Sorry for the US-centric comment. All people are created equal with unalienable rights, so we shouldn't be trampling the human rights of foreigners either. It's just easier to point out the abuses when we have governing documents that explicitly say we shouldn't be doing the thing that we're doing.

> It's just easier to point out the abuses when we have governing documents that explicitly say we shouldn't be doing the thing that we're doing.

Can you explain what part of it is unconstitutional? Because while I'm totally against it, I think it is pretty much entirely constitutional because airlines are a private business that no one is being forced to go through. But I clearly don't know much about this and would welcome an education.

Earlier this year, the ACLU won a case regarding the constitutionally of the no-fly list[1]. Basically, their argument was that you can't give up your Fifth Amendment rights (due process) when you travel internationally. Since this argument won, it implies that Fourth Amendment rights (probable cause searches) also cannot be forfeited.

Relevant quote:

"Accordingly, the Court concludes on this record that Plaintiffs have a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in traveling internationally by air, which is affected by being placed on the No Fly List." [2]

[1] - https://www.aclu.org/national-security/latif-et-al-v-holder-...

[2] - https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/latif_v_hold...

The Fourth Amendment only protects against unreasonable searches without probable cause. The Supreme Court could well decide that airport scanners are reasonable and therefore do not require probable cause.

The TSA is a government agency, not a private organization. Options for flying without undergoing a grope down or subjecting oneself to the nudie photo maker are limited to those wealthy enough to fly private.

> The TSA is a government agency, not a private organization.

Right, but the airlines are private and you are choosing to enter into a contract with them out of your own volition. The TSA is a regulator, but is not requiring that you fly.

> Options for flying without undergoing a grope down or subjecting oneself to the nudie photo maker are limited to those wealthy enough to fly private.

Which sucks, but doesn't sound like a constitutional violation to me.

Freedom of movement is considered a constitutional right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unite... If you live in a remote area where the only option is to fly commercial you may have a strong case.

However, my understand is these are only added to major airports to avoid encountering such a situation. As you don't need to fly to get from Chicago or NY to just about anywhere.

Which creates another issue. Your not re-screened after traveling from a minor to a major airport which renders these precautions practically useless vs an intelligent advisory.

> Current US Code addresses air travel specifically. In 49 U.S.C. § 40103, "Sovereignty and use of airspace", the Code specifies that "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."

This doesn't sound like guaranteed use of commercial airports/airlines, it sounds like you'd have the right to fly yourself from your own airstrip, but not necessarily from an airport.

> Which creates another issue. As your not re-screened after traveling from a minor to a major airport which renders these precautions practically useless vs an intelligent advisory.

That is interesting.

"The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. . . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values." - Justice William O. Douglas

Like everything there is a balancing act between the interests of the individual, group, and state. One can argue that commercial air travel is so important to modern travel and movement of people (are you going to take a boat to Hawaii?) that going through needlessly invasive screening without any suspicion or probable cause as a prerequisite might be an undue limit on freedom of movement.

The supreme court ruled 8-1 that strip searches in schools are unconstitutional. How are technology-enabled strip searches at the airport any different?

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06...

> The supreme court ruled 8-1 that strip searches in schools are unconstitutional.

They have not. You'll have to point to a specific case because they have ruled for strip searches to be constitutional under essentially what amounts to probable cause.

Edit: you added the link. If the girl in that story had been using or distributing an illegal drug it would've been a (legally) reasonable search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._T._L._O.

> How are technology-enabled strip searches at the airport any different?

Putting aside the question of whether or not MMW scans are actually legally equivalent to strip searches, the government forces you to show up to school. It does not force you to show up to the airport.

No, "the court ruled 8 to 1 that such an intrusive search without the threat of a clear danger to other students violated the Constitution's protections against unreasonable search or seizure".

How would her having illegal drugs be a clear danger to other students?

No what? Nothing I said disagrees with that.

Can we go back to the part where you explain how scanners at airports are a "blatant violation of our Constitutional rights"?

To be fair this paper is about machines deployed by the TSA.