Body scanners becoming more common/accepted?

[leadcounsel]

http://www.lifeinthemixtalk.com/?tg=x-ray-machines

This website summarizes body scanners in use at select airports. The image is what concerns me. Imagine this is your unwilling wife, daughter, girlfriend, mother, or you... Told you have to go through this scanner to fly someplace.

Now extend this to everyday life.

We all know what these body scanners are all about. But this concerns me from a personal liberty, privacy, and concealed carry perspective.

Once these are accepted at some airports, they will spread to all airports. And then when technology makes them cheap, they will arrive at courthouses and government buildings. And then at private locations. It's feasible they could be a daily part of life to enter certain buildings and businesses.

The implications aren't hard to imagine. These images are already being stored and shared on the internet; saved to harddrives or on employees iphone/cellphone cameras.

This is a threat to liberty, privacy, health, and CCW because it will immediately "out" you.

 

[Sam1911]

Currently this is being applied to the restricted areas of airports -- where it is already illegal to carry a gun.

There are some serious 4th Amendment issues at work here, but that is not the focus of THR.org.

When, and if, these machines show up at courthouses and government locations -- just as is the case with metal detectors -- they will be used where carry is prohibited anyway. (In TX, as an example, a CCW permit gets you past the metal detectors -- and would get you past these machines as well.)

When, and if, these machines show up in private locations, there will be further 4th Amendment issues to discuss -- but the 2nd A / CCW issues will be the same as those attendant to the use of metal detectors on private property. (Discovery leading to either a request to leave and/or trespass issue or a more serious charge depending on state laws.)

Not much of a THR.org topic at the moment.

 

[hso]

So, LC, where you going with this?

Do you expect these on street corners or entrances to buildings? Like said, how's that actually going to become a serious threat when the 4th applies to the Orwellian vision you paint when some public spaces already have metal detectors? How is this new technology any different than metal detectors already in place if your concern is CCW? The other issues about health effects and privacy outside of CCW aren't within our scope here.

 

[GerryM]

"Body scanners becoming more common/accepted?"

Common yes, accepted "NO" - at least not by me.

 

[leadcounsel]

I, as we all, have watched science-fiction technology evolve before my eyes in both increased performance and reduced expenses. There is some scary stuff out there for monitoring the population. Video cameras have gone from expensive and poor quality to cheap, plentiful and reliable and on every street corner/business in America. Some say it's better, some say it's worse...

I understand the public vs. private issue... out in public you can expect to be watched/observed/recorded. But when does it cross the line? Police/LEO have used heat scanners for decades to "see" through walls to catch pot growers with their high intensity lights, or spied on citizens using aircraft. When did WE become the enemy. I understand that you can refuse to fly and take a bus. But what about when these appear on buses? Or large machines that scan entire cars and people and content on 'public' roadways? When is it too much.

Large scale screening devices like airport devices have been developed for law enforcement to monitor crowds in the name of safety. When do you stop accepting the retreat of freedoms in the name of 'safety?'

We, citizens, are rats in a social experiement of control. It's called operant conditioning and we're being tested to see what we'll tolerate. What rights we'll surrender for convenience or 'security.'

The point of this is that we need to write our congressmen/women and airlines and airports and refuse to fly or participate in the use of these machines. I've already done so, and I encourage you to do the same. It's important to stop these before they become accepted.

What other things did we accept that seemed 'trivial' at the time? How about gun control? How about the erosion of the 4th Amendment? Due process? Lautenberg? And so many other bad policies and laws...

The time to act is NOW, before these become commonplace. Before you can't refuse them to fly, take a bus, or attend an outdoor concert, sporting event, etc.

 

[Sam1911]

The point of this is that we need to write our congressmen/women and airlines and airports and refuse to fly or participate in the use of these machines. I've already done so, and I encourage you to do the same.

As I said before, I agree that this is important, and I feel largely the same way you do about the nature of these devices.

However, this is a 4th Amendment issue, not a 2nd Amendment issue as there doesn't seem to be any way for these to be used (at least not in any credible way yet) to circumvent existing rights/protections/laws as they apply to CCW or the broader RKBA issues.

 

[leadcounsel]

Can't find the article now, but about 10 years ago I read in Colorado that the police had/or had been developing a large scale device where a crowd could be monitor in a similar way of this same 'scanner' technology to detect concealed weapons.

This technology, when forced upon us unwillingly, harms the CCW person and hence intrudes on the 2A.

It 'outs' you to the public at large. It does what open carry does, effectively. And that is that it broadcasts to anyone and everyone where you carry, what you carry, etc. It is a violation of personal security and opens you up for harassment from police, security, and department store managers alike.

So, yes, it's a violation of the 4th, but it directly effects the 2A because CCW would be reduced due to harassment, inconvenience, etc.

 

[30.06]

Big Brother is Watching You

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHRlXzRfvpA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ2YW7-4Gbw

 

[Sam1911]

It 'outs' you to the public at large.

The "public at large?" Are they posting these images on a big-screen TV on the wall as you walk by?

It does what open carry does, effectively. And that is that it broadcasts to anyone and everyone where you carry, what you carry, etc.

"Anyone and everyone?" Really? I thought these were security screening devices used at the entrances to places where carrying of certain objects is ILLEGAL. I've never seen people walking around wanding crowds with metal detectors and telling everyone that you're carrying. Why would this be used that way? HOW could this be used that way? If the police cannot stop everyone passing down a city street and run them through a metal detector, why could they use this technology in that fashion?

It is a violation of personal security and opens you up for harassment from police, security, and department store managers alike.

If you are entering a private establishment, they generally have the right to perform certain security screening if they so wish -- and if you consent as a condition of entering. (Screening you without your consent would seem to be the 4th Amendment question outside of our scope here.)

This is an unpleasant extension of that same situation, but you'd have the same right to refuse to patronize an establishment like this as you would a store/business that wanted to frisk you and wand you before you entered there.

IF law-enforcement officers were to abuse this technology to harass people who are following the law, they are going to face serious legal challenges to that behavior. As we've seen in many places, it only takes one or two successful lawsuits before police policy gets changed for the better.

Now, if you don't have the legal authority to carry in a location, this will cause you some grief. But that's not something we discuss here either.

So, yes, it's a violation of the 4th, but it directly effects the 2A because CCW would be reduced due to harassment, inconvenience, etc.

So they're going to scan the crowds passing by in public places? Somehow I think the gun community is going to have to get in line to yell and scream about that.

 

[Countrycowboy]

I am firmly against all these whole body imaging machines at airports. I do NOT believe in "anything for security". There is a line and it has been crossed in this country. I will not go through these scanners and I oppose the mandatory patdown which includes the private areas. It is a sick state that we have gotten to in this country.

 

[Sky]

Radiation anyone? Think about the TSA workers around the machines for several hours a day.

Will be interesting in ten years (if the Airlines are still in business) just how many workers develop serious side effects ( cancer ) from their exposure.

I have heard the standard issue answer about the radiation risk and I have also heard it is worse than a chest X-ray by a factor of ten.

Who you believe is you choice.

I personally do not know the answer and it would have to be a non bought-out and paid for independent testing facility before I would know what to think other than the truth is somewhere out there.

Maybe England with all it's wonderful far sighted security measures provided us with a road map on which way to go.... again I do not know but sometimes it does make you go HUMMMMMmmmmm.

 

[fnslpmark112]

I refuse to fly now.

The naked body scanners have 20-50 more radiation than they claim. No one has the right to virtually strip search you, your wife or your children without probable cause.

The pat downs, while not deadly, are an invasion of your privacy and your dignity.

You have to resist. They are doing this to break the will of the US population and get us used to the police state.

 

[hso]

Just too far removed.