It's a bullshit excuse because "protecting the children" are items #1 and #2 on the list of "flimsy justifications for surveillance overreach", right next to "preventing terrorism" at #3.
I'm serious. Any time you hear those terms and the discussion is not about speed limits in a school zone, red flags should be going up in your mind.
It's not about how many people they catch - even if they had a 100% success rate at nabbing every abuser that crossed the border, it's about civil liberties.
I was simply pointing out the reason for the searches. As it stands, the law currently lets them do these searches, and I was explaining the reasoning behind these searches (which should be pretty obvious to anyone who has watched those TV shows).
As for why they want to search for pedophiles at airports: the reason is presumably because there is a serious problem of child sex tourism in certain countries (Thailand for example).
You could use the same argument about guns or drugs -- why search people who they suspect are carrying guns or drugs? The reasoning is presumably that stopping these at the border prevents them from coming into the country.
To be honest I don't have a problem with being searched at airports. IMO the small inconvenience is outweighed by the benefit of putting the occasional pedophile in jail, preventing diseases from fruit/meat entering our country, and criminals bringing machine guns into the country, etc. I guess from the downvotes and comments that a lot of HN posters have a different opinion.
I'm serious. Any time you hear those terms and the discussion is not about speed limits in a school zone, red flags should be going up in your mind.
It's not about how many people they catch - even if they had a 100% success rate at nabbing every abuser that crossed the border, it's about civil liberties.