Privacy issues for non-ops

[tekla]

That's your law, not ours.

[The None Blonde]

I belive the US system is the same... you agree to pass through security, you agree to the scan,  you dont want it, you dont go through. They cannot 'force' it. In the US or UK. A warrant is only required, as I said, without permission. I'd check up on that one

[tekla]

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.

And I, and lots of other people, do not fly anymore.  Flat out refuse.  I'll take the bus, but most likely the train, because they have a cocktail lounge on the train.  Like I said, I'd pay more to fly on 'no search airways' and even more if they were no screaming crotchfruit airways also.  You'd have to be even more insane than a suicide bomber could ever be to try to hijack a plane full of un-searched Americans.  We'd get so stabby on you so fast they could air-mail your bits back in #10 envelopes.  And I've very worried about becoming precisely the kind of nanny state that Brittan has become.

All this is doing is letting the terrorists win.

[The None Blonde]

Define win?

America has been leading the way in the 'paranoia omfg terrifying terrorists' game since 9/11... England is NOWHERE near as bad as you folks with security and screening and fearmongering.

[tekla]

Right, and that's what sucks about it, of course it's pretty much against the law in England to own any sort of weapon in the first place, so what would they search for?  And they are going to make all inbound flights to the US use this, once that happens, they will use it on everyone for all flights.  But last time I went through Heathrow (early 1990s) they had people walking around with automatic combat weapons, so that's a bit paranoid also.

[Marie731]

Wouldn't the ID of a non-op "out" them anyway?

Or is the objection due to the more graphic nature of the "outing?"

[FairyGirl]

As I mentioned before in this thread you can refuse the scan but if you still want to fly you have to then submit to a physical body pat down.

Unfortunately, most of my flying is done between Australia and the States so not flying is not an option, unless I want to hitch a ride on a slow freighter to China, and being on board a ship with a bunch of horny Chinese sailors is not my idea of a dream cruise no matter how cute some of those sailors might be.

[The None Blonde]

Right, and that's what sucks about it, of course it's pretty much against the law in England to own any sort of weapon in the first place, so what would they search for?  And they are going to make all inbound flights to the US use this, once that happens, they will use it on everyone for all flights.  But last time I went through Heathrow (early 1990s) they had people walking around with automatic combat weapons, so that's a bit paranoid also.

Police firearms unit, a security measure not always employed you'll find.
As for weapons... actually yes... we have plenty. Unlike america, we dont try to justify owning a .50cal machien gun by saying its for controling vermin, or opening cans of beans.


I still really dont see a problem with this system... its not a big deal. I'm hiding nothing, im breaking no laws, I have nothing to fear.

[Britney_413]

I have a solution to this problem. Since America is supposedly so much about consumerism and consumer choice, let's give the masses a choice about air travel. Americans can choose to go on a secured or unsecured jet. The secured sections of the airport would be like they currently are: no firearms or weapons, no explosives, not even a ball-point pen. You automatically consent to a search by going through security and this may as well include the full body scanners.

The other option would be the fly at your own risk or unsecured one. In this option, the only searches done would be the X-ray scanning of baggage going on the jet. Any suspicion would allow physical searches of the bags going on the plane. The difference is that instead of government agents doing the searches, the airliners themselves would be doing this. This would be similar to bouncers at a bar. They aren't cops but since it is private property they can search you before you enter but you have the option of not entering the venue. In this scenario, the government never is involved. The airliner makes the rules. In addition, not only would firearms be allowed on board, signs would be placed encouraging Americans to bring as many firearms as they can comfortably carry and store on board. Government air marshalls would be obsolete because all 300 passengers would be packing holstered pistols and the overhead cabinets would be filled with shotguns and even "assault" rifles.

Guess which aircraft would NOT be hijacked or bombed? I know I would feel much safer getting on a freedom flight with patriotic gun-toting Americans than a nanny flight where permission to board is granted by government beauracrats who are not liable for your safety and ensure that you are helpless and defenseless.

That aside, I've never understood why the government has ever been so involved with air travel. It should be the airliner's responsibility to ensure the aircraft is safe to fly and any personal information required (such as a photo ID) should be between you and the airliner, not between you and the police. As to the hijackings of 9/11, had the government been on the ball which they never are, the U.S. Air Force to which so much of our tax dollars go would have had jets up in the air within minutes to bring down the planes before they hit anything.

Time and time and time again it is demonstrated that when the people put their trust in the government to keep them safe or provide for them, the government comes first and the people come second.

[xsocialworker]

That sounds great except who would insure the airline that did that? What if a gun went off accidently and shot holes in the cabin?

[tekla]

Only a pussy would use a gun, real guys want to get stabby on them.  No explosives would include ammo.  But even then, as I said several times in this thread (but who reads before they respond?) what mental case would hijack that >-bleeped-<?

the U.S. Air Force to which so much of our tax dollars go would have had jets up in the air within minutes to bring down the planes before they hit anything.
the US Air Force was on Stand Down that day to train for a 'terrorist attack.'  Explain that.



^{Uncalled for response. Deleted.}

[The None Blonde]

Government air marshalls would be obsolete because all 300 passengers would be packing holstered pistols and the overhead cabinets would be filled with shotguns and even "assault" rifles.

Guess which aircraft would NOT be hijacked or bombed? I know I would feel much safer getting on a freedom flight with patriotic gun-toting Americans than a nanny flight where permission to board is granted by government beauracrats who are not liable for your safety and ensure that you are helpless and defenseless.

Firstly... erm, I think you miss a fundamental point here and I cannot see how being in a confined space for several hours with 300 armed americans is every going to be qualified as 'safe' EVER.... I'd take the terrorists any day, Atleast theres only one or two of them.

Regarding govornment involvement in Airtravel: They arent as much... The gorvornment interest is in border security, and domestic security protection. Airports have these strange ways of having people arrive inside metal birds from distant lands...

[Natasha]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=972_1262283908

if non-ops still don't want to fly, they can always take amtrak or greyhound ya know? 

[Renate]

One problem is that some things that were considered "privileges" become over time "necessities".
Theoretically, driving is a "privilege".
Sure, you can live without a driver's license.
It will cause limitations in your lifestyle.
Also many jobs require that you have a driver's license.
Not having one will limit the amount of jobs for which you would be considered.

To those who counter with "If you can't do X, then you can always do Y", these loopholes eventually get covered.
You can't walk from Boston to New York City without trespassing.
True, the buses don't currently do body scans, but I believe that they eventually will.

[tekla]

Sure.  It will be like drug testing.  In the beginning a lot of people were opposed to it.  It seemed both invasive and demeaning. So it was established that people in jobs were the public safety might be at risk - bus drivers, airline pilots - were going to be the only ones tested.  Then that began to expand.  Teachers, yeah, they work with kids, test them.  And government workers, yeah, test them too, convicts also.  Gradually it expanded to the point that you pretty much can't even get a job as a janitor without peeing in a cup.  Scanners will be the same way - the more they get used, the cheaper they will become, the more ubiquitous they will become.  I'm waiting for you to have to get scanned to go into and out of a mall.

[Virginia87106]

Wouldn't the ID of a non-op "out" them anyway?

many non-ops have IDs that match their affirmed gender.  In many states surgery is not a requirement to change the gender marker on the DL.  And in states that are, a surgeons letter stating you jhave had top surgery, either augmentation or reduction, is sufficient to be defined as the necessary surgery.

[Stephanie]

The American Constitution doesn't GIVE you your rights, it merely lists them.   Your rights are God given, they are inalienable(look this up in a legal dictionary) if they were given to you by one government then another government could take them away.

Google 'freeman on the land', or Rob Menard or Maxwell Jordan.  I guarantee that you will find this fascinating.