MORE Big Sister Intimidation: $11k fine, possible arrest for defending your rights

The Florida Sun-Sentinel just reported that the TSA is refusing to back down on their unconstitutional infringment of 4th amendment rights of passengers that decide to fly the "friendly skies."

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is warning that any would-be commercial airline passenger who enters an airport checkpoint and then refuses to undergo the method of inspection designated by TSA will not be allowed to fly and also will not be permitted to simply leave the airport.

That person will have to remain on the premises to be questioned by the TSA and possibly by local law enforcement. Anyone refusing faces fines up to $11,000 and possible arrest.

Read More---

More TSA Controversy: Woman Asked to Remove Prosthetic Breast

A woman, who works as a flight attendant, was asked to remove her prosthetic breast during one of TSA's "enhanced pat-downs". Read about it and see the video here: http://wewontfly.com/video-woman-made-to-remove-prosthetic-breast

Public More Critical of TSA Electronic "strip searches"

More and more people are standing up and questioning their loss of privacy in many airports throughout the country.  I objected to this invasive search procedure from the beginning.  It always starts with a relatively small loss of liberty at the expense of security, and then it progresses until neither liberty nor security exist.

First, people were told that they must allow TSA to have access to all of their luggage (and it's contents) without respect for the passenger's privacy.  Then, people were told that everyone would be safer if they were required to take off their shoes to be x-rayed.  Now, people are once again told that they should sacrifice a "little" more liberty for some security.

So, the Department of Homeland Security proceeded to mandate that all passengers must subject themselves to a "digital strip searches" (i.e. Full Body Scanners-sample image) or be required to be "pat down" by TSA agents to assure the safety of passengers.  However, the DHS has made the full body scanner the primary means to find dangerous weapons; explosives; and illegal contraband, even amidst concerns from the Chief Privacy Officer at the Department of Homeland Security (PDF-Google docs).

"We have received minimal complaints," a TSA spokeswoman told CNET yesterday. . .

[However, a]. . . growing number of airline passengers, labor unions, and advocacy groups, however, say the new procedures--a choice of full-body scans or what the TSA delicately calls "enhanced patdowns"--go too far. (They were implemented without much fanfare in late October, amid lingering questions (PDF) about whether travelers are always offered a choice of manual screening.)

Unions representing U.S. Airways pilots, American Airlines pilots, and some flight attendants are advising their members to skip the full-body scans, even if it means that their genitals are touched. Air travelers are speaking out online, with a woman saying in a YouTube video her breasts were "twisted," and ExpressJet pilot Michael Roberts emerging as an instant hero after he rejected both the body scanning and "enhanced patdowns" options and was unceremoniously ejected from the security line from Memphis International Airport.

One lawsuit has been filed and at least two more are being contemplated. There are snarky suggestions for what TSA actually stands for, attempts at grope-induced erotic fiction, and now even a movie. . . .

READ MORE

When you travel whether for business or pleasure OPT out of a full-body scan and say that you object to being groped by the TSA.  Claim religious objection, claim a privacy objection, or claim 4th Amendment objection, but whatever reason you cite be polite and firm and let the TSA know that you do have a freedom from "unreasonable search and seizures."

The obvious answer is the one which the TSA and its parent agency, DHS, is to profile passengers for random screening.

9th Circuit: You Don't Need No Stinkin' Privacy

In a ruling that added one more nail to the coffin of personal liberty, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that government agencies can place GPS tracking devices on your vehicle to surveil your movements without a warrant.

According to the 9th Circuit and Time Magazine:

This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements. Read MORE>>>

However, this ruling becomes a little more disgusting after hearing this opinion from the courts.  "...the little personal privacy that still exists... should belong mainly to the rich."

Chief Justice Alex Kozinski in a dissenting opinion stated:

"There's been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there's one kind of diversity that doesn't exist," he wrote. "No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter." The judges in the majority, he charged, were guilty of "cultural elitism."  

and later added: "1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it's here at last. . . Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we're living in Oceania."

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction in California, Nevada, Alaska, Arizona, Montana, Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, and the Eastern & Western District of Washington state.

On the bright side, DC's US District Court of Appeals has had a contrary ruling regarding the use of GPS devices.  It ruled "that tracking for an extended period of time with GPS is an invasion of privacy that requires a warrant."  Experts believe the issue will resurface in the Supreme Court.

House Overwhelmingly Supports Invasive DNA Database

The House of Representatives passed (by a 357 to 32 vote) a bill which would give funding to state governments to keep a database of all persons arrested (not convicted mind you) under the usual excuse... for your safety.

. . . "We should allow law enforcement to use all the technology available to them...to reduce expensive and unjust false convictions, bring closure to victims by solving cold cases, better identify criminals, and keep those who commit violent crime from walking the streets," said Rep. Harry Teague [(D-NM)]

. . . civil libertarians say DNA samples should be required only from people who have been convicted of crimes . . .  if there is probable cause to believe that someone is involved in a crime, a judge can sign a warrant allowing a blood sample or cheek swab to be forcibly extracted.

"It's wrong to treat someone as guilty before they're convicted," says Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute. "It inverts the concept of innocent until proven guilty."  READ MORE>>>

 This is troubling news.

Interestingly enough, only Republicans (a small minority of them at that) opposed this bill. Of the two main parties, only Republicans care about your freedom and your privacy.

To read the text of the bill (if you really hate yourself) and to see how your representative voted visit Govtrack's page for the bill.