From Pam's Blog: ...The ACLU said in a statement that passengers expecting privacy underneath their clothing "should not be required to display highly personal details of their bodies such as evidence of mastectomies, colostomy appliances, penile implants, catheter tubes and the size of their breasts or genitals as a pre-requisite to boarding a plane."

I immediately wondered where the ACLU was when that the [was it Oklahoma?] court ruled that a woman has no expectation of privacy up her skirt in a public place.

I immediately wondered where the ACLU was when that the [was it Oklahoma?] court ruled that a woman has no expectation of privacy up her skirt in a public place.

Because, of course, the ACLU is focused on government overreach and violations of privacy. If the government had been paying this perv, there would be an issue. As it is the problem is government underreach.

Lemme guess...it's Southwest that wants to do this?

Since they already critique your outfits and make weight-related judgments based on appearance, this seems like a logical next step.

I have to say, I'm a little disappointed with how Colbert handled it. It was obviously better than how some others might have, but something about it made me a tad uncomfortable. Can't really put my finger on exactly what.

Lemme guess...it's Southwest that wants to do this?

Since they already critique your outfits and make weight-related judgments based on appearance, this seems like a logical next step.

I have to say, I'm a little disappointed with how Colbert handled it. It was obviously better than how some others might have, but something about it made me a tad uncomfortable. Can't really put my finger on exactly what.

There was a piece on tv a few months ago about the full body scan (I don't remember where, I'm sorry, but it was a major channel) and it said that it was only going to be used for passengers that were selected for the more detailed search (the “hey your number __ so you get to go through extra security or suspicious passengers), not for everyone going through security. You can still refuse it and request a normal old-fashioned pat down. And female passengers would be checked by female TSA agents, just like in security now.

Aaron: I suppose the problem is that I wasn't really considering the strict definition of civil liberties. It was the first thing that came to mind though.

Staar-
That's not really true. On the cover of the Dallas Morning News this morning, they said that this check was being tested for regular use; as in, every passenger may eventually have to be screened for boarding. You can opt out, but most of the people who were interviewed in the airport said that they were not told the screening was optional and only knew that they could get a pat-down after they were screened. Also, they weren't segregating the passengers by sex; there was photo of the screening device and the line, which consisted of both men and women. Perhaps these issues only exist in the DFW airport, but I doubt it.

When I saw the story, I showed it to my boss, who said, "I'm willing to go through a little inconvenience for safety." I'm not sure I'd call a virtual strip search a mere "inconvenience" just because it doesn't require me to take my clothes off.

These scans directly violate our right to privacy. What compelling interest does the government have to see us nude like this? If the TSA cannot find something suspicious using a wand, how is this scan going to help? I doubt there has been a single instance of this scan finding something out of the ordinary that a wand couldn't find.

I don't care if it's voluntary either, because I'm quite sure that refusing to submit to this scan would invite greater scrutiny.

I am sick and tired of this administration trampling on our constitutional rights.

Finally, don't forget about pre-op transsexuals. This definitely violates their rights.

...I don't know, to me, the whole weighing thing makes sense. Heck, my dad has been asking when the airlines will find the sense to just put both luggage and passenger on the scale and charge based on overall weight transported rather than charging people randomly for an extra pound over 50 or a second checked bag. After all, the weight will end up somewhere on the plane, whether in cargo or in carry-on, and more weight = more fuel. It makes sense, your airfare covers a certain amount of weight to be transported and anything over that gets a fee; just like if you can't fit in one seat, you pay for two.

So right now the options are:

1) No attempt at physical security.

2) Verbal only attempts ie: "Are you carrying something you should not be carrying?"

3) A "pat down" which involves a stranger actually touching your body.

4) x-ray cameras that can see what kind of junk you have and how big it is.

I'm pretty critical of a criticism of a technique which offers no reasonable alternatives. Do I think there is too much emphasis on potential terror dangers while flying? Yes. But this does not equate to having zero preventative measures taken. Get fucking serious.

I have, by accident, carried deadly weapons on planes (I often use public transportation from the airport to my final destination which has me going through sketchy/unfamiliar areas so I will sometimes carry a CF baton that has yet to trigger an x-ray though it has gone on the plane with me at lest 4 times since 9/11).

There are dozens of blunt and edged weapons designed to get past metal detectors. A "CIA letter opener", for example, is a plastic knife which is easily lethal and concealable, in fact they were designed specifically to beat security devices.

I've observed a dismal lack of pragmatism in favor if just pissing and moaning on this board.

As for the ACLU: They do precisely dick in terms of protecting your liberties from other citizens, hence their support of pedophiles and peepers, and other scumbags.

This is what I saw, which is why I didn't stress. Just thought I'd share

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=jq4388OfZEI

I think the whole charge-by-the-pound thing was a hoax. See http://flyderrie-air.com/

LogrusZed: Your unnuanced understanding of what the ACLU does misses the point of their existence entirely. But I guess that's OT.