Former TSA security director: No one likes Fourth Amendment violations, but we’re going to have to do it
posted at 7:41 pm on November 16, 2010 by Allahpundit
Via Left Coast Rebel, skip ahead to 2:30 for the money line. I’ll say this for the guy: He’s not one for sugar-coating. If he has to break a few constitutional eggs to make a security omelette, not only is he going to do it, he’s going to tell you that he’s doing it. Bend over — this Fourth Amendment violation won’t hurt a bit. I wonder what that’ll do to the poll numbers: As of yesterday, fully 81 percent of the public supports the use of full-body scanners at the airport, but as Nate Silver notes, that may be because relatively few people have had to endure them yet. Poll it again in a month, after “don’t touch my junk” fee-vah has had term to percolate culturally, and who knows where it’ll be.
Speaking of which, Gizmodo’s touting the fact that it’s obtained 100 images from a full-body scanner used at a courthouse in Florida showing photos of people side-by-side with their (fuzzy) X-rayed selves. Which isn’t supposed to happen, of course, per the endless assurances from the feds that the machines don’t save images they record. Two things, though. One: We already knew about this incident. That doesn’t diminish the privacy breach, but strictly from the standpoint of public awareness, everyone should already know that these things are indeed capable of exporting images. (Which makes sense: They’d want that as evidence afterwards if a suspect is apprehended.) As for the side-by-side real-life/X-ray comparisons, if you believe Napolitano — a very big if, I know — that wouldn’t happen at the airport. She’s sworn up and down that images from the full-body scanner are viewed at a remote location in the airport so that the screener observing them doesn’t see the actual passenger. In theory, at least in airports, side-by-side comparisons that identify people shouldn’t be possible. But then, in theory, the machines aren’t saving images either. Go figure.
Update: Elsewhere, Greenroomer Howard Portnoy explores the claims about dangerous radiation. Are these things really firing off damaging rays? Well … maybe, yeah.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
This insanity should not even make it to print media, never mind digital like this site.
It’s like printing a story that a homeless man in NYC said it instead of some idiot elected official in FL. Its just as insane and whoever said it should be fired and committed to the local hospital for a mental evaluation. This may have prevented a mass murderer, maybe this FL elected official is asking for help by being obviously psychotic?
TX-96 on March 9, 2013 at 8:19 PM
.
Especially having kids !
It appears to me that half of the children in my vicinity are born to “living-together-couples”.
An absolutely unimaginable, heinous act took place in the small town I use to reside in, this past October.
I don’t know that it was the result of “anger”, but the young parents certainly didn’t qualify to have custody of their baby.
listens2glenn on March 9, 2013 at 8:39 PM
How ’bout we sent Sen. Gibson (D – of course) to a stupidity management course …..
BD57 on March 9, 2013 at 10:10 PM
NEVER trust ANY liberal because they ALWAYS speak with forked tongues.
Where is the proof of my assertion, you ask. Look below:
Gabby Giffords’s Husband Buys AR-15
DannoJyd on March 10, 2013 at 4:18 AM
A woman came up with this harebrained idea, naturally.
Nomennovum on March 10, 2013 at 8:23 AM
IOW, simply owning a gun is in and of itself evidence of a mental disorder.
This is the propaganda meme the lefties want to drum into the
sheepelectorate.It has many precedents in history, mostly in the Soviet Union and in Mao’s China. Where, for example, simply wanting to own private property was in and of itself evidence of a mental disorder that required the state to act to protect the people. Likewise wanting to earn more than one’s “fair share”. And so on and so forth.
farsighted on March 10, 2013 at 10:58 AM
I’d wager any amount of money that by speaking calmly to the Senator, I could make him angry in a much shorter amount of time than he could me. I’m pretty sure I could do it in well under 5 minutes and only have to state things that are true, but contrary to his blind, Party loyalty.
TugboatPhil on March 10, 2013 at 12:07 PM
I was being facetious, when I posted that – equating “anger management” with the trials and tribulations associated with “menstruation,” to point out the buffoonery of this buffoon. Also, I try to be as snide and sarcastic as possible, when I’m confronted with the policy aspirations of legislative rejects, like this imbecile.
I am a huge proponent of women being armed.
OhEssYouCowboys on March 10, 2013 at 12:36 PM
*I* think all blacks should be required to take an Anger Management Class before entering any Wendy’s, McDonald’s or Dunkin’ Donuts.
Czar of Defenestration on March 10, 2013 at 12:40 PM
Absolutely sickening. These people are predators.
avagreen on March 10, 2013 at 1:30 PM
.
To the esteemed Mark E. Kelly, and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords:
.
Advancements in weapons technologies since the Constitution was ratified (and the Bill Of Rights added), does NOT justify a rethinking or reinterpretation of the Second Amendment, by our elected government officials.
listens2glenn on March 10, 2013 at 1:49 PM
.
A predatory society, is what “urbanites” have evolved to.
Neither of these “kids” had any sense of “real life” responsibility, as parents. I don’t know that they had sense of ANY responsibility, period.
The Lancaster Co (PA) District Attorney called it “the worst, most horrible thing I’ve ever seen”, and hopes he never has to see another one like it.
listens2glenn on March 10, 2013 at 2:04 PM
Let’s alter that by a couple of letters.
.
That’s better.
listens2glenn on March 10, 2013 at 2:07 PM
IMHO, those working to disarm law enforcement officials are taking the right track.
If these Communists don’t like us owning guns, let’s see how they like having an UNARMED GUARD protecting them.
I love delivering payback. BWAHAhahahaha….
DannoJyd on March 10, 2013 at 3:29 PM
I need some anger managements since I’m pissed I can no longer find 9mm or 5.56 ammo any more…
Wyznowski on March 10, 2013 at 4:36 PM
If you think that guns are scary and you want others to change so you can feel better, then you must really hate seeing gun violence in movies, on TV, and in video games (especially first person shooter games).
You really cannot ban these shows, movies, and games (first amendment versus second amendment), but you can tax them. Sin tax, baby. Tax ‘em hard and tax ‘em good.
You want to watch a Quentin Tarantino movie? Pay the Excessive Violence Tax (EVT) of $25 per movie or episode per watcher.
But first, you need to take and pass a required anger management class for $50.
And, you will need to wait for thirty days while the government performs a background check to see if you have, or someone thinks you might have, a history or an incident of violence in your behavior. Fee: $100. Renewable and payable annually.
Of course, you local paper will be required to post your name and address on a Google map with a pushpin at your address. In case that’s not enough, you must have a sign in your yard saying that a person of violent persuasion lives in the house. When a member of your family, especially a spouse, sustains an injury, then the police will come to you for answers and will stop looking anywhere else or to anyone else. $5,000 to expunge your name and address in private.
Oh, yes, you will not be able to live within three miles of a public school, playground, or a fast food restaurant with playground equipment. You will not be allowed to be a scout leader, a Sunday School teacher, participate in the boys and girls club, or be anywhere near, say, a 711 store where one might find kids. We don’t want your polluted ideas soiling young, impressionable minds. All moving expenses are on your dime.
I had this idea as a tongue-in-cheek spoof, but, you know? I like it. I believe that it has a kind or ironic justice to the ideas behind it.
Please write Senator Feinstein and ask her to amend he gun ban to include these fines and requirements for excessive violence. Who knows? With all the TV shows and movies produced in Hollywood, maybe Jerry Brown can raise enough cash to balance California’s budget?
Nah, Jerry will just spend it.
billrowe on March 10, 2013 at 6:08 PM
People don’t kill people….ANGRY people kill people. Since our tax dollars are going to study Tai Chi, perhaps we should make THAT mandatory for anyone wanting to buy ammo as well?!
easyt65 on March 11, 2013 at 11:33 AM
How anger management for drivers first? Everyday someone is killed or injured over a road rage incident.
johnnyU on March 11, 2013 at 1:24 PM
Obvious projection, it is her who needs it and it is because of her raging on this issue.
jake49 on March 11, 2013 at 7:51 PM
What? No party affiliation is mentioned? Neither the politician’s name, their party affiliation nor their district were mentioned in the article.
Since when has Hot Air become a Mainstream Media outlet shilling for the LibTard cause?
My money says it’s a Democrat politician from St Lucie County. And the politician is a carpetbagger from either New York City or North Jersey (home of New York’s rejects)
CatchAll on March 11, 2013 at 10:07 PM
Here they come ! !
California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Bear Arms
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html?cmpid=yhoo
Texyank on March 11, 2013 at 11:19 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2