CreateDebate


Debate Info

34
58
Heck Ya! No way Jose
Debate Score:92
Arguments:47
Total Votes:136
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Heck Ya! (22)
 
 No way Jose (25)

Debate Creator

buddy987(3) pic



4th Amendment

Should the TSA be allowed to peer under passengers' clothing with their new scanner system?

Heck Ya!

Side Score: 34
VS.

No way Jose

Side Score: 58
1 point

For the TSA, in 1973, after the US vs Davis Court Case, which actually suspends the limited aspects of the 4th Amendment, there are key pieces of wording that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. This therefore does not violate the rights of the 4th Amendment. U.S. vs Davis was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court in 1986 in U.S. vs Pulido-Baquerizo, with this ruling “To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with society’s interest in safe air travel.” The 9th Circuit was an aid to help create a public law, The Aviation Transportation and Security Act, which allows the TSA to inquire the people of the United States.

Supporting Evidence: The 9th Circuit of the US (flyingwithfish.boardingarea.com)
Side: Heck Ya!
leandrap(1) Disputed
4 points

This is not a proper argument, because you are just stating a fact and does not relate to your introductory video.

Side: No way Jose
mohitgargg(7) Disputed
1 point

Yes I agree, it was a dispute, but because of connectivity problems it got posted on the arguements side.

Side: Heck Ya!
1 point

An extremely large problem that is attempted constantly these days is terrorism. Sacrificing a couple minutes of your time to go through a security check to make sure weapons or any tools or devices that could cause passengers harm, are not being carried, is absolutely imperative for a safe trip. This means that if passengers wish to fly in one of America’s planes, they, must abide by America’s rules, and that allows us to perform security checks to ensure the safety of our people is at hand. If security checks were not in place, terrorists could create havoc of massive sorts with ease.

Supporting Evidence: CounterTerrorism: (www.tsa.gov)
Side: Heck Ya!
ykabbani(-1) Disputed
1 point

Simply, you are stating in every single argument "One must abide by America's rules, and that allows us to perform security checks to ensure the SAFETY OF OUR PEOPLE IS AT HAND." You are repeating this and only making your arguments weaker with no new information, therefore you only have 'one' argument.

Side: No way Jose
1 point

You have a right to move freely around the country, but you don't have an inherent right to travel by air. If you don't want your bags searched, you are perfectly free to drive or even walk. As such, airport screenings have been deemed to be part of an administrative process. They're searching everyone in order to ensure that weapons and explosives don't make it onto planes. There is a lot of very valid questions about what level of search is "reasonably necessary," but that's the general principle. The international law allows the TSA to search the people also. It is the TSA who insure 90% safety on the plane, so the people can travel safely, without the TSA, there would be a high of chance that there would be a bomb on that plane

Supporting Evidence: Argument 1 (www.cfr.org)
Side: Heck Ya!
Wildcat13(6) Disputed
5 points

The other 10% they invade your privacy by using "strip" machines that look under your clothes. You may only see a reduced image of your body on the scan screen, but you don't know who is checking and reducing the pictures.

Side: No way Jose
mohitgargg(7) Disputed
1 point

Where did you get that information from? Please provide a source so I know, if your dispute is valid. And anyways, the fact mentioned was stating 90% safety on the trip on the plane not that ()% is checked in one way and 10% in the other way.

Side: Heck Ya!
1 point

If you don't want your bags searched, you are perfectly free to drive or even walk. As such, airport screenings are part of an administrative process to ensure safety of citizens and tourists alike. They're searching everyone in order to ensure that weapons, explosives, etc. don't make it onto planes, and thus there is no possible way to pose harm to the abundance of people that choose to travel by air. Also, if you do not wish to undergo the screening, you may always choose to take the alternative Pat-Down.

Supporting Evidence: Pat Down Alternative: (www.elsevier.com)
Side: Heck Ya!
Wildcat13(6) Disputed
3 points

The TSA agents are searching innocent passengers and invading their privacy. In other countries, security searches for suspects by observing their body language. Even so, the pat-downs are invasive and have been harmful:

“one traveler--a bladder cancer survivor--was left humiliated, crying and covered in his own urine after agents broke the seal on his urostomy bag.”

“ Another traveler, a breast cancer patient who had undergone a bilateral mastectomy earlier in the year, was denied her request to a medical card explaining her condition and forced to submit to TSA agents examining her breasts in front of other passengers.”

http://rutherford.org/publicationsresources/commentarychannel/cancercausingairportscannersenoughisenough

Side: No way Jose
leandrap(1) Disputed
2 points

What do you mean "you are perfectly free to drive or even walk"? This makes no sense in your argument. We understand what you are saying about the pat down, but the way TSA agents do the pat down is sexually molesting, for example this article: http://www.naturalnews.com/030302TSAnakedbodyscanners.html

Side: No way Jose
mohitgargg(7) Disputed
0 points

We mean to say that if other passengers want to ensure there safety by going through TSA checks, the passengers who feel "ashamed" may walk or drive without the checking of their body, and your dispute makes no sense as it provides a source that states a court case about the person which is no where related to the driving and walking of passengers, and the article also states that there are people caught taking dangerous items on the TSA check therefore ensuring safety of numerous passengers.

Side: Heck Ya!
buddy987(3) Disputed
-1 points

If you claim that the TSA's pat downs are unconstitutional, what do you suggest should be done to counter terrorism? Do you understand that almost every government in the world authorizes pat downs. Also, you have the rights to choose which gender searches you, this erases chances of molesting in any form, from occurring.

Side: Heck Ya!
1 point

Other Safety Rights have also been taken away, like the tapping of mail and mobile phones, if required this is for safety of life and for the brave country, why are the people so worried about the liberty right that have been taken away in order to provide efficient safety for the people, why don't you fight for the tapping of personal mobiles, emails and security cameras. Those are more "personal" merchandises. This right has been taken away to ensure 90% safety on the plane other than a high risk of death which would allow terrorists to destroy the people of the US.

Supporting Evidence: TheRights (www.ronpaulinstitute.org)
Side: Heck Ya!
ykabbani(-1) Disputed
3 points

This argument does not relate to your introductory paragraph whatsoever. You are basically stating facts and not backing up your statements with information, therefore it does not make sense. It seems as if you are siding with us because you are stating the negatives when you are on the PRO side.

Side: No way Jose
1 point

I agree. Your intro paragraph was talking about a different argument. This definitely has some negatives about your side. The lack of support for your claims proves so.

Side: No way Jose
0 points

Would you rather sit in a plane with an unknown risk of death, or would you rather allow the TSA to search you and your belongings with no risk of death or disease at all? The question that has emerged today is it appropriate for the TSA to use highly advanced imagery technology to examine and inquire the people of the United States and their belongings for safety reasons. In fact, yes the people of the United States it is completely reasonable and perfectly agreeable for the TSA to search the people of United States. Why wouldn’t this country want to protect their own people and everything that makes them the land of the brave? The argument will be made that the TSA is completely within the rights of the 9th Circuit of US which was created to amend the 4th Amendment and the rights of the TSA as it is necessary for the safety and protection of the American People.

In Favour of TSA
Side: Heck Ya!
0 points

The 4th Amendment specifically protects you from unreasonable search and seizure. There are many ways and methods that could be employed to search your property or person without a warrant, depending on the circumstances.

As far as the TSA goes, it's been deemed "reasonable" for purposes of public safety that everyone who wishes to travel by airplane must consent to a search of their person and belongings.

In short, it's allowed because Congress and the Courts have deemed such a search reasonable in order to ensure the security of everyone involved in air travel.

Side: Heck Ya!
ykabbani(-1) Disputed
3 points

Your argument does not relate to your siding. You are stating the ways and methods that could be "employed" to search property or person without a warrant, but you are not stating WHY they should be able to search; other than searching for hazardous items that could harm others.

Side: No way Jose
leandrap(1) Disputed
2 points

Yes, you are right but you are only talking about the TSA and not about advanced imaging technology, please talk about advanced imaging technology and if it's good or not.

Side: No way Jose
0 points

It is reasonable to search luggage to make sure that you don't have a bomb that could kill several hundred people. People have put bombs on airplanes that have killed large numbers of people before, and no one can think of a less intrusive way of preventing this than to search all luggage. Also, searching all bags prevents people from even trying to put a bomb on an airplane.

Conversely, suppose the police officer stops a car, doesn't have probable cause and the car drives away. Experience has shown that just giving the police the ability to search a car if they have a reason for a crime is enough to let them stop crime, and if anyone slips through, it's not going to cause hundreds of deaths. So in that case a search is unreasonable, because there is no point to it.

Yes, you could invent some bizarre hypotheticals (what if the car has a serial killer that you let loose, what if people started having car bombs), but this is why we have a judicial process to decide these things.

In the real world, we don't have a problem with serial killers not being arrested at traffic stops and we don't really have a problem with car bombs, we do have a problem with airplane bombs. If things changed, then the courts could change the rules. If people were getting blown up by car bombs and if there were vast numbers of serial killers that weren't being caught by random traffic stops, then the rules would change. Conversely, if something changed so that we don't have to worry about airplane bombs, then I'd hope that they courts would change the rules.

Side: Heck Ya!
ykabbani(-1) Disputed
1 point

Again, you are restating your information from every single argument in your first paragraph. The second, third, and fourth paragraphs do not relate to the TSA's rights to searching through passengers items and clothing, you are stating information about a 'serial killer' example that does not relate to your rebuttal whatsoever.

Side: No way Jose
2 points

While the "Advanced Imaging Technology" (AKA AIT) are scanning passengers at the airports lots of passengers items have been stolen. The reason why is because you are not allowed to have anything on you while doing the scan and therefore all your belongings are outside in the open. Anyone can take it. Things taken are: Money, Jewelry, Watches, Technology, Personal belongings (such as wallet, passport) and even medicine. TSA agents have planted cocaine in passengers bags. They think it’s a joke.TSA are humiliating individuals to make them feel inferior to the police state authorities. How would you feel if your $10,000 watch is stolen while you are doing a AIT scan? Airport baggage handlers are going on a “shopping spree” with passengers’ bags, not knowing that they are being recorded on camera. An analysis of property loss from the years 2010-2014 shows 30,621 claims of missing valuables, mostly packed in checked luggage. The rest occurred at security checkpoints, and has claimed about $2.5 million of property loss.

- http://7online.com/archive/7447038/

- http://www.naturalnews.com/030302TSAnakedbodyscanners.html

- http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/13/us/airport-luggage-theft/

Side: No way Jose
mohitgargg(7) Disputed
1 point

Are the TSA working for the safety of people on the plane or searching for lost goods? You had mentioned that one person lost their watch but is losing a watch more expensive than have a huge risk of losing your life? Therefore this argument is invalid as it does not state the mistake of the TSA with regards to the safety. Additionally, there should have been that there is 90% safety on the planes whose passengers have gone through the TSA check.

Side: Heck Ya!
monseiurpug(26) Disputed
1 point

The TSA are doing neither. It is blatantly obvious that the TSA think they can have 'fun' or play a prank while on their shift as baggage controllers. Once, my tablet went from inside a suitcase which was wrapped up in plastic wrap to floating around somewhere, lost. No one could have handled the luggage other than the baggage controllers. I can imagine them coming home saying to their kids, "Oh! Look! Daddy/Mummy brought you a new tablet today!" The TSA believe they are superior. There is no 90% security. That is just a made-up figure. So I say that before you state that anyone's argument is invalid, make sure that yours is valid. After re-reading your comment, I realized that you said that there should have been a 90% security. Well "should" does not cut it when it comes to serious matters. It is part of the human brain to engage in humorous events. But pranking is taking it a step too far. Around the world, people are losing things while going through security. They are not careless. They are simply following the rules. What is happening is that they are victims to the insecure flaws in air/border security. If the 90% was really real, it still wouldn't be enough. We need 100% security. It is part of human rights. More than 10% of people are facing the lack of security. That is more than 1 in 10 people. When it comes to security, there must be a 100% guarantee for all of us to be safe.

Side: No way Jose
peter2934 Disputed
1 point

Every day, transportation security officers interact with nearly two million travelers across the United States with a single goal in mind – ensuring the safety and security of the traveling public.

We want to share with you examples of the continued vigilance of TSA officers in protecting our nation’s transportation systems, including some of the most unusual items discovered at checkpoints.

TSA had a busy year in 2014, screening more than 653 million passengers in 2014 (about 1.8 million per day), which is 14.8 million more passengers than last year.

2,212 firearms were discovered in carry-on bags at checkpoints across the country, averaging more than six firearms per day. Of those, 1,835 (83 percent) were loaded. Firearms were intercepted at a total of 224 airports; 19 more airports than last year.

There was a 22 percent increase in firearm discoveries from last year’s total of 1,813.

Side: Heck Ya!
monseiurpug(26) Disputed
1 point

Hooray! They identified firearms. And now they want to use a device to scan through people's clothes. I feel so secure.(sarcasm used) Everything is SO private. Not.

The busy year for the TSA simply means that they receive a lot of customers. If the device was introduced, what would the customers be waiting for? A machine to use X-ray vision through their clothes? If that was the case, flying would be a big no go for me, and for many others who actually VALUE their privacy.

Firearms were found. Perfect! That's great! A new device is coming which will invade everyone's privacy. I think I'll pass.

Side: No way Jose
2 points

The 4th Amendment clearly states that it “protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.” These are unreasonable searches and seizures by the government for so many reasons. It is unreasonable because the machine itself shows you naked, and even shows if people have surgical scar and if a woman is on her menstrual cycle.

http://dontscan.me/

The TSA say that the person who is looking at the scan have no cellphone and don’t save the pictures of people while they are undergoing the scan.

Then why are there so many pictures of people undergoing the scan on the internet?

Here is a list of people that have filed a lawsuit against the TSA and the AIT.

https://tsascandals.wordpress.com/2013/03/30/tsa-lawsuits-legal-cases/

The person undergoing the scan has no idea who’s watching them.

There have been reports of workers saving images and sending them to humiliate colleagues.

Women survivors of breast cancer have had to take out their prosthetics, in front of the whole airport, it is embarrassing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/airport-scanners-how-much-radiation- b793071.html

How would you like it if TSA agents showed all your friends an image of the scan?

Or put it on facebook? Wouldn’t you feel like they were invading your privacy? And humiliating you?

http://thousandsstandingaround.org/

http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/01/17/rand-paul-president-going-keep-violating-4th-amendment

These are some reasons why advanced imaging technology is invading your privacy, and there are many more.

Side: No way Jose
peter2934 Disputed
1 point

It is reasonable to search luggage to make sure that you don't have a bomb that could kill several hundred people. People have put bombs on airplanes that have killed large numbers of people before, and no one can think of a less intrusive way of preventing this than to search all luggage. Also, searching all bags prevents people from even trying to put a bomb on an airplane.

Conversely, suppose the police officer stops a car, doesn't have probable cause and the car drives away. Experience has shown that just giving the police the ability to search a car if they have a reason for a crime is enough to let them stop crime, and if anyone slips through, it's not going to cause hundreds of deaths. So in that case a search is unreasonable, because there is no point to it.

Yes, you could invent some bizarre hypotheticals (what if the car has a serial killer that you let loose, what if people started having car bombs), but this is why we have a judicial process to decide these things.

In the real world, we don't have a problem with serial killers not being arrested at traffic stops and we don't really have a problem with car bombs, we do have a problem with airplane bombs. If things changed, then the courts could change the rules. If people were getting blown up by car bombs and if there were vast numbers of serial killers that weren't being caught by random traffic stops, then the rules would change. Conversely, if something changed so that we don't have to worry about airplane bombs, then I'd hope that they courts would change the rules.

Side: Heck Ya!
Wildcat13(6) Disputed
2 points

This is your argument!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: No way Jose
buddy987(3) Disputed
1 point

In the fourth Amendment, it clearly states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Screenings for the safety of the people is not in anyway an unreasonable search. So what you are saying is that; as long as I don't have to sacrifice just a couple minutes of my time it's fine if terrorists bring weapons with them onto the plane? If screening for safety is considered unreasonable, then what is considered reasonable? Also, if you despise the screening, then take the pat down, you are allowed to do that too, but wait, according to you that is also unconstitutional...

Side: Heck Ya!
mohitgargg(7) Disputed
0 points

For the TSA, in 1973, after the US vs Davis Court Case, which actually suspends the limited aspects of the 4th Amendment, there are key pieces of wording that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. This therefore does not violate the rights of the 4th Amendment. U.S. vs Davis was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court in 1986 in U.S. vs Pulido-Baquerizo, with this ruling “To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with society’s interest in safe air travel.” The 9th Circuit was an aid to help create a public law, The Aviation Transportation and Security Act, which allows the TSA to inquire the people of the United States.

Side: Heck Ya!
buddy987(3) Disputed
0 points

X-rays used for medical imaging penetrate through the body whereas X-rays used in airport full body scanners have minimal interaction at the surface of the skin. Before the scanners were introduced to airports nationwide, radiation safety studies were conducted by the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Numerous Parties including; Rapiscan's Third-Party Radiation Testing group, the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Office of Law Enforcement Standards, and Johns Hopkins University Independent Assessment group performed assesments. Each assessment proved the effective dose rate to be below the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society's standard annual dose limit of 250 μSv over a 12-month period. This means that a passenger would have to pass through a backscatter scanner 1000–2000 times to equal the dose from a medical chest X-ray

Supporting Evidence: Proof: (www.sciencedirect.com)
Side: Heck Ya!
2 points

There are numerous health risks to the citizens who proceed through these machines because of all the ionisation radiation the Advanced Imagery Technology (AIT) produce:

Is a health risk say faculty members in the University of California. The backscatter x-ray machine in the AIT or WBI (Whole Body Imaging) uses ionising radiation, which is a known health hazard. It is especially vulnerable are the elderly, children, pregnant women, and those who have or had skin cancer and people with HIV or AIDS. Studies show that every time someone is exposed to a ray, there is a risk of them developing skin cancer. A US scientist has diagnosed that the risk of getting cancer from a single airport body scanner is about 1 in 25 passengers. An investigation report says that 6-100 passengers could get cancer from the machines. The advanced pat-down search (if travelers opt out of the screening progress) is a risk for those who have gone through surgical procedures. “One traveler--a bladder cancer survivor--was left humiliated, crying and covered in his own urine after agents broke the seal on his urostomy bag.” It is also worried that mutagenesis radiation could cause breast cancer for a fraction of the female population that is highly sensitive to it, and men could be at risk for sperm mutagenesis because the testicles are so close to the skin. Pilots are very concerned with their health with the AIT because their occupation already needs them to be exposed to radiation and the fact that the AIT also exposes them to radiation it’s not good for the body. Skin cancer rates for pilots were between 10 and 25 times higher than that of the general public. The low level beam emmitted from the AITs delivers a small dose of radiation to the body but because the beam concentrates on the skin - one of the most radiation-sensitive organs of the human body - that dose may be up to 20 times higher than first estimated. Scientists say that risks to individuals are small, but more review of technology is needed. Physicist says doses are higher than Transportation Security Administration's estimates.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/12/body.scanning.radiation/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1290527/Airport-body-scanners-deliver-radiation-dose-20-times-higher-thought.html#ixzz3al2v75pw

http://gleaner.rutgers.edu/index.html?p=1680.html

http://rutherford.org/publicationsresources/commentarychannel/cancercausingairportscannersenoughisenough

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1290527/Airport-body-scanners-deliver-radiation- dose-20-times-higher-thought.html#ixzz3al2v75pw

(http://dontscan.me/)

Side: No way Jose
buddy987(3) Disputed
1 point

X-rays used for medical imaging penetrate through the body whereas X-rays used in airport full body scanners have minimal interaction at the surface of the skin. Before the scanners were introduced to airports nationwide, radiation safety studies were conducted by the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Numerous Parties including; Rapiscan's Third-Party Radiation Testing group, the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Office of Law Enforcement Standards, and Johns Hopkins University Independent Assessment group performed assesments. Each assessment proved the effective dose rate to be below the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society's standard annual dose limit of 250 μSv over a 12-month period. This means that a passenger would have to pass through a backscatter scanner 1000–2000 times to equal the dose from a medical chest X-ray

Supporting Evidence: Proof: (www.sciencedirect.com)
Side: Heck Ya!
leandrap(1) Disputed
0 points

Yes you are right but what about pilots? They are already exposed to radiation when they fly but they still have to go through advanced imaging technology. This makes the pilots more prone to skin cancer according to this article: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/12/body.scanning.radiation/

According to University of California at San Francisco doctors, the elderly (>65 years old), children, people with HIV or AIDS, and pregnant women could possibly be at risk from this level of radiation. It is also worried that mutagenesis radiation could cause breast cancer for a fraction of the female population that is highly sensitive to it, and men could be at risk for sperm mutagenesis because the testicles are so close to the skin. All reasons why advanced imaging technology has harmful risks. http://gleaner.rutgers.edu/index.html?p=1680.html

Side: No way Jose
1 point

Property Risks, Health Risks and Privacy Risks are all cons to why advanced imaging technology should not be permitted. These arguments lead up to the fact that the TSA should not be authorized to search under passengers’ clothing in search of hazardous items according to the 4th Amendment.

Side: No way Jose
0 points

Two baggage handlers at JFK international airport in New York (ranked first at the list of airports with claims of thefts from luggage) were arrested in 2014 and the authorities said that they stole 2 designer handbags from a suitcase and tried to sell them on eBay during the TSA check. Police Lt. Pete Estis is laid back about the situation but Miami Aviation Director Emilio T. Gonzalez said that “even some of the most hardworking employees have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for their crimes” Therefore, TSA workers are violating the 4th Amendment and invading passengers' property rights.

Side: No way Jose
mohitgargg(7) Disputed
1 point

First of all, the argument doesn't make sense as it targets a passenger losing his luggage, and the passenger "claims" that it lost but is it confirmed it is lost? According to the TSA, no passenger had stolen, which theoretically means that the person is lying. Additionally, Are the TSA working for the safety of people on the plane or searching for lost goods? You had mentioned that one person lost their watch but is losing a watch more expensive than have a huge risk of losing your life? Therefore this argument is invalid as it does not state the mistake of the TSA with regards to the safety. Additionally, there should have been that there is 90% safety on the planes whose passengers have gone through the TSA check.

Side: Heck Ya!
0 points

Property Risks, Health Risks and Privacy Risks are all cons to why advanced imaging technology should not be permitted. These arguments lead up to the fact that the TSA should not be authorized to search under passengers’ clothing in search of hazardous items according to the 4th Amendment.

Side: No way Jose
-1 points

THIS IS OUR VIDEO .................................................................................................

Side: No way Jose
buddy987(3) Disputed
2 points

Your video does not exist, hence your argument is invalid

Side: Heck Ya!
-1 points

OUR VIDEO OUR VIDEO OUR VIDEO OUR VIDEO OUR VIDEO OUR VIDEO OUR VIDEO OUR VIDEO OUR VIDEO OUR VIDEO

Side: No way Jose