Human Rights

[88FoxBodyFan]

Why can't I do anything with my own body though if it doesn't affect my ability to do my job in safe and proficient manner?

Cheers Shaun.

Don't worry, Shaun. Pretty soon everyone in the "civilized" world will have to have random drug tests in order to keep health insurance. I'll go so far as to say everyone will have to wear helmets whiledriving to have car insurance. Companies will soon force all employees to wear hard hats, whether they work in construction or Wal-Mart, so the company can have workman's comp.

Slowly but surely, our rights are being stripped, and the ignorant masses are going to let it happen without a fight because the government's puppet, the media, is telling you it's making your life safer.

/rant

 

[MatskiMonk]

Why can't I do anything with my own body though if it doesn't affect my ability to do my job in safe and proficient manner?

Cheers Shaun.

Not sure what the rules are like down under, but here in the UK it's because you are not the only one that takes responsibility for the results of your actions. If one of our guys comes in with drugs or alcohol in his system (still seemingly able to do his job), and accidentally kills another employee with a forklift for instance, the police will test him, find he's 'over the limit' (whatever that may be), our insurance then doesn't cover anything and the victims family sues the company directors (including ME) for compensation. Legally I'm responsible, my neck's on the line, so legally I should have the right to test who I want, when I want.

 

[Danoff]

As of tomorrow my employer can conduct random illicit drug and alcohol testing.

It was a violation of rights to prevent your employer (assuming they are private) from conducting random drug testing. Consider the following scenario, you hire a dog walker. One day you notice needle marks on your dog walker's arm. You ask him about it and he says he's a casual heroin user, but that it does not affect his performance walking dogs.

Do you want the freedom to find another dog walker at that point? Want the government telling you you MUST keep paying him despite the fact that you're no longer comfortable having him in your house or around your kids? That's what you're asking for, you're asking for a violation of the rights of the person doing the employing - stipulating rules that govern who they can give their money to and on what basis they can stop.

You remain free to take your services away from the company employing you, why can they not employ you based on their own preferences?

The part that's getting to you is the part where not enough people care. If enough people left their jobs over drug tests, companies would stop doing them so casually. They'd do them only where they thought they had extreme liability. You want the market to remove support for these practices to put the pressure back on them, but the market doesn't care about this issue as much as you do. Not much you can do about that.

Now, if you're employed by the government it's a totally different story.

 

[FoolKiller]

This is not a violation of rights. It is a crappy deal, as employment is technically a contract and the employer has the ability to unilaterally change their terms. You have that ability too, but how great your ability to enforce your power to your benefit is determined by your value to the company.

The thing to ask yourself is this: If they said they perform random testing when you were hired would you have felt this way?

I suspect, based on personal experience, the problem is that the rules you agreed to when you were first hired changed and now it feels a bit like a betrayal. But in the end the question is the same as if you had just been hired. Do you agree to work for this company under these conditions?

I have had policies change on me mid-employment before, including the addition of random drug testing. Anytime I have been in a position of value I would quietly run job searches on my work computer, knowing full well they see it. I even had one job where I knew for a fact the CEO monitored for that kind of thing specifically. I even had a casual conversation, started by my manager, asking if I was happy at work. In that instance we had a company wide 5% pay cut. I mentioned I was fine but the whole pay cut thing rubbed me the wrong way. When our office ran under budget the surplus funds managed to land in a few choice paychecks, including mine, as merit bonuses.

But pulling this kind of move means you cannot be in a position to be replaced by any guy off the street with a minimal of training.

And ultimately, if it is any consolation, random drug tests are rarely random and I have never had to take one other than at my initial employment. They are usually a disguise for catching employees managers need a reason to get rid of (personality conflicts that don't violate rules) by hoping to bust them on using, or for testing employees that exhibit stereotypical stoner behavior.

Now the justification for random testing, whether your use affects your job or not, is this: you are an employee of that company. As such, you do represent that company. If you toke up on a Friday evening it won't affect your ability to work on Monday, but your company doesn't want to have an image of hiring drug users. The other issue is also that if something happened at work, that involved you, even if it wasn't your fault, all it takes to create a liability nightmare is for one person to publicly say they saw you smoking pot. Suddenly you and the company are answering dozens of questions about your competency.

It is very much the same as your employer can view anything you put on Facebook publicly. Sure, an online racist rant doesn't affect your ability to do your job, but the company doesn't want to be associated with you anymore.

 

[Keef]

As of tomorrow my employer can conduct random illicit drug and alcohol testing.

So, what do you guys think?
Personally I won't fail a test but I do see it as an invasion of my personal space.

It's a violation of the employer's rights to disallow them the opportunity to screen their employees, specifically a violation of their liberty and property.

You are not entitled to your job beyond the terms in your employment contract - you're on the employers property and using their equipment, so assuming the employer has to hire or employ you is also a violation of their property. Laws mandating the hiring of anybody for any reason, such as disabled people or minorities, are also a violation of the employer's liberty and property.

Laws banning employer discrimination are a violation of the employer's right to liberty, which in this context means their right to choose who they want to work for them.

A business is owned by somebody so mandating the business do anything at all, so long as they don't violate anybody else's rights, is a violation of that business owner's rights to liberty and property.

 

[GTsail]

The above discussion about drug testing made me think about similar situations with scanners:

Full-body scanning scenarios:

1) You work for a jewelry company that manufactures gold jewelry. During December, the jewelry company installs a full-body scanner at the entrance/exit to the building where you work. Starting in January, all employees must walk thru the full-body scanner when entering and leaving the building to allow the Company's security to check for contraband items(metal objects, etc).

2) Your job at the jewelry company requires that you travel once each week between LA and NY. Security staff (the TSA) at both airports, requires that you to walk thru their full-body scanning equipment, so they can check for contraband items (metal objects, etc), before boarding the planes.

3) On December 31st, President Obama disbands the TSA as part of the fiscal cliff cost savings agreement negotiated with Speaker Boehner. Your job at the jewelry company still requires weekly travel between LA and NY. Starting in January, "Secure Air" (the airline that you use for your coast-to-coast travel) continues making you walk thru a full-body scanner (which they purchased from the TSA) before letting you board their airplanes, so they can check for contraband items (metal objects, etc).

Do full-body scanners violate your human rights?

1) No? Jewelry company's can scan your body to their heart's content.
2) Yes? TSA scanning is always bad!
3) No? "Secure Air" can scan your body to their heart's content.

What do you think?
GTsail

 

[Danoff]

1) No? Jewelry company's can scan your body to their heart's content.
2) Yes? TSA scanning is always bad!
3) No? "Secure Air" can scan your body to their heart's content.

1) No
2) Yes
3) Maybe, depends on the arrangement.

 

[Keef]

1) You work for a jewelry company that manufactures gold jewelry. During December, the jewelry company installs a full-body scanner at the entrance/exit to the building where you work. Starting in January, all employees must walk thru the full-body scanner when entering and leaving the building to allow the Company's security to check for contraband items(metal objects, etc).

2) Your job at the jewelry company requires that you travel once each week between LA and NY. Security staff (the TSA) at both airports, requires that you to walk thru their full-body scanning equipment, so they can check for contraband items (metal objects, etc), before boarding the planes.

3) On December 31st, President Obama disbands the TSA as part of the fiscal cliff cost savings agreement negotiated with Speaker Boehner. Your job at the jewelry company still requires weekly travel between LA and NY. Starting in January, "Secure Air" (the airline that you use for your coast-to-coast travel) continues making you walk thru a full-body scanner (which they purchased from the TSA) before letting you board their airplanes, so they can check for contraband items (metal objects, etc).

Do full-body scanners violate your human rights?

1) No? Jewelry company's can scan your body to their heart's content.
2) Yes? TSA scanning is always bad!
3) No? "Secure Air" can scan your body to their heart's content.

1) No. But your explanation doesn't make any sense. The reason is because the jewelry company is somebody's property, and when you're on somebody else's property their right to it trumps all three of yours.

2) Yes. But why is TSA scanning always bad? Because the TSA is a government agency, and because government isn't a person it doesn't have the same rights as individuals. Our government is an institution established and delegated certain powers through a contract created by the people called the Constitution. Like any individual member of any other contract, the government is obligated to adhere to the terms of the contract. The TSA's mere existence, behavior notwithstanding, is in violation of the terms of this contract, the Constitution.

3) No. Why? Same reason as #1. Secure Air is a private company and you must respect their rights before they have to respect yours.

 

[GTsail]

2) Yes. But why is TSA scanning always bad? Because the TSA is a government agency, and because government isn't a person it doesn't have the same rights as individuals. Our government is an institution established and delegated certain powers through a contract created by the people called the Constitution. Like any individual member of any other contract, the government is obligated to adhere to the terms of the contract. The TSA's mere existence, behavior notwithstanding, is in violation of the terms of this contract, the Constitution.

3) No. Why? Same reason as #1. Secure Air is a private company and you must respect their rights before they have to respect yours.

So you are making a rights violation distinction based upon who is performing the scan?

And you are making a rights violation distinction based upon the legality of the scan (whether the scan is authorized by a document, the US Constitution)?

If the US Constitution said that scanning was appropriate for border security, then the TSA scanning would not be a rights violation?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Danoff]

So you are making a rights violation distinction based upon who is performing the scan?

No. The distinction is based on whether there was free choice involved or whether force was used to require the scan. When you choose to go to McDonald's instead of Taco Bell, even if McDonald's requires a full body scan, that remains your choice. If there is a full body scan at the DMV, that's not your choice, you have no alternative to the DMV.

At a more detailed level, it's the difference between freedom of contract, and government requirements on the details of the contract.

To take things to extreme: in Nevada you can enter into a legal agreement to have sex with someone in exchange for money. But what if every time you wanted to go to Nevada the government required you to have sex with someone?

This is why I poked at the arrangement for Secure Air. If Secure Air is a company that southwest airlines chooses to hire to screen their travelers, there is no force involved. If Secure Air is a company that the government requires southwest airlines to choose to screen travelers, there is force involved.

 

[GTsail]

No. The distinction is based on whether there was free choice involved or whether force was used to require the scan. When you choose to go to McDonald's instead of Taco Bell, even if McDonald's requires a full body scan, that remains your choice. If there is a full body scan at the DMV, that's not your choice, you have no alternative to the DMV.

Hummmm...

Lets say that you are on an island that only has two restaurants, a Taco Bell and a McDonald's. Its late at night and you decide to go to McDonald's for a soda.

Scenario one:
McDonald's has a scanner.
Taco Bell does not have a scanner.
No rights violation if McDonald's requires a scan before allowing you to purchase a soda (because Taco Bell does not have a scanner).

Scenario two:
Both McDonald's and Taco Bell have scanners.
Both restaurants require a scan before allowing you to purchase a soda.
The McDonald's scan would now be a rights violation because you have no freedom to choose an eatery without a scanner (any scan's at Taco Bell would also be a rights violation).

So in the above scenario's, its ok for one restaurant to have a scanner, but not both. Who gets to decide which restaurant can have a scanner if they both want scanner's for security purposes?

Scenario three:
McDonald's has a scanner.
Taco Bell does not have a scanner.
Taco Bell closes at mid-night, while McDonald's stays open 24 hours a day.
No rights violation when McDonald's scans you at 11:56pm before allowing you to buy a soda.
A McDonald's scan would become a rights violation if you buy a second soda at McDonald's, 5 minutes later at one minute past mid-night.

Moral of the story..... buy your sodas before mid-night!

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Danoff]

No, if both Taco Bell and McDonald's have scanners (and you're on an island with only Taco Bell and McDonalds... and you haven't shot yourself or starved to death), there is still no force involved.

Nobody is forcing you to go to Taco Bell or McDonalds (wouldn't that be awful), and they are not being forced to install their scanners... and before you say it "nobody is forcing you to fly" is not the same thing. I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader.

 

[GTsail]

But..... your example said:

No. The distinction is based on whether there was free choice involved or whether force was used to require the scan. When you choose to go to McDonald's instead of Taco Bell, even if McDonald's requires a full body scan, that remains your choice.

I thought that you implied that subjecting yourself to the scanner at McDonald's didn't violate your rights because you had the "option" of going to Taco Bell (who doesn't scan), but picked McDonald's instead with the full knowledge that McDonald's scanned its customers.

You didn't say that there wasn't a rights violation because there was a third option (ie. to starve).

So.... as long as there is a third option, no matter how un-palatable (like starving), then there is no rights violation?

Island security:
----------------
Lets say that there is an island (Maui) that is concerned about its security, and would like to reduce the import/export of un-desireable items/contraband/snow-shoes. So the island of Maui hires a security firm (TSA) to perform full-body scans at all their ports (in my example, Maui can only be reached via the water, so all travelers transit thru Maui's ports).

Maui has two water ferry's, "Secure Water Taxi", and "Wave-runner Taxi". Passengers using these ferry's have a nice 20 minute ride each way.

On January 1st, TSA installs full-body scanners on both ferry's, and requires that all passengers go thru the scanners as they board the ferry's.

Do these TSA scanners violate the rights of Maui's travelers because they have no "choice" but to use either one of the two ferry's if they want to travel to Maui?

During January, the TSA is informed (by their crack internet legal staff:tup that the new scanners might be violating the Maui traveler's rights because the passengers have no choice but to travel via the ferry's and therefore have no choice but to subject themselves to the full-body scanners.

Meetings are held.........

Donuts are consumed..........

Should the TSA eliminate the scanner on the "Wave-runner taxi"? hmmmm.....

Maybe some beverages.........

On February 1st, TSA provides one self-serve row boat (maintained by the Leaky Taxi Company), which does not have a scanner on board. TSA informs Maui travelers that if they wish, they may row themselves to Maui (the 10 mile (one-way) trip can probably be completed in about a day)(shark sightings and blisters are likely). The TSA figures that allowing one row boat each day, to by-pass their security, even if full of contraband, is an acceptable risk.

Now that there is a row boat "choice" for Maui's travelers, does this eliminate the rights violations?

Second topic:

Nobody is forcing you to go to Taco Bell or McDonalds (wouldn't that be awful), and they are not being forced to install their scanners... and before you say it "nobody is forcing you to fly" is not the same thing. I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader.

Can you explain further what is different about flying?

Are you implying that in my Maui Island example above, that if both Secure Water Taxi and Wave-runner Taxi "want" to have scanners, then the scanning equipment installation is not "forced", and therefore no rights violations have occured?? (and the TSA doesn't have to spring some cash for the row boat??).

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[FoolKiller]

I didn't eat at a restaurant last night. I still ate. If McDonald's and Taco Bell can access food, so can I. You have choices outside of using a business if you disagree with their policies.

All airlines could choose to have scanners, and as a ticket is a financial agreement, I agree to adhere to their security procedures to use their service. But when the TSA, aka the government, comes in and mandates it be done on all flights with all passengers as a matter of preventing crime, then it removes your part of the agreement. It is force. A third party, via the power of guns and prisons, has interjected themselves between the two-party agreement. Whether you would have voluntarily agreed to it or not no longer matters, because you don't get that chance. And it goes further than that, as if you choose not to partipate in a businesses security requirements you are just denied service. If you get there and disagree to do it for the TSA you are detained and questioned, treated like a criminal.

Now, I know you will ask how it is different if every airline requires it. Because in those cases it is still an agreement. It may be non-negotiable and you might have to agree in order to use one of the airlines, but it is still an agreement. Ultimately, businesses will learn that certain policy changes or additionsl perks will increase business by making their policy more agreeable. Some might make you take off your shoes, empty your pockets, and so forth, while others may not. Some might even work on less intrusive and less radiation emitting systems. They will compete to make it less intrusive and get you to want to use them, while at the same time remaining effective enough to prevent security threats, which is already better than the TSA has managed to do.

 

[XoravaX]

My two cents about that debate:

1) You work for a jewelry company that manufactures gold jewelry. During December, the jewelry company installs a full-body scanner at the entrance/exit to the building where you work. Starting in January, all employees must walk thru the full-body scanner when entering and leaving the building to allow the Company's security to check for contraband items(metal objects, etc).

2) Your job at the jewelry company requires that you travel once each week between LA and NY. Security staff (the TSA) at both airports, requires that you to walk thru their full-body scanning equipment, so they can check for contraband items (metal objects, etc), before boarding the planes.

3) On December 31st, President Obama disbands the TSA as part of the fiscal cliff cost savings agreement negotiated with Speaker Boehner. Your job at the jewelry company still requires weekly travel between LA and NY. Starting in January, "Secure Air" (the airline that you use for your coast-to-coast travel) continues making you walk thru a full-body scanner (which they purchased from the TSA) before letting you board their airplanes, so they can check for contraband items (metal objects, etc).

Do full-body scanners violate your human rights?

What do you think?
GTsail

1) No, you aren't forced to work there. Should you find the terms unacceptable, you are free to resign.
2) Maybe. If you can choose a reasonably fast alternative like a train where you wouldn't be forced to walk through the scanner, it isn't. Though, if all means of transportation have scanners by governmental order, then it may be. I am not bound by the US constitution, so I feel I'm unable to take a stance in that.
3) No, the traveller has accepted the terms when he chose that company's flight.

I thought that you implied that subjecting yourself to the scanner at McDonald's didn't violate your rights because you had the "option" of going to Taco Bell (who doesn't scan), but picked McDonald's instead with the full knowledge that McDonald's scanned its customers.

You still have the option to choose neither McDonald's nor Taco Bell. The buildings are their property (or on lease), they should be allowed to choose who may enter, and what they must do to be able to enter (given the terms aren't completely unreasonable like skin colour or having to strip naked and have clothes fully inspected for security etc. - that's where I set the line, as then freedom clashes with other rights than safety too).

Island security:
----------------
Lets say that there is an island (Maui) that is concerned about its security, and would like to reduce the import/export of un-desireable items/contraband/snow-shoes. So the island of Maui hires a security firm (TSA) to perform full-body scans at all their ports (in my example, Maui can only be reached via the water, so all travelers transit thru Maui's ports).

Maui has two water ferry's, "Secure Water Taxi", and "Wave-runner Taxi". Passengers using these ferry's have a nice 20 minute ride each way.

On January 1st, TSA installs full-body scanners on both ferry's, and requires that all passengers go thru the scanners as they board the ferry's.

Do these TSA scanners violate the rights of Maui's travelers because they have no "choice" but to use either one of the two ferry's if they want to travel to Maui?

During January, the TSA is informed (by their crack internet legal staff:tup that the new scanners might be violating the Maui traveler's rights because the passengers have no choice but to travel via the ferry's and therefore have no choice but to subject themselves to the full-body scanners.

Meetings are held.........

Donuts are consumed..........

Should the TSA eliminate the scanner on the "Wave-runner taxi"? hmmmm.....

Maybe some beverages.........

On February 1st, TSA provides one self-serve row boat (maintained by the Leaky Taxi Company), which does not have a scanner on board. TSA informs Maui travelers that if they wish, they may row themselves to Maui (the 10 mile (one-way) trip can probably be completed in about a day)(shark sightings and blisters are likely). The TSA figures that allowing one row boat each day, to by-pass their security, even if full of contraband, is an acceptable risk.

Now that there is a row boat "choice" for Maui's travelers, does this eliminate the rights violations?

Respectfully,
GTsail

I'd say it is only a violation of the rights of the island's inhabitants alone. They should have a reasonable way to leave their country if they wanted to. Outlanders don't have to travel there - the government may choose who may enter.

Of course, under special conditions the government may limit the freedom of the citizens, even remove it completely, if it were to protect the nation from a large external (or possibly internal) threat, like a full-scale war.

However, excessive freedom leads to anarchy. If people are allowed to do almost whatever they want, they may begin restricting others' freedom which leads to local tyranny (the people who've got the guns will get the power and money too - not everyone owns a gun even in the US). To avoid that, the government has to limit people's freedom not only through law and judiciary, but also have the means to track the criminals and prevent crimes from happening. After all, any government's primary task is to maintain safety and regional stability, that the people won't have to be paranoid about getting killed, beaten or raped if they leave their houses.

 

[Shaun]

Thanks for the responses guys 👍.
Sorry about my tardiness in replying but I've been very busy.

Not sure what the rules are like down under, but here in the UK it's because you are not the only one that takes responsibility for the results of your actions. If one of our guys comes in with drugs or alcohol in his system (still seemingly able to do his job), and accidentally kills another employee with a forklift for instance, the police will test him, find he's 'over the limit' (whatever that may be), our insurance then doesn't cover anything and the victims family sues the company directors (including ME) for compensation. Legally I'm responsible, my neck's on the line, so legally I should have the right to test who I want, when I want.

Very good point.
But a sticking point for some of the guys at work is more the testing procedure and the 'limit'.
A couple of us had a short discussion on this today.

Scenario: I'll use myself as an example.
I decide to take my 13 weeks long service leave and during that period spend 11 weeks of it stoned in a cafe in Amsterdam smoking as much as I possibly could and the minute I left Holland didn't smoke any more. On my first day of return to work I'm tested and even though it's 2 weeks since I've smoked anything it's detected and I could be fired.
I haven't broken any Australian laws yet my company could choose to fire me for what I have done in my own time.
Some of the guys at work see it simply as another form of control over us.

Off topic of rights but relevant in the controls our company are starting to press, in the week prior to last Christmas in one of our daily safety meetings our supervisor said he had to pass on a message form our safety officer.
Went along the lines of even when you are on holiday wear your safety equipment while doing jobs around the house or mowing the lawns etc.
At that point one guy stuck his hand up and said, well I've got a message for him. Tell him to get 🤬 and mind his own business.

Now, if you're employed by the government it's a totally different story.

Well that happens here also.
Why though is it different if the government is my employer?
As has been stated it would be my choice to work there and I could leave if I wanted to.

The thing to ask yourself is this: If they said they perform random testing when you were hired would you have felt this way?

I suspect, based on personal experience, the problem is that the rules you agreed to when you were first hired changed and now it feels a bit like a betrayal. But in the end the question is the same as if you had just been hired. Do you agree to work for this company under these conditions?

That's pretty close FK.
I was, as is everyone drug tested prior to employment.
Honestly, pretty much all the guys don't have a huge issue with the testing itself, it's more the procedure and the 'limit'.
Please anyone correct me here if I'm wrong but does a saliva test show what you have taken recently compared to a urine sample? I know someone who gave up marijuana for a month but still failed a urine test.
None of the guys at work want to work with anyone that is drunk or is going to the car park at lunch time to smoke a joint for example.

A business is owned by somebody

Which ironically I own a tiny tiny part of as a shareholder

Cheers Shaun.

 

[GTsail]

All airlines could choose to have scanners, and as a ticket is a financial agreement, I agree to adhere to their security procedures to use their service. But when the TSA, aka the government, comes in and mandates it be done on all flights with all passengers as a matter of preventing crime, then it removes your part of the agreement. It is force. A third party, via the power of guns and prisons, has interjected themselves between the two-party agreement. Whether you would have voluntarily agreed to it or not no longer matters, because you don't get that chance. And it goes further than that, as if you choose not to partipate in a businesses security requirements you are just denied service. If you get there and disagree to do it for the TSA you are detained and questioned, treated like a criminal.

Now, I know you will ask how it is different if every airline requires it. Because in those cases it is still an agreement. It may be non-negotiable and you might have to agree in order to use one of the airlines, but it is still an agreement.

It seems to me that what you take issue with is the Government mandate part of the TSA scanning, not the "scanning" itself, since you say that there would be no rights violations if all airlines decided to have scanner's based upon their own business models, but that there is a rights violation if the scanning is done by someone who is "forced" to use the scanning equipment.

Lets try a Prison example:

Lets say that there are three prisons on the Island of Maui (high surf-board theft in the area)

Prison One is run by the Government of Maui.

Prison Two is run by a private-for-profit company called "Jails are Us".

Prison Three is run by another private-for-profit company "Secured Hotel".

None of the three prisons currently use scanning equipment to screen visitors or prisoners who enter their facilities (they all currently use an "honor" system to screen-out unwanted items).

During December, huge amounts of contraband items get smuggled into all three prisons by visitors which causes all sorts of problems at all three prisons (safety issues, etc).

The Government of Maui holds some meetings.... eats a few donuts.... reviews a few power-point presentations.... knocks back a few beverages....


and decides that to "protect the well-being of the prison guards and innocent inmates", they will mandate that all prisons on Maui must install scanners to reduce the levels of contraband items entering all prisons.

On January 1st, Prison One, the jail run by the Government of Maui, installs some new scanning equipment (they don't mind the "mandate" since they are already part of the Government).

On their own (before the mandate becomes effective), Prison Two installs scanning equipment at the entrance to their facility (they don't mind the "mandate" since they think its a good idea).

Prison Three doesn't agree with the use of scanning equipment. They would rather not make any changes to their entrance area due to esthetic purposes, even though they realize that smuggled contraband is getting thru. However, since the Government of Maui has mandated the equipment, they install the scanning equipment anyway.

1) Does the scanning equipment at the Government Prison One cause rights violations?
2) Does the scanning equipment at Prison Two (who self-installed) cause rights violations?
3) Does the scanning equipment at Prison Three (who were forced to install the scanners) cause rights violations?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Danoff]

But..... your example said:
I thought that you implied that subjecting yourself to the scanner at McDonald's didn't violate your rights because you had the "option" of going to Taco Bell (who doesn't scan), but picked McDonald's instead with the full knowledge that McDonald's scanned its customers.

Nope. I did not imply that, and don't immediately jump to the private monopoly scenario, it's not remotely realistic. As long as nobody is inserting force into the agreement, it's not a rights violation.

So.... as long as there is a third option, no matter how un-palatable (like starving), then there is no rights violation?

Has nothing to do with the options available and everything to do with whether or not force is used in setting up the agreement. Whether or not you have choice in the matter is another way of saying that, but it doesn't have anything to do with the choices available to you. I imagine that's confusing, but jettison the word "choice" for a moment and stick with "force".

Island security:
----------------
Lets say that there is an island (Maui) that is concerned about its security, and would like to reduce the import/export of un-desireable items/contraband/snow-shoes. So the island of Maui hires a security firm (TSA) to perform full-body scans at all their ports (in my example, Maui can only be reached via the water, so all travelers transit thru Maui's ports).

Maui has two water ferry's, "Secure Water Taxi", and "Wave-runner Taxi". Passengers using these ferry's have a nice 20 minute ride each way.

On January 1st, TSA installs full-body scanners on both ferry's, and requires that all passengers go thru the scanners as they board the ferry's.

Do these TSA scanners violate the rights of Maui's travelers because they have no "choice" but to use either one of the two ferry's if they want to travel to Maui?

No. They violate the rights of both the travelers AND the ferries because the travelers and ferries have the right to engage in a contract without having the terms of the contract forced by the government.

During January, the TSA is informed (by their crack internet legal staff:tup that the new scanners might be violating the Maui traveler's rights because the passengers have no choice but to travel via the ferry's and therefore have no choice but to subject themselves to the full-body scanners.

Meetings are held.........

Donuts are consumed..........

Should the TSA eliminate the scanner on the "Wave-runner taxi"? hmmmm.....

Maybe some beverages.........

On February 1st, TSA provides one self-serve row boat (maintained by the Leaky Taxi Company), which does not have a scanner on board. TSA informs Maui travelers that if they wish, they may row themselves to Maui (the 10 mile (one-way) trip can probably be completed in about a day)(shark sightings and blisters are likely). The TSA figures that allowing one row boat each day, to by-pass their security, even if full of contraband, is an acceptable risk.

Now that there is a row boat "choice" for Maui's travelers, does this eliminate the rights violations?

No. Same reason as above. Even if it's just the row-boat that has the scanners and all of the most convenient ferries don't have them, it's still a rights violation of the row-boat company and people who want to use the row-boat company.

Second topic:

Can you explain further what is different about flying?

Are you implying that in my Maui Island example above, that if both Secure Water Taxi and Wave-runner Taxi "want" to have scanners, then the scanning equipment installation is not "forced", and therefore no rights violations have occured?? (and the TSA doesn't have to spring some cash for the row boat??).

Yes, as long as the government didn't dictate that the scanning equipment was installed in addition to them wanting the scanning equipment installed. If the government says "you must shoot jim in the head", even if you want to shoot jim in the head, both your and Jim's rights are violated.

Can you explain further what is different about flying?

Perhaps with the above explanation it's an easier exercise for the reader.

Why though is it different if the government is my employer?
As has been stated it would be my choice to work there and I could leave if I wanted to.

Because the government is owned by the public, and discriminating against certain segments of the public (like drug users) when you're owned by the public (including drug users) requires real relevant reasons. The government would need to establish that this discrimination is not arbitrary but, rather, is directly relevant to job performance.

This is the same reason why a private employer should be able to refuse to hire white people on the basis that they are white, but the government cannot do the same.

 

[FoolKiller]

It seems to me that what you take issue with is the Government mandate part of the TSA scanning, not the "scanning" itself, since you say that there would be no rights violations if all airlines decided to have scanner's based upon their own business models, but that there is a rights violation if the scanning is done by someone who is "forced" to use the scanning equipment.

From a rights standpoint, yes I take issue with the government interjection in a two-party contract, not what it specifies.

From a personal standpoint, I hate the scanners. Not only is it a tad bit invasive and I keep seeing off and on questions about the amount of radiation and how no one working with them wear radiation detectors like you would see in a power facility or radiology lab, but on a more personal level I will fail every time because it will show a metallic object with wires on my chest. It's a pacemaker and I just have to show a card to prove it exists, but the current protocol is a physical pat down. I don't like strange hands on me.

If the scanners were opened to full access for public review and all data published and appropriate precautions were taken in the event of residual radiation leaks then I would trust them but still dislike the resulting pathogen I will be required to endure. If they return to the days of medical device = wand check, then I would have no problem with it.

As it stands, I drive rather than fly anywhere within a 12-16 hour drive, and have reasons to stay within that distance of home.

Lets try a Prison example:

This will be so outside the same thing it won't compare. Prisons, run privately or by government, are government run systems. Their very nature is removing the rights of those who have proven to not respect the rights of others.

1) Does the scanning equipment at the Government Prison One cause rights violations?
2) Does the scanning equipment at Prison Two (who self-installed) cause rights violations?
3) Does the scanning equipment at Prison Three (who were forced to install the scanners) cause rights violations?

This comes down to one variable that you do not include: the form of visitation.

If the visitation is one where you have no chance of physical contact, such as through glass, talking on a phone, then it violates the visitors' rights, no matter who does it. A simple metal detector check to be sure they don't carry something to bust out a wall is all that is required.

If the visitation is one where physical contact is possible then it is a violation of rights, but a legal one as the prisoner has proven a lack of respect for the rights of others. A check is acceptable as there is no way of knowing if the visitor could be doing something under emotional strain (they love and miss the prisoner) or under duress as the prisoner's friends may be threatening the visitor or their family unless they sneak something in.

Prison, itself is a necessary violation of rights, as the inhabitants (usually) are there for using their rights to abuse the rights of others.

 

[Danoff]

I would re-word some of that. Prisoners have forfeit some of their rights (including freedom obviously). Prisons are not rights violations, but are instead incarceration of someone who has forfeit their rights against incarceration.

The public does not have a right to enter any government facility. The government cannot arbitrarily restrict access, but they can demonstrate that restriction of access is required for the operation of the facility they are charged with operating. As a result, visitation is not a right, and should be revocable depending on circumstances.

That being said, I'm speaking specifically about the incarceration of convicted persons, not merely accused persons, which is a distinction that the US government increasingly ignores.

If the visitation is one where you have no chance of physical contact, such as through glass, talking on a phone, then it violates the visitors' rights, no matter who does it.

I would say that it is a matter of protocol as visitation is not a right. What you're getting at is the justification behind the protocol, which the government needs to establish, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that these measures cannot be established as required to run the facility.

Prison, itself is a necessary violation of rights, as the inhabitants (usually) are there for using their rights to abuse the rights of others.

...and thus they do not have a right not to be incarcerated, and so prison is not a violation of rights.

 

[FoolKiller]

It was late. I started with saying they removed rights and then started say violation later in my post. I was trying to explain it was due to the criminal acts of the guilty and simplified it by just assuming they are all guilty for the scenario.

There is a whole other discussion that could be had on what should be a crime worth serving time and incarcerated innocents.

 

[GTsail]

Island security:
----------------
Lets say that there is an island (Maui) that is concerned about its security, and would like to reduce the import/export of un-desireable items/contraband/snow-shoes. So the island of Maui hires a security firm (TSA) to perform full-body scans at all their ports (in my example, Maui can only be reached via the water, so all travelers transit thru Maui's ports).

Maui has two water ferry's, "Secure Water Taxi", and "Wave-runner Taxi". Passengers using these ferry's have a nice 20 minute ride each way.

On January 1st, TSA installs full-body scanners on both ferry's, and requires that all passengers go thru the scanners as they board the ferry's.

Do these TSA scanners violate the rights of Maui's travelers because they have no "choice" but to use either one of the two ferry's if they want to travel to Maui?

No. They violate the rights of both the travelers AND the ferries because the travelers and ferries have the right to engage in a contract without having the terms of the contract forced by the government.

Your answer is that scanner's can't be installed on the two Ferry's if the installation is a government mandate?

Scanner's are only allowable if the private Ferry companies themselves want to use them for enhanced security purposes?

How do you propose that the Island of Maui protect itself against un-wanted contraband coming thru its ports via the Ferry's? (if the Maui Government can't make any rules or "force" the Ferry companies into using any particular security measures?

Can the Government of Maui install scanners at the end of the docks, just before the ramps that are used to board the Ferry's, placed so that everyone still must walk thru the scanners before they board the Ferry's (like the TSA area's in airports)?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[GTsail]

Lets say that there are three prisons on the Island of Maui (high surf-board theft in the area)

Prison One is run by the Government of Maui.

Prison Two is run by a private-for-profit company called "Jails are Us".

Prison Three is run by another private-for-profit company "Secured Hotel".

None of the three prisons currently use scanning equipment to screen visitors or prisoners who enter their facilities (they all currently use an "honor" system to screen-out unwanted items).

During December, huge amounts of contraband items get smuggled into all three prisons by visitors which causes all sorts of problems at all three prisons (safety issues, etc).

This comes down to one variable that you do not include: the form of visitation.

In my example above, I specifically say that contraband items are being smuggled in by the visitors, so yes, visitation includes physical contact, and is not only behind glass. This is why the use of scanning equipment is being proposed, since contraband items are getting passed thru to the inmates by the visitors.

If the visitation is one where physical contact is possible then it is a violation of rights, but a legal one as the prisoner has proven a lack of respect for the rights of others. A check is acceptable as there is no way of knowing if the visitor could be doing something under emotional strain (they love and miss the prisoner) or under duress as the prisoner's friends may be threatening the visitor or their family unless they sneak something in.

So, in the case of prison visitations where there is physical contact (between the prisoners and the visitors), then its ok for the Government to mandate specific security measures (like scanners) at privately run Prisons?

It doesn't matter that "Jails are Us" and "Secured Hotel" are privately-run Prisons, and the Government of Maui is "forcing" the installation of the scanning equipment?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[FoolKiller]

It doesn't matter that "Jails are Us" and "Secured Hotel" are privately-run Prisons, and the Government of Maui is "forcing" the installation of the scanning equipment?

Respectfully,
GTsail

I explained at the very beginning of my post, privately run prisons are still government facilities operated under contract. There is no such thing as a private prison solely working for customers in the general public. It has only one customer that it contracts with; government.

A prison that doesn't work for government is usually in the basement of a creepy guy with a van.

 

[Danoff]

Your answer is that scanner's can't be installed on the two Ferry's if the installation is a government mandate?

Yes.

Scanner's are only allowable if the private Ferry companies themselves want to use them for enhanced security purposes?

Yes.

How do you propose that the Island of Maui protect itself against un-wanted contraband coming thru its ports via the Ferry's?

You're shifting the discussion now aren't you? Before you were talking about the particular nation's citizens - people who are governed by that nation's laws - using the ferries for transport. Now you're talking about People from outside the country importing goods into the country. The citizens of the united states are innocent of importing illegal goods until proven guilty. The citizens of other nations are not guaranteed such protections under our laws. Now of course none of that has anything to do with human rights, but I thought it was appropriate to point out that you're talking about a very different thing.

First of all, what contraband are we talking about here? Drugs? It's a violation of your rights that your government has labeled them contraband. Weapons? I think you know where I'll go with that. In fact most of the things that you'd list that the government has concerns over importing I'd say should be allowed to be imported.

The government needs to have cause to believe that you intend to violate human rights before you get searched. Maybe that's because you come from a nation that has threatened the US. Maybe that's because you/your ship/your crew/your boat fit the description of someone who is running a human trafficking operation. Whatever the reason, it shouldn't be anything like what it is now - which is that you didn't have a license to import that many pounds of lobster.

Even non-US citizens should be charged with a crime, and the military needs to have cause to search them. If it falls under national security, I'm fine with military jurisdiction over the case, but it they still need to be charged as enemy combatants with evidence - even if that evidence is just "he was part of a crew that shot at us".

So, in the case of prison visitations where there is physical contact (between the prisoners and the visitors), then its ok for the Government to mandate specific security measures (like scanners) at privately run Prisons?

Government contractors (privately run prisons) have voluntarily entered into a contract with the government in exchange for revenue. The government can dictate the terms of the contract. The issue is the government injecting force into a contract, not the government creating a contract and someone else voluntarily agreeing to the government's terms.

 

[FoolKiller]

He may be referring to Hawaii's strict laws regarding environmental threats to the island, such as animals and plants. They do have a fairly stringent customs inspection for even US mainlanders.

 

[GTsail]

You're shifting the discussion now aren't you? Before you were talking about the particular nation's citizens - people who are governed by that nation's laws - using the ferries for transport. Now you're talking about People from outside the country importing goods into the country. The citizens of the united states are innocent of importing illegal goods until proven guilty. The citizens of other nations are not guaranteed such protections under our laws. Now of course none of that has anything to do with human rights, but I thought it was appropriate to point out that you're talking about a very different thing.

First of all, what contraband are we talking about here? Drugs? It's a violation of your rights that your government has labeled them contraband. Weapons? I think you know where I'll go with that. In fact most of the things that you'd list that the government has concerns over importing I'd say should be allowed to be imported.

The government needs to have cause to believe that you intend to violate human rights before you get searched. Maybe that's because you come from a nation that has threatened the US. Maybe that's because you/your ship/your crew/your boat fit the description of someone who is running a human trafficking operation. Whatever the reason, it shouldn't be anything like what it is now - which is that you didn't have a license to import that many pounds of lobster.

Even non-US citizens should be charged with a crime, and the military needs to have cause to search them. If it falls under national security, I'm fine with military jurisdiction over the case, but it they still need to be charged as enemy combatants with evidence - even if that evidence is just "he was part of a crew that shot at us".

I was trying to keep the question of the "type" of contraband open, so the discussion about whether the use of a scanner is a rights violation would not revolve around the "type" of contraband, but instead address the use of scanner's in general.

As FoolKiller says, Hawaii does have very restrictive regulations in regard to what can be imported (like various plants and animals).

However, I did not name the island in my Island Security example "Maui" with the purpose of discussing Hawaiian regulations, rather the name was picked just to give my island a name. I had originally thought about using Manhattan for the name of my island, but since I wanted to be able to discuss a limited number of ports/ferry terminals, I went with a smaller and more exotic locale.

The point of my Island Security scenario was to discuss whether any island could use scanners for security purposes if they wanted to limit un-wanted contraband (be the contraband: plants, animals, weapons, drugs, money, bombs, whatever). The contraband, whatever it is, is just something that the citizens/government of the island don't want imported/exported to/from the island.

So the question is whether a "generic" island can use scanner's to limit the import/export of contraband or do scanner's cause an immediate rights violation?

Why would it matter if the travelers to the island are citizens of the island or foreigners? Shouldn't rights violations be universal to everyone?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[GTsail]

I explained at the very beginning of my post, privately run prisons are still *edit* facilities operated under contract. There is no such thing as a private prison solely working for customers in the general public. It has only one customer that it contracts with; government.

I agree with this^^^^^, however, the visitors being subjected to the scanner did not sign the contract with the government.

Repectfully,
GTsail

 

[Danoff]

The point of my Island Security scenario was to discuss whether any island could use scanners for security purposes if they wanted to limit un-wanted contraband (be the contraband: plants, animals, weapons, drugs, money, bombs, whatever). The contraband, whatever it is, is just something that the citizens/government of the island don't want imported/exported to/from the island.

So the question is whether a "generic" island can use scanner's to limit the import/export of contraband or do scanner's cause an immediate rights violation?

The government needs to have cause to believe that you intend to violate human rights before you get searched. Maybe that's because you come from a nation that has threatened the US. Maybe that's because you/your ship/your crew/your boat fit the description of someone who is running a human trafficking operation. Whatever the reason, it shouldn't be anything like what it is now - which is that you didn't have a license to import that many pounds of lobster.

Why would it matter if the travelers to the island are citizens of the island or foreigners? Shouldn't rights violations be universal to everyone?

Now of course none of that has anything to do with human rights but I thought it was appropriate to point out that you're talking about a very different thing.

.

 

[FoolKiller]

I agree with this^^^^^, however, the visitors being subjected to the scanner did not sign the contract with the government.

Repectfully,
GTsail

Visitors are not a customer of the government, nor is visitation a guaranteed right. It is a privilege. That privilege can be lost by the actions of the visitors when in the facility or the actions of the prisoner at any time while incarcerated.