8B: 4th Amendment Unlawful Search and Seizures
Question: “Should the TSA be permitted to use ‘advanced imaging technology’ to peer under passengers’ clothing in search of dangerous items?”
Yes it should be allowed
Side Score: 81
|
 |
No, it should not
Side Score: 45
|
|
|
|
|
Majority of Americans voted yes: Polls: Majority travellers are willing to go through the scanners. 81% of Americans support the use of advanced imaging technology at airports nationwide (cbsnews.com) 78% of air travelers approve of U.S. airports' using advanced imaging technology on airline passengers (gallup.com) 79% of travelers said they are comfortable with U.S. airports using advanced imaging technology (tripadvisor.com) Over 81% of travelers said they do not have concerns about the use of advanced imaging technology at checkpoints (travelagentcentral.com) 73.9% of travelers said they would be willing to undergo a body scan before getting on a plane (online.wsj.com) Side: Yes it should be allowed
1
point
Hello, today we are going to speak to you about the right of having the TSA permitted to using ‘advanced imaging technology’ to peer under passengers’ clothing in search of dangerous items. The opponents might say “What about privacy?” “Can’t too much radiation cause cancer?” Privacy? Really? We can counterclaim this by saying safety is a lot more important than privacy. Would you rather be stubborn and say no, go onto a plane and explode, or stand in a scanner for less than 5 seconds to be sure that no weapons or bombs of any kind is able to enter a plane full of people. Now for radiation, pilots have gone through the scanners so many more times than any normal passenger, and none of them have cancer because the radiation power is so low. After our argument, we hope that you see that the side we stand for is the only side and it is the correct one. Side: Yes it should be allowed
2
points
0
points
You may argue that radiation from the machines can cause health risks and problems, but I say that radiation is so minimal that it won’t have any affect. Radiation experts and medical physicists say that the scanners used in airports produce such low levels of radiation that they have no potential real health risks. Kelly Classic, a health physicist, said "The amount of radiation is almost insignificant … There are so many common things we're exposed to that produce radiation. This [an airport scan] is a pretty minor piece of that." The U.S. Department of Homeland Security conducted the assessment that the radiation from one scan is equivalent to the radiation a person is exposed to from two minutes of flying at cruising altitude. A passenger would need more than 1,000 scans in a year to reach the dose equal to one normal chest X-ray. The Department’s August report said the doses of the radiation given to a person in the scanner are below those laid out by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Even if a person had 46 scans a day for every single day for a year, it would still be only 1/4 of the total amount of radiation that the ANSI recommends not be exceeded in a given year. Side: Yes it should be allowed
As security is the main reason full body scanners should be allowed, I mean would you rather stand in a machine for 2 seconds http://travelsecure.infrastructure.gov.au/bodyscanners/faq.aspx#anc_j and have a safe flight, or refuse and have weapons be brought onto a plane filled with people and millions of death. Our second point would be radiation. Although you might argue that the scanner can cause cancer because of the radiation, but the machines emit fewer than 10 micrograms of radiation (which is roughly one-thousandth of the exposure of a chest x-ray). The Food and Drug Administration says that the risk of cancer is one in 400 million, citing the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Up to 5 million micrograms of annual exposure is considered safe; 3 or 10 micrograms is still a very small amount. http://www.healthcentral.com/prostate/c/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
I completely agree with you, because as well as this, scanners was to speed passengers through checkpoints at busy airports. The scanner takes 2 seconds and it doesn’t show your body with details, because it is animated. It is a better option. And infants and young children under 140cms will not be selected to undergo a body scan. Side: Yes it should be allowed
0
points
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration put the risk of a fatal cancer from the machines at one in 400 million. The U.K. Health Protection Agency has put it at one in 166 million. Some experts say such estimates of population risk create a distorted picture of the danger because humans are constantly exposed to background radiation and already accept risks that increase exposure, such as flying on a plane at cruising altitude. In the authoritative study on the health risks of low levels of radiation, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the risk of cancer increases with radiation exposure and that there is no level of radiation at which the risk is zero. http://www.propublica.org/article/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
The health risks from the radiation the imaging equipment uses are generally very low, and usually outweighed by the benefits of getting the right diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Body scanners are at use in many airports across the UK and abroad. There are two types of scanner in use in the UK. One type uses millimetre radio waves that can “see” through clothing. The other type uses a very low dose of ionising radiation. Neither type has been shown to pose a risk to people’s health. The first type of scanner uses radio waves, which are a form of non-ionising radiation that does not cause health effects at the low doses given off by airport scanners. The second type uses ionising radiation, which in high doses can be harmful. But the levels used in airport scanners are about 100,000 times lower than what an average UK person would be exposed to each year. This dose is so low that it makes no noticeable difference to a person’s risk of cancer. Side: Yes it should be allowed
You may argue that radiation from the machines can cause health risks and problems, but I say that radiation is so minimal that it won’t have any affect. Radiation experts and medical physicists say that the scanners used in airports produce such low levels of radiation that they have no potential real health risks. Kelly Classic, a health physicist, said "The amount of radiation is almost insignificant … There are so many common things we're exposed to that produce radiation. This [an airport scan] is a pretty minor piece of that." The U.S. Department of Homeland Security conducted the assessment that the radiation from one scan is equivalent to the radiation a person is exposed to from two minutes of flying at cruising altitude. A passenger would need more than 1,000 scans in a year to reach the dose equal to one normal chest X-ray. The Department’s August report said the doses of the radiation given to a person in the scanner are below those laid out by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Even if a person had 46 scans a day for every single day for a year, it would still be only 1/4 of the total amount of radiation that the ANSI recommends not be exceeded in a given year. http://www.medpagetoday.com/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
As your main and only point is privacy, you might say that full body scanners are an invasion of privacy and that they should have pat downs instead or metal detectors but those are an even bigger invasion of privacy. In pat downs they feel every part of your body, and they do this with medal detectors too. Sarah also said they should have dog searches. 1) dogs cant detect anythign except for drugs, 2) this is a huge invasion of privacy as an animal is sniffing your body. Also Yumna said full body scanners would not catch everything and people could sneak things through, but medal detectors can only detect MEDAL. What if your carrying a bomb or dynamite or any kind of weapon that is not made of medal? Then what? The plain explodes, and you die. Side: Yes it should be allowed
1
point
2
points
I completely disagree with you, safety DOES win over privacy. Safety will always come first, no matter what! The pictures (which are animated and do not show and specific body parts) do not save in a server they delete forever. According to a 2010 CBS poll, four out of five Americans support the use of Advanced Imaging Technology at airports nationwide. Side: Yes it should be allowed
1
point
Personal Freedoms the TSAs AIT does not impact personal freedoms, you guys agreed to buy the ticket which states that you are agreeing to go through these machines, if you dont want to do that take a boat!!!Relating back to the 4th amendment, it states that people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and no Warrants. TSA’s AIT is not an unreasonable search. its for safety. Also they don’t have a warrant but when you buy the ticket you are agreeing to go through security, which is where you are randomly chosen to go through the AIT. So TSA’s AIT is not unreasonable and you agree to it if you are planning to fly. Side: Yes it should be allowed
There should be this type of security so nothing can happen on 9/11. A few planes were hijacked by suicide terrorists in the tragic event of 9/11. This was because of the lack of security at airports. After that event, security tightened everywhere. This was to make sure that it didn’t happen again. Side: Yes it should be allowed
2
points
After 9/11 in 2009 the "Christmas Underwear Bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab got through the airport with all the checks and got on to the plane. He got through by putting the bomb in his down under and covering it by plastic that covered the explosives on the scanner. checkshttp://www.express.co.uk/news/ Side: No, it should not
1
point
(2013) TSA says that the scanners have revealed more than 60 "artfully concealed" illegal or prohibited items in the past year. No explosives have been detected by the machines to this day, but their ability to spot even small concealed objects demonstrates their effectiveness as a security tool, officials said. "It is absolutely a tremendous improvement of what we can detect at the checkpoints," TSA Acting Administrator Gale Rossides said this week. "It is an excellent piece of technology that will significantly improve our detection capabilities." But to illustrate the machines' effectiveness, Rossides showed a packet of white powder smaller than a tea bag, saying it was identical to a concealed bag detected by an imager. She also said that the body imagers are especially useful because they can expose contraband on parts of the body that aren't fully explored in pat-downs, such as private parts. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/18/travel/tsa-body-scanners/index.html# http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/04/01/airport.body.scanners/ https://drive.google.com/a/gemsdaa.net/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
Dog searches???? Your only point is privacy, but how are dog searches respecting privacy? Who wants dogs sniffing every part of their body ? Thats more of an invasion! So are pat-downs, pat downs are when you feel the passengers body, all around, to make sure she/he is not carrying anything. Full body scans are not as invasive, you stand fully dressed in a scanner. Your body is not touched in any way, or viewed with detail. Side: Yes it should be allowed
As we've already said, the machines are not invasive. The scanner is not graphic. In fact, it’s generic with almost no detail. When metal or illegal products are detected, the area turns yellow on the screen to indicate where it’s located. The body scanner images are not archived or stored if this happens. If the person has nothing illegal or dangerous on them, the screen gives the ‘OK’ without any images. Before the TSA modified the machines, they used to have detailed images of the passengers body. It’s true that people disagreed with this saying that it was a violation of the fourth amendment. After this, the TSA made the picture look the same whether you’re a girl or boy, young or old, short or tall, it all came out the same. Side: Yes it should be allowed
1
point
According to this interview: https://www.youtube.com/ 74% of Americans are in favor of the scanner. As well as this, the radiation is equivalent to ⅓ of the power in a tooth x-ray. That is extremely little especially for people who travel rarely. Side: Yes it should be allowed
1
point
It does not go against the 4th amendment because In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court rules on U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908, there are key pieces of wording that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key wording in this ruling includes “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.” Side: Yes it should be allowed
1
point
In conclusion, safety always wins over privacy. You guys might say that they can get through them so they should switch it with a search dog or a metal detector, but if you want to do that be ready for horrible things to happen. This is because with a dog, it can only sniff drugs and with a metal detector it only detects metal so you can sneak plastic knives or drugs. Side: Yes it should be allowed
In conclusion, safety always wins over privacy, and the radiation is extremely little in the full body scanner. The full body scanner is completely effective and should be kept in airports to keep everyone safe. You did say privacy was important, but safety always comes first. We hope you have been convinced that the body scanners should stay in airports. Side: Yes it should be allowed
In concusion, we had 3 main points. Safety, radiation, and privacy. Safety beats anything. What if someone said no to a full body scanner because they thought it invaded privacy, then walked into a plane and brought a weapon/ammunition with them. Then a whole plain filled with humna lives would explode and everyone would die. Also, the oponent might have argued that the scanners could cause cancer from the radiation, but they do not. As said in http://www.healthcentral.com/prostate/c/ the machines emit fewer than 10 micrograms of radiation (which is roughly one-thousandth of the exposure of a chest x-ray). The Food and Drug Administration says that the risk of cancer is one in 400 million, citing the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Up to 5 million micrograms of annual exposure is considered safe; 3 or 10 micrograms is still a very small amount. Our last point was privcay, as our oponents suggested pat downs and metal detectors, they are even more nvasive as they feel yoru bdoy. You are fully dressed during scanners and the images are ghsot like or catroon. Plu sonly one person is behind the screen. We hoped you have convinced you to stand on our side. Thank you. Side: Yes it should be allowed
In conclusion, the safety of the public is more important than privacy. Even though the TSA has changed the technology to less invasive animated, non graphic images, some people might have thought that it's still invasion. We hope you are convinced. Side: Yes it should be allowed
|
2
points
1
point
2
points
The backscatter machines are ineffective because they cannot detect explosives in body cavities or covered by special plastic's like the "Christmas Underwear Bomber" has. You can sneak large quantities of explosives through the machine, using different techniques. Side: No, it should not
1
point
There is plastic (1.5 cm) that can cover weapons and drugs and mask them from the scanner. This proves that in fact, this scanner doesn’t stop all terrorists and drug dealers from continuing their illegal acts. A passenger can tape a gun to there leg (the outside of it), right above there knee. That means that the black that shows up from the gun blends in with its background. Side: No, it should not
1
point
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab commited something called the underwear bomber.Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab got through the airport with all the checks while having a bomb in his underwear. He went all the way through to the airplane but the bomb groin. This event happened on 2009 on Christmas Day. He was on a plane from Amsterdam to Detroit and it was degraded and caused a fire. This means they scanner is not accurate. Side: No, it should not
1
point
Even Benjamin Frankiln, a role model to many, agrees that “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” This means we should all follow these regulations and have metal detectors which give every human some privacy. The world already rips away a lot of privacy from humans already with the internet. Side: No, it should not
1
point
Researchers from U.C. San Diego, University of Michigan, and Johns Hopkins University say that anyone with knowledge of the scanners can sneak a weapon through the scanners. This means that professional researchers believe that the scanners have no use as the weapons can be sneaked. Side: No, it should not
1
point
1
point
0
points
Excuse me? Are you saying this item is not valuable? Without full body scanners, many weapons could be hid and sneaked into plans, filled with thousands of people! Then this plane filled with human beings, would crash or explode and thousands of lives would be taken away. Pretty valuable to me! Side: Yes it should be allowed
1
point
0
points
Excuse me? Are you saying this item is not valuable? Without full body scanners, many weapons could be hid and sneaked into plans, filled with thousands of people! Then this plane filled with human beings, would crash or explode and thousands of lives would be taken away. Pretty valuable to me! Side: Yes it should be allowed
The scanner prevents huge tragedies like 9/11 where planes were hijacked and many lives were lost. This was done by terrorists from the Saudi terrorist organization of Al-Qaeda. They crashed the planes on purpose. The reason they got through easily in the first place was because of loose security. Side: Yes it should be allowed
0
points
Who would want a dog sniffing them? The only thing the dogs would find is drugs and not weapons!!! Also, when you go through a metal detector, they will only find things that are metal! So you can pass through with drugs, bombs, sharp things that are not metal etc. The dog would be very invasive!! The scanner is less invasive as no one is actually touching you. Side: Yes it should be allowed
-1
points
In the modern era people are continuously having their privacy invaded everyday using advanced imaging technology. Today we will be talking about risks and effects of using this Full Body Scanner. The opposition might say that safety is more important than liberty although they should go hand in hand. We are going to try and argue that even though giving up a simple freedom like this will lead to giving up major freedoms later on. Side: No, it should not
Protecting life with scanners is more important than privacy. Outlines can be obscured to protect privacy. They can remove your face from the picture. Minors can be exempted from the full body scanners, but then would a pat-down. Fully-body scanners reveal metallic and nonmetallic items. Full-body scanners are less intrusive than pat-downs. Full-body scans pose no more risk than x-ray machines. Side: Yes it should be allowed
-1
points
I believe that the TSA Advanced Imaging Technology, also known as the full body scanner should not be used in America. There are many reasons for this but one of the main concerns of passengers trying to travel with ease is too much invasion of there naked body. Side: No, it should not
Safety always beats privacy. Your argument was they go hand in hand, but they already do: the procedure for a full body scan is explained in this website http:// http://www.propublica.org/special/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
1
point
Many passangers flying in America are MUslims and Christians and the act to look under a persons clothes is against there religions stated in these verses in the bible and the Quran. 1 Timothy 2:9 - In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; O children of Adam, We have bestowed upon you clothing to conceal your private parts and as adornment. But the clothing of righteousness - that is best. That is from the signs of Allah that perhaps they will remember. [Quran 7:26] Side: No, it should not
1
point
1
point
There is no difference from these scans than at looking at pornography “These aren’t X-rays, they are essentially images of the naked body,” said Sharif Labban, a freshman who will be traveling from Raleigh/Durham International Airport, where the scanners will be in place. “I understand they are for the sake of national defense, but I do not see the distinction from pornography.” Side: No, it should not
0
points
It, in fact, doesn’t violate the right to privacy because it’s for safety reasons. These searches and scans will keep the passengers safe. It will also keep dangerous items out of the plane for people to have a safe trip. It can detect drugs as small as teabags. If the passengers are so worried about strangers seeing their naked body, then they should know that the scan image is not graphic. In fact, it’s generic with almost no detail. When metal or illegal products are detected, the area turns yellow on the screen to indicate where it’s located. The body scanner images are not archived or stored if this happens. If the person has nothing illegal or dangerous on them, the screen gives the ‘OK’ without any images. Before the TSA modified the machines, they used to have detailed images of the passengers body. It’s true that people disagreed with this saying that it was a violation of the fourth amendment. After this, the TSA made the picture look the same whether you’re a girl or boy, young or old, short or tall, it all came out the same. Side: Yes it should be allowed
0
points
I disagree as you state that "it will also keep dangerous items out of the plane for people to have a safe trip." because the machine does not always detect dangerous items that the person is carrying. Researchers from U.C. San Diego, University of Michigan, and Johns Hopkins University say that anyone with knowledge of the scanners can sneak a weapon through the scanners. Which therefore means that more people can sneak dangerous items on to the aircraft because they will be able to get through the scanners. Side: No, it should not
0
points
1
point
They show the outlines of the humans gentals- http://www.jaunted.com/tag/ This makes the traveler uncomfortable Side: No, it should not
You might think that these scanner catch all the criminals but in fact there is a way to cross this machine with a weapon or drug if it is concealed correctly. You can actually use a specific type of plastic that will shield the weapon from the rays. See for yourself! Side: No, it should not
When you buy your ticket, you're agreeing to the full body scan. Plus, this does not invade privacy, you are fully dressed the whole time, and only person sees the image, and images cannot be saved. Images are not a pornographic, they only show a ghostly outline. Side: Yes it should be allowed
0
points
-2
points
http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/ "Since 2009, officers operating advanced imaging technology (AKA “body scanners”) have found all sorts of things on passengers. Some of these items have been smaller items such as a three inch pocket knife hidden on someone’s back, little packets of powder, a syringe full of liquid hidden in someone’s underwear, and other small items either intentionally hidden or forgotten. These finds demonstrate that imaging technology is very effective at detecting anomalies and can help TSA detect evolving threats to keep our skies safe. " Side: Yes it should be allowed
2
points
Body scanners can find drugs as small as a teabag Body scanners can prevent planes from being hijacked like 9/11 https://prezi.com/gch-ysjkn06k/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
0
points
Body scanners do not always prevent planes from being hijacked like 9/11, due to the fact that you can still sneak in weapons through the scanner. An example of snealing a weapon through the scanner is that a passenger can tape a gun to there leg (the outside of it), right above there knee. That means that the black that shows up from the gun blends in with its background. Therefore the weapon will not be detected. Side: No, it should not
1
point
|
