View Full Version : Muslim Woman Refuses Body Scan (UK)
citizensoldier16
03-04-10, 13:46
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7048576.ece
What do you think the result would be if this happened here? Would the ACLU get involved? What would the outcome be? I just pose these questions because they're the same questions I'm sitting here asking myself. I'm all for safer air travel, but at the same time, I do value privacy of the individual. What do ya'll think?
A Muslim woman was barred from boarding a flight after she refused to undergo a full body scan for religious reasons.
The passenger was passing through security at Manchester Airport when she was selected at random for a full-body scanner.
She was warned that she would be stopped from boarding the plane but she decided to forfeit her ticket to Pakistan rather than submit to the scan. Her female travelling companion also declined to step into the scanner, citing “medical reasons” for her refusal.
The two women are thought to be the first passengers to refuse to submit to scanning by the machines, which have provoked controversy among human rights groups.
They were introduced on a limited basis last month at Heathrow and Manchester airports in response to the alleged attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to blow up a jet over Detroit on Christmas Day using explosives concealed in his underpants.
The X-ray machines allow security officials to check for concealed weapons but they also afford clear outlines of passengers’ genitals. They are due to be introduced in all airports by the end of the year.
Civil liberties campaigners have said the scans represent an invasion of privacy and their introduction may yet be challenged by the Human Rights Commission.
Trevor Phillips, head of the commission, has told Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary, that there are concerns over passengers’ privacy and an apparent lack of safeguards to ensure that the scanners are used without discrimination.
Sources at Manchester Airport have said the two women were due to board a flight two weeks ago when they were turned back at security.
No other passengers had objected to the checks and about 15,000 have so far submitted to the piercing eye of the £80,000 Rapiscan machine at the airport’s Terminal 2.
The second female passenger was said to be concerned because she had an infection. They may be the first to be turned back for their refusal to be scanned, though a spokesman for Heathrow said it could not comment on individual cases.
At Manchester, a spokeswoman said: “Two female passengers who were booked to fly out of Terminal Two refused to be scanned for medical and religious reasons.
“In accordance with the government directive on scanners, they were not permitted to fly. Body scanning is a big change for customers who are selected under the new rules and we are aware that privacy concerns are on our customers’ minds, which is why we have put strict procedures to reassure them that their privacy will be protected.”
Last month, Lord Adonis stressed that an interim code of practice on the use of body scanners stipulated that passengers would not be selected “on the basis of personal characteristics”.
He said that images captured by body scanners would be immediately deleted after the passenger had gone through and that security staff were appropriately trained and supervised.
Objectors to the scanners, and indeed the two women who forfeited their flight last month, have an unlikely ally in Pope Benedict XVI, a man who is likely to be waved through airport security for the rest of his life.
Last month he told an audience from the aerospace industry that, notwithstanding the threat from terrorism, “the primary asset to be safeguarded and treasured is the person, in his or her integrity”.
GermanSynergy
03-04-10, 13:54
Well, given the complainant's demographic and religious preference, I'd fully expect the UK to get on hands and knees and cater to her 100%.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7048576.ece
What do you think the result would be if this happened here? Would the ACLU get involved? What would the outcome be? I just pose these questions because they're the same questions I'm sitting here asking myself. I'm all for safer air travel, but at the same time, I do value privacy of the individual. What do ya'll think?
Had it happened here, unless I'm mistaken, she would have been given the option of a pat-down if she declined to do the body scan.
One plane for the people who want to be checked for explosives, one plane for people who don't.
Donbeeler49
03-04-10, 15:14
Sorry, no scan, no fly! Take the stinkin' bus!
If that happened here, the passenger would be allowed to board the flight if they instead agreed to a full body pat down. They could ask that it be done in a private screening area for modesty reasons.
I guess I am the only person here who doesn't like these scanners.
Muslim woman selected at random:D
One plane for the people who want to be checked for explosives, one plane for people who don't.
I would be on the plan with out the security check, I like personal freedoms. I know people say take the bus instead, but it's a slippery slope. Why can't walmart pat you down before you enter the store or after you exit? What stops us from scanning all students before entering schools, how about a pat down or scan before entering a bus or any for of public transportation, why not a check point before getting on any public roads?
And why the hell are tax payers paying for security of a private comapny?
Had it happened here, unless I'm mistaken, she would have been given the option of a pat-down if she declined to do the body scan.
This is exactly what happens here in the U.S. I choose not to participate in having my body bombarded with whatever kinda crap they have coming out of that machine and they give you a physical pat down in return.
I guess I am the only person here who doesn't like these scanners.
Count me in too. No thank you, no way, no how.
Well, given the complainant's demographic and religious preference, I'd fully expect the UK to get on hands and knees and cater to her 100%.
and giver her some money for her troubles and then make a new rule that muslims dont have to get body scans !
its insane anymore
Guns I don't have problems with, high explosives in confined spaces just scream "up to no good."
In the biz they call this a 'probe.' They are checking what the left and right limits are. About a year from now, expect another attack.
GermanSynergy
03-04-10, 18:59
In the biz they call this a 'probe.' They are checking what the left and right limits are. About a year from now, expect another attack.
If that happens, expect the powers that be go into PC overdrive.
I guess I am the only person here who doesn't like these scanners.
No, I'm in agreement with you. 4th Amendment, scatter radiation effects and, hell, I don't need checkin'. Check everyone else. I have no fantasy about falling from the sky. I know, I know... :p
I guess I am the only person here who doesn't like these scanners.
I hope nothing in my post gave you the idea that I'm in favor of the scanners. I'm not.
GermanSynergy
03-04-10, 20:22
I hope nothing in my post gave you the idea that I'm in favor of the scanners. I'm not.
I'm not in favor either. I'm guessing that if certain groups bellyache and complain enough they will be "exempt" from being scanned, while we scan 92 year old WW2 veterans, grannies and toddlers.
tracker722
03-04-10, 20:51
******
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Sounds shady to me. If they would have both said religious reasons it would sound reasonable, but a medical reason which is an infection?
Sounds like they are just testing the security to see what they can get away with.
She can ride her camel instead.
Cascades236
03-05-10, 00:10
Tough shit. Don't like it, exercise free will and ride the bus.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7048576.ece
What do you think the result would be if this happened here? Would the ACLU get involved? What would the outcome be? I just pose these questions because they're the same questions I'm sitting here asking myself. I'm all for safer air travel, but at the same time, I do value privacy of the individual. What do ya'll think?
There is no "right to fly" otherwise we could tell them we aren't taking off our damn shoes. She refused body scan, fine don't fly. Don't want to take off your shoes, fine don't fly.
Simple solutions, and why I actually don't fly unless I have to. I hate putting up with their ineffective security measures and being treated like cattle.
One plane for the people who want to be checked for explosives, one plane for people who don't.
And what pilot in his/her right mind would fly the plane full of people who did not want to be checked? lol
I would be on the plan with out the security check, I like personal freedoms. I know people say take the bus instead, but it's a slippery slope. Why can't walmart pat you down before you enter the store or after you exit? What stops us from scanning all students before entering schools, how about a pat down or scan before entering a bus or any for of public transportation, why not a check point before getting on any public roads?
And why the hell are tax payers paying for security of a private comapny?
I like personal freedoms as well, but flying is not a right. So if you have to walk through a microwave and get zapped, or get a gloved hand around your junk, its something you have to deal with. No one is forcing you to fly.
There was a thread on here in the not too distant past about a terrorist who hid explosives in, ahem, his body to avoid detection.
Everyone in the "flying is not a right" camp good with strip searches and cavity searches prior to boarding? Safety is paramount, right?
Everyone in the "flying is not a right" camp good with strip searches and cavity searches prior to boarding? Safety is paramount, right?
Yes! which is why I do not fly because I know it will never happen. A bus/train/cab can stop, I can jump out of it, on a plane you have no where to go. As far as public transportation where you are not searched, you should ask the people in Canada that got killed on the bus by a guy with a knife.
There was a thread on here in the not too distant past about a terrorist who hid explosives in, ahem, his body to avoid detection.
Everyone in the "flying is not a right" camp good with strip searches and cavity searches prior to boarding? Safety is paramount, right?
true... if someone wants to shine a light in my a$$, I would also say I am not getting on the plane... But a pat down, or a x-ray machine, I can deal with in order to spend 9 days on an island drinking a beer on the beach and getting a nice tan.
as far as public transportation, in NYC cops can sometimes look into your bag as you enter the subway. and in a cab, I would be more worried about the driver having a bomb then the passinger.
Going into Yankee stadium they can look into purces and so on, book bags are not allowed.
Going into Indy Speedway in '05 '06 and '07 to watch the US Grand Prix people at the gate looked into my camera bag.
It happend all the time now... Is it a bad thing? Are our liberties being slowly taken away? At this point I don't think so, I have yet to be asked to do something I find too invasive.
Tough shit. Don't like it, exercise free will and ride the bus.
Get the government out of private business and make them pay for their own security rather than wasting millions of tax dollars.
Is it a bad thing?
Yes
Are our liberties being slowly taken away?
Yes
At this point I don't think so,
Many of us would disagree with you.
I have yet to be asked to do something I find too invasive.
I find a full body scan and/or pat down pretty damn invasive.
its really quit simple no scan no fly you dont have to have it but again you dont have to fly either............
its really quit simple no scan no fly you dont have to have it but again you dont have to fly either............
How often do you fly? How often do the people who make statements like this fly? I'm on an airplane at least twice a week and usually more and have no fear of people not having their cock & twats looked at by some retard TSA lackey using the magic x-ray machine.
Where does it stop? Bend over and cough? Let me insert this up your ass, it'll only be for a second and if you don't like it don't fly...
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
I find a full body scan and/or pat down pretty damn invasive.
So what is you opinion on visiting someone in prison, that you should not be searched or scanned?
If people started to get on local buses here and blowing them up, I would have no problem with scans and pat downs. It might be invasive to small peen people but the rest of the people on the bus deserve to be safe.
Like was said before take other transport. If you dont want to be searched, drive or walk for all I care.
So what is you opinion on visiting someone in prison, that you should not be searched or scanned?
If people started to get on local buses here and blowing them up, I would have no problem with scans and pat downs. It might be invasive to small peen people but the rest of the people on the bus deserve to be safe.
Like was said before take other transport. If you dont want to be searched, drive or walk for all I care.
Comparing visiting someone in prison to someone utilizing a private transportation company is ludicrous. Have you heard of the 4th Amendment? How often do you fly? Why are the citizens of the U.S. paying for this when it should be the responsibility of the airlines?
I already stated how much I fly, thanks for reading.
Why are the citizens of the U.S. paying for this when it should be the responsibility of the airlines?
So it would be ok if it was a private security company?
You all act like the government has just gotten into these things, history, read it.
My wife us flying in a couple of weeks and is 6 months pregnant. I told her to refuse to enter the scanner and opt for a pat down instead.
Cameron
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM3k8guPExs
This is what no scanners opens you up for on a bus.
So what is you opinion on visiting someone in prison, that you should not be searched or scanned?
If people started to get on local buses here and blowing them up, I would have no problem with scans and pat downs. It might be invasive to small peen people but the rest of the people on the bus deserve to be safe.
Like was said before take other transport. If you dont want to be searched, drive or walk for all I care.
Yeah because we know it really stops terrorist. :rolleyes: How many terrorist with bombs have been stopped at a screening section now?
It's BS to make people feel safe and it's a waste and treads on the 4th amendment. For people who feel this is appropriate I feel it's only appropriate to search their cars before they travel on any roads I'll be traveling on, DUI's are a bigger killer than terrorist.
So I want check points at ever neighborhood that require blood samples (breath analyzers aren't accurate enough) if found intoxicated the crime should be attempted murder in the first degree.
Could you imagine how many 10,000's of people we could save every year having such a check point. Hell we could save almost 250,000 lives in a decade. Not to mention the countless left disabled by intoxicated drivers.
Get on board with me and my campaign to end DUI related deaths in this country , or be part of the problem...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM3k8guPExs
This is what no scanners opens you up for on a bus.
Yeah people have been beheaded in this country after being mugged, sick people out there.
WTF does this have to do with buses, it's simply the place the crime was committed not the instrument the crime was committed with. I'd say public parks are a huge draw for crazys. At least that's where I see the most heroin addicts and homeless nuts.
I already stated how much I fly, thanks for reading.
So it would be ok if it was a private security company?
You all act like the government has just gotten into these things, history, read it.
It was a rhetorical question. Obviously since you've stated you don't fly your opinion on the matter is rather diminished in my eyes.
A private company and it's employees tend to be held more accountable for their actions than a .gov tax burden.
Instead of your lame attempt at trying to be condescending why don't you link to specifics that can be discussed, regarding history that is.
Yeah because we know it really stops terrorist. :rolleyes: How many terrorist with bombs have been stopped at a screening section now?
It's BS to make people feel safe and it's a waste and treads on the 4th amendment. For people who feel this is appropriate I feel it's only appropriate to search their cars before they travel on any roads I'll be traveling on, DUI's are a bigger killer than terrorist.
So I want check points at ever neighborhood that require blood samples (breath analyzers aren't accurate enough) if found intoxicated the crime should be attempted murder in the first degree.
Could you imagine how many 10,000's of people we could save every year having such a check point. Hell we could save almost 250,000 lives in a decade. Not to mention the countless left disabled by intoxicated drivers.
Get on board with me and my campaign to end DUI related deaths in this country , or be part of the problem...
Good point. You don't have a right to drive on public roads. If you don't like it, you can always walk.
Yeah because we know it really stops terrorist. How many terrorist with bombs have been stopped at a screening section now?
The shoe bomber?
How many were not stopped because they did not get scanned? 9/11 sound familiar? The ass bomber?
The more invasive it is the less likely it will happen, the terrorists will go find and easier target. If you do not want to be searched do not fly, it is simple. No one is forcing you to fly and there are other alternatives, your rights do not have to be infringed. Take the bus.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel
As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Weren't you just advocating the same screening for buses since someone got beheaded on one?
Your argument sounds more like something you would head on DU, not on a Pro 2nd Board. We tend to value individual rights and liberties around here. In fact a number of the people on this board go into harms way every day to defend those liberties. I hate to speak for them but I don't think they are getting shot at for us to have the right to a full body cavity search.
I already stated how much I fly, thanks for reading.
So it would be ok if it was a private security company?
You all act like the government has just gotten into these things, history, read it.
So the TSA has a better track record than private security companies? We use private security companies for nuclear security in some areas, but they can't manage to secure an airport?
And yeah we've paid for security for such things as the rail roads etc. But where in the constituion does this power come from? Is the 10th amendment no longer valid?
And why is it my responsibility as a tax payer to secure an airline's profit. If airlines had to maintain their own security they would do a damn fine job, one screw up and they would lose passengers and would end up being the next value jet. Instead they want higher profits and lobby congress to pass bills to keep their operating cost low and profits high at the expense of joe citizen.
The shoe bomber?
How many were not stopped because they did not get scanned? 9/11 sound familiar? The ass bomber?
The more invasive it is the less likely it will happen, the terrorists will go find and easier target. If you do not want to be searched do not fly, it is simple. No one is forcing you to fly and there are other alternatives, your rights do not have to be infringed. Take the bus.
LMAO, are you talking about Richard Reid? He was on a plane lighting his shoe when it failed to explode, he was never stopped lol, he was simply a failure at life.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel
Yes you can travel where ever you want. Again take bus if you do not want to be searched. They never said the right to AIR travel.
Yes you can travel where ever you want. Again take bus if you do not want to be searched. They never said the right to AIR travel.
So now some how freedom to travel is a personal right, accept by air? Why is air travel not included in this freedom? Is it because it's magical and mysterious? How do I ride a bus to Dubai or Indonesia? Do I get on a ship (pirates another danger) Or is my freedom to travel restricted, so not really a freedom just the perception of freedom until I wish to exercise it?
How often do you fly? How often do the people who make statements like this fly? I'm on an airplane at least twice a week and usually more and have no fear of people not having their cock & twats looked at by some retard TSA lackey using the magic x-ray machine.
Where does it stop? Bend over and cough? Let me insert this up your ass, it'll only be for a second and if you don't like it don't fly...
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
I fly all the time and have no issues with this I am an adult, I have nothing at all to hide from anyone. I guess if you dont like dont Fly .................Get a Madden cruiser and take the bus .....Also do you know for a fact the TSA people are retarded as you say ????
Yes you can travel where ever you want. Again take bus if you do not want to be searched. They never said the right to AIR travel.
How is a bus any different than an airplane? Neither one is specified in anything I've read and you've already insinuated that you should be scanned for a bus as well. You're in way over your head here.
I fly all the time and have no issues with this I am an adult, I have nothing at all to hide from anyone. I guess if you dont like dont Fly .................Get a Madden cruiser and take the bus .....Also do you know for a fact the TSA people are retarded as you say ????
It has nothing to do with being an adult, it has to do with the 4th Amendment and exercising your rights. Many TSA people I've spoken to would fit the bill. I don't like it and I still can fly, simply say you don't want to be scanned.
So now some how freedom to travel is a personal right, accept by air? Why is air travel not included in this freedom? Is it because it's magical and mysterious? How do I ride a bus to Dubai or Indonesia? Do I get on a ship (pirates another danger) Or is my freedom to travel restricted, so not really a freedom just the perception of freedom until I wish to exercise it?
I never said it was a right at all, but feel free to make stuff up. The courts will not stop you from traveling, but feel free to ask the SCOTUS to grant you the ability to get on a plane with out a search.
There seems to be a few here that want there to be NO searches at all. Sadly they would be the first to sue if their family was killed because of no searches.
Sadly they would be the first to sue if their family was killed because of no searches.
Nah, I lost family due to some one's negligence, I didn't sue. Suing people doesn't bring people back from the dead. :p I would expect free air travel for life however :D
It has nothing to do with being an adult, it has to do with the 4th Amendment and exercising your rights. Many TSA people I've spoken to would fit the bill. I don't like it and I still can fly, simply say you don't want to be scanned.
I want to know how you flying on someone elses airplane owned by a private company hell a public company is a RIGHT you have granted to you by any amendment its a courtesy. Yes you pay for it but no were is it a RIGHT granted to you by any founding father document.
I want to know how you flying on someone elses airplane owned by a private company hell a public company is a RIGHT you have granted to you by any amendment its a courtesy. Yes you pay for it but no were is it a RIGHT granted to you by any founding father document.
Im still waiting for them to start their 2nd amendment rights on a plane.
I want to know how you flying on someone elses airplane owned by a private company hell a public company is a RIGHT you have granted to you by any amendment its a courtesy. Yes you pay for it but no were is it a RIGHT granted to you by any founding father document.
I didn't say flying on a private or public company plane was a right. I said exercising your 4th Amendment rights was important and especially when dealing with government entities. Since you've stated that a private company is providing the service then why are tax dollars providing the security?
The text of the 4th Amendment - 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.
This thread made me think of this excellent post from another air travel security thread in the not-too-distant past...
What hacks me off the most is that from all reports we knew who this guy was? And for all these new security measures, it seems like the only thing that will really stop these guys is their own retardation and other passengers willing to open a can of whoop-ass at a moments notice. I guess no more Ambien on international flights for me, I might have to go Charlie Sheen on Sudanesse goat herder next to me at a moments notice.
Now I can't play blanket bingo with the bimbo next to me! There goes the fun of interenational travel. I've heard that they can't divorce the maps from the movies yet so have fun running a laptop for 17 hrs.
Plus it sounds like the guy hung the explosives from a sack hung from his midsection. Having someone palpate me trying to figure out if there are two huevos or three does not make up for the loss of blanket bingo.
To reduce costs with the socialized medicine, you'll just get your rectal exam at the airport from now on.
Can we at least get some strippers to do the pat downs? They seem to be able to tell with just a glancing touch how many 20s I have in my wallet. I'm tired of being screened by TSA agents that look like the people we are trying to keep off of airplanes.
Screw Gitmo with its sleep deprivation, stress positions and physical abuse, I fly Delta.
Im still waiting for them to start their 2nd amendment rights on a plane.
Now you're talking private property rights and the company should have the discretion to refuse or allow firearms as they see fit. At that point in time you choose to whether you'd like to ride on that plane or not.
I didn't say flying on a private or public company plane was a right. I said exercising your 4th Amendment rights was important and especially when dealing with government entities. Since you've stated that a private company is providing the service then why are tax dollars providing the security?
The text of the 4th Amendment - 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.
Are you retarded? NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO FLY. NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO BE SEARCHED.
DO you bitch when you get a drug test at work? A place you are not forced to work. Do you refuse an alcohol test when you are pulled over while driving? STFU.
Are you retarded? NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO FLY. NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO BE SEARCHED.
DO you bitch when you get a drug test at work? A place you are not forced to work. Do you refuse an alcohol test when you are pulled over while driving? STFU.
Quite the contrary, I'm simply frustrating you due to your lack of knowledge on the subject.
I don't get drug tests at work. I don't get pulled over for driving, typically. ;) And yes you do have the right to refuse to take a breathalyzer, however, you may not like the consequences.
And STFU? Relax sweetheart, the game's only beginning and you're tapping out already?
Are you retarded? NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO FLY. NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO BE SEARCHED.
DO you bitch when you get a drug test at work? A place you are not forced to work. Do you refuse an alcohol test when you are pulled over while driving? STFU.
I understand you are new here, but if you can't make your point without digressing to ad hominem attacks and such then just don't.
Keep it up and a mod is going to lock this thread.
Quite the contrary, I'm simply frustrating you due to your lack of knowledge on the subject.
I don't get drug tests at work. I don't get pulled over for driving, typically. ;) And yes you do have the right to refuse to take a breathalyzer, however, you may not like the consequences.
And STFU? Relax sweetheart, the game's only beginning and you're tapping out already?
So it is ok to refuse a breathalyzer and face the consequences, which is automatic lose of driving privileges but it should not apply to planes?
So it is ok to refuse a breathalyzer and face the consequences, which is automatic lose of driving privileges but it should not apply to planes?
The two have nothing to do with one another. Here's a little info on breathalyzer tests. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1249.asp
A number of Florida police officers accused of drunk driving have refused to take sobriety tests.
An off-duty Port Orange, Florida police officer crashed his car on July 14 doing $10,000 in damage and injuring a passenger. Although police on the scene said Officer David Chapman, the driver, appeared impaired by alcohol, Chapman refused both the standard sobriety tests and a breathalyzer.
Chapman was suspended from the force and charged with DUI causing personal injury and driving without a license. He was released on $2000 bail and his license is suspended for a year pending appeal.
Florida police frequently refuse to take the same sobriety tests they perform on the public. In 2002, the police chief for Ponce Inlet refused a breathalyzer and regained his driver's license within seven months. In 2003, a detective in Daytona Beach did the same and had her charge reduced to reckless driving.
"If you have been drinking, refusing the breathalyzer is the only way to go," attorney Brian Toung told the Daytona Beach News-Journal. "The police, or anybody who understands the system, knows they're better off without it."
The two have nothing to do with one another. Here's a little info on breathalyzer tests. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1249.asp
The two have nothing to do with one another.
Yet you found an article about Florida, which has nothing to do with the topic except to bash police.
I avoid what I consider to be unwarranted invasions of my privacy. I don't fly.
LockenLoad
03-05-10, 13:15
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
great quote
Yet you found an article about Florida, which has nothing to do with the topic except to bash police.
It has nothing to do with bashing police. It simply points out the fact that the people who are administering the tests are smart enough not to take them so that it can't be used against them. Why participate in an investigation against yourself that is possibly going to end up with you losing your innocence due to a machine, landing up in jail and spending a lot of money afterwards? It boils down to not incriminating yourself.
A fatal hit and run incident in Chicago by an LEO there who refused to take the breathalyzer for 4 hours and still blew a .79. http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/Off-Duty-Officer-Took-Breathlyzer-Before-Deadly-Accident.html
LockenLoad
03-05-10, 13:21
its really quit simple no scan no fly you dont have to have it but again you dont have to fly either............
so the terrorist are winning in a way we are an economic wreck, we lose more rights and liberties everyday, we can not secure our borders, but don't get to near area 51 :rolleyes:, and the security measures we take at the airport are a joke we don't profile and should, just hope some terrorist does not come up with a rectal bomb, I can imagine that search before we fly :(.
You either blow, or you give blood, or you are guilty and lose your license. But again you are just picking internet articles to say the police are above the law.
The_War_Wagon
03-05-10, 13:24
Until all the Mohammedans are BURIED, I've flown my last. Gotta a conference this summer in Houston. I'm driving. From Pittsburgh. :eek: Still beats going from checkpoint to checkpoint naked.
So it is ok to refuse a breathalyzer and face the consequences, which is automatic lose of driving privileges but it should not apply to planes?
You don't lose your driving privilege for refusing a field sobriety, in most states you're detained and taken to have blood work done, if it comes up negative with a good lawyer you can have a decent lawsuit and probably settle out of court. I know people will claim false arrest doesn't apply to LE, but it sure as hell does and cases have been won in the past. Not many people can afford or are willing to hire a lawyer to get a negative back in compensation.
How this applies to being screened at an airport is beyond me, do you have probable cause to believe I'm a terrorist, or have ill intention? What did I do to warrant the search of my persons? With a police stop the officer can't simply decide he wants to pull over a driver, he needs cause.
Scattergun
03-05-10, 22:50
I guess I am the only person here who doesn't like these scanners.
no, I don't like it either and will not fly.
9mm_shooter
03-06-10, 06:23
I feel this crap is a bit intrusive. I do not want my wife and daughter to go through this machine, and try not to fly because of it. There has to be a better way to screen people other than strip searching you.
Are you retarded? NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO FLY. NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO BE SEARCHED.
It's a very valid problem from the original post. It doesn't specify in the article, but consider if one (or both) of those women were foreign nationals trying to fly home when their visa has expired. They could easily have arrived before the body scanners had been rolled out so it was not something they might have ever considered before travelling to the UK. Maybe they would not have travelled if they had known.
What are their alternatives now if they don't fly? Stay in the country, overstay their visa and commit a criminal offence? Spend the time and money that I bet they don't have trying to organise land-travel from London to Pakistan including travel visas for Iran who are hardly the happiest people to deal with at the moment? This link (http://www.seat61.com/India-overland.htm) gives you a rough idea of the overland travel and (without counting) it looks like 8+ countries, most probably with their own transit visa requirements. Lots of time, money and paperwork that will all increase their overstay and risk them being denied a visa to return - great news if your children or grandchildren live in the UK and now you can't visit them again.
Those are some really big hurdles to overcome, especially once you're already flagged as a potential terrorist for refusing a body scan. So yes, I'd say they are quite effectively being forced to fly.
I've already changed flight plans to avoid airports currently using these devices, but I'm lucky that I have the luxury to make that decision.
I fully agree with you in principle that if you choose a particular path then you should shut up and put up with whatever goes with that path. If you don't like it, take a different path. In this particular case, however, I think that it is unfair to say that there is another realistic path for them to take.
I feel this crap is a bit intrusive. I do not want my wife and daughter to go through this machine, and try not to fly because of it. There has to be a better way to screen people other than strip searching you.
Of course it is a bit intrusive, as you likely know. Very much so in fact. However your next best option is...?
This is what straying 1,000,000,000 miles from where we were as a nation in the beginning has brought us. Political correctness, rampant immigration, a re-making. Now we reap what we have sown.
Rome stood much longer than we have. Nothing is carved in stone.
9mm_shooter
03-06-10, 18:18
I'm no expert, so correct me if I'm wrong here... I look at the problem like a public health exercise. How sensitive are these scans (coupled with the currently used metal detectors) at picking up all conceivable threats - including intra-rectal or abdominally implanted devices? From a screening perspective, this may not be enough in order to pick up real threats. A surface body scan may lead our airport screeners into a false sense of security about a person that might actually have planned accordingly (increased number of false negatives).
My suggestion in order to increase the positive predictive value of these screening methods would be to target likely populations, by looking at their travel history, check with the no-fly list, maybe even their credit history, their known places of employment, their behaviour in the airport, their body language, their ethnic background... yes, profile us all. The people that are deemed to be high risk would get all of the above, and maybe even a full body scout CT. Granted, it takes only a few minutes more for these few cases, but will speed up the process for all of us in general and lower the cost of the screening process, as well as faster boarding, and more secure flying.
You are right about the PC thing, though, and I have no illusions about this actually being done any time soon.
Of course it is a bit intrusive, as you likely know. Very much so in fact. However your next best option is...?
This is what straying 1,000,000,000 miles from where we were as a nation in the beginning has brought us. Political correctness, rampant immigration, a re-making. Now we reap what we have sown.
Rome stood much longer than we have. Nothing is carved in stone.
Cascades236
03-07-10, 07:51
Get the government out of private business and make them pay for their own security rather than wasting millions of tax dollars.
Entirely different topic...
Cascades236
03-07-10, 07:54
Yeah because we know it really stops terrorist. :rolleyes: How many terrorist with bombs have been stopped at a screening section now?
It's BS to make people feel safe and it's a waste and treads on the 4th amendment. For people who feel this is appropriate I feel it's only appropriate to search their cars before they travel on any roads I'll be traveling on, DUI's are a bigger killer than terrorist.
So I want check points at ever neighborhood that require blood samples (breath analyzers aren't accurate enough) if found intoxicated the crime should be attempted murder in the first degree.
Could you imagine how many 10,000's of people we could save every year having such a check point. Hell we could save almost 250,000 lives in a decade. Not to mention the countless left disabled by intoxicated drivers.
Get on board with me and my campaign to end DUI related deaths in this country , or be part of the problem...
Do you lock your doors and windows?
Cascades236
03-07-10, 07:58
It has nothing to do with being an adult, it has to do with the 4th Amendment and exercising your rights. Many TSA people I've spoken to would fit the bill. I don't like it and I still can fly, simply say you don't want to be scanned.
How is this a 4th amendment issue? You are voluntarily submitting to the search. If you don't want to be searched turn around at the security line. As far as why .government is involved..they are ports.
How is this a 4th amendment issue? You are voluntarily submitting to the search. If you don't want to be searched turn around at the security line. As far as why .government is involved..they are ports.
LMAO, you're not having a search done voluntarily, you're forced to have a search done in order to travel. And in many scenarios you travel out of necessity. If I need to be in LA today at 9am in Denver at 6pm and NY 6am the next morning is traveling by bus an option?
You could say It's my choice to travel to those places, but how so if it's required for work? Get a new job you say, so give up a job for another that requires the same amount of travel? Find a new field you say, so take a lesser paying job and lose my quality of life? It sounds like I have no choice in the matter ... Lose job or be searched ... Hmm it sure is voluntary being forced into the position of a full body search or loss of a job.
And the same could be said for so many scenarios, funerals, weddings, graduations, sick family. So many situation require the need to travel and because most people have jobs they can't afford to take a 7 day road trip in place of a 12 hour flight.
Do you lock your doors and windows?
Sure, and what does this have to do with your point?
arizonaranchman
03-07-10, 16:25
I personally refuse to fly. The rectal exam and all the other BS is simply unacceptable. There's no place I need to be that I can't hop on my Harley and make a road trip out of it. If I can't do that then I don't give a damn and really don't need to be there anyways.
What's next? Submit a DNA sample before you board? No thanks, the airlines can go out of business as far as I'm concerned. They won't find me as a customer anymore.
Cascades236
03-07-10, 21:43
Sure, and what does this have to do with your point?
Why do you lock them? Has your house ever been burged? Are you letting bad guys dictate your way of life? Blah blah..same lame logic that suggests these scans are useless because they haven't caught anyone.
GermanSynergy
03-07-10, 21:54
In my estimation the bad guys will simply adjust their TTP's to whatever security measures are implemented. Bureaucratic BS and PC will do the rest.
Why do you lock them? Has your house ever been burged? Are you letting bad guys dictate your way of life? Blah blah..same lame logic that suggests these scans are useless because they haven't caught anyone.
Wow that's a strong argument... :rolleyes:
So an individual right is dwarfed by that of the government, when the hell did this happen? Did I miss something do we live in a dictatorship? Last time I recall checking it was a republic with a great deal of civil liberties, one being...
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
Why is this so hard for so many to understand, under the bill of rights (that piece of fancy grade toilet paper) the TSA doesn't have the right to search you. It's the government.
You're obviously a progressive kind of guy, for the good of the people and all, individual liberties are for chumps. :p I mean you do justify governments invasion of privacy by my desire for privacy. I mean if you got nothing to hide why fear it, right?
Georgie Boy
03-08-10, 02:38
LMAO, you're not having a search done voluntarily, you're forced to have a search done in order to travel. And in many scenarios you travel out of necessity. If I need to be in LA today at 9am in Denver at 6pm and NY 6am the next morning is traveling by bus an option?
You could say It's my choice to travel to those places, but how so if it's required for work? Get a new job you say, so give up a job for another that requires the same amount of travel? Find a new field you say, so take a lesser paying job and lose my quality of life? It sounds like I have no choice in the matter ... Lose job or be searched ... Hmm it sure is voluntary being forced into the position of a full body search or loss of a job.
And the same could be said for so many scenarios, funerals, weddings, graduations, sick family. So many situation require the need to travel and because most people have jobs they can't afford to take a 7 day road trip in place of a 12 hour flight.
If required for your job, would you be willing to submit to drug tests? Same thing as your job requiring you to fly and, in turn, have to submit to security checks. You may not like the choice, but it's still there and completely voluntary. As for funerals, weddings, graduations, and sick family, it sucks, but there are some things you just can't go to... unless you choose to submit to anything required to fly.
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
It isnt an unreasonable search, so that does not apply. It is also a non-invasive and does not show the screener anything more than a bathing suit would show.
If required for your job, would you be willing to submit to drug tests? Same thing as your job requiring you to fly and, in turn, have to submit to security checks. You may not like the choice, but it's still there and completely voluntary. As for funerals, weddings, graduations, and sick family, it sucks, but there are some things you just can't go to... unless you choose to submit to anything required to fly.
How does a private company requiring a drug test for employment compare to the federal government doing a full body search as a requirement to fly? And that's another argument, employee drug testing. Different courts see it differently and many people have fought it successfully in court.
Back to the TSA :P
Why not just take away everyone's guns and anything that could be dangerous and cause mass casualties? Really if you're willing to give up your 4th amendment for security why not the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 8th, and the 10th while you're at it? Screw it lets just through the thing out and start from the beginning, making sure to remove liberty in place of security because some fanatics in the middle east see the west as wicked.
It isnt an unreasonable search, so that does not apply. It is also a non-invasive and does not show the screener anything more than a bathing suit would show.
So I take it that if you ever get pulled over for speeding and the officer asked you to strip to your undies you would happily comply? He has more cause than the TSA, after all you've already broken the law. And if he told your 9 year old daughter to do so as well you would see no problem with this? I mean it's not a violation of your rights.
Cascades236
03-08-10, 07:22
So I take it that if you ever get pulled over for speeding and the officer asked you to strip to your undies you would happily comply? He has more cause than the TSA, after all you've already broken the law. And if he told your 9 year old daughter to do so as well you would see no problem with this? I mean it's not a violation of your rights.
You keep bringing up the 4th amendment..
In your scenario where a cop pulls you over then strips you down to your briefs...that is applicable to an unreasonable search and on the basis of speeding alone is a clear civil rights violation.
You buying a plane ticket knowing damn well that a scan is required to fly is not an unreasonable search as you have implied consent by purchasing the ticket then proceeding to the secure area of the airport. There is nothing fourth amendment about this. You have every right in the world to not to submit to this test...this isn't the police tearing thru your bedroom closet without a warrant as you are trying to imply.
I will leave it at that as I can tell we will have to agree to disagree.
You can call me progressive but I get to call you Mr tin foil.
As far as public transportation where you are not searched, you should ask the people in Canada that got killed on the bus by a guy with a knife.
Well, we would AT LEAST have had one helluva knife fight. (Assuming I didn't have a pistol).
Searches and whatnot are a facsimile of providing safety. No one can REALLY guarantee your safety and no one but YOU are TRULY responsible for your personal health and safety.
I'm with Ben Franklin on this one...
You keep bringing up the 4th amendment..
In your scenario where a cop pulls you over then strips you down to your briefs...that is applicable to an unreasonable search and on the basis of speeding alone is a clear civil rights violation.
You buying a plane ticket knowing damn well that a scan is required to fly is not an unreasonable search as you have implied consent by purchasing the ticket then proceeding to the secure area of the airport. There is nothing fourth amendment about this. You have every right in the world to not to submit to this test...this isn't the police tearing thru your bedroom closet without a warrant as you are trying to imply.
I will leave it at that as I can tell we will have to agree to disagree.
You can call me progressive but I get to call you Mr tin foil.
For the sake of argument, imagine that application for and possession of a driver's license implies consent to the above search upon request by LE (much the same way that in some states having a DL implies consent to sobriety tests, says so right on the bottom of my FL DL).
So I take it that if you ever get pulled over for speeding and the officer asked you to strip to your undies you would happily comply? He has more cause than the TSA, after all you've already broken the law. And if he told your 9 year old daughter to do so as well you would see no problem with this? I mean it's not a violation of your rights.
You are way over-reaching while at the same time ignoring the dire circumstances that brought about these precautions. However, something tells me that if you are the next one who has to subdue a would be bomber in flight, you'll realize that everything isn't about what Mr. Smiles wants. :)
By the way: As far as your siglines, the time it took you to analyze how much time you save not writing one of 2 "o"'s, and then to explain it in writing here, likely negated all the time ideally saved not just writing the letter effortlessly in the first place.
It isnt an unreasonable search, so that does not apply. It is also a non-invasive and does not show the screener anything more than a bathing suit would show.
Garbage. Obviously you've never seen what the results of the scans look like.
For the sake of argument, imagine that application for and possession of a driver's license implies consent to the above search upon request by LE (much the same way that in some states having a DL implies consent to sobriety tests, says so right on the bottom of my FL DL).
Implied consent is garbage. Nevada licenses don't list anything like that on them.
Garbage. Obviously you've never seen what the results of the scans look like.
Or I have.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1166157/The-body-airport-scanner-reveals-underwear.html
I have seen even clearer ones than those. But even those I have a problem with.
There are very modest people in the world who don't want their naked body viewed by others due to religion, personal preference, etc. What about the sicko **** who's looking at your naked 10 year old daughter? Boiling frogs & slippery slopes.
This completely contradicts the reports made by the TSA stating that there was no way for the images to be saved, shared or sent to anyone. http://epic.org/2010/01/epic-obtains-documents-about-b.html
As a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, EPIC has obtained the TSA technical specifications and the vendor contracts for Whole Body Imaging devices, commonly called "body scanners." The documents reveal that TSA mandated that the devices have hard disk storage, USB access, and ethernet connectivity. The documents obtained by EPIC also detail a "Level Z" authority for TSA that allows the security agency to disable privacy filters and to export raw image files. The documents will be posted later today. EPIC is pursuing other information from the agency, including policy guidance. For more information, see EPIC's Whole Body Imaging page.
This completely contradicts the reports made by the TSA stating that there was no way for the images to be saved, shared or sent to anyone.
The machine has 2 modes (test/training and passenger screening), while screening passengers it can not save, store or anything else with the image.
The machine has 2 modes (test/training and passenger screening), while screening passengers it can not save, store or anything else with the image.
Prove it. If you're going to post something contradicting a linked article, with FOIA information, to a well known privacy rights organization than post a link. Where did you obtain your information?
I got it from the link you provided, it is in the information they posted.
http://epic.org/open_gov/foia/TSA_Procurement_Specs.pdf
Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images. http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html
For the last few years, federal agencies have defended body scanning by insisting that all images will be discarded as soon as they're viewed. The Transportation Security Administration claimed last summer, for instance, that "scanned images cannot be stored or recorded."
Now it turns out that some police agencies are storing the controversial images after all. The U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had surreptitiously saved tens of thousands of images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse.
This follows an earlier disclosure (PDF) by the TSA that it requires all airport body scanners it purchases to be able to store and transmit images for "testing, training, and evaluation purposes." The agency says, however, that those capabilities are not normally activated when the devices are installed at airports.
Body scanners penetrate clothing to provide a highly detailed image so accurate that critics have likened it to a virtual strip search. Technologies vary, with millimeter wave systems capturing fuzzier images, and backscatter X-ray machines able to show precise anatomical detail. The U.S. government likes the idea because body scanners can detect concealed weapons better than traditional magnetometers.
This privacy debate, which has been simmering since the days of the Bush administration, came to a boil two weeks ago when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that scanners would soon appear at virtually every major airport. The updated list includes airports in New York City, Dallas, Washington, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle, and Philadelphia.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to grant an immediate injunction pulling the plug on TSA's body scanning program. In a separate lawsuit, EPIC obtained a letter (PDF) from the Marshals Service, part of the Justice Department, and released it on Tuesday afternoon.
These "devices are designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded, which is exactly what the Marshals Service is doing," EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg told CNET. "We think it's significant."
William Bordley, an associate general counsel with the Marshals Service, acknowledged in the letter that "approximately 35,314 images...have been stored on the Brijot Gen2 machine" used in the Orlando, Fla. federal courthouse. In addition, Bordley wrote, a Millivision machine was tested in the Washington, D.C. federal courthouse but it was sent back to the manufacturer, which now apparently possesses the image database.
The Gen 2 machine, manufactured by Brijot of Lake Mary, Fla., uses a millimeter wave radiometer and accompanying video camera to store up to 40,000 images and records. Brijot boasts that it can even be operated remotely: "The Gen 2 detection engine capability eliminates the need for constant user observation and local operation for effective monitoring. Using our APIs, instantly connect to your units from a remote location via the Brijot Client interface."
This trickle of disclosures about the true capabilities of body scanners--and how they're being used in practice--is probably what alarms privacy advocates more than anything else.
A 70-page document (PDF) showing the TSA's procurement specifications, classified as "sensitive security information," says that in some modes the scanner must "allow exporting of image data in real time" and provide a mechanism for "high-speed transfer of image data" over the network. (It also says that image filters will "protect the identity, modesty, and privacy of the passenger.")
"TSA is not being straightforward with the public about the capabilities of these devices," Rotenberg said. "This is the Department of Homeland Security subjecting every U.S. traveler to an intrusive search that can be recorded without any suspicion--I think it's outrageous." EPIC's lawsuit says that the TSA should have announced formal regulations, and argues that the body scanners violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "unreasonable" searches.
TSA spokeswoman Sari Koshetz told CNET on Wednesday that the agency's scanners are delivered to airports with the image recording functions turned off. "We're not recording them," she said. "I'm reiterating that to the public. We are not ever activating those capabilities at the airport."
The TSA maintains that body scanning is perfectly constitutional: "The program is designed to respect individual sensibilities regarding privacy, modesty and personal autonomy to the maximum extent possible, while still performing its crucial function of protecting all members of the public from potentially catastrophic events."
I just refused to be scanned last week in Denver and opted for the pat down. The only "lane" with a scanner was the first class & employee line which didn't make much sense to begin with.
arizonaranchman
08-06-10, 18:12
Personally I refuse to fly anyplace anymore - the full rectal exam involved in flying is far too intrusive to me. They do a background check on every passenger also these days - not something they tell you. When you order a ticket they run you up. If it's so far that I can't hop on my Harley and ride there or take my truck then I really don't need to go there to begin with.
I'll drive...
jklaughrey
08-06-10, 18:21
It seems even small regional airports are going to install them Boise, ID has one with talk of Spokane and smaller venues like Lewis-Clark, etc...
This is just my area, but should be more throughout the US I would think?
It seems even small regional airports are going to install them Boise, ID has one with talk of Spokane and smaller venues like Lewis-Clark, etc...
This is just my area, but should be more throughout the US I would think?
What a pleasant thought... Where did our country go?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.