I Heart TSA

But...But...But...That's Why We Nudie-Scan Everyone First!

2012-03-01T09:55:00.000-08:00

The FBI evacuated a United Airlines flight in Denver, after receiving a bomb threat today. All bags were removed from the airplane, passengers were re-screened, and the airplane was moved to a quarantined location where it was searched.

But I don't get it. I mean, that's what DHS requested 763.3 million dollars for FY2012 (PDF) to prevent! With the $105.2 million for more AIT scanners, $273 million for explosive detection systems, $236.9 million for "behavioral detection" officers (thoughtcrime, anyone?), $125.7 million for canine teams (IMHO, the most effective, reasonable expense listed, despite the fact that it's not a perfect solution, either) how could anyone possibly have smuggled a bomb onto the airplane? </sarcasm>

Can we *please* finally admit that TSA is just a massive exercise in waste and abuse? Airliners will never be perfectly secure -- perfect security is an impossibility. So why are we putting up with so much abuse from TSO's in the name of something that can never be obtained? Couldn't we have spent that $763 million on something that will actually demonstrate some kind of positive return (besides for Michael Chertoff, George Soros and Tom Ridge -- see citations here, here, here, here and here).

Call your Senators and Representative -- Support the STRIP Act!

2012-02-29T16:07:00.000-08:00

Interesting, informative and insightful article on Forbes today by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) regarding the continuing scope creep of the TSA, and what she is trying to do to stop it. I strongly encourage everyone who understands what a threat to liberty the TSA is to contact their senators and representatives and encourage them to support Rep. Blackburn's STRIP Act (H.R. 3608).

Another "Not TSA" Post

2012-02-29T10:02:00.000-08:00

http://animalnewyork.com/2012/02/the-department-of-homeland-security-is-searching-your-facebook-and-twitter-for-these-words/

From the article: "As it turns out many terms including seemingly benign words such as flu, agent, response, cops drill, etc are on the list of words that set off warning bells for the government spooks."

Anyone think that maybe there's going to be a flurry of activity as those who like to tweak DHS post comments containing words like "flu," "agent," "response," "cops" and "drill" on Twitter, Facebook, G+, etc.? I'm sure it would be annoying for DHS to have to wade through all of those false positives containing words like "flu," "agent," "response," "cops" and "drill." Not that *I* would ever post wordslike "flu," "agent," "response," "cops" and "drill" just for the sake of being obnoxious or anything ;)

By the way... flu agent response cops drill

Are We Better Off Without TSA?

2012-02-27T16:26:00.000-08:00

Check out the poll over at Huffington Post. A whopping 76% of respondents say we are better off without TSA, with 24% saying we are better off with TSA. I just wish Congress mirrored the opinions of the populace...</wishful thinking>

More Controversy Over The Safety of Airport Body Scanners

2012-02-27T15:01:00.000-08:00

From OPB News comes this little jewel:

ProPublica reported in November that the TSA has glossed over the scientific nuance in declaring the machines safe, that the United States was almost alone in the world in deploying the X-ray scanners and that the Food and Drug Administration went against its own advisory panel in allowing the machines to fall under voluntary standards.

There are a number of people, including TSA's own Blogger Bob, who blow off concerns about the safety of the scanners based upon the extremely low dosage of radiation emitted by the devices. That may be so, but the most telling fact in the debate, in my humble (or not...) opinion, is in the OPB News quote above: "the Food and Drug Administration went against its own advisory panel in allowing the machines to fall under voluntary standards." In other words, the FDA's own radiation safety experts thought the machines should NOT fall under "voluntary standards" but the powers-that-be overruled the experts. Hmmm...what possible reason could the FDA have for ignoring it's own people? I rather suspect that if you follow the money, you'll see who pulled strings to have FDA rule this way, which will in turn lead you to the motives for this decision.

Overstepping Boundaries

2012-02-23T10:45:00.000-08:00

This isn't a TSA story, but it's still Orwellian. CNN reports on NYPD overstepping their boundaries and investigating Muslim students in Newark, New Jersey. Seems to me NYPD is in a race with TSA to see who can most violate the principles upon which this country was founded. I'm not sure who's got the lead, but I certainly know who's losing in this race (hint: "We the people").

I Want to Throw Up

2012-02-18T20:58:00.000-08:00

This is just sickening. Read through the comments for more of what was going on: apparently the victim -- err, passenger, my bad -- was mentally impaired. Is this level of intrusion, really necessary to ensure airline safety? Are we really willing to allow TSA drop our pants in the screening line before letting us on an airplane? How much more abuse is necessary before the American people rise up en masse and demand that our elected representatives reign in this out-of-control agency?

Right to Travel?

2012-02-10T16:10:00.000-08:00

In yet another new low for the TSA, they refuse to let a woman board her flight because they had already sent all of the female TSA agents home.

Let me make sure I understand this...this woman paid for a flight (check). She was not suspected of being any kind of criminal or terrorist (check). She was willing to undergo whatever abuse^Wsecurity checks were necessary to clear airport security. Nevertheless, TSA would not allow her to board an airplane? In other words, TSA completely violated court rulings such as Corfield v. Coryell and Paul v. Virginia (dating from 1823 and 1869, respectively) upholding our Constitutional RIGHT to travel within the country? Keep in mind, these are rights -- which means the government may NOT remove those rights without due process...which this woman most certainly did receive.

There was a discussion on Slashdot today in which an anonymous commenter observed, "Any group can CLAIM certain rights, but, those rights have to be enforceable, otherwise, they are just effectively wishful thinking." It is becoming increasingly evident that our country has entered into the "wishful thinking" stage.

Yeah, we can just drive

2012-01-30T12:09:00.001-08:00

A Canada border crossing mini-drama.

Suspicionless Searches

2012-01-25T15:54:00.000-08:00

Taking a cue from TSA's airport body scanners, NYPD is testing a mobile scanner (with apologies for the possibly offensive article title) that uses infra-red wavelengths (rather than TSA's microwaves and x-rays) to "detect for firearms hidden in [people's] clothes from a safe distance." This is very, very disturbing. As TechEye reports, NYPD plans to use a device with sufficient power to essentially scan "whole streets at a time."

These mobile scanners are a blatant violation of civil rights. TSA apologists have argued that airport searches are not a violation of the 4th Amendment because you consent to a search when you buy your airplane ticket. While I strongly disagree with that opinion, even this weak argument fails to excuse what NYPD is trying to do on the streets of New York. Do you need a ticket to step out of your house onto a public street? Does going out in public imply consent to a search? If so, then the entire Bill of Rights is a sham.

Welcome to the new police state, USA.

And Now, Random Car Searches

2012-01-04T14:58:00.000-08:00

First, they came to the airports, but you told me I could always take a train, or a bus or drive. Then they came to the train stations, but you told me I could still take a bus or drive. Then they came to the bus stations, but still you told me I could drive. Now, TSA is stopping random, private vehicles on the road. Granted, that's on entry to an airport, but do you see the trend? When will this nonsense stop? The Federal Government DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEARCH ME WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE! It's in the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. Please, people, stand up to TSA! It's time (past time, actually) to say "Enough is enough, and I will no longer consent to this abuse."

Open Letter to the Airlines

2011-12-22T16:23:00.000-08:00

I found a rather interesting article today that claims that Americans are afraid to fly, now that TSA is scoping-and-groping with impunity. This paragraph in particular caught my eye:

According to the results of a survey just released by the US Travel Association, two-out-of-five travelers this season are saying they’re trying to skip the plane and those pesky lines and checkpoints in lieu of other methods of transportation. It might not seem like a substantial number, but the association’s CEO, Roger Dow, tells US News & World Report, "Our research shows that reducing hassle without compromising security will encourage more Americans to fly — as many as two to three additional trips a year — leading to an additional $85 billion in spending that would support 900,000 American jobs."

At a time when American Airlines is posting $400 million in losses and the country as a whole is in the midst of one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression, can we really afford to make flying so much of a hassle that 40% of people polled say that they will drive or stay home rather than deal with airport security? I, for one, have not flown since January of last year, and I will not purchase another airline ticket until this nonsense stops. I have spoken with a number of others who feel the same way, and now this poll provides objective proof of what I have long suspected was true.

Consequently, I encourage the airlines to join the fight against TSA abuse. We can be (reasonably) safe without giving up our liberty. I would really like to take my family on vacation again. But I, and apparently, a growing body of my peers in the U.S., will never do so while the TSA is allowed to scope, grope, and even strip search people whose only "crime" is to purchase an airline ticket.

Cheers to Alaska State Representative Chris Tuck

2011-12-20T15:00:00.000-08:00

Yet another legislator from my home state of Alaska is joining the fight against the TSA. According to CNN and McClatchy News Services, Rep. Chris Tuck has funded ads urging people to know their rights and to opt out of the body scanners while traveling.

Hats off to Rep. Tuck for (literally) putting his money where his mouth is and taking a stand against Federally mandated abuse. Here's hoping that Congressman Young, Sen. Begich and Sen. Murkowski will likewise recognize that TSA has gone too far and needs to be reigned in.

Petition the White House!

2011-09-24T14:34:00.000-07:00

The White House recently created a new web site to make it easier for Americans to petition the President on issues that matter to them. Currently, there is a petition to abolish the TSA on the site. I would encourage anyone who understands that the TSA, as it exists today, is anathema to a free society to sign this petition.

How Long Will We Let This Go On?

2011-09-14T10:28:00.000-07:00

The other day, I wrote about how we have given in to a culture of fear since 9/11. In that post, I reference a Time and an ABC News article about a Frontier Airlines flight that was diverted because a man who didn't feel well made "too many" trips to the restroom. Today, CBS News provides more information on the story -- and this new information is absolutely horrifying. One of the three people behaving "suspiciously" was Ms. Shoshana Hebshi. When the flight was diverted to Detroit, Ms. Hebshi was ordered off the airplane, taken to a cell, strip-searched (no, not just an AIT scan -- actually, physically STRIP searched) and interrogated. Eventually, Ms. Hebshi was released. More details of the incident are available on her blog, here. I highly recommend taking the time to read it; it's a very eye-opening account of something that absolutely, positively, should NOT be happening in this country.

As the saying goes, "If you aren't furious yet, you aren't paying attention."

Fear Itself

2011-09-12T14:21:00.000-07:00

On the weekend of the 10th anniversary of 9/11, journalists and bloggers across the country were busy remembering the events of that day, and pontificating about the changes we've experienced since then. One article in particular, entitled "Americans Have Learned to Keep Terrorism Fears in Check" caught my attention. I have grown somewhat cynical in the last ten years, as "spinning" the truth seems to have become a national pastime, rivaling even the absurdity of "New Speak" from Orwell's alternate universe. "Political correctness", no matter how objectively incorrect, is the new standard, and in my own humble opinion, for however much or however little that is worth, the Kansas City Star hit a new milestone in PC obfuscation this weekend with this article.

First, the author touts in the headline that Americans have overcome their fear of terrorism, then proceeds to explain all the overreactions to fear that still define post-9/11 America. From abandoning the 4th Amendment right to freedom from search and seizure without probable cause (i.e., routine searches at airports, sporting events and other large gatherings), to racial profiling to the suspicion from others that Muslims in America face every day, the article is a showcase for how fear IS crippling us. Far from proving that "Americans have checked their fear", the author demonstrates with every example the very opposite!

For that matter, a quick read of the newspaper will verify that the facts very clearly state that Americans have most certainly NOT learned to keep terrorism fears in check; on the contrary, fear seems to be the order of the day. The Root argues the same point I am making here, in an article entitled "Ten Years Later, No Relief from Fear", a much more honest look at how a decade after 9/11, fear still reigns over the U.S.

Events this weekend bear out this position. Time and ABC News both reported how F-16 fighters were scrambled, a Frontier Airlines jet was diverted to an alternate airport and three passengers were arrested -- and subsequently released -- due to "suspicious activity". And the offense which raised the alarm, precipitating this chain of events?

A bomb or other weapon detected in a passenger's carry-on luggage?

Nope.

A threat or anonymous tip called in to the FBI?

Nope.

A passenger acting in a suspicious manner?

Yep -- too many potty breaks.

Yes, you read that right. A few passengers on an airliner weren't feeling well and consequently, had to take a few extra trips to the loo.

Really? And the Kansas City Star says we are "keeping fear in check"?!?! Sure we are. Need I add the obligatory "Not!" after that statement?

Fine, so that was clearly an overreaction. Unfortunately, overreactions are becoming the status quo. Consider the story of an African-American gentleman who found the airliner on which he was traveling called back to the gate during taxi for take-off. After returning to the gate, the man, who's name is Vance Gilbert, was removed from the flight and questioned by TSA and (possibly "or"; there is some dispute over exactly who was involved in Mr. Gilbert's inquisition) the local police. The reason for this in-flight scare? Mr. Gilbert was reading a book on airplanes, including three-view drawings of airplanes (albeit airplanes from the '30s, which bear no more than superficial resemblance to modern airliners) and he had not stowed his fanny pack in the overhead storage as a flight attendant had requested (because it contained his wallet, and therefore, he had stuffed it under the seat in front of him, which is usually considered acceptable). Gilbert was released and no charges were filed, but his flight was delayed, and when he boarded the aircraft after being removed from the flight, he had to endure the suspicious stares of his fellow passengers who were clearly wondering with what dangerous sort of dangerous criminal were they now sharing their flight?

Quite frankly, our current fear and paranoia is a national disgrace. We proudly claim to be the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave", but our actions put the lie to those words. In the last ten years, we have become anything but free or brave. We are still living in the trauma of the past, and until we release that fear from our hearts, we will continue to become a mockery of the great nation that we once were. On this tenth anniversary, I, like the rest of this nation, mourn the loss of those three thousand souls. But I also mourn the loss of the ideals for which this nation once stood.

Rest in peace, America. You were great while you lasted.

RIP USA!

2011-09-07T17:41:00.000-07:00

No longer content just to violate our 4th Amendment Rights (protection against unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause), a TSO is now seeking to violate an airline traveler and blogger's 1st Amendment rights, too: techdirt.com. Can you hear the Founding Fathers rolling in their graves?

Cost

2011-09-04T20:54:00.000-07:00

Found a very interesting news story on the cost of post-9/11 "security". Especially interesting was this comment:

[Ohio State University professor John] Mueller said the nation's 9/11 costs were inflated by a "wildly disproportionate sense of danger." He said it's hard to justify the nearly $1 billion a year spent putting armed air marshals on some planes, for example, when statistically one in every 20 million flights is hijacked. It's "like putting an earthquake shelter in a place that doesn't have earthquakes," Mueller said. He'd like to see the United States take a more risk-based approach in evaluating future spending.

Authority and Liberty

2011-08-31T10:39:00.001-07:00

I am becoming disgusted with my country.

Not the land itself -- America is blessed with an amazing diversity of beauty, from the sea coasts of Maine, to the Shenandoah and Blue Ridge Mountains, to the stark beauty of Moab, Monument Valley, and the Painted Desert, to the Pacific Coast Highway and the rugged isolation of Alaska. And I'm not disgusted by our system of government, because I believe the Founding Fathers hit upon an idea that was truly remarkable, a "Grand Experiment" in liberty and self-rule that was unlike anything the earth had ever seen before.

No, I am disgusted with the culture, the prevailing attitudes, of my country-men and women. I am disgusted that my country, as a whole, has so easily, so willingly, so readily abandoned the principles upon which this nation was founded.

I saw a newspaper article today about a brawl at an amusement park when a group of Muslim women, due to their religious beliefs, refused to remove their headgear per the park rules, in order to ride one of the attractions at the park.

The women acted inappropriately, perhaps. The article states that the park felt that headgear was a safety issue, and therefore they would not allow headgear on this ride. The women, however, were forbidden by their religion from removing their headgear. Perhaps the park was right, and the religious prohibition the women faced was incompatible with the safety requirements of the ride, in which case, the only reasonable option was to opt not to ride. Perhaps the park was being overbearing and making an exception for religious objections would have been a more reasonable solution. There simply is not enough information in the article to say.

However, what truly disturbs me about this incident is not the behaviour of the Muslim women, nor even that of the park staff. What first grabbed my attention, as it so often does when I read the news, is the comments of other readers.

One reader wrote, "Funny how people do not understand that when a Cop tells you do something you do it EVERYTIME [sic]." Another wrote, "Its [sic] 'CLEAR' that some of the Muslims...made this a race issue when its clearly a Safety Issue. A note on following directions from police, do what they say now and let the lawyers figure it out later." Yet another wrote, "Because of 9/11/01 We have To go through Airport Screenings But Yet they Are Exempt because of their So Called Beliefs But Yet Go to Another Country see if they Bow to your Every Demand because you are AMERICAN. If you Can't Speak English Here Illegal or Don't like our rules Please feel free to GO HOME!!!!!!"

I couldn't help but cringe as I read these comments, because there were two fallacious underlying themes behind these words. First, most of the people commenting on the article seem not to understand what a Muslim is. "Muslim" is not a nationality. A Muslim is one who follows Islam. It is a description of the religious beliefs of a person or group of people. In other words, "Muslim" is more like "Christian" or "Buddhist" than "American" or "Canadian" or "Japanese". Nothing in the newspaper article suggested that the Muslim women were from another country, and there are many, many Muslims in the United States who are natural-born citizens. To say, "If you...Don't like our rules Please feel free to GO HOME!!!!!!" is just ignorant. Unfortunately, such ignorance is painfully common in the U.S. today.

The second underlying theme is the attitude that when someone in authority tells you to do something, you should just do it. Really? Just follow orders, no matter how offensive, how inappropriate, how devoid of common sense they may be? What if a police officer -- or someone impersonating a cop -- orders you to do something personally abominable? If someone in a police uniform and flashing a badge tries to rape you, should you just comply? What if the police officer orders you to take action -- or to not take action -- and complying with that order will result in the death of someone? Do you still comply with the order?

What if a TSA agent tries to molest you before allowing you into the so-called "secure area" of an airport?

Our country was founded on the idea that every individual is endowed, by virtue of the fact that they are human, with "certain inalienable rights" and that those who we choose to put in positions of authority do not have permission to deprive us of those rights on a whim. For this belief, a great number of patriots fought and died in the Revolutionary War. Those men willingly sacrificed themselves so that you and I might live without fear of oppression from the government. Are we to take back the yoke of oppression so readily? Do our freedoms really mean so little to us that we are willing to give them up so willingly? The path of least resistance is very, very rarely the best solution in the long run.

Ignorance of history, I believe, is what ties together the two themes I described above. We are ignorant of our history. We no longer understand the political and social forces that created the American Revolution. I would wager that most of my peers could not tell you what the Magna Carta was, why it was an important milestone in history, nor even in what country it was written. I doubt that more than half of the adults in the United States could tell you the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Nor, I suspect, could most Americans give a passable description of the first ten Amendments.

Because of our collective ignorance, we don't see the danger that lurks nearby. We don't understand how, throughout history, governments have ALWAYS turned upon the very ones they were created to serve. Because we have always lived in relative freedom and security, we don't believe that our government could ever become a police state like the cold war U.S.S.R. or Nazi Germany. It is inconceivable to us that a policeman would ever do anything that wasn't in our best interest.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." We have ceased keeping a watch, and I fear that the time is fast approaching when that lack of vigilance will cost us dearly. You see, freedom requires responsibility. To remain free, we must constantly guard against that which threatens to take our liberty away. To guard our liberty, we must understand what constitutes a threat. To understand what constitutes a threat, we must be able to identify patterns in history that lead to threats against liberty in that time, and be able to recognize those patterns in our own time. In other words, we must know and understand history. And ultimately, we must value liberty for our children more than we value safety for ourselves. We must have the guts to stand for what is right, even when the cost is oh, so very high, because the cost of cowering down in the face of abusive authority will eventually be even higher.

To do otherwise is to dishonor the sacrifice of those who came before us.

Safer Today Than Ten Years Ago?

2011-08-30T15:54:00.000-07:00

Apparently, the American people -- or at least those who bothered to vote -- don't think so, according to a Wall Street Journal poll.

Our Government's Finest

2011-08-29T23:33:00.000-07:00

Courtesy of the Lew Rockwell blog comes this story of one of the Transportation Security Administration's finest in action. He was so dedicated to doing his job, he continued to grope children while he was off the clock. </sarc>

Eight days after Blogger Bob crowed about the great job TSA has been doing to keep us "safe" at the airport, the Elko (Nevada) Daily Free Press reports that one of the TSO's was arrested and charged with "six counts of lewdness with a child".

As I said in the comments to Blogger Bob's post, "Congratulations on ten fine years, Bob. Now if you could only find a way to protect me from my own government..." Now when I fly, I not only have to worry about the terrorists who slipped through TSA checkpoints but I also have to worry about child molesters, rapists, robbers and thieves, kidnappers...I could go on, but I honestly don't have enough time to document all of the verified, prosecuted abuses perpetrated by employees of the TSA. That is who we have "protecting" us at the airport.

I feel so much safer...don't you?

EDIT: After saying I didn't have time to list more examples of crimes committed by TSA agents, I actually did take about an hour this morning to see what I could come up with. Here is a list of news articles just in the last 30 days:

TSA worker pleads guity to conspiring with drug smugglers in Buffalo, N.Y.
TSA worker pleads guilty to "hate crime" in assault case
TSA worker arraigned for grand theft of airline passenger
TSA screener ordered to serve two months in jail for stealing money from passengers
TSA screener arrested for stealing from teen passenger
TSA agent issued a misdemeanor summons for "using his vehicle to harrass or intimidate" another motorist

Edit 2: This little gem came to my attention today...awesome. A TSA Agent arrested for possession of child pornography. That's exactly the kind of upstanding citizen I want feeling up^W^Wprotecting my family at the airport. </sarcasm>

TSA Does Not Know Security

2011-08-17T08:49:00.000-07:00

This was a bit of a surprise to me when I discovered it yesterday. I, like many others, have voiced the opinion that TSA is not providing real security at the airports. Instead, it is providing "security theater" -- that is, the illusion of security for the purpose of showing that government is, indeed, "doing something"...even if it is the wrong thing or even something that will make things less secure rather than more secure. You see, to a politician, it doesn't matter if TSA really makes our airways any safer than they were on 9/10/2001. They just have to show that they made an effort to make the airlines more secure than they were on 9/10/2001. And therefore, we have TSA, with all of their degrading, demeaning an ineffective "security" procedures.

However, I didn't realize just how bad the problem was. Back in 2008, a subcontractor to TSA lost a laptop containing personally identifiable information on 33,000 people who had enrolled in something that, to me, sounds a lot like their new "Trusted Traveller" program. That's a great, big, huge deal. The data on the laptop included "names, addresses, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, and other information," according to the article.

However, the CEO of the subcontractor company that lost the laptop downplayed the incident.

"There is no reason to believe this is anything other than the simple burglary of a laptop, which the local police are investigating," said (VIP) founder CEO Steven Brill. "For it to be more than that, the thief would have to hack into two different passwords and even then would not get what identity thieves want mosta Social Security number and/or credit card information."

I have major, major problems with Brill's assessment of the situation. First, if this is a list of people who are enrolling in a program to bypass -- or at least expedite -- some of the security checks at an airport, don't you think that this may not be a run-of-the-mill identity theft case? Isn't it at least possible that the terrorist bogey-man (who has the entire nation so scared that we are now willing to submit to "gate-rape" as a mandatory prerequisite to boarding an airliner) might want that data, too? Is it at least possible that this might be more than a simple burglary? Second, even if this was just a simple burglary, Brill still doesn't get it!!! The article says that the laptop "...was password-protected but not encrypted..." Brill says to get access to the data, you would need to crack two passwords. I presume this means that there is a password required to get access to the laptop itself, and there is a password required to get access to the program that reads the data.

My day job is network administrator. I build and maintain computer networks, including building and configuring PCs, so believe me when I say that if I am correct about the "two passwords" required to get access to the data, then Brill does not know what he is talking about here. Getting the data on that laptop hard drive is trivial. I've done it myself many, many, many times when I needed to recover data from a laptop that had suffered a hardware failure. The easiest way to get at the data would be to install a Linux "live CD" in the laptop's CD drive, and boot Linux on the laptop. Once Linux has loaded, mount the hard drive onto the Linux filesystem and voila! You have access to all the data on the hard drive. It may not be in an easy-to-read format; the program that VIP used to store the data may have it in a binary format (not plain text that you and I can read), but the data is accessible to anyone who wants it bad enough to try to discover the format. The second way is more difficult, but still trivial. If the laptop has been configured so that it will not boot from a CD or other media (thumb drive, floppy, etc.), you can remove the hard drive from the laptop and install it in a USB hard drive enclosure. I have three such enclosures in my house right now, so again, believe me when I say it's something any computer-literate person can accomplish. Once again, boot a Linux PC, plug in the USB hard drive enclosure and again, the data is yours, no password required.

Unfortunately, the CEO of the company that lost the laptop did not realize how trivial it is to access this data, and therefore, VIP didn't make the effort to encrypt the hard drive of an easily portable computer to prevent the kind of data theft I described above. When the laptop was stolen, he didn't bother to educate himself on the risks that data might pose, and consequently, he downplayed the impact of the theft to the media. And he subcontracts to TSA. The people who are responsible for keeping our airports secure from people they tell us are actively trying to harm us.

I feel so much safer now. Don't you?

Not Surprised

2011-07-15T16:53:00.000-07:00

MSNBC and CNet are reporting today that an appeals court has "upheld the use of full-body scanners to screen air travelers". CNet has a slightly different take, stressing that the appeals court is reprimanding TSA for launching the AIT scanner program without first soliciting public comment as they are required to do by Federal Law.

I have to admit, while I applaud the court for recognizing that the implementation process was flawed, I am seriously dismayed to hear that they have upheld the legality of the scanners. It is especially grating in light of one of Judge Douglas Ginsburg's comments on the issue: "It is clear that by producing an image of the unclothed passenger, (a full-body) scanner intrudes upon his or her personal privacy in a way a magnetometer does not." In fact, in Ek vs. U.S., the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an X-Ray scan is invasive enough to require a warrant...yet this court decides that routine use of backscatter X-Ray machines in the airport does not? I would like to say that I am surprised that the court has taken this view...but I'd be lying. Our government no longer represents us. America: It was good while it lasted.

Stunned

2011-07-11T19:27:00.000-07:00

It's been a bad couple of weeks for our heroes at TSA. Our fearless troops on the front lines of the war on terror have had to weather a boatload of criticism after searching the diaper of a dying 95 year old leukemia victim but allowing a Nigerian American board a flight using someone else's boarding pass, searching a six year old boy en route to Disneyland not just once but twice (causing him to cry "I don't want to go to Disneyland anymore...") and a lady of African-American descent complaining of racial profiling after having her "poofy hair" groped (after submitting to an AIT scan, I might add).

However, DHS' best and brightest haven't withered under this constant stream of criticism and invective. Rather, they are still doing their professional best to keep us safe from the angry masses of al Qaeda sleeper operatives here at home in the good old U.S. of A. (wait...how did they get across our borders, anyway???) Yep, thanks to our friends at TSA, we don't have to worry about murderous psychopaths bringing weapons like this stun gun onto the airliners we fly on. I'm sure glad we've got them keeping our airways safe without trampling all over our civil rights. Why...who knows what could have happened -- hypothetically speaking -- if someone had actually managed to smuggle a stun gun onto an airliner. You know...hypothetically speaking.

Wait For It...

2011-07-06T11:34:00.000-07:00

The L.A. Times and the Chicago Tribune reported today that the TSA says that terrorists are considering surgically implanting explosives now. As I wrote last year TSA's AIT scanners, at $170,000 each, can't detect surgically implanted devices, nor can a pat down.

This begs the question...what new and altogether wonderful methods will TSA employ next to guard us against this new threat? </sarc> Will TSA have to strip search every passenger who boards an airliner? Will those of us - such as myself - who have surgical scars be subject to even more invasive searches to prove that our scars are the result of legitimate health needs, and not to conceal an explosive device? How far are we willing to go in the pursuit of "safety" - an ever elusive goal, that, honestly, can never be reached? Will we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars (each) on yet another scanner technology that solves this problem only to remain vulnerable to yet some other method of concealment?

Call me a pessimist, but I fully expect TSA to roll out yet another horrendous invasion of our privacy -- excuse me, I meant "security procedure" -- in response to this new threat. Just remember, you read it here first.

We Can Still Walk, Part 3

2011-06-17T19:01:00.000-07:00

TSA arrived in the airports, and apologists said, "If you don't like it, take the train or the bus or drive." Then, TSA arrived in the train stations and the apologists said, "You can still take the bus or drive!" Now, TSA is at the bus stations. I guess I'm still safe in my own car...for now. Any bets on how long that will last?

EDIT: Casa Grande Dispatch reports that the Arizona Department of Transportation and TSA cooperated in a search of "commercial vehicles" this morning. Yep, scope creep ("The tendency...to include more tasks or to implement more systems than originally specified...") is alive in well in this monstrous bureaucracy. Once again, any bets on how long until TSA's scope increases to include POVs on the highways?

We Can Still Walk, part 2

2011-04-22T08:57:00.000-07:00

Apparently not content to grope and nudie scan eight year old girls and urostomy patients at airports, TSA has once again seen fit to harass passengers at train stations in yet another pointless VIPR operation.

For all of you saying, "You don't have to fly; you can drive, take the bus or the train," do you see the trend yet? First the TSA took away the right to fly without having our 4th Amendment rights violated. Now, they are slowly moving into the train stations. How long do you think it will be before airport style searches are the norm at train stations, and VIPR stings are common on the buses? Will we then be pulled over on the highway for VIPR searches in our cars? How far are we willing to go, how much freedom are we willing to sacrifice for the illusion of security? Old Ben must be rolling in his grave right about now...

Well...We Can Still Walk

2011-03-03T00:17:00.000-08:00

When TSA announced their new procedures for searching airline passengers back in November, TSA apologists were quick to point out that "flying is a privilege, not a right" and consequently suggested that those of us who don't like the new searches should drive, take the train, take the bus, or walk. Ignoring the obvious fallacy that the right to travel has repeatedly been upheld by the courts and that the 4th Amendment explicitly prohibits "unreasonable" searches without probable cause, the TSA has recently proven that, no, we can't opt for other modes of transportation after all:

Apparently, our heroes conducted a search of Amtrak train passengers...after getting OFF of the train in Savannah, Georgia. That's right. TSA found it necessary to conduct a pat down of train passengers after they had already reached their destination. If you are scratching your head and wondering what possible security purpose a search at the end of a train ride could possibly serve, you are not alone. The TSA's ever helpful master of the Astroturf, "Blogger Bob", had this to say about the incident:

It's a team that...provide[s] a random high-visibility surge into a transit system and work[s] with state and local security, and law enforcement officials to expand the unpredictability of security measures to detect, deter, disrupt or defeat potential criminal and/or terrorist operations.

In other words, it's a concerted effort of G-men and -women working together to violate your 4th Amendment rights to freedom from unreasonable searches, despite having no evidence or suggestion that you might be part of any kind of "criminal and/or terrorist operation."

When the TSA went beyond a "reasonable" search last November, I -- and many, many others -- asked "what happens when TSA inevitably expands it's search policies beyond the airports?" Those questions were ignored by the apologists. Now, we have unfortunately been proven right. As it stands right now, if I want to travel but don't want to be molested by TSA, I can still drive or take the bus. But my question remains: what happens next? How intrusive are we willing to let TSA get? Are we going to bend over and take it (pun intended) when TSA launches a body-cavity search policy? Will it get to the point where a TSO can conduct an "aggressive pat-down" on any random person walking the street? Will I have to show ID and walk through an AIT to walk out of my front door in the morning?

You might find my point of view to be alarmist and overly paranoid, but a year ago, the idea that TSA would actually begin installing AIT scanners in the airports seemed like the delusion of a paranoiac. Yet now they are here, and Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano wants to expand the searches to mass transit.

How much is enough? And once the public is pushed too far, will we still be able to restore sanity to travel, or will it take a second American Revolution to restore our rights?

Edit:

Twelve hours after posting this, I saw this article claiming that the Department of Homeland Security is seeking AIT scanners to install at railways, bus stations and "special event" venues. What makes this even more nefarious is that the documents the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) obtained suggest that at least some of these scanners are intended to be used covertly. That's right -- you won't even get the chance to opt-out because you won't even know when and where they are being used. Orwell was wrong. Big Brother is far more invasive than he ever imagined.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski Responds to My Letter

2011-03-01T16:49:00.000-08:00

Dear Robert:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA's) heightened security measures. I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to respond.

The safety and security of those traveling aboard our Nation's airliners is a paramount concern, but the protocols the TSA uses to increase security must be weighed against a passenger's reasonable expectation of privacy. The TSA has recently upgraded its security screening protocols to include an enhanced pat-down and full-body scanners. I understand the enormous task that the TSA faces. After all, ensuring the safety of air travelers is no small task. We must, however, make every effort to ensure that any and all privacy concerns are addressed.

I am a frequent traveler between Alaska and Washington, D.C. I have had first-hand experience with both the full-body scanners and the enhanced pat-down procedures. I understand the concerns of many Alaskans and the traveling public as a whole, that the pat-down procedures are overly invasive. Even though the TSA Officers seem to be doing their best to implement the security protocols that they are directed to employ, the touching of a passenger's waistline and other sensitive locations on their body raises significant concern regarding the breadth and scope of the reach of the TSA.

Part of our problem is that the TSA seems to come up with a new technology every year, costing taxpayers billions of dollars with seemingly little improvement in security. Recent reports have shown that since its founding in 2001, the TSA has spent roughly $8 billion on new technologies alone. The agency is also asking for more than $1.3 billion for airport screening technologies in the next year. We must develop new technologies to keep abreast of new threats, but we must not deploy these technologies before we fully understand how they can be integrated with what we already have in place. We do not need to spend millions on equipment that does not work in the real world, just as the TSA did with "puffer" machines several years ago.

When considering the drawbacks of security, however, we must all remember that there are people in this world that intend to do us harm. Just last year, a terrorist was able to gain access to a commercial airliner with a bomb hidden in his underwear. I will keep your comments in mind as the Senate considers this issue. I expect we will have several hearings this year, and I will closely scrutinize funding requests that come before me in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Again, thank you for contacting me.

United States Senator

http://murkowski.senate.gov*

Little People

2011-03-01T16:24:00.000-08:00

On December 9th, I wrote about Sen. Mark Begich's reply to the letter I wrote to his office regarding TSA's new, invasive screening methods. At the time, Sen. Begich pretty much poo-poo'd my concerns. Now that Anchorage State Representative Sharon Cissna has refused a TSA pat-down, Sen. Begich appears to have changed his tone a bit: "Alaskans and others shouldn't have to sacrifice their personal dignity to comply with TSA procedures." The article goes on to say, "Sen. Begich said he supports a 'sense of the House' that passed in Juneau last week saying 'efficient travel is a cornerstone of our economy and our quality of life especially here in Alaska, and that no one should have to sacrifice their dignity in order to travel.'" Hmmm...that's pretty much what I said in November, but Sen. Begich wasn't too concerned about it then.

Nor is Sen. Begich's Republican counterpart in the Senate off the hook, either. Senator Lisa Murkowski responded to my concerns on January 13th, but basically waxed eloquent on the need to balance security with privacy, without taking a stand on either position. However, like Sen. Begich, she was quick to criticize TSA after Rep. Cissna's encounter with the TSA in Seattle, saying “This kind of invasive probing should not be the price of travel.”

Well, better late than never, I suppose, but in all honesty, I have to admit, I'm a little disappointed that Senators Begich and Murkowski essentially blew me off, but took notice when a fellow lawmaker (albeit at the state, rather than national level) was inconvenienced. I do not understand how anyone with even so little as a high school civics course under their belt, much less two senators, cannot see that forcing airline passengers to submit to either an AIT scan or an "aggressive pat-down" is a clear and egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment. If there is no suspicion of wrong-doing, there are no grounds for such an invasive search. Period.

Regardless of Sen. Begich and Murkowski's new stance on TSA screenings, I am also rather disturbed by the difference between how Rep. Cissna was treated at the airport in Seattle and how John "Don't Touch My Junk" Tyner was treated in San Diego. According to the Anchorage Daily News' Julia O'Malley, Rep. Cissna's experience in Seattle was rather benign:

And soon there was a crowd around her. Airport police, TSA, airport staff. They tried to persuade her: Just do the pat-down and get on your flight. You don't have to make this a big deal. Cissna refused. If she didn't get a pat-down, she'd have to leave the airport, they said. She said that was just fine.

Airport police did a background check and told her she was clear. Later, they described her attitude to Daily News reporter Sean Cockerham as "friendly and jovial." The airline refunded her money.

John Tyner, on the other hand, was threatened with legal repurcussions:

But far from backing down, the TSA told local reporters that it’s now investigating the passenger, who may face an $11,000 fine if the agency sues him.

“What he’s done, he’s violated federal law and federal regulations which states once you enter and start the process you have to complete it,” TSA’s San Diego security director told the Fox 5 News.

The threat against Tyner is not merely a bluff. In Austin, TX, or a 56-year old rape victim was arrested after she refused to allow a TSO to perform a pat-down on her after a pacemaker triggered the metal detector. So in other words, if you are someone sufficiently important -- say, a state representative -- you get a pass and are just asked to leave the airport, but if the rest of us try that, we have "violated federal law and federal regulations" for doing the exact same thing? I guess the quote is true: "You know the score, Deckard. If you ain't cop, you're little people."

(In)Security Is Our New Obsession

2011-01-07T21:21:00.000-08:00

Technically, this isn't a TSA issue, but I thought I'd post it because it's at last tangentially related. I ordered a part for my motorcycle from the good people over at Twisted Throttle on December 30th. The expected delivery date was today, January 7th. At 7:00pm, I began wondering where the crash bars were, since UPS hadn't shown up. I pulled up the link to UPS' tracking service and found this little gem:

Excuse me? "Held for security check?" What purpose is served by holding a package for a security check once it has already traveled from Rhode Island to Anchorage, Alaska? If there really had been anything hazardous in the shipment, wouldn't it have been better to inspect it before it departed UPS in Rhode Island? How does this make any kind of logical sense?

Sigh...

At risk of beating a dead horse to death, I'm quite sick of the culture of fear that we have cultivated in the U.S. in the aftermath of 9/11. al Qaeda succeeded beyond their wildest dreams on that day. We have been jumping at shadows for almost ten years, now. We see the terrorist boogeyman in every stranger's face, in every fellow airline passenger, in every package shipped. We are so terrified of the one in 24 million chance that someone might try to off us in an airplane that we are neglecting more tangible and pressing risks like dieing in a car accident or being struck by lightning. Of course a lightning strike or car accident doesn't have the same shock value (read that "media attention"), so lightning accidents and highway fatalities do not draw nearly as much publicity as terrorism. Paranoia has become a national pastime.

I realize that there are indeed Bad People in the world, bad people who wish to materially harm the United States. I realize that we must take reasonable precautions to prevent al Qaeda and the like from having open season on our populace. But when do we draw the line? At what point do we say, "This is absurd. Enough is enough!" When do we demand that our elected leaders put an end to meaningless (in)security rituals and instead strike a reasonable balance between security and liberty? Searching a package once it has almost reached its destination is absurd. Electronically strip searching and/or conducting an invasive pat down search of flyers whose only "crime" is purchasing an airline ticket is far too far on the security side of the security versus liberty balance. It is time -- or rather, it is well past time -- for Americans to abandon the notion that the government should keep us "safe" (as if safety were a fixed destination that one could eventually reach) and instead accept the reality that any kind of meaningful life involves risk.

Update 01/13/2011: I filed a complaint with UPS a little over a day ago. Today, UPS called to discuss the incident, but I'm maybe a little more puzzled than ever. According to UPS, the note on the tracking page indicates that the driver was unable to access a secured area to deliver my package. I asked if this was at the UPS location (maybe a quarantine area?) or at my location. The customer service agent replied, "at your [my --Mike] location." I live in a townhouse with a fence near the front door. There is a gate that can be a little tricky to open, but when UPS/Fed Ex/USPS is unable to open the gate, they usually leave the package just outside the gate -- which, incidentally is what the delivery driver did on Monday, when the package was finally delivered. In my experience, UPS' tracking web site usually says "delivery attempted" when they are unable to deliver a package, rather than "security check by gov't or other agency -- beyond UPS control". So...FUD from UPS, or am I being paranoid? I don't know, and I don't know how to pursue the matter further, so I'll probably just drop it here. But I would be interested in hearing from others who have similar occurrences with UPS.

Administrator Pistole, you have a credibility problem

2010-12-31T11:10:00.000-08:00

While my initial complaint about the current security screening procedures employed by TSA is centered around safety and civil liberties -- and I intend to touch more on those topics later -- I think the biggest problem TSA faces right now is that they have a serious credibility problem. As the old saw goes, "how can you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving." That certainly seems to be the case with TSA's spokespeople.

Remember when TSA first began discussing the AIT scanners? They said that the AIT scanners are incapable of saving, storing, or retransmitting images of subjects. "TSA has not, will not and the machines cannot store images of passengers at airports. The equipment sent by the manufacturer to airports cannot store, transmit or print images and operators at airports do not have the capability to activate any such function. You can read our blog post on this subject from earlier this summer." (http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/11/tsa-has-not-will-not-and-our-advanced.html). However, EPIC discovered in a Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) request that the machines are capable of "storing, saving and retransmitting" images in a test mode, but that the test mode is disabled by the manufacturer before being delivered to airports. So in other words, they have the physical capability, but the capability is disabled in software. However, my job title is "network administrator". That means my job is to build, secure and maintain computer networks and servers. I have seen equipment put in service that was not configured properly, or that even had default configurations in place. As a traveler in the airport, how will I know that the AIT scanner I am walking through has been properly configured to disable the ability to store or retransmit images before I walk through it? Answer: I don't.

This may seem like a moot point -- I mean, c'mon, this couldn't possibly happen right? Ummm...right. It already has, albeit with the U.S. Marshall Service, rather than TSA. And at least some of those images are available on the Internet. TSA is quick to point out that the Marshall Service is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, while TSA is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security, presumably in an effort to distance themselves from the Marshall Service's sins, and is also quick to point out that the scanner used by the Marshall Service uses millimeter-wave technology, rather than x-ray backscatter technology, as used by the TSA's AIT scanners. This is important, they stress, because the millimeter-wave technology produces a lower resolution image than the x-ray backscatter technology (and therefore the leakage of the Marshall's images is less of a privacy concern). While both of those points may be true, the fact that *any* government agency allowed images to be stored and retransmitted shows that we cannot trust the government to be responsible with this data.

Even if you are willing to accept TSA's arguments downplaying the significance of the Marshall Service's leaked images, privacy advocates claim that being electronically "strip-searched" and/or undergoing the "enhanced pat-down" procedure (where TSA thoroughly searches for contraband by patting down your entire body, to include the groin, the buttocks, and breasts) by TSOs is humiliating and demeaning. Sharon Pinnock, spokesperson for the American Federation of Government Employees, the union that represents TSOs, counters that "TSOs are trained security professionals." Really? Do you mean professional like this guy and his coworkers? Or maybe you mean professional like Charles Bennett or Diego Gonzalez? Perhaps Leroy Ray is a better example, or maybe you meant these guys. Here's another winner: this TSA agent was arrested for allegedly raping a 14 year old girl. Perfect. We have thieves, robbers, rapists and guys into S&M and domination manning the AIT scanners and performing "enhanced pat-downs". To be fair, these are certainly the exception rather than the rule for TSOs, and I certainly don't mean to paint *ALL* TSA employees with this brush. However, the fact that these individuals made it into the ranks makes me wonder just how low the bar is set. More to the point, how do I know that the person searching my nine year old daughter isn't just another pervert? I don't, and if I start to believe that the TSO performing the search is going beyond what is "reasonable" (and I use that term very loosely, because without probable cause, neither the X-ray backscatter search nor the "enhanced" pat-down is "reasonable"), I am powerless to do anything to stop the search. That, of course, is really the heart of the problem.

Since Thanksgiving, the Internet has resounded with stories of alleged abuse at the hands of TSOs searching travelers. For example, there is the story of a three year old girl terrorized by a TSA screener while her dad watches helplessly, Baywatch star Donna D'Errico being singled out for a AIT scan because she "caught the TSO screener's eye"or a mom separated from her infant son. If that's not enough for you, the ACLU has received more than 1,000 complaints from travelers who are fed up with government officers abusing their authority.

I was brought up believing that the United States of America was a "noble experiment", a place where the playing field was more or less equal, and where even the government had to play by the rules. I was taught that the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights were there for a reason, and that "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance." I was taught that "the ends" most certainly do NOT "justify the means". And I was taught that throughout history, any time a political group gets enough power without getting enough checks on that power, injustice is inevitably the result. Because of those lessons from high school civics classes, the mental alarms in my head are certainly ringing over TSA and the apparently unlimited authority it holds over the traveling public.

So, Administrator Pistole, when you tell me that I have nothing to fear from TSA unless I am a terrorist, please forgive me if I do not believe you. You seem to have a rather significant credibility problem, and I, for one, am entirely unwilling to suspend my disbelief simply because you say TSA has my best interests at heart.

Disconnect

2010-12-20T21:35:00.000-08:00

I am deeply disturbed tonight. My wife relayed a message from a good and trusted friend tonight, who suggested that perhaps I should be careful about all of the comments I have posted on my Facebook account about the TSA recently. You see, I have "Liked" the We Won't Fly and Boycott Flying Facebook groups, and I frequently comment on the articles they post. I am also a youth pastor at my church, and several of the youth in my youth group are in my "Friends" list. My friend objected because (s)he thinks that some of the content in these articles can be somewhat offensive.

But how can it be worse to call out offensive behaviour by our government than it is to subject our children to it? Is it less offensive to have a pre-teen child actually face the TSA's current screening process than it is to describe why these practices are morally, ethically and legally reprehensible? My friend is a good person. (S)He frequently gives me very good advice, and I cannot overstate the value I place on this person's friendship. However, I humbly submit that there is a very, very serious logical disconnect when it is not offensive to take your children to the airport, have the TSA electronically strip-search them and/or have the TSA run their hands up and down every inch of their bodies, but it is offensive to write comments in protest of these policies.

Petition Your Senators and Representatives, Part 2

2010-12-09T19:14:00.000-08:00

I e-mailed the petition I wrote in Petition Your Senators and Representatives! to Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Sen. Mark Begich and Rep. Don Young shortly after Thanksgiving (11/27, if I recall correctly). To date, only Sen. Begich's office has replied to my letter. Kudos to Sen. Begich for taking the time to reply (or, more likely, for one of his aides taking time to reply, but that's fine -- at least his office responded).

However, I have to admit that I am rather disappointed with his answer. In a nutshell...well, read for yourself:

Thank you for contacting me regarding new passenger screening measures employed at our nation's airports by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

I understand and share your concern over maintaining privacy and protecting civil liberties during the passenger screening process. The TSA has the challenging mission of protecting our transportation systems and the public from the ongoing threat of terrorism, while simultaneously safeguarding the ability of law-abiding Americans to travel freely. I am particularly disturbed by some of the stories I've heard regarding inappropriate passenger screenings from Alaskans such as you.

The Senate Commerce Committee recently held an oversight hearing with the TSA and I have submitted several questions regarding training of TSA screeners and sensitivity to passengers who have experienced sexual abuse, medical procedures or have other special needs and circumstances.

In addition to pat-downs, many Alaskans have expressed concern over privacy issues that arise through the use of Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT). TSA Administrator John Pistole indicated the passenger screening process is currently in a transitional stage and expects TSA to soon have the ability to deploy software which will present a less graphic "stick figure" style image of passengers to the screener. Administrator Pistole testified that he expects this technology to become available for use at airport screening checkpoints within a matter of months and that it will help alleviate many of the privacy concerns currently associated with the AIT screening machines. I have asked TSA to look at whether they can accelerate deployment of the AIT software to Alaska airports.

Administrator Pistole also sought to clarify some misconceptions about the TSA's new passenger screening procedures.

o   The use of AIT scanners remains optional to the passenger, however, passengers who opt not to use the AIT machines will receive what the TSA deems an equivalent level of screening through the use of walk-through metal detectors and pat-downs if necessary.

o   The technology used by AIT machines is safe. Passengers who are screened by AIT are not exposed to significant amounts of radiation during the screening process. The safety of these machines has been confirmed by the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University.

o   No children under the age of 12 will be subjected to the enhanced pat-down procedures.

o   Pat-downs are performed by a Transportation Security Officer of the same gender. Passengers are able to request the pat-down occur in a privately screened area and that they be accompanied by a travelling companion.

I am personally concerned the TSA did a poor job of communicating these new screening procedure changes to the flying public. Any changes by the TSA in passenger screening policies need to be accompanied by an aggressive public information and education campaign so passengers are aware of what to expect before they arrive at the airport.

The TSA's most important task is to make sure we do not let people who wish us harm onboard a passenger aircraft. Congress must ensure the TSA does not violate the individual privacy rights of Americans while carrying out this mission. I will strive to make sure the TSA does this through a partnership with the traveling public. All screening measures should be risk-based and treat passengers with respect and dignity.

Thank you again for your letter, and please do not hesitate to contact me on this or any other issue.

Sincerely,

Mark Begich
U.S. Senator

I am currently in the process of drafting a reply to Sen. Begich, which I will also post here, as soon as it is complete.

Petition Your Senators and Representatives!

2010-12-09T18:57:00.000-08:00

Perhaps I am a little naive, but I still believe that we Americans can effect change in our country by letting our elected officials know what we think about the issues they are voting on. To that end, I drafted the following letter and e-mailed it to my senators and congressman. If you, like me, are opposed to overly intrusive screening in exchange for flying on a commercial airliner, I encourage you to write your senators and congressmen or congresswomen as well. Please feel free to copy and edit the letter I have included below, if you like. If you need to know how to reach your elected representatives, you can search Write Your Representative, U.S. Senators or Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Representative Ron Paul of Texas recently introduced H.R. 6416, the “American Traveler Dignity Act.” In light of recent policies enacted by the Transportation Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security, I would encourage you to support H.R. 6416. Specifically, as a citizen of the United States of America and as one of your constituents, I oppose the T.S.A.'s recent policies of requiring screening through either the “Advanced Imaging Technology” (AIT, or “X-ray backscatter”) scanners or the “enhanced pat-downs” on the following grounds:
that such searches are demeaning to the traveling public,
that they are ineffective,
that the AIT scanners are potentially harmful, and
most importantly, that they are likely a violation of our 4^th Amendment rights prohibiting unreasonable searches without due cause.

The AIT scanners produce graphic depictions of travelers bodies, in violation of common standards of decency. Many travelers, myself included, are disturbed by the thought of government agents viewing what are essentially nude images of our bodies and those of our families as a precondition to boarding a commercial airliner. Fears that images taken with the AIT scanners may not be as secure as the TSA has promised are neither unreasonable nor unfounded.¹

While the technology used in the AIT scanners may be useful for detecting objects hidden in clothing or on the surface of the skin, the AIT scanners cannot penetrate more than a fraction of a millimeter into the skin. As a result, while the AIT scanners may detect objects stored in clothing or on the surface of the skin, they cannot detect items carried in bodily cavities or surgically implanted inside one's body. Therefore, the AIT scanners do not actually provide much – if any – additional security over traditional screening methods.

The AIT scanners use potentially dangerous ionizing radiation (X-rays) to search for contraband. TSA maintains that the radiation exposure to each passenger being scanned is well within the thresholds of safety, but some scientists disagree.²

Finally, I maintain that the scanners are a violation of citizens' 4^th Amendment rights. The 4^th Amendment states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the places to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.”

While one may argue that AIT scans or enhanced pat-downs are not “unreasonable” given the terrorist threat that exists after 9/11, I respectfully disagree, due in part to a ruling from the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Ek.³ Consequently, I believe that there exists little doubt that the widespread use of X-ray imaging upon innocent travelers, with no probable cause as grounds for a more intrusive search, is well beyond what the Framers of the Constitution envisioned as a “reasonable” search.

I understand that there is a need to balance the safety of airline passengers and the non-flying public on the ground with privacy, but I believe that the AIT scanners and enhanced pat-downs recently implemented by the TSA are well beyond what can realistically be expected of the public in a free society. Consequently, I urge you to support H.R. 6416 and/or introduce your own legislation to prohibit the TSA from continuing with these invasive searches.

Supporting Documentation:

1 TSA has claimed the scanners used at the airport are incapable of storing, printing or retransmitting such images, but later confirmed in a letter to Rep. Bennie G. Thompson that the machines are capable of doing so (see http://info-wars.org/2010/04/04/tsa-letter-confirms-naked-body-scanners-transmit-images/). Furthermore, the U.S. Marshall Service stored some 35,000 images from a similar device used at a Florida courthouse (http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-100-leaked-body-scans), and later released those images to the public in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. Clearly, it is reasonable to be concerned that TSA may do likewise.

2 See http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf and http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ucsf-jph-letter.pdf.

3 “To conduct a strip-search, the authorities must have a 'real suspicion' that the person is smuggling contraband. Real suspicion is 'subjective suspicion, supported by objective, articulable facts.' (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 592 F.2d 553, 556, 9th Cir. 1979)” and “We hold that the stricter standard required for a body-cavity search also applies to an X-ray search. An X-ray search, although not perhaps as humiliating as a strip search, nevertheless is more intrusive since the search is potentially harmful to the health of the suspect...We think that the use of such medical procedures should be restricted to situations where there is a clear indication that the suspect is concealing contraband within his body.” [emphasis mine]

In reply to "Friendly Planet Travel"

2010-12-09T14:20:00.000-08:00

The following post is in response to Ms. Peggy Goldman's article, "Navigating the TSA's New Security This Thanksgiving" (http://blog.friendlyplanet.com/2010/11/navigating-tsas-new-airport-security.html).

With all due respect, Ms. Goldman, you have certainly lost perspective. I about cried when I read your comment, "If that's whatever it takes to make my flight safe, well, it's OK by me." I could not disagree more. Would you accept Stalin-esque purges, if the government said that would make your flight safe? Would you support deporting or executing dissidents -- not terrorists, just people who disagree with official U.S. policy -- if the government said that would make your flight safer? I suspect you would not, and for good reason. These kind of extremes are horrendous.

So now that we have presumably ascertained that you would NOT, in fact, approve of *anything* that the government said would make your flight safe, just how far would you go? Furthermore, just what exactly is "safe"? Numbers I have seen batted around on the internet suggest that an American's odds of dieing in a domestic terrorist attack are between 1:8,000,000 and 1:25,000,000. By comparison, the odds of dieing in a lightning strike in the U.S. is approximately 1:4,000,000 (http://lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm). So, in other words, you are twice as likely to die in a lightning strike as you are to die in a terrorist incident (worst case -- best case is SIX times more likely to die in a lightning strike). Does such a statistical improbability *really* justify such extremes as exposing travelers to ionizing radiation and/or being molested by a thug with a badge? Seriously?

As if that weren't enough, even TSA admits that the x-ray scanners can't reliably detect the explosives that Richard Reid or the "Underwear Bomber" attempted to use to bring down airliners. Are you really willing to give up your 4th Amendment rights for nothing more than an illusion of safety?

If you still are not convinced that the TSA's new security policies are so much hot air, then at least consider this: with these new policies, the news has been rampant with stories of abuse and highly suspect "random" screening of attractive young ladies by male TSA agents, despite assurances by Administrator Pistole that such things won't happen. In light of the fact that we, as a society, tend to comply with authority figures and that TSA can, and WILL, threaten anyone who says "Enough!" with an $11,000 fine and detainment, the system we have in place is ripe with potential for abuse. That *ALONE* is sufficient reason to tear down the unholy mess we face at airport security currently.

No, Ms. Goldman, I cannot disagree with you more. "Whatever it takes" is NOT okay with me, and I vow that if I ever find myself in a position where TSA has gone too far with me or with my family, I most certainly will NOT smile and take it.

Links

2010-12-09T10:38:00.000-08:00

This post will be just a collection of links to web sites and news stories that discuss the AIT scanners and enhanced pat-downs. I won't comment upon any of the stories in this post except to give a preview; this is purely a reference to those who wish to investigate the issue on their own (and, to be honest, a convenient place for me to store them for my own use, as well).

In particular, I highly recommend the arstechnica.com, oudaily.com, openjurist.org and mybottlesup.com links. If you don't read any others, at least read them.

http://openjurist.org/676/f2d/379 (description of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on U.S. v. Ek, which opined that "the stricter standard required for a body cavity search also applies to an x-ray search."

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/12/the-physics-and-biology-of-the-tsas-backscatter-security-scanners.ars (why an x-ray backscatter device cannot be compared to a medical x-ray in terms of the radiation exposure)

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/10/assume-the-position-tsa-begins-new-ball-busting-patdowns.ars

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/11/fda-sidesteps-safety-concerns-over-tsa-body-scanners.ars

http://oudaily.com/news/2010/dec/06/column-nude-awakening-tsa-and-privacy/

http://www.mybottlesup.com/2009/10/tsa-agents-took-my-son/

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/tsa-screener-terrorizes-3-year-old-girl

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/16/1723233/US-Marshals-Saved-35000-Full-Body-Scans?from=rss

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22337 (why the scanners are bad public policy)

http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/TSA_Reply_House.pdf (PDF -- TSA admits that the AIT scanners *ARE* able to "save, store and retransmit" images, contradicting earlier claims that they couldn't)

http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/secureflight/index.shtm

http://gizmodo.com/5690749/

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2010-11-17-tsa-pat-downs_N.htm

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40242420/ns/travel-news/

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/17/tsa-screenings-worry-sexual-assault-survivors.html

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/tsa_backscatter.html?nc=96

http://www.latimes.com/travel/deals/la-trb-tsa-scanners-20101119,0,6752564.story

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/tsa-responds-passenger-outrages-underwear-search-happen/story?id=12208932

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-11-16-airportpatdowns16_ST_N.htm?csp=obinsite

flyersrights.org

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-19-column19_ST3_N.htm?csp=obnetwork

http://gizmodo.com/5697222/adam-savage-mythbusting-airport-security-wtf-tsa

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-things-he-carried/7057/

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/body-searching-children-no-for-the-us-army-yes-for-the-tsa/66535/

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/21/greene.air.security/index.html

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-11-23-airport-security-tsa-poll_N.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2010-11-17-airportpatdown_N.htm?csp=obinsite

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=12226875

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/walking-airport-security-lead-11000-fine/story?id=12215171

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/11/tsa-head-john-pistole-if-passengers-dont-undergo-screening-they-dont-have-a-right-to-fly.html

http://www.latimes.com/travel/deals/la-trb-tsamonday-20101123,1,843952.story

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/22/american-protests-body-scanners-terrorism

http://www.infowars.net/articles/august2010/050810Scanners.htm

http://iwilloptout.org/act/

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=226981

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/06/1617423/miami-airport-screener-beats-co.html

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=227005

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=202853

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=228781

http://blogs.reuters.com/ask/2010/11/12/are-new-security-screenings-affecting-your-decision-to-fly/#ViewPollResults

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=232117

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=233197

http://www.aclj.org/TrialNotebook/Read.aspx?ID=1026

http://www.aclj.org/LegislativeAlert/Read.aspx?GUID=8b838495-6fea-467b-af07-85813e1bc8c6

http://strandedpassengers.blogspot.com/2010/11/public-concern-over-tsa-screening-grows.html

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Full+body+scanners+waste+money+Israeli+expert+says/2941610/story.html

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/not-so-fast/why-is-there-a-tsa/

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/12/tsa-chief-well-never-eliminate-risk/67682/

http://www.smartertravel.com/blogs/today-in-travel/ways-to-fix-the-pat-down-problem.html?id=6271146

http://www.counterpunch.org/martens12092010.html (why the AIT scanners don't work, and a theory on why TSA insists on using them)

As I get time, I will try to organize these links (right now they are in no order, other than the order I happened to pull them out of my e-mail inbox) and add descriptions of what each link is about.

Hello

2010-12-08T14:09:00.000-08:00

Hello!

I started this blog in response to what I perceive is an egregious abuse of power by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), in violation of the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

On November 1st, and with no warning to the flying public, TSA rolled out their new, $100,000+ a piece "Advanced Imaging Technology" scanners and "enhanced pat-downs". If you've been under a rock for the last month, the AIT scanners use "x-ray backscatter" technology to electronically conduct a virtual strip-search of airline passengers. The scanners generate and essentially nude image of you, which is forwarded to an operator sitting in a remote booth. If you elect to opt-out of the scanners, you will be subjected to the enhanced pat-down, where the TSA agents will (thoroughly!) search your body, including your breasts (if you are female), your genitals and your buttocks.

TSA claims that these new searches are necessary to protect against threats such as last year's "Christmas" or "underwear" bomber, who allegedly tried to detonate PETN (an explosive similar to nitroglycerin) that he had smuggled aboard a commercial airliner is his underwear.

Civil libertarians -- including myself -- counter that the new searches needlessly sacrifice liberty in the name of a little -- if any -- security.

In this blog, I intend to lay out a compelling argument against these new TSA policies.

Have something to add to the discussion? I welcome any and all comments. Please contribute to the discourse! My intention is to leave all posts in place (excluding spam that is off-topic or excessively personal attacks against others), even if you disagree with me.