Live data from Hacker News

EPIC Lawsuit to Suspend Deployment of Body Scanners at US Airports

epic.org

71–80 of 91 posts

Re: EPIC Lawsuit to Suspend Deployment of Body Scanners at US Airports

#71
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of "administrative searches", which aren't targeted, don't require a warrant, don't require individual suspicion, and which are used to protect public safety and not to conduct criminal investigations.

IANAL, but I believe this also allows the cops to set up random DUI roadblocks (ie, untargeted, no warrant, no individual suspicion, public good, etc).

A few months back I went thru just such a 'safety check'. It was on the state line between Alabama and Georgia. Alabama had ~15 units and a portable command post stopping all the traffic east bound into Georgia, while Georgia had ~20-25 units stopping all the traffic west bound into Alabama.

They took my license, insurance, examined them carefully, then walked around and looked at my license plate, handed them back (with a smile) and said to have a nice evening. I've never seen so many blue lights in one place in my life.

A few days later I described this to a Florida Highway patrol trooper. He chuckled and said it sounded like someone wanted to look good for the 11 o'clock TV news.

Re: EPIC Lawsuit to Suspend Deployment of Body Scanners at US Airports

#72
post #58

My guess is they're going to get shellacked. The first thing you have to understand here is that the constitutionality of airport searches isn't in question. SCOTUS has upheld a doctrine of "administrative searches", taken in order to advance public safety rather than criminal investigations, which are explicitly intended to apply universally, without a warrant, and without individualized suspicion. The second bit of…

You're mistaken in practically every assertion you make above.

Without going over a point-by-point of the various ways your post is incorrect (e.g. regarding the scope of administrative searches; the ability of the SCOTUS to regulate searches at jails; the actual lawsuits which have resulted in most jails being much more limited in the scope of their searches absent reasonable suspicion; the TSA's inability to detect shoe bombs with the normal x-ray machines and underwear powder bombs with the new scanners; people who HAVE been refused an opt-out (reports at FlyerTalk.com); "voting out" the people who approved them, when a primary mover behind them is the Chertoff group, headed by former DHS head Michael Chertoff, who stand to gain financially from their lobbying thanks to ties to Rapiscan; and so forth), I am going to repost something from the other day which bears repeating.

Original: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1854787

------------------------------------------------------------

There are multiple problems with TSA screening in general, and backscatter machines in particular, which are listed below.

As these machines are ill-advised, you currently have the option to "opt out" and receive a pat-down instead.

PAT-DOWNS:

New guidelines just instituted for the pat-down procedure include groping of breasts, buttocks, and crotches. [8][15] Even for minors. [13] [14]

"My wife tells me that they grabbed my [10-year-old] son's privates and he was crying the whole time and all she could do was stand there and tell him it was going to be OK." [16]

Due to this, the ACLU is now taking reports of pat-down abuse:

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/tsa-pat-down-sear...

Note that going through a scan does NOT exempt you from a pat-down grope. You may be groped if you trigger a metal detector, or if your backscatter shows an "anomaly", or for any other reason or no reason at all. There are also gate screenings, where you will be pulled aside at the gate, and since there are no machines, you will be patted down / groped.

IMPACT

About 1 in 5 people are sexually assaulted by age 18. [1]

This means that even "normal" pat-downs are extremely distressing or damaging to a significant percentage of the population, and these new procedures are simply sexual assault under color of authority, which can be traumatic. Victims of sexual assault, molestation, and rape often feel like they are re-living their experiences, and even those who don't have such a background may experience emotional damage from the procedure.

I defy anyone to belittle the experience of victims of sexual abuse, who do not want any unwanted touching forced upon them, least of all groping of private areas.

BACKSCATTER SCANS

All the official images have been redacted. Here is what it REALLY looks like, scaled down:

http://dams.rca.ac.uk/res/sites/Show2006/Images06/John_Wild_...

This is an artist's self-portrait using a Rapiscan Secure 1000 security scanner [17]. In addition to clearly seeing his genitals, note the penetration into his kneecaps, shin bones, and feet. Then consider the unprotected areas, such as face, neck, and eyes. Look more closely and you can see the bones in his forearms (radius, ulna), part of his humerus, and his hands.

Then consider the findings of people like David Brenner, the head of Columbia University’s Center for Radiological Research, who explains that the dose is actually 20 times higher than the official estimate. [2] [3] [4] [5]

The energy is absorbed mostly in the skin, NOT throughout the volume of the entire body as with other types of ionizing radiation. Also, the dosage is delivered in a few (under 30) seconds. You have to consider dose per unit time; the figures often mentioned for long flights mention the total dose, which is distributed over a period of HOURS.

PRIVACY

The TSA originally claimed that these machines were simply INCAPABLE of storing images. That wasn't true:

"The documents, released by the Department of Homeland Security, reveal that Whole Body Imaging machines can record, store, and transmit digital strip search images of Americans" [6]

This also goes for MMW (millimeter wave) machines used by courthouses:

"Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images" [7]

ANONYMITY

Some locations are now using a full-color video camera in addition to the backscatter / MMW imager. This means your full-body color portrait and unclothed image can be linked; and if they scan your boarding pass or other identifying information, they can link your images to your name and other personal information (phone number, address, BIRTH DATE). [12]

SLIPPERY SLOPE

Originally the TSA claimed the backscatter machines were optional and there was no penalty for declining (no groping); that they had no capability to store images; that they would NEVER be used as primary screening instead of metal detectors (now they ARE being used as primary screening in some airports with plans for the rest -- see [9] [10]).

The supposed motivation for storing images would be in case of another attempt like the underwear bomber, to go back and "check the tapes" to see what they missed.

You should probably assume that if you are scanned, your full-color and naked images along with personal identifying information will be stored by Federal agencies in perpetuity.

EVEN DHS HEAD REFUSES BODY SCANNER

"Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano yesterday hailed them as an important breakthrough for airport security and the fight against terrorism."

"Yet when it came to testing the devices - which produce chalky, naked X-ray images of passengers - she turned the floor over to some brave volunteers." [11]

OPT-OUTS MAY NOT LAST

In the U.K., whole-body scanners have been mandatory for some time. This may well come to the U.S.

So, you will be forced to be scanned, after which you may be groped anyway, then groped again at the gate, and your images both clothed and naked will be in the bowels of a government database, which then gets turned over to various private industry bidders, who all will have a copy of all your information.

Some scanners take images in real-time at a decent framerate, which means your 3D biometric information of every part of your body will soon be recorded forever and used in any number of ways.

[1] http://www.ncdsv.org/images/SexualAssaultStatistics.pdf

[2] http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/naked-scanners-may-increa...

[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7862265/Airport...

[4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1290527/Airport-bo...

[5] http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/07/full-body-sc...

[6] http://epic.org/2010/01/update---epic-posts-tsa-docume.html

[7] http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html?part=rss...

[8] http://news.travel.aol.com/2010/10/29/tsa-launches-enhanced-...

[9] http://www.management.travel/news.php?cid=body-scans-body-sc...

[10] http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/tag/backscatter-x-ray/

[11] http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/10/22/2010-10-22_bo...

[12] http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/no-birthdate-no-ticket...

[13] http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/114134...

[14] http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/341574...

[15] http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-...

[16] http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/dyrr8/help_i_beli...

[17] http://www.rupture.co.uk/Self_portrait.html

Re: EPIC Lawsuit to Suspend Deployment of Body Scanners at US Airports

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even the nudity that bothers me, personally. It's the radiation. I didn't sign up for unshielded exposure to dangerous levels of radiation when I bought my airplane ticket. Ultimately, I think a public health angle would have been a far more effective tact to take in the lawsuit or in the arguments against these scanners. It's the trump card. Privacy always loses an argument to fear and "security" in our pos…

From Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray ) The Health Physics Society (HPS) reports that a person undergoing a backscatter scan receives approximately 0.05 μSv (or 0.005 mrems) of radiation; American Science and Engineering Inc. reports 0.09 μSv (0.009 mrems). At the high altitudes typical of commercial flights, naturally occurring cosmic radiation is considerably higher than at ground level. T…

> The radiation exposure with Backscatter X-Ray's is really a non-issue.

Unfortunately that's not the case.

"David Brenner, the head of Columbia University’s Centre for Radiological Research, says the concentration on the skin – one of the most radiation-sensitive organs of the body – means the radiation dose is actually 20 times higher than the official estimate."

The two issues are that 1) the energy is absorbed by the surface of the body instead of throughout the volume, so the effective dose to affected tissues is much higher, and 2) that the dose is received in seconds, instead of over a period of hours.

For a frequent traveler flying about once a week, ~100 departures per year, if scanned every time that adds a non-trivial 10-20 mrem.

And that's assuming that the cited dose is correct and not a significant under-estimate; where's the independent testing?

Here's a long post with numerous references regarding this general topic:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1854787

Re: EPIC Lawsuit to Suspend Deployment of Body Scanners at US Airports

#74
post #35

I wonder if women might, on mass, protest these machines by saying 'I may be pregnant' or 'I am breastfeeding'. If this is a suitable means of gentle civil disobedience, perhaps another method is suggest for men? I myself am considering to use the 'possibly pregnant' method next time I fly in the US and am curious what the response will be, and how I am treated in the pat-down.

I've been thinking about how to work myself up to a hard on before going through as a form of reverse molestation.

Re: EPIC Lawsuit to Suspend Deployment of Body Scanners at US Airports

#75

Of course if you were a terrorist wouldn't a line of hundreds of people all being crowded into one space BEFORE security make a much nicer target? And if somebody did detonate a backpack full of nails in the security queue how they react - more security and make the queues longer?

It seems to me the most expeditious way to keep people safe from bomb attacks at the airport would be to have more flights with smaller airplanes that way you reduce the concentration of people and remove the queues. If you have 40 passengers on a plane and 10 of them are terrorists, then that leaves 30+crew to resist them less small children and cripples (so probably, pulling a number out of the air, 15-25 people to resist 10).

Re: EPIC Lawsuit to Suspend Deployment of Body Scanners at US Airports

#76
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At SFO, my only experience with them, one still has to doff ones shoes, and walk through a metal detector. As such, the only choice you get is between a firm pat-down or an electronic strip search. I choose the former. It annoys them and I get to make at least one TSA agent uncomfortable.

I might agree for myself, but what about our wives and children? We simply can't allow it.

Your wife can probably make up her own mind.

Re: EPIC Lawsuit to Suspend Deployment of Body Scanners at US Airports

#77
post #72
post #58

My guess is they're going to get shellacked. The first thing you have to understand here is that the constitutionality of airport searches isn't in question. SCOTUS has upheld a doctrine of "administrative searches", taken in order to advance public safety rather than criminal investigations, which are explicitly intended to apply universally, without a warrant, and without individualized suspicion. The second bit of…

You're mistaken in practically every assertion you make above. Without going over a point-by-point of the various ways your post is incorrect (e.g. regarding the scope of administrative searches; the ability of the SCOTUS to regulate searches at jails; the actual lawsuits which have resulted in most jails being much more limited in the scope of their searches absent reasonable suspicion; the TSA's inability to detect…

Yeah, uh, I don't disagree with anything (except your first graf) you wrote, and I'm glad to give you a chance to get that off your chest, but, want to bet?

Re: EPIC Lawsuit to Suspend Deployment of Body Scanners at US Airports

#78
post #2

Almost no politician would ever vote for removing this awful "security" measure. They would risk being blamed when another incompetent terrorist mastermind passes security and hopefully gets stopped by, now much more vigilant passengers. Going to the courts seems like a good way around that - sue the TSA. If someone with experience on these types of issues could comment I would be very interested to learn if this has…

[deleted]

Re: EPIC Lawsuit to Suspend Deployment of Body Scanners at US Airports

#79
post #72
post #58

My guess is they're going to get shellacked. The first thing you have to understand here is that the constitutionality of airport searches isn't in question. SCOTUS has upheld a doctrine of "administrative searches", taken in order to advance public safety rather than criminal investigations, which are explicitly intended to apply universally, without a warrant, and without individualized suspicion. The second bit of…

You're mistaken in practically every assertion you make above. Without going over a point-by-point of the various ways your post is incorrect (e.g. regarding the scope of administrative searches; the ability of the SCOTUS to regulate searches at jails; the actual lawsuits which have resulted in most jails being much more limited in the scope of their searches absent reasonable suspicion; the TSA's inability to detect…

Well said nubian. I sent this link to a civil liberties lawyer who didn't think much at all of tptacek's comment and was surprised to see it rated so highly.

Re: EPIC Lawsuit to Suspend Deployment of Body Scanners at US Airports

#80
post #5
post #2

Almost no politician would ever vote for removing this awful "security" measure. They would risk being blamed when another incompetent terrorist mastermind passes security and hopefully gets stopped by, now much more vigilant passengers. Going to the courts seems like a good way around that - sue the TSA. If someone with experience on these types of issues could comment I would be very interested to learn if this has…

Make a list of congressmen and senators that require you to let nude photos of your children to be taken by government employees. It's all about how you frame the argument

Better still - post the backscatter photos of those congressmen and senators online. I just hope I don't see them!
Post reply on HN