Within the next year or two, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will instantly know everything about your body, clothes, and luggage with a new laser-based molecular scanner fired from 164 feet (50 meters) away. From traces of drugs or gun powder on your clothes to what you had for breakfast to the adrenaline level in your body—agents will be able to get any information they want without even touching you.

There has so far been no discussion about the personal rights and privacy issues involved. Which "molecular tags" will they be scanning for? Who determines them? What are the threshold levels of this scanning? If you unknowingly stepped on the butt of someone's joint and are carrying a sugar-sized grain of cannabis like that unfortunate traveler currently in jail in Dubai, will you be arrested?

queencitybuckeye;1222532 wrote:While the technology is changing, what isn't is the concept that one has no expectation of privacy in public places. Nothing new about that.

ts1227;1222538 wrote:You should expect no privacy in public places because they're PUBLIC PLACES

TedSheckler;1222562 wrote:Premiers Thursday. Excited for Jannelle to be back in the house.

TedSheckler;1222562 wrote:Premiers Thursday. Excited for Jannelle to be back in the house.

ts1227;1222538 wrote:You should expect no privacy in public places because they're PUBLIC PLACES

Glory Days;1222830 wrote:you would be surprised on how many people dont understand this.

Sykotyk;1222846 wrote:It's illegal to look up a woman's skirt in public, regardless if you don't touch her. And that's in public. An officer can't require you to strip naked in a crowded mall because he thinks you stole something and hiding it on your person.

You do have a certain level of privacy expected no matter WHERE you are.

Sykotyk;1222846 wrote:It's illegal to look up a woman's skirt in public, regardless if you don't touch her. And that's in public. An officer can't require you to strip naked in a crowded mall because he thinks you stole something and hiding it on your person.

You do have a certain level of privacy expected no matter WHERE you are.

ts1227;1222538 wrote:You should expect no privacy in public places because they're PUBLIC PLACES

TedSheckler;1222562 wrote:Premiers Thursday. Excited for Jannelle to be back in the house.

sportswizuhrd;1223041 wrote:Where's the thread?

WebFire;1222964 wrote:Some of you could read "1984" and not be shocked by any of it. That is scary.

Mulva;1222873 wrote:I could definitely be wrong because I'm no constitutional scholar, but I think it all hinges on the definition of "reasonable". A person is secure in their persons and effects against unreasonable searches without probable cause/warrant everywhere, but they have less of a reasonable expectation of privacy at places like airports and border crossings. The security vs privacy balancing act or whatever.

I don't think a reasonable person expects their adrenaline levels to be laser-scanned as a prerequisite for flying though. In my opinion that's unconstitutional treatment in the name of security.

The TSA really ineffective unless the point is to waste money on the illusion of safety.

Sykotyk;1222846 wrote:It's illegal to look up a woman's skirt in public, regardless if you don't touch her. And that's in public. An officer can't require you to strip naked in a crowded mall because he thinks you stole something and hiding it on your person.

You do have a certain level of privacy expected no matter WHERE you are.

Steel Valley Football;1223110 wrote:Within my lifetime (I'm 41), the government will be able to ANYTHING they want. It will be a true police state.