Â Â Â Â Elizabeth Fuller of Yahoo News has posted an article askingÂ Are TSA pat-downs and full-body scans unconstitutional?Â Here are links to different opinions.Â Â
Â Â Â Â Fuller reports that Professor William Schroeder of Southern Illinois University says that the screening techniques are constitutional becauseÂ air travelers give their consent for the search and because these searches are not being conducted for the purpose of discovering evidence of a crime, but rather to ensure the safety of air passengers.Â These points are accurate, but one question still remains: is it constitutional for the government to make consent to a search a necessary requirement before boarding a commercial aircraft?Â Â
Â Â Â Â Fuller also quotes Professor Susan Herman of Brooklyn Law School who believes that the technology is not effective enough in fighting terrorism to justify the use of scanners that may reveal the presence of an adult diaper or colostomy bag – medical conditions that a person has the right to keep private.Â Â I think that argument is likely to fail in light of the fact that explosives could easily be hidden in a diaper or a colostomy bag.
Â Â Â Â Finally, Fuller quotes Chris Calabrese of the American Civil Liberties Union who maintains that "the balance seems to be missing here."Â Â Interestingly, the same sentiment was uttered by Representative John Duncan (R-TN) on Youtube:Â ("We need a little more balance and common sense on this").Â
The government should enact procedures that pose the least threat to our civil liberties and are also proven to be effective. Routine full body scanning, embarrassingly intimate pat-downs and racial profiling do not fit those criteria.
Â Â Â Â The federal government undoubtedly has the authority to enact laws and develop policies requiring screening of air passengers under its power to regulate interstate commerce.Â Do these screening techniquesÂ infringe upon a constitutional right?Â The answer to that question depends upon how one understands the right in question.Â Americans clearly have, in general, a constitutional right not to be subjected to searches of one's body.Â On the other hand, we do not have a constitutional right to board a commercial aircraft without being searched.Â If the courts were to find that these policies infringe upon a constitutional right then the government would have to prove that the techniques being used were necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest.Â Air safety is certainly a compelling govenmental interest; a closer question under strict scrutiny would be whether these screening techniques are "necessary," that is, both effective and no more intrusive than other feasible alternatives.Â Under that standard the new screening techniques might be upheld, or they might be struck down, depending upon the nature of the proof offered by the government to justify the policyÂ and the degree of deference that the courts would accord to the executive branch on the subject of public safety.
Â Â Â Â If the right to board an aircraft without being searched is not a constitutional right then the persons or organizations challenging the policy would have to demonstrate that the screening techniques being used have no tendencyÂ to enhance air safety.Â Under that standard the screening policies would certainly be upheld as constitutional.Â Â
Â Â Â Â Another way of challenging these screening techniques is not to assert that they are unconstitutional, but rather to claim that the federal government has not satisfied the procedural requirements necessary to enact them into law – that the federal agencies in charge of this decision have not adequately explained why the screening techniques should be implemented.Â The courts might be more receptive to a challenge under the law of administrative procedure rather than the Constitution.
Â Â Â Â Â It is becoming more and more difficult to preserve personal privacy.Â Computers store all of our banking, investment, and credit card information.Â Â Satellites andÂ GPS technology easily track our movements.Â Phone records are easily accessible, and as for medical records – well, it isn't necessary anymore for the government to break into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office to get them.Â We live in cities on top of each other, we work for huge conglomerates, we even search for datesÂ and mates online.Â Â Globalization and information technology haveÂ brought us into contact with and collision with diverse cultures, some of whose members view us as enemies.Â Our civilization employs complex technologies to provide basic services such as electricity and water, and we travel in huge flying machines that can be brought down by the explosion of a few ounces of liquid or powder.Â
Â Â Â Â Our sense of modesty and personal privacy evolved over thousands of generations, but we have had only a few years to adjust to this corporate existence, a worldwide interdependent community of strangers where privacy is next to impossible.
Â Â Â Â In her column Dear Airline, I'm Leaving You Megan McCardle of The Atlantic writes a "Dear John" letter to the airlinesÂ stating that she will not fly anymore because of the body scans:
If I have to let someone else see me naked in order to be with you–well, I'm just not that kinky.Â
Â Â Â Â McCardle's solution – drive, she said – might be the only alternative for those who wish to preserve a sense of personal privacy.