The Reluctant SingerA Traveler's Thoughts
About this Entry
Posted by: thereluctantsinger

Visit thereluctantsinger's Xanga Site

Original: 2/7/2008 7:24 PM
Comments: 16
eProps: 12

Read Comments
Post a Comment
Back to Your Xanga Site



Thursday, February 07, 2008
 

Now This Is Going Too Far

In the past, I have had no problem with the government intercepting and electronically analyzing phone conversations. No transmissions were actually being listened to, and only digital patterns that indicated possible illegal activity ever raised any flags.

I have complained about the level of security at airports. It is ridiculous and shows no regard for a healthy balance between the need for security and for customer convenience. Most frequent flyers, however, have indicated a willingness to tolerate this inconvenience in the interest of getting to their destinations.

But now the Homeland Security Office has gone too far. It is not just searching the shoes of little old ladies; it has started searching the data on private laptop computers and the names stored in cell phones. It is also copying any text messages found on cell phones and reviewing corporate proprietary information in email messages on laptops along with data in Word and Excel Files. Equipment is actually being confiscated for review, and is often not being returned. The TSA has even grabbed MP3 players and ipods for data review. Ellen Nakashima of The Washington Post has published more about this ativity today. Here is the link.

This is a clear violation of individual and corporate rights, because it goes beyond electronic surveillance and involves illegal seizure of private property. I have no doubt that the courts will find this activity unconstitutional once it is challenged. What I don't understand is why these actions have not been challenged to this point.

Folks, this is the tipping point, I think, where we must draw the line in the sand and say enough is enough.
 Posted 2/7/2008 7:24 PM - 16 comments

Give eProps or Post a Comment

16 Comments

Visit tx_christian's Xanga Site!
I have been trying to point out for the last 7 years, that if we give them an inch of our freedom they will take a mile. Or to put it in the words of our forefathers, who sacrificed so much to give us this freedom in the first place... "He that would surrender essential liberty in exchange for temporary freedom will lose both."
Posted 2/7/2008 7:51 PM by tx_christian Xanga True Member Xanga Lifetime Member - reply

Visit tx_christian's Xanga Site!
** temporary safety
Posted 2/7/2008 7:52 PM by tx_christian Xanga True Member Xanga Lifetime Member - reply

Visit GermanWrench's Xanga Site!
Well, from what I understand, on a military base it's pretty well assumed that every cell phone conversation is intercepted -- not just the digital information. This applies to civilians and service members alike. (No, I have no proof, but there's plenty of... speculation, from trusted sources.) Of course, this doesn't bother me personally (since I have nothing to hide), but it does offend the Libertarian in me.

My theory? It's a scam to get people to buy "security-approved" devices while they're waiting to board. Heck, they have iPod machines next to the soda machines nowadays -- swipe your credit card and buy an iPod. I'm willing to bet that homeland security is getting full support from air port vendors for all they do. What really scares me, though, is the fact that the new passports have a radio chip with all of your passport's information on it. Put it in your pocket and someone can just walk by and scan your information.
Posted 2/7/2008 10:58 PM by GermanWrench Xanga True Member - reply

Visit jassmine's Xanga Site!
We need to draw a line. Judi
Posted 2/7/2008 11:35 PM by jassmine Xanga True Member Xanga Premium Member - reply

Visit SwordAndSacrifice's Xanga Site!

Alright, alright . . . let's all just take a deep breath here and think about some things.

The Constitilitution of the United States does not guarantee the "right to fly". If we wish to travel somewhere for personal pleasure, then we must agree to abide by the rules of the particular carrier with whom we choose to fly. If we want to charter our own plane or take a bus or train, then we are perfectly welcome to spend our travel dollars elsewhere.

If a company is foolish enough to allow its proprietary data to be downloaded by the government, then they deserve everything they have coming to them. I doubt this information comes as news to most CIOs. It remains their responsibility to protect their information. Don't like the rules? Buy a corporate charter.

The government's overriding constitutional interest here is covered under the phrase "general welfare". There is no mention in the Great Document of "freedom of hassle-free airport access".

Posted 2/8/2008 2:32 AM by SwordAndSacrifice Xanga True Member Xanga Premium Member - reply

Visit WyomingSheepRanch's Xanga Site!
This is about the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure.
Posted 2/8/2008 8:57 AM by WyomingSheepRanch - reply

Visit SwordAndSacrifice's Xanga Site!

@WyomingSheepRanch - Nothing's being seized and the traveler is submitting to the search voluntarily. If they weren't, they'd be at the bus station or train depot. The 4th Amendment is inapplicable.

See previous comment.

Posted 2/8/2008 8:31 PM by SwordAndSacrifice Xanga True Member Xanga Premium Member - reply

Visit WomanOfLight's Xanga Site!

@SwordAndSacrifice - 

I fail to see what is so voluntary about submitting to this search. Also, not all plane trips are for pleasure... many trips are for business (livelihood), emergency of one sort or the other, etc.
Posted 2/8/2008 8:53 PM by WomanOfLight Xanga True Member Xanga Lifetime Member - reply

Visit WyomingSheepRanch's Xanga Site!
When a federal agency will prohibit you from boarding an airplane if you do not comply with their requests (read: coercion), the 4th Amendment is entirely applicable.

then we must agree to abide by the rules of the particular carrier with whom we choose to fly.

You seem to be confusing TSA policy for the regulations of private carriers.
Posted 2/8/2008 9:49 PM by WyomingSheepRanch - reply

Visit thereluctantsinger's Xanga Site!
COERCION! That's the word I've been looking for. Sorry Sword, but I think you're way off-base with this one. What the TSA is doing at some international airports is so clear a violation of our Constitutional rights that if this weren't so tragic I wouldn't believe it possible for it to be happening in America.
Posted 2/9/2008 5:26 AM by thereluctantsinger - reply

Visit WyomingSheepRanch's Xanga Site!
Nothing's being seized

I missed that part before. Downloading data from the computer constitutes, at the very least, the seizure of intellectual property. For attorneys, it could be confidential work product. For a doctor it could be protected medical records. For an inventor, a potentially lucrative unpatented blueprint.
Posted 2/9/2008 10:23 AM by WyomingSheepRanch - reply

Visit thereluctantsinger's Xanga Site!

@WyomingSheepRanch: - Maria Udy, a marketing executive with a global travel management firm in Bethesda, says her laptop was taken in 2006 and she hasn't received it back yet.

Posted 2/9/2008 4:06 PM by thereluctantsinger - reply

Visit SwordAndSacrifice's Xanga Site!

@thereluctantsinger - Well, there ya go, then.

Better shut down the TSA. That computer represents the Consitution.

Again, people - you bought the ticket. This means you agreed to play by the rules. If you don't like the rules, don't buy the ticket. It's only coercion if you have no other choice. Rent a car. Take a tain. Buy a bus ticket. It seems to work for John Madden.

I will repeat again, since no one seems to have caught it the first time: there is no consititutional protection for easy access to air travel. It is not one of the things the government is obligated to do. The government IS, however, obligated to provide fo the common defense and to promote the general welfare. As I said, the 4th Amendment test fails because in purchasing the ticket, you have submitted to the search. There is even a legal declaration on airline tickets that says as much.

The government, however inconvenient it may be making the practice of moving through an airport, would be remiss in its constitutional obligations if it were easy to, oh, say, carry a bomb on board an aircraft.

Posted 2/10/2008 5:40 AM by SwordAndSacrifice Xanga True Member Xanga Premium Member - reply

Visit WyomingSheepRanch's Xanga Site!

@SwordAndSacrifice - 



It's only coercion if you have no other choice.

That's completely inaccurate.

the 4th Amendment test fails because in purchasing the ticket, you have submitted to the search. There is even a legal declaration on airline tickets that says as much.

You don't understand the 4th Amendment.
Posted 2/10/2008 1:25 PM by WyomingSheepRanch - reply

Visit SwordAndSacrifice's Xanga Site!

@WyomingSheepRanch - Well, I can't argue with the logic of that response, as I'm unsure any exists within it.

Posted 2/10/2008 3:11 PM by SwordAndSacrifice Xanga True Member Xanga Premium Member - reply

Visit WyomingSheepRanch's Xanga Site!

@SwordAndSacrifice - 


1. Coercion is the practice of compelling a person to behave in an involuntary way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. That doesn't mean "you don't have a choice." Maybe you should read up on coerced confessions for a bit of context.

2. The 4th Amendment never "fails." It may not be applicable in certain situations, where particular exceptions apply.

3. You do not submit to a search when you buy a plane ticket. You may (or may not) do so when you enter the security checkpoint at an airport's terminal, but this submission is not unlimited (notably, the requirements of reasonable suspicion still apply).

4. This issue is and has been before US Courts in at least two cases.
In both of these cases, the subjectmatter of the contraband found was the same, and both searches occurred at international borders. In one, the court held that the defendant's 4th Amendment rights had been violated, because the border patrol agents had failed to establish that they had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. In the other case, reasonable suspicion was satisfied.
The issue of domestic air travel would not benefit from the border search exception. So obviously it's not as simplistic as you seem to think it is.

Hopefully that has enough logic for you.
Posted 2/10/2008 4:59 PM by WyomingSheepRanch - reply


Choose Identity
(?)
 
Give eProps (?)
Post a Comment
Add Link | Preview HTML comment help 
Profile Pic:
Default  |  Choose »  (?)



Back to thereluctantsinger's Xanga Site!
Note: your comment will appear in thereluctantsinger's local time zone:
GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
-->