View Full Version : How is TSA not a violation of the 4th if...
LE can't search my car with out reason, driving isn't a protected freedom, yet a law enforcement officer most have probable cause to search me and my belongings, but some how federal contractors don't?
I know United States v. Davis is for just this, these remarks particular scare the shitz out of me. "passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly"
Pretty much like saying you can avoid being searched on a public sidewalk by electing to stay home, since I decide to travel away from my residence I've elected myself to being searched?
I bring this up, because I had to take my mother through an airport recently, she's in a wheelchair and the assholes at TSA pretty much strip searched the woman and stuck their hands down her pants, had they not cut the shit out I would be in jail right now.
The TSA is a joke that's gaining more power every day... I don't have time to post links but I'll try to later.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-29-10, 18:44
The good news is that eventually they will stop these silly searches, the bad news is that it will only be because they can track your every move, email, text message, furtive glance and errant thought for the past two years...
I fly a lot, and luckily I haven't had to go thru the scanners yet- just kind of lucky. Usually the line in backed up and I just shoot a kind of 'help me' look to the TSA agent and they let me go thru teh regular scanner. Actually, I'm not that hip on the whole thing, but what really gets me is that you have to raise your hands and give the French salute. That and I can't leave all the non-metallic crap I carry around (chapstick, money, handkerchief) in my pockets.
I haven't run into to many jerk TSA agents, it is United waitresses that get under my skin- and they do love to be called waitress. TSA agent actually translated some Cryllic markings on a FSU camera I have- he had been in Army intelligence. The amazing thing to me is that some x-ray readers are twice as fast as other ones.
Thought about strapping a Kielbasa sausage to my leg and make the scanners eyes go wide. Nothing illegal.
Wish I was rich and could fly corp jets everywhere.
I fly back home on Sunday. Can't wait for the new security measures TSA will have after today's follies. :mad:
pilotguyo540
10-29-10, 20:26
I fly everywhere for a living and I think the TSA is a joke. They have a bad habit of destroying the inside of my tool box. This is a rather complex subject. After all, we are customers of the airline ( a private company ). The planes are private property. We have to get molested by the feds to use the private property. I personally think the airlines should pay 100% of the security costs to a private company to avoid any constitutional violations.
Where constitutionality is very much being challenged is with the signs outside the airports stating that all vehicles are subject to search. I have long ago set aside the injustice of it all so I could stand my job. That makes me part of the problem, I know.
I am reminded of ben franklin's quote (I think it was franklin) those who would trade a little liberty for safety deserve neither." That is exactly what we have done and surely we, or our children, shall pay for our cowardice.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-29-10, 20:41
I find that if during the pat down you let a soft "Yeaaa, that's it" the search goes faster.
Belmont31R
10-29-10, 20:43
Thats because freedom of movement has been watered down to basically your own two feet, and even then you can be stopped and harassed.
Id rather drive for 2 days than go through an airport. My step FIL is the same way, and he flew war planes for a living, and works on a mil post right now. He refuses to fly commercial at all.
To the comment about having private security. There are a few airports that do it, however they have to comply with the same bull shit mandates that the real TSA has to, so in reality it would be no different.
The argument about rights, I agree and dis-agree. If you have something in your car you shouldnt, you, for the most part, are only going to harm yourself or maybe one other person. You are not really a threat to public safety, not a large one anyway. Now if you can get a bomb on an airplane or into a crowded airport, you are going to harm a ton of people. At this point you are a threat to public safety, a large one. I think that is the difference between these 2 situations where one is legal and one is not. I dont know if I agree with the difference, but that is how I see it.
Maybe people would rather have bomb sniffing dogs at check points to sniff your ass and crotch.:D
The thing that needs to change is WE NEED TO PROFILE and we need to be doing it yesterday. This has been proven in other countries and stated by lots of our security experts in this state.
Most of Europe profiles the passengers and they have very few problems.
I wish we would also go back to the system they had implemented just following the British liquid bomb threat, check ****ing every bag except maybe a very small, purse size carry-on. Security was fast, boarding and de-planing was fast. The only problem with that now is the bull shit $25+ checked bag fees. The bag scanners that they scan checked bags with are almost like a CT scanner in it builds a 3d picture of the bag, and it does it about 2x-3x faster than the belt scanners currently in security lines.
ForTehNguyen
10-29-10, 21:10
Pat-Downs May Soon Become Norm At Airports:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/10/29/pat-downs-may-soon-become-norm-at-airports/
"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant"
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-29-10, 21:31
The thing that needs to change is WE NEED TO PROFILE and we need to be doing it yesterday. This has been proven in other countries and stated by lots of our security experts in this state.
I wish we would also go back to the system they had implemented just following the British liquid bomb threat, check ****ing every bag except maybe a very small, purse size carry-on. Security was fast, boarding and de-planing was fast.
Just put videos of burning Koran's in the security lines and anyone who gets antsy gets the full search. It ain't the IRA, ELF, or BSA that are blowing up planes, it's fanatical Islamic western-phobes.
No carry-ons, I might as well get my suits at Salvation Army- at 60+ flights a year I am not going to keep the for very long if we check that many bags.
Belmont31R
10-29-10, 21:34
To the comment about having private security. There are a few airports that do it, however they have to comply with the same bull shit mandates that the real TSA has to, so in reality it would be no different.
The argument about rights, I agree and dis-agree. If you have something in your car you shouldnt, you, for the most part, are only going to harm yourself or maybe one other person. You are not really a threat to public safety, not a large one anyway. Now if you can get a bomb on an airplane or into a crowded airport, you are going to harm a ton of people. At this point you are a threat to public safety, a large one. I think that is the difference between these 2 situations where one is legal and one is not. I dont know if I agree with the difference, but that is how I see it.
Maybe people would rather have bomb sniffing dogs at check points to sniff your ass and crotch.:D
The thing that needs to change is WE NEED TO PROFILE and we need to be doing it yesterday. This has been proven in other countries and stated by lots of our security experts in this state.
Most of Europe profiles the passengers and they have very few problems.
I wish we would also go back to the system they had implemented just following the British liquid bomb threat, check ****ing every bag except maybe a very small, purse size carry-on. Security was fast, boarding and de-planing was fast. The only problem with that now is the bull shit $25+ checked bag fees. The bag scanners that they scan checked bags with are almost like a CT scanner in it builds a 3d picture of the bag, and it does it about 2x-3x faster than the belt scanners currently in security lines.
Any type of transportation can create mass casualties. A suit case nuke on the back of a moped would have far more dead than bombing an airplane.
We've become a police state - as more and more people are beginning to realize.
Maybe the next step is to re-discover the philosophy of our Founding Fathers and make constructive change.
Now that's an idea! And change I can believe in.
Rmplstlskn
10-29-10, 22:21
And we fall further into slavery because we do not profile...
I have yet to see the Rotary Club or Shriners bomb anything...
Rmpl
ThirdWatcher
10-30-10, 00:15
And we fall further into slavery because we do not profile...
I have yet to see the Rotary Club or Shriners bomb anything...
Rmpl
+1 They could (& should) take a lesson from the Israelis.
ForTehNguyen
10-30-10, 00:30
there is not a privacy invasion or intrustion that Janet Napolitano doesnt like
And we fall further into slavery because we do not profile...
I have yet to see the Rotary Club or Shriners bomb anything...
Rmpl
I have to say I'm against profiling, simply because I'm mistaken myself for arab/greek at times. I broke my nose and have one of those noses now :sarcastic:
I think Penn & Teller say it best in this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SgbWkeHxq0
The idea that we create restrictions on our freedoms to "protect" those freedoms is complete bullshit, we should be business as usual.
Flying is a PITA I would like to get in a time machine and go back and whack the shoe bomber. Taking my shoes off and the shoes off my 2, 4 & 6 year old sucks.
The idea that we create restrictions on our freedoms to "protect" those freedoms is complete bullshit, we should be business as usual.
Amen, brother.
And we fall further into slavery because we do not profile...
I have yet to see the Rotary Club or Shriners bomb anything...
Rmpl
I have seen Shriners bombed......... but they bought out the hotel so they didn't care what happened. :sarcastic:
arizonaranchman
10-31-10, 07:30
Thats because freedom of movement has been watered down to basically your own two feet, and even then you can be stopped and harassed.
Id rather drive for 2 days than go through an airport. My step FIL is the same way, and he flew war planes for a living, and works on a mil post right now. He refuses to fly commercial at all.
Same here with me.
I absolutely refuse to fly anymore. First of all there's no place outside the lower 48 I ever need to go. Secondly I can drive or ride my Harley there or I really don't need to go there that badly anyways. I refuse to submit to this lunacy that the modern world of travel has become.
As the totalitarian state grows ever steadily you'll see more and more intrusiveness from Big Brother.
Isn't the simpler answer because its YOUR CHOICE to be searched? You are doing business with a private entity that has security provided by the feds because the safety of that plane not only effects you but also the public at large. If you find that the private company has rules you don't care for, dont use their services.
You can always drive, take a train, boat or simply fly private if you find the searches to intrusive when traveling commercially.
We have seen the damage a commercial airline can cause in the past.
Their game, their rules...
I have more of an issue with states that take away your right to self preservation by not allowing interstate travel while carrying your firearms in YOUR car in a manner that offers you access to your weapon.
"If you find that the private company has rules you don't care for, dont use their services."
Uh, these aren't the private company's rules.
Read my lips...
We are LOSING the War On Terror. I go to a fair number of funerals at Arlington. Every brain dead, drooling Neo-con with an American flag lapel pin will tell you that these guys die for 'freedom.' Yet, in my own country I am treated like a suspect. I have a DoD CAC and a security clearance but I get the same treatment everybody else does. If you need to check me then we are truly screwed as a nation. There are thousands in this same boat.
One of the goals of terrorism it to cause the Central Authority to mount a security response that causes the people to hate the govt more than they hate the terrorists. I would say this is currently the case. When you go through a TSA check point are you worried that you will be killed by a terrorist on the plane, or are you worried the donut gobbling mouth breather fondling your balls will find a reason to cause you to miss your flight?
Everybody knows the TSA is next to worthless. Professional security people are especially aware of this. The underwear bomber proves it, and in a resent attack a Saudi prince was nearly killed by a bomb hidden INSIDE the bombers body.
All the same, I really would like to see someone take the TSA to the SCOTUS.
"If you find that the private company has rules you don't care for, dont use their services."
Uh, these aren't the private company's rules.
They are to an extent, I believe that as times have changed so has the feds involvement in the security aspect...
I have never had to endure much security when flying private jets or when flying in friends planes. I have also at times simply driven directly to the hanger and boarded friend planes with zero security. Not sure what the threshold is when the security is escalated to the TSA...
Read my lips...
We are LOSING the War On Terror. I go to a fair number of funerals at Arlington. Every brain dead, drooling Neo-con with an American flag lapel pin will tell you that these guys die for 'freedom.' Yet, in my own country I am treated like a suspect. I have a DoD CAC and a security clearance but I get the same treatment everybody else does. If you need to check me then we are truly screwed as a nation. There are thousands in this same boat.
One of the goals of terrorism it to cause the Central Authority to mount a security response that causes the people to hate the govt more than they hate the terrorists. I would say this is currently the case. When you go through a TSA check point are you worried that you will be killed by a terrorist on the plane, or are you worried the donut gobbling mouth breather fondling your balls will find a reason to cause you to miss your flight?
Everybody knows the TSA is next to worthless. Professional security people are especially aware of this. The underwear bomber proves it, and in a resent attack a Saudi prince was nearly killed by a bomb hidden INSIDE the bombers body.
All the same, I really would like to see someone take the TSA to the SCOTUS.
Said it before and I'll say it again...because of the above bolded, unless and until they start performing cavity searches on everyone boarding a plane, the insanity of the current TSA Experience™ is nothing more than security theater, and I'd love for everyone who thinks we haven't yet reached the line of what is inappropriate to tell me why that isn't too far.
Voodoochild
10-31-10, 15:05
frommycolddeadhand:
"Thought about strapping a Kielbasa sausage to my leg and make the scanners eyes go wide. "
Man just go the Spinal Tap route and wrap a large cu-cumber in tin foil and shove it down the front of your pants..
Read my lips...
We are LOSING the War On Terror. I go to a fair number of funerals at Arlington. Every brain dead, drooling Neo-con with an American flag lapel pin will tell you that these guys die for 'freedom.' Yet, in my own country I am treated like a suspect. I have a DoD CAC and a security clearance but I get the same treatment everybody else does. If you need to check me then we are truly screwed as a nation. There are thousands in this same boat.
One of the goals of terrorism it to cause the Central Authority to mount a security response that causes the people to hate the govt more than they hate the terrorists. I would say this is currently the case. When you go through a TSA check point are you worried that you will be killed by a terrorist on the plane, or are you worried the donut gobbling mouth breather fondling your balls will find a reason to cause you to miss your flight?
Everybody knows the TSA is next to worthless. Professional security people are especially aware of this. The underwear bomber proves it, and in a resent attack a Saudi prince was nearly killed by a bomb hidden INSIDE the bombers body.
All the same, I really would like to see someone take the TSA to the SCOTUS.
Well stated. But people fear liberty.They prefer the comfort of their shackles when offered liberty.
Gutshot John
10-31-10, 15:19
Airport security predates 9/11 by several decades.
Does TSA go overboard sometimes? Sure, but so does any law enforcement body.
If you don't want to submit to the security procedures, don't fly. I hate the bullshit at the airport which is why for me to even consider flying it has to be akin to a 1000 mile trip.
The blanket statement that people prefer "shackles" to liberty is a raving generalization.
All societies have laws that restrict absolute liberty for order. This is fundamental to our Constitution as a "social contract" as laid out by John Locke.
CarlosDJackal
10-31-10, 18:37
First things first, the TSA checkpoint agents are not Law Enforcement Officers. They can detain but they cannot arrest anyone. This is why they cannot normally operate a Checkpoint without LE presence. They might include an organization that do have LE powers (IE: FAM) but only in a limited capacity.
The TSA is not violating the 4th because they are not conducting their searches on public jurisdiction (IE: roads). They are allowed to conduct these searches in airport for the same reason the military can search anyone who enters a military installation and the US Marshalls can search anyone who enters Federal Judicial and other Official buildings.
It's not like an LEO pulling someone over while they are driving on the Interstate or a State Route; or someone who is walking on a public sidewalk. Let as not give the TSA any more credence or authority by insisting that they be held to the same standards as LEOs.
CarlosDJackal
10-31-10, 18:49
...I have a DoD CAC and a security clearance but I get the same treatment everybody else does...
As someone who is issued 2 DoD CACs, I feel that this is the way it should be. Just because you have a particular ID or status; it does not mean that you or anyone else should be given special preferences especially when it comes to security matters.
IMHO, anyone who wants "special treatment" should go somewhere else. I do not have more than 26-years of combined military service just so some people are treated as "special people" all because they hold a particular ID, is a member of Congress or the Senate, or lives in the White House.
I personally find it disgusting that elected politicians and self-serving elitists keep insisting that they should not be subjected to the same background checksm security searches or traffic citations as every other US National. JM2CW.
As someone who is issued 2 DoD CACs, I feel that this is the way it should be. Just because you have a particular ID or status; it does not mean that you or anyone else should be given special preferences especially when it comes to security matters.
I agree. Why do the air crew and people who work in concessions not remove their shoes?
http://www2.wsls.com/news/2010/feb/04/tsa_orders_richmond_airport_to_give_security_clear-ar-371878/
This is just plain nuts! http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-11-TSA-security_N.htm
The TSA is not violating the 4th because they are not conducting their searches on public jurisdiction (IE: roads). They are allowed to conduct these searches in airport for the same reason the military can search anyone who enters a military installation and the US Marshalls can search anyone who enters Federal Judicial and other Official buildings.
It's not like an LEO pulling someone over while they are driving on the Interstate or a State Route; or someone who is walking on a public sidewalk. Let as not give the TSA any more credence or authority by insisting that they be held to the same standards as LEOs.
I fail to see how an airport is not the same as a public road (or if you will, parking lot). The airport is essential to air travel the same way a road is to surface travel by vehicle. The mode of travel does not limit the "jurisdiction". Most airports are owned by governmental agencies.
First things first, the TSA checkpoint agents are not Law Enforcement Officers. They can detain but they cannot arrest anyone. This is why they cannot normally operate a Checkpoint without LE presence. They might include an organization that do have LE powers (IE: FAM) but only in a limited capacity.
The TSA is not violating the 4th because they are not conducting their searches on public jurisdiction (IE: roads). They are allowed to conduct these searches in airport for the same reason the military can search anyone who enters a military installation and the US Marshalls can search anyone who enters Federal Judicial and other Official buildings.
It's not like an LEO pulling someone over while they are driving on the Interstate or a State Route; or someone who is walking on a public sidewalk. Let as not give the TSA any more credence or authority by insisting that they be held to the same standards as LEOs.
So here's my question to you, when does it become a violation? What are the limits, and when is a government funded building not a publicly owned facility? Last time I checked most airports are built using public money, and maintained with fee's subsidized by tax payers... Hell security is government funded, I'm sure walmart would love for tax dollars to pay their lost prevention people.
But I guess we can start calling government funded buildings private, since after all our representatives have the view that once the government collects are money it's no longer our money. :sarcastic:
And this isn't 1945 when air travel wasn't required, some places are now impossible to get to with out air travel. It's a requirement for some of us. How do I get from San Francisco to New York in 14 hours with out air travel? Some times work requires us to travel 20,000 miles in a week, not really possible with out air travel. I guess I can live on food stamps and government paychecks and just stop working, since my field or work requires travel that's only possible by air due to time frames.
After all I don't have a right to work in my chosen field, this is the USSR after all where I should expect checkpoints, long lines and papers to travel and have a damn good reason for traveling to my desired destination, if not I might find myself in handcuffs in a holding cell and I better be careful what I've said in the past about this government or I might be labeled a terrorist on top of it all.
Going back to the car, why do you have a right not to be strip searched when driving, why should you expect any type of privacy in a public place? Your car isn't your place of residence. It's no different than your tennis shoes, simply a form of transportation.
Hell why shouldn't LE be allowed to strip search you walking down the street, what makes you expect privacy in a public place?
So if they want to strip search a 6 year old kid or an 80 year old in an airport why not, we shouldn't expect privacy in such situations, that just sounds like some communist bullshit, privacy damn liberals... :rolleyes:
ChicagoTex
11-01-10, 03:52
I fail to see how an airport is not the same as a public road (or if you will, parking lot).
Simple, it's not your plane. When it is, there's far less security involved... go figure.
Simple, it's not your plane. When it is, there's far less security involved... go figure.
I'm not following your response, are you saying the airlines pay for the airport, and that the airlines provide the security? :confused:
ChicagoTex
11-01-10, 06:07
I'm not following your response, are you saying the airlines pay for the airport, and that the airlines provide the security?
I'm not addressing the issue of who's paying for what or why. I'm simply pointing out that the skies are public (generally speaking), like the road, but the planes aren't. The owners of those planes have the right to implement their own security measures regardless of whether or not you feel they are unreasonable. When it's your plane at a private airport, except for any measures the airport has in place (which you agree to, contractually, by keeping your plane there) all security procedures or lack thereof related to who boards your plane are dictated by you, the owner of the plane and you implicitly accept all risks and liabilities therefrom.
What I'm pointing out is there really is no meaningful difference between between car travel and air travel from rights/priviledges standpoint, the difference comes down to ownership and how many people have to chip in to charter a given vehicle. If you're a stranger who wants to carpool with me on my way to work, I have every right to invite you along provided you pay your half for gas and submit to the most invasive cavity searches possible - just as you have every right to decline and walk.
ETA: and yes, in this case the TSA is essentially the "private security" collectively chosen by the major airlines that just happens to be government run. And yes, the government could impose themselves as the one and only choice due to having extremely large amounts of money in the vast majority of major airports in America. Monopoly? Yes. Conflict of interest? You betcha. 4A violation? Afraid not.
I'm not addressing the issue of who's paying for what or why. I'm simply pointing out that the skies are public (generally speaking), like the road, but the planes aren't. The owners of those planes have the right to implement their own security measures regardless of whether or not you feel they are unreasonable. When it's your plane at a private airport, except for any measures the airport has in place (which you agree to, contractually, by keeping your plane there) all security procedures or lack thereof related to who boards your plane are dictated by you, the owner of the plane and you implicitly accept all risks and liabilities therefrom.
What I'm pointing out is there really is no meaningful difference between between car travel and air travel from rights/priviledges standpoint, the difference comes down to ownership and how many people have to chip in to charter a given vehicle. If you're a stranger who wants to carpool with me on my way to work, I have every right to invite you along provided you pay your half for gas and submit to the most invasive cavity searches possible - just as you have every right to decline and walk.
ETA: and yes, in this case the TSA is essentially the "private security" collectively chosen by the major airlines that just happens to be government run. And yes, the government could impose themselves as the one and only choice due to having extremely large amounts of money in the vast majority of major airports in America. Monopoly? Yes. Conflict of interest? You betcha. 4A violation? Afraid not.
But the airlines aren't the one who are making the security rules, or enforcing the rules. And I know the argument that you're volunteering to the search because you're aware that it will occur before boarding the flight, don't make it right ;)
If the airlines want to enforce flight rules, they need to pay for their own security and make use tax payer money to pay for private industry.
ChicagoTex
11-01-10, 07:57
But the airlines aren't the one who are making the security rules, or enforcing the rules.
The airports (who could be essentially thought of as a collective for the interests of the private airlines) used to until the TSA came along, which was able to assert itself thanks to the fact that said airports were built with substantial amounts of government money. The choice to the airlines was essentially "submit to our security or get your own damn airport", which was obviously not feasible.
And I know the argument that you're volunteering to the search because you're aware that it will occur before boarding the flight, don't make it right
As should be obvious from my post above, there's a great deal of mechanics at work here that obviously aren't "right". As with the public education system, the acceptance of federal funds to mitigate costs in an otherwise private (or at least state-level) enterprise was a sweet ride for quite a while, but ultimately came with a massive price.
Right or not, though, it is legal.
CarlosDJackal
11-01-10, 08:41
I agree. Why do the air crew and people who work in concessions not remove their shoes?
They did at the Airport where I worked Checkpoint Security the year following 9/11/01. Aircrews also had to take part in the random searches as well.
CarlosDJackal
11-01-10, 08:50
I fail to see how an airport is not the same as a public road (or if you will, parking lot). The airport is essential to air travel the same way a road is to surface travel by vehicle. The mode of travel does not limit the "jurisdiction". Most airports are owned by governmental agencies.
You do not have to utilize an airport to travel anywhere. But you will have to use public roads to no matter how poor or wealthy you are. The pre-checkpoint area of an airport is considered public domain and falls under the same standards as public roads (as does the airport parking lot) in terms of our right to privacy.
But once you get through the check-in counters and the checkpoint area; it now falls under a different standard. It is as if you entered a Federal Building which is why as a local LEO, I had to attend the appropriate training and be sworn into the USMS to be able to perform my duties as Checkpoint Security.
You can all argue about this all you want; but this is the way it is and the way it will stay unless you elect someone with the 'nads to change it. I personally do not like it, but I do somewhat agree with it since it is basically the cost of security. This is also why I prefer to drive versus fly anywhere. YMMV.
They did at the Airport where I worked Checkpoint Security the year following 9/11/01. Aircrews also had to take part in the random searches as well.
I fly a lot for work and they haven't been checked for several years now. I see it all the time but I don't want to wade too deep into the subject.
I'm on the road, on average, about 1.5 weeks out of every month. It varies, but it's pretty consistent and frequent, and virtually all of the direct travel involves flying to the locations I need to hit. I get to see more than some, while less than the true airline road-warriors.
My thoughts: Starbucks is about the only vendor that consistently has pricing equal to that of their stores outside the airport. I find having to pay inflated prices for food, while being told that pricing in the airport exactly relfects that of the world outside, to be far more onerous and infuriating than I do being told by TSA what to expect in regard to security measures and have it happen as briefed on any of several publicly-accessible mediums. Once you're in there, yeah the Matrix has you, but you KNOW it going in....
That's not to say that I don't screw with TSA when I get the chance ("Sir, is this your bag?" "No, but my computer is in it, so you'd best give it to me so I can get my computer and let you deal with whatever's wrong with the bag." *anything resembling higher brain function ceases immediately* "Hurrrrrrrr..."). That might change if they'd make it a policy to not hire oversized single-cell organisms to man the gates.
As much as we might like it to be otherwise, being an over-officious nitwit with no better career prospects than playing professional Hall Moniter isn't illegal. Waaayyyyy less of a problem with policy than I have with their people.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.