Doesn't say "as long as you aren't flying" or "except whenever the government feels like it" it just says that and the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land. Don't like it, you're free to leave the county.
It all hinges on your definition of the word "unreasonable". I think that it's hardly unreasonable for the TSA to take steps to make sure that you're not carrying a bomb onto a plane. As long as the courts continue to agree with that viewpoint, all of this is a bunch of noisy handwaving. dlagrua, you are aware of the fact that even before these scanners, the alternative screening process that you also complained about was a possability, yes?
I don't fly very often - maybe once or twice a year. But from my experience, the real problem with airports security stems from inexperienced or just plain stupid, selfish flyers. They generally think the following:
I believe that you are twisting this a bit. My statement was made to illustrate that modesty is a core Christian belief. If a person is without clothes because they do not have the means to buy them, then of course we as Christians are taught to help in the name of charity. Likewise if a person is hungry we should feed them. I embrace that helping the least among us is part of our belief system.
And has already been pointed out, the TSA agent will not be seeing an actual live image on their screen. They will essentially be seeing little more than a stick figure representation of the person in the scanner. There will be no facial features, no recognizable features of any sort on the screen. The agent seeing the image will not even be able to see the person being scanned in any way other than the vague image on the screen. They'll be in a closed room that does not overlook the security check point. If they see something suspicious, they'll hit a button or perhaps an intercom to alert the agents near the scanner to remove said person for a further "hands on" inspection.
And to reiterate what I said earlier in this thread no matter what you may think the government is not forcing an unreasonable search on you. One of the major and well settled exceptions to a warrantless search is consent. By going through the scanner a person is consenting to the screening. Therefore the 4th Amendment is not being violated.
This statement is just completely and utterly ridiculous. The Supreme Court held that child pornography is only illegal when it depicts actual children. Thus "simulated" children either by drawing or whatever other means one would use to do this isn't illegal though it is absolutely repugnant. As Alan also stated the image would not be live but a representation. As such insinuating as you do that this is akin to child pornography is just way beyond the realm of rational thought.
Say what you want about them, they're not "morons" and if you don't consent to the body scan than you get the pat down (which is something completely different than getting "felt up").
It's not "insta-porn" having consumed my fair share in the past, the images from your link can hardly be described as such. We're also not talking about forcing people to walk through it to get to and from your house - I'm sure that the Courts would look at that differently than airport screening.
Actually what you say is not true in all cases. Currently two different technologies are in use. One is the mm wave technology which produces a 3D image, and the other is an X-ray Compton scattering based technology which produces a 2D image. Both technologies are currently deployed and used. Some airports are installing mm wave technology and others are installing X-ray back scattering technology. There is no way to tell which is which unless you know before hand what is installed where.
Whatever makes you think no one is doing anything about it? Anyone that is serious about doing anything about it is certainly not spending time screaming about it on boards like this one. There are other more effective ways of dealing with these things.
Even if they were to show full body pictures of the childs body under the clothing, that would not be child pornography.
I was wrong, I thought they had settled on just THz scanners after a long trial, but it seems that the newer generation backscatter scanners are now (after March 1st) being installed.
Yes, I completely agree with you on that. It is said in a journal article that the radiation level is such that it will possibly cause 1 additional death per year at the rate at which security inspection is done at all airport security barriers taken together today in the US. But such would never be able to be positively correlated in real life because other confounding factors would be impossible to remove to decide unequivocally that said death was due to the scanner.
