Are the new TSA security measures unconstitutional? Is flying a right, or a privilege?

Absolutely. If it were a right, you could not be charged for it.

You don’t have to fly anywhere. There is no right to fly.

It is definitely a privilege.

If you are paying for the privilege of flying, then it’s a commodity like buying a stove. You expect things to work.

Do you realize the Constitution was written more than one hundred years before the first airplane was invented?

@FutureMemory – Considering that the TSA is a government agency, and therefore its regulatory actions are governed by the Constitution, the question of whether the agency limits the industry in a manner that makes its behavior unconstitutional is a valid question – and collapses the idea of air travel as a right to travel into the Constitution regardless of the time of its invention. ;-)

And you expect the airlines to exerise due caution in not letting someone with a gun, explosives, or other weaponry on the plane. You are not able to safeguard yourself against someone deciding to blow up or hijack the plane. This is another example of the 80/20 rule – 20% of the people flying could potentially create mayhem, so 80% of people are inconvenienced to safeguard against it.

In the US, the choices are 1) drive, 2) take The Dog (although even that’s not entirely risk-free) or 3) stay home.

Having traveled extensively for work in the past, I can tell you that taking my pocketknife, a huge bottle of shampoo, or even a bottle of water through security is not a necessity. I dress for travel to make it easy – no extra metal items, shoes that are flat and easy to slip off, and no carry on luggage. I pack the computer with the battery off before I leave home.

Every time I get on a plane, I’m aware that I may be in a perilous situation, and am more than aware of the people around me, and that I may be called upon to act. The glamour went out of air travel a long time ago.

I’m amazed that the country isn’t clamoring for a national train system; most travel in this country could be easily accomplished on trains. I don’t exactly need to fly from Cincinnati to Atlanta in order to get to St. Louis.

@iamthemob Oh I know all that. Every time I think “Constitution” the first image that comes to mind is the founding fathers/1700’s. I’m still up from last night, a little silly ;)

@FutureMemory – I figured you did. But you know we all can be sensitive when we’re new jellies – I sure was. I just wanted to make sure that boston16 didn’t take what you were saying too personally. :-)

You have no right to fly, but that doesn’t mean the new measures don’t still violate the Fourth Amendment.

Welcome to Fluther.

Have you been to an airport lately? It’s no privilege at all.

But it’s not a right, either. It’s more of a duty, for which I expect to be duly paid. (And I laugh at the very idea of ‘frequent flyer miles’ ... they reward me for flying by trying to induce me to fly more! Fat chance.)

Flying is a privilege, just like your drivers license from the state in which you live. your state can issue you a drivers license and your state can take it away.

Flying is a privilige. yes, you are paying for the flight, but your flight is on someone else’s aircraft, not yours. if you owned your personal aircraft, then flying would be a right(with a license).

Also remember, the aircraft owners are private enterprise, not owned by the government. they have a right to search anyone about to board their aircraft. its for the safety for everyone. just think, you are flying at 35,000 feet and someone brings out an AK-47 and starts killing people. where does the go? DOWN. some people never think of this, untill it happens to them, if they are fortuanate to survive the crash. common sense prevails here.

@john65pennington – you’re sort of contradicting yourself. ;-). If driving is a privilege, then having your own plane doesn’t make flying a right – it’s still a privilege if you don’t have a license.

But it’s only sort of – it’s a right to do anything with yourself and whatever you own, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the rights of others, particularly when it’s a matter of public safety (which is the reasoning for licensing).

I’m not sure why it matters whether flying is a right or privilege. It’s a commodity like anything else you buy. The problem here is that it’s not the airline that’s doing this, it’s the government. And the question is how far can they go. This controversy is not the end but only another step. We know that drugs are smuggled in body cavities. Can we move to a full cavity search (the guy with the rubber gloves was surprisingly gentle). What happens when the terrorists blow up a train or a mall? do we then move to full cavity search for going on the train or subway, or maybe to get into the mall? We had the shoe bomber, so now we have to take off our shoes. Then we had the underwear bomber so now we need to be ‘felt up’. Do you really think the terrorists have run out of ideas? How far are we willing to go? How much of our liberty are we expected to give up. How much of a police state are we expected to endure?

After all this, I heard an interview with the head of the TSA and when asked if the new procedures would have caught the underwear bomber, he couldn’t say yes. Only that we’d have a better chance of catching him. The underwear bomber and the shoe bomber (and the car bomber in NY) all went to the middle east, to terrorist countries, to learn how. Do you suspect a connection? And don’t give me any of that crap that if the terrorists know we won’t screen a blond haired, blue eyed, pregnant mother, they’ll just recruit them. If they could they would and they haven’t. We need to get smarter instead of just more invasive.

@papayalily How do you consider it a violation of the 4th amendment?

I get the idea that it is unreasonable search and seizure, but part of the 4th amendment addresses issues of consent. When we go to an airport, we consent to going through security by doing so. If we don’t consent to it, we don’t fly, plain and simple. It may suck that you can’t do it without consenting to the scanners/metal detectors/pat downs/whatever we face, but the point is, by doing so we consent.

At any time, we are able to say, no nevermind I don’t want to do this, but at that point, you must also turn around and leave instead of heading to your plane.

@Seaofclouds

Have you ever tried saying no I don’t want to be searched? I have have. It’s not pretty. You immediately set off alarms with the agents. And you don’t just turn around and walk out.

@Jaxk No I’ve never said it because I don’t have a problem with it. If I didn’t want to be searched, I wouldn’t go to the airport to begin with. I’m sure it would set off alarms, but the point is, by going to the airport, where you know you will have to go through security, you are consenting to it. You may cause more alarm by refusing to be search, but it’s still your right, you just won’t be able to proceed to you plane if you don’t go through security.

@Seaofclouds

If that were the case, I’d still think that it might not meet Fourth Amendment standards, as there should be considerations about whether the search is reasonable under the circumstances regardless of the consent, and if not there needs to be additional suspicions.

However, it’s apparently not the case that you can refuse the flight. Apparently, if you decide not to undergo either at a security checkpoint, you can be arrested and fined $11,000.

I think that you’re right that consent comes into play – but it’s not the only standard…and, as it seems, the TSA is going to bully us all into being in the government nekkid database (I don’t really believe that – but it’s one of those “how do we know it’s not true when it would be so easy?” situations).

@iamthemob I think it’s complete BS if you can’t change your mind and leave. That seems like unlawful detention to me, especially possibly being arrested and fined. That’s way overboard. If someone decided they don’t want to go through the scanner or be pat down, they should be able to turn around and leave.

@Seaofclouds

Rarely do I see something happen that I feel actually mandates us, as citizens, to begin a program of civil disobedience.

This, however, makes me feel the same as you. I want to buy a flight, as soon as possible, simply to refuse the check, vocally and publicly, as is my right as a citizen. Arrest and fine? What!?!?

If you don’t want to be searched, don’t get in the security line. Getting in line is your act of consent.

The “pat down” is for people not wanting to go through the scanner. You get to choose your search.

@iamthemob Be sure to get a refundable/transferrable ticket if you do it. :-)

I haven’t been felt up in awhile now. I would consider it a privilege. Maybe I’d go through the line a couple of times.

@Seaofclouds

Just for the sake of example. I was running for my flight with little chance of making it. When I was pulled out of line to be searched, I knew what little chance I had was gone. I also knew I had to go back to the counter and change my flight. So I picked up my bag and said “I’ll catch another flight”. That was not the appropriate response or so the security guards that were called informed me. And I was searched. Probable cause seemed to come into play at that point.

@Jaxk I can see the probable cause because you waited until being pulled aside for a search to decide you didn’t want to do it (due to your circumstances). Since they had no way of knowing you were already running late for your flight, it probably does seem suspicious to them considering you were okay with going through the regular system.

@Seaofclouds – but the ticket would have indicated that, indeed, @Jaxk was going to be late for the flight. There was a way for the TSA to determine that the reason was the truth.

Refusing the search is not an additional probable cause for a search. Regardless of the fact that these things are making the news (1) not everyone is clear on what they involve, (2) not everyone is paying attention to the new requirements I’m sure, (3) not everyone is thinking about them even when they do know about them, and forget, and (4) the news shows that people are very upset with them, and therefore might try to refuse based on rights-grounds.

This is the problem that I mentioned in other threads on this – though airports are, properly I think, areas of higher security with a particular government interest as they are ports of foreign entry as well as domestic travel in a lot of cases, refusal of consent for search should not be viewed as additional suspicious behavior – it is your constitutional right. Consent should and must be given freely and clearly, at the point of the search. Therefore, if any consent is issued it should be at a maximum considered implied consent, which legally should be retracted at the point of refusing a search, or clarified that there was no clear consent, and that again is a Constitutional right.

The idea that refusing to consent or retracting consent of implied consent to a search, particularly when it is unclear what level of invasion of privacy the search will constitute, is one of those times where we aren’t clear on what our rights are, and have them slowly taken from us without us really knowing. When you refuse or retract implied consent, you are being a U.S. citizen – nothing more, nothing less.

@iamthemob I don’t remember ever having the person at security actually looking at my ticket, so I don’t see how they would know it from that. Every airport I’ve been to has a separate person that looks at your ticket before you get up to the actual metal detectors.

I agree that we should be able to take back our consent at any time, I can just see it looking suspicious if someone suddenly changed their mind when they got pulled aside for the random bag checks (instead of the normal metal detectors). I don’t agree with it leading to further detainment, possible arrests, or fines, I can just understand why it would raise suspicion.

suppose you have a right to fly….you would have the right to fly, but not the right to drive. Interesting!

@Seaofclouds – I’m not saying they would know before they performed the search. What I meant was there was no additional suspicion to perform the search because they could have instead looked at the ticket in the situation @Jaxk presented before and instead of doing the search he had refused. Instead, they detained him, searched him, and then let him go… not to get on a plane, but to do what he (assuming genders for convenience) was going to do in the first place – go home. That’s the problem.

I can see why someone would think it would be suspicious – but legally, that’s exactly what we need to control for. Just because we see the reason someone would consider that subjectively, we can’t start using someone exercising their rights as something that raises a suspicion so that an officer can be reasonable in violating their rights.

If that’s the case, and if refusing consent means you are suspicious and therefore a search can be done, than the Fourth Amendment is, realistically, no right at all.

@tigress3681 – I’m not really clear on what you’re saying….

I am saying, you do not have the right to drive. This is less restrictive than flying.
Assume you have the right to fly…. how wierd would that be, having the right to fly but not to drive.

@iamthemob I agree 100%. Unfortunately, I believe TSA agents are going to focus more on suspicion than just people changing their mind due to the nature of their job. I don’t agree with it, I just understand their side of things too.

I think some of it also depends on how the situations presents itself. I see a difference between someone getting pulled for the random bag check just saying “I’ll catch another flight” and saying “man, now I’m going to miss my flight, I need to go change my ticket”. That shouldn’t change the outcome, but I think it does present things differently to the person at security. Once again, I’m not condoning it, just understanding both sides.

@Seaofclouds – I too think that’s what they’re going to do…which is why we have to nip this BS in the bud. yo. ;-)

It is a privilege.

However, if you would like to see the regulations change very quickly. Quit flying.

I know that for some folks this is not an option, but the majority of Americans fly because it is a great deal more convenient. If you want the government to listen to any complaints you may have you need to make it an issue money before it is any other type of issue.

If the airlines were suddenly in a position where a bailout was necessary I can bet some regulations would quickly be scrutinized and relaxed.

Because there are people in this world who are actually willing to blow up their junk (not to mention thousands of innocent people) to prove their point, the rest of us have to endure whatever measures the government deems necessary to ensure our safety in flight.

If you have a better idea of how to do that please notify your TSA agency immediately. They want your input.

@YARNLADY . . . How about profiling? I think it actually makes much more sense than subjecting elderly women and young children to such unnecessary scrutiny.

@Blondesjon Terrorists that get on planes do their best to dress in western attire. What would you do, search all brown-skinned people? Or just ones with names like Mohammed? I’m not arguing with you, just asking how you would handle the logistics. Profiling to me sounds like a nightmare job to manage.

I believe we need a national database that contains the flight habits of anyone who flies. If 80 year old Nanny McSweetie shows up as having flown to Florida every year on the same date then she gets a pass. If Brownie McBoomboom is shown to have never flown before and is a newcomer to the U.S. then by all means, search him thoroughly.

Use some common sense kids. There are always going to be folks who slip through the cracks, but that doesn’t mean we have to allow our personal space to be randomly violated.

it will also serve to move the fucking line along . . .

@Blondesjon Profiling won’t help, because many of the offenders recently don’t fit the profile. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if they chose to sacrifice their own child or grandma to the cause. These people are way beyond fanatic.

One solution to moving the line faster is to provide frequent flyer fast passes, and to double or triple the security lines.

When I was in Norway, I observed the bags being scanned as they were being loaded on the airplane.

@YARNLADY The problem is that the scanners don’t make us any safer. It’s insanely easy to bypass them. So your rights are being violated for no real reason.

@YARNLADY These people are way beyond fanatic.

I think completely fucking batshit crazy would be a fair characterization.

@papayalily What evidence do you have for that statement?

@YARNLADY

You must not be paying much attention to the terrorists. They do fit the profile. Both the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber were recent visitors of terrorist countries. The NYC bomber as well. They travel to the middle east to get instruction as to how to do it and where to do it. The old argument that if they know we won’t screen a blond, blue eyed, pregnant woman, they’ll just recruit one of them to carry the explosives is ridiculous. If they could they would but they can’t. It takes some pretty heavy indoctrination to get someone to stuff explosives in their underwear. It’s not an easy task even if you’re Muslim AND a little crazy.

We currently have about 60,000 TSA agents. How many do you think we can afford just so that they can grope you appropriately. And out of curiosity, where would you draw the line? would shining a flashlight up your butt be too much. A full cavity search is the next step on the road we’re on.

@Jaxk Slippery slope arguments don’t sway me – The scanner is a long, long way from that. I’m old enough that having a stranger touch me is not anything I fear.

As I said before, if you have a way to do it better – please contact the TSA. They are anxious to hear of it.

Affordable: Put every unemployed citizen to work and off unemployment/welfare.

@YARNLADY That sounds kinda like what my mom said—“I don’t care if they look at me naked, there’s nothing to see anymore”. Somehow, that doesn’t relieve any of my concerns…

Even though you probably don’t speak German, you can see this guy get through the scanners with quite a lot.

From Vancouver Sun:
A leading Israeli airport security expert says the Canadian government has wasted millions of dollars to install “useless” imaging machines at airports across the country.

“I don’t know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747,” Rafi Sela told parliamentarians probing the state of aviation safety in Canada.

“That’s why we haven’t put them in our airport,” Sela said, referring to Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world.

@YARNLADY

I find it interesting that you would consider this a slippery slope argument. I’m not suggesting that it COULD lead to full cavity searches, I’ saying it WILL lead to full cavity searches. Think it through. We had the shoe bomber. Our response was to have you take off your shoes. Then we had the underwear bomber. Our response is to search your underwear. Now stay with me here. We know that people smuggle drugs up thier butts. We also know that the body scanners can’t detect liquids, powders or plastics inside your body. Where do you suspect the next place to hide explosives will be? And how do you think we will respond?

And just for drill I’m not crazy about being felt up by some TSA guy but If I have to be, I’d rather not have an audience. I think the German video posted by @papayalily , says it all in regard to how effective all this really is. It’s an ineffective knee jerk reaction to a real problem by people with no clue as to how to handle it.

@Jaxk It must be nice to have a crystal ball, so you can know the future with such certainty. However, complaining is easy. Coming up with a solution is the hard part.

@YARNLADY It certainly is easier than coming up with a solution. However, an ineffective solution isn’t worth a damn. Know what else is easy? Using a condescending tone towards others. Maybe take it down a notch.

@Jaxk Yeah, I just read yet another report about how the TSA won’t do it in private like they say they will.

@YARNLADY

If you had read my posts, the proffered solution is obvious. Every terrorist attack, successful or not, has been perpetrated by someone that had recently traveled to the middle east. That might give you a clue as to who should be screened. Even if you don’t own a crystal ball.

@Jaxk Good point.