Subscribe to RSS.
Become a Fan on Facebook
Follow on Twitter (Named #1 in US 4 Green)
Subscribe to Free Weekly E-Newsletter
Get on Elephant
Boycott Airport Bodyscanners?
Say “Cheese!”
Violate Privacy or Protect against Terrorism? Is there a Middle Way?
Update: Judging by this Reuters video, seems there’s no violation. But this video really seems to show more detail being exposed.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ~ Ben Franklin.
Airport Body Scanners, already getting installed, are being touted as a reasonably un-invasive means to virtually strip search airline passengers. But there’s fears they’re radioactive, that they “tear apart” DNA, and that they’re a bit…perverse—showing private parts and ghostly naked bodies.
Excerpt and image below via Bild:
WHAT DO THE ‘NAKED’ SCANNERS REALLY SEE?
The German government is seriously considering installing the machines following the US attack, which saw Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab try to blow up a plane with explosives he had smuggled on board in his underwear.
Although he failed when other passengers overpowered him, experts say the scanners would help prevent a repeat by identifying hidden weapons and explosives.
How does the scanner work?
With the best-known model, passengers are flooded with microwaves which are reflected by the body and then analysed to produce a pale image.
A scan – which produces a low humming – takes about six seconds and an analysis can be made in 30 seconds.
How intimate are the pictures?
Security advisor Hans-Detlef Dau (54, Hamburg), who sells the scanner, said: “Unlike with a complete X-ray examination, the rays do not go deeply under the skin. They see only the things which lie over it, so bladed weapons and firearms as well as ceramics.
“Beyond that, they show intimate piercings, catheters and the form of breasts and penises.
“But newer devices can automatically distort intimate areas in the picture.”
What remains hidden?
Dau added: “Things which lie under the skin cannot be seen.
“So for instance implants, cardiac pacemakers, artificial joints, tumours, tampons or coils.
“Scars are at most difficult to recognise, tattoos cannot be at all.”
Pregnancy cannot be recognised either...for the rest, go to Bild, it’s a good summation.
So, they’re an invasion of our privacy. But privacy is a sacrifice we have to make in times of war, right?
“He who trades liberty for security deserves neither, and will lose both.” ~ Benjamin Franklin
It’s a tough balance: fight terrorism? Protect our freedoms, our rights? Can we do both?
If only we had Superman (or Superboy) to protect us.
The Boycott Bodyscanners group says:
Please sign the International Boycott of Body Scanners (IBBS) http://www.petitiononline.com/IBBS/petition.html
“A group of ppl book a cheap flight. like a $99 Jet Blue. Then when we are about to go thru the body scanners refuse.. take off all of our clothes and unfurl a soft material banner and hold it up for a cameraman stationed nearby who will film to catch airport security reactions etc. This is a bold protest, and possibly dangerous. But a stunt like this will garner national attention. Especially if we can get groups to do it all over the country.”
Hmmm… can't say I see a problem with this. I figure it's the right of airline companies to say get one or don't fly. I know that before any of you got a plane with me I'd sure like to know that you weren't carrying a bomb intending to do me harm, and if they can scan you to keep me and my safe family, well I'm okay with that.
I also don't have problems with cameras in public places etc. I haven't heard any good arguments against any of this yet.
I'm sure they can figure ways to do both–protect our privacy (genitalia, etc) and expose hidden stuff. Let's hope so.
What ever happened to those "puffer" machines that were supposed to detect explosives? Oh yes they didn't work.
Another interesting take at Mother Jones
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/airport-scann...
The ACLU's view is surprisingly even on subject of bodyscanners: http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/body-s...
I don't have any issue with more security…Privacy issues won't matter when the suicide bombers/martyr's start blowing themselves up in US streets and buildings. There's no easy answer to this, they act, we react, and unless we find a way to get ahead of them, more people will die in the process. Hopefully the new administration will communicate with the terrorists/freedom fighters/tribal leaders…before attacking the wrong place again. For those who travel often, I'm sure security is appreciated and if someone educates the TSA to do their job properly properly , then we're all in better hands.
I'm just your average business traveler, but I thank the TSA workers every chance I get, because they take a-lot of grief from the people they are trying to protect.
Jamie G – I'm glad you're okay with being scanned and feel safer for it. But don't disillusion yourself – it's not going to enhance our safety. If some fanatic wants to cause harm to untold innocents, they'll find a way.
And you're "okay" with my privacy being invaded for your sense of well-being? Would you like me to provide a blood sample too? Don't want me carrying some nasty viral bomb on board, right? How about having my politics, religious beliefs or personal opinions reviewed before I'm allowed to board? What if I want to talk about something that might offend you or your family? Sound silly? Exactly. Where does it stop?
I, however, will not bow down to this fear mongering or Big Brother mentality quietly or without a voice. Our privacy is already thin enough these days.
NellaLou – exactly. It's just more of the same. Poorly thought out reactive responses that serve only to fail miserably, yet again.
Face it folks – if you fly, there's risk. Minimal (percentage), but risk none the less. Life is a risk, but to live in and mold our lives to feed the fear of that risk is not living. What rights are you willing to give away next? Pretty soon, the few we still have will be sacrificed to the God of "Security" too… but at least we'll be "safe." Right?
Whatever.
I'm no big fan of having my "cash and prizes" examined in an airport booth than the next person, but neither do I consider the screening to be any great violation of my privacy. Worst case: It's just genitals – no different on me than the next guy through the line. I'd put up much more of a fight if the screening did involve asking me about my political views. Now that is private(s).
I think there are two fundamental questions each of us should ask ourselves in order to formulate an opinion on the topic in general: Do we believe there is real risk of harm caused by someone carrying weapons onto a plane? Is screening the least invasive means of eliminating this risk?
It's hard to argue the risk isn't real. If not for the efforts of a brave few, Christmas Day would have seen a disaster. As for screening, well, I'd speculate many of us has taken advantage of security not being able to see under our clothes, and we guilty ones know how easy this is to do. I just don't see how else the TSA is going to be able to eliminate this risk without it. Hence, I've got to be ok with the screening, because I have to admit the risk is there and this seems the best way to eliminate it.
It's easy to cry foul and take the position that the increased safety is not worth the violation, when you know the odds are great that you will not be one of the harmed either way. We must all remember when taking a position on this, that we are taking the position for all involved – including the ones who may perish if we do nothing.
Hi Jamie
I'd like to respond to your comment with the following:
Recently read:
"… your risk of dying in a plausible terrorist attack is much lower than your risk of dying in a car accident, by walking across the street, by drowning, in a fire, by falling, or by being murdered." ( http://reason.com/archives/2006/08/11/dont-be-ter... )
It's also lower than dying of the flu or being hit by lightning. ( http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/odds-of-ai... )
A population kept in fearful near-panic is highly malleable and easy to control by those who would seek to do so.
Security is an illusion. It can be gone in a moment. Natural disaster, disease, accident.
As for arguments against all these extraordinary "security" measures there are many:
-economics. They are expensive to install and administer. Such things as health care, environmental protection, infrastructure spending, education all suffer because of this additional expense.
-efficacy. Many of these methods don't work. As in the "puffer" illustration above.Technology won't solve these kind of human problems. Cameras are already installed all over the place, stores, gas stations, banks etc. yet they don't deter crimes against these establishments. In England which has a huge network of public cameras there is reduction in "public" type crime such as robbery but an increase in crimes such as burglary, domestic assault, rape, child sexual exploitation, internet crime, credit card crime which occurs outside the view of the cameras. With crime going "indoors" there are gaps in crime reporting due to the nature of such crimes.
( http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org/crime-prevention/... ) In general cameras may assist in getting convictions for certain types of crime but not as overall crime prevention.
-victimization. The more intense the measures in reactionary response to these incidents the more the population feels victimized. This leads to a state of learned helplessness. People lose the sense of self-reliance and confidence.
-corruption. All of these security measures depend upon human operators. Human operators are prone to corruption and coercion. And no one is immune from that, despite what they may tell themselves. Everyone has their price, their weakness or their vulnerability.
Thanks for the opportunity to respond to this.
Since the EJ wants us to post our facebook comments here:
When I got hired my employer forced me to go see a government agent and let him touch me in ways I didn't appreciate. If that wasn't a violation of my right to privacy I don't know what is. The only parting gift I got was that me and my prostate would live in peace for at least a few more years.
Knowing that most Americans are ignorant about the … See Moreletter of the law concerning privacy rights, I find it ironic that people would rather let big corporations like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook mine their computers for personal data and watch their every move on the internet so they can make a few more bucks but get all in a tissy over getting "x-rayed" in their underoos.
Personally, knowing the TSA wants to photograph my wiener ranks really low when it comes to be concerned over privacy issues.
Thank you so much, Jamie. Far more readers come through this page than our http://www.facebook.com/elephantjournal page, so it's helpful to have some discussion here of the intelligent, detailed, passionate kind we were having over on our FB Page. Really appreciate it.
Just another good reason to not fork over money to the polluting airline industry. It is yet more window-dressing, there to impress the gullible without doing much of anything substantive to accomplish the stated mission.
Now, where is our high-speed train system?
Funny that this and other articles I've seen show only female subjects. As a male, what I want to know is whether the screeners will be able to see how big my package is. Sorry, just kidding.
Seriously, though, I don't have much of a problem with these scanners. We're consumers, and we have a *choice* about whether or not we fly. If you really don't like the scanners, you can choose another mode of transportation.
The airlines, in their defense, have been targeted enough that they'd be irresponsible if they didn't pursue every means possible to keep their customers safe. Their intentions are good.
You don't have a choice to fly, considering it's far and above the fastest way to get just about anywhere, particularly overseas. That said, I'm fine with them protecting our safety at expense of our privacy (and private bits, we searched for images and yes, what we found were just about all of females, surprise)…if indeed these are safe, which xrays aren't, and if they're effective, which blogs (like Gawker) have already pointed out that they aren't. For example, Al Queda etc could easily insert something up someone's rectum, and it wouldn't show up.
That Ben Franklin quote bears reading, and rereading.
Ever hear that old saying about the road to hell being lined with good intentions?
My point really was that you have a choice about whether you go down that road at all. Choose not to.
Another excellent article – and thought provoking (hopefully) for those who see no problem or invasion of privacy because the "screening" keeps them safe.
http://www.hlswatch.com/2009/10/15/
~ and TimesNewRoman is entirely right, it is my choice. I choose to refuse.
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/fleshmob...
Oh, and if we were less inept on the front end (screening), that gent wouldn't have made it on the flight in the first place. And this 8 year old wouldn't be hassled every time he tries to fly. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/nyregion/14watc... We're inept. Overreaction is classic behavior of the lazy and inept.
Via my pal Brett Greene:
Government lied about citizens privacy issues? Surprised? -Airport Scanners Can Store, Transmit Images http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/airport-...
Via my friend David E:
Written before the Christmas day fiasco that thrust these scanners into the mainstream awareness, this short post is worth a read.
http://www.hlswatch.com/2009/10/15/%E2%80%9Cdo-i-...
excellent internet site lplease generate more often