Hidden Government Scanners Will Instantly Know Everything About You From 164 Feet Away

reply to post by Mister1k


You defeat your own argument with reasoning like that. I never said I consented to everything though I have little doubt some government out there knows about me. The point I am trying to make is that scanner technology is, and will always be, better than a physical pat down.

Originally posted by lonewolf10
well then, the way to defeat this is to get a tiny spray bottle filled with water and traces of cannabis and gunpowder and go through crowds of people and casually "mist" everyone with it.

when the pigs start pulling everyone that shows positive out for a search, and find nothing, the s will htf.

Am I only the only one who seems to notice that the government is always super efficient at finding ways to rape the people, be it relieving you of your time, money, or simply subjecting you to embarrassing and infuriating checkpoints, but then they cant even fix the damn potholes in the roads which we already pay to use?

I'm so disgusted at what is being allowed to happen in the name of "safety" in addition to the government looking at the public as nothing more than a source of revenue.

All this is going to do is make peope either:

a. Just stop going out or traveling to avoid the hassle, which will further cripple the economy.

or

b. Do what I and a few pilot friends did and start offering rates to be flown on a private plane, from a private airstrip to another private airstrip. No hassle, no molestation, no cattle herding, just travel as it used to be, and SHOULD be god damnit!

this whole thing is just another step on the path to human irrelevancy - when we are jailing people for poppy seeds and melatonin we are saying people and there humanity have no place in this world.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by Honor93

 

Actually, some blokes down here in Sydney put bong water in a spray bottle and sprayed it all over our city trains when the Govt had the bright idea of using sniffer dogs on trains and at stations. It worked a treat and left the people who authorised it very red faced.

NICE! Finally a way to put that bong water to good use! Next time I'm going anywhere where they might be having sniffer dogs, I'm taking a 10ml bottle filled with bong water


OT: Disgusting... If anyone is still in doubts on where the US is headed, I don't think they ever will figure it out until after it's too late to turn it back around... The US used to be my favorite country Now it's my least favorite (has been for a while, it's obvious where it's going if nothing changes)

Originally posted by AlonzoTyper

Am I only the only one who seems to notice that the government is always super efficient at finding ways to rape the people, be it relieving you of your time, money, or simply subjecting you to embarrassing and infuriating checkpoints, but then they cant even fix the damn potholes in the roads which we already pay to use?

I'm so disgusted at what is being allowed to happen in the name of "safety" in addition to the government looking at the public as nothing more than a source of revenue.

No you are not alone in noticing that Alonzo.
I notice and so do many others.

I am disgusted as well.

Austerity means the elite get to steal even more money and lock down society into a fascist like system IMO.
The elites do not suffer through the bad times-they get rich off the oppression of the poor.
And there are so many poor today,they love it.

Originally posted by MysteriousHusky
This may sound surprising, but I welcome this news. Molecular scanning technology has been long overdue. Tell me fellow reader, would you rather if given a choice

a) be subjected to a pat down
b) be taken into a room for a frisky search
c) be scanned from a respectable distance

I personally would choose B, but that's just me. I too lay most of the blame on the forerunners to these programs, such as the Patriot Act. That set a precedent that will continued to be topped for a good while, until the people get fed up enough...Hopefully by that time though enough of the military will be on the peoples' side, because if not, civilians will die by the thousands, imo.

And I was worried about Idare's new fingerprint scanner. This knocks that out of the ballpark. I hope sanity returns before we make a reality of THX 1138....

Alright, let me hop in here and give a detailed opinion on the matter.

The most obvious initial question is whether this method of search is legal. This is not simple to answer. The root of the question stands at the Fourth Amendment. Is this an illegal search? This is about interpretation of the law.

We have the common law trespass test and the reasonable expectation to privacy test. The common law trespass test essentially states the government can't intrude on your property without probable cause. The reasonable expectation to privacy was established in Katz V. United States. This test asks two questions. First, did the person have an expectation of privacy? Second, does society view such an expectation to be reasonable? These are the basis for protection under the Fourth Amendment.

In United States V. Jones, while they mostly stuck to dealing with the common law trespass, they did touch upon some topics relevant here. Chief Justice Scalia had this to say:

The concurrence begins by accusing us of applying“18th-century tort law.” Post, at 1. That is a distortion. What we apply is an 18th-century guarantee against unreasonable searches, which we believe must provide at a minimum the degree of protection it afforded when it was adopted. The concurrence does not share that belief. It would apply exclusively Katz’s reasonable-expectationof-privacy test, even when that eliminates rights that previously existed.

The concurrence faults our approach for “present[ing] particularly vexing problems” in cases that do not involve physical contact, such as those that involve the transmission of electronic signals. Post, at 9. We entirely fail to understand that point. For unlike the concurrence, which would make Katz the exclusive test, we do not make trespass the exclusive test. Situations involving merely the transmission of electronic signals without trespass would remain subject to Katz analysis.

In fact, it is the concurrence’s insistence on the exclusivity of the Katz test that needlessly leads us into “particularly vexing problems” in the present case. This Court has to date not deviated from the understanding that mere visual observation does not constitute a search. See Kyllo, 533 U. S., at 31–32. We accordingly held in Knotts that “[a] person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another.” 460 U. S., at 281. Thus, even assuming that the concurrence is correct to say that “[t]raditional surveillance” of Jones for a 4-weekperiod “would have required a large team of agents, multiple vehicles, and perhaps aerial assistance,” post, at 12, our cases suggest that such visual observation is constitutionally permissible. It may be that achieving the same result through electronic means, without an accompanying trespass, is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy,but the present case does not require us to answer that question.
....
We may have to grapple with these “vexing problems” in some future case where a classic trespassory search is not involved and resort must be had to Katz analysis; but there is no reason for rushing forward to resolve them here.

Emphasis added to the parts I felt particularly important to this issue. They explicitly say that such instances will defer to the Katz ruling. So we need to take a closer look at that case in particular to try and get an idea how the court would approach this issue.

As stated, the two part question when it comes to the Katz ruling is whether the person had an expectation of privacy and whether that privacy expectation is reasonable.

In the same case Jones, Sotomayor had this to say about just such a topic:
[continued in next post]

More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. E.g., Smith, 442 U. S., at 742; United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435, 443 (1976). This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks. People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers; the URLs that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers; and the books, groceries, and medications they purchase to online retailers. Perhaps, as JUSTICE ALITO notes, some people may find the “tradeoff” of privacy for convenience “worthwhile,” or come to accept this “diminution of privacy” as “inevitable,” post, at 10, and perhaps not. I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the Government of a list of every Web site they had visited in the last week, or month, or year. But whatever the societal expectations, they can attain constitutionally protected status only if our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence ceases to treat secrecy as a prerequisite for privacy.

I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection. See Smith, 442 U. S., at 749 (Marshall, J., dissenting) (“Privacy is not a discrete commodity, possessed absolutely or not at all. Those who disclose certain facts to a bank or phone company for a limited business purpose need not assume that this information will be released to other persons for other purposes”); see also Katz, 389 U. S., at 351–352 (“[W]hat [a person] seeks to preserve as private,even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected”).

Emphasis added to highlight the application to this specific topic. "Ceases to treat secrecy as a prerequisite for privacy." is important to note because this may mean that at airports and other areas are public areas that you should have no expectation for privacy, and such an expectation would be unreasonable. As a result, Katz would not apply and coverage under the constitution would have no basis unless one was created. If such a stance was taken by the court, than such scanners would not violate your Fourth Amendment rights under either test.

It would then be up to the court justices to either A. Modify/update the view of the Katz decision or B. allow such devices to be used.

Next I must note the case of United States V. Epperson (1972). While it was not a Supreme Court case, it can give insight as to how this topic will be approached.

Epperson claims that the pistol and ammunition should not have been introduced into evidence because they were the products of an illegal search. He argues that (1) the use of the magnetometer was a "search", and (2) since there was no warrant and the circumstances do not fall within any of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement, the search was in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The use of a Magnetometer is a similar case to this as both are technology based items that search areas where people "expect privacy". This is how the court responded:

The danger is so well known, the governmental interest so overwhelming, and the invasion of privacy so minimal, that the warrant requirement is excused by exigent national circumstances. ... The Constitution does not forbid searches and seizures: it forbids only those that are unreasonable. ...The reasonableness of any search must be determined by balancing the governmental interest in searching against the invasion of privacy which the search entails. These interests must be balanced at two stages: the search must be "justified at its inception" and "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place." ... Such a search is more than reasonable; it is a compelling necessity to protect essential air commerce and the lives of passengers.

openjurist.org...

I would suggest reading the ruling itself to get a good idea of the stance they took. Needless to say, the Fourth Amendment may not protect us from such searches. It is worth noting however that the Supreme Court may not take such a stance and could offer a ruling that protects privacy, or interprets the Fourth Amendment differently. The above ruling was merely an example of how it could end up.

At the end of the day, when these devices begin to get implemented, I suspect this topic will DEFINITELY reach the Supreme Court, as Justice Scalia accurately anticipated in his ruling, and it will be a very important case that will define whether we have a right to privacy.

Oh I guess I forgot to add my own personal based emotion driven opinion on the matter haha. Well, I think it's a good idea in airports and such, as it would be a much more effective means of security. Unfortunately, I find the device to be WAY too open to abuses and because rules MUST be applied uniformly, I can't see any way in which to justify its existence.

As Justice Scalia pointed out, it would be a very complicated matter once you start trying to flesh out all sorts of guidelines. What constitutional and legal basis would such guidelines have? Would they conflict with other laws or amendments? It would be a very complicated matter, with a variety of abuses just waiting to be exploited.

If it were to be strictly used in specific places, for a very specific purpose, I'd be okay with it. But legally, there's nothing to indicate that would be the case.

reply to post by jcarpenter


Hey mate, easy solution. You come over here. Leave the brain dead there. Every ones a winner!

Originally posted by sdocpublishing
reply to post by babybunnies

 

The re-election of George Bush was not a mandate regarding anything.

There is more evidence of voter fraud and count tampering in that election thank you can take the time to read.

The Patriot Act would have been passed no matter who was "elected" President of the U.S.

Please don't confuse our corrupt government with the will of the people, they have nothing in common.

I can understand what you are trying to say but the problem is that there is no will of the people remaining. If there was, the corrupt Govt. wouldn't be a problem anymore.

Peace

can the american govt really afford this? i mean maybe in some big cities but the united states is a pretty big place.

Originally posted by biggmoneyme
can the american govt really afford this? i mean maybe in some big cities but the united states is a pretty big place.

Cheaper than drones and they have 30,000 of those rolling out. Even tho the citizens are broke, the Govt. keeps taking what little they have left and using their own money to imprison them in their own houses.

Pretty nifty racket huh?



Peace

Originally posted by Kryties
I mean this in the nicest possible way but.....

...it will be a cold day in hell before I travel to the US and be subjected to this sort of treatment. [/quote

What? You don't like freedom? LOL. I don;t see what they'd have to gain from knowing how much my jock is sweating...

reply to post by Moneyisgodlifeisrented


But it will really be the iluminati behind the scenes making this person that and judging this person to be that and create these laws to imprison these types of people and do this to bank of these corporations. Yup , we got the just of what good ole' big #ing brother wants to #ing do to his own people! Now do you want to know what my next question will be mother #ers?

Originally posted by MysteriousHusky
This may sound surprising, but I welcome this news. Molecular scanning technology has been long overdue. Tell me fellow reader, would you rather if given a choice

a) be subjected to a pat down
b) be taken into a room for a frisky search
c) be scanned from a respectable distance

all knowing that your fellow passengers receive the same treatment thus securing a safe flight. In regards to this crossing the boundaries of yourself these boundaries are required to be crossed when you fly/travel internationally. Countries have very strict import laws whether you are smuggling drugs or just a new breed of toad into their ecosystem.

P.S. They will not know everything about you. Ex. Your favourite sports team.

edit on 10-7-2012 by MysteriousHusky because: P.S.

People like you wll fit in quite nicely in the New World.
You definitely don't need to worry about any FEMA camps.

They will need people to man these machines and
You are exactly the type of person that would love to do it.
I say, GO FOR IT!!!

Just remember,
There are some people out there who will not share your passion about violating people's human rights
who have access to machines of thier own. These machines may be using technology that is quite old but they WILL get the job done. Good luck out there.

reply to post by jude11


Your right , that is called"Racketeering", that is what has been going on against the American culture and its people by those that have lied to us constantly with their fake ass bribes to get every bit of greedy #ing money they could to imprison us to be able to get more! Yup I see what this system is doing to itself , clear as #ing day and it disturbs me so much, that i'm glad I have no longer had to deal with that petty faggot bull# anymore! When I need some panzy ass mother #er that wants to beat, ridicule, rape, embarass, and whatever the # else, then I'll give them a #ing phone call, but since they have already done that #,then it's time for the LORD to take action against you #s!

the TSA would have a heyday with me then.......i almost always have traces of solvents, gunpowder, oils, etc on me......its called WORKING FOR A LIVING.......

Originally posted by lonewolf10
well then, the way to defeat this is to get a tiny spray bottle filled with water and traces of cannabis and gunpowder and go through crowds of people and casually "mist" everyone with it.

when the pigs start pulling everyone that shows positive out for a search, and find nothing, the s will htf.

Exactly. Overwhelm their input. The same way that everyone should put every single "trigger word" in their email signature so that DHS/NSA can't see the trees for the forest.