to tighten security even more. I don't see this is being unconstitutional since it's voluntary (technically) to fly but I can buy the argument that it's unnecessary. For instance, riding a bus or subway system doesn't require any screening whatsoever yet we pretty much never see terrorists taking control of those.

While voluntary to fly, the mandates on security are from the Federal government, which last time I checked was still supposed to be under the binds of the Constitution.

[alfaroverall]

Except I learned at some point during my government class that the Constitution technically only applies to the federal government, again prior to any court cases. I don't know if there is any text representing that in the Constitution itself, however.
Can someone please verify or debunk this?

[Taroth]

Here's a little tip: nothing like the holocaust will ever happen again. Before the holocaust people would ride trains and then take them to camps, no one would get hurt. But now that people know camps can be filled with poison gas and kill 6,000,000 people, they are not going to let some fucker order them around with a gun. They will jump the nazi. Better for 15 people to get shot on the train than for 6,000,000 to be burned alive in a furnace.


fix't