Actually, when they were first implemented the airports that were using them were supposed to be announced to the public, and people went out of their way to use airports that didn't have them. Unfortunately the reports were not wholly accurate, which is what caused the 'felony' case against the man that I mentioned previously. He believed that the ticket he purchased did not also buy a stranger the ability to grab his crotch or a free ride in a radiation box, then got a nasty surprise when he went to the airport and found he had been misinformed.
And he could have left. He was not, upon going on airport property, detained and forced through a scanner or a pat down. Regardless, what he "believed" he did or didn't buy by getting a ticket does not change the fact that all adults know what airport security is like and we all know there's a chance we can be pulled aside for greater inspection. The "I didn't know" argument is one I just don't buy. The list of participating airports is widely available and was before they were put in, people who were upset could have avoided them. In the end, the number of people put off by them is far trumped by the number who see the scanners for what they are, an unfortunate product of the times we live in. Opinion polls show people aren't largely put off, the whole opt out day was a flop, and there are far, far, far greater things to worry about then people who participate in a known security procedure at an airport.
By that logic, why can't the government just do random searches of random people's homes and bodies at any time? After all, I have a right to walk down the street without being blown to bits by someone building bombs in their basement, right?
Of course you do, and if the government suspects you will be blown up, the guy next to you wants to blow you up, the building you're outside of houses a bomb, or you're going into a place known as an attractive target, you will see actions taken to protect your security.
The government taking steps to protect its people and assets which have proven very recently and very regularly targets of crime which, when successful, has the potential to not just kill people but partially cripple the US as a country, so they are taking steps to protect people. This is hardly the same as random searches of homes and bodies by the government just because. It's searching people who are fully aware the searches will occur and, by getting a ticket, acknowledge and consent to those security measures. Just like I know my bag will be searched going into a concert, just like I know going to a police station I will walk through a detector, just like I know that if I go to a political rally where my Govenor is there, I will be subjected to search.
You keep using the term 'have a right'. You're not using it right. Ironically. And for pete's sake people, please stop saying we don't have a 'right to fly'. We DO have a right not to be searched without cause. It's in the 4th amendment for a reason--because the illusion of safety created by stripping people of their privacy is not worth giving the government that kind of power over us in any setting. It's one thing to be search if you are acting suspicious or known to have a criminal record. It's another to leave grandmothers crying in their panties at an airport terminal. Just because you suspect the arabic-looking fellow standing next to you in line for the bank might have a box cutter doesn't mean you can shove your hands down his pockets.
Let's not get hysterical, ok? People get so hysterical over this it's ridiculous. Grandmothers aren't left crying in their panties, children aren't being strip searched... Please. It's stuff like this that makes this whole argument against the scanners look like it's a case of poor understanding of the process, nothing more.
And if the Arabic looking fellow sets off the metal detector, then there is suspicion, there is probable cause, and there is reason for further searching. Just the same for anybody else. The probable cause is put out there when you fail a basic security screening. Or are we suggesting that when people fail basic security measures, to keep from putting them out, we should laugh and say "Hey, what are you going to do?" and let them board the plane anyway?
For the record, people are subjected to searches and security checks for reasons beyond having criminal records or acting suspicious. When you go to high profile targets, when you are passing from unsecured to secured areas, when others (like police officers) need to maintain their safety, you can be subject to security checks and searches.
If you are willing to drive anywhere in a car, you are statistically in much greater danger than anyone in a plane even before the new scanners and grope-happy pat-down policies. Your fears are unfounded, and frankly, it saddens me that you sell your privacy and constitutional rights so cheaply. Kindly keep your paws off mine.
Yes, well when I drive my car and wreck it, it doesn't bring down skyscrapers or centers of defense for an entire nation. Me getting into a car accident doesn't have the potential to completely change the direction of a country, damage its infastructure, rattle the safety of the American people, rattle the safety of other countries, or start wars, and kill thousands of people. Statistical safety is one thing, but safety is a far broader concept than statistics.
You want to keep your "Constitutional right?" Don't fly on a plane. Keep your paws off of my right to be safe, my family's right to a secure nation, everybody's right to safety and security, simply because you feel you're too special to have to undergo the same security measure every person has to undergo.
No, it's not. You get to choose your doctor, while a TSA agent is a complete random stranger. Your doctor treats you with dignity. TSA agents treat you with suspicion and disrespect. The whole purpose of going to the doctor is to be seen naked in a medical context to keep you healthy. The whole purpose of being searched by a TSA agent is to create a facade of security which has never actually discovered or deterred a terrorist to date while conditioning people to the idea that the government has the right to invade their privacy without consequence.
Oh but besides that, totally the same. *eye roll*
You're speaking in broad generalities based on stereotypes and your own preconcieved notion that law enforcement is bad and out to get you. Who's to say the TSA treats you with suspicion and disrespect and your doctor with dignity? I've been to dozens of airports and my negative experiences with TSA agents I can count on one hand, and I've seen dozens of doctors and can rattle off numerous instances where I was treated very poorly.
To claim the TSA has never stopped or caught a criminal is not only blatently false, it's downright silly. There's no way you can tell how many people have been saved because of the security measures in place. And I'm not even going to address the whole claim it never caught anybody, something we all know to be really wrong. Again, you make it sound like the TSA is housed in the Fortress of Doom and they all sit there and rub their hands at the great evil they are doing and the great act they're putting on, when the reality is these searches are done with the full knowledge and consent of the public in a controlled situation for the purposes of security.
Would you mind if naked pictures of you were passed out to a group of gay guys? I mean, it's not like they would be particularly interested or attracted, so it's fine, right?
Yes, because naked pictures distributed freely to a group of people is EXACTLY like a black and white scaled scan where nobody can see your face, where they can see the outline of the body and private areas but no distinguishing features, which is viewed only by somebody trained to see it and interpret it for the purposes of security, which is not saved or distributed, where your picture is one of a thousand before it and a thousand after it. *eye roll*
Let me guess, because I got an x-ray once, I must be OK with posing in "Playboy?" Because I got ultrasounds regularly while pregnant and showed those to people, I must be OK with being publically nude?
