West Coast Publishing Surveillance 2015 november page
NC Secondary Search CP – Body Scanners
Download 449.23 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 2NC Secondary Search CP – Solves Fourth Amendment
- Body scans would comply with the Fourth Amendment if less intrusive searches are used first
- 2NC Secondary Search CP – Solves Terror DA
- 1NC Lasers CP – Body Scanners
- Laser scanners best maintain the balance of security and privacy protections
- 2NC Lasers CP – Solves 4th Amendment
- 2NC Lasers CP – Solves Terror DA + Privacy
- Lasers solve terror attacks – more effective than current systems and avoid privacy concerns
CPs1NC Secondary Search CP – Body Scanners** Sample CP text: The United States federal government should substantially curtail the use of body scanners in airports by restricting their use to secondary searches.Restricting body scanners to secondary searches solves Fourth Amendment and privacy issues – allowing body scans also maintains airport securityTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview PROPOSAL: IMPLEMENT BODY-SCANS AS A SECONDARY SEARCH MECHANISM Although body-scan machines are a promising security tool,265 use of the technology in an overly invasive manner is not justified merely because it adds a degree of safety.266 Given the particularly intrusive nature of this technology,267 the constitutionally appropriate "checkpoint of the future" is one where the modified form of the technology is utilized not in place of magnetometers, but instead, as a secondary search in place of pat-downs. Use of body-scans after there is "reason to conduct" a secondary search strikes the appropriate balance between the imperative goals of securing our nation's airports and acknowledging basic privacy interests.268 As previously set forth, this proposal relies on two theories: that body-scans are unreasonable when used as primary searches, and that body-scans offer a more effective yet less intrusive alternative to pat-down searches.2 6 9 Given this framework, body-scan searches are most appropriate when deployed in the secondary security layer. 2NC Secondary Search CP – Solves Fourth AmendmentSecondary searches with body scanners are constitutional – enhanced privacy violations are acceptable after a reason is provided to justify a secondary searchTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview After a screening officer establishes a "reason to conduct" a secondary search,273 an enhanced privacy invasion is justified if it is appropriately tailored in scope to protection of the aircraft, its passengers, and the general public.274 As discussed previously, body-scans are advantageous over present-day secondary searches because they offer a less intrusive alternative that is more effective at detecting dangerous weapons and explosives.2 75 Therefore, given that reasonable pat-down searches are held to be constitutional, 276 and that body-scans are more appropriately tailored secondary searches,277 it is logical to conclude that secondary body-scans are constitutionally permissible. Body scans would comply with the Fourth Amendment if less intrusive searches are used firstM. Madison Taylor, JD Candidate at the University of Mississippi School of Law, 2010, “Bending Broken Rules: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Full-Body Scanners in Preflight Screening,” http://jolt.richmond.edu/v17i1/article4.pdf Additionally, to comply with the Fourth Amendment, courts should require TSOs to exhaust less intrusive screening methods before resorting to a full-body scan.211 While no clear judicial mandate exists requiring that TSOs exhaust less intrusive means, courts consistently include the non-intrusiveness of magnetometers as a factor in determining the reasonable use of such devices for preflight searches.212 Reciprocally, the highly intrusive nature of full-body scans should render them unreasonable when conducted without individualized suspicion or before exhausting less intrusive measures. 2NC Secondary Search CP – Solves Terror DASecondary body scans solve privacy and Fourth Amendment concerns and allow the TSA to retain effective counterterrorism measuresM. Madison Taylor, JD Candidate at the University of Mississippi School of Law, 2010, “Bending Broken Rules: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Full-Body Scanners in Preflight Screening,” http://jolt.richmond.edu/v17i1/article4.pdf The looming possibility that full-body scans will become mandatory for all or some passengers demands an assessment of the amount of privacy the Fourth Amendment guarantees in airports. The use of full-body scanners to conduct suspicionless searches in airports is repugnant to the fundamental values protected under the Fourth Amendment. For airline ticketholders to have any meaningful Fourth Amendment protection, use of full-body scanners should be prohibited unless there is probable cause to believe a particular passenger possesses contraband that poses a threat to airline security. A probable cause requirement would not upset the TSA’s current screening system or unduly burden the TSA’s counterterrorism efforts. Additionally, it would not overrule preflight screening precedent regarding substantially less invasive magnetometer searches. Finally, requiring probable cause for full-body scans remains in accord with Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, which correlates the permissible degree of intrusion with the level of suspicion aroused by the individual being searched.220 1NC Lasers CP – Body Scanners** Sample CP text: The United States federal government should replace all Advanced Imaging Technology scanners in airports with laser-based molecular scanners and program scanners to only detect contraband items.Laser scanners solve the privacy and Fourth Amendment arguments and are more effective than current body scannersAndrea M. Simbro, JD Candidate at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, 2014, “The Sky’s The Limit: A Modern Approach to Airport Security,” http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/56-2/56arizlrev559.pdf In today’s society, technology is always changing. In a matter of years—or maybe even months—once-prized computers and cell phones are tossed aside for the latest and greatest model. As a matter of national security, airport screening technology should also follow this trend. Although the Transportation Security Administration has made significant strides into the modern era through the use of advanced imaging technology, more remains to be done. This Note discusses the constitutional and privacy implications of modern airport screening technology and introduces laser-based molecular scanners as a solution that will strengthen national security while protecting individual privacy rights. 2NC Lasers CP – SolvesLaser scanners best maintain the balance of security and privacy protectionsAndrea M. Simbro, JD Candidate at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, 2014, “The Sky’s The Limit: A Modern Approach to Airport Security,” http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/56-2/56arizlrev559.pdf Airport security is a critical, and often the most dreaded, part of traveling. Passengers are asked to sacrifice their individual privacy rights, and sometimes their dignity, in exchange for flying from point A to point B safely.263 Although the world is not as safe as it used to be, the general public should not have to suffer for the misdeeds of a few. The government has substantial resources at its disposal, including laser-based molecular scanners, to prevent threats from escalating into catastrophes.264 Because of their convenience, effectiveness, minimal invasion of privacy, and ease of judicial administration, laser-based molecular scanners are an optimal solution to airport security if they are used appropriately.265 The government should continue to take advantage of technological innovation to stop terrorists in their tracks, while simultaneously protecting the privacy interests of the law-abiding majority. 2NC Lasers CP – Solves 4th AmendmentThe contraband restriction makes laser scans consistent with the Fourth AmendmentAndrea M. Simbro, JD Candidate at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, 2014, “The Sky’s The Limit: A Modern Approach to Airport Security,” http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/56-2/56arizlrev559.pdf Laser-based molecular scanners can be designed to function as nonsearches. For example, if the government “programs out” unnecessary information, such as adrenaline levels and food consumed, the government can use the scanners solely to detect weapons and explosives. If the scanners are programmed to only detect contraband items, their function would resemble dog sniffs and would be upheld as a nonsearch.213 If a search has not taken place, the Fourth Amendment is not implicated.214 2NC Lasers CP – Solves Terror DA + PrivacyLasers solve privacy concerns better than imaging and pat-downs – solves bombings and chemical and bioterror attacksAndrea M. Simbro, JD Candidate at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, 2014, “The Sky’s The Limit: A Modern Approach to Airport Security,” http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/56-2/56arizlrev559.pdf Airport screening procedures have steadily become more invasive as threats have escalated.243 While a magnetometer screening is minimally intrusive,244 the public has condemned the use of advanced imaging technology as an overly intrusive “virtual strip search” that is not narrowly tailored to meet airport security needs.245 In a blog, a former TSA screener detailed the disturbing activities that took place in the image operator room before the TSA agreed to remove its x-ray backscatter machines.246 He witnessed “light sexual play among officers . . . and a whole lot of officers laughing and clowning in regard to some of [the passengers’] nude images.”247 Although automatic target recognition software will prevent TSA officers from viewing passengers’ naked images from a back room,248 the pat-down opt-out option249 creates even more privacy concerns. Passengers expressed outrage at being subjected to these aggressive patdowns.250 Victims of such pat-downs include a four-year-old girl who feared the TSA agents because of “stranger danger,”251 a cancer survivor who had to endure a flight covered in his own urine after a TSA agent popped his urostomy bag during a pat-down,252 and John Tynerthe famous “don’t touch my junk” disgruntled passenger.253 Although the pat-down option contributed to the constitutionality of advanced imaging technology,254 laser-based molecular scanners would be a more desirable option. Unlike a probing pat-down, laser-based molecular scanners can detect threats without even touching passengers.255 With the goal of “quickly identify[ing] explosives, dangerous chemicals, or bioweapons at a distance,”256 the scanners permit passengers to speed through security without the fear of being groped by strangers. Passengers would not have to check their privacy interests at the gate when they chose to fly. Lasers solve terror attacks – more effective than current systems and avoid privacy concernsAndrea M. Simbro, JD Candidate at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, 2014, “The Sky’s The Limit: A Modern Approach to Airport Security,” http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/56-2/56arizlrev559.pdf Current screening technology has proven ineffective at detecting and deterring threats. In fact, the TSA has employed a reactive approach to terrorism.229 As new threats have emerged, the TSA has rushed to develop solutions,230 but none have permanently solved the problem. Because of emerging nonmetallic threats,231 it appears that magnetometers will soon become obsolete. The Fifth Circuit identified this shift to nonmetallic threats in the 1970s, explaining that “modern technology has made it possible to miniaturize to such a degree that enough plastic explosives to blow up an airplane can be concealed in a toothpaste tube. A detonator planted in a fountain pen is all that is required to set it off.”232 As the thwarted British liquid explosives plot233 and the attempted underwear and shoe bombing incidents reveal,234 magnetometers are ineffective at detecting such threats. Although advanced imaging technology can better detect nonmetallic threats, it is not perfect. A 27-year-old engineer named Jonathan Corbett recently exposed a flaw in the technology.235 A viral video documented Corbett’s successful attempt to outsmart both types of AIT scanners.236 He sewed a pocket to the side of a shirt, placed a metal carrying case inside it, and walked through the scanners undetected.237 Although such a case could “easily alarm any of the old metal detectors,” the supposedly more advanced body scanners did not detect it.238 Federal investigators conceded these vulnerabilities.239 Laser-based molecular scanners can fill these loopholes by disclosing metallic and nonmetallic threats that are overlooked by current technology.240 In fact, the scanners have the capability to precisely detect traces of substances.241 To ensure that the scanners’ effectiveness is not reduced by a false positive problem, however, they should be programmed to alert to substances greater than a specified amount. Such a limitation would avoid the “Big Brother” scenarios depicted in the Introduction of this Note.242 Directory: documents documents -> Concept stage documents -> Concept stage documents -> The great global switch-off documents -> Nonprofit grant application documents -> The Truth about the Rwandan Genocide documents -> Annual InStructional unit plan documents -> Chaos equipment included Download 449.23 Kb. Share with your friends:
|