Secret Messages In Your Underwear
December 28, 2010 1:47 PM Subscribe
The 4th Amendment Underclothes are a way to send a message to the TSA. Next time you undergo an X-ray body scan, wear these and let the law enforcers know you won't be scanned without at least reminding them what they violate when they do so.
This appeals to me in every way. The next time I plan on never arriving at my destination I'll definitely don a pair.
posted by rouftop at 1:53 PM on December 28, 2010 [9 favorites]
posted by rouftop at 1:53 PM on December 28, 2010 [9 favorites]
How much does the strip search tattoo cost?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:59 PM on December 28, 2010
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:59 PM on December 28, 2010
How much does the strip search tattoo cost?
Depends on the body part.
posted by Skygazer at 2:00 PM on December 28, 2010
Depends on the body part.
posted by Skygazer at 2:00 PM on December 28, 2010
This appeals to me in every way. The next time I plan on never arriving at my destination I'll definitely don a pair.
I'd be very curious as to what's been the actual response (if any) by the TSA agents when people wear 'em. I imagine they'd probably just chuckle to themselves or something.
posted by fantodstic at 2:01 PM on December 28, 2010
I'd be very curious as to what's been the actual response (if any) by the TSA agents when people wear 'em. I imagine they'd probably just chuckle to themselves or something.
posted by fantodstic at 2:01 PM on December 28, 2010
Wearing these is about as stupid and useless as it gets, because you are still submitting to the search.
If I were an authoritarian asshole, I'd be laughing my ass off at anyone I saw with a shirt like that on, because you're still assuming the position. Knowing that you hated it would brighten my day.
posted by Malor at 2:03 PM on December 28, 2010 [17 favorites]
If I were an authoritarian asshole, I'd be laughing my ass off at anyone I saw with a shirt like that on, because you're still assuming the position. Knowing that you hated it would brighten my day.
posted by Malor at 2:03 PM on December 28, 2010 [17 favorites]
If I were an authoritarian asshole, I'd be laughing my ass off at anyone I saw with a shirt like that on, because you're still assuming the position. Knowing that you hated it would brighten my day.
Agreed. I didn't consider that; that you'd have to submit to even display these or whatever. If I were one of the agents I'd probably just shrug and say, "Cute".
Now, if the body scans - for some reason - become mandatory at some point (or in some state), then these would be something I'd try if I were traveling alone or something.
posted by fantodstic at 2:07 PM on December 28, 2010
Agreed. I didn't consider that; that you'd have to submit to even display these or whatever. If I were one of the agents I'd probably just shrug and say, "Cute".
Now, if the body scans - for some reason - become mandatory at some point (or in some state), then these would be something I'd try if I were traveling alone or something.
posted by fantodstic at 2:07 PM on December 28, 2010
I'd be very curious as to what's been the actual response (if any) by the TSA agents when people wear 'em. I imagine they'd probably just chuckle to themselves or something.
When I went through a scanner this weekend, the buttons and zipper fly on my jeans were inspected by hand. I imagine that the response to visibly metallic thread on a garment would be similar or more invasive - in other words I'm betting that you'd get the scan and a thorough pat-down of the garment.
posted by muddgirl at 2:08 PM on December 28, 2010 [3 favorites]
When I went through a scanner this weekend, the buttons and zipper fly on my jeans were inspected by hand. I imagine that the response to visibly metallic thread on a garment would be similar or more invasive - in other words I'm betting that you'd get the scan and a thorough pat-down of the garment.
posted by muddgirl at 2:08 PM on December 28, 2010 [3 favorites]
I wonder if they would do custom work, for an additional fee. I like the idea of something such as "Pornoscan again? I should have gone for the preflight fondlers." or "May I arrive swiftly at my destination, unmolested by TSA agents jealous of my junk, Inshallah." Perhaps too-tight underwear, elastic bands outlined, with "The discomfort of my overly binding britches matches how I feel about strangers seeing me naked."
posted by adipocere at 2:08 PM on December 28, 2010 [7 favorites]
posted by adipocere at 2:08 PM on December 28, 2010 [7 favorites]
I wonder if they would do custom work, for an additional fee. I like the idea of something such as "Pornoscan again? I should have gone for the preflight fondlers." or "May I arrive swiftly at my destination, unmolested by TSA agents jealous of my junk, Inshallah." Perhaps too-tight underwear, elastic bands outlined, with "The discomfort of my overly binding britches matches how I feel about strangers seeing me naked."
Now there's an enterprising spirit ;)
posted by fantodstic at 2:09 PM on December 28, 2010
Now there's an enterprising spirit ;)
posted by fantodstic at 2:09 PM on December 28, 2010
I recall reading on reddit that these shirts are Photoshopped. Actual metal letters printed into a t-shirt would be illegible on a backscatter scanner.
posted by justkevin at 2:10 PM on December 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by justkevin at 2:10 PM on December 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
Can't we just have underwear that says "FUCK OFF" or something a little less subtle?
posted by jabberjaw at 2:10 PM on December 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by jabberjaw at 2:10 PM on December 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
fantodstic: I'd be very curious as to what's been the actual response (if any) by the TSA agents when people wear 'em.
Some appear to have a sense of humor. It may be a dark sense of humor, but humor none-the-less.
Also, it wasn't the security staff who passed the more stringent security measures, so pissing them off will only make them less happy to do their already controversial job. I don't think there was a sudden influx of perverts into the ranks of airport security, though I could be wrong.
I'm all for rage against security theater, but waiting until you're at the airport is too late. Write your representative and senator, start a campaign, do something to make news and get attention. But don't hassle the airport staff, because I doubt they are thrilled to be doing what they do.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:17 PM on December 28, 2010 [6 favorites]
Some appear to have a sense of humor. It may be a dark sense of humor, but humor none-the-less.
Also, it wasn't the security staff who passed the more stringent security measures, so pissing them off will only make them less happy to do their already controversial job. I don't think there was a sudden influx of perverts into the ranks of airport security, though I could be wrong.
I'm all for rage against security theater, but waiting until you're at the airport is too late. Write your representative and senator, start a campaign, do something to make news and get attention. But don't hassle the airport staff, because I doubt they are thrilled to be doing what they do.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:17 PM on December 28, 2010 [6 favorites]
The key to survival in a police state is remaining as unnoticeable as possible.
posted by KokuRyu at 2:20 PM on December 28, 2010 [11 favorites]
posted by KokuRyu at 2:20 PM on December 28, 2010 [11 favorites]
Pornoscans are protected by the Second Amendment, which says that they have a right to bare arms. Presumably they can also bare other parts of your body.
posted by twoleftfeet at 2:30 PM on December 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by twoleftfeet at 2:30 PM on December 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
I do wish people'd stop targeting the TSA agents themselves. They didn't come up with the security measures that invade your privacy, they just enforce them. There's not much else they can do if they want to keep their job. Flashing the fourth amendment is pretty useless. What, is the hope that they'll all up and quit or something?
Actually, that wouldn't be so bad if all the TSA agents just up and quit. What'll probably happen, though, is that all the TSA agents no longer able to stomach looking/feeling up the average American citizen will quit, and all the TSA agents who feel that what they're doing is wrong and against the 4th amendment will quit, leaving behind a select, elite few...
posted by majonesing at 2:31 PM on December 28, 2010 [3 favorites]
Actually, that wouldn't be so bad if all the TSA agents just up and quit. What'll probably happen, though, is that all the TSA agents no longer able to stomach looking/feeling up the average American citizen will quit, and all the TSA agents who feel that what they're doing is wrong and against the 4th amendment will quit, leaving behind a select, elite few...
posted by majonesing at 2:31 PM on December 28, 2010 [3 favorites]
If nothing else, fourteen years of Catholic School has taught me well how to deal with authority figures who have a badge and not much behind it.
If you give cause for them say the phrase "Oh, a wise guy, eh?", you're only fucking yourself. There's a time and place for your indignation, but the lowest schlub on the ladder is never it.
posted by Capt. Renault at 2:32 PM on December 28, 2010 [8 favorites]
If you give cause for them say the phrase "Oh, a wise guy, eh?", you're only fucking yourself. There's a time and place for your indignation, but the lowest schlub on the ladder is never it.
posted by Capt. Renault at 2:32 PM on December 28, 2010 [8 favorites]
I can totally see not liking those scanners and saying they go too far. I haven't made up my mind yet.
but they aren't violating the 4th Amendment to search you and your possessions before boarding an aircraft, because you are free not to get on the plane and not be searched.
That's not to say that the current situation is right, just that your analysis is legally incorrect.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:35 PM on December 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
but they aren't violating the 4th Amendment to search you and your possessions before boarding an aircraft, because you are free not to get on the plane and not be searched.
That's not to say that the current situation is right, just that your analysis is legally incorrect.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:35 PM on December 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
I want one that says "smell my finger".
posted by I love you more when I eat paint chips at 2:37 PM on December 28, 2010
posted by I love you more when I eat paint chips at 2:37 PM on December 28, 2010
No need to be all protest-y, they're just following orders, after all.
posted by gngstrMNKY at 2:37 PM on December 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by gngstrMNKY at 2:37 PM on December 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
There's also tape you can buy with the 4th amendment printed on it that one wraps around their luggage, so when they have to cut it to do a random search they are "literally cutting through your rights."
If you're going to put up that kind of fuss, then it would be better to simply drive cross country instead of flying and implementing these pithy purchased protests.
Furthermore, if you really want to piss off the TSA, submit to patdowns, since they generally hassle them more than anything else.
posted by hellojed at 2:37 PM on December 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
If you're going to put up that kind of fuss, then it would be better to simply drive cross country instead of flying and implementing these pithy purchased protests.
Furthermore, if you really want to piss off the TSA, submit to patdowns, since they generally hassle them more than anything else.
posted by hellojed at 2:37 PM on December 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
i have an old aluminum shirt from years ago halloween, went as the Tin Man to a party. Wearing the shirt would that light up the scanner. by the way the shirt is 2 sizes too small right now.
posted by tustinrick at 2:50 PM on December 28, 2010
posted by tustinrick at 2:50 PM on December 28, 2010
There is nothing wrong with harassing the TSA agents them selves. No they didn't develop the policy but they do, as was pointed out, enforce the policy. They are what give action to those policy decisions. Those policies mean nothing without someone to carry them out. They do not have to carry out those policies and they do not have to work for the TSA. By choosing to work for them and enforce the policies, they endorse the policies and organization.
Just like it's ok to be an asshole to telemarketers.
posted by MrBobaFett at 3:00 PM on December 28, 2010 [9 favorites]
Just like it's ok to be an asshole to telemarketers.
posted by MrBobaFett at 3:00 PM on December 28, 2010 [9 favorites]
majonesing: Actually, that wouldn't be so bad if all the TSA agents just up and quit.
They might not have to: Republican Rep. John Mica of Florida wrote letters to 100 of the nation's busiest airports asking that they request private security guards instead:
posted by filthy light thief at 3:01 PM on December 28, 2010 [3 favorites]
They might not have to: Republican Rep. John Mica of Florida wrote letters to 100 of the nation's busiest airports asking that they request private security guards instead:
"I think we could use half the personnel and streamline the system," Mica said, calling the TSA a bloated bureaucracy.You know, because private companies are so much more trustworthy when it comes to providing security.
Mica, who is the ranking Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (and, once the new Republican majority takes control in January, its expected chair), counts among his campaign contributors some of the companies who might take the TSA's place.
Companies that could gain business if airports heed Mica's call have helped fill his campaign coffers. In the past 13 years, Mica has received almost $81,000 in campaign donations from political action committees and executives connected to some of the private contractors already at 16 U.S. airports.
posted by filthy light thief at 3:01 PM on December 28, 2010 [3 favorites]
"I'd rather stuff pancakes down my pants to hide my balls and bombs."
They never expected to find the explosives, its the detonators they're after. Good ones would be harder to hide.
posted by Blasdelb at 3:28 PM on December 28, 2010
They never expected to find the explosives, its the detonators they're after. Good ones would be harder to hide.
posted by Blasdelb at 3:28 PM on December 28, 2010
This is what you're left with in the end.
posted by Space Coyote at 3:40 PM on December 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Space Coyote at 3:40 PM on December 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
Ironmouth writes "but they aren't violating the 4th Amendment to search you and your possessions before boarding an aircraft, because you are free not to get on the plane and not be searched.
"That's not to say that the current situation is right, just that your analysis is legally incorrect."
It seems like a pretty sloppy evasion. What's to stop the government from adding all sorts of other locations and activities along side airplanes? You are already subject to search at many government facilities and schools. 10 years from now they could make using a toll interstate subject to pornoscanning. Don't like it? Walk or take secondary roads.
posted by Mitheral at 3:43 PM on December 28, 2010 [7 favorites]
"That's not to say that the current situation is right, just that your analysis is legally incorrect."
It seems like a pretty sloppy evasion. What's to stop the government from adding all sorts of other locations and activities along side airplanes? You are already subject to search at many government facilities and schools. 10 years from now they could make using a toll interstate subject to pornoscanning. Don't like it? Walk or take secondary roads.
posted by Mitheral at 3:43 PM on December 28, 2010 [7 favorites]
Or state borders, or grocery shopping.
Your papers, please? Now step into the pornoscan....
posted by Malor at 4:07 PM on December 28, 2010
Your papers, please? Now step into the pornoscan....
posted by Malor at 4:07 PM on December 28, 2010
if you want to protest ineffectually at the wrong person while feeling smug about it, just post a snarky update about the TSA on facebook. it's free too!
posted by r_nebblesworthII at 4:15 PM on December 28, 2010
posted by r_nebblesworthII at 4:15 PM on December 28, 2010
Oh yeah, just what I want to do, be wearing these and get another gold star affixed to my FBI file. Yeah right ...
posted by Relay at 4:15 PM on December 28, 2010
posted by Relay at 4:15 PM on December 28, 2010
I can totally see not liking those scanners and saying they go too far. I haven't made up my mind yet.
but they aren't violating the 4th Amendment to search you and your possessions before boarding an aircraft, because you are free not to get on the plane and not be searched.
That's not to say that the current situation is right, just that your analysis is legally incorrect.
Air travel is not voluntary in this era, and anyone who says otherwise is being willfully ignorant of the current culture. Further, I think it's obvious that a law requiring everyone who wanted to enter a baseball game (a wholly voluntary activity, most would agree) to be subject to a full body cavity search would run up against a constitutional challenge, despite having the beneficial purpose of preventing any weapons from entering the stadium.
Any time the government conducts a search, there is a 4th amendment question. If the searched volunteers for it, there are fewer problems, but there is still always the question of whether the benefit to society outweighs the invasion of privacy of the searched.
posted by TypographicalError at 4:16 PM on December 28, 2010 [3 favorites]
but they aren't violating the 4th Amendment to search you and your possessions before boarding an aircraft, because you are free not to get on the plane and not be searched.
That's not to say that the current situation is right, just that your analysis is legally incorrect.
Air travel is not voluntary in this era, and anyone who says otherwise is being willfully ignorant of the current culture. Further, I think it's obvious that a law requiring everyone who wanted to enter a baseball game (a wholly voluntary activity, most would agree) to be subject to a full body cavity search would run up against a constitutional challenge, despite having the beneficial purpose of preventing any weapons from entering the stadium.
Any time the government conducts a search, there is a 4th amendment question. If the searched volunteers for it, there are fewer problems, but there is still always the question of whether the benefit to society outweighs the invasion of privacy of the searched.
posted by TypographicalError at 4:16 PM on December 28, 2010 [3 favorites]
Can you write the words in gunpowder? Because, you know, a couple-three fewer fuckwits like this one trying to carry actual explosives onto an airplane might help reduce all this "security theater" you hear so much about.
posted by chavenet at 4:17 PM on December 28, 2010
posted by chavenet at 4:17 PM on December 28, 2010
but they aren't violating the 4th Amendment to search you and your possessions before boarding an aircraft, because you are free not to get on the plane and not be searched.
They are most certainly violating your 4th amendment rights. The legal basis for this imposition was that it was a reasonable security precaution for purposes of protecting an airplane. The court has not granted the government unlimited license to strip search you. There is ongoing litigation and a number of lawyers argue that the current scans go too far. This is not settled law.
posted by humanfont at 4:24 PM on December 28, 2010 [4 favorites]
They are most certainly violating your 4th amendment rights. The legal basis for this imposition was that it was a reasonable security precaution for purposes of protecting an airplane. The court has not granted the government unlimited license to strip search you. There is ongoing litigation and a number of lawyers argue that the current scans go too far. This is not settled law.
posted by humanfont at 4:24 PM on December 28, 2010 [4 favorites]
but they aren't violating the 4th Amendment to search you
When does a strip search become unreasonable?
posted by dirigibleman at 6:14 PM on December 28, 2010
When does a strip search become unreasonable?
posted by dirigibleman at 6:14 PM on December 28, 2010
They are most certainly violating your 4th amendment rights. The legal basis for this imposition was that it was a reasonable security precaution for purposes of protecting an airplane. The court has not granted the government unlimited license to strip search you. There is ongoing litigation and a number of lawyers argue that the current scans go too far. This is not settled law.
Its pretty well settled, actually. The Ninth Circuit even has held if you put your bag on the conveyor, you lose your right to consent. There's a pretty solid basis on this, because of large numbers of idiots who carry drugs on planes.
As for the stadium example, the stadiums are generally privately owned and they can refuse you entry for any reason, as the ticket is a license, not a property right.
The real question is do these searches make us safer based on the cost. Hard to say. But as long as the public demands air-tight security, they will continue. Frankly, I think the system as it existed before the scanners was just fine.
But the fourth amendment question is one of the first ones asked in con law. And the prof instantly explains that flying is not a right and you consent to tje search when you board the aircraft.
The law is what it is and a lot of people assume a lot about it that isn't true. But this stuff is seriously long-settled. The fact that there is litigation pending means nothing.
I went through one of those scanners yesterday, it didn't bother me. But they don't cut out any steps taken out of the process, so I don't see the point.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:15 PM on December 28, 2010
Its pretty well settled, actually. The Ninth Circuit even has held if you put your bag on the conveyor, you lose your right to consent. There's a pretty solid basis on this, because of large numbers of idiots who carry drugs on planes.
As for the stadium example, the stadiums are generally privately owned and they can refuse you entry for any reason, as the ticket is a license, not a property right.
The real question is do these searches make us safer based on the cost. Hard to say. But as long as the public demands air-tight security, they will continue. Frankly, I think the system as it existed before the scanners was just fine.
But the fourth amendment question is one of the first ones asked in con law. And the prof instantly explains that flying is not a right and you consent to tje search when you board the aircraft.
The law is what it is and a lot of people assume a lot about it that isn't true. But this stuff is seriously long-settled. The fact that there is litigation pending means nothing.
I went through one of those scanners yesterday, it didn't bother me. But they don't cut out any steps taken out of the process, so I don't see the point.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:15 PM on December 28, 2010
The court has not granted the government unlimited license to strip search you.
That's why you can opt out. I still think its dumb and a waste of effort.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:20 PM on December 28, 2010
That's why you can opt out. I still think its dumb and a waste of effort.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:20 PM on December 28, 2010
I want underpants that say "hey, I was just swimming"
(surprised that I'm the first in with this)
posted by Artful Codger at 6:45 PM on December 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
(surprised that I'm the first in with this)
posted by Artful Codger at 6:45 PM on December 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
The 9th circuit was talking about x-ray of passenger baggage and at what point the traveler was consenting, not the reasonableness of x-raying carryon baggage. The reasonableness of that search was established long ago ass were magnetometers as minimally invasive and necessary for passenger safety. The extremely invasive nature of virtual strip searches is the subject of a lawsuit by EPIC. They are arguing that the search is overly invasive and does not meet the passenger safety requirements. The supremes have not ruled yet on the issue of consent to search and freedom to travel, lower courts have been divided on this issue. The lower courts have held that if you trip the magnetometer that is probable cause for a more invasive search.
You also seem to think that limiting ones exposure to a device that emits ionizing radiatoon ans that has never been subjected to a clinical trial is pointless. I mean sure doctors at Hopkisn, Columbia and elsewhere including a Nobel Prize winner have raised doubts about the safety bit you keep marching through the machine cause it's probably safe. I mean we have the word of the TSA blogger Bob who checked with some scientists and stuff.
posted by humanfont at 6:53 PM on December 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
You also seem to think that limiting ones exposure to a device that emits ionizing radiatoon ans that has never been subjected to a clinical trial is pointless. I mean sure doctors at Hopkisn, Columbia and elsewhere including a Nobel Prize winner have raised doubts about the safety bit you keep marching through the machine cause it's probably safe. I mean we have the word of the TSA blogger Bob who checked with some scientists and stuff.
posted by humanfont at 6:53 PM on December 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
Oh yeah, those t-shirts are really going to make the difference!
While everyone was complaining of pornoscans and being fondled the companies that build airport scanners hired dozens of former lawmakers, congressional aides and federal employees as their lobbyists.
posted by photoslob at 7:00 PM on December 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
While everyone was complaining of pornoscans and being fondled the companies that build airport scanners hired dozens of former lawmakers, congressional aides and federal employees as their lobbyists.
posted by photoslob at 7:00 PM on December 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
Don't like it? Walk or take secondary roads.
Ahem. You aren't free to walk either.
posted by ryoshu at 7:15 PM on December 28, 2010
Ahem. You aren't free to walk either.
posted by ryoshu at 7:15 PM on December 28, 2010
Or you could opt for a more decorative take on TSA Under-Armor.
posted by polymath at 8:07 PM on December 28, 2010
posted by polymath at 8:07 PM on December 28, 2010
IAAL and pretty much always disagree with Ironmouth, but he's basically right on this one. The pornoscanners/patdowns don't violate your 4th Amendment rights as they're currently interpreted. Maybe they should violate your 4th Amendment rights, but that's a normative claim, not a descriptive one.
Of course the OP linked shirts are pointless anyways since TSA personnel don't make decisions or influence those who do. But at least some people will feel a little bit better about themselves by wearing them, I guess.
posted by r_nebblesworthII at 9:15 PM on December 28, 2010
Of course the OP linked shirts are pointless anyways since TSA personnel don't make decisions or influence those who do. But at least some people will feel a little bit better about themselves by wearing them, I guess.
posted by r_nebblesworthII at 9:15 PM on December 28, 2010
There is nothing wrong with harassing the TSA agents them selves. No they didn't develop the policy but they do, as was pointed out, enforce the policy. They are what give action to those policy decisions. Those policies mean nothing without someone to carry them out. They do not have to carry out those policies and they do not have to work for the TSA. By choosing to work for them and enforce the policies, they endorse the policies and organization.
Just like it's ok to be an asshole to telemarketers.
I agree, it's so hard to march on the offices of the lawmakers involved or canvass neighborhoods to effect political change, or hold a sit-in at TSA headquarters or whatever; it's easier to be a dick to some guy with a GED making $8/hr and then get on the plane anyways. Plus you get to show off the shirt to your friends!
posted by r_nebblesworthII at 9:42 PM on December 28, 2010 [3 favorites]
Just like it's ok to be an asshole to telemarketers.
I agree, it's so hard to march on the offices of the lawmakers involved or canvass neighborhoods to effect political change, or hold a sit-in at TSA headquarters or whatever; it's easier to be a dick to some guy with a GED making $8/hr and then get on the plane anyways. Plus you get to show off the shirt to your friends!
posted by r_nebblesworthII at 9:42 PM on December 28, 2010 [3 favorites]
The pornoscanners/patdowns don't violate your 4th Amendment rights as they're currently interpreted. Maybe they should violate your 4th Amendment rights, but that's a normative claim, not a descriptive one.
Well, I think one of the questions that seems to come up a lot these days is just who gets to have a say in those normative questions on matters of Constitutional Law? What should the US Constitution be taken to mean, when it comes to the many less legally cut and dried questions it raises? (In practice, the obvious answer is the Supreme Court, but that's only dodging a more basic question, to my mind.)
It sometimes feels as if we're increasingly encouraged to take the view that the interpretation of the US Constitution is a rote, mechanical process over which "The People"--despite being the nominal authors and primary parties to that particular contract--shouldn't expect to have any influence. That seems to result in a kind of semantical recursion, in which the law as practiced is taken to be self-justifying and answerable only to its own self-justifying authority.
While it's absolutely true that current precedent holds these kinds of measures to be consistent with Constitutional prohibitions on "unreasonable search and seizure," at the same time, it seems more and more that there really aren't in practical terms any security measures that, based on legal precedent alone, couldn't be interpreted as satisfying the "reasonableness" test, if we squint at the problem long enough and allow for enough qualifying contingencies to be taken into account.
Would it be reasonable to search everyone who drives a car in this fashion? Driving isn't technically a right either, and yet, who compensates us for the financial harm we might suffer due to opportunity costs associated with not driving?
posted by saulgoodman at 10:04 PM on December 28, 2010 [3 favorites]
Well, I think one of the questions that seems to come up a lot these days is just who gets to have a say in those normative questions on matters of Constitutional Law? What should the US Constitution be taken to mean, when it comes to the many less legally cut and dried questions it raises? (In practice, the obvious answer is the Supreme Court, but that's only dodging a more basic question, to my mind.)
It sometimes feels as if we're increasingly encouraged to take the view that the interpretation of the US Constitution is a rote, mechanical process over which "The People"--despite being the nominal authors and primary parties to that particular contract--shouldn't expect to have any influence. That seems to result in a kind of semantical recursion, in which the law as practiced is taken to be self-justifying and answerable only to its own self-justifying authority.
While it's absolutely true that current precedent holds these kinds of measures to be consistent with Constitutional prohibitions on "unreasonable search and seizure," at the same time, it seems more and more that there really aren't in practical terms any security measures that, based on legal precedent alone, couldn't be interpreted as satisfying the "reasonableness" test, if we squint at the problem long enough and allow for enough qualifying contingencies to be taken into account.
Would it be reasonable to search everyone who drives a car in this fashion? Driving isn't technically a right either, and yet, who compensates us for the financial harm we might suffer due to opportunity costs associated with not driving?
posted by saulgoodman at 10:04 PM on December 28, 2010 [3 favorites]
r_nebblesworthII writes "I agree, it's so hard to march on the offices of the lawmakers involved or canvass neighborhoods to effect political change, or hold a sit-in at TSA headquarters or whatever; it's easier to be a dick to some guy with a GED making $8/hr and then get on the plane anyways. Plus you get to show off the shirt to your friends!"
These things aren't mutually exclusive. They don't make you sign a no protest/no sit in contract when you buy a shirt.
Has anyone tested these shirts? I thought the machines were derezzed to prevent observation of such small details.
posted by Mitheral at 1:24 AM on December 29, 2010
These things aren't mutually exclusive. They don't make you sign a no protest/no sit in contract when you buy a shirt.
Has anyone tested these shirts? I thought the machines were derezzed to prevent observation of such small details.
posted by Mitheral at 1:24 AM on December 29, 2010
Its pretty well settled, actually. The Ninth Circuit even has held if you put your bag on the conveyor, you lose your right to consent. There's a pretty solid basis on this, because of large numbers of idiots who carry drugs on planes.
Right. And the whole fucking point of the search is to find TERRORISTS, not drugs. At least, that's what they claim.
In actual truth, it has very little to do with terrorism. If it were REALLY about stopping attacks on planes, they'd write the laws such that the only thing that these invasive searches could be used for was to find weapons, and that everything else got a free pass.
But they aren't written that way. This is deliberate.
posted by Malor at 8:16 AM on December 29, 2010 [3 favorites]
Right. And the whole fucking point of the search is to find TERRORISTS, not drugs. At least, that's what they claim.
In actual truth, it has very little to do with terrorism. If it were REALLY about stopping attacks on planes, they'd write the laws such that the only thing that these invasive searches could be used for was to find weapons, and that everything else got a free pass.
But they aren't written that way. This is deliberate.
posted by Malor at 8:16 AM on December 29, 2010 [3 favorites]
In actual truth, it has very little to do with terrorism. If it were REALLY about stopping attacks on planes, they'd write the laws such that the only thing that these invasive searches could be used for was to find weapons, and that everything else got a free pass.
Its a lot more complicated than that. First off, we are not talking, in many cases, about statutes, we are talking about the Constitution and case law. The case law is a complex patchwork of differing situations making law for all situations and the like. The whole point has never been claimed to only "find terrorists." Primarily, the case law is about drugs, because that is what people get arrested for in airport searches.
I've had the good fortune to spend a huge part of my adult life in the time before terrorism was even on anyone's radar, so to speak. And keeping contraband off planes is a big part of what they are trying to do. It is illegal to carry or possess many drugs, child porn, some animals and plants, etc. The searches have a lot to do with stopping contraband and if you read the cases, this is what they are all about.
Frankly, I think the TSA wants to find a way to search everyone fast. They think this is the magic bullet. I don't think it is, and they aren't cutting out part of the process to save us time. So I think this is a dumb and costly experiment.
I don't think law enforcement should stop looking for contraband and just look the other way while child porn or 2 kilos of cocaine passes through a security checkpoint.
I think pot should be legal and it should be carried on planes. Motherfuckers should not be allowed to smoke it on the plane though. But first and foremost, it must be legal first, before we stop searching for it.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:28 AM on December 29, 2010
Its a lot more complicated than that. First off, we are not talking, in many cases, about statutes, we are talking about the Constitution and case law. The case law is a complex patchwork of differing situations making law for all situations and the like. The whole point has never been claimed to only "find terrorists." Primarily, the case law is about drugs, because that is what people get arrested for in airport searches.
I've had the good fortune to spend a huge part of my adult life in the time before terrorism was even on anyone's radar, so to speak. And keeping contraband off planes is a big part of what they are trying to do. It is illegal to carry or possess many drugs, child porn, some animals and plants, etc. The searches have a lot to do with stopping contraband and if you read the cases, this is what they are all about.
Frankly, I think the TSA wants to find a way to search everyone fast. They think this is the magic bullet. I don't think it is, and they aren't cutting out part of the process to save us time. So I think this is a dumb and costly experiment.
I don't think law enforcement should stop looking for contraband and just look the other way while child porn or 2 kilos of cocaine passes through a security checkpoint.
I think pot should be legal and it should be carried on planes. Motherfuckers should not be allowed to smoke it on the plane though. But first and foremost, it must be legal first, before we stop searching for it.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:28 AM on December 29, 2010
Would it be reasonable to search everyone who drives a car in this fashion? Driving isn't technically a right either, and yet, who compensates us for the financial harm we might suffer due to opportunity costs associated with not driving?
Uh, hate to break it to you, but the Fourth Amendment does not apply to automobile searches either. An officer merely needs to have probable cause to search your vehicle. He or she does not need a warrant. Its called the "Automobile Exception." You have more rights to your own person being searched than your car and the containers within. This exception has been around since 1925.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:33 AM on December 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
Uh, hate to break it to you, but the Fourth Amendment does not apply to automobile searches either. An officer merely needs to have probable cause to search your vehicle. He or she does not need a warrant. Its called the "Automobile Exception." You have more rights to your own person being searched than your car and the containers within. This exception has been around since 1925.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:33 AM on December 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
before we stop searching for it.
Everything you say supports my assertion; it's not about terrorism, it's about searching people without probable cause to try to find drugs.... even though those drugs have nothing whatsoever to do with airplane safety. And you even went to 'child porn, child porn!', which I find absolutely astonishing in this context.
Your repeated use of 'contraband' is also interesting, because that's the operative word in correctional facilities.
Traveling on a plane is supposed to be safe, not a trip into prison.
posted by Malor at 11:27 AM on December 29, 2010
Everything you say supports my assertion; it's not about terrorism, it's about searching people without probable cause to try to find drugs.... even though those drugs have nothing whatsoever to do with airplane safety. And you even went to 'child porn, child porn!', which I find absolutely astonishing in this context.
Your repeated use of 'contraband' is also interesting, because that's the operative word in correctional facilities.
Traveling on a plane is supposed to be safe, not a trip into prison.
posted by Malor at 11:27 AM on December 29, 2010
Uh, hate to break it to you, but the Fourth Amendment does not apply to automobile searches either. An officer merely needs to have probable cause to search your vehicle. He or she does not need a warrant. Its called the "Automobile Exception."
Honest question: Do you think the authors of the Bill of Rights intended for there to be a transportation exception in the 4th amendment?
We can talk about existing case law, and what the existing legal situation is, but I don't see any buggy or border exceptions in the 4th amendment.
The problem is that it creates a huge power imbalance between citizens and the government. There is already talk of setting up scanners for train and bus travel. Setting up strip searches and paper checking at any transportation node very effectively limits future organization of any kind of reform or radical political movement. Individual leaders can be targeted via the no-fly list, and low-level members can be intimidated through the process. Just like many people won't join street protests today because of the riot-police intimidation factor.
... just look the other way while child porn or 2 kilos of cocaine passes through a security checkpoint.
Ahh, two classic horsemen of the Four Hoursemen of the Infocalypse. I realize you're not a fan of the cypherpunks, but they nailed the current situation accurately over a decade ago.
I'm really starting to think you should change the occupation in your profile, "I'm with the Resistance." Because I'm trying to think of a resistance that is ok with strip searches required for any long-distance transportation, and that doesn't seem like a very effective Resistance to me.
posted by formless at 12:08 PM on December 29, 2010 [2 favorites]
Honest question: Do you think the authors of the Bill of Rights intended for there to be a transportation exception in the 4th amendment?
We can talk about existing case law, and what the existing legal situation is, but I don't see any buggy or border exceptions in the 4th amendment.
The problem is that it creates a huge power imbalance between citizens and the government. There is already talk of setting up scanners for train and bus travel. Setting up strip searches and paper checking at any transportation node very effectively limits future organization of any kind of reform or radical political movement. Individual leaders can be targeted via the no-fly list, and low-level members can be intimidated through the process. Just like many people won't join street protests today because of the riot-police intimidation factor.
... just look the other way while child porn or 2 kilos of cocaine passes through a security checkpoint.
Ahh, two classic horsemen of the Four Hoursemen of the Infocalypse. I realize you're not a fan of the cypherpunks, but they nailed the current situation accurately over a decade ago.
I'm really starting to think you should change the occupation in your profile, "I'm with the Resistance." Because I'm trying to think of a resistance that is ok with strip searches required for any long-distance transportation, and that doesn't seem like a very effective Resistance to me.
posted by formless at 12:08 PM on December 29, 2010 [2 favorites]
I want to put some random, uncontroversially harmless stuff down my pants the next time I fly. It might be fun to see what kind of hilarity ensues when some het-up TSA agent has to pull, say, a plastic Slinky out of my underwear. I think this would do more to create a sensation than the clever products for sale in the OP.
But, then, when I'm flying it usually to get somewhere in a hurry. If I had the time to hang out in a holding cell, I'd probably just Greyhound instead.
posted by Fezboy! at 12:20 PM on December 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
But, then, when I'm flying it usually to get somewhere in a hurry. If I had the time to hang out in a holding cell, I'd probably just Greyhound instead.
posted by Fezboy! at 12:20 PM on December 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
Uh, hate to break it to you, but the Fourth Amendment does not apply to automobile searches either. An officer merely needs to have probable cause to search your vehicle.
They still have to have probable cause. They can't merely stop every vehicle going down the road and search. They must have some reasonable basis to suspect the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. They must also have a reasonable basis to suspect the crime. So for example if the stop you for speeding and have no further evidence to indicate additional crimes they would not be able to search your vehicle. Officers do have pretty expansive powers of search for an automobile, but it isn't nearly as expansive as that taken by TSA screeners.
posted by humanfont at 2:34 PM on December 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
They still have to have probable cause. They can't merely stop every vehicle going down the road and search. They must have some reasonable basis to suspect the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. They must also have a reasonable basis to suspect the crime. So for example if the stop you for speeding and have no further evidence to indicate additional crimes they would not be able to search your vehicle. Officers do have pretty expansive powers of search for an automobile, but it isn't nearly as expansive as that taken by TSA screeners.
posted by humanfont at 2:34 PM on December 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
Sadly, that's not really true, humanfont. They can search your vehicle anytime they want, with no pretext at all, to my best knowledge.
posted by Malor at 4:17 PM on December 29, 2010
posted by Malor at 4:17 PM on December 29, 2010
This was covered pretty well in an AskMe just last month. I got the impression that they can ask you to search for no reason but some sort of cause is required if you say no. Reading it again though I see there wasn't a definitive answer.
The ACLU believes that cops need either your permission or probable cause [PDF] to search your vehicle.
posted by Mitheral at 6:19 PM on December 29, 2010
The ACLU believes that cops need either your permission or probable cause [PDF] to search your vehicle.
posted by Mitheral at 6:19 PM on December 29, 2010
Meanwhile, how your US tax $ are spent: US Transportation Security Administration buys useless tech
posted by adamvasco at 1:30 AM on December 30, 2010
posted by adamvasco at 1:30 AM on December 30, 2010
Honest question: Do you think the authors of the Bill of Rights intended for there to be a transportation exception in the 4th amendment?
We can talk about existing case law, and what the existing legal situation is, but I don't see any buggy or border exceptions in the 4th amendment.
Read the decisions. They are the ones to talk to. Its like asking a physicist if he thinks gravity is "fair." These are our laws. The automobile exception is 85 years old. It isn't going away. Like it or not.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:50 AM on December 30, 2010
We can talk about existing case law, and what the existing legal situation is, but I don't see any buggy or border exceptions in the 4th amendment.
Read the decisions. They are the ones to talk to. Its like asking a physicist if he thinks gravity is "fair." These are our laws. The automobile exception is 85 years old. It isn't going away. Like it or not.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:50 AM on December 30, 2010
The ACLU believes that cops need either your permission or probable cause [PDF] to search your vehicle.
Probable cause is the standard, except in "administrative searches" where they tow something and the mechanics search when they get it.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:51 AM on December 30, 2010
Probable cause is the standard, except in "administrative searches" where they tow something and the mechanics search when they get it.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:51 AM on December 30, 2010
I'm really starting to think you should change the occupation in your profile, "I'm with the Resistance." Because I'm trying to think of a resistance that is ok with strip searches required for any long-distance transportation, and that doesn't seem like a very effective Resistance to me.
First, I'm telling you what the law is, nothing more, nothing less. What's funny to me is all of the people who have no idea what it says, assume it says one thing, and are suddenly outraged when it isn't what they thought it was. Seriously, people asking me if the Founding Fathers thought there was a "buggy" exception? We have no idea. Mostly they were talking about people's homes, because that is what the British Army was searching. There was no police back then, you know. But read the damned decisions instead of condemning me for telling you what the law is. If you think it is wrong, then push for a constitutional amendment to change it to what you think it should be.
Secondly, strip searches? There are no "strip searches" going on. They are using some 5 trillion dollar scanner to look at an xray image of you. And they don't make you take your clothes off if you opt-out. I don't know how invasive it is, but they certainly do not strip search you.
Third, I think the scanners are dumb. They are costly and the cost of delaying travelers probably outweighs the security advantage they give.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:56 AM on December 30, 2010
First, I'm telling you what the law is, nothing more, nothing less. What's funny to me is all of the people who have no idea what it says, assume it says one thing, and are suddenly outraged when it isn't what they thought it was. Seriously, people asking me if the Founding Fathers thought there was a "buggy" exception? We have no idea. Mostly they were talking about people's homes, because that is what the British Army was searching. There was no police back then, you know. But read the damned decisions instead of condemning me for telling you what the law is. If you think it is wrong, then push for a constitutional amendment to change it to what you think it should be.
Secondly, strip searches? There are no "strip searches" going on. They are using some 5 trillion dollar scanner to look at an xray image of you. And they don't make you take your clothes off if you opt-out. I don't know how invasive it is, but they certainly do not strip search you.
Third, I think the scanners are dumb. They are costly and the cost of delaying travelers probably outweighs the security advantage they give.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:56 AM on December 30, 2010
Read the decisions. They are the ones to talk to. Its like asking a physicist if he thinks gravity is "fair." These are our laws. The automobile exception is 85 years old. It isn't going away. Like it or not.
Once upon a time the Second Amendment was interpreted by the Supreme Court to be a collective and not individual right, speaking of the state powers to have a militia. Yet along comes Heller and poof the individual right knocks a whole in every local gun ordinance in the country. See also Separate but Equal.
posted by humanfont at 12:12 PM on December 30, 2010
Once upon a time the Second Amendment was interpreted by the Supreme Court to be a collective and not individual right, speaking of the state powers to have a militia. Yet along comes Heller and poof the individual right knocks a whole in every local gun ordinance in the country. See also Separate but Equal.
posted by humanfont at 12:12 PM on December 30, 2010
"but they aren't violating the 4th Amendment to search you and your possessions before boarding an aircraft, because you are free not to get on the plane and not be searched.
"That's not to say that the current situation is right, just that your analysis is legally incorrect."
Sorry, but this is bullshit. You could say that about being searched on the street. You can always stay inside your house, have your food and necessities delivered, work from home. Nothing in the constitution explicitly says you have a right to walk down the street, does it?
posted by Mental Wimp at 9:21 AM on January 13, 2011
"That's not to say that the current situation is right, just that your analysis is legally incorrect."
Sorry, but this is bullshit. You could say that about being searched on the street. You can always stay inside your house, have your food and necessities delivered, work from home. Nothing in the constitution explicitly says you have a right to walk down the street, does it?
posted by Mental Wimp at 9:21 AM on January 13, 2011
« Older Twilight of the Nerds | Savory yet unsavory Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by fantodstic at 1:47 PM on December 28, 2010