TSA is Delivering Naked Insecurity by Ralph Nader

[Better Believe It]

TSA is Delivering Naked Insecurity
by Ralph Nader
November 20, 2010

This month Homeland Security has implemented a new rule calling for extremely invasive pat-downs of commercial airline passengers who decline to use full-body, "backscatter technology" scanners that use low-level X-rays. Pregnant women, parents with young children, adherents of religions, amputees and people with wireless insulin pumps or embedded medical devices are increasingly saying, "No thanks." They do not believe they should be exposed to technology that could pose risks, may malfunction, and certainly invades their privacy. So Homeland Security has doubled its trouble by turning to the invasive pat-downs. What the department should do is reconsider its use of these scanners, but after reading Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's full-throated defense of the technology and procedures on this page this past Monday, I'm not hopeful.

Questions, and lawsuits

The technology has already been challenged by recognized academic specialists on both safety and efficacy grounds. After six months of testing at four major airports, Italy is likely to drop these scanners, finding them ineffective and slow. The European Commission has also raised "several serious fundamental rights and health concerns" and recommends less-intrusive alternatives.

Back in the USA, the legal volleys have begun. Two weeks ago, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a public interest research center, filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Department of Homeland Security. The suit alleges violations of the Fourth Amendment, the Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (which calls for public hearings).

Immersed in its own bureaucratic bubble of secrecy and inaccessibility, Homeland Security cites "national security" as justifying its unresponsiveness to critics. Napolitano wrote in USA TODAY that our security depends on being "more creative" in adapting to evolving threats. Indiscriminate pat-downs are anything but creative. Yet the department listens to commercial lobbyists pushing scanner sales, including former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff.

Earlier corporate pitchmen sold the department on the notorious puffer machines. This $36 million boondoggle forced Homeland Security to remove these failed screeners from airports last year at considerable embarrassment and expense.

Read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/11/20-1

If only the sniffer machines were still with us. I can just see us first being sniffed and than groped before we get on board a plane. What could be next, a full body cavity inspection? BBI

[somone]

1. It's corporate welfare

Ralphie is right on this one (and many other topics).

[azul]

2. Will Ralph be exposed on the internets?:

JUAN GONZALEZ: And also these scanners are able to store these images as well as to transmit them to other government agencies if necessary?

GINGER MCCALL: EPIC had a Freedom of Information Act request with DHS to get more details on the scanners. We initially made that request. DHS ignored the request. We took them to court over it. As part of that lawsuit, we got documents, procurements specifications documents that were scripted by TSA and this document described everything that TSA require the manufacturers to put in these machines. One of the requirements was these machines be able to store and transmit the images.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/19/national_outcry_over_tsa_body_scanners

[Poboy]

3. k&r

[JohnyCanuck]

4. k&r

[Zoeisright]

5. FU, Nader.

and STFU.

[hlthe2b]

6. ???? Hey, i may hold a grudge for the 2000 debacle, BUT

he is right on this. Speak out loudly, Ralph. Others defending this travesty should STFU, IMO.

[Better Believe It]

7. I can see you're a big free speech advocate and defender of democratic elections!

I assume therefore that you believe Al Gore "lost" the 2000 election because Ralph Nader "spoiled it" and that the Supreme Court did not steal the election and appoint George W. Bush president.

Is that right?

[jonnyblitz]

8. I hope he NEVER shut's the fuck up because he is always

RIGHT. :hi:

[superduperfarleft]

9. NO U!

:eyes:

[Poboy]

10. kickity

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. The legal volleys have just begun

And when all is said and done...most likely they will be gone.

[lunatica]

12. This is what Nader does best. Defend Americans against specific things

Not claiming generically that there's no difference between the parties.