The news you're not supposed to know...

Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand the World
The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in EuropeThe New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century
Article posted Jan 10 2010, 7:09 PM Category: Big Brother/Orwellian Source: Chicago Tribune Print

Privacy activists score victories against more detailed body scanners at airports

Christmas scare revives hot debate over more detailed airport imaging
By David G. Savagec

WASHINGTON - The government has promised more and better security at airports after the near-disaster Christmas Day, but privacy advocates are not prepared to accept the use of full-body scanners as the routine screening system at the nation's airports.

"We don't need to look at naked 8-year-olds and grandmothers to secure airplanes," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said Friday. "Are we really going to subject 2 million people per day to that? I think it's a false argument to say we have to give up all of our personal privacy in order to have security."

The balance between privacy and security tilts after each major terrorism incident in favor of greater security. But in the past decade, privacy advocates have been successful in blocking or stalling government plans for more searches.

A conservative freshman in the House, Chaffetz won a large, bipartisan majority last year for an amendment to oppose the government's use of body-image scanners as the primary screening system for air travelers. He was joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, which said the scanners are the equivalent of a "virtual strip search."

The pro-privacy stand does not follow the traditional ideological lines; Republicans and Democrats have united on the issue now and in the past.

It has been frustrating, however, for advocates of increased security.

"Privacy and attacks on profiling have been the big hurdles" to developing better security systems for air travelers, said Stewart Baker, a top official of the Department of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush.

Since 2001, privacy advocates have twice blocked moves to collect more personal data on passengers and compile the information in a computerized government system. Critics said mass databases would give the government too much information about ordinary Americans.

Privacy concerns also slowed the move to put more body imaging scanners in the airports. Currently, 19 airports have one or more scanners in use.

Now, after a man accused of having ties to al-Qaida boarded a trans-Atlantic flight, allegedly with explosives in his underwear, the drive to put the full-body scanners in all major airports is renewed. The Transportation Security Administration had already announced plans to buy 300 more. The Senate did not adopt the Chaffetz amendment, so the TSA is free to press ahead with installing the body scanners.

"They significantly enhance security because they can detect metallic and nonmetallic items hidden under clothing," said Greg Soule, a TSA spokesman.

He also suggested that the privacy concerns are exaggerated. "It is 100 percent optional for all passengers," he said. "They can choose to be screened with a full-body pat-down."

Moreover, the screener who observes the passenger's body image is "in a remote location" and cannot see the individual's face, he said. And the body image itself "looks like a chalk etching of a passenger."

Chaffetz disputes that point. "It is a whole body image, and they can spin it 360 degrees. And they can zoom in and see something as small as a nickel or dime," he said. "But they can't spot something hidden in a body cavity. A good, old-fashioned sniffing dog is more effective."

ACLU lawyers said air travelers should not have to face the prospect of exposing a colostomy bag or a mastectomy scar.

"We continue to think the American people are being sold a bill of goods with these body scanners," said Jay Stanley, a privacy expert in the ACLU's Washington office. "Giving the government the authority to scrutinize your body is tremendous invasion of privacy, and the benefits are questionable."

If the scanners become standard, "the terrorists will adapt to it," he added.

Despite their disagreements, defenders of privacy and advocates of increased security agree that better use of information should permit the government to focus its screening on the individuals who pose a threat.

"We clearly need to move faster to a point where we're looking for terrorists, not just weapons," said Baker.

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- California Law Requires Police to Get a Warrant Before Accessing Your Data
- Drudge on AJ: Copyright Laws Will Destroy the Internet
- Homeland Security Detains Stockton Mayor, Forces Him to Hand Over His Passwords
- GCHQ's Karma Police: Tracking and Profiling Every Web User, Every Web Site
- Senate Intelligence Committee Ends Efforts To Turn Social Media Companies Into Government Spies
- Mandatory Breathalyzers Could Soon Be in Every Car If Feds Have Their Way
- Glenn Greenwald Debates Former NSA Director Keith B. Alexander At HP Conference
- NY Pushing for Black Boxes in Your Car That Records Everything About Your Driving

No Comments Posted Add Comment

Add Comment


Verification *
Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below

Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

Advanced Search


Remember Me
Forgot Password?

Daughter Calls 911 to Help Suicidal Mother, Cops Shoot Her by Mistake, Then Kill Her Mom - 10/12VIDEO: Roid Raging Cop Chokes and Body Slams Sports Fan For No Reason - 10/12VIDEO: Police Officers "Protect a Serve" a Computer Science Student -- to Death - 10/12Cop Shoots Family's Dog, Accidentally Hits 4-Year-Old Girl, Leaves Scene Without Helping - 10/12Drone Operator Seen Schooling Cop In Viral Video Arrested For Crashing Drone Into Capitol - 10/1216-Yr-Old & His Mom Tazed & Arrested After Boy's Waving at Cop Deemed 'Suspicious' - 10/09Mom Violently Attacked by Cop While Picking Daughter Up From School, For Parking On The Grass - 10/12The Mystery of ISIS' Toyota Army Solved - 10/09

Man Follows Speeding Cop, Finds Out He Was Speeding To Buy PeanutsMission Creeps: Homeland Security Agents Confiscate Women's Panties For 'Copyright Infringement'Cop Shoots Couple's Dog, Threatens Jail For Trying To Save Dog's LifeSWAT Team Shoots Teen Girl & Her Dog During Pot Raid On Wrong HomeDurham, NC Cop Testifies Faking 911 Calls To Enter Homes Is "Official Policy"Indiana Sheriff Says US A "War Zone" To Justify New MRAP Military VehicleTampa Cops Surveil Pot Dealer, Catch Him Selling Pot, Raid His Home & Kill Him"You Just Shot An Unarmed Man!": Witness Says Police Shot His Friend With His Hands Up