WaPo: The TSA is invasive, annoying - and unconstitutional

[avaistheone1]

Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, is the author of "The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an Anxious Age."

...Courts evaluating airport-screening technology tend to give great deference to the government's national security interest in preventing terrorist attacks. But in this case, there's a strong argument that the TSA's measures violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

Although the Supreme Court hasn't evaluated airport screening technology, lower courts have emphasized, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in 2007, that "a particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it 'is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives.' "

In a 2006 opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, then-Judge Samuel Alito stressed that screening procedures must be both "minimally intrusive" and "effective" - in other words, they must be "well-tailored to protect personal privacy," and they must deliver on their promise of discovering serious threats. Alito upheld the practices at an airport checkpoint where passengers were first screened with walk-through magnetometers and then...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/26/AR2010112604290.html




A good read on the legal aspects of this issue. imo

[dennis4868]

1. Where was this same kind of analysis....

After 911 and the Patriot Act and then the illegal wiretapping by Bush?

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Are you saying there was none, because there was.

Are you saying the WaPost did none? I don't know if they did. Are you saying they changed their point of view? Show that with links.
Asking a question with arch implications is a silly tactic. You tell us what the WaPost's position was then. And make your point with facts, not with insinuations intended to discredit their current opinion.

[dennis4868]

9. Are you kidding me....

Right after 911 nobody (in the MSM) was questioning anything that Bush was doing no matter how crazy it was....

[Pholus]

2. "the "next generation" of screening technology."

Funny, I thought we spent 300 million dollars on the BEST and ONLY POSSIBLE technology. Millimeter and X-Ray were both on the table at the same time.

But somehow we managed to choose the the "Last Generation" technology? Why aren't there some firings because some TSA people managed to buy the security equivalent of Betamax? Oh yeah, this way we can pay Rapiscan contractors 300 million dollars and then pay the OTHER contractors 300 million dollars to get what actually would have been the best choice. So EVERYONE gets paid and all the lobbyists are happy. Of course there will be no accountability on this.

And most people were happy to submit as long as they could feel safe. Might kind of suck if they looked into TSA "security" as an issue and realized exactly how leaky the entire system is. But at least the PASSENGERS are well scanned and groped.

[DemReadingDU]

3. only 20% of the cargo is inspected

So the people feel safe because everyone on the flight has been thru the nudie scanners and or groped by the TSA agents. Well, the bomb could be in the cargo belly of the plane.

11/16/10 "It is a gaping hole in the nation’s anti-terrorism security system, experts say. About 22 percent of all U.S. packages shipped via air cargo are finding their way into the bellies of passenger jets, according to the General Accounting Office. Yet, there is little or no screening of such parcels.
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/broadway_17th/2010/11/air-travel-today-doesnt-scan-for.html

11/2/10 Only 20% of cargo to U.S. checked for bombs
Billions of pounds of packages bound for the U.S. each year are delivered on passenger flights in which cargo is checked with an electronic system that does not screen for bombs, lawmakers and security experts said Monday.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-11-02-1Acargobombs02_ST_N.htm
http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/only-20-percent-us-bound-cargo-screened-bombs

11/2/10 In Air Cargo Business, It’s Speed vs. Screening, Creating a Weak Link in Security
It is an essential lubricant of the global economy — the multibillion-dollar air cargo industry, which every day carries millions of express packages of every shape and size around the world, parcels that can include things as diverse as an electronic component and a human body part. But the discovery last week that terrorists had used United Parcel Service and FedEx to ship two explosive devices has set off a debate over what can be done to improve cargo security without damaging a business built on getting packages anywhere, quickly and cheaply.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/business/02cargo.html

[Pholus]

4. Thanks. Now I'm even MORE depressed.... :)

[NorthCarolina]

6. Perhaps the TSA techniques are less about security

and more about acclimating society to the police state.

[golfguru]

8. you may have a point there....but then again TSA is a cruel joke on us

My main problem is TSA is always behind the curve.

First it was the box cutters....now I can't carry a small scissors to trim hair.
Then it was the shoe bomber....now grandma and grandpa and kids have to remove shoes.
Then they found liquid explosives...now we can't take a stupid shampoo bottle with us.
Then it was the underwear bomber....now they grope our privates.

Next bomber will have liquid explosives packed in his anus....I dread to think what TSA will
come up for that! A proctoscopy for all airline passengers? Jeebus!!

Why don't TSA focus instead on parameters that never change?
Only 6 criteria can identify every past, present & future terrorist.
And that will spare 99% of the rest of us this stupid nonsense.

[robinlynne]

10. son't forget the big bucks. We pay for those machines. chertoff among owners.

[woo me with science]

7. Kick (recommended earlier) nt

[LisaL]

11. We will have to wait and see what the courts say.