Well, you're right that we have a public right of transit and thru the navigable airspace, but that doesn't mean any particular airline has to take us.
They have the right to refuse service for any reason except descrimination against the protected classes. You're free to drive wherever you want (except private lands), but that doesn't mean the government has to give you a driver's license or let you drive without one; and it doesn't mean that someone HAS to give you a car or they're blocking your right of free travel.
Also, the law you cited SEEMS to say that the government will not impose restrictions against free travel, and the last part only talks about availability to the handicapped. Which the ADA adds handicapped persons to the protected list.
I see what you mean with the 10th Amendment. I don't believe it's intended to give an individual carte blanch freedoms and rights to do whatever they want at the expense of a service provider's rights to security.
I agree that the TSA has been implementing too many new rules in, what would appear to be, violation of the 10th and I'll be interested to see this play out. And that whole thing is more fuel for the debate over whether our Federal Government is too big (as I believe it is).
But my initial point is that a private entity does NOT have to protect what you perceive as your rights just because you say so. Otherwise, we'd be able to demand any business be transacted anonymously without having give our name, date of birth, SSN, etc. for things like buying a car or taking out a loan. This battlecry of "protect my privacy" has spawned some pretty interesting regulations (such as the Do Not Call) to protect us, and those we don't seem to have a problem. But when those same 'protections' are to secure others or the providers of services (other passengers or the airline that would like to keep their planes safe), we seem to get up in arms over it.
Now I do subscribe to the belief that those who give up freedoms for temporary security deserve neither, and agree that the TSA has done nothing but reinforce a sence of terror without adding any security. But we have as a society demonstrated a vast inability to govern ourselves. We cry and cry how 4 men (supposedly, there are few witnesses) took over planes with box cutters and how the TSA and the airlines didn’t do enough to stop them. Those hijackers were severely outnumbered and only one (again, if you believe the reports) was taken down. Now THAT is effective security. If we as a people would show some damned backbone and stop with this foolish, over-inflated sense of entitlement, we wouldn’t need to demand the government step in whenever someone hurts our widdle feewings.
But to your point, yes I concede I was incorrect about the 10th and that we DO have SOME rights of privacy, but I don't think it's as universal as some would like it to be.
I cruised right over the 10th and didn't see it laughing at me. :/
NO. YOU. DON'T.
Can I make it any more clear than that? There is NO LAW OR AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS YOU WILL NOT BE RESTRICTED IN YOUR TRAVELS! Just like a driver's license is not your right, it's your privilige and comes with responsibility. You break those responsibilities and they revoke it. Where's your 'right to free travels' there?
We just happen to NOT have a system in place that requires any kind of checkpoints between states or other municipalities. But there is certainly NO law that says we can't... except maybe the part of the Constitution that retains the rights of the States to self-govern for the most part. But guess what... that has NOTHING to do with your rights as an individual.
"If the airline can do this as you suggest, what's to stop the train companies saying "You cannot travel on a train unless you allow us to electronically tag you to make sure you don't go into first class". "
There is absolutely nothing to stop them from doing this except the fact that they would lose business... but there is no law making that action illegal.
The car company can then make whatever use they want of all that data they collect from your GPS and can install a microphone in your car to record all your conversations and stop the car if you say something nasty about it..."
Again, they can do that all they want. There is no law to say they can't. They are NOT a government agency. The protection comes in that they cannot give personal information to other entities.
""If I don't like it don't drive", right?"
Now you're getting it. But you're not quite there. As I implied in another post, don't drive a car made by a manufacturer that does those things you don't like. Your convenience is not a proteced freedom by ANY law.
"But this is where common sense diverges from the letter of the law."
Sorry, but we are talking about the law here. It is not now nor has it ever been the intention for the federal, state or local government to legally enforce common sense or courtesy. It doesn't matter how inextribably linked life is with these services, they are NOT your right.
And I'm not saying not to interact with any corporate entities... I'm saying don't interact with those that you believe are treating you unfairly or poorly. It is your choice. Is it wrong if every airport supports the use of something people don't like? Maybe, maybe not... it is certainly a bad business idea. Yes, the scanners are the TSA's decision and they are a government agency... but if you don't like the fact that they're there, contact your representative to change the law. Don't just cry foul about how your 'right to fly' was infringed.
"Surely if one has a right to privacy, common sense (if not law) dictates that the right *should* be enforced across the board against *any* unreasonable seach and seizure no matter it's source?"
No, not really. You DO have rights to privacy through the 4th Amendment, but it is by no means universal. 1) A legal warrant would allow the dismissal of your privacy. 2) The Patriot Act allows the dismissal of your privacy without otherwise 'due course' in some circumstances (seriously... the Patriot Act should scare the shit out of you!).
All that being said, that's just to keep the GOVERNMENT from searching you. As a private entity, one of the requirements to obtain my services could very well be a full nude body-cavity search. If you decline, you just don't get my services. It doesn't matter what common sense has to say about it or what the guidelines the Government would adhere to... but you have no protected to rights to receive my services at your own convenience and under your own conditions.
"Also, while the method is defined by a corporate entity, the driver behind it is governmental regulation. I'm by no mean's a lawyer, but would it not be reasonable to argue that as an agent of the government in this matter they shoudl be bound by the strictures placed on government?"
I don't think we need to talk about the relationship of an agent to its principle here... the TSA is the government for this argument. And the 4th Amendment does provide protection against illegal search and seizure...
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The government is not supposed to subject you to UNLAWFUL searches. To be lawful, the search must be done with a warrant or probable cause. Now, since the Constitution does not limit the definition of Probable Cause, it's up to the law enforcement to make the call, and the courts to correct them if they're wrong. So far, the enforcement agency has been exercising it's discretion on P.C., and no courts have challenged it. So until that happens, it's legal. Once again, if you don't like it, work with your elected representatives to change the law, or challange the law through the proper court channels.
It may be your right to not be subjected to unnecessary and unlawful searches, but in this case, it's neither. And, again, if you don't like it, DON'T FLY.
"What? You don't want any rights? Not the right to wear an ugly shirt in public? The right to cream in your coffee? The right not to get put in a 3" cubed box by a policemen for no readily identifiable reason? The right not to be arrested for 'possesion of an offensive eyebrow'?"
Ok... I'm all for being treated fairly and respectfully, but let's get something straight.
Flying is NOT A RIGHT. It is a service provided by a private entity that does NOT have to continue extending that service to you. They do NOT have to make the experience nice and cozy for you. This Private Entity's service is REGULATED by the government under the guise of "for your safety"... and I agree that they have gone WAY beyond the interests of safety and more into the realm of "hey, look at us! We're doing stuff to respond to your fears!" And let's face it... that's the ONLY reason you're limited to 3oz bottles of liquid: not because it's actually keeping people from being able to make explosives w/ carryon items, but because it makes the TSA appear to actually be doing something. But the fact remains that they can do whatever the hell they want as long as they don't break any laws and don't discriminate against you for one of the protected categories (sorry fatties, obesity is NOT a protected category... you just don't fit in the seats).
I don't mean to be an ass about this, but it irks me when people yell about their 'rights' that don't actually exist and never existed in the first place. The only 'protected rights' are the ones in the Bill of Rights and Constitution. You don't have the right to go to any restaurant you want if those resturants don't want to seat you. You don't have the right to be served alcohol at a bar if they don't want to serve it to you. You don't have the right to buy something at a store if they don't want to sell it to you. You don't have the right to get on a plane if they don't think you should be on it. You don't have the right to cream in your coffee if no one wants to sell it to you
Yes, I know you were using hyperbole to make your point, but let's keep it at least a LITTLE realistic. No one is taking away your precious coffee creamer.
Don't want your 'right to privacy' violated when you go to the airport? DON'T GO TO THE AIRPORT!
"...through a window which will depressurize the cabin extremely quickly, and almost certainly cause most everyone to pass out".
A) do you have evidence or reference to back this statement up? I'm no expert, but I doubt it would "almost certainly cause most everyone to pass out"
B) so? The cockpit is not going to depressurize 'extremely quickly', so the pilots would be ok. Everyone else will wake up with a headache.
C) you mean the perpetrator would be incapacitated by being rendered unconscious by the depressurization? Sweet. Mission accomplished.
D) as stated by nacsh, O2 masks would deploy.
Umm... actually, I think he was to be a passenger on this particular flight. So how does him flying other planes make him somehow immune to the possibility of other forms of mischief? Agreed, the 'security' measures in place are a joke and don't do a thing, but him being a pilot does not exempt him from suspicion.
How about those 13" long metal knitting needles? My girlfrind was allowed on a plane with a pair of those. Can't even think of all the things I could do with a couple of those badboys.
I haven't tried to pay my JEA bill via credit card since moving to Jacksonville, but I do remember the FPL.
My rent is even worse. If I pay that over the phone (the only way to pay credit card... debit can be paid on the website) they charge over $25 'convenience' fee. And, incidently, they must use a customer-facing input system because they couldn't complete the transaction without my CID off the back.
Re: College sports are not business. You go wrong first sentence.
Umm... wait, what??
Make up your mind... are they making money or not? If they are making money, they are a business in the sense of the word that Mike was using. Are the a corporation with an office in NYC's financial district? Probably not. But they are being managed and marketed in such a way as to make money... like a business.
And the student newspaper won't have to cave because it's a case of, as Mike put it, "a public government-owned entity, forbidding the distribution of speech." While I disagree with his use of a comma in that sentence, the gist of the sentence is spot on.
"From my point of view, Google fences stolen goods," said Ellen Seidler, an independent filmmaker, who last month told CNET that piracy cost her money when her small-budget film, "And Then Came Lola," was distributed illegally online. "These [pirate] sites...want to drive traffic to their site and they do it by pirating films. They are paid for the ads on their site by Google and others. What we need to do is force Google to be more vigilant in preventing filmmakers from getting ripped off."
and
"Google makes money on the advertising from these pirate sites," said Rick Carnes, president of the Songwriters Guild of America. "Now they want to make money helping creators find out how to take the stuff down...Everybody keeps talking about making the Internet free and open. How about we get a fair and just Internet?"
Apparently, there are artists out there and other 'guildsmen' who believe that Google (et al) are actually responsible for policing the internet. I think it's another great illustration on how an industry, instead of adapting to a changing world, is demanding that the world be made to suit their business model.
They seem to be trying to make it a law to enforce a perceived morality just because you're in the position to do so. This makes the system move from a malfeasance (or misfeasance if you like) being punishable by law, to a system where NONfeasance is punishable. I find this very very interesting... and a little scary.
Would it be good if Google decided to say "you know, we're here so we're going to do this..."? Sure, why not. Should that be enforceable by law? I really hope not.
Now, if what Rick says about Google making money off of piracy is true, then yes, that could be a misfeasance and should be stopped. Making money off of other's illegal actions is just as wrong (in my opinion, at least). But what is his opinion of "fair and just", and why is his definition any better than anyone elses? I think in another 50 or 100 years, ethics classes are going to have some interesting talks about the history and origin of Internet Ethics.
On the post: Pilot Not Allowed Through Security After He Refuses 'Naked' Backscatter Scan
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They have the right to refuse service for any reason except descrimination against the protected classes. You're free to drive wherever you want (except private lands), but that doesn't mean the government has to give you a driver's license or let you drive without one; and it doesn't mean that someone HAS to give you a car or they're blocking your right of free travel.
Also, the law you cited SEEMS to say that the government will not impose restrictions against free travel, and the last part only talks about availability to the handicapped. Which the ADA adds handicapped persons to the protected list.
On the post: Pilot Not Allowed Through Security After He Refuses 'Naked' Backscatter Scan
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree that the TSA has been implementing too many new rules in, what would appear to be, violation of the 10th and I'll be interested to see this play out. And that whole thing is more fuel for the debate over whether our Federal Government is too big (as I believe it is).
But my initial point is that a private entity does NOT have to protect what you perceive as your rights just because you say so. Otherwise, we'd be able to demand any business be transacted anonymously without having give our name, date of birth, SSN, etc. for things like buying a car or taking out a loan. This battlecry of "protect my privacy" has spawned some pretty interesting regulations (such as the Do Not Call) to protect us, and those we don't seem to have a problem. But when those same 'protections' are to secure others or the providers of services (other passengers or the airline that would like to keep their planes safe), we seem to get up in arms over it.
Now I do subscribe to the belief that those who give up freedoms for temporary security deserve neither, and agree that the TSA has done nothing but reinforce a sence of terror without adding any security. But we have as a society demonstrated a vast inability to govern ourselves. We cry and cry how 4 men (supposedly, there are few witnesses) took over planes with box cutters and how the TSA and the airlines didn’t do enough to stop them. Those hijackers were severely outnumbered and only one (again, if you believe the reports) was taken down. Now THAT is effective security. If we as a people would show some damned backbone and stop with this foolish, over-inflated sense of entitlement, we wouldn’t need to demand the government step in whenever someone hurts our widdle feewings.
But to your point, yes I concede I was incorrect about the 10th and that we DO have SOME rights of privacy, but I don't think it's as universal as some would like it to be.
I cruised right over the 10th and didn't see it laughing at me. :/
On the post: Pilot Not Allowed Through Security After He Refuses 'Naked' Backscatter Scan
Re: Re:
Can I make it any more clear than that? There is NO LAW OR AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS YOU WILL NOT BE RESTRICTED IN YOUR TRAVELS! Just like a driver's license is not your right, it's your privilige and comes with responsibility. You break those responsibilities and they revoke it. Where's your 'right to free travels' there?
We just happen to NOT have a system in place that requires any kind of checkpoints between states or other municipalities. But there is certainly NO law that says we can't... except maybe the part of the Constitution that retains the rights of the States to self-govern for the most part. But guess what... that has NOTHING to do with your rights as an individual.
There is absolutely nothing to stop them from doing this except the fact that they would lose business... but there is no law making that action illegal. Again, they can do that all they want. There is no law to say they can't. They are NOT a government agency. The protection comes in that they cannot give personal information to other entities.
Now you're getting it. But you're not quite there. As I implied in another post, don't drive a car made by a manufacturer that does those things you don't like. Your convenience is not a proteced freedom by ANY law.
On the post: Pilot Not Allowed Through Security After He Refuses 'Naked' Backscatter Scan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I'm not saying not to interact with any corporate entities... I'm saying don't interact with those that you believe are treating you unfairly or poorly. It is your choice. Is it wrong if every airport supports the use of something people don't like? Maybe, maybe not... it is certainly a bad business idea. Yes, the scanners are the TSA's decision and they are a government agency... but if you don't like the fact that they're there, contact your representative to change the law. Don't just cry foul about how your 'right to fly' was infringed.
No, not really. You DO have rights to privacy through the 4th Amendment, but it is by no means universal. 1) A legal warrant would allow the dismissal of your privacy. 2) The Patriot Act allows the dismissal of your privacy without otherwise 'due course' in some circumstances (seriously... the Patriot Act should scare the shit out of you!).
All that being said, that's just to keep the GOVERNMENT from searching you. As a private entity, one of the requirements to obtain my services could very well be a full nude body-cavity search. If you decline, you just don't get my services. It doesn't matter what common sense has to say about it or what the guidelines the Government would adhere to... but you have no protected to rights to receive my services at your own convenience and under your own conditions.
I don't think we need to talk about the relationship of an agent to its principle here... the TSA is the government for this argument. And the 4th Amendment does provide protection against illegal search and seizure...
The government is not supposed to subject you to UNLAWFUL searches. To be lawful, the search must be done with a warrant or probable cause. Now, since the Constitution does not limit the definition of Probable Cause, it's up to the law enforcement to make the call, and the courts to correct them if they're wrong. So far, the enforcement agency has been exercising it's discretion on P.C., and no courts have challenged it. So until that happens, it's legal. Once again, if you don't like it, work with your elected representatives to change the law, or challange the law through the proper court channels.
It may be your right to not be subjected to unnecessary and unlawful searches, but in this case, it's neither. And, again, if you don't like it, DON'T FLY.
On the post: Pilot Not Allowed Through Security After He Refuses 'Naked' Backscatter Scan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok... I'm all for being treated fairly and respectfully, but let's get something straight.
Flying is NOT A RIGHT. It is a service provided by a private entity that does NOT have to continue extending that service to you. They do NOT have to make the experience nice and cozy for you. This Private Entity's service is REGULATED by the government under the guise of "for your safety"... and I agree that they have gone WAY beyond the interests of safety and more into the realm of "hey, look at us! We're doing stuff to respond to your fears!" And let's face it... that's the ONLY reason you're limited to 3oz bottles of liquid: not because it's actually keeping people from being able to make explosives w/ carryon items, but because it makes the TSA appear to actually be doing something. But the fact remains that they can do whatever the hell they want as long as they don't break any laws and don't discriminate against you for one of the protected categories (sorry fatties, obesity is NOT a protected category... you just don't fit in the seats).
I don't mean to be an ass about this, but it irks me when people yell about their 'rights' that don't actually exist and never existed in the first place. The only 'protected rights' are the ones in the Bill of Rights and Constitution. You don't have the right to go to any restaurant you want if those resturants don't want to seat you. You don't have the right to be served alcohol at a bar if they don't want to serve it to you. You don't have the right to buy something at a store if they don't want to sell it to you. You don't have the right to get on a plane if they don't think you should be on it. You don't have the right to cream in your coffee if no one wants to sell it to you
Yes, I know you were using hyperbole to make your point, but let's keep it at least a LITTLE realistic. No one is taking away your precious coffee creamer.
Don't want your 'right to privacy' violated when you go to the airport? DON'T GO TO THE AIRPORT!
On the post: Pilot Not Allowed Through Security After He Refuses 'Naked' Backscatter Scan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really
B) so? The cockpit is not going to depressurize 'extremely quickly', so the pilots would be ok. Everyone else will wake up with a headache.
C) you mean the perpetrator would be incapacitated by being rendered unconscious by the depressurization? Sweet. Mission accomplished.
D) as stated by nacsh, O2 masks would deploy.
On the post: Pilot Not Allowed Through Security After He Refuses 'Naked' Backscatter Scan
Re: Re: Really
On the post: Pilot Not Allowed Through Security After He Refuses 'Naked' Backscatter Scan
Re:
On the post: Pilot Not Allowed Through Security After He Refuses 'Naked' Backscatter Scan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fun with the TSA
On the post: Verizon Wanted To Charge $3.50 To Pay Your Bill... Just Kidding
Re: Actually, my power company already does this
My rent is even worse. If I pay that over the phone (the only way to pay credit card... debit can be paid on the website) they charge over $25 'convenience' fee. And, incidently, they must use a customer-facing input system because they couldn't complete the transaction without my CID off the back.
On the post: Verizon Wanted To Charge $3.50 To Pay Your Bill... Just Kidding
The big question
On the post: The Owner Of A Site That Tracks Reports Of Bedbug Infestations Threatened By Upset Hotel Owners
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: These Hotel Owners
On the post: The Owner Of A Site That Tracks Reports Of Bedbug Infestations Threatened By Upset Hotel Owners
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: These Hotel Owners
On the post: The Owner Of A Site That Tracks Reports Of Bedbug Infestations Threatened By Upset Hotel Owners
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: These Hotel Owners
On the post: The Owner Of A Site That Tracks Reports Of Bedbug Infestations Threatened By Upset Hotel Owners
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: These Hotel Owners
Yes DH, I'm a lazy bastard.
On the post: Can The University Of Kentucky Ban Student Newspaper From Being Distributed At Its Stadium?
Re: College sports are not business. You go wrong first sentence.
Make up your mind... are they making money or not? If they are making money, they are a business in the sense of the word that Mike was using. Are the a corporation with an office in NYC's financial district? Probably not. But they are being managed and marketed in such a way as to make money... like a business.
And the student newspaper won't have to cave because it's a case of, as Mike put it, "a public government-owned entity, forbidding the distribution of speech." While I disagree with his use of a comma in that sentence, the gist of the sentence is spot on.
On the post: The Owner Of A Site That Tracks Reports Of Bedbug Infestations Threatened By Upset Hotel Owners
Re: Re: These Hotel Owners
I guess you can say that the site really
*puts on glasses*
BUGS them.
YYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAaaaaahhhhhhhh!
On the post: The Owner Of A Site That Tracks Reports Of Bedbug Infestations Threatened By Upset Hotel Owners
Re: Re: These Hotel Owners
On the post: Wait, So The RIAA Is Offended That Google Won't Do Work For Free?
Interesting point of view
They seem to be trying to make it a law to enforce a perceived morality just because you're in the position to do so. This makes the system move from a malfeasance (or misfeasance if you like) being punishable by law, to a system where NONfeasance is punishable. I find this very very interesting... and a little scary.
Would it be good if Google decided to say "you know, we're here so we're going to do this..."? Sure, why not. Should that be enforceable by law? I really hope not.
Now, if what Rick says about Google making money off of piracy is true, then yes, that could be a misfeasance and should be stopped. Making money off of other's illegal actions is just as wrong (in my opinion, at least). But what is his opinion of "fair and just", and why is his definition any better than anyone elses? I think in another 50 or 100 years, ethics classes are going to have some interesting talks about the history and origin of Internet Ethics.
On the post: Glenn Beck Not A Fan Of Fair Use; Claims US Gov't Paying Remixers To Create Anti-Beck Propaganda
Re:
Next >>