Where is the ACLU ? Illegal search - invasion of privacy

This is a discussion on Where is the ACLU ? Illegal search - invasion of privacy within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by atctimmy For the record I work for the FAA in a small airport...My understanding is that the sniffer machines are set for ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 29 of 29

Thread: Where is the ACLU ? Illegal search - invasion of privacy

  1. #16
    Member Array mtnfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a place you've only dreamed of where your soul is always free...
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    For the record I work for the FAA in a small airport...My understanding is that the sniffer machines are set for much higher levels of smell. I will ask one of my buddies what they know about the new unit ...
    Even though I was never cleared to work with explosives (and never did), the fact that I was near them when the charges were being assembled and detonated caused me some grief at the airport. At the time I was a ski patroller and was taking a ski vacation. I made it through security with no problems, but at the gate I was pulled aside and told that I 'may have to take a later flight because of some issues with my luggage'. The person who talked with me and a few other people hung around for about 25-30 minutes (guys not dressed like they were going to a ski town), said he didn't know any specifics about the delay, then abruptly left shortly before boarding began.
    When I arrived at the condo, I began to unpack everything and it was obvious that everything had been gone through. There were the standard slips from TSA, but everything was a mess. Every pocket had been opened, clothes turned inside out, boot liners and insoles had been pulled out (and not fully replaced).
    Oddly, I didn't have the same issues on the return flight - traveling small airport to large airport. Guess where the terrorists will be going.
    Law without force is impotent.
    Blaise Pascal

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    This is excellent technology. I would hope this expands to not only airports but large arena events, too.
    I agree, but admittedly I'm skeptical about how effective the system is. Seeing nutz4utwo's description looks to me like a headache int he making, but like x-ray technology finally moving in the right direction. Wonder if it poses any medical concerns... Oh well, time will tell, I guess. If my tax-dollars are going to anything it better be good stuff, though (not the how-many-mile laser gun the Air Force invented...).


    -B

  4. #18
    Ex Member Array DOGOFWAR01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    WYOMING
    Posts
    562
    Close the borders - 360 . DMZ Korean style. Use of lethal authorized and required for illegal entry.

    Remove all illegals.

    Closing the airports and seaports is part of the closing the borders.

    Anyone can leave. No one can get in without proper paperwork. Everything (cargo) gets searched - no exceptions - no "trusted" exporters or importers.

    Do you really want to be like the UK (British) with these devices and cameras everywhere, ready to give up your guns and knives ? USA answered that over 225 years ago.

  5. #19
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,709
    Dogofwar - do you have ANY idea what it would take to search every piece of cargo that came into the United States? Have you ever seen a line at an airport security screening point? Magnify that by a factor of millions... If we moved every single member of the uniformed services into a job as an inspector, we just might be able to do it - but it would still slow commerce to a snail's pace and bankrupt the government. And then where are we going to find the hundreds of thousands of people it will take (if not more) to create a Korea-style DMZ along our 7,514 miles of land borders (there are 150 miles of border between the Koreas, and there are up to 2,000,000 - yes, million - people guarding it). Never mind the 95,000 miles of shoreline, and the 500 million people who cross our borders every year. It sounds nice, but it is utterly and completely impossible.

    As for the "sniffers..." I wouldn't worry too much about normal gunpowder residue being a problem. My car is swiped by an "Itemizer" at least once per day, and it spends a good deal of time at busy range complexes. I once did TDY duty at a nuke plant, where you were "sniffed" every day - that plant had its own firing range where I would train my guys, and we would pass through the sniffer right afterwards with no problem. The only problem I ever did have was with my personal "flak vest" that had been near countless uses of high explosives and never been washed - the sniffer detected trace amounts on it.

    And then we have the original argument - illegal search. That is very highly debatable, as you are in a public place with no expectation of privacy. If you're walking through a train station, you are being video taped. Don't want to be video taped? Don't ride the train... This is possibly on the edge, but it's nothing close to bugging your house or ransacking your office files without a warrant...

    Is there the potential for government abuse of power? Certainly, there always is. Sniffing for high explosives seems like an unlikely conduit for it, however.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  6. #20
    Distinguished Member Array kazzaerexys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,838
    Quote Originally Posted by rljohns View Post
    I may find ammo and GSR on your hands. So wash your hands after the range!! I just hope they don't put it on the street with a camera and try to arrest everyone that sets it off.
    There was a thread, on this board I think, about flying issues. Lots of people said that, even with chemical sniffers, they had no problems with residue on hands, jackets, or even when they used their range bags as carry-ons.

    It might be a different story if black powder were involved, though...

  7. #21
    Senior Member Array bobcat35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    664
    i've had gear bags i use for work checked by them and no problem. even after useing my lucky one as a shooting rest/cover right before some well earned leave. doubt this scanner could be more sensitive than the actual swab.
    (also the pack doesn't look military because at the time i didn't want to spend $150 for a "tactical assault pack" at the px that held less gear so i just bought a black heavy duty backpack and customised it)
    "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result."
    -Winston Churchill
    Every well-bred petty crook knows: the small concealable weapons always go to the far left of the place setting.
    -Inara, firefly

  8. #22
    Ex Member Array DOGOFWAR01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    WYOMING
    Posts
    562
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    Dogofwar - do you have ANY idea what it would take to search every piece of cargo that came into the United States? Have you ever seen a line at an airport security screening point? Magnify that by a factor of millions... If we moved every single member of the uniformed services into a job as an inspector, we just might be able to do it - but it would still slow commerce to a snail's pace and bankrupt the government. And then where are we going to find the hundreds of thousands of people it will take (if not more) to create a Korea-style DMZ along our 7,514 miles of land borders (there are 150 miles of border between the Koreas, and there are up to 2,000,000 - yes, million - people guarding it). Never mind the 95,000 miles of shoreline, and the 500 million people who cross our borders every year. It sounds nice, but it is utterly and completely impossible.

    As for the "sniffers..." I wouldn't worry too much about normal gunpowder residue being a problem. My car is swiped by an "Itemizer" at least once per day, and it spends a good deal of time at busy range complexes. I once did TDY duty at a nuke plant, where you were "sniffed" every day - that plant had its own firing range where I would train my guys, and we would pass through the sniffer right afterwards with no problem. The only problem I ever did have was with my personal "flak vest" that had been near countless uses of high explosives and never been washed - the sniffer detected trace amounts on it.

    And then we have the original argument - illegal search. That is very highly debatable, as you are in a public place with no expectation of privacy. If you're walking through a train station, you are being video taped. Don't want to be video taped? Don't ride the train... This is possibly on the edge, but it's nothing close to bugging your house or ransacking your office files without a warrant...

    Is there the potential for government abuse of power? Certainly, there always is. Sniffing for high explosives seems like an unlikely conduit for it, however.

    Import / Export Hubs - Cargo (every piece) and PAX (every person) - Sea, Air, and Land - First, I do not care what it costs. The people, the government should not have to pay for it - the government will operate it and businesses doing the exporting and importing will pay the full cost of installation, operation, and maintenance plus an additional percentage for future expansion. Businesses do not want to pay - good then no import to the USA. I am not interested in China's or any other country's economy, I am not interested in Global Economy or the agreements N or S of us.

    Borders - land and water - patrol by UAV and a fence (land and water) just like the Korean DMZ. Authorize and require Use of Deadly Force - No Man's Land. One very hard border with some rovers inside better than perceived protected small areas.

    A country who does not control it's borders, is not in control of it's defense from terrorism, gangs, drugs, WMD, etc - if one can get in then they all can get in.

    The USA does not need camera's and other bs like the UK and others has, we have the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution, Citizens not Subjects.

    There is no need to give up any freedom for any security - real or perceived security. Most of the so-called security is "perceived".

    I realize some are accustomed and adjusted to such things due to their jobs either due to habit, routine, or for $$$$ but some of us learned to not fall into the loop.

    Yes, many times international movement of cargo and people, in many different parts of the world.

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array AZ Husker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    4,244
    Why are we so set on guarding other country's borders when we ignore our own?

  10. #24
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,807
    Quote Originally Posted by AZ Husker View Post
    Why are we so set on guarding other country's borders when we ignore our own?
    Short-term focus. Basically, it's because "keeping the world safe for 'democracy'" seems sexier than keeping the streets clean. Because business interests see higher rewards compared to keeping the streets clean, the infrastructure strong, the population educated. Combating "crumbling" doesn't appear to pay the bills, at least in the short term.

    Some are set on that. I am not. I'd like to think there are a few who disbelieve the line and can change the course of the ship before it augers in.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  11. #25
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,709
    Um, without getting into some Keynesian debate here, the consumer ALWAYS pays for increases in business costs. The people WILL pay for everything you suggest - if importers must pay, then the cost of their goods go up. If we increase tarriffs on their goods in order to pay, then the cost of their goods will go up (and the countries of origin may increase tarriffs on our goods as well, hurting US manufacturers/exporters). As many on here are fond of saying (and they're absolutely right) - there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

    As for why we're engaged with the rest of the world... You may not care about China's economy right now, but you'll certainly care when those 1.3 billion unemployed, starving, desperate Chinese start looking outward to fulfill their basic needs... This is a global economy, and it is entirely interdependent. You may not like it, or be interested in it, but it is - you may not be interested in gravity, either, but just try levitating yourself to work today... The US would cease to function IMMEDIATELY if we stopped importing from other countries and/or stopped exporting to other countries. To believe otherwise is a fun intellectual exercise, but is just as big a 'fantasy world' as the crime free utopias that so many antis live in.

    Sorry, folks, we CANNOT control our borders. Did you look at the numbers I posted earlier? Do you realize their significance? There are 2 million armed people on a mined, fenced, massively patrolled border that stretches only 150 miles...and stuff (and people) still sneak across! And this is with very, very little legitimate cross border traffic, compared to the million-plus people who legally cross our borders every day.. Now, our land borders are 50 times longer than the DMZ - so even if we are 50 times as efficient in guarding them, we'll need 2,000,000 people to do it. And we'll need to close the borders to almost all normal traffic. And stuff will still get through. And if we aren't more efficient, then 1 in 3 Americans will have to work the fence in order to prevent most stuff from getting through. Now, we've got about a dozen times as much shore line as we do land borders...millions and millions of square miles of territorial waters. If you think for a second that we can lock these down with a few UAVs and some sort of 'sea fence,' I think any honest discussion of the subject is impossible.

    I wish we could actually secure our borders. I wish we could actually and properly inspect every single item that came into the United States. Unfortunately, the costs (both in actual money and in far reaching global repercussions) would be worse for the US than a nuke going off in NYC. Like we say, the situation is what it is, not what we would like it to be...
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  12. #26
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,807
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    As for why we're engaged with the rest of the world...
    The question was not about engagement, which is certainly necessary and can be a very good thing. Rather, it was about deeming the protection of others' borders more important than its own, which if done haughtily and ruthlessly almost assuredly ends up a bad thing.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  13. #27
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,709
    What borders do you believe we are considering "more important" than our own? Not disagreeing, just interested.

    And I certainly agree that protecting your borders "haughtily and ruthlessly" can end up hurting a lot more than it helps...
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  14. #28
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,766
    Here is a report with a spreadsheet with historic figures of the US troop deployment and what countries they have been in up to 2003.

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Nat...pMarch2005.xls

    Based on this sheet we have had between 14 and 32 % of our armed forces on foriegn soil between 1950 and 2004 at any given time. These are pretty high numbers, and in my opinion put a pretty large emphasis on protecting some other countries boarders. The way I read the charts we have troops in 139 counties with more than 100 in 85 countries, and more than 1000 in 54 countries.

    If we had a desire to control our borders we could. This is not the DMZ, there is not another army waiting for us to drop our guard with Canada, or Mexico, and have regiments of tanks and so forth pouring into our country. A much lighter and swifter use of the military and technology on the boarder than what is used in Korea would be warranted. There really should be no comparison between those two types of border security.

    There is no easy answer, but if more focus was put on our borders, and less emphasis on other regions in the world where we have no duty to protect, we would be doing ourselves a favor.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  15. #29
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,709
    farronwolf, you know full well that we're not standing on the actual borders of any country in the world that we're not engaged in some sort of hostilities with. We're not keeping illegals out of Germany or inspecting cargo in Japan - these aren't legitimate comparisons of "border security." And we do have obligations to some of them via treaty, and some of them via our own best interests. We aren't over in these places for our health, right? There has to be some benefit to the US, even if most people don't understand that... Secure shipping, production of manufactured goods, supplies of natural resources, stable regimes that don't attack the US (or harbor folks who will) and so on and so on. This is what won the Cold War, lest we forget - had we bunkered down in our own country, we would now stand alone against a massive Eurasian Communist Bloc that could wipe us out at will. Isolationism didn't work in WWI, WWII, the Cold War...and it won't work now. (On a smaller scale, our overseas presence and global economic clout recently brought Lybia in from the cold - would you rather there be more late 80s Lybias or fewer?

    And you're right about Korea - they have it easier in many ways. Yes, we don't have to worry (much) about armored columns swooping up from Tijuana, but then North Korea doesn't have to worry about millions upon millions of people trying to sneak INTO their country every year, nor are they screening 1,000,000 + people a day who are crossing the border legitimately. But, in any case, I proposed that we could do it 50 times as efficiently - that still means 2 million Americans working the borders in one capacity or another... Assume we are more efficient by a factor of 100 - that's still a million 'border guards' of some sort.

    In the end, I agree to a large extent - we need to secure our borders better. That is a far cry from actually securing them, which is impossible no matter how much we spend (and it will cost a LOT) or how many bodies we send to Blythe or how many walls and fences we build. And, if we actually were able to stop anything and everything from moving into and out of the country, where would that leave us?
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Your employer,your privacy and your CHL
    By poppy37 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: March 18th, 2011, 11:15 PM
  2. Phony search warrant used in home invasion
    By DaveH in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: August 21st, 2010, 08:17 AM
  3. Police search for home invasion suspect in school
    By DaveH in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 25th, 2009, 01:14 PM
  4. Privacy vs. the Right to Know
    By Bumper in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: April 15th, 2007, 07:01 PM

Search tags for this page

aclu eleagl search
,
aclu illegal search
,
aclu what constitutes illegal search?
,
america buys anti-terrorist spotter device from qinetiq
,

an illegal search can be an invasion of privacy

,
an illegal search can be an invasion of privacy is this true or false
,

an illegal search can be an invasion of privacy.

,

an unauthorized search is not an invasion of privacy

,
illegal search can be an invasion of privacy
,
illegal search invasion of privacy
,
invasion of privacy military
,
is an illegal search an invasion of privacy
Click on a term to search for related topics.