LasersHurt: I think you have no perspective whatsoever if you think this is just a skip and a jump from a dystopian police state.

Not just this but everything else going on and has gone on. Just looking at the prison-industrial complex and the abuses done by the police and federal govt types (FBI, CIA, the military), it isn't that far fetched to be fearful of this shiat.

LasersHurt: redmid17: The current system works fine.

Do we live in the same country?

It's ALWAYS a good idea to revisit ideas. Just going "we talking about something similar once, let's never do it again" is lazy and horrible.

Yes we live in the same country, but apparently you didn't avail yourself of the critical thinking aspect of your education nor the reading comprehension part.

LasersHurt: And the only reason we don't "update" amendments is because we're stupid. A stagnant government will fail EVERY time.

We DO update amendments, it's through a very specific process, and it has happened 28 times already. The Constitution is the supreme law in the land, and parts of it have been changed 28 times. (18 if you want to count the original Bill of Rights as part of the main body of the Constitution.)

Here's the process:

Article V, United States Constitution
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

LasersHurt: Dimensio: LasersHurt: Dimensio: you personally endorse authoritarian fascism

That's absurd and you're a fool.

I would expect an authoritarian fascist to attempt to dismiss criticism through ad hominem.

I didn't know that was a feature of Authoritarian Fasciststm.

It is. You have to read the fine print.

LasersHurt: For one, these machines are more likely to be used to scan individuals while they are in public places or government property, not in their homes. Looking at me is different than looking into my house.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

I've bolded the areas that are relevant in this case. Houses are just one part of the 4th. Things on or about your body (effects), your ID and other documents (papers), and yourself (person) are protected against searches without a warrant or probably cause. This scanner does so without either a warrant or probable cause.

Using such a device around a speaking dignitary, such as the President? Sure, I'm okay with that, that falls under probable cause. On the street, minding your own business? No way.

redmid17: Read the fourth amendment in its entirety and then come back to us. We will wait.

You keep acting like I don't understand it. I do. I disagree. That's different.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: IIRC some people were using infrared cameras to film kids in bathing suits years ago, that didn't go over so well for them in court, and this should be the same kind of violation.

Except that the technology is different from that, and can't be used the same way, which seems important to me.

Our elected officials justify violating our rights and privacy on the grounds that some people are criminals.

Ok, fine. From now on, the financial information of all elected officials shall be complete open to the public. Every single farking transaction, no exception. Because some politicians have been known to take bribes. And since police officers hold a position of power, we have to be certain they are above repoach. So their financial information shall be public, too. This is fully justifiable because there have been instances of police corruption.

LasersHurt: redmid17: Read the fourth amendment in its entirety and then come back to us. We will wait.

You keep acting like I don't understand it. I do. I disagree. That's different.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: IIRC some people were using infrared cameras to film kids in bathing suits years ago, that didn't go over so well for them in court, and this should be the same kind of violation.

Except that the technology is different from that, and can't be used the same way, which seems important to me.

No you don't understand it. You think that persons and their effects are somehow different than houses with regards to the 4th amendment. They are not. You might disagree, but you're just wrong.

The technology is minimally different. It uses a different part of the spectrum to do the same thing. That's comparable to the people saying that there was no way DC v Heller was going to be applied to the states even though it was incredibly obvious to people who had read the case that McDonald v Chicago was going to incorporate the 2nd amendment.

redmid17: No you don't understand it.

Yes, I do, which is why I have repeatedly noted the idea of revisiting and reforming. Because I think things that are DIFFERENT than the current law.

redmid17: The technology is minimally different.

How is this "minimally different" than trying to use IR to peep at children? Did you see the same screen images I did in the article?

We've already got random searches in public transportation.  If we're going to go full-on dystopian I hope we go that route, then at least then we get a free grope out of the deal.

FUNFACT!  This is where the phrase "To cop a feel" came from.

FUNNER FACT!  Sometimes I like taking educated guesses about etymology.

computerguyUT: Hahahahha New York, what a bunch of freaking weenies.
Never been there, never will.

NY used to be the badass big brother of the US.
Now it's the France of the United States and instantly surrenders at the slightest sign of trouble...

Should make the Motto "The Lawn Chair State".

Sad day when you see New York get steamrolled by politicians and go under with a tiny little whimper.

Ya know.. I've been to 40+ countries and I've never stepped foot in NYC and could give a shiat less if I ever do. Your analogy sir is spot on. Bravo!

LasersHurt: redmid17: No you don't understand it.

Yes, I do, which is why I have repeatedly noted the idea of revisiting and reforming. Because I think things that are DIFFERENT than the current law.

redmid17: The technology is minimally different.

How is this "minimally different" than trying to use IR to peep at children? Did you see the same screen images I did in the article?

Once again you might disagree with, which is your right, but you are *wrong* about it. Don't frame it as a statement of fact and no one would be calling you out on it.

The Kyllo v US decision, which is the SCOTUS decision everyone is referring to, did not involve infrared cameras and kid diddler wannabes. It involved police using thermal imaging devices to look for marijuana grow houses. SCOTUS ruled that it was an illegal search since they did not have a warrant. NYPD wants to use a device that relies on
terahertz radiation instead of thermal radiation. That's basically saying "Well they said I can't use fuel in my car, but they never said anything about used corn oil (being used as fuel)!" The intent was that even passive scanning is a violation of the 4th amendment. These are both passive scanning with different types of radiation. Pretty simple stuff to comprehend, no?

jaybeezey: Just because you don't care to use your rights does not mean the rest of us are ready to give ours up just yet.

This is the kind of hysterical shiat I've been talking about. Lunacy.

redmid17: The intent was that even passive scanning is a violation of the 4th amendment.

Is that stated in the decision?

BraveNewCheneyWorld: LasersHurt: BraveNewCheneyWorld: IIRC some people were using infrared cameras to film kids in bathing suits years ago, that didn't go over so well for them in court, and this should be the same kind of violation.

Except that the technology is different from that, and can't be used the same way, which seems important to me.

Different technology only in the fact that it views a different wavelength. Otherwise, it's an identical concept in that you are using technology to reveal something that was concealed from human perception.

Right, but when your comparison point is "filming kids in bathing suits" I think you need something less tenuous. "Identical" concept? Really?

LasersHurt: jaybeezey: Just because you don't care to use your rights does not mean the rest of us are ready to give ours up just yet.

This is the kind of hysterical shiat I've been talking about. Lunacy.

redmid17: The intent was that even passive scanning is a violation of the 4th amendment.

Is that stated in the decision?

No it's not. I have just been spouting off about it for the last hour with nothing to back it up. Try looking it up. God forbid you educate yourself a bit. Kyllo v US - look it up

redmid17: LasersHurt: jaybeezey: Just because you don't care to use your rights does not mean the rest of us are ready to give ours up just yet.

This is the kind of hysterical shiat I've been talking about. Lunacy.

redmid17: The intent was that even passive scanning is a violation of the 4th amendment.

Is that stated in the decision?

No it's not. I have just been spouting off about it for the last hour with nothing to back it up. Try looking it up. God forbid you educate yourself a bit. Kyllo v US - look it up

He's going to nit pick it, because the words 'passive scanning' are not explicitly in the decision, even though the concept is well described in the decision.

redmid17: God forbid you educate yourself a bit. Kyllo v US - look it up

"Kyllo v. United States, 533 (2001), held that the use of a device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the, and thus required a warrant."

"Scalia created a "firm but also bright" line drawn by the Fourth Amendment at the "'entrance to the house'". "

I read the Wikipedia article and it seems specific to the home. I can read the decision itself if you think it makes it clearer there.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Yeah, nobody likes it when they're caught arguing for the rights of pedophiles, but here you are.

Ah so you've got no interest in honest conversation, then.

LasersHurt: redmid17: God forbid you educate yourself a bit. Kyllo v US - look it up

"Kyllo v. United States, 533 (2001), held that the use of a device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the, and thus required a warrant."

"Scalia created a "firm but also bright" line drawn by the Fourth Amendment at the "'entrance to the house'". "

I read the Wikipedia article and it seems specific to the home. I can read the decision itself if you think it makes it clearer there.

For searching a house, yes. But that line is also drawn around the other things protected in the 4th, being persons, papers, and effects. Please don't be obtuse about this.

tgambitg: redmid17: LasersHurt: jaybeezey: Just because you don't care to use your rights does not mean the rest of us are ready to give ours up just yet.

This is the kind of hysterical shiat I've been talking about. Lunacy.

redmid17: The intent was that even passive scanning is a violation of the 4th amendment.

Is that stated in the decision?

No it's not. I have just been spouting off about it for the last hour with nothing to back it up. Try looking it up. God forbid you educate yourself a bit. Kyllo v US - look it up

He's going to nit pick it, because the words 'passive scanning' are not explicitly in the decision, even though the concept is well described in the decision.

The passive nature of the device is mentioned twice in the decision.

LasersHurt: redmid17: God forbid you educate yourself a bit. Kyllo v US - look it up

"Kyllo v. United States, 533 (2001), held that the use of a device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the, and thus required a warrant."

"Scalia created a "firm but also bright" line drawn by the Fourth Amendment at the "'entrance to the house'". "

I read the Wikipedia article and it seems specific to the home. I can read the decision itself if you think it makes it clearer there.

Just read the decision. It applies to the entire 4th amendment, not houses. If you're daft enough to think that, then I have a bridge NYC to sell you. You can put passive scanners on it I'm sure.

WalkingCarpet: In other news, false arrests and harassment of innocent civilians to increase by a brazillion percent.

Fixed that for you.

Are you alive and in the United States of America? Congratulations, you're a criminal.

tgambitg: For searching a house, yes. But that line is also drawn around the other things protected in the 4th, being persons, papers, and effects. Please don't be obtuse about this.

I'm not being obtuse, I am asking if that decision specifically mentioned that it should apply to a person outside of the home. The whole point he has been making is hinged on the idea that this decision applied in this instance, to scanning people outside of the home. I'm trying to ascertain if the decision DOES specifically mention it, or is just tenuously tied by their both being 4th amendment issues.

My point is trying to support the idea that this is sufficiently different as to require separate review - as I read it, that decision is centered on the home, and the court might feel differently about the person in public.

redmid17: Just read the decision.

I just did. It's about houses/the home. Those are the words they come back to in each section. There is no mention of the person.

LasersHurt: tgambitg: For searching a house, yes. But that line is also drawn around the other things protected in the 4th, being persons, papers, and effects. Please don't be obtuse about this.

I'm not being obtuse, I am asking if that decision specifically mentioned that it should apply to a person outside of the home. The whole point he has been making is hinged on the idea that this decision applied in this instance, to scanning people outside of the home. I'm trying to ascertain if the decision DOES specifically mention it, or is just tenuously tied by their both being 4th amendment issues.

My point is trying to support the idea that this is sufficiently different as to require separate review - as I read it, that decision is centered on the home, and the court might feel differently about the person in public.

WalkingCarpet: In other news, false arrests and harassment of innocent civilians to increase by a brazillion percent.

It's not a tenuous tie in. It's explicitly mentioned in the same class.

LasersHurt: tgambitg: For searching a house, yes. But that line is also drawn around the other things protected in the 4th, being persons, papers, and effects. Please don't be obtuse about this.

I'm not being obtuse, I am asking if that decision specifically mentioned that it should apply to a person outside of the home. The whole point he has been making is hinged on the idea that this decision applied in this instance, to scanning people outside of the home. I'm trying to ascertain if the decision DOES specifically mention it, or is just tenuously tied by their both being 4th amendment issues.

My point is trying to support the idea that this is sufficiently different as to require separate review - as I read it, that decision is centered on the home, and the court might feel differently about the person in public.

A better way of doing it, since the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to limit what government could do, is if it is even tenuously connected, it is not allowed. Remember that the people who wrote the document just got out from under an oppressive government and were trying to prevent that from happening again. View it like this: If the Constitution does not explicitly allow the federal government (and state and local governments via the 14th Amendment) to do a thing, it is barred from doing a thing. The Fourth goes out of it's way to say you can't search a person, their homes, or their stuff (papers and effects) without a damn good reason (probable cause in case of expedience, or a warrant in terms of planned searches).

tgambitg: View it like this: If the Constitution does not explicitly allow the federal government (and state and local governments via the 14th Amendment) to do a thing, it is barred from doing a thing.

That's extraordinarily limiting, and I can't imagine how that could possibly be a good thing.

LasersHurt: redmid17: Just read the decision.

I just did. It's about houses/the home. Those are the words they come back to in each section. There is no mention of the person.

Gee, you mean that the court decided not to address a hypothetical in a decision? Jesus do you expect these to be all encompassing? The 4th amendment goes out of its way to explicitly list houses, person, papers, and effects together. Ergo, they are the same for all intents and purposes. You are being deliberately obtuse. You want SCOTUS reasoning wrapped up with a nice bow and set down in front of you, opened, and spoon fed into your mouth.

grow up

LasersHurt: tgambitg: View it like this: If the Constitution does not explicitly allow the federal government (and state and local governments via the 14th Amendment) to do a thing, it is barred from doing a thing.

That's extraordinarily limiting, and I can't imagine how that could possibly be a good thing.

The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the government to do specifically what was mentioned in the document. All other things are reserved for the people and the States.

LasersHurt: That's extraordinarily limiting, and I can't imagine how that could possibly be a good thing.

That's the point, the intent was to limit the power of government.

LasersHurt: tgambitg: View it like this: If the Constitution does not explicitly allow the federal government (and state and local governments via the 14th Amendment) to do a thing, it is barred from doing a thing.

That's extraordinarily limiting, and I can't imagine how that could possibly be a good thing.

also....

redmid17: Gee, you mean that the court decided not to address a hypothetical in a decision?

Look at those goalposts go. All I said was that I think this would merit review separate from that decision. Chill out.

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.

LasersHurt: redmid17: Gee, you mean that the court decided not to address a hypothetical in a decision?

Look at those goalposts go. All I said was that I think this would merit review separate from that decision. Chill out.

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.

If you're trolling, I have to give you an 11 out of 10. If you're not trolling, well...

LasersHurt: redmid17: Gee, you mean that the court decided not to address a hypothetical in a decision?

Look at those goalposts go. All I said was that I think this would merit review separate from that decision. Chill out.

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.

A government agile enough to make things better is one that is agile enough to make things worse and slip into tyranny in the blink of an eye. The restrictions put in place are there to prevent that from happening.

tgambitg: LasersHurt: redmid17: Gee, you mean that the court decided not to address a hypothetical in a decision?

Look at those goalposts go. All I said was that I think this would merit review separate from that decision. Chill out.

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.

A government agile enough to make things better is one that is agile enough to make things worse and slip into tyranny in the blink of an eye. The restrictions put in place are there to prevent that from happening.

To prevent good governance?