Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images • Hacker News Board

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#61

Post by die_sekte » Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 9:13 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #28

bitwize wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (which is actually not one of your ironclad civil liberties) Not in the US, anyway. Thankfully, there's Europe, which has progressed considerably further than the U.S. in terms of actually protecting people's rights.

Having had the experience of observing the frontiers of my civil rights while being searched on the train from Zurich to Rome, I find this notion that things are better in Europe amusing. From what I can tell, the situation Americans find themselves in at the TSA checkpoints is identical to the situation all Europeans find themselves in everywhere . You realize that (contrary to popular opinion) Americans don't even…

As a German I need to have an ID card, but do not need to carry it with me. The same is true for many other EU states.

Civil liberties are apparently in decline everywhere, but I would argue that the EU is somewhat better than the US in that regard and that the actual abuse of laws is better in the EU.

I think you are slightly overacting. It could be that you as a non-EU-citizen were subjected to harsher standards. May I remind you that the US isn't that nice to non-citizens?

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#62

Post by cynicalkane » Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 9:18 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #24

johngalt wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Refusing these searches is important even if pat-downs are considered more intrusive. If we all do this, and the machines sit idle; eventually they will be removed.

The machines are never going anywhere; the government invested zillions of dollars in them after the underpants bomber. Too many career civil servants would lose their jobs if they got sidelined. But you're right: things will improve if most people refuse the strip search; the TSA will get better at pretending to screen the opt-outs, and the machines won't matter anymore.

From what I have heard, career civil servants don't often lose their jobs.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#63

Post by mcantelon » Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 9:28 PM UTC

TallGuyShort wrote: post #53

makmanalp wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this an offense? Can't they be sued for lying to the public? Why do they get to get away with this?

It's easy to tell the public you're invading privacy to prevent terrorism. It's hard to tell the public that terrorists killed people because you respected their privacy. I'm not saying I agree - in fact I completely disagree - but as a public policy maker and politician, it probably seems illogical to do it any other way. Better to have people blame you for no privacy than blame you for death, right?

Also, there are campaign donations to be had from the vendors of full body scanners. Less so from civil liberty groups.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#64

Post by runjake » Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 9:31 PM UTC

evgen wrote: post #39

runjake wrote: post #27

Every time the TSA rambles on about how giving up this little bit of freedom saves your life from terrorism, I wonder why a journalist doesn't hit them up for comment on the (perhaps apocryphal) quote "Those who would give up their liberty for security deserve neither".

Perhaps you should learn the quote first: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Now you just need to prove that the liberties being abrogated are essential and that the security being provided is temporary.

I hoped you've satiated your pedantry for today, but the quote exists in several re-quoted forms. Jefferson "mis-quoted" Franklin. Everyone mis-quotes Jefferson.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#65

Post by tptacek » Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 9:35 PM UTC

Splines wrote: post #58

MartinCron wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To those who suggest that the pat-down searches are as intrusive or more intrusive than the electronic strip searches: no I haven't been through an electronic strip search, so I can't speak to that. I can speak to the last time I had a pat-down at the airport: I found it pretty invasive. I've never thought of myself as a big "personal space" guy, but here is this TSA agent, grabbing aggressively at all of my pockets,…

FWIW, my son was selected for a pat-down search when we flew in Canada on a domestic flight. Notwithstanding the logic of deciding that a 10 year old carrying a Nintendo DS was a security threat, the agent was quite respectful, asking for my permission first, being very clear what was going on, and performing the pat-down in a professional (to my eyes) and efficient manner.

The guy who screened me said "I may need to touch you near a sensitive area now, just let me know if you have a problem, I'm going to use the back of my hand only" something like 5 times, so I'm pretty sure they're scripted to be "respectful".

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#66

Post by tptacek » Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 9:38 PM UTC

cynicalkane wrote: post #62

tptacek wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The machines are never going anywhere; the government invested zillions of dollars in them after the underpants bomber. Too many career civil servants would lose their jobs if they got sidelined. But you're right: things will improve if most people refuse the strip search; the TSA will get better at pretending to screen the opt-outs, and the machines won't matter anymore.

From what I have heard, career civil servants don't often lose their jobs.

One of the reasons for that is that civil service selects for people who are ultra conservative and sensitive about job security, and therefore are unlikely to allow a failed project to actually fail.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#67

Post by tptacek » Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 9:40 PM UTC

mcantelon wrote: post #63

TallGuyShort wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to tell the public you're invading privacy to prevent terrorism. It's hard to tell the public that terrorists killed people because you respected their privacy. I'm not saying I agree - in fact I completely disagree - but as a public policy maker and politician, it probably seems illogical to do it any other way. Better to have people blame you for no privacy than blame you for death, right?

Also, there are campaign donations to be had from the vendors of full body scanners. Less so from civil liberty groups.

It seems extraordinarily unlikely to me that campaign donations from millimeter wave vendors will exert anything resembling the force that game theory does; to wit, "voting yes to anything that might improve airport security, and avoiding at all costs voting no on something that might later be tied to some catastrophe".

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#68

Post by tptacek » Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 9:57 PM UTC

die_sekte wrote: post #61

tptacek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having had the experience of observing the frontiers of my civil rights while being searched on the train from Zurich to Rome, I find this notion that things are better in Europe amusing. From what I can tell, the situation Americans find themselves in at the TSA checkpoints is identical to the situation all Europeans find themselves in everywhere . You realize that (contrary to popular opinion) Americans don't even…

As a German I need to have an ID card, but do not need to carry it with me. The same is true for many other EU states. Civil liberties are apparently in decline everywhere, but I would argue that the EU is somewhat better than the US in that regard and that the actual abuse of laws is better in the EU. I think you are slightly overacting. It could be that you as a non-EU-citizen were subjected to harsher standards. M…

Are you sure? In Germany:

* Can the state police demand that you open a bag for inspection on a train?

* Can you be detained at length (for instance, removed to a police station) if you're asked to identify yourself and don't have documentation?

* Are the police under any circumstances permitted to randomly stop and search cars?

* Can the police check your pockets during a pat-down search for weapons?

Each of these is something for which US jurisprudence has issued decisive and binding decisions (no, absent probable cause they can document and justify on the stand, they can't open your bag; no, unless they arrest you for an actual crime, they can't take you to a police station; no, under most circumstances the police can't even pull you over unless you've committed a "primary" offense, and cannot absent probable cause of an actual crime search your car; no, the police in the US can't demand to see the contents of your pockets).

Incidentally, you have the same protection under the 4th Amendment as a German citizen in the US as I do as someone born in Chicago. I assume that's true vice-versa in Germany as well.

The bag issue is what got me; Swiss police rifled through my bag. I was not the only person in the train car that happened to, so I'm doubting I was simply selected for it as a noncitizen --- not that that should matter.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#69

Post by pyre » Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 9:58 PM UTC

patio11 wrote: post #38

tptacek wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These millimeter wave devices aren't being installed in a secret plot to eliminate everyone's civil rights. They're being installed because regulators sincerely believe that they represent a reasonable compromise between privacy (which is actually not one of your ironclad civil liberties) and safety. Airport security is probably a bad joke. But acting and talking as if that's a foregone conclusion --- or worse, that…

Thomas speaks much sense here. Relatedly, that is exactly the attitude you should take with cops who try to ask you questions or seize your papers or effects. "I respectfully decline. If you are not arresting me, I am leaving; if you do not have a search warrant, leave my property expeditiously. Have a nice day."

There are a number of charges that you can be arrested for at the sole discretion of the officer. I've heard exchanges like:

  officer: Don't go anywhere
  friend: Am I under arrest?
  officer: No, but don't go anywhere.
  friend: If I'm not under arrest, then I'm leaving.
  officer: If you leave, I *will* arrest you with impeding an investigation / obstruction of justice

(That exchange followed from someone not involved in a protest, who was filming police officers trying to contain a protest. They tried to fine her friend $400 for littering (i.e. a candy wrapper that was already on the ground) or something equally ridiculous when you consider the amount of time (and tax-payer money) that they wasted harassing her and her friends.)

Also, in a number of jurisdictions, you can be arrested for being 'drunk and disorderly' with only the officer's word that you were actually drunk and/or causing a scene.

Keep in mind, that it doesn't matter much whether or not the charges stick. The police have successfully harassed you if you have to spend the night (or weekend) in prison before you are able to get out (and/or get the charges dismissed).

{update} Some corrections. Also, the 'investigation' that was being impeded was a $400 fine for littering a candy wrapper (ignoring whether or not the candy wrapper was actually littered).

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#70

Post by tptacek » Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 10:02 PM UTC

pyre wrote: post #69

patio11 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thomas speaks much sense here. Relatedly, that is exactly the attitude you should take with cops who try to ask you questions or seize your papers or effects. "I respectfully decline. If you are not arresting me, I am leaving; if you do not have a search warrant, leave my property expeditiously. Have a nice day."

There are a number of charges that you can be arrested for at the sole discretion of the officer. I've heard exchanges like: officer: Don't go anywhere friend: Am I under arrest? officer: No, but don't go anywhere. friend: If I'm not under arrest, then I'm leaving. officer: If you leave, I *will* arrest you with impeding an investigation / obstruction of justice (That exchange followed from someone not involved in a…

Your first example is naive. The police cannot arrest you absent an actual crime, but they can detain you for a "reasonable" amount of time; if you simply walk away from an officer, you are in fact impeding an investigation. There is a clear difference between an arrest and being "detained": during an arrest, the police can search you and your vehicle, put you in restraints, and drive you away to a police station.

That there are subjective offenses you can be arrested for and that the police could abuse strikes me as a simple fact of life. You can also file complaints, (in most jurisdictions) record the abuse with your camera phone, and (in crazy cases) sue.