A protestor states his case

Kevin McElroy, a writer and father, sent me this video of his reasons for not flying:

Highlighting a new addition to the Blogroll

TSA Out of Our Pants! has been added. I thought it was already on there, but apparently not. This guy is a hero, so I want to highlight his blog. It includes his viral videos of beating the scanners - offering real world proof of some of the things that scientists pointed out early on.

Illegal, hazardous searches - and inhumane to boot!

This video showing a sales pitch by a government supplier is amazing for its bluntness. I blogged about these vans when I first started this blog and again last summer. Two years ago, it was something that was being used covertly, and in other countries. Now, it is being promoted openly as a device for use on American soil.

These vans do not use the backscatter radiation of the airport naked scanners - they are penetrating through metal to find contraband and thus are using x-rays more similar to that used by a doctor to view a broken bone. There is not - and can not be - a claim that they are safe for humans.




I have suspected that these devices have already been used on American soil by VIPR teams when they search trucks. I now have no doubt. It is unclear to me whether they ensure that drivers and passengers of the vehicles (all commercial trucks, to my knowledge) are clear of the x-rays. I certainly hope so, but any truckers out there should be aware of the physical danger these machines could expose them to and protect themselves in the event of a VIPR trap. I also doubt that TSA agents operating these x-rays are wearing dosimeter badges, as the TSA agents in airports do not don such badges.

What really bothers me about the use of these x-ray vans (and which is glossed over by the sales rep in the above video) is that one of the uses of the vans is to examine cargo at border crossings. What is smuggled across borders? Drugs, guns, and people. These vans have been used (at least in other countries) to see inside of trucks to find illegal passengers (leaving jails). In what world is it humane to knowingly expose prisoners, illegal immigrants, or anyone else to large doses of ionizing radiation without their consent or knowledge? It sickens me that this practice is even considered by the US government, and I fear that it has been or will soon be implemented at the Mexican border without consideration of the very serious human rights violation involved.

The LA Times and the scanners-are-safe interpretation

As soon as I read the LA Times' take on a new scientific article on naked scanner radiation study, I knew they had misrepresented the findings. I have now read the original research article in full, and my hunch holds.

The article, by Hoppe and Schmidt in the Biomedical Engineering Department at Marquette University, seems solid to me. The introduction nicely summarizes what studies have been done at this point. Two that were done in conjunction with the TSA (by the FDA and by Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab -- which is functionally a government research lab doing a lot of work requiring security clearances) had access to some form of naked scanner technology, although not necessarily the exact models used in airports. They both were assigned the task of determining whether the scanners met radiation guidelines specified by an ANSI, which is suspect. So this is where Hoppe and Schmidt take off. They note the shortcomings of these earlier studies, and also reference the "scanners aren't safe" articles from 2010.

Nonetheless, as the scanners have not been made available to anyone outside of the TSA for testing, Hoppe and Schmidt were left to use TSA-provided data for their analysis. They created a computational model for measuring radiation doses in various organs of the body. They replicated the radiation from the x-ray scanner by correlating it with the TSA-provided data first, then running the simulation on their human organ models. It is true, as the LA Times reports, that they find that the effective dose of radiation that passengers receive is below the ANSI standard, as has been claimed by the TSA.

They do not claim the scanners are, therefore, safe. Indeed, they make no judgement on this at all. They note the caveats that they did not have access to an actual machine several times throughout the paper, which means that they can not independently verify the radiation levels coming from the scanner. They also had to make some assumptions and simplifications with their computational model. Although I can't find fault with their methods, it is not the same as testing the real thing, or even a physical model, with an actual scanner, as the authors are well-aware.

Handheld scanners

You may have heard that the TSA is now looking for handheld naked scanners. I just can't wait until every law enforcement arm in the country is carrying around something that can strip search me without my permission or knowledge! There is a slippery slope, and we are headed down at break-neck speeds.

What I find interesting about this is how the state-friendly media (or do I repeat myself) deals with this kind of information. The original announcement that the TSA was looking for this was back in November. The ominously named Government Security News let its readers (many of whom are apparently government contractors) know that DHS "issued a presolicitation notice on Nov. 2 inviting technology companies to describe... handheld detectors that could provide such secondary screening in the event that the AIT body scanners now being rolled out to dozens of U.S. airports pick up an 'anomaly' during their primary inspections of passengers."

At the beginning of last week, there was a solicitation (not presolicitation?) for white papers on handheld naked scanners, again reported in GSN. Fast forward 6 days and this turns from a bland request for proposals-type announcement in an industry rag to a positive PR story for the TSA. Sample headlines:

• 5/26/11, LA Times, New technology may reduce TSA pat-down searches in U.S. airports
• 5/29/11, Seattle Times, TSA working on way to reduce pat-downs
• 5/29/11, Boston.com, TSA seeks tech device to cut patdowns

It may just be coincidental, but on May 29th, the story also broke that the TSA's budget is set to be cut and this may lead to higher airline ticket fees. Republicans are going to prevent this from happening by cutting other so-called government services. Democrats are joining forces with the TSA to make sure there is no real budget cut by increasing fees:

The agency, backed by Democrats in the Senate, wants to increase the security fee everyone pays with a ticket from $2.50 a flight. to $5.00 per one-way ticket. A total of $10.00 would be added to round-trip tickets.

Uhhh... why is the idea of cutting the budget of this really truly terrible agency off the table? The cynic in me knows the answer, but it's a good question to put to other citizens to get them to think about what is going on here.

This blog's mission

This post is a bit more personal. For the few readers that I have left, I feel that I owe an explanation of some sort for the sparse postings. In short, things have been happening in my life - both good and bad - that have made posting on a regular basis a challenge. I recruited Bill Fisher last fall to help out, but neither of us intended for him to run the show, and it's not fair to him that I sort of dropped out. I have not found the time to write about the dozens of articles that I've bookmarked or ideas floating in my head. Indeed, I have several unwritten drafts that have not - and likely will not, due to a lack of timeliness - be published.

When I first started this blog, I was feeling cornered by the TSA and I wanted to protest in some way. It was a great outlet for me to feel that I was making an impact. Since then, many other venues have popped up - from Becky Akers' new blogging position at lewrockwell.com to Boycott Flying on Facebook, to the many viral stories of TSA injustices. While this hasn't reduced my passion, it has reduced my feeling of responsibility to get any and all TSA-related news out there.

I have reason to believe that this summer may allow me more time to post on this blog - but no promises! In the meantime, I will continue to reflect on what this blog's purpose is now - only a year and a half after I started it up - and how I can meet that mission while keeping the content interesting. Although I feel that I've shirked some responsibility for the last half year plus, I have been so hopeful by the ever increasing backlash against the federal agency that has significantly changed my life. I don't know what is in store for this blog, but, the dissolution of the TSA and all of its shenanigans remains a fervant wish of mine.

End the TSA! End the TSA!

So great to hear of a bill being drafted to end this horrendous agency. Since it's coming from Rand Paul, I don't expect this to be a mere wardrobe change. I also don't have a lot of hope for it's success, but, as Christopher Elliott points out, the TSA has a PR problem, so I could be surprised.

Viral video of TSA torture

I first saw this reported on LewRockwell.com a few days ago, and now the press is picking up this heartbreaking video:
 
This is why I won't fly. I don't know how I would react to a pat-down, and I don't want to feel the way this woman feels.

Not another run-of-the-mill press release

Kudos to the KPAX reporter who wrote of the naked scanners set to arrive in the Missoula airport soon. Normally these articles are virtually word-for-word copies of TSA press releases and just repeat the propaganda  about how these are effective, privacy-protecting machines being deployed by our saviors at DHS. So I clicked through on this article expecting to see the same thing.

Not so. It starts:

Passengers traveling through Missoula International Airport security will be subject to search with those controversial "body scanners", starting later next week.
From there, it continues to use quotes for all TSA-approved words, and to highlight the controversy surrounding the naked scanners.

Chris Elliott examines the TSA PR machine

This post from last week (in case you missed it) is a must read: The Huffington Post blogger asks, "Are we better off without the TSA?"

Good question. Lame answer.

Instead of actually investigating what happens time and time again to the disabled at airports, a newspaper portends to answer a letter by quoting the TSA policies:

Q: Would you please answer a question or find the answer for those of us who have lost a body part in a battle with breast cancer? What should we expect when we walk through the scanners (at the airport)? If the scanners are any good, they will certainly spot a breast prosthesis, then what? Will the Transportation Security Administration employee reviewing the scan be able to recognize the prosthesis and pass it as benign? Will we have to go through a further security check like a pat down?
— Sandra, Muscatine

A: From Jim Fotenos, TSA spokesman: “TSA respects the privacy of all passengers. They have been trained to safely and respectfully screen all passengers, including those with medical devices.
“TSA has created an optional communication card that helps travelers discreetly inform TSA officers about any disability, medical condition or medical device that could affect security screening. Travelers can write their information on the wallet-sized card and hand it to the security officer. While these cards do not exempt anyone from security screening, they allow passengers to communicate information about their medical conditions to the officers discreetly.

“TSA recommends passengers advise our officers of the medical device; passengers will not be required to expose these devices for inspection. Security officers should not ask you to remove medical devices during the screening process and you should be offered private screening by a same-gender officer if additional screening is required to complete the inspection process.”

Watch out: AK, CO, KY, PA, and SD

TSA press releases, disguised as 'news', show that small airports in Arkansas (Where the lie that this will "speed up the screening process and reduce the number of pat-downs" is being propagated. Still.), Sioux Falls, Scranton, Lexington, and Louisville now have naked scanners. Colorado Springs, meanwhile, is blowing a bunch of money to make room for the obscene devices.

Interesting spam

I deleted a comment which was nonetheless interesting. It was advertising a website that does training for airport screeners. As Ludwig von Mises said in his groundbreaking book, Socialism:

[The bureaucratic mind] classifies activity according to the capacity for undertaking it formally acquired by means of examinations and a certain period of service. 'Training' and 'length of service' are the only things which the official brings to the 'job'. If the work of a body of officials appears unsatisfactory, there can be only one explanation: the officials have not had the right training, and future appointments must be made differently.

 So there is an industry that has cropped up in the last decade to train and re-train TSA agents and their superiors and colleagues in DHS. When the real problem is the bureau and agencies themselves, not the training of the officials!

Security at the Superbowl

Before the Superbowl, there were confirmed reports of a DHS presence, including bag searches and x-ray ray scanners for bags and trucks. As if that wasn't bad enough, there were also rumors that naked scanners would be employed.

When I read this, I though "Welcome to your police state."

So what actually happened? It was arguably much worse in some ways. The night before, we got this report:

Helicopters and planes equipped with special monitors for radiation and biological agents constantly hover and scan high above Super Bowl village...

In addition to air patrol, on the ground police use giant x-ray machines to scan every vehicle arriving at the stadium, and surveillance cameras, which allow officers to monitor both the interior and exterior of the stadium. The videos are streamed into command centers set up throughout the area nearby. Hidden monitors test the air for toxins and biological weapons, and police patrol with portable radiation detectors. 

Although vehicles were subjected to x-ray scanning, there does not appear to have been naked scanners for people. But, everyone go a pat-down! And, if you watch this video, at least some football fans didn't care about this gross violation of their rights as long as it didn't take too long (which it didn't):



Why are  so many okay with the feds interfering with a nominally private event? (And when will truckers stand up to the cargo scanners that are quite dangerous?)

Underbomber witness statement

Please read this heroic statement by underbomber would-be victim, Kurt Haskell. An excerpt:

In closing I will just say that regardless of how the media and government try to shape the public perception of this case, I am convinced that Umar was given an intentionally defective bomb by a U.S. Government agent and placed on our flight without showing a passport or going through security, to stage a false terrorist attack to be used to implement various government policies.

The effect this matter has had on my life has been astounding and due to this case, I will never trust the government in any matter, ever.

In regards to sentencing, nothing I’ve said excuses the fact that Umar tried to kill me.