8H: 4th Amendment Unlawful Search and Seizures
4th Amendment-Unlawful Searches & Seizures:
Question: “Should the TSA be permitted to use ‘advanced imaging technology’ to peer under passengers’ clothing in search of dangerous items?”
Yes they should be allowed
Side Score: 37
|
 |
No, they should not
Side Score: 36
|
|
|
|
|
Opening Statement: Terrorism is jeopardising the safety of passengers boarding flights around the world since the 9/11 attacks. There have been measures taken to prevent such an incident in the future such as there are restricted amounts of liquids allowed with a single passenger to prevent the use of liquid explosives. They have also introduced Air Marshals to all flights to help control any incident on a flight. But the easiest and quickest way to ensure security for the passengers is a simple full body scan as they are thorough and can almost guarantee safety on all flights. Some people think the TSA searches is violating their privacy but this is to insure their own safety, according to (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/ Side: Yes they should be allowed
Despite the fact that the TSA has claimed to find 2212 weapons during the screenings according to a report released by a team of researchers from U.C. San Diego, University of Michigan, and Johns Hopkins University, "anyone with knowledge of how the scanners work could have easily slipped weapons past security checkpoints" in fact in laboratory tests with a real machine, they were able to conceal guns, knives, and explosive simulants in such a way that they were not visible to the scanner operator. http://www.dailydot.com/politics/ Side: No, they should not
In fact the researchers stated ‟We also studied the cyber physical security of the machine and were able to show how an attacker could subvert the operator console software so that it would be possible to conceal all types of contraband.” Meaning that the software of the TSA can and will be hacked by any terrorists group with the knowledge of how the scanners work jeopardizing the safety of any passenger on board a flight. Side: No, they should not
Actually according to the daily mail, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/ "In 2014 TSA officials found 2,212 guns and weapons through these scanners which is 22 percent more than 2013 which proves the rise of threats to passengers and airlines." You stated that anyone could slip in weapons through security checkpoints, but there isn't a source proven to show that in the past officers have slipped in weapons. Side: Yes they should be allowed
The machine has a ability to spot little concealed objects. It demonstrates their effectiveness as a security tool. For example, in Richmond, Virginia, airport the scanner found a knife hidden in the small of a person's back. The person could've murdered someone if it wasn't the tsa body scanners. http://edition.cnn. Side: Yes they should be allowed
The TSA scans are programmed so that a person's body is outlined in a light colour with a dark background. Metals are detected to be a dark colour meaning that if you place anything to the side of you body the metal wouldn't be detected and you can pass through. Jonathan Corbett was able to sneak past a heavy metal container past the TSA body scanners by creating a secret side pocket https://www.youtube.com/ However anyone with a familiarity with how the technology works could easily conceal weapons by hiding them in specific places on the body or covering them with other material to fool the machines into not being able to distinguish the contraband from the passenger’s body. researchers discovered that by taping a pistol to the outside of a passenger’s leg just above the knee or sewing it into the same spot inside of a pants legs, the gun doesn’t show up at all They were even able to conceal an a .380 ACP pistol by taping it just above a subjects knee and the same gun was also conceled by sewing it into his pant leg. Another strategy, which worked well with knives, is to tape the weapon to the passenger’s body and then cover it with a material that will read as the same color as a human body, such as a polytetrafluoroethylene like Teflon. Researchers also found that it was possible to use a slight variation on this strategy to smuggle plastic explosives. "Our results suggest that while the ... [machine] is effective against naïve attackers, it is not able to guarantee either efficacy or privacy when subject to attack by an attacker who is knowledgeable about its inner workings,”. http://www.dailydot.com/politics/ Side: No, they should not
1
point
1
point
1
point
here is the source http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/ Side: Yes they should be allowed
As disputed before, our privacy rights need not be sacrificed for security. As Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said on January 9th, 2010: "We don't need to look at naked 8-year-olds and grandmothers to secure airplanes. Are we really going to subject 2 million people per day to that? I think it's a false argument to say we have to give up all of our personal privacy in order to have security." Side: No, they should not
The security found tiny packets of illegal drugs hiding in people’s pockets or bodies and found more than 80 people who tried to smuggle drugs or sometime weapons. If they were smuggling weapons, and they were planning on terrorizing, what would've happened if it wasn't the body scan? Side: Yes they should be allowed
The TSA body scans, “Since January 2010, advanced imaging technology has detected more than 300 dangerous or illegal items on passengers in U.S. airports nationwide.” http://www.propublica.org/article/ Side: Yes they should be allowed
0
points
1
point
0
points
According to http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/ Side: Yes they should be allowed
You claim it being effective, but how good are they actually? They were ony really to find the bulk of the expolsivness onl 56% of the time. http://www.propublica.org/article/just-how-good-are-the-tsas-body-scanners According to James, these scanners do not detect low-density items very well/ A British defense-research firm reportedly found that full-body scanners can be unreliable in detecting "low-density" materials like plastics, chemicals, and liquids, which is what the 2009 Christmas "underwear bomber" had stuffed in his briefs. While a hazy outline is often revealed for such items, the blurriness can often prevent the detection of such items, particularly when hundreds of thousands of passengers are being screened daily. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/ Side: No, they should not
1
point
terrorists such as the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber were able to get on the plane when the whole purpose of the TSA body scanners are to prevent terrorists from ever entering the plane. Why must we sacrifice our rights, our 4th amendment rights, when terrorists still get on the plane? Side: No, they should not
1
point
The shoe bomber and the underwear bomber were before the TSA scanners were launched. According to , http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/ Side: Yes they should be allowed
The shoe bomber and the underwear bomber were before the TSA scanners were launched. According to , http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/ Side: Yes they should be allowed
If people want pricy and don't want anyone to see their body, the machine is optional and instead you can do a pat down. Side: Yes they should be allowed
As I have stated before in another argument a 7News article states that a teenager with a diabetic insulin was forced to go through the body scanner even though she opted for a pat down, even after that she had to go through the pat down. Her insulin pump was found broken after going through the body scanner. This again proves that even though you can opt for a pat down the inexperienced TSA employees may force you into having a body scan. If you have any further argument relating to this topic please post it but them again I have several other arguments to rebuke them so... Side: No, they should not
According to Jeffrey Leib, "TSA pat-downs have evolved into more of a light massage, with screeners running their hands up and down the arms, torsos and legs of those passengers selected for the extra screening procedure." You call this a "better" and "secure" alternative? Side: No, they should not
0
points
Some passengers do not want to let anybody see them close to nudity, The TSA created an AIT scanner which produces millimeter waves which are harmless electromagnetic waves which produce a cartoon image of the passenger but still detects items on the body or in pockets. Side: Yes they should be allowed
The man who smuggled a bomb in his underwear aboard a commercial airliner on Christmas Day in 2009 has been sentenced to life in prison. If there was a body scan, it would've been really easy to find the bomb http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/16/ Side: Yes they should be allowed
Before the TSA body scanners were installed, there were many terrorist attacks including the 9/11. A few months after the 9/11 attacks, "Richard Reid, a failed shoe bomber, put a bomb in his shoe. On the plane, he then lit a fuse to his shoe bomb, then a flight attendant spotted him. " This happened on an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami. At this time, if the scanners were launched, this bomb would have been caught before Richard had entered the plane. Side: Yes they should be allowed
The TSA body scanners started to be widely used in airports after the underwear bombing that happened in 2009 and you are proving my point when you stated that the shoe bomber was "On the plane, he then lit a fuse to his shoe bomb". The shoe bomber managed to GET ON THE PLANE meaning that all the security measured, INCLUDING THE TSA SCANNERS, had failed to spot the bomb. So how come the shoe bomber was able to get on the plane if the TSA body scanners were so convenient? Side: No, they should not
|
Side: No, they should not
The first point that we want to argue is accuracy of the TSA body scanners. Did you know that researchers tried to easily slip weapons past security checkpoints? http://www.dailydot.com/politics/ Side: No, they should not
0
points
Actually according to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/ Side: Yes they should be allowed
The second point that we want to argue is the cancer risk of the TSA body scanners. According to MSNBC , a report said that the probability that a full body scan will induce cancer is comparable to the probability of dying because of a plane being blown up. Side: No, they should not
According to the TSA--and independent studies prove these machines are not harmful to our health. Side: Yes they should be allowed
Also the machine deliver less radiation than you would absorb if you were sitting in a park. You know there are radiations everywhere you go. http://www.medicaldaily.com/ Side: Yes they should be allowed
According to http://www.propublica.org/article/ Side: Yes they should be allowed
Although backscatters were removed from US airports by June 1, 2013, according to the Transportation Security Administration, and replaced with less invasive body scanners but are still used in US prisons and courthouses, as well as airports in Africa. The security hype occurred after the underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab who was in fact a Nigerian man who boarded from Africa so how is it that they use a TSA scanner with so many loopholes and false alarms there? Side: No, they should not
Closing statement: TSA body scanners are an inefficient and inaccurate security measure that is a huge violation of the 4th amendment rights of people everywhere, the TSA has no evidence of any domestic passengers that are planning to ‘blow up’ an airplane however they still carry out these invasive body scanners. With the huge amounts of money that is being used, the TSA body scanners should be more efficient and accurate. Side: No, they should not
The anxiety for terrorist attacks is rising in the world today. Governments have spent millions on surveillance technology and continue to look to do so in the future. You see cameras and CCTV’s in the mall, on the streets, in schools, in stores…...practically everywhere. TSA has authorised themselves the right to administer body scans, naked body scans. We believe that the TSA should not be permitted to use ‘advanced imaging technology’ to peer under passengers’ clothing in search of dangerous items. Our privacy is important and we should maintain that at all costs. People do not want to have the full-body scanners every time they want to do something. the scanners produce an image of a person that is close to nudity and due to the great amount of radiation, the TSA has authorized enhanced pat-downs, which could include the touching of genitals, buttocks and breast. Those who reject both procedures would not be allowed to fly. Many people are concerned about this issue. However, others don’t mind because they have “nothing to hide”. We believe that the TSA violates the fourth amendment, which protects people against unreasonable search and seizure. Side: No, they should not
According to this medical website, http://www.medicaldaily.com/ Side: Yes they should be allowed
However, whether it is a low level of radiation, that small amount is still impacting travellers. How about the pilots that use this harmful machine each and every day? According to Michael Grabell, that small amount could risk lives of getting cancer. http://www.motherjones. Side: No, they should not
You may be correct however there are 2 types of body scanners and although the scanner that used millimeter wave technology does not emit a lot of radiation the scanner that uses the backscatter x-ray technology emit approximately the same amount of radiation as an x-ray with is harmful to a regular travelers such as pilots, hostesses, hosts etc. Side: No, they should not
In your opening statement, you stated that, "the TSA has authorized enhanced pat-downs, which could include the touching of genitals, buttocks and breast." According to http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/ Side: Yes they should be allowed
However all of these alternatives still invade our privacy and violate the 4th amendment. How about coming up with an alternative to whole body imaging, such as the Puffer and the Gaurdian. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2009/1231/ Side: No, they should not
The TSA laws may state this however a 7News article was recently released reports that a teenager with a diabetic insulin was forced to go through the body scanner even though she opted for a pat down; even after that she had to go through the pat down. Her insulin pump was found broken after going through the body scanner. Side: No, they should not
If people don’t like how they show naked in the scanning, there’s a new AIT scanners using new millimeter wave technology that produces a cartoon-like outline rather than naked images of passengers. Side: Yes they should be allowed
There are new body scanners that don't produce a graphic image of a human body however in a John Hopkins Studies report it clearly states that they were also able to modify the scanner's operating software so it presented an "all-clear" message to the operator even when contraband was detected http://hub.jhu.edu/2014/08/20/ Having the basic knowledge of the new body scanners, if a person is found "all clear" then an image will not be produced and a simple ok will be projected on the screen. What is to ensure the safety of the passengers if terrorists are able to hack the software of a TSA body scanner? Side: No, they should not
Even doctors who know well about the radiation use full body scanners if they need to because they know that the radiation from the body scanners won't really harm us. http://edition.cnn. Side: Yes they should be allowed
|
