I got most of it, I think -- the feed disappeared a few times.

Panelists:

* Pablo Molina, Georgetown University Law Center (Moderator)
* James Babb, We Won't Fly
* Kate Hanni, Flyers Rights
* Michael Roberts, Airline Pilot -- aka SpatialD on FlyerTalk!

__________________________________________________ ______

Pablo: a panel for "we the people". With the deployment of the scanners, American citizens and visitors face a moral decision while traveling. Suggestion: sites like travelocity.com/expedia.com should add an option (in addition to no cost, least stops): least painful moral choices. Most Americans have yet to face the moral decision, and in spite of the surveys by the media we still don't know how most people feel about having themselves, their children, their family members subject to the scanners and putdowns.

This panel is made up of people who have devoted their time and energy to defend the rights of travelers.

Kate Hanni: Founder and Executive Director of FlyersRights.org, passionate defender of airline passenger rights.

Founded FlyersRights after my family was stuck on the tarmac in August for 9 hours, six weeks before Jet blue had a meltdown. We thought it wasn't right to be stuck on a plane, denied access to food and water, stuck on a plane with malfunctioning toilets. It took three years, but we had great successes: rule limiting time to 3 hours, and after 2 hours they have to provide food water and medical experiences. Now need to do the same for aviation security.

Security is an airline passenger rights issue. Until recently, I didn't think it was -- entered it very reluctantly. We all wanted to be safe when we fly. We rely on airlines and the FAA to keep us safe: engines, security. After 9/11 we accepted that the TSA, including silly topics. But once they started to trample on our rights we needed to get involved. We're dismayed that the gov't treats us as criminals just because we want to get on an airline.

When the public began to learn about the new security measures and "enhanced putdowns" I got hundreds of messages on our hotline. Horrifying: 3-year-olds being patted down; grandmothers having TSA agents sticking hands down pants -- agents who aren't changing their gloves. Would the actually detect the threats that drove the implementation? Many members including medical professionals wanted to know why the gov't thought subjecting us to radiation was safe. General feeling of outrage: gov't assuming everybody in the airport was a terrorist who needed to be strip-searched and groped. Are the scanners safe? GAO says "it remains unclear if they can do the job." And Pistole has said they have never tested the underwear bomb scenario. And scanners and putdowns won't detect body cavities - are body cavity searches yet.

Medical professionals point out there's no defined limit on safe exposure, and it's cumulative over lifetime. And there's no evidence that it's safe. TSA gave us a long list of agencies -- Johns Hopkins, etc. -- who assured us of safety. AOL followed up with them, and they all quickly said they haven't tested anything as they are deployed. What radiation training and regulation are TSA officers subjected to?

Issue's particularly galling for members who have served their country -- e.g., a retired officer who's had a top-secret clearance, outraged that now he's consider a terrorist. Another member who had a Q clearance in the nuclear industry feels deeply betrayed by the gov't.

There must be a better way. We'll hear more about it this afternoon.

Michael Roberts, a commercial pilot, on on Oct 15 was denied access to Memphis airport when he refused to go thorugh scanner or a putdown.

It's important to think clearly about exactly what it is that we're resisting, what effective resistance entails. Citizens have always asked the state to deliver us from evil. The state always asks for more control. Governments are made powerful only by concessions from the government.

There's a shift in responsibility: who's responsible to who? Law-abiding travelers are being told to remove their shoes and prosthetic body parts, subject to invasions of personal space, sometimes physical and sexual assaults. SIgns are posted warning us that we may be arrested if we dare to question.

We're bartering our personal sovereignty for the right to travel -- even to attend a conference, we have to give up our rights to dignity. In any exchange, need to balance.

On Oct. 15, I was forced to choose between my livelihood and dignity. Countless others are forced to make the same choice. Our protections under the fourth amendment have been taken from us without any return.

If airlines were allowed to compete on security, perhaps the market would give a picture of what tradeoffs people what to make. Unfortuantely it's not. Instead it's imposed.

First Officer Howard Pinkham of USAir placed his passengers' welfare above his when he declared himself unfit to fly because of the trauma of the security. Flight was cancelled. I've talked to many other crew members who were similarly traumatized, but chose to fly because they feared for their jobs.

People are being compelled to comply because they're afraid of what will happen if they refuse. It's the leveraging of fear to control society. The entire situation is a national embarrassment. Our security itself is threatened by this behavior. If our bodies belong to the state, we belong to the state. I urge everybody to consider the choices you're making.


James Babb, activist in Philadelphia, joined forces with George Donnelly to create WeWontFly.com

I believe you have the right to be irradiated, or groped. But you don't have the right to force others to -- even if you have a blue shirt and badge.

WeWon'tFly was started by two dads who are opposed to the porno scanners on grounds of privacy, effectiveness, and health. I started researching, George created a web site, and it exploded across the internet -- thousands of hits and Facebook fans. Success was largely due to first-person accounts by travelers in blog posts. The stories that really took off were stories of average people like John Tyner. Mothers, grandmothers, cancer survivors, people with prosthetics. No nobody was safe.

We Won't Fly.com and our FB page are filled with stories -- and people saying they won't travel. Videos are our best tool, like the three-year-old saying "please stop touching me" as the TSA agent keeps groping. The ACLU has also posted some of the thousands of complaints they've gotten. "I burst into tears". "I asked to see a supervisor and asked if he was allowed to grope my genitals -- and he was." "It was humiliating. When I retrieved my things I went into the women's bathroom and wept." "I was inappropriately touched, massaged, groped, and harassed"

TSA officials have even suggested that parents make the entire thing a game for their children, trying to train people to submit. This isn't about security, it's about conditioning. Do we really need congressional hearings to know this is wrong? Of course not. this is beyond conservative, libertarian, race class age. It's wrong.

This isn't an issue of TSA training or security. It's the fundamental coercive nature of the government. The government embarks on wars and bombing, and then says we need to submit to groping because "they hate us for our freedoms". We've moved into a bizarre world where everything about us is public, and everything about the tyrants is cloaked in secrecy.

What's the alternative? We need a decentralized, flexible security that only a market can provide. Those who want the full prostate exam can have it. Let Grope and Scope airlines compete with Flying With Dignity. Aviation security should be an issue between airlines and customers. Accept no compromise. We must abolish the TSA now.



…….


Q for Michael: how did you get here and why? And what's up with the lawsuit?

Michael: I drove. 14 hours. [Applause.] And yes, we're suing Napolitano and Pistole to restore our freedom. I'd like to see security in the hands of professionals. In the near term, the main thing to do is to restrain the politicians and bureaucrats -- get back to where we were, which is better than we are now.

Q for Kate: many are taking different approaches. I'm switching to low-cost airlines, which fly from terminal A -- which doesn't have scanners. Others are putting on scanner-friendly underwear. What can passengers do? What's next on the horizon for joining forces and trying to put a stop to this?

Kate: FlyerTalk has a list of airports and terminals that don't have scanners -- I just found it from google. if they don't have a scanner, you won't be subjected to the putdown. so for many people, that's a good alternative.

For advocating, we have an infrastructure at FlyersRights that make it easy to get in touch with your congressman and the TSA. we communicate with everybody who contacts us telling us how they can advocate. we're also going to be forming events -- visually demonstrable. National Opt Out Day worked well, reports from our members were that airports were empty and scanners were turned off, the media just missed it. So we'll do something more visible.

Q for James: right now scanners are just in airports, but if they're effective their use will be expanded. What do you think the grassroots movement you've started can do to put a halt to this hard-to-stop progression?

James: great point. No reason to believe it'll be limited to airports, already experimenting in train stations, buses, subways. As activists we have to say no, resist at every turn, draw the line here and now this is unacceptable under any circumstances. Nothing can justify us having to submit our families to this abuse. If we do nothing now, it'll be everywhere -- we're at a turning point. Need to take bold action, not compromise. Need to end it firmly and without compromise right now.

Q from Karen of AFP: James and Michael, you've both said we should turn it over to free enterprise. Can you give some hard-and-fast examples of what you'd do to change it?

James: airlines invest billions of dollars. they have an extreme motive to protect those assets. politicians have different motives: need to look like they're doing something, so we wind up with security theater. trust in the incentives of the airlines -- they have the best motive to protect us.

Q: should we go away from the machinery, focus more on training the people? the TSA should be teaching people a better way to screen for terrorists -- as Luttwack was saying. but we're all complaining, we're not seeing solutions.

Michael: what you're saying is that you want to see is professional security. put the decisions in their hands, not politicians. i'm not talking about contractors carrying out TSA's mandates, i'm talking about putting the decisions in the hands of people who understand the issue and make it work.

Kate: from FlyersRights perspective, we all agree that the scanners and enhanced putdowns are something we can't live with, so need to be abolished or at least put to secondary screening. airline passengers' primary concern is safety and security, and many aren't convinced that we're safe. so they're automatically accepting these intrusive methods. after talking with a lot of people, it seems that there was no exploration of alternate methods by the TSA. the contracts were signed in 2006. in october 2009, even before the underwear bomber, had already reinforced rapiscan. other possibilities: canines, biometrics. create a low-risk group of people who can move very quickly through the security process. there are other answers out there which would not create the sexualized intrusive process. and i'm sure there are many other alternatives that we haven't heard about. corporations seem to be driving the agenda, security isn't the goal

Q: in West Virginia, everybody I talk about is happy to give up their rights. have you seen that?

Kate: something we talked about on conference calls, people who haven't had the experience yet say "oh ok i'll give up my rights, i don't care". once the scanners started rolling out the scanners and added the ridiculous patdown layer -- and our group believes that the putdowns were implemented to force people to the scanners; in SFO, there would be 50 people in lines for the metal detectors, only 3 for the scanners, when in history have you ever seen people choosing the longer lines? you make a great point. the first letters i got were from parents of small children, a father of a 3-year-old who wanted to travel who didn't want to let TSA agents see and patdown his daughter. now that things are being implemented, more and more people are saying "no"

Michael: Kate makes a good point, a lot of it's driven by ignorance. people don't know what it really entails. one thing to hear "people being frisked" -- one actor frisks another to simulate. What law enforcement officers do to criminals. Tons of people are just saying "i'll opt out"

Q: do the people on the panel oppose the technology, the process, or both?

James: if people want to use the tech, that's fine. if you want to fly on Scope and Grope airlines, that's fine. as individuals, we have the right to choose the level of risk appropriate to ourselves. the process, completely oppose

Kate: both. people shouldn't have to go through this as primary screening; it's okay if they're used as secondary screening.

Q: there's backscatter, MMW, more techs. you allow yourself to go through a metal detector, why not MMW? i understand the issues with backscatter, and i agree the process is skewed, but we're already doing

Kate: my understanding is that MMW scanners also take an image of your body. but out group fundamentally believes that we were just as safe with just the metal detectors. there were videos in the netherlands where a guy took a powdered exposures, a detonator, and liquid slurry -- the scanner missed all of them. what are they really doing that metal detectors don't? why aren't we looking at risk-based intelligence-driven security

Q: at some point there's a next system. suppose it's just a blob, is that acceptable?

A: from a privacy standpoint it is, but what about other considerations?

Q: time to sum up

Michael: the metal detectors, to me are unreasonable search and seizure, but i viewed it as a hassle rather than a total violation, so i gave up some of my liberty. but how about we start using our brains -- many metal objects always have gotten through security. technology might be useful if it's used in a lawful way, but strip searching -- virtual or otherwise -- you don't do that until you've got a strong reason, and at that point you need to get law enforcement. and looking forward to the technology, is biometrics a solution? we'll see that touted: we'll stop strip searching, just look into this iris scanner … does that give the gov't more or less control over our comings and goings?

James: close with something positive. i'm not writing to congress asking them to move the position of the boot on my throat. at We Won't Fly, we're not flying. send a clear message to industry that we won't purchase your services if it means we're being abused.