TSA now searches inside parked cars at the airport, using keys stored by valet attendants

[ZENemy]

What we allow is what will continue.



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.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YllajrgDwbs

[moostraks]

So her panties were in a bunch enough to make an issue over it and get the "news" involved for failure to be informed but she is cool with it being done because it will keep us safe? Uh, not buying it. Seems too much like a piece of positive propaganda imo. It is set up like an exposure piece and then all loose ends are tied up neatly by sweeping proclamations of how this invasion protects people so it is fine to be done just tell people up front so they don't feel violated.

[moostraks]

I am failing to understand why only valet vehicles pose a threat? Seems like something they are starting small with and will eventually expand after the next shoe bomber decides to appear on the scene. They hate us for our freedoms...

[phill4paul]

I've never left my keys with anybody when I used to fly. Is this a requirement these days?

[Brian4Liberty]

Well, don't all terrorists valet park their cars?

[VoluntaryAmerican]

So her panties were in a bunch enough to make an issue over it and get the "news" involved for failure to be informed but she is cool with it being done because it will keep us safe? Uh, not buying it. Seems too much like a piece of positive propaganda imo. It is set up like an exposure piece and then all loose ends are tied up neatly by sweeping proclamations of how this invasion protects people so it is fine to be done just tell people up front so they don't feel violated.

This is a dumb statement.

[Mani]

I've never left my keys with anybody when I used to fly. Is this a requirement these days?


I guess only if you Valet at the airport.


Of course it will start with Valet cars....And will expand to all cars in the parking lot and suspicious cars in the short term lots then the long term parking lots...Then the cars that drive to drop off and pick up....Then to cars that wait a few hundred yards off to the side (as they prefer not to be shoo'd away until their guest arrives)...And then to cars within a 1/2 mile radius. By then we should have checkpoints all over major cities in America with frequent, "Stop and search" checks.

And then finally we will have the NSA cams inside all vehicles. For your safety of course. Just need to have the government watch what your doing in your vehicle, just to keep us safe.


If you have nothing to hide...What's your problem with this?

[moostraks]

This is a fucking dumb statement.

It is dumb to think that the media is used to promote a particular agenda? The piece came off as if they were wanting you to feel as though they were critically questioning the policy but concludes with how said parties realize it's for the greater good. So a passive watcher is not left with feeling angry at them for invading private property but that the complaining "victim" might not have been astute enough to see a very visible sign in which she waived her rights and that it is necessary for passenger safety as even the victim concludes the necessity of such searches. The best manipulation is a soft sell.

[jmdrake]

So her panties were in a bunch enough to make an issue over it and get the "news" involved for failure to be informed but she is cool with it being done because it will keep us safe? Uh, not buying it. Seems too much like a piece of positive propaganda imo. It is set up like an exposure piece and then all loose ends are tied up neatly by sweeping proclamations of how this invasion protects people so it is fine to be done just tell people up front so they don't feel violated.

I wish. Sadly there are people worn down by the state enough to accept almost anything to "keep us safe". After getting nowhere in an discussion with my ex-mother in law about Obamacare, I tried to change the subject to something that I thought we would agree on by pointing out that I think Ed Snowden is a hero. She was like "Shut your mouth! I want the government keeping us safe. I don't care if they spy on me! If you republicans get your way and stop them from spying on us we won't be safe." (Never mind the fact that this garbage was started by a republican president with a republican led house and senate.) I tried to explain how none of this was really to keep us safe and that the government let the underwear bomber on the plane. She was like "Well you might be a terrorist." Keeping my composure I responed with "Well your president did put anyone like me who believes in the constitution on a terror watch list." She then said "Oh I didn't really mean that." And no this has nothing to do with why she's my ex-mother-in-law and yes I still love her. That said, I could imagine her being concerned at first if this happened to her, but then settling into "Well...if it's to keep us safe" mode.

Oh, and expect people to say "Well you don't have to have your car valet parked" in response to this. Of course this is the first step. The next step is to require those who privately park their cars to turn over their keys to the TSA. After all, you could have a dirty bomb hidden in the trunk. Then they'll expand out to the shopping mall parking lots. After all, the way Bush had us fight Al Qaeda after 9/11 was to tell us to all go shopping. Therefore protecting the malls will eventually be a TSA priority. Just wait and see.

That said, I bet there were other people complaining who weren't as compliant as she was. That's the way the propaganda works, selective reporting.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

It is dumb to think that the media is used to promote a particular agenda? The piece came off as if they were wanting you to feel as though they were critically questioning the policy but concludes with how said parties realize it's for the greater good. So a passive watcher is not left with feeling angry at them for invading private property but that the complaining "victim" might not have been astute enough to see a very visible sign in which she waived her rights and that it is necessary for passenger safety as even the victim concludes the necessity of such searches. The best manipulation is a soft sell.

To the extent that this is "propaganda"... Berkley Brean agreed with the woman and the TSA agent. Most people don't want liberty.

And sorry for cursing before.

[moostraks]

To the extent that this is "propaganda"... Berkley Brean agreed with the woman and the TSA agent. Most people don't want liberty.

And sorry for cursing before.
:) propaganda is a neutral term. The problem I have is that this seems to me like it is trying to come across as a critical thinking piece but in looking closely at the manner of presentation I feel a passive viewer is being sold on the necessity of the policy for safety as opposed to the critique of the logic and offensiveness of it.

So they do a cursory view of a minute number of vehicles, how does this square with a cost-benefit analysis? I'm thinking this just gives people with a nefarious agenda on one side the plan for how to properly use a car bomb and the other nefarious side a toe in the door to searching all vehicles.

Meanwhile passive viewer comes away thinking he has come to a well thought position when instead he has been convinced not to complain about something most Americans used to hold sacred before 911 became the excuse for almost every violation of our rights.