Underwear Invention Protects Privacy At Airport

Thanks to Jeff Buske you don't have to be embarrassed while going through the full body scanners at the airport. Buske has invented radiation shielding underwear for the shy traveler. From the article: "Jeff Buske says his invention uses a powdered metal that protects people's privacy when undergoing medical or security screenings. Buske of Las Vegas, Nev.-Rocky Flats Gear says the underwear's inserts are thin and conform to the body's contours, making it difficult to hide anything beneath them. The mix of tungsten and other metals do not set off metal detectors."

Comments

4th amendment point

[yossie]

4th amendment protects you against unreasonable search. Seems like it would apply at the airport. TSA claims that you are contractually obligated to put up with search when you enter the secure area and that your air travel ticket states this and as such is a contract. But, you aren't able to sign away your constitutional rights implying, at least, that this component of the air travel contract is illegal. How does this all square up?

Re:4th amendment point

[stubob]

The Supreme Court. http://openjurist.org/676/f2d/379 676 F. 2d 379 - United States v. Ek

We hold that the stricter standard required for a body cavity search also applies to an X-ray search. An X-ray search, although perhaps not so humiliating as a strip search, nevertheless is more intrusive since the search is potentially harmful to the health of the suspect. It goes beyond the passive inspection of body surfaces. We think that the use of such medical procedures should be restricted to situations where there is a clear indication that the suspect is concealing contraband within his body.

All of which apply to border searches and not routine air travel. There's probably very little legal standing for these searches apart from the "license with the airlines" argument.

Re:Horrible Idea

[pngwen]

I'm all for frustrating TSA agents. Those people are traitors to the cause of liberty. 200 years ago, they would have all been hanged. I think frustrating them is a little less extreme, don't you?

Re:Horrible Idea

[Myopic]

I reluctantly agree with this point. Although I am generally a law-and-order kind of guy, I think airport security is outside any reasonable threshold along the sliding scale of security, and therefore I think it is unethical for any individual to participate in the enforcement of that security. Basically what I'm saying is fuck those guys, they must be assholes if they agree to do that job.

Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown?

[Talderas]

~520 annual increase in traffic fatalities was the estimate due to people driving over flying. I believe there was also admittance that the backscatter would cause about 16 additional cancer deaths annually.

Net effect is an estimated 536 increase in annual deaths.

Loss of life due to terrorist attack against westerners from 2006 to 2008 was 12 deaths annually worldwide.

The scanners are estimated to be more deadly than the terrorists have been.

Our trade offs are brilliant.

Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown?

[Stray7Xi]

The patdowns are not responsible for any deaths. These reactions are caused by the irrational fear and exacerbated prudery of the TRAVELERS.

The part you don't understand is a lot of travelers aren't afraid of TSA. They're afraid of a government free to ignore our constitutional rights. They're afraid of people disappearing in the night and ending up in secret prisons.

No thank you. 9/11 was a nuisance. Tyranny would be a real tragedy. Maybe you should get over your irrational fear of "terrorism" instead of telling people their fear of the government is irrational.

What purpose do these security screenings serve except to inspire a culture of fear. I have trouble differentiating the TSA from Al Qaeda in that regard.