|
RapierFugue -> RE: Don't bloody well touch me!!! (11/25/2010 5:05:18 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: barelynangel
In court the TSA will have to prove why these searches are not a violation of the public's reasonable expectation of privacy and the suits against them will have to prove why it is. It will be an interesting battle and i think will set major precedent with regard to the future of safety in this country. However, people if they want this to be defined in their beliefs are GOING TO HAVE to step up and force the TSA to offer exact proof of why its not a violation.
... which is what I said, several pages ago. It'll take someone to actually make a case of it.
There's also the question of when "permission" is obtained under duress. In other words, as I understand it, no-one signs anything ATM which says "I agree to have my junk touched" - as you say, it's implicit in the purchase of a ticket. The problem would seem to be that the system becomes a closed loop as soon as you enter it. In other words, at no point once you've approached security do you have the option to then say "actually, this is bullshit, I think I'll take the train instead" - you can then, in those circumstances, "be sued" (and this is the bit I don't understand) by the TSA for $10,000. If that's not a form of duress then what is it?
"Consent" requires both approval and knowledge of the likely outcomes; in several cases thus far it would seem (note seem, since none of us can be sure until it reaches a court) that it's likely that those conditions have not been met.
Bottom line is that, ATM, you've got a situation which is existing in a parlous, quasi-legal state; until there's a case no-one knows for sure. But I repeat - the overwhelming evidence is that these checks not only do not increase security, but may very well make things worse, for reasons I've outlined previously. In other words, not only is it of dubious legality, but it's also of highly dubious efficacy. I would hope that that would make people keen to see the powers of the TSA either limited, or the system itself reviewed.
One final thing; the Constitution of the United States (and its Amendments) are not held to only apply to the government. In other words, private companies can't just drive a bus through your rights. Now obviously there is, as you've pointed out, this issue of "permission", but the form and nature of the current system (with the fact you can't withdraw permission once past a point fairly early in the process) makes that look, to me at least, very shaky.
Governments in general have a long and dark history of coercing people to do things "for their own good". In this case, where the "good" appears minimal or even negative, I'd tend to ask myself what use such a system is.
|
|
|
|
