Airport Screening Abuse Growing

[MaddSkillz]

"video cameras in use"
"premises under video observation"
etc.

Taking a job that requires you to keep some information confidential concedes your right to free speech.

Heck any time you agree to a terms of service you are probably conceding certain rights to the company you are dealing with. "(Company name) retains all ownership of copyright for any entries to our contest"


your right use privacy does not trump their right to security if you want to use whatever service they are providing.

Why are you equating private institutions to government?

The Constitution is there to regulate government, not private institutions.

 

[vvvvvvv]

"video cameras in use"
"premises under video observation"
etc.

No difference in having human surveillance.

Taking a job that requires you to keep some information confidential concedes your right to free speech.

Not at all. It is protecting the intellectual property of the company.

Heck any time you agree to a terms of service you are probably conceding certain rights to the company you are dealing with. "(Company name) retains all ownership of copyright for any entries to our contest"

That's why I read before I agree. And I NEVER enter contests like that. Only a fool would willingly transfer their intellectual property rights without just compensation.

 

[donner]

I'm amazed that so many here - not all but it seems the majority - have no problem at all being treated like a criminal and the presumption that you are one just so you can fly.

I don't get it.

I agree, but i would say that my amazement comes from those who argue that DUI checkpoints are fine.

I just see flying as different. I think that if your choices are to enter a private facility, which you aren't legally required to enter, then you have a choice to disagree with the security screening methods and choose another option.

 

[grizzly97]

OFF TOPIC: This is the next never ending thread.

 

[jbarnett]

I say screw em. Opt out, make a fuss, fart while the check is going on, scream when they "touch" you and just all around do everything you can to make the experience as unpleasant for them as they are for you.

Enough people do that....this will end, I guarantee it. It's absolutely ridiculous that we spent billions on this crap, when a good $50 door lock on the cockpit would solve the entire problem.

Government is the epitome of stupid.

 

[donner]

No difference in having human surveillance.

This is true. My point is that you agree to let yourself be filmed by entering their store or business. You willing gave up certain rights. As people here have already argued, privacy can be violated both electronically and by having a person-on-person pat down. You still wave certain rights for the ability to use the airline's service.

That's why I read before I agree. And I NEVER enter contests like that. Only a fool would willingly transfer their intellectual property rights without just compensation.

I agree about not entering contests like that, but that is my point. You know the situation going in and if you want to use that service you agree to those rules. How is flying any different? If you want to sit on their airplane then you agree to certain things.

 

[RidgeHunter]

That gurl haz a pistol in her booty.

 

[vvvvvvv]

This is true. My point is that you agree to let yourself be filmed by entering their store or business. You willing gave up certain rights. As people here have already argued, privacy can be violated both electronically and by having a person-on-person pat down. You still wave certain rights for the ability to use the airline's service.




I agree about not entering contests like that, but that is my point. You know the situation going in and if you want to use that service you agree to those rules. How is flying any different? If you want to sit on their airplane then you agree to certain things.

It's different because you are not agreeing to the rules of the airlines.

The government is screening you to approve or disapprove of your use of a private service.

 

[redmax51]

That is absurd. You can't tell a cop that you didn't have time to disarm yourself before being due in court.

As was said, if you want to use the airline's service you have to abide by the rules put in place (be it by them or the government). If the rules are too much for you to agree to then you find alternative transport.

You really don't get it,do you? At what point do we say enough?? The terrorists have soundly defeated us.They have forced us to spend billions of dollars in the name of "security",forced us to completely change our way of life.One would have to wonder how 9/11 would have turned out if each flight had a couple of armed capable citizens on board.Maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion today.

 

[donner]

Why are you equating private institutions to government?

The Constitution is there to regulate government, not private institutions.

I think there is a different argument to be had about whether the government should be providing security for what amount to private business.

That said, flying is still a private venture for all intents and purposes.

There are lots of parts of this argument that cut both ways for me. The government highly regulates the airline industry. I mean how many other businesses can say that 'federal law requires compliance with all crew member instructions'? But the government isn't requiring that i use the airline's services, so the government isn't forcing me into any situation where i have to give up my right to privacy. If i need to fly then that is a choice i make.