Can you believe this: "Spread your legs, wiiiiiiide now"

If you look closely at the copy, it's cleverly written to deceive. They only say the image is permanently cleared from the screen,-- they don't mention any hard drive or other storage device, and they also state that the viewing officer cannot save, print or transmit the image--again, making no mention of any third parties... IMO this is a huge breach of trust for the massive power the government is gaining over us. Not to mention, the huge margin for abuse by people largely hired right off the street and paid next to nothing.

How stupid do they think we are?

i think many of us "liberals" around here have been talking about and concerned about our governments abuse of our rights and the loss of our rights (more serious than this one) since, say around september 12th of 2001. hard to say much more on the subject without getting political, so i won't.

glad to see others are finally taking notice too.

but, to answer your question, he might say...

I dunno, the article does say more generally that the images are not printed, transmitted or stored. And the passenger has a choice between the scan or a pat-down, which many people find objectionable.

I'm a long-time ACLU member myself, but I'm fine with this personally if it prevents people from bringing explosives onto planes. I'm way more worried about other personal information the government seems intent on getting their hands on.

Agree completely, I have no problem with this... someone can choose whether to be touched or camera'd, and there needs to be one or the other for the reasons Keith mentioned.

Hey, can I request BOTH??

By the way, Ben Franklin also said (much to his credit), that "Beer is proof that there is a God and that He wants us to be happy." Good American, that one.

Exactly.

And those of us who feel this isn't an egregious violation of our rights, are the reason this type of thing will continue to happen. It's not sweeping abrupt violations that should be a concern. Those will usually never fly under the radar. It's these small ones that we think "oh, I can live with that" which will be the biggest threat to our privacy.

I won't elaborate on my reasoning on this particular point since it would violate forum guidelines, I'll just reiterate my hope that the TSA will vigorously minimize the chance that I or any of my fellow passengers can interfere with the flight plan.

in all honesty, i think that if ben and most of our founding fathers could see the state of this country right now they would say, "how did you take such a good idea and fu*k it up so bad."

FTR I think there are a ton of very serious civil rights issues in today's U.S., I just don't see this technology as an unnecessary invasion of privacy. There are indisputably clever and highly motivated people who want to bring weapons onto planes, and if the TSA getting a peek at my family's privates makes that harder for them, then I'm all for it. Better embarrassed than dead, and I just don't see this as an unjustified restriction of my personal liberties. Access to my phone records without probable cause (as one example) is another matter.

Also, the founding fathers were pretty smart but let's not forget there was actually little agreement among them on the proper scope of federal powers, which has been an ongoing topic of intense debate since Hamilton v. Jefferson and at one point led to half the nation seceding from the union. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were the result of compromise and a reaction to the specific historical situation of the American colonies, and of course are open to interpretation. This is not to justify the mangling of them we've often seen in recent years.

i agree keith, as far as our recent loss of rights, this is far less egregious than most. and afterall, air travel is a personal choice, not a protected right. and yes, your example of phone records (+ non-court warranted wiretaps) is much scarier.

but imho, it's a slippery slope. everytime we willingly and unquestioningly (if that is a word) give up a(nother) right to the federal government (and especially, this current administration) in the name of fear & security, i whince and feel like they have just chipped away a little more of the base of our constitution and our guaranteed rights.

On this particular issue, we have been getting felt up by TSA for years and no one has objected (here anyway). Now they're offering an option to getting felt up, and you can choose it or not. Don't like being touched? Fine. But then let us see, your decision. That's not an imposition on our rights... it's an expansion of them.

In general though, Bill, I don't disagree with what you wrote there. But at the same time, you must acknowledge that it's a slippery slope as well to worry so much about infringing on rights that we should allow a family to lose a loved one (or, many families to lose many loved ones) simply because we're worried about our bashfulness. There is a definite line, but if it's life & death vs. pride & shame, to me, then I'll be happy to blush for a moment.

For other, bigger issues... do I want the gov't reading my mail and listening to my calls? No, not really... but if they do, they're not going to hear anything that interests them. And if the downside is that my privacy is infringed upon, but someone plotting to drop cyanide into the NYC water supply getting overheard, then I'm cool with that. Not sure where that line is, exactly, nor how wide or gray it is.

This is, on the surface, about privacy, however to trivialize the issue in this way is unfair. To be clear, this is about the right to privacy, and the right to not have any of our personal data collected and/or stored without our permission. And yes, scanned images of our naked bodies is collecting data. And, yes, to believe that this information will not be "stored, printed, or transmitted" is not only naive, it's stupid on our parts.

As others have already said, this administration, and this government in general, is dead set on gaining controlling power over everyone and everything--not just its citizens. Just because you don't see it only means you aren't looking in the right places.

And, yes, if we sit by and let things like this continue to happen, we are the ones who will shoulder the burden when all of our rights are gone and the least we have to worry about is getting on a plane that may or not fly into the Pentagon.

No offense Mark, but this just sounds alarmist to me. I mean, I don't credit the government with the ability to be quite so sinister, or even have the inclination (the evil White House wants pictures of my crotch?). And besides, gov't secrets just aren't very well kept anymore... there's just too much media and too many sound bites. And for every story that we think is hidden away out of the public eye, there is some person in the offending group that wants to be on the news, or write a book, or otherwise go public (secret prisons, Lewinsky, Guantanamo, Abu Graib prison, Marines killing puppies, hell... even Iran-Contra, Watergate. No more secrets; it's all a news reel and a made-for-TV movie). So I really can't imagine that the images would be stored, transmitted or printed without somebody finding out and yappin' about it. At which time, the program would go away anyway. And look, what would anybody want with those photos besides to search for bombs/guns/etc.? You're implying that this is a gov't fraud that does, in fact, intend to store and transmit the photos? What the heck FOR?

And again, nobody is forcing anybody to do this thing. It's an opt-in search mechanism... so, ya know, just opt out and your rights are in tact, by your definition. I really don't see the fuss.

you don't think this falls under social contract balance?

what good is my particular anatomy (unless we're going all handmaid's-tale on it)? now: being able to read and think what i want, that would be practical to erode for power players.

-jaem

i guess my issue w/this stuff is how it's ever expanding and how it sort of defeats or at a minimum, is in contrast to the "innocent until proven guilty" theory.

just an example...in something as simple as the fairly recent seatbelt legislation. it can be easily argued and proven that we are safer when seatbelts are used, i doubt that few would argue that point.

in roughly the ten or so years since it's inception...when the laws were originally passed, it was generally accepted that this law would be only be enforced if you were stopped for another traffic infraction, that you would not be pulled over simply for a seatbelt violation. after the law was accepted with minimal objections, mostly due to the obvious safety benefits, it was soon expanded to allow those found to be in violation to be stopped and citations issued. again, accepted with minimal objection, due to the obvious safety benefits.

and now more recently, it has been further expanded to allow law enforcement to run "seat belt safety checkpoints." which, imho is in clear conflict of the "presumption of innocence" we are constitutionally guaranteed. if every car is stopped @ a checkpoint, you are clearly presumed guilty of violating the law, you have broken no law, commited no crime and yet by a visual inspection by a police officer, you are required to "prove" your innocence. by law you are to be "presumed innoncent" until "proven guilty" yet, you were stopped (therefore accused) with the assumption that you were violating the law. and that is wrong and should not be constitutionally allowed.

plus, we all know that these checkpoints are used for many reasons other (DUI, probable cause searches, etc) than just "seat belt safety." so a simple law, most agree benefited saftey, widened, expanded to the point that i feel is a clear abuse of our civil rights.

yet we roll over, play dead and passively accept these violations of privacy, infringements and presumption of guilt...all in the name of "safety." are we safer while travelling due to the seatbelt laws and the focus on this issue? absolutely. but, is it worth the rights that we willingly forfeited in the name of "saftey? imho, absolutely not.

so based on past history, is it reasonable to assume that these airport searches (or any other loss or erosion of our constitutionally guaranteed rights) could become mandatory for all? i think so. or that someday they could be expanded to enter government or other buildings? i think so. or that someday maybe these could be (unknowingly to us) recorded on a harddrive somewhere? i think so. that someday this information could be shared within other governmental (or worse, privatized outside third party) agencies? again, i think so.

i guess the real question is, are will willing to continue to passively hand over our privacy to a government more than willing and eager to take it? i sure hope not.

and yes, sadly i have become more cynical and distrustful of our government it the last seven and a half years that leads me to think this way...

If the cops don't put up checkpoints then many of us will simply not use seatbelts, get our cars inspected or refrain from drinking while driving. These are all good laws IMO and enforcement saves lives by forcing drivers to be responsible. In my view, that particular sacrifice of "freedom" (to be reckless?) for safety is absolutely justified and I have no problem with any of that as long as it's not abused to conduct vehicle searches without evidence. I am not "rolling over", rather I am happy the police are protecting me from unsafe drivers and reminding me when I'm being irresponsible myself.

Mark, I consider myself neither stupid nor naive and I see plenty of what's going on with this administration. I share your concerns about government encroachment on individual rights and privacy, I've had my own going back to the Nixon administration. I enthusiastically support the ACLU and it's their job to challenge "things like this". In this particular case, however, I believe the compromising of privacy is a justified trade-off. In my own personal estimation, it is not one of the many things the government is doing that we really need to worry about. I can give you my list of what is if you like, but I think posting it here would be stepping over the line in terms of the orchard guidelines.

Perhaps one of you can explain why you think the government would WANT to keep these images? (aside from the inevitable jackass who wants a souvenir x-ray of Jessica Simpson, that is) And then how you think this would escape the notice of the ACLU if they did? From the article cited, it seems to me they're only objecting to the display being graphic and revealing, not the possibility of the images being stored.

well, i guess even us libs can disagree.

J Marie, I have no answer for you. I know what a social contract is, however I can't seem to relate it to this issue.

Keith, of course you're not stupid or naive. Even pretty bright people get it wrong sometimes.

Troy, call me an alarmist if you will. I'll take it as a compliment. Without an alarm, half the country wouldn't get up in the morning.

And Bill, how is it we are mostly agreeing again?


Lastly, if nothing has sent this thread straight to the mods yet, this will. I joined the Campaign for Liberty today!!

Rock on!

Yo, homeslice .

I was mainly thinking of the balance of the collective (safety) rights and the individual (civil) liberties. Sometimes the scales have to tip one way or the other to maintain the balance is all. That's at least my understanding--I"m not a scholar in this area AT ALL.

Peace out!

i dunno, maybe you're finally coming around.

and i'm not sure we "agree" as much as we are on the "same side" of this issue. i think the government/administration is guilty of far worse civil liberty infractions than this one, this worries me more about what it could become than what it is. as i said, flying is a "personal choice," not a guaranteed "right." so from a legal and constitutional perspective, and a "greater good" (as defended keith and troy) it's probably "legal" but just because it's legal doesn't make it right. personally, i think there are far less intrusive ways to protect us.

(and i know i'm getting close to "the line" if not "crossing" it, so i'll be careful) the mantra of the republican party used to be a promise "to get the government of the backs of the american people," yet "this" government is getting more and more involved in the life of the american people in unprecedented ways, mostly in the (false) name morality or safety and security (or by spreading fear). that's my concern. so it's not this one thing with me, it's virtually everything and this is just one more in a long list. and imho january 20th can't get here soon. and with that, i should probably shaddup.

Gosh, it sure sounded like I'm both!


I'm still interested in hearing why you think the government would want to keep those images.

Good luck with your Campaign for Freedom. My Deadheads for Obama t-shirt arrived in the mail this morning.

It's for the same reasons I don't want the government to have my DNA, my facial structure (see Facetrac used at the superbowl), to be able to track my movements via the GPS locator in my cell phone, or anything else. It's my personal information/property, and I distrust it being in their hands. I could list myriad ways this information could and will be abused both by the government and/or contracted third parties. Bottom line is you should need a subpoena to have any of my private information. Thanks to the PATRIOT act, and other unconstitutional trespasses on our freedoms, we can no longer be called a free country. It's only a matter of time before the government will intrude into every facet of our existence if we don't stand up and do something now.

Now you're just being silly. Go to Burma for a couple of weeks and see what you think about the USA afterwards.

And you still haven't answered Keith's question: why do you think the government would want to keep the TSA images of your crotch?

Every time I read this thread it defies logic more and more ... yes, you need to answer Keith's question, tell how this safety measure is linked to the Patriot act, and how your "right" to be an airline passenger does not include your responsibility to demonstrate that you're safe "cargo".

Remember, you have the "right" to bear arms, but with that right comes the responsibility of keeping your arms safe and using them in accepted ways.

There are NO rights without responsibilities ... that's why the "right" to smoke in restaurants -- which never existed anyway -- is now gone: you can't possibly have any responsibility for the carcinogen you released. That's why you can still chew gum and bite your nails ... because it's a truly individual act.

But I digress; this is easy social contract stuff ... plain and simple. They don't keep images, because it doesn't make sense to, you can opt out of it, and certainly, you're free to not fly at all.

And I'm a member of the ACLU as well. Rights are not absolute, and thinking so is tossing the baby AND the bathwater.

Silly is as silly does.

I did answer Keith's question in my last response--so if you have questions about my response, then feel free to do so. Freedom is not an absolute--"either you have it or you don't". There are degrees, and we are slipping further and further down. To compare us to Burma is what's silly. There is no comparison there. We have guaranteed freedoms to fight for that are being unconstitutionally taken away, and that how we are losing our freedom.

And Troy, to keep bringing genitals back to the front of this conversation takes away from the original intent. It's not about that, it's about what the act represents.

Sorry, dude ... there are no lost liberties here to me. This is a new method to reduce the risk of allowing passengers on airplanes who have the ability to bring it down ... that's all this is from where I sit. There is no slope here, IMHO, nor is it slippery.

... deleted due to double post.

Okay - so this could be considered REALLY silly, but don't thousands of people daily pay to have some of their most private parts scanned, x-rayed, etc. due to health issues? This airport scanning thing, as has been mentioned many times throughout this thread, is a strictly voluntary act. Be frisked or be scanned or opt for some other form of transportation. Oh, and as a sidebar, why should this be considered against anyone's right when pro-choice is not? What I'm saying is that I strongly believe that taking away a woman's right to choose is way worse than a person choosing to be scanned. Just wonderin' is all.

Cher

I thought you were going somewhere else as I started to read "don't thousands of people daily to have some of their most private parts ...."

Sadly, I was let down.



This just in, Charlton Heston's ghost called ... he said you can have his guns now.

I think this discussion has been pretty civil up to this point, and I commend those who have contributed for keeping it so, and with that I'm not going to defend my initial premise that this is a potential violation of our civil rights any longer. If we disagree on that point, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

However, I think any other new information shared will be fine and will contribute to the climate of the discussion. So until then.

*edited to add that I'm not trying to end any discussion, just prevent any argument. I'm still totally open to further discussion as long as it actually progresses beyond basic disagreement.

Did the ban on political conversation get lifted? I've been gone a while...

Don't you think this thread would be 5X as long if we were really having a "political conversation"?

Welcome back!

Ha! And thanks!

I was hoping this would end on a humorous note ... Dusty, you know that's what I was trying to achieve with the Charlton Heston thing. Not the end, but humor!

George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama walk into a bar. George is carrying a pool cue, Hillary has a pig under her arm, and Barack is sniffing a long, Cuban cigar...

well, as fred said...