Scientists' letter to John Holdren

Dr. Sedat of UCSF, who co-authored the original letter of concern regarding scanner safety last year, has written an in-depth response to the Department of Health and Human Service's (HHS) superficial response to such concerns. I can't agree with Dr. Sedat and his colleagues' final paragraph, in which they offer alternatives to backscatter scanners that are still violations of our rights, but the rest of the letter is excellent. It is very technical, well-researched, and points out the lack of proper conduct on the part of the feds in assessing the safety of the backscatter scanners.

If you've been following the story, you'll know that Johns Hopkins played a role in evaluating these scanners, but the institution has been vociferous in its insistence that the study did not evaluate the safety of the scanners. Not to be dissuaded, HHS has continued to imply that the Johns Hopkins analysis supports their claim that scanners are safe to use on all people as primary screening at airports. Sedat starts by saying:

There is Still No Rigorous Hard Data For The Safety of X-Ray Airport Passenger Scanners.

...The [Johns Hopkins] document is heavily redacted ... In every case the electric current used which correlates one to one with X-ray dose has been specifically redacted. Thus there is no way to repeat any of these measurements. While the report purports to present the results of objective testing, in fact the JHU APL personnel, who are unnamed anywhere in the document either as experimenters or as authors, were not provided with a machine by Rapiscan. ... There are also [technical] issues ... The data given in the Johns Hopkins report indicate that there must be something wrong.

I've deleted much of the technical points (which are important for context) to make one of Sedat's points clear: This does not in any way, shape, or form follow acceptable standards for scientific research. If the TSA just wanted to bake a birthday cake, it wouldn't be such a big deal. But they are currently shooting ionizing radiation at the general population in airports across the nation without so much as a single peer-reviewed study on the safety of the machines being published. The letter continues:

Patting down a baby

The baby in this photo appears to be between 1 and 2 years old. Mom obligingly holds the baby in place while two agents in blue molest it. (Link via LewRockwell.com)

Parents ought to take a stand here. I can't blame them entirely when they submit at the gate. This is out of a combination of ignorance and intimidation. I like to think that I would protest if I were in that position, but the consequences of this could be quite severe (including separation from my child, which would be frightening even if for only a few minutes), and it's possible that I would ultimately submit. This is why I am now doing my best to avoid these situations by not allowing my child to fly on commercial airlines in the US.

Incidentally, I am curious whether it is possible to get to Europe (in less than a week and without spending a fortune) and avoid these types of rights infringements. Is crossing the US-Canada border still relatively free? Are scanners and pat-downs absent from Canadian airports? Which European airports are best for avoiding the gestapo?

Texas pat-down bill makes headway

The bill to make TSA pat-downs a type of sexual assault is moving forward. This is a great precedent and I hope it gets the final votes it needs in the Texas House and Senate.

H/T Erik G.

New statement from the 10th Amendment Center

Here's the link.

Airport security: tighter or looser after bin Laden's assassination?

This post claims it's tighter. What have you seen?

Shocking news: Maker of the scanner calls them safe

Of course, he has no other motive.

I should say that I'm very pro-business, and I think Mr. Chopra is just taking advantage of an opportunity. It is possible that private enterprises would demand these scanners in an alternate world. In that case, however, he would have a smaller profit margin and full liability for any ill effects. What we have in the case of the TSA is moral hazard: all profit and no loss for Mr. Chopra.

Salon's "Ask the pilot" calls TSA security theater

Read the commentary here.

Poll on TSA thuggery

Sodahead asks the following:

Should It Be a Felony for a TSA Agent to Give an Invasive Pat-down?

Click through to vote and register your comment.

TSA at the ballpark? I hope not!

Recently my wife and I attended a MLB game at Camden Yards in Baltimore, and experienced the light security measures in effect there. Not much, really; they inspected my backpack at the gate, probably looking for glass bottles, beer cans, etc. A bried inspection, almost apologetic, and a thank you followed. Later, we were walking around the perimeter of the park, and blundered into a chained off section that was reserved for a private (outdoor) party. The agent asked to see my ticket, and I explained we were just trying to make our way around to our seats behind home plate, and he courteously pointed out the route to bypass the party area.

The point is to contrast the way our government's TSA treats passengers at an airport to the way private security operates, as a general rule. When (not if, apparently) TSA starts random screening (including use of backscatter scanners) at ballgames, the first thing that will be lost is civility. Anyone who has experienced being barked at and ordered around by TSA at an airport will agree with me, I'm sure.

For the sake of our enjoyment of our national pastime, I hope that the league and the team owners will staunchly resist allowing TSA to inflict any kind of "security" on the public at the nation's stadia, minus a very specific threat that they are obliged to follow up on. Given the sports world's almost jingoistic pandering to the military, however, I have slim hopes. However, we noted that at Camden Yards, at least, management has finally dropped the playing of "God Bless America" in addition to the national anthem, so maybe the tide is changing to a more relaxed atmosphere. We'll see.

Brookings on the privacy-security compromise

This write-up is really about technology, but it goes on at length about TSA scanners. Here's the relevant excerpt:

The paradigmatic case of the kind of political mobilization on behalf of constitutional values that I have in mind is presented by my second case: the choice between the naked machine and the blob machine in airport security screening. In 2002, officials at Orlando International airport first began testing the millimeter wave body scanners that are currently at the center of a national uproar. The designers of the scanners at Pacific Northwest Laboratories offered U.S. officials a choice: naked machines or blob machines? The same researchers had developed both technologies, and both were equally effective at identifying contraband. But, as their nicknames suggest, the former displays graphic images of the human body, while the latter scrambles the images into a non-humiliating blob.[10]

Since both versions of the scanners promise the same degree of security, any sane attempt to balance privacy and safety would seem to favor the blob machines over the naked machines. And that’s what European governments chose. Most European airport authorities have declined to adopt body scanners at all, because of persuasive evidence that they’re not effective at detecting low-density contraband such as the chemical powder PETN that the trouser bomber concealed in his underwear on Christmas day, 2009. But the handful of European airports that have adopted body scanners, such as Schiphol airport in Amsterdam, have opted for a version of the blob machine. This is in part due to the efforts of European privacy commissioners, such as Germany’s Peter Schaar, who have emphasized the importance of designing body scanners in ways that protect privacy.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security made a very different choice. It deployed the naked body scanners without any opportunity for public comment—then appeared surprised by the backlash. Remarkably, however, the backlash was effective. After a nationwide protest inspired by the Patrick Henry of the anti-Naked Machines movement, a traveler who memorably exclaimed “Don’t Touch my Junk,” President Obama called on the TSA to go back to the drawing board. And a few months after authorizing the intrusive pat downs, in February 2011, the TSA announced that it would begin testing, on a pilot basis, versions of the very same blob machines that the agency had rejected nearly a decade earlier. According to the latest version, to be tested in Las Vegas and Washington, D.C, the TSA will install software filters on its body scanner machines that detects potential threat items and indicates their location on a generic, blob like outline of each passenger that will appear on a monitor attached to the machine. Passengers without suspicious items will be cleared as “OK,” those with suspicious items will be taken aside for additional screening. The remote rooms in which TSA agents view images of the naked body will be eliminated. According to news reports, TSA began testing the filtering software in the fall of 2010 – precisely when the protests against the naked machines went viral. If the filtering software is implemented across the country, converting naked machines into blob machines, the political victory for privacy will be striking.

Gawking at the stars

One blogger doesn't like seeing Rhianna comply with TSA procedures. He also points out:

Rhianna was randomly picked for a naked body scan at LAX. Randomly, like we are to believe some perv in a TSA uniform didn’t see her coming.

Press for Miss USA's experience

Susie Castillo has been getting some press for her viral video. Below she is interviewed on the Today Show:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Texas anti-TSA legislation

More coverage on the Texas legislation.

The vast right-wing conspiracy

I can't decide if this article is hilarious or depressing. Some people who think the TSA is over-stepping its bounds also think that unions - particularly unions for government employees - are a bad idea. Therefore, concludes the left-wing writers of this article, no one was really upset about the scanners and pat-downs. They were just gearing up to oppose a TSA union.

Hilarious: because this would be giving the American public a lot of credit for paying attention to issues and thinking ahead. It also completely ignores the many left-leaning civil libertarians who agree the TSA assaults are illegal and wrong.

Depressing: when leftists see nothing wrong with virtual strip searching and aggressive, invasive pat downs (of children and adults alike), without a warrant, except a right-wing conspiracy, we are in real trouble. Hopefully this article is not taken seriously and is not representative of progressive thought these days.

Patting down old ladies in wheelchairs

Feel safer, yet?