Additional Pages

Monday, November 15, 2010

There Is A Limit To Implied Consent

I have been disturbed for a long time about these full body scanners. I know it is all futuristic and cool to see what people have on under their clothes without the actual disrobing, but there is a level of privacy one should not give up just to get on a flight.

Initially, I will admit that I approved of a lot of the increased security provided by TSA. It seemed to make sense in the wake of our national tragedy, but like most things the government gets a hold of, it goes too far, costs too much and does too little. Now, with the full body scanners, I believe this a step too far. Also, the way the Obama Administration has handled the protests over these scanners incites revolt.

Again and again the federal government is incapable of finding a way to handle resistance in a reasonable and comprehensible manner. For instance, instead of listening to the complaints and coming up with an incentive to encourage people to participate in the naked body revelation machine, they brought the hammer down and used force. "You don't like it? You don't have to fly!" Typical leftists.

Were the federal government to think like a businessperson, it would look at the advantages of using the machine and encourage people to use it to speed up the security screening process. How about this: If you go through the machine, it works like a speed aisle at the supermarket. If you refuse, you go to the other line and stand with the others, who, for whatever reason, don't want naked pictures of themselves showing up on the Internet after the TSA convention in Las Vegas. Or, you could just scarp the stupid idea and go back to the traditional and time-accepted method of removing shoes, opening laptop cases, revealing the little baggy full of creams and lotions. There is a limit ot implied consent.

Yeah, I know, they spent a lot of money on the machines, taxpayer money. If you recall, the whole way along the process, they promised that they wouldn't be able to see anything, there would be no definitional clarity. Compare those statements to the recent reverse negative pictures of the girl.

This is just a stupid idea and I think people should just take a day and stop the whole airline industry in its tracks by refusing to go through the machine and refusing to move along. Protest the thing in a way that they will cave, cause millions of phone calls in protest to the DHS. We are just going to have to get more and more radical when it comes to dealing with this bunch in Washington. They are not us, they do not get it.

Cross-posted at WASHINGTON REBEL.


  1. T.L.

    Think about this - more and more people are going to refuse to fly. Airlines go belly-up. Feds step in and take over airlines (think GM.) When you control the movement of folks you control the folks.

    You are also conditioning people to accept a level of personal intrusion that is unacceptable while in no way improving our safety. other question is: how are they dealing with the Muslims who are refusing the body scans? Think they'll put up with an intrusive pat down?

    Profiling is nothing more than prudence in action and I do believe prudence is a virtue.

    Ok - a whole bunch of unrelated paragraphs off the top of my twee head ;-)

    Have you every read Tom Baugh's "Starving the Monkeys?" While he's a bit off on some things (after all, no one but Jesus was 100% on)he has some interesting things to say.

    Your number one fan...

  2. And if you get in line, then change your mind, you will get a big fat fine....

  3. Adrienne, great points all. Along the lines of Blue, I thought of Scope or Grope?

  4. If you refuse to submit to the scope, careful, careful, you get the grope....

  5. "...The government should not be in this business, but the minute we bought the idea that seat belts would save lives and subjected ourselves to the law requiring us to make good decisions about our own health we lost the personal responsibility argument..."
    Goes right along with "how much are we going to give up for our security?" To surrender our rights of privacy is to surrender all our rights. To argue otherwise, seems to me, is like saying, "It's just a little sin and doesn't matter to God," when we know better because God says, "He who is guilty of one is guilty of all."
    My perspective on it, anyway- not saying it's right for everyone 'cuz we all have to live with our decisions.
    Shy III

  6. Excellent observation! Once you go down that road it is a one way trip. One sin is as great as all.

  7. I fly out of KC at least once a month. Sometimes more, to various states. Most places, if you're in the right line (depending on your point of view) you can get'cher pitcher took OR go through the regular noise maker. I discovered this sweet secret after the first time I got the scan. I'm not worried about my picture ending up on the www but it was kind of like eating brussle sprouts. I don't like that either. But, when I see people going through security with their faces covered it sends chills up my spine. I don't mind being in the slow lane.

  8. There is a simple rule we should all follow when deciding whether a law is a good idea:

    NEVER give a power to government that you would not trust your worst enemy with.

    Under this rule, the majority of legislation becomes dangerous to citizens in the wrong hands. Many of the laws passed post-9-11 may have been justified (although reactionary in nature), but we must always consider how they can be abused. We now see the acceleration of that abuse. It will get worse. Much worse.



Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.