jkhuggins

Yes, that's exactly what you say.

Look, it's not difficult to figure out how to make air travel absolutely safe for everyone. Con Air does it all the time. Why don't we propose that airlines adopt this mode of travel? Surely, no-one would object to being handcuffed and shackled in order to make sure that no-one ever dies again aboard an aircraft? Would you want to be the one who explained to someone's loved ones that a plane crashed because the passengers refused to be handcuffed?

Yes, I'm being ridiculous. But that's precisely the point. Every method of travel makes tradeoffs between security and privacy. The introduction of mandatory AIT scanners over the last several years has introduced generally higher degrees of security at the price of generally reduced privacy. Whether that exchange is worth it is a matter of debate.

Dr. HFH

And how about the reports (I just read one in the NYTimes) that the co-pilot of the Germanwings a/c had been treated for suicidal ideation prior to obtaining his pilot's license. Should that have been protected by privacy rights (as it apparently was)?

As jkhuggins said upthread, the question is where we draw the line between security and privacy. As long as the proposed security measures are effective, security usually trumps privacy IMO. I have no interest in dying to make a point.

But I agree that it's a very slippery slope and a very difficult line to draw.

WillCAD

That's a distinction without a meaningful difference. It's the same as saying, "Black people have the right to go to school in any neighborhood they choose, so long as they don't choose a white neighborhood."

Allowing denial of movement by any means - private, public, or paid - constitutes an abridgement of the freedom of movement. Just like saying, "Oh, women can vote as much as they want, except not in the presidential election" is just as much an abridgement as denying them the vote entirely. Sure, they have the right to vote - but not in any specific election, right?

TSA has listed methods such as questioning and corroborating documentation, aside from government-issued identity cards, such as utility bills.

In the ID debate, however, it may help to remember that there is no legal requirement to show ID in order to fly or board a plane - the ONLY reason that travelers are required to show ID is to verify that they are elligible to enter the sterile area, i.e. that they hold a valid BP for a flight occurring that day. And the only reason THAT requirement exists is to reduce the number of people transiting the c/p because post-9/11, the enhanced security slowed the lines so much that limiting the number of people screened seemed like a good idea.

They're total and complete BS. Hogwash. A lame and transparent excuse for racism and harassment, not to mention a violation of the 4th Amendment (even taking the administrative search exception into consideration).

Ain't that many ways to get from New York to Honolulu, though, are there?

And again, an abridgement of a right through unreasonable or untenable restrictions is the same as a complete denial of the right.

I'm not clear on your terminology - are you comparing whole body imaging scanners to walk-thru metal detectors? Or are you comparing WBI scanners with AIT to those with a live operator viewing naked pictures of travelers' bodies?

Dr. HFH

But that's not what this is. Lots of people choose not to fly, and for all sorts of reasons, e.g., Aretha Franklin. I have a right to go to Hawaii; but I don't have the right to fly there. Cruise ships are full. Cruise lines can't build ships fast enough to satisfy demand.


There's the rub. All depends on how you define unreasonable. IMO, the definition evolves from balancing competing rights/interests.


And speaking of rational connection to the purpose, how does a utility bill establish or verify identity? Are you suggesting that you couldn't produce a legitimate-appearing utility bill using MS Word?


Again, depends on your definition. IIRC, TSA Rules and Regs carry the weight of law. The extent to which they rationally accomplish their purpose is a separate conversation, I readily admit.


Yes, I'm talking about the very early ones, which were affectionately called nude-o-scopes, compared to the scanners being used now. Not talking about metal detectors.

saizai

Er, actually…

49 USC 40103(a)(2): "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."

Sorry, but you're flat wrong. It's a specifically codified right.

You aren't required to. That's been TSA's official position in court — if you don't provide adequate ID, you're subject to secondary screening. (Which, fair enough.)

You aren't subject to ban from the sterile area merely for failure to ID. They're not allowed to engage in law enforcement activity, only to search for WEI.

Which I did. Paragraph 5: "To date — well over a year past the six month mandatory response deadline — TSA has deliberately and unlawfully refused to provide Sai with its responses to Sai's complaints."

No way. That's something that can be used for ID fraud, and it's not very durable.

Anyway, it's moot now; all my meds, ID, etc are in my current name. It was just a holdover for a brief period while things were still in the process of getting changed.

There's no reason for me to use my old passport any more unless I need to prove ownership & change the name on an old financial account or something, and I've already done that for everything AFAIK.

In any case, it's totally irrelevant to TSA. They have no authority whatsoever to look at my medications beyond testing that they're not WEI; a voided passport is not a weapon or illegal in any way; and their only recourse even if they were dissatisfied with my proof of identity is to refer to secondary screening, which is where they started looking through my meds etc in the first place, so that can't justify anything further.

Dr. HFH

Er, actually... I'm not wrong. What I said was, "You/We have the right to freedom of movement, but not the right to movement by any specific type of conveyance."

I stand by that. 49 USC 40103(a)(2) guarantees the public the right of transit through the navigable airspace, as you said, but that right is not unbounded. You can't just decide to fly your own plane where you want to go. You need a license, the plane needs to be registered, you may need to file a flight plan, you are subject to ATC control, etc., etc., etc.

So the "right" is subject to other governmental regulations; it's not absolute.


Indeed you did. It wasn't where I expected to find it; thus I missed it.


That will undoubtedly eliminate a non-trivial proportion of your travel problems.

Boggie Dog

How do you see presenting an ID to TSA improves security?

The earlier Whole Body Imagers came in two types, Millimeter Wave and Backscatter X-ray. Both had remote viewing rooms and presented an image that some have called revealing. The safety of the x-ray model ws never properly established but what did it in was the inability to adopt Automated Target Recognition upgrades. ATR was mandated by Congress due to the clear personal privacy violations the early WBI required.

petaluma1

It seems as if you are advocating a return to backscatter-type of scanning. Would you be o.k. with x-rays strong enough to see inside body cavities? Would you be o.k. with pulling every woman wearing a tampon aside to check her?

Foregoing such strong x-rays, would you be o.k. with pulling aside every person, male or female, wearing a sanitary pad or Depends-type underwear aside and forcing them to justify their need for such?

It sounds to me as if you think that would be just fine so that you don't die.

saizai

No right is absolute (roughly speaking). E.g. the right to life does not mean that the government can't, sometimes, kill you.

Nevertheless, US citizens do specifically have a codified right to travel by air.

"Right" does not mean "absolute right".

Not really. BOS is the only time it has ever come up, and then only after I was selected on for secondary on a patently unlawful basis.

Dr. HFH

I don't believe that it improves security, and never understood the requirement. I suppose that one could argue that it ensures that only the passenger pre-cleared against the no-fly list gets past security.


I'm unfamiliar with the specific technology, how they work.


They weren't removed for any safety reasons. They were removed due to privacy concerns. I've seen the images they produced. In fact, I saw my own. That's how I found out that I actually have rolls of fat which are more or less invisible from the exterior. The images are, indeed, quite revealing.

So your question, -- Am I willing to have a stranger, who is in a separate and closed-off room and who does not know and cannot see me, see a revealing image of me for a couple of seconds to see if I've concealed anything which might be a threat to the flight or passengers? Absolutely. Would that type of scanning have caught the underwear bomber? Yes.

Please don't exaggerate to make a point. Women did not have to remove tampons or allow their inspection. They appear on the screen to be exactly what they are. Same with Depends, et al. Those people don't get extra screening. And the radiation isn't that strong, -- not only doesn't it have to be to produce the image, but the machines would never have received initial approval if the radiation dosage hadn't been minimal and within the permitted amount.

But let me turn the question(s) around to you. Are you so concerned about a stranger who doesn't know you, has never seen you and never will, viewing a revealing x-ray type image of you for a couple of seconds that you'd rather risk having an explosive device on the plane on which you're flying? How about the one on which your five year old daughter is flying with your wife?

petaluma1

We really have no idea if the backscatter was truly safe or not as the TSA would not allow any outside agency to test them.

Good for you; I am not comfortable having someone view me naked. I believe the prevailing opinion is that the underwear bomber might have been caught. There was no certainty that he would have been.

I never said that women are being required to prove they are wearing tampons. I said that you seem to be advocating for scanners strong enough to see inside the human body. The backscatter never did see tampons or anything else concealed in a body cavity.

If the TSA is as afraid of explosives as they claim to be, then in order to keep you safe, they do need to check every single pair of Depends that presents at the checkpoint.

I am not afraid of an explosive device as you seem to be. It's all fear-mongering on the part of the government and you seem to have fallen for it. If an explosive makes it to the airport, it's too late. Any suicide bomber worth his/her salt is going to set off that device in the security line while you stand in the scanner with your arms raised in the surrender position.

It greatly amuses me how so many posters here seem to believe that all other posters are male.

NoMoreFlying

I believe you are asking the wrong question. You should be asking me if I am so concerned about concealed explosive devices getting on to an airplane that I am willing to give up my constitutional rights to privacy.

The answer is no. I am less concerned about a WEI on an airplane than I am about driving my car down the road with the possibility of encountering someone driving drunk or texting. And I don't lose sleep over that either.

My theory is if someone wants to harm me, they will find a way. Preventative measures make it harder but does not eliminate the crime. If they did we wouldn't have overflowing prisons.

NoMoreFlying

In many states it is now possible for a woman to marry a woman and call each other wife.

(However, I suspect you are correct about it being assumed.)

Boggie Dog

Names are compared against the watch lists by the airline when purchasing a ticket. When ID is presented to the TSA Travel Document Checker they have no access to the watch lists.

TSA's duty is to conduct a limited Administrative Search for the sole purpose of detecting prohibited items. Anything else TSA engages in exceeds the authority Congress provided. Checking ID's offers no security enhancement at all.


[/QUOTE]

Exactly how the Whole Body Imagers, TSA's original name for the machines, work isn't really important. What needs to be understood is that contract specifications for both models required the ability to Save and Transmit captured images and that they produce a revealing image that even TSA knew was not appropriate for public viewing.

We need to understand that the x-ray based imager was never shown to be safe. EPA says this about radiation,

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/underst...h_effects.html

Is any amount of radiation safe? There is no firm basis for setting a "safe" level of exposure above background for stochastic effects. Many sources emit radiation that is well below natural background levels. This makes it extremely difficult to isolate its stochastic effects. In setting limits, EPA makes the conservative (cautious) assumption that any increase in radiation exposure is accompanied by an increased risk of stochastic effects.

TSA was never honest with the public in regards to the the safety and privacy of the Whole Body Imagers. There was an active disinformation campaign put forth by TSA that was filled with less than truthful statements. A TSA District Manager once stated that the images were very revealing.

More damning, in my mind, is that TSA failed to comply with the federal Administrative Procedures Act, and has not to this day fully complied with the law even after being ordered by a federal court to do so.

There were clear concerns about the safety of the Backscatter X-ray based imagers and the privacy implications of both the Backscatter and MMW (Millimeter Wave) Whole Body imagers.

Things came to a head when Congress passed legislation requiring TSA to convert all Whole Body Imagers, of any type, to machines equipped with the Automated Target Recognition upgrades. This resulted in the removal of all Backscatter machines and the shutting of the Remote Viewing Rooms.

Any security improvements claimed by the use of Whole Body Imagers are questionable. There are blind spots, mobility issues, and a very high rate of false alarms. I personally experienced a false alarm and resultant pat down of my bare neck at one TSA checkpoint.

TSA claims the ability to search for non-metallic weapons by using Whole Body Imagers yet what degree of threat is actually represented by these items? Whole Body Imagers cost on the order of $250,000 each and in my opinion offer little improvement over the Walk Through Metal Detectors for passenger screening and x-ray of luggage and carry-on items.

TSA should immediately suspend all use of Whole Body Scanners until all facets of complying with the Administrative Procedures Act have been completed.

Backscatter x-ray scanners should have never been deployed in any airport. Any redeployment of x-ray based machines should hinge on the safety of these type devices proven by studies from neutral parties.

jkhuggins

If he was under treatment, I have no problem with that being protected by privacy rights. Just as I have no problem with a pilot who needs corrective lenses being allowed to fly the plane, as long as he is using those lenses. Both are medical issues, and should be treated as such.

Much, though, depends on how you define the word "effective". We have to remember that the number of attempted airline terrorist events has always been incredibly small, when compared with the number of flights conducted. Any "effective" procedure is only going to an extremely rare event slightly more rare. And each such procedure comes with added costs, both material and sociological.

At some point, we have to live with a certain amount of risk in order to live lives of dignity. You're willing to draw that line differently than I do; so be it. But we shouldn't talk about "effectiveness" as if it's a binary condition.