>If the extra security results in a strange TSA agent getting to enjoy some surprise dick pics, well that's the price of freedom Jerry.

I wouldn't say that someone has 'freedom' if they're being forced to possibly have their body visibly exposed to strangers against their will.

If regular people wanted freedom, they would just fly private!

This guy get it.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

( https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anatole_France )

isn't that what those scanners do lol?

They highlight where there are extraneous objects on one's body, but they do not reveal what's underneath your clothes. The OP that I responded to explicitly states s/he would be fine with TSA agents ruffling through your most recent messages on your phone, and that it should be OK for them to see nude photos of yourself that you may have just sent someone.

There's a big difference between going, "Hey, the computer put a red square on the left thigh of a generic outline of a human, it suggests we should look there to see if you have anything," and, "Hmm, let's see what Johnny sent Sally yesterday. Oh look, his dick! And this lady who isn't even traveling with him sent him six pictures of her breasts!"

Also they supposedly black out sensitive areas.

I mean sure, my parents grew up knowing that the secret police was listening to every phone call and opening every letter, but it was fine because you know, whatever keeps the motherland safe I guess!

If dick picks are fair game I think we should all be required to strip naked and submit to cavity inspections for the security screening process. Because that's how we've managed to keep our prisons 100% contraband free.

The TSA's own research points out that their criteria for search doesn't work[1]. The whole thing is a sad farce that adds no real security.

[1]http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-aclu-tsa-20170207-stor...

Do you really think random terrorists are dumb enough to send text messages like "so how's your terrorist attack going?" or "don't forget the bomb!"?

Absolutely.

Perhaps not in those terms, but amateur OPSEC failures have sunk more than one criminal enterprise.

>I am TOTALLY ok with TSA reading my last text messages before I go on a flight.

That's cool, and I respect that. But I am NOT OK with the TSA performing such a search of my devices. (Unless they have a warrant. Then I'm fine with it. It's really that I'm a stickler about this old document called the "Constitution")

Are you willing to stand up for MY right for my (electronic) papers and effects to be secure from unreasonable searches? If not, are there other parts of the Constitution you would be willing to jettison?

(For what it's worth, this is a genuine question not just a complaint. There are parts of the Constitution that I would prefer to change -- just not this particular one.)

At that point you might as well advocate for the NSA to preapprove all text messages before being relayed to the recipient (provided that isn't already the case). Maybe the TSA could sell that as another perk to get through security faster. I'll take more privacy over a fake sense of security, thank you.

Not sure if you're kidding, but if you're not, there'd be no terrorist attacks at all if we were all locked in our own individual rooms with only telescreens to communicate with each other through.

Maybe we should take a serious look at that. It could seriously protect tens of thousands!

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Soon to be in the terrorist's opsec handbook: don't fly with the phone you use to talk terrorist ringleaders.

Is every person in your contact list ok with it?

Is your partner, who sent you private pictures, ok with it?

Is your company ok with internal emails being read by the TSA?

Does giving access to your accounts on certain apps and websites to the TSA violate the TOS of any of those apps or websites?

The price of freedom cannot be freedom itself.

But it could be a reference to freedom. :)

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Since price is a property of the concept of freedom, the price property cannot have a value which itself is the concept of freedom. The compiler will bail because the inner concept of freedom would have an incomplete type.

The way around this is to define the price property as a reference to the concept of freedom. That way you hold a memory addy to the concept of freedom within the struct and can compile and run your program with impunity.

no.