What do you think of the hullabaloo about airport pat-downs and full-body scans?
By Elizabeth Fuller, Correspondent
posted November 17, 2010 at 4:03 pm ESTAs the debate about the Transportation Security Administration’s screening procedures pings across the Internet, a growing chorus of critics is asserting that electronic imaging scans and “enhanced pat-downs” both represent an unconstitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches.
“Enough is enough. I should not have to submit to a digital strip search or being groped by a glorified security guard,” writes commenter vrwc1 in a typical post on cnet.com. “This is the largest violation of personal privacy we’ve ever seen.”
The choice to get on an airplane, the argument goes, is not probable cause for such invasive searches, nor does buying a ticket constitute consent to be subjected to a “virtual strip search” and “groping,” as critics call the two searches.
For the courts, however, it is a matter of balancing personal privacy rights against public safety.
“Are the conditions that you’re consenting to so draconian and so unreasonable that there’s a Fourth Amendment problem?” asks William Schroeder, a professor of law at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. “I don’t think that argument is going to carry the day, given that people have hidden bombs on their bodies in ways that cannot be found through less invasive searches.”
‘You don’t have to fly’
At the heart of the issue is consent, says Professor Schroeder. Have people consented to this search, simply by buying a ticket? “I certainly understand why people are not altogether pleased about it,” says Schroeder, but “you’ve consented. You don’t have to fly – that’s your choice.”
Others, however, suggest that the searches overreach. In order to pass the Supreme Court’s test for constitutionality, searches must balance a “reasonable” amount of privacy invasion against the likelihood of finding evidence of a crime.
That this has reached a tipping point was inevitable. As more time elapses, 9/11 becomes more distant, and methods of enhancing security become more invasive. That combination has led to a predictable backlash.
In this particular case, the public perception is that the new technology doesn’t really address any threat in particular. We remove laptops because we know they can be used to house bombs. We remove shoes because of the shoe bomber. We get virtually stripped because????
I find the “you don’t have to fly” argument profoundly unpersuasive. First of all, many of us do have to fly, or we lose our jobs. The courts have consistently found that, if failure to perform an action results in termination, that action is a “have to”.
Second, the airline industry is still private. Aviation was invented and cultivated by private enterprise. That the government has inserted itself into the process does not give it the right to determine what our rights are. I don’t have to remodel my basement. That does not give the government the right to live in it if I do.
Third, it sounds like something Hugo Chavez would say. That’s not a legal argument, but those who favor keeping these scanners in action should find a better talking point.
The illusion of security should not be assumed to be the credence a governmental body uses to violate the rights and privacy of its citizenry.
It’s “much ado about nothing” until it is your wife or daughter who is in tears because of the aggressive search.
I agree with kevin @#1. It is inevitable if we absolutely refuse to profile. I guess a 70 yr. old nun or a toddler are just as much of a risk at as young man from the middle east.
To act as if this is an overreaction by the flying public is sick.
I heard someone on the radio this morning bring up the profiling (or lack thereof) issue as well.
I keep wanting to relate this to jesus’ commands of non violent resistance to oppression (extra mile, tunic, etc)
This would end immediately if people just started stripping naked in line to go through security. If I were flying and didn’t need to get somewhere in a hurry, I’d certainly give it some thought.
And why are we only worried about bombs on the airplane? Why not malls, festivals, concerts, sporting events, etc?
The whole thong is ludicrous and it’s not about security. It’s about the empire gaining control of power where ever it can.
“That the government has inserted itself into the process does not give it the right to determine what our rights are.”
The government is not determining your rights. Your rights have been guaranteed by the Constitution and no doubt a case will arise that will determine if TSA has infringed your fourth amendment rights. A court, in fact, will determine what your rights are.
Of course, when a plane blows up after TSA is determined to have overreached, a very different conversation will ensue. “Why didn’t government do more to protect the flying public? That’s their job!” It’s a no win situation for the feds since the first thing most Americans value, above all else, is security. It’s why we spend ungodly amounts of money on the military. It’s why we look the other way when government spies on us and tortures people and infringes other constitutional rights.
What makes this unique is that it’s okay for government to infringe other people’s rights so long as it doesn’t happen to me. But now the government literally gets to put it’s hands on you! That’s why profiling is a good alternative from the perspective of people who will never be profiled. The problem disappears. This isn’t about principle; it’s just personal.
1. Your opinion of the issue is significantly driven by your politics. Generally speaking, Obama is in the white house, so my fellow conservatives largely see it as an invasion of privacy while liberals make peace with the process. If Bush were still around conservatives would largely view it as necessary for national security while liberals would be screaming from the roof tops about Bush’s police state. This is unfortunate since the invasion should be judged on its own merit.
2. This is a problem with government monopolies. If we had private security firms committing some of the more outrageous instances of invasion (the woman being forced to remove her blouse in the middle of a crows), well in those simple market competition would at least provide some possibility that the firm would be replaced or the worker fired. 2 years after that incident and neither the worker that forced her to remove her blouse in public, nor the worker that complained he missed the show, but would get to watch the video has been fired. She has had to take them to court. The likelihood of a private company firing one of those workers is higher.
3. Some form of profiling is appropriate. 20-30 year old men may deserve increased scrutiny, toddlers should not get frisked (but they have under the current policy).
4. I have heard (but not confirmed) that there is actually “reverse-profiling” occurring. So while non-muslim women might be subject to a full pat-down, including the groin region, Muslim women in a hijab or niqab are only subjected to a search of the neck and face area, due to religious sensitivities.
Overall, more common sense should be applied (no frisking toddlers), workers that sexualize the searches should be fired (the man that commented on the woman’s blouse removal, the female TSA employee who asked a passenger if people told him he looked like a porn star after seeing the 3-D image) and even if some of the frisks and 3-d images are still necessary, then airlines should be prepared to deal with decreased demand for their product.
It is interesting to note that the company that has made millions off of the machines is also a client of the former Homeland Security Chief.
Also, I think our policy of searching everyone is much less useful, and more costly, than policies like those of Israel which require thorough background checks and profiling based upon those checks. When the cops are investigating a crime they use criminal histories of people in the area to guide their investigation, we should use information to guide our searches.
I don’t think anyone is stoked about the security measures we have to endure at airports, but I am even more sad about living in the type of world that has made it a necessity.
My wife and I are flying on Sunday with our 4 month old daughter. I have been googling and reading everything I can to see how I can get us through security as quickly as possible with all the gear and breast milk we will have in tow. Yet as much as I am dreading it, I am even less inclined to accept the alternative.
albion @5, so is it all or nothing? Is there no other alternative but to have my daughter groped? That is my point. Don’t you see that the infringement of rights is already happening?
If we can agree that rights are being infringed upon then how do we choose which ones trump the other? How about if we choose the most effective results? Does it not seem that this refusal to exercise judgment in one area is forcing us to a course of action that is, at best, inefficient?
While I don’t really like being felt up by someone else in the name of “security,” what I really don’t like is the thought of my wife being felt up. If I had a daughter, I would dislike that very much, too.
But, I really worry about those who have been sexually abused/assaulted. If the statistics are correct (and we know what has been said about statistics), then 1/3 women have been sexually assaulted. Now, the government is going to require that they allow some stranger to grope and feel their genitalia and breasts, palm out, just to get on an airplane? That’s not acceptable in my book.
I am simply refusing to fly, until something positive is done about the situation. Do I have to fly? Nope. So I refuse. I hope others do, too. And when struggling airlines begin to struggle more, maybe then the “money” will cause the government to do something about it.
That’s funny, Robin #7. I just going to mention that from what I’ve seen, only liberals were outraged by this, while conservatives were going along with the apparent need for more security/law and order, just as with warrantless wiretapping.
Glad to see that I was wrong.
Might this be one of those rare occurences where liberals and conservatives agree? Might it lead to the realization on both sides that in politics there *are* no real sides and the the true fight should be people vs politicians? Probably not much chance of that.
All the same, I’ve never been on a plane before. If things continue as they are, it looks like I never will. No big loss for me. Travelling is over-rated and generally unenjoyable. Staying home is where it’s at.
I also don’t think this is a liberal vs. conservative issue. I first heard about this awhile ago from left-wing friends, well before it was an issue in the media or on Drudge or whatever. It’s more of an establishment vs. the people issue.
The establishment doesn’t want to be in the position of “not having done enough” if a terrorist achieves his ends. People want to be able to travel with dignity and without personal violation, especially those whose work requires that they fly frequently or who travel with children.
Personally, I fly very seldom and I’m not going to make any plans to fly until these things are resolved. I agree that something like the Israeli system of background checks and behavioral profiling makes sense.
This is a lame argument as follows;
1. He frames the discussion around consent and draconian measures. but the bottom line is the scans don’t work. The cannot discover liquids, etc.
2. Because terrorists can hide bombs on their bodies, we should submit to these scans. Because Presidents get shot in theaters, they should stay home and watch TV.
3. Why does every argument get reduced to legalisms–consent, etc. Why not find a solution to the problem?
The way this is going, it will not take long for TSA agents to become amateur proctologists and gynecologists.
Getting rid of the scanner tech and hiring an army of trained patter-downers would create a lot of jobs.
The objection “You don’t have to fly – that’s your choice.” ranks up there with some of the more stupid objections I’ve ever heard to anything (right alongside “You don’t have to live here – move”)
Many people nowadays have to travel via airplanes for their jobs. Not to fly is tantamount to quitting their jobs. If these business travelers quit their jobs, these same people (the ones who raised this objection) would be complaining that these people quit their jobs when jobs are hard to come by.
Such thoughtless, stupid objections make everything else you say seem ridiculous, too.
Are there TSA agents at train stations and bus depots? Buse stops in metro areas? Hmmm. Then why not have this type of security check for all public transportation?
If we are trying to avoid terror plots, how many more devices have been “found” near populated, local means of transportation?
As long as the scanners are optional, bomb materials can get past a pat-down. There are effective explosive compounds that are measured in tens of grams: only a cavity search and 100% accurate scanners can actually deliver what the TSA wants us to believe. The idea that these scanners will be effective borders on fantasy.
And profiling, at least in a simplistic manner, won’t be effective either. Clothing, skin color, accent: none of these things are helpful. Proactive intelligence, on the other hand, can be very effective. Thus far the TSA has proven to be mostly reactive and not proactive, and for that reason they deserve the trust of no-one (trust must be earned).
I think objection to this is bi-partisan. Again, this was sort of a tipping point issue. Taking off your shoes is annoying (and not all the productive), but whatever.
“That’s why profiling is a good alternative from the perspective of people who will never be profiled. The problem disappears. This isn’t about principle; it’s just personal.”
In aggregate, it would be a quicker and more effective way to provide security. Having everyone get groped and scanned out of some misguided principle of fairness isn’t going to be popular.
At some point, we’re going to have to make some decisions about how far we are willing to go to accommodate the sensibilities of Islam, which is fast becoming our unofficial national religion. The sooner we start having adult discussions about things like profiling, the less likely there will be a furious backlash.
I think the objections should be bipartisian. But I don’t think they are. While I am a liberal, most of my liberal friends seem to think it is no big deal. I agree that this is mostly a result of prior politics. The scanners started under Bush. They flourished with the help of former Sec of DHS care and the were fast tracked by Obama after the underwear bomber because he didn’t want to be seen as soft on terrorism. Lots of blame to pass around. But not sure how much responsibility will be taken.
I am strongly against the police state assumptions that usually accompany this discussion. I am very anti TSA. I fly enough to have free upgrades to business class. I am irritated that the TSA didn’t follow the much simplier and easier to comply with rules before the security upgraded. There is no reason to think that the more intrusive rules will lead to a more disciplined TSA.
In many things this just is simple psychology. Give a bunch of people virtually unlimited police powers, there will be abuses. It is inevitable.
Much of this discussion is about the “pat downs.” The reality is that no one is subject to pat downs unless they refuse to go through the scanners.
A comment was made about the government inserting itself into the situation. The airlines are private, the airways are not. The government is responsible for the safety of the planes and passengers. Airports can contract out the services, but the rules and standards are set by the federal government.
I think a good way to see this is to look at the roads and the cars that drive upon them. With few exceptions, the roads are owned, maintained, and policed by governments (in this case mainly state and local authorities). The vehicles are largely privately owned, as are the car companies — and don’t talk about GM, as the government’s share of ownership has dropped from about 61% to around 32% with the recent IPO). The government doesn’t tell us what car to drive, but it does set safety and mileage standards so as to benefit the general public, not just the individual.
I wonder where this will all stop, or if it will, if we continue to live in fear and allow fear to control us. Will police begin to search people entering store where a lot of crime has taken place? Or if you’re driving into a high crime area will your car be stopped and searched, just because you might be carrying a gun? I realize there are dangers, but we can’t let fear take over our lives.
It’s a nonpartisan issue; the ACLU has been aggressively pursuing the issue. Fact is that some people don’t want strangers seeing them naked.
But technology is not the key to safety. Intelligence (in both senses of the word) is the key to safety. Screeners still miss a terrifying amount of the contraband in luggage. And shouldn’t we be finding out about these plans before they get to the bomb-in-the-airport stage?
On my way to SBL, I was pre-selected for the pat down. I was informed by staff that I would have to undergo several searches. I did all these without complaint. I do not mind being searched when you consider the betterment of security. In fact, I even thanks the agent who checked me for their work in what must be a tough job. However, the process is totally ridiculous. Not only was I searched in very private areas, those same areas were touched multiple times from different angles. There is no need to recheck the same spot. What’s more, I had to listen to the agents argue about who had to do the new pat down procedure–because they didn’t want to do it. Additionally, my bags were searched without me watching. When I asked why my bag was searched when I found out they were searching it, the agent replied, “I thought you were watching.” This was while I was being redundantly checked around my most sensitive areas. Also, they offered that this could be done in private–as if privacy would make it any better. There’s plenty more to the story–the subprofessional behavior of the agents, the fact that since I was preselected I was patted down at multiple terminals while making a connections, and the failure of agents to explain what was going on. As I said, I don’t mind being checked, but the process is a joke and there’s no reason someone should have to go through what I did. The current process has nothing to do with rights but stupidity in the system.
Sounds like the lawyers will be lining up on either side for this one. Either to sue for harassment and ivasion of privacy or for not protecting us enough if something does happen.
Good discussion about this on NPR this week. Suggesting that perhaps where we ought to start is by investing in raising the standard of professionalism among the TSA workers, training them to be more than just Mall Cops. And, yes, to bring back a form of profiling, not based on race but things such as when was the ticket purchased, is it one-way, etc. Employing some of the same measures of security that Israel employs..though, not sure that helps when you’re at the local market.
“we’re going to have to make some decisions about how far we are willing to go to accommodate the sensibilities of Islam, which is fast becoming our unofficial national religion”
Yes, it’s all about Islam. But I’m confused about the use of the modest “unofficial”? Any thinking person would have to conclude that it’s the official religion of the nation. We wouldn’t have to have choose between porn machines or aggressive groping pat downs if the official national religion didn’t require it.
As long as we live in terror to the extent we believe everyone around is a criminal, even groping grandma and three years olds, they have already won a major battle, and more because of our fear than their power. It’s reminiscent of battered wife’s syndrome.
Speaking of which, as a former foster parent of sexually abused children and a person with friends and brothers & sisters in Christ who’ve been through such trauma, I can’t help but fear what people with that history (and possibly PTSD) will have to go through just to travel on the holidays. To me, this alone almost makes these searches a bridge too far.
Michael Totten has a good perspective on these new security measures: “Terrorists have yet to use the same weapon twice, and the TSA isn’t even looking for whatever they’ll try to use next. … Security officials should pay less attention to objects, and more attention to people.” He then goes on to describe his frequent experiences with Israeli security. Because he’s travelled to Lebanon and Iraq so many times (I suspect being a man of his age and travelling alone is also a factor), he fits one of the profiles the Israelis use and always gets singled out for extra screening — questioning, not groping!
Well, that was bigoted.
There seems to be a strong consensus here that the current TSA actions are a bit much. That is a relief. But what no one has mentioned is the negative impact all of this has on the TSA Workers themselves. Really, who would want to see that many people naked in one day? Or how would like to run your hands over that many private parts during your shift? I would have full blown PTSD inside of a week.
Colleen: For some reason, my response didn’t go through yesterday. I was being saracastic. I was incredulous that someone could really believe the quoted portion. Thought experiment: try defending that quoted section in debate. It’s impossible. But many people hold this view.