November 15th, 2010: I Opt Out

[thangalin]

We abhor the idea of being irradiated by machines that have not had decades of testing, regardless of quantity. We are uncomfortable with a stranger viewing our genitals, or the genitals of our children. We are appalled that the alternative is to subject children and adults alike to groping of our private areas. We believe that the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution is being abandoned.

Michael Roberts protested to a TSA agent: "at this point I'm more concerned with the greater threat to our rights and liberties as a free society."

"Yeah, I know," replied the TSA agent, "But somebody's already taken those away."

I reject that reality and replace it with Michael's:

"I cannot consent to nor accept unwelcome physical contact any more than having images of my naked body being viewed by government personnel as a routine part of my daily commute to work. If I'm not under arrest or a suspect in some known threat to air transportation security, the [federal law-enforcement officers] have no grounds to invade my privacy and personal space in this way. It is an outrage beyond any measure of reason, an assault on liberty, a gross overreaching of the state, and a very significant step on the road back to the sort of tyranny many of our forbears and the founders of this society fought and often died to escape and abolish."

On November 15th, 2010, I will choose not to be subjected to radiation. I will choose not to have my privacy invaded. I will choose not to be subjected to an invasive, humiliating search. November 15th is the day that I take back my right not to be searched without a warrant for probable cause. On November 15th, I will arrive at the airport earlier than required and say, "I opt out."

I shall not sacrifice liberty for security.

If you are travelling on November 15th, I ask that you add your voice to mine.

http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/dzrgh/november_15th_2010_i_opt_out/

[throw_away]

Why only the one day? Isn't this similar to calls-to-action asking people to boycott gasoline stations for a day, which have no noticeable effect? Wouldn't a more effective strategy be to say that you will always opt out? If lots of people did that, the TSA would have to rethink their policies as eventually the number of people requesting the opt-out would exceed the manpower available to administer them?

[thangalin → throw_away]

"Thanksgiving. Remember junior high school, high school, elementary school, everybody bringing in cans for the hungry people? Remember that? Just imagine, if somebody, when you were in fifth, sixth grade, if the Principle had the gonads to say on Monday: 'Children, it was the most single, wonderful outpouring of generosity that this school has ever seen. More cans of food feeding a hundred and ninety-three families came to this school than ever before. We only have one problem and we’re gonna' deal with it this coming week. We’re gonna' cancel our regular classes and what we’re gonna' talk about is: what are those people gonna' eat next week?’" ~ Harry Chapin

I ask for one day as a tenacious first step. That one day is when I can take the first step, too. I feel it hypocritical to ask others to do something that I, myself, could not take part. One day acts as a point in time where people can stride together, in unison, to carry a much stronger message than a random smattering of people throughout the months to come.

An act of unity with a definite place (airports) and a definite time (November 15th, 2010) and a definite call-to-action (opt out), I believe is easier to accomplish and coordinate than a call-to-action where nobody is sure of when or where to start, or whether they will be singled out.

It is about saying no... together.

It is about showing people that we can open doors together and, once the door has been opened, walking through it.

[iwr]

These machines mean nothing for security for two reasons:

1. Not being able to scan body cavities. At least metal detectors cover that aspect.

2. There is an unlimited number of targets. Terrorists could even hit the queues of people waiting to be scanned. Also, everywhere there are crowds there is a danger. So no matter how secure is made a certain patch of airport, there is no overall security improvement.

[devmonk]

Couldn't the baggage x-ray and metal detectors that we've been walking through for ages in airports be considered an invasion of privacy also? I think people are getting too upset over this.

[il]

They're just going to refuse to let you get on the plane. There's no right to fly in the constitution.

[iwr → il]

You can't "opt out" when you are subjected to a legally-enforced monopoly.

Using the air to fly is the same as using the roads. By your argument, there is no "right to walk" or "right to drive" or "right to take a bus", therefore it would be OK to be made a prisoner by virtue of not being allowed onto public land.

It should be the government and not the individual whose freedom of movement is limited.

[adient → iwr]

This has been hashed and rehashed, but again, there is no right to drive (in a normal context). It is a privilege that must be earned and can be taken away. I really wish people would stop using that comparison to make the case for the 'right to fly' when it is completely false.

I don't agree with scanning but I also don't see you winning over many rational people with your comparisons. We need to come up with a better argument against the scanning that isn't so weak and easily shot down.

[eof → adient]

Unfortunately the real argument against the scanning is much harder to digest for the average person.

But let me try:

1. The machines are expensive and made by a company with a large lobbyist-budget.

2. The threat is over stated, these machines are overkill.

3. The machines grant marginal-at-best security beyond traditional methods.

4. The slow but steady psychological appeasement to being under closer and closer government scrutiny is a threat to democracy.

5. The airlines and their terminals are not private enterprises, while the security and regulations are pure government entities. Since TSA agents are government officials they ought to be bound by the constitution which protects against unreasonable search. If Macy's was forcing people to get cavity searches to enter their store, I wouldn't have a problem with it, I just wouldn't shop there. Being searched at an airport is a completely different situation than entering into a contract with a private party.

5a. The risk factor being so blown out of proportion makes a virtual-strip search of an average no-record citizen unreasonable.

[eof]

Unfortunately they will just feel up to your nuts/vag instead of looking at them.

I agree with the sentiment.

[thangalin → eof]

Such an action is unacceptable.

Section eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states, "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."

The U.S. Constitution - Amendment 4 states, "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."

Personally invasive searches are unreasonable when travelling by foot, by car, by boat, by bicycle, and, I contend, by aeroplane.

If society agrees that it is unreasonable to be virtually strip-searched or intimately groped while travelling by plane, then the TSA is violating a fundamental right of North American society.

[willheim → thangalin]

Define "unacceptable". I much prefer flying in Canada (or anywhere else) as opposed to flying anywhere in the US. I've found the whole process post 9/11 to be unacceptable, disrespectful, uncomfortable, tedious, and just plain unpleasant. The only people I feel more sorry for are those who work in the airports because they have to deal with regulations and procedures that create hostile attitudes amongst the cattle (erm, I meant passengers) and they have to become desensitized to the whole malarkey on the off chance that a bottle of breast milk might be some liquid explosive.

[secos → thangalin]

They won't though. You are asking people to choose between getting groped/irradiated and BIG SCARY AMBIGUOUS THREAT.

Most people are not willing/able to make the leap you have.

[eof → secos]

It's true that most people aren't willing, however that doesn't really mean people shouldn't be encouraging them to anyway.

Your post reminds me of people who try to convince me that trying to convince people to vote for a third party is dumb/ a waste of time/pointless since most people won't do it.

At this point it's going to take nothing short of a revolution to have a world where leadership, in addition to technology, is actually beneficial to the masses, at this point it's essentially a parasitic relationship. So as far as I can tell, rather people start getting fed up sooner rather than later.

[eof → thangalin]

Yeah, it's unacceptable.. but are you just going to buy a ticket on Nov 15 and let your seat stay empty?

Or are you going to let them do something unacceptable to you?