Body Scanning Tecnnology "Ripe for Abuse"

[sabrina 1]

An incident in which a TSA worker attacked a fellow worker recently for making fun of the 'size of his penis' has once again raised concerns about the use of this equipment among privacy advocates. The workers were involved in a training program and apparently the images taken of them revealed far more than whether they were carrying WMDS or not. Co-workers, using the body scanning image of TSA worker, Rolando Negrin, made fun of him causing him, he said to lose his mind and strike his co-worker with a police baton.

While some people found the incident amusing, civil rights groups who have long objected to the intrusiveness of body-scanners, see it as proof that the technology violates basic privacy rights.

Anatomical ridicule raises body-scanning concerns

n response to the incident, TSA said it has a zero-tolerance policy for workplace violence. "At the same time, we are investigating to determine whether other officers may have violated procedures in a training session with coworkers and committed professional misconduct," the agency said in a statement.

The incident puts the spotlight back on technology some privacy advocates liken to a virtual strip search.

"As far as I'm concerned, this really demonstrates exactly how detailed the images are, exactly how invasive the search is," said John Verdi, senior counsel with the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington-based research center specializing in civil liberties and privacy issues

When FOIA requests to find out how the government plans to use these images were filed, Homeland Security has responded that it is exempt from FOIA requests because of 'security reasons'.

And this was not the first incident where someone rights were seriously violated.

A security worker at London's Heathrow Airport allegedly made lewd comments about a female colleague who mistakenly entered a scanner, according to the UK's Press Association. The accused worker was given a police warning for harassment.

TSA officials stressed that the incident in Miami was internal and did not involve any member of the traveling public. When the technology is used in airports, one screener views the scan in a remote location and does not come into contact with passengers being screened. The images are permanently deleted and never stored, according to the TSA.

That makes me feel better! Who doesn't trust TSA and Homeland Security to protect our civil liberties?

According to analysts, these machines will do little to stop real terrorists who can easily avoid them by simply looking on the TSA website to find out which airports are using them. So once again, little old ladies, children and innocent citizens will be subjected to the loss of another right with no good reason for it.

But Michael Chertoff, in case anyone forgets, the guy who failed to protect a U.S. city from a storm that they knew was coming for days, is pushing their use. However, he avoided telling the public that he would be making a huge profit when the Government purchases them. There always a money angle, it's NEVER about the American people:



Michael Chertoff Pitchman for Full Body Scanners

Former Homeland Security Chief Admits Lucrative Business Relationship With Manufacturer During Talk Show Rounds

NAPA, Calif., Jan. 3 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- During a CNN interview on December 29th, 2009 former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff pushed the use of full body scanners as the first and best line of defense against the kind of terrorist airline attack that occurred on Christmas Day. Chertoff, who has been making the national media rounds for a week now, has not once voluntarily disclosed this inherent conflict of interest to the American people. Worse still, he is overstating the true capabilities of these devices in order to profit from their sale.

According to Dr. Kenneth G. Furton, Professor of Chemistry, International Forensic Research Institute, Florida International University, using canines would be a much more promising tactic to prevent explosives from being smuggled aboard commercial jets. Indeed, Dr. Furton offered, "I am surprised by the rush to implement yet another developing technology that is both expensive and not proven to be able to reliably detect the explosives used in this last terrorist event. There is extensive research reinforcing the proven ability of detector dogs to detect explosives without the intrusive privacy issues involved in full body scanning. It is not certain that even with a high resolution image of a traveler's groin region that a half cup of explosive powder would be detectable."

So dogs are a better way to detect explosives without treading on the rights of the average citizen.

I absolutely oppose the use of those scanners and am shocked that they have gone ahead and purchased hundreds of them despite the fact that most Americans opposed the idea when it came up a few years ago.

The cost to the American Tax-payers so far is outrageous, not to mention the fact that according to experts they will NOT be effective:

Kate Hanni, President of FlyersRights.org, added her voice to Furton's on this issue: "Michael Chertoff has marginalized himself in the worst way possible by 'selling' the flying public on claims that these Rapiscan full body scanners are a panacea. While these body scanners detect 'anomalies' that are between the skin and clothing, they will NOT detect anything in a body cavity that is deeper than 1/10th of an inch, which experts warn will likely be a part of future attacks. This just adds insult to injury, as Mr. Chertoff shamelessly peddles his wares using the nation's airwaves and a near-national tragedy."

As of October 1st, 2009, 150 of these units were ordered by the Transportation Security Administration costing the American taxpayer $25 million in stimulus funds, with another 300 on order at a cost of $51 million

The Politics of Fear! What a great marketing device it has been. And now, one more invasion of privacy and once again, it is all for money. Not to mention the lawsuits that will be filed which once again, the American people will have to pay for. Unless we start doing something about it.

[arcane1]

1. I had to go through that in RIC

though I was the only one in the entire line to do so. One would think this would be used on ALL passengers for best results, no?

[sabrina 1]

5. What is RIC? Is it an airport?

I'd be a bit worried if I was the only in line asked to go through it though. Either some pervert liked the way you look and wanted to see 'more of you' or you 'look like a terrorist' ~ also to some pervert!

[rexcat]

11. See post #10

[Stinky The Clown]

2. I could care less if they take my penis out and fondle it. The whole idea is INTRUSIVE BULLSHIT

It is Security Theatre 2000. It is meaningless. The advocates for airport "security" can kiss my wrinkly old ass.

And yeah, if they wanna see my package, all they need to do is ask.

Fuckwads.

[sabrina 1]

3. Lol!

And if you showed it to them WITHOUT being asked, you'd be arrested!

It's only okay if they can force you to do AND they can make money from it. They hhave to keep the people 'afraid' so that they can profit from the fear. 9/11 has been a bonanza for the Bush/Cheney gang.

[tavalon]

4. Yeah, when Seattle decided a few months ago to get body scanners

(because we are so frightened of panty bombers), I considered putting together a protest where a bunch of hearty souls stand in the security position, naked, holding some rather pithy signs. Alas, it is cold up here and we are weenies. Plus my husband didn't like the idea of his son's mother going to jail.

[sabrina 1]

7. That would be an EXCELLENT protest!

If hundreds of people showed up naked at the airport (and do you think the media would ignore a naked protest? lol!}, what would they do?

It's illegal to walk around naked. Would they be so hypocritical to arrest naked people in the airport, while forcing others to walk through those scanners? It could get confusing! You can't be naked, unless they say so. And that's the whole point, forcing people to jump through humiliating hoops just to go about their business, while refusing to allow them to do the same things voluntarily.

Lol, great idea, I hope someone organizes a protest like that. I understand your husband's fear of having the mother of his son in jail though.

[harry_pothead]

6. On the plus side, if you're well endowed,

you can go through the scanner operated by the cute 23 year old girl and maybe get a phone number.

[sabrina 1]

8. So long as it's voluntary. This isn't voluntary n/t

[uppityperson]

9. I had the choise of scan or full body pat down. I scanned but can see why others...

would chose otherwise. Either way, they were going to check my body out, closely and I figured meh, let them look. But then I'd be fine with stripping if others are also.

[rexcat]

10. I will not allow them to scan me...

I recently had shoulder replacement surgery and just got back to traveling for business. I was setting off the magnetometer until I realized if I take my belt, watch and glasses off I won't set it off. None the less while going through security at the Cincinnati airport recently they gave me the option of a pat down or the scan. I asked the TSA agent 4 questions: (1) how often do they check the calibration on the scanner; (2) how often to they check how much radiation is emitted from the scanner (as in dose a person receives); (3) how often do they check for x-ray scatter; (4) how many peer-reviewed scientific articles do they have available that says the scanners are safe. To my "surprise" :sarcasm: he could not or would not answer any of my questions. Until they can answer 4 simple straight forward questions there is no way in hell I will let them irradiate me.

The other problem I see with the scanners is the TSA agents don't wear dosiometer badges so they don't know if they are being over exposed to radiation. This would also include the agents who are scanning the baggage. Since I am walking near the baggage x-ray machines how much radiation am I being exposed to? That would be hard to tell since they don't check the machines except when they move one and that is the only time they check the calibration of the x-ray machines (this is per TSA). As much as I fly I would also be concerned about x-ray exposure to my eyes. I am sure that repeated x-rays to the lens of the eyes can't be good.

[sabrina 1]

12. Well, again, it isn't about whether people want to strip or not,

it's about the government forcing people to allow strangers to do something to them that normally most people, women especially could have them arrested for.

Already, just in training sessions, people have been abused and having the TSA claim that they will ensure that while they can't control their own employees in a training session, they can ensure that those same employees won't sexually harass the public.

If a guy took a photo eg, of a woman who was sunbathing topless and he was a complete stranger and did it without her permission, he would be considered a voyeur who was harassing women.

I like to make my own decisions about who I want to take off my clothes for, and I think we have the right to make those decisions, or we used to. There is simply no guarantee that some of those scans won't end up on U-Tube with the person's name and even address on them. Not to mention the fact that it is pretty sickening to think some sleazy TSA worker is getting off on spying on women, which apparently has already happened.

Big Brother is here, and a lot of people don't seem to mind. But what next? Now that they got away with this?