4th Amendment Wear

I’m glad someone finally did this.
I came up with the same idea back in October
http://jasonkoller.blogspot.com/2010/10/body-scanners-capitalists-strike-back.html

I think it’s realy the best protection XD

I don’t really mind the TSA scanners at the airport, but I must say that this is very clever indeed.

This is great, by using metallic ink you can get your privacy back. Cool, I want to have them!!

This is so amazing. I have no words for how wrong this whole scanning this is. This is brilliant and when you get home there is nothing sexier than having someone remove your democratic panties in the heat of Passion! – adholes.com

@Thinkpositive: http://people.howstuffworks.com/profiling1.htm

Profiling works. Scanning at random (and trying to be politically correct in your selections) does not.

@Thinkpositive:

You do realize that these scanners would not stop a serious bomber right. It was just recently that a suicide bomber snuck a pound of explosives through multiple security points including 2 airports by hiding it in his intestines. The scanners are only an external scan, so how would they catch that. Next thing you’re going to tell me that because somebody might try to anal-bomb a plane we’re all going to be forced to submit to a proctology examination to board the plane.

The summary of the 4th amendment is “expectation of privacy.” If I have reasonable expectation that I am in private, then my privacy is protected. Example; if you watch my house from the sidewalk, anything you see is unprotected because it is expected that people walk on the sidewalk and that they might look at your house. If you are hiding in the bushes outside my window and you see something it is protected because I don’t expect people to be hiding in my bushes. So relate it to this, I wore the clothes. I expect to not have to strip for somebody just to go somewhere. Next example; police searching/monitoring. Police can use binoculars from any public place (like a sidewalk) and monitor me. However, they can’t use something like thermal imaging without a warrant to do so. I know for a fact that thermal imaging is way more vague than these scanners, so where is the court signed warrant saying that the airports have the right to use these scanners. If it really isn’t that big a deal they should be able to go get one right?

I won’t even go into religious protections and how this could cause job discrimination. Just know that these scanners cause a lot of trouble for innocent people, and the ones who aren’t innocent can bypass them with a plastic bag, a receiver, and a cell phone.

As to the clothing; I don’t fly much, but I want it.

@Think4Yourself:

Not only would these scanners not stop a determined bomber, they wouldn’t stop a halfassed one, either. More notable than the suicide bomber was the elderly veteran who carried an old but still live grenade through checkpoints, not even knowing it was illegal as he’d been carrying it with him regularly since the Korean War. It’s casing didn’t set off metal detectors, the explosive wasn’t picked up by bomb sniffing dogs, and only a few components were visible on the body scanner, which were assumed to be a keychain by the operator.

They’re virtually useless for detecting explosives. They’re only capable of clearing distinguishing very dense materials like metals. There are only a handful of explosives they’re capable of detecting, only one of which it’s possible to carry a dangerous quantity of on your person, and that one will set off sensitive metal detectors anyway.

They add no ability to detect explosives that wasn’t already in place, and stealth weapons meant to slip through metal detectors are generally made of carbon fiber, glass, or ceramics, which will go through these just as well. Since most airports had nonferrous metal detectors already, even the rare threat of a copper or lead knife was covered.