4th Amendment Wear has a message to the TSA

[SuperDuper! 230]

With the United States’ Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) enhanced security measures, many have gotten a little fed up about the pat downs and body scans in airports, which aside from being invasive, also adds hassle and annoyance to irritated travelers.

With all the issues surrounding this recent measure, many people have voiced their concern over this intrusive security process, with a woman even showing up at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) wearing only her bikini under her coat to show the TSA security personnel.

And while the woman made the process easier for herself, not everyone can follow in her lead. So if you’re getting fed up with the process yourself, there are pieces of clothing that you can wear from 4th Amendment Wear that will surely get your message across the TSA security, literally.

Printed with metallic-based ink, there are shirts, bras, socks and underwear from 4th Amendment Wear that shows the text of the US constitution’s 4th amendment to anyone viewing the screen.

In case you’re not familiar with this amendment, it says:

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.

In their site, the makers of these items explain:

The concept behind 4th Amendment Wear is simple: to get a few people to think a little more about their constitutional rights.

The clothes are designed as a silent protest against the new reality of being searched to the point where we’re basically naked. We don't intend for this to be anything more than a thought-provoking way to fuel the debate about safety vs. civil liberties. If we sell a few items, great. But the main intention is to open more dialogue. It's more of a conceptual piece than anything else.

Source URL:

http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/289465/4th-amendment-wear-has-a-message-tsa

http://cargocollective.com/4thamendment

[trillium13 84]

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

The problem is that you don't have a "right" to fly on an airplane. It's a choice you make and in order to utilize the service you must consent to the TSA Security Measures that are in place.

Since you consent the search isn't unreasonable.

If you don't consent then you are simply exercising your choice to use another means of transportation.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

The problem is that you don't have a "right" to fly on an airplane. It's a choice you make and in order to utilize the service you must consent to the TSA Security Measures that are in place.

Since you consent the search isn't unreasonable.

If you don't consent then you are simply exercising your choice to use another means of transportation.

Agreed. Travel isn't a RIGHT, it's a privilege. Stay at home if you don't want to take the precautions.

Tony and i were talking about this the other day. He said the best way to sort this is to have a plane for all the people who don't want to be inspected... let them board THEN tell them the pilot isn't okay with risking his life because they won't submit to a body scanner. No refunds, it was in the fine print.

Or make it a special plane where the pilots have the exit doors and parachutes. Someone does something, they just abandon the plane. After all, you didn't want to submit to scanning so you gave up your rights to be "safe".

All those options just sound ridiculous, but so is the notion that you feel it's your RIGHT to not be scanned and possibly endanger the lives of others. Walk, swim, ride a ski-doo... all those are on you, but fly someone elses plane, with other lives at risk, just deal with the "consequences" just like we deal with limited baggage, limited leg-room and more-often-than-not, ####### food.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The problem is that you don't have a "right" to fly on an airplane. It's a choice you make and in order to utilize the service you must consent to the TSA Security Measures that are in place.

Since you consent the search isn't unreasonable.

If you don't consent then you are simply exercising your choice to use another means of transportation.

the constitution doesn't suspend itself because you want to do something.

I know the public education system has misguided you and others out there with lunacy like this, but I suppose that's what the government today wants you to think.

[Geode 3]

Travel is a privilege? Next it will be a privilege buy groceries. No, it is not a right either. We have so many rights that the really important ones are in the back ground now. Travel is a freedom. The freedom to travel is slowly being taken away criminals and governments.

[Ban Hammer 12,827]

The problem is that you don't have a "right" to fly on an airplane. It's a choice you make and in order to utilize the service you must consent to the TSA Security Measures that are in place.

Since you consent the search isn't unreasonable.

If you don't consent then you are simply exercising your choice to use another means of transportation.

all fine and wonderful - except when one considers work related travel. for example, my employer won't pay for one to drive, and in some cases, it's an overseas destination.

as vanessa put it, shall we stay at home then - and be unemployed?

[SMR 368]

Agreed. Travel isn't a RIGHT, it's a privilege. Stay at home if you don't want to take the precautions.

Tony and i were talking about this the other day. He said the best way to sort this is to have a plane for all the people who don't want to be inspected... let them board THEN tell them the pilot isn't okay with risking his life because they won't submit to a body scanner. No refunds, it was in the fine print.

Or make it a special plane where the pilots have the exit doors and parachutes. Someone does something, they just abandon the plane. After all, you didn't want to submit to scanning so you gave up your rights to be "safe".

All those options just sound ridiculous, but so is the notion that you feel it's your RIGHT to not be scanned and possibly endanger the lives of others. Walk, swim, ride a ski-doo... all those are on you, but fly someone elses plane, with other lives at risk, just deal with the "consequences" just like we deal with limited baggage, limited leg-room and more-often-than-not, ####### food.

I definitely agree that you don't have the right to ride a plane. However, the assertion that people give up the right to not be searched when they buy the ticket is ominous and troubling. You don't sign anything to buy a ticket. You don't have to even read a statement about the rights you are giving up. Many people don't buy their own tickets and thus can't reasonably have been considered to have forfeit their right to not be searched. When you enter security, no one explains to you that you are submitting to a search.

Yet if you get to the point where you are to be searched, you are threatened with civil penalties if you don't submit. I understand that there are clear security concerns for why you don't want someone to be able to just leave and not be searched. But I think we need to at the very least make very explicit to anyone planning a flight or starting the security process that they are forfeiting the right to not be searched.

Additionally, the argument that you don't have the right to board a plane and thus must submit to a search has problematic logical extensions and corollaries. You don't have the right to drive a car, ride the bus or train, go to the grocery store, walk down the street, or in general leave your private property (in reality, you also don't have the right to do a lot of things even on your private property). If you say that the government is allowed to require forfeiture of rights to board a plane, it can require forfeiture of rights to do practically anything else. Sure, you have the right to not be searched--so long as you stay in your bed and keep your hands where we can see them.

Now, perhaps this all seems a little extreme. But applying your logic, you have already agreed with this. Not allowing anyone to leave their bed without consenting to a search would make us all safer. And this really isn't so far off as you may think. The DHS is already talking about applying these types of security measures to other venues, like ferries and subways. Depending on where you live and what your job is, you may be able to lead a reasonably normal life without getting on a plane. But as these things spread, that won't be the case for anyone. If you want to preserve your fourth amendment rights, you will be forced to be an eclectic hermit (and probably unemployed).

Moreover, the problem with all of these arguments about how people are being ridiculous because we need to put security first is that TSA is an absolute failure at providing security. Although I can't claim a complete knowledge of all TSA operations, to the best of my recollection, there has never been a major plot uncovered by TSA airport security. When they talk about the things they have stopped, they are talking about well intentioned people who forgot to leave their pocket knives at home or didn't realize that their toothpaste tube was too big.

The security that is keeping us safer is based on good intelligence, people keeping their eyes open, and paying attention to people who look, act, and profile as suspicious. These types of efforts have already stopped several serious threats and will stop more if we focus more resources on them instead of feeling up children and people in wheelchairs.

Edited November 29, 2010 by SMR

[SuperDuper! 230]

The problem is that you don't have a "right" to fly on an airplane. It's a choice you make and in order to utilize the service you must consent to the TSA Security Measures that are in place.

Since you consent the search isn't unreasonable.

If you don't consent then you are simply exercising your choice to use another means of transportation.

But should being touched on your privates be a condition for flying? How many enemies does Israel have, who wouldn't love to blow every one of their planes out of the sky, yet that isn;t happening, nor do you get a junk check or go thru a radiation box when flying El Al.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

But should being touched on your privates be a condition for flying? How many enemies does Israel have, who wouldn't love to blow every one of their planes out of the sky, yet that isn;t happening, nor do you get a junk check or go thru a radiation box when flying El Al.

You don't have to be patted down, that's a choice you make. Israel also has armed Air Marshals who are authorized and willing to use deadly force when needed. Sure the US has Air Marshals but I doubt they're even cleared to fire bean bags in a real life situation.

My point was simply that there are situations where we are consenting to search simply by entering a premises (go to the local court hose lately anyone) or performing an action (yes like driving your car). In the car example, while the police can't just randomly search you they can have a dog go around your car without your consent and they can also arrest you if you fail to submit to Blood/Alcohol testing [in some States]. Again this is a condition of you exercising your privilege to operate a vehicle.

I agree that the ability to move about (travel) is a right but that right ends where it endangers others. You can't operate a vehicle without proper training or while under the influence of Drugs/Alcohol because of the heightened risk to others. People have tried to sneak weapons onto airplanes so now you must consent to being checked for weapons before boarding a plane.

If it really bothers that much and you don't want to stop flying [or feel that you can't] then instead if complaining about it why not figure out an alternative?

Edited November 29, 2010 by Bob 4 Anna

[Ban Hammer 12,827]

court hose? whatcha trying to say about your local officials, bob?

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

court hose? whatcha trying to say about your local officials, bob?

Ha ha ha... Batteries in the keyboard died suddenly as I was typing, guess I missed a keystroke or two just before they went completely out!

[Canadiandggal 49]

You don't have to be patted down, that's a choice you make. Israel also has armed Air Marshals who are authorized and willing to use deadly force when needed. Sure the US has Air Marshals but I doubt they're even cleared to fire bean bags in a real life situation.

My point was simply that there are situations where we are consenting to search simply by entering a premises (go to the local court hose lately anyone) or performing an action (yes like driving your car). In the car example, while the police can't just randomly search you they can have a dog go around your car without your consent and they can also arrest you if you fail to submit to Blood/Alcohol testing [in some States]. Again this is a condition of you exercising your privilege to operate a vehicle.

I agree that the ability to move about (travel) is a right but that right ends where it endangers others. You can't operate a vehicle without proper training or while under the influence of Drugs/Alcohol because of the heightened risk to others. People have tried to sneak weapons onto airplanes so now you must consent to being checked for weapons before boarding a plane.

If it really bothers that much and you don't want to stop flying [or feel that you can't] then instead if complaining about it why not figure out an alternative?

Sure a Police dog can sniff around my car without permission but yet a officer of the law can only pat me down not touch My privates? yet a person who only has to have a high school degree can feel me up ..nice... I am so happy we drive every where.

[SuperDuper! 230]

You don't have to be patted down, that's a choice you make. Israel also has armed Air Marshals who are authorized and willing to use deadly force when needed. Sure the US has Air Marshals but I doubt they're even cleared to fire bean bags in a real life situation.

My point was simply that there are situations where we are consenting to search simply by entering a premises (go to the local court hose lately anyone) or performing an action (yes like driving your car). In the car example, while the police can't just randomly search you they can have a dog go around your car without your consent and they can also arrest you if you fail to submit to Blood/Alcohol testing [in some States]. Again this is a condition of you exercising your privilege to operate a vehicle.

I agree that the ability to move about (travel) is a right but that right ends where it endangers others. You can't operate a vehicle without proper training or while under the influence of Drugs/Alcohol because of the heightened risk to others. People have tried to sneak weapons onto airplanes so now you must consent to being checked for weapons before boarding a plane.

If it really bothers that much and you don't want to stop flying [or feel that you can't] then instead if complaining about it why not figure out an alternative?

Don't have to, 'cause there already is. It is called profiling.

[Eric-Pris 1,602]

This article explains some of the motivation behind pushing for the full body scanners and it has less to do with security and more to do with money. And the guy with the vested ($$$$$) interest is Michael Chertoff, the former Secretary of Homeland Security.

http://www.nytimes.c...cohen.html?_r=1

My personal viewpoint is that these machines are not needed. All we need is more intelligent, better trained TSA agents. Instead of trying to find a needle in the haystack, we should be profiling. Yes, I know "profiling" has become a non-politically correct word. Law enforcement has been profiling bad guys forever. We all profile without even noticing it. If you're walking down the street at night and you see a bunch of bikers on the corner drinking, you will probably cross the street or turn down another block because you sense there may be trouble. That's all that profiling is. It's not racism or discrimination, it's simply looking from a historical view and trying not to repeat things. You know bikers have been known to be trouble. So why do you profile all bikers, even though some may be the sweetest guys ever? Well, in this case, guys from the Middle East. We should be focusing more on them, instead of Joe Smith who's going on a business trip or the old lady going to visit her grandson.

Edit: I guess the member before me beat me to it.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Eric-Pris