

Has Airport Security Gone Too Far?  - cwan
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704658204575611031585381708.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

======
Vivtek
_Even the most modest of us would probably agree to a brief flash of quasi-
nudity if it would really ensure a safe flight._

Direct quote from the article. I am rolling my eyes. I've never been
particularly body-modest, but I know I'm not normal. I know for a _fact_ that
my wife would not agree with this, I'm pretty sure my dad wouldn't, either. My
kids wouldn't - which brings me to the realization that I _still_ don't see
why the bare mention of kiddie porn is enough to send anybody to jail with
their computers seized - unless they're the TSA.

------
ctdonath
“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.” \- 4th Amendment

~~~
jambo
I'm guessing you were voted down[1] because the Supreme Court recognizes
administrative searches as not being Constitutionally prohibited.

However, top officials—including Mr. Pistole at the TSA who, as FBI Deputy
Director swore to protect the Constitution—have started referring to the new
pat-down procedures as "Law Enforcement Pat-downs" and "Law Enforcement-Style
Pat-Downs", and it is clear from descriptions that these are, in fact, akin to
pat-downs given to arrestees. TSA employees are not law enforcement, but these
extreme personal searches have no doubt led to law enforcement action when
they detect non-threatening contraband (weed), which the TSA has been using to
prove it _would_ be effective against threatening contraband (semtex
underwear, although the GAO questions this).

Maybe, in that case, there is a Constitutional problem with the new searches,
whether they are called administrative, or not.

[1] edit: parent was at -1 when I wrote this.

------
geuis
I don't understand why people are acquiescent to this! Every single time I
read about this or watch a news report about the scanners, whoever is doing
the talking invariable says at some point "I support security and the fact
that we have to give up some rights in security's name". Hell, there's a video
on Youtube right now recorded by a reporter of his own little girl getting
manhandled by TSA, and he says the same damn thing on the 6 o'clock news or
whenever. HIS OWN FREAKING DAUGHTER!

Its time that people stand up for their damn rights and say NO. You will not
microwave me to see me nude. NO, you will not see my child nude. NO, you will
not touch my genitals. NO, you will not touch my child's genitals. NO, you
will do proper security that actually works.

It needs to come down to protests at airports. Volunteers need to stand in
public areas and pass out information describing what the hell is going on.
People that are flying need to get the balls to say that their personal rights
as human beings are more important than making their flight on time.

~~~
geuis
Really? You're going to vote me down for saying you should stand up for your
rights?

~~~
jdp23
Some people are downvoting anything related to standing up for our rights --
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1898362>

~~~
abalashov
Given the amount of us that do consulting and on-site work, that seems absurd.
It is directly professionally relevant.

~~~
jdp23
i see things the way you do ... oh well, such is life

------
amichail
There must be a reason why Silicon Valley has resorted to using social
networks to identify good people.

Maybe it's time to use social networks for airline security as well.

~~~
geuis
[http://www.linkedin.com/search/fpsearch?companyId=830630&...](http://www.linkedin.com/search/fpsearch?companyId=830630&sortCriteria=R&keepFacets=&facet_CC=830630)

------
circuitbreaker
Yes

