All the easier to strip search you

So. You thought you could avoid those intrusive airport technological strip searches by not flying on a commercial plane? You thought they were just were doing that to “other people”? You thought it was okay to look the other way as your Fourth Amendment rights were violated when you flew on an airplane. It was all in the name of “safety”, right?

Via Andy Greenberg (via an email from Chet), coming to your neighborhood soon:

Gee, I wonder why they didn’t show any people in that video? Oh! Andy has some pictures of that too:

That is through vehicles. I would expect the walls of your home will be just as revealing. Imagine what you look like when you are just walking down the sidewalk.

Expect lots of “security sweeps” for the womens basketball and volleyball tournaments. We can’t be too careful with our precious women at risk.

The phrase “concealed means concealed” now means nothing. And since we let them get away with it at airports what’s so special about a public street now? Some terrorist could kill just as many people at the convention center as they could on an airplane. So why shouldn’t the convention center have the same security theater as the our airplanes?

I’ve pointed this out before but what Pastor Martin Niemöller said about the Nazi’s and what Sebastian observed, “What goes around comes around.” is very true.

You play a very risky game when you make exceptions to fundamental principles.

14 thoughts on “All the easier to strip search you

  1. Remember, you’re just paranoid or delusional if you believe in the whole “slippery slope” thing.

    These things are not a violation of rights because if you don’t want to be electronically strip searched all you have to do is choose not to fly…oh…wait.

    Anyway, these are just used to search out bombs and help prevent terrorist attacks, the government can be trusted with this technology, they’d never use it for “fishing expeditions” to search out contraband or enforce other laws…just like the TSA is only interested in safety of flight and would never detain someone because of things unrelated to flight security…oh…wait.

    Anyway, the government loves us and would never abuse their authority. Look at the “war on drugs”. We vastly expanded the power of Police to break down doors, confiscate property, prosecute conspiracies, etc and they NEVER use those powers for anything other than their intended purpose…oh…wait.

  2. Wouldn’t this be thrown out just like the SCOTUS disallowed thermal imaging when looking for basement pot farmers?

    Held: Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment “search,” and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. Pp. 3—13.

    You could make a good case that these imaging devices are not in general public use and therefore using them without a warrant is a violation of the 4th.

    But I agree, it is very scary technology that is already being abused where allowed.

  3. Yes, it was ruled that thermal imaging without a warrant can’t be used as evidence due to 4th amendment concerns, but does that mean the cops don’t use them anyway?

    I’d be willing to bet that they still regularly use them to decide who to “investigate”, they just can’t use that as grounds for a warrant or as evidence in court…which might explain the sheer number of warrants based on “confidential informants” or “anonymous tips”.

    I have to wonder if people carrying guns will all the sudden find it much more common to be pulled over for going a couple mph over the speed limit or not completely stopping at stop signs?

    Hmm. Wonder what prompted them to ask me if I had any guns in the vehicle when they stopped me for this questionable traffic infraction?

  4. This principal of the right to privacy is certainly the thing to focus on here. But, in an idle kinda way, I wonder if there might not be some kind of inexpensive way to actively jam or to block this kind of intrusion. No, I’m not looking to smuggle “low molecular weight objects” anywhere. I’m curious about the technology

  5. Since this is such a blatant failure of the “Jews in the Attic” Test (I even left a comment on the article, replying to someone who essentially said “If you’re obeying the law, you have nothing to fear–but we could find kidnap victims with this technology!”), I would say that we ought to search for inexpensive ways to actively block this kind of intrusion. Indeed, we ought to be diligent in doing so!

  6. We are fast approaching a time when the supposed land of the free will have more power over its citizens than anything ever enjoyed by Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.

  7. M Gallo,

    This particular device uses backscattered X-Rays. This is why it can penetrate vehicles. I’m not sure what you would do with the spray paint other than obstruct the windshield of the vehicle.

    Defensively I’ll have to think on this some more but the first thing that comes to mind is lead vinyl sheets.

    I want a set of “airplane clothes” made out of it.

    Offensively the same sort of things you would use against any other vehicle would work.

  8. Detection would of course be an important capability. This operates in the x-ray spectrum? What do we have available to detect x-rays? How directional is the transmission? How sensitive must our equipment be to detect the weaker backscatter?

    What legal means might we have to bring up the x-ray exposure issue? Surely if they’re penetrating car bodies they’re putting out some significant power levels. We’re being told that our bi annual dental x-rays are too much as it is. Look for some backpedaling on that issue in the near future.

  9. Actually Curt, that exact thing has been proven already by Kopbusters a couple of years ago.

    http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Raw_footage_from_KopBusters_first_sting_1207.html

    “KopBusters rented a house in Odessa, Texas and began growing two small Christmas trees under a grow light similar to those used for growing marijuana. When faced with a suspected marijuana grow, the police usually use illegal FLIR cameras and/or lie on the search warrant affidavit claiming they have probable cause to raid the house. Instead of conducting a proper investigation which usually leads to no probable cause, the Kops lie on the affidavit claiming a confidential informant saw the plants and/or the police could smell marijuana coming from the suspected house.

    “The trap was set and less than 24 hours later, the Odessa narcotics unit raided the house only to find KopBuster’s attorney waiting under a system of complex gadgetry and spy cameras that streamed online to the KopBuster’s secret mobile office nearby.

    “The attorney was handcuffed and later released when eleven KopBuster detectives arrived with the media in tow to question the illegal raid. The police refused to give KopBusters the search warrant affidavit which is suspected to contain the lies regarding the probable cause.”

  10. M Gallo,

    This particular device uses backscattered X-Rays. This is why it can penetrate vehicles. I’m not sure what you would do with the spray paint other than obstruct the windshield of the vehicle.

    Defensively I’ll have to think on this some more but the first thing that comes to mind is lead vinyl sheets.

    I want a set of “airplane clothes” made out of it.

    Offensively the same sort of things you would use against any other vehicle would work.

    I think the concept of buying a house that still has lead paint will soon no longer decrease the value but increase it. Lead paint isn’t a problem unless your eating the paint chips. All we need to do is build a detector with a focused emitter. Locate the source and blast it with a high dose. As for the operators of said equipment, ask me if I give a crap.

  11. Lead paint isn’t a problem unless your eating the paint chips.

    I’m sorry to be a killjoy, but the problem with lead paint isn’t paint chips. The problem is that it continually “powders off” into the surrounding soil, air or carpets. This powder can then be breathed, which is much more dangerous than eating paint chips. The reason lead paint was attractive, though, was that this “powdering off” kept the paint looking fresh. Much like the way our skin continuously flakes, come to think of it!

    There’s also another aspect: I don’t think that the lead in the lead paint would be enough to block the x-rays.

    We’ll need another method, darnit!

Comments are closed.