I say it would not bother me, I have nothing to hide let them search.:)

I was scanned for trace explosives when I was on my way back from my aunt's funeral. I guess the X-ray machine showed a bunch of tangled 'wires' or something in my carryon luggage. Those 'tangled wires' were actually pieces of jewellery left me in my aunt's will. I thought the whole thing was very amusing and my aunt would have got a chuckle out of the idea that I was suspected of wanting to blow up the airport with her authentic pearls and gold filligree pendant. Incidentally, all this happened on my arrival at home. No one had lifted an eyebrow at Avalon Airport on my dpearture! So what, you only become a threat on the ground in Aus?

I don't mind the searching and scanning. It may be an invasion of my privacy for a minute or two, but it is also a precaution for my, and everyone else's safety.

RYC: I don't mind if you don't read the story. You might like my other fiction better, or not. I have a historical (Australian) novel in the final editing phase before I send it out to publishers, at present.

Shalom Haverim!

I believe it is a violation of a person's rights. I don't like the airport security checks. There are much better ways to protect people on airplanes. It is stupidity that leads us to take away knives and such. If most of the passengers were carrying a knife do you think a few terrorists would have any chance of hijacking it. I think it is an unnecessary inconveniance.

The only qualm I have with the scanning of phone records is that there *is* a law against it, contrary to popular belief.  If they want to do it, they need to change the law to clearly reflect that fact.  I don't mind surveilence really... as much as I mind the sneakiness.

Well, let's see here....transportation is not a right. Now, do I particularly care for airport security checks? No, because I don't like that, by some bizarre twist of fate, the profile of your average soldier fits the profile of your average neo-nazi white supremist. As such I've had "random" baggage checks hit me more often than a lot of people. I dislike it, but I comply for a simple reason: Transportation that will put me anywhere in the country in under 6 hours is not a right. It's a privlege afforded me by corporations. So if that means that I have to then comply with their policies which reflect government policies....then so be it.

I do my blogs throughout the day. I post to ten other sites at a time so I have time to read what they have to say thoughly. I do my blogs for me about issues that come up in my life. I read a lot so have a lot of material in my head. My passion is writing. I have two books almost ready to go. It relaxes me to write.  The blogs are not really work for me but pleasure. Judi

The two key elements to determining whether "unreasonable searches and seizures" have taken place in violation of the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution are intent (i.e. ". . . upon probable cause . . ." - did it exist?) and scope (i.e. Was the warrant, order or law "particular [about] describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"?).

In every single recent case (including the completely overblown phone scans and taps), the government has been able to clearly demonstrate positive intent and commensurate scope regarding the nature of the searches.

Also, as Steve succinctly-yet-wisely states, being able to board an aircraft is not a Constitutionally protected right. When you buy an airline ticket, you acquiesce to abide by the processes the airline, the airport and the government have instated. Don't like it? Take boat. Or, if it's domestic, rent a car.

Having my picture taken in public is no different than someone writing down a note that they saw me at Wal-Mart at 1:17PM on June 1, 2006. There is no law against someone recording my presence in a public place. Similarly, there should be no law against someone taking my photograph in a public place. It is merely another form of documentation taken by a private citizen or corporation. When this is done by governments, again we return to the "intent" and "scope" clauses of the 4th Amendment. If a government has documented a pattern of speeding or red-light running at a particular intersection, then that governmental entity is well within its perogative to put up a camera at said intersection. Its intent is to provide public safety. Its scope is the intersection of Orange Ave. and Central Blvd.

I'm curious as to what "right" or "rights" one feels are being "surrendered". Please do not say "right to privacy" . . . because no matter how hard one looks, that is NOT a provision of the United States Constitution.

It is a violation of federal law to use any type of scanning or recieving device to intercept cellular telephone calls.  Cellular telephone calls are not governed by the same rules as radio or other public transmissions.  Cellular telephone calls are considered private between the sender and recipient.  This is a common misperception.

I dislike immensely the airport searches.  However, I would have to agree with PFCsteve.  Don't forget the satellite cameras that are probably much more effective than we can imagine at seeing what is going on down here.  And that thought brings me to a different sort of thought.  We have someone watching us constantly from much higher than a satellite.  If we keep Him in mind none of the rest of who's watching us really matters much!

tim

casey_at_bat is awesome. We do have Someone watching us from much higher than the satellite at all times. I trust that Someone alot more though. I don't think He is nearly as liable to abuse His power.

Dear Susan,

I'd like first of all to thank you for the continued visits to my blog and for your comments. I'd like to comment about your "Life's Little Lessons" post on the 29th. I work in the electrical industry. I do the estimating and design electrical control systems. I also test all the panels we build, and whenever the electricity is applied to a new device, we  call 'stand back" because you never know what will happen. I've know at least one worker who knew an acquantance who has been electrocuted. I was trouble shooting a panel at a food processing plant once and lost my footing while holding my tester. The only thing to grab was the stainless steel door of the panel, and I got a nice jolt of 480 volts through my  body. It was enough to make me see stars and I had to "relax" for a few moments before getting back to work.

Electricity is something we can't live without, but it can be very dangerous when it isn't respected.

Michael F. Nyiri, poet, philosopher, fool  

Re: "Building_A_Mystery"'s comment pertaining to cell phone calls.

A search warrant is the legal, constitutionally-defined process by which government and law enforcement supercede standard legal practice. Regardless of whether or not individual states or Congress pass laws that say it is illegal to go into someone's home while they're away at work, the Constitution provides for this practice.

Same is true of cell phones transmissions. 

Sword - you are correct, but the discussion is of phone calls being scanned *without* a warrant.

I'm pretty sure this is my first visit.  I've checked out a few of your entries and like what I see.  (It was through Featured_Grownups that I found you.)

As for this entry, I'm all for civil liberties, but what is airport security for unless it's to make sure that 9/11 doesn't happen again?  When I fly, I want some assurance that there aren't nutcases aboard who are going to take over the plane.

I gladly let them frisk me and check my baggage in the interest of safety for all.