http://newyork.cbslo...ing-technology/

 

Wow, some of the quoted comments are pretty disturbing. Scary how openly some people are willing to give up their rights for the illusion of security.

I was thinking the same thing when I saw this reported on TV today, with the obligatory zombie interviews on the street: "Well, I guess it's ok. I've got nothing to hide" I don't have anything to hide either, but that doesn't mean I want anyone looking under my clothes on the street without my permission -- either physically or virtually. Anyone with even a simple understanding of the Constitution and our history knows that rights not exercised and defended are not rights at all.

 

Not to get too melodramatic, but many Men have died to give these thoughtless drones the rights that they are just throwing away and it makes me kind of sick.

Dont like it.. and you know some ----- kid is going to get shot over a cell phone..

This is wrong on so many levels. This tech is similar to the airport milimeter wave scanners. It will be able to "see" other items on your person as well. What if people are sensitive about prosthetics, medical devices, etc. Not to mention the privacy concerns.

 

Unless they get my consent to "scan"-search me no-go. Lawsuits should be abound on this one.

This is wrong on so many levels. This tech is similar to the airport milimeter wave scanners. It will be able to "see" other items on your person as well. What if people are sensitive about prosthetics, medical devices, etc. Not to mention the privacy concerns.

 

Unless they get my consent to "scan"-search me no-go. Lawsuits should be abound on this one.

 

I see this as more closely resembling the SCOTUS decision involving police using ultra-violet detection equipment to "see" inside someone's home. Here, the police are using millimeter wave scanning to "see" beneath your clothing. Both locations (the home and your person) are sacred 4th Amendment territory. I see the use of this technology quickly being categorized as an illegal search.

 

If, for some irrational reason, it doesn't violate the U.S. Constitutional 4th Amendment. It's GOT to violate the NY Constitution, which doesn't even permit police to "manipulate" items in someone's pocket in order to determine what it is.

 

Thanks NYPD and Federal Authorities for bringing us closer to Orwell's 1984!

I do not condone the use of airport millimeter wave scanners, but at least when you go through an airport scanner you know you're being scanned, and by default are giving your consent.

The new Terahertz Imaging system has a huge potential for misuse. It is not accurate, it can only identify something that may be a gun. Even if it were 100% accurate... it could create whole new set of problems. That's all we need, criminals getting this new technology and being able to drive around looking for victims by scanning them to see if they are armed or not. Kind of takes away the concealed portion of a ccw. (I know that the use of scanners by criminals is a stretch... but I'm just trying to make the point that many times new technology can be used by them for their own advantage.)

 

As far as legal use (or so called).... What if you're on your front stoop when an LEO drives by with a scanner. Do they now have probable cause to search your house as well? What's next, Terahertz scanners at the entrance to stores and movie theatre's. Scanners that point down into your vehicle at toll booths or fast food drive thru's? What if you are carrying something that could house or shield a gun? What if you are wearing an item of clothing that could shield a gun? Can they search you for that reason? :wild:

I do not condone the use of airport millimeter wave scanners, but at least when you go through an airport scanner you know you're being scanned, and by default are giving your consent.

 

 

No...no I did not give my consent for anything. I do not have to give up my constitutional rights in order to ride on a common carrier (public air transportation) between the states. Traveling freely between the states is one of the FEW privileges and immunities protected under the U.S. Constitutional 14th Amendment. I will not let it go!

No...no I did not give my consent for anything. I do not have to give up my constitutional rights in order to ride on a common carrier (public air transportation) between the states. Traveling freely between the states is one of the FEW privileges and immunities protected under the U.S. Constitutional 14th Amendment. I will not let it go!

 

Sorry, but you are not travelling on public anything when you fly. You are in a private vehicle while you are on the aircraft, and in 99% of the time you are on private property the moment you step onto the airport grounds. The airlines and airport owners have every right to impose (almost) any requirement they wish.

 

However, I will agree that it should not be a federal agency responsible for security at private business ventures, and we should especially not be subject to regulations not passed by any of our elected representatives, yet still have the authority and consequences of law.

No...no I did not give my consent for anything. I do not have to give up my constitutional rights in order to ride on a common carrier (public air transportation) between the states. Traveling freely between the states is one of the FEW privileges and immunities protected under the U.S. Constitutional 14th Amendment. I will not let it go!

 

An easy fix for this is to privatize airport security. It's unconstitutional as long as the Federal Government / State Government is doing it, but it's AOK if the private airlines are paying for it and organizing it.

It is a shame I feel that the founding fathers did such a good job of crafting the Constitution and then didn't put any teeth in it. I'd like to see an Amendment that allows for polticians and other public figures to be taken to court for violations of th Constitution and if found guity anyone from the general public could carry out the sentence with out worrying about legal ramification. Anyone recall what the punishment for treason is?

It is a shame I feel that the founding fathers did such a good job of crafting the Constitution and then didn't put any teeth in it. I'd like to see an Amendment that allows for polticians and other public figures to be taken to court for violations of th Constitution and if found guity anyone from the general public could carry out the sentence with out worrying about legal ramification. Anyone recall what the punishment for treason is?

 

It was expected, that if things got bad enough, we would simply have another bloody revolution leading to a Balkanization of the United States into separate regions/states, until there is a reason for these independent units to reforms and begin anew.

 

Let's face it: America's done, stick a fork in it. Most people don't care about their Constitutional Rights... and most who do are Cafeteria Constitutionalists, where they support some rights and ignore others which don't fit their agenda.

 

 

I see this as more closely resembling the SCOTUS decision involving police using ultra-violet detection equipment to "see" inside someone's home. Here, the police are using millimeter wave scanning to "see" beneath your clothing. Both locations (the home and your person) are sacred 4th Amendment territory. I see the use of this technology quickly being categorized as an illegal search.

 

If, for some irrational reason, it doesn't violate the U.S. Constitutional 4th Amendment. It's GOT to violate the NY Constitution, which doesn't even permit police to "manipulate" items in someone's pocket in order to determine what it is.

 

 

 

Correct... It's known as " plain touch" if by feeling it I assume it to be drugs I can not retrieve it and charge the individual. New jersey allows plain touch based on my training and experience if I suspect something I can remove it fom the pockets. I can see this going through for the impale fact that they I'll be scanning large crowds. If someone is suspected then a stop will be conducted for further investigation. I can see a major legal battle coming of this. Also this may be used more in areas where guns are a major problem within nyc

I know but that plan sucks for those of us living behind enemy lines

If this ever come ino play it will be interesting when I carry off duty in the city.

Safe for pregnant women?

It is a shame I feel that the founding fathers did such a good job of crafting the Constitution and then didn't put any teeth in it. I'd like to see an Amendment that allows for polticians and other public figures to be taken to court for violations of th Constitution and if found guity anyone from the general public could carry out the sentence with out worrying about legal ramification. Anyone recall what the punishment for treason is?

 

Titie 18 USC (United States Code) Section 242, Deprivation of Civil rights under color of Authority.

If I posted how I feel about this I would probably be labeled a "domestic terrorist" or some other BS. Just another step towards totalitarianism.

Not to mention the safety of this stuff. Terahertz radiation is in near UV, and evidence points to it being able to cause damage to DNA like ionizing radiation does. http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/

 

I'm sure there will be all sorts of "privacy" garments that will be sold that reflects or absorbs the scanning beam, which is actually 2 lasers being aimed at you...

Great, so now whenever I carry legally in NYC under LEOSA I have to worry about Bloomberg's goons hassling me on every street corner.

Does anyone want to buy a 4X4X1/4" steel plate with belt loops? They'd be driven crazy with it. Sounds like a bunch of hocus pocus. Probably somebody's cousin selling this and it's all BS.

I see this as more closely resembling the SCOTUS decision involving police using ultra-violet detection equipment to "see" inside someone's home. Here, the police are using millimeter wave scanning to "see" beneath your clothing. Both locations (the home and your person) are sacred 4th Amendment territory. I see the use of this technology quickly being categorized as an illegal search.

 

If, for some irrational reason, it doesn't violate the U.S. Constitutional 4th Amendment. It's GOT to violate the NY Constitution, which doesn't even permit police to "manipulate" items in someone's pocket in order to determine what it is.

 

Thanks NYPD and Federal Authorities for bringing us closer to Orwell's 1984!

 

I believe there was some huge controversy over the IR detectors which were being used on aircraft to search persons homes for possible large scale drug operations, as most have a large heat signature. However, they deemed it illegal, at least in cali, to do it over residential areas.

 

When will these people learn, it doesn't matter what tool you use to search someone or their belongings. If you are able to "see" something otherwise presumably private then it is an illegal search. Using a device to look under someones clothing is the same thing as making them take the clothing off.

 

The TSA is able to get away with it, because flying is a luxury and u have to play by their rules, but walking down the street with out having your privacy violated is still part of the constitution.

Does anyone want to buy a 4X4X1/4" steel plate with belt loops?

 

They'll charge you with interfering with a police investigation. Then before we know it, there's plate control.

That joke isn't funny.

 

Wait, that isn't a joke is it?

 

I have a solution. They can deploy it. They can search you. If they don't find the gun, they just cut you a check for say. .. 2.5 million.

 

I'm pretty sure if you get tagged for nothing that you suffer greatly expecting constant persecution.

It was expected, that if things got bad enough, we would simply have another bloody revolution leading to a Balkanization of the United States into separate regions/states, until there is a reason for these independent units to reforms and begin anew.

 

Let's face it: America's done, stick a fork in it. Most people don't care about their Constitutional Rights... and most who do are Cafeteria Constitutionalists, where they support some rights and ignore others which don't fit their agenda.

 

Not me. I've said it before, I'll support any rights. I'm morally opposed to abortion, but seeing as how the 9th amendment could technically protect that right, I have no choice but to accept it.

 

Ironically, though most people hate on Ron Paul, from what I've seen, he seems to best fit a true constitutionalist. I actually am considered a "Constitutional Conservative" on the voter registration.

Not me. I've said it before, I'll support any rights. I'm morally opposed to abortion, but seeing as how the 9th amendment could technically protect that right, I have no choice but to accept it.

 

Ironically, though most people hate on Ron Paul, from what I've seen, he seems to best fit a true constitutionalist. I actually am considered a "Constitutional Conservative" on the voter registration.

 

Please vote for him then.

Please vote for him then.

 

If he gets the nomination, I'd love to, but I'm not going to take votes away from someone who actually has a shot against Obama.

Sorry, but you are not travelling on public anything when you fly. You are in a private vehicle while you are on the aircraft, and in 99% of the time you are on private property the moment you step onto the airport grounds. The airlines and airport owners have every right to impose (almost) any requirement they wish

 

No, they are a place of public accomodation, which severely alters what they can and cannot get away with compared ot actual private property. You want to make a dime running hte public through your spaces, you give up certain privileges that go along with keeping the facilities actually private.

No, they are a place of public accomodation, which severely alters what they can and cannot get away with compared ot actual private property. You want to make a dime running hte public through your spaces, you give up certain privileges that go along with keeping the facilities actually private.

 

Thanks Raz...I didn't want to get into a pissing contest and hijack this thread on the side issue, but there are federal laws and limitations governing "common carriers" (airlines, bus companies etc.). Due to the entanglement that common carriers have with government, their "private" actions are frequently held to be actions of the government due to government's heavy involvement. Such is also the problem with "simply" replacing the TSA with private security. It's not that easy to circumvent the Constitution.

It's not that easy to circumvent the Constitution.

\

 

Say what now?