Show notes, links and sources added below
**Important-Links for Resistance to the Porno Scans-
NOVEMBER 24th 2010 National Opt Out Day!
“What the TSA Isn’t Telling You” Get this flyer!
Just for our Amusement Fun With TSA
I continue to update this page with news on the legality, safety and expert and public response to the continuing assault by our government on the basic dignity of the American public.
Nov 14th 2010-My experience handing out information to travelers at the Tulsa International Airport about the Naked Body Scanners;
**November 2010-Latest News, EPIC files filed the opening brief in the case against the controversial full body scanner program administered by the Department of Homeland Security.
November 13, 2010
TSA Encounter at San Diego International Airport Traveler objects to being molested by TSA agent and the results of that objection.
AxXiom For Liberty
The Naked Truth about TSA’s Naked Body Scanners
Contrary to the repeated assurances of the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security, the Full Body Scanners are capable of capturing, storing and transmitting the graphically detailed, nude images of air travelers and it real time no less! The lie is revealed by reading the procurement specifications for the machines issued by the TSA. These features that we were told did not exist are required.
On August 2nd EPIC (the Electronic Privacy Information Center) announced that as a result their Open Government Lawsuit against the United States Marshals Service they discovered that the government is capturing and storing thousands of images of individuals stripped nude. The Marshals apparently do this as a matter of routine.
Safety? Effectiveness? Surprise! Our government has been less that forthright with us
On Friday Aug. 6, 2010 AxXiom for Liberty Radio show examined this issue the way the TSA examines our bodies, in detail.
Listen to the August 6, 2010 show;
Show Archive Audio Mp3
AxXiom for Liberty airs every Friday from 6-8 pm CST on
‘Naked machines’ do store and transmit images, feds admit
By ANDREW W. GRIFFIN
Oklahoma Watchdog, editor Posted: August 4, 2010
OKLAHOMA CITY — A report released today at CNET News, headlined “Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images ” has talk radio and the blogosphere chattering about the intrusive body scanning technology increasingly seen at airports across America.
But this report, written by Declan McCullagh for Privacy Inc, destroys the claim by the Transportation Security Administration that “scanned images cannot be stored or recorded.”
McCullagh writes: “Now it turns out that some police agencies are storing the controversial images after all. The U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had surreptitiously saved tens of thousands of images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse.”
Recently updated list of Airport that use the scanners
You will find full-body scanners at the following US airports:
The idea of submitting to virtual strip search in exchange for the privilege of flying struck me as a lousy bargain from the get go, but after a little research, I can tell you that this proposition is one that should be outright refused for more reasons than mere modesty.
We don’t even have to venture off the government’s plantation to find evidence that demonstrates the absurdity of using these devices as a primary screening method. Dr. Brenner, a government “approved” expert now says he would have never given his approval had he been informed that the devices would be used as a primary screening method, which changes the picture entirely.
Israeli security experts, oft cited by our minders to legitimize draconian anti-terrorism measures, say the scanners are “useless” and even the UN takes issue with them based on human rights concerns. Frankly I don’t give a tinker’s damn for the UN or Israel’s security experts. We are talking about a program being implemented on US sovereign soil and their ideas about the proper role of government and what constitutes human rights don’t strike me as very relevant to policy development in our country. However, these government faves are useful for the purpose of demonstrating my main point which is, as I have stated, so flimsy it can easily be shredded with our governments own blunt instruments.
Show Audio Archive Mp3;
FlyerTalk.com is an excellent place to find others who are dealing with this issue, sharing real experiences, and also support and information.
Here are a few threads from that forum that you might find interesting;
When trying to figure out where our government is coming from, never forget to follow the money.
Group slams Chertoff on scanner promotion
WASHINGTON – Since the attempted bombing of a US airliner on Christmas Day, former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has given dozens of media interviews touting the need for the federal government to buy more full-body scanners for airports
January 2, 2010
November 14, 2010
EPIC is a great source of information
Whole Body Imaging Technology and Body Scanners EPIC -the Electronic Privacy Information Center
READ THIS! The first 20 pages of this filing are very enlightening.
EPIC v DHS Emergency motion to suspend Full Body Scanner program
EPIC points out that;
“The TSA required that the scanners be designed to capture, store, and transfer detailed, three-dimensional images of individuals’ naked bodies.
TSA Office of Security Technology System Planning and Evaluation, Procurement Specifications for Whole Body Imager Devices for Checkpoint Operations, Sept. 23, 2008 (“TSA Procurement Specifications Document”) at 5 (stating “When in Test Mode, the [body scanner]: shall allow exporting of image data in real time; … shall provide a secure means for high-speed transfer of image data; [and] shall allow exporting of image data (raw and reconstructed),,); Read the TSA Procurement Specs for Full Body Scanners 2008
The Latest from EPIC- the Electronic Privacy Information Foundation
WASHINGTON, DC – On November 1, 2010 the Electronic Privacy
Information Center (EPIC) filed the opening brief in the case against the controversial full body scanner program administered by the Department of Homeland Security.
Read EPIC’s opening brief here
Two types of scanners in use: The Millimeter Wave and Backscatter.
What will happen if you decline the naked machine?
Naked Body Scanner-Do Not Want!
Oct 15, 2010
Pilot to TSA: ‘No Groping Me and No Naked Photos’
Nov 11. 2010
Radio Show Host manhandled upon opting out
“Today, there are 134 imaging technology units in use at 38 airports. But by next year and beyond, 1,000 of them will likely be deployed around the country.” Source the St. Petersburg Times Airport body scanners reveal all, but what about when it’s your kid?
The Millimeter Wave scanner This is probably the one you’ll find at airport right now, since there are 40 of them scattered around the 19 US airports with full=body scanning technology. It appears like a giant cylindrical phonebooth, with mostly clear glass walls and scanning panels that move around you.
How it works: This machine emits small radio waves that pass through your clothing and returns with images of the body underneath. Human skin is all they want to show up, and anything that is not human skin is cause for alarm. Because the panels move around you, this scan can take up to 40 seconds and there is a zoom option. This is the machine that reveals most bodily detail…
The Backscatter scanner These are one their way to more US airports, with 150 or more scheduled to show up in US airports in 2010. It’s not as cool-looking as the millimeter wave’s circular glass contraption; you’re effectively standing between two giant boxes, with your hands up. But what those boxes are doing is the cool part…
How it works: Two low-level X-rays of you are taken within twenty seconds. If the electromagnetic waves are absorbed, then you’re good to go, but if you’re hiding foreign objects, then those items will reflect the rays and be visible in the scan. Radiation is not a concern; the amount you’ll absorb is the same you get exposed to during everyday life. Images from this sort of full-body scanner appear more skeletal than fleshy, and you’ll probably not be able to recognize your own face.
So let’s say you’ve arrived at one of the airports that has full-body scanners and you’re waiting in line to go through security to reach your flight gate. You notice that they are sending the line through the massive machines, and you’re concerned about your privacy or radiation or whatever, and you wonder: do you really have to go through a full-body scan? The quick answer is yes and no…
YES you should go through the full-body scanner.
Notice that we used the word “should” there, because going through one of the machines is not compulsory. Still, if you stay in line and don’t pipe up and take your turn showing your goodies virtually to the TSA, then the lines move quicker and you get to your gate faster and (hopefully) without arousing the suspicion and alarm of security agents.
NO you shouldn’t go through the full-body scanner.
Currently—because they haven’t quite nailed down whether or not to force people to go through a full-body scan where available—it is your right to decline the full-body scan. The TSA cannot make you go into the machine if you say no, and there is an argument for saying no and therefore protesting the use of these machines.
If you say no to a full-body scan, be warned that you are then submitting yourself to a physical pat-down. Usually the TSA will honor your request for a female or male agent based on your gender, but if it’s busy and they’re stressed and short-staffed and you look suspicious, then don’t expect that courtesy. Anyone who denies a body scan is subject to advanced screening.
Ready for the Enhanced Pat Down?
Read This Lady’s Description
Think you are the only one who finds being digitally strip searched by the TSA objectionable? Think again.
U.S. air travelers complain about body scans
The Transportation Security Administration, releasing the documents after a Freedom of Information Act request by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said air travelers lodged more than 600 complaints over use of the machines in the past year. READ MORE
Giggle Break-Kip Hawley is an Idiot
Why the LIES?
DHS has told the public repeatedly that the scanners “could not store or record images.” “The image cannot be stored transmitted or printed and is deleted permanently after each passenger has been screened”
“TSA has adjusted device to ease privacy concerns”
“They’ve turned down the intensity a bit so some of the images under the clothes will be fuzzy,” he said. “They’ve also remotely located the person viewing the images so that person can’t associate the image with the passenger. We don’t have any capability to store or to print any of these images.”
Documents obtained from the TSA show that the agency specifications require the machines to have the ability to store and transmit images
-EPIC v. Homeland Security: Government has Over 2,000 Photos from Airport Body Scanners
As a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, EPIC has obtained hundreds of pages of documents from the Department of Homeland Security about the plan to deploy full body scanners in US airports. A letter to EPIC reveals that the government agency possesses about 2,000 body scanner photos
–PIC FOIA – Feds Save Thousands of Body Scan Images
In an open government lawsuit against the United States Marshals Service, EPIC has obtained more than one hundred images of undressed individuals entering federal courthouses. The images, which are routinely captured by the federal agency, prove that body scanning devices store and record images of individuals stripped naked. The 100 images are a small sample of more than 35,000 at issue in the EPIC lawsuit. EPIC has pursued but the DHS refuses to release the images it has obtained. EPIC has also filed suit to stop the deployment of the machines in US airports.
-The TSA’s own documents show that the FBS devices also have profound technical flaws that allow the machines to be breached and create the risk that sensitive traveler images could be leaked. These devices run Windows XPe, which contains security vulnerabilities.
–The FBS devices are designed to transfer information via highly transportable and easily concealable USB devices. Per TSA Procurement Specifications Document
The TSA claims that passengers have an option to receive a pat down as an alternative screening rather than submit to the body scanning device.
-As a matter of pattern, practice and policy, the TSA requires air travelers to submit to FBS searches once they have entered the security zone in airports.
-The TSA does not, in practice, offer air travelers an alternative to FBS searches in airports equipped with FBS devices
-This assertion is backed by hundreds of complaints sent to the TSA stating that passengers were informed of no option or their treatment by the TSA effectively gave them no alternative
Video of the enhanced pat down:
Are the scanners effective in detecting liquid, powder or other low density explosives?
You might assume so since DHS ramped up placement of these devices following the Dec 25th “underwear bombing” attempt and justified the plans on the premise that the scanners could prevent such a situation in the future. (**Note to self-judging from its track record, it is much safer to assume that the government is lying to us.)
-As a result of the failed Flight 253 terrorist incident — Congressional hearings earlier this year revealed that the public has been routinely deceived about the incident since it happened — last Christmas day, the government announced that every airport in the U.S. will eventually be using full body scanners, allegedly as a precautionary security measure, regardless of privacy concerns
Officials tell us that all security measures were followed and that the only reason Captain Underpants got passed security was that there were no naked scanners that would have revealed his crotch bomb.
Let’s just take a look at some things that should have garnered extra attention from the TSA and airport security:
- According to eye witnesses, he had no passport, and the only reason he was allowed on the plane was because an accomplice who was with him managed to convince an airline employee that Abdulmutuallah was a political refugee from Sudan.
If you think that any of these might be cause for suspicion, you’re not alone. In fact, the TSA would agree with you, because as it turns out, even before the attempted bombing, TSA officials were actually waiting to question Abdulmutuallah when he landed in Detroit. Abdulmutuallah had clearly had triggered something in the security system, and the TSA and airport security simply weren’t fast enough to act upon it.
-The FBS devices employed by the TSA are not designed to detect powdered explosives, such as pentaerythritol tetranitrate (“PETN”)-the explosive used in the attempted December 25, 2009 bombing of Northwest Airlines flight 253.
GAO: No formal testing for whole-body scanners
Ability to detect weapons and explosives. The Government Accountability Office said in March that it “remains unclear” whether the machines would have detected the explosives in the underwear of a man who allegedly tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines jet bound for Detroit on Christmas Day.
-QinetiQ said the technology probably wouldn’t have detected the Christmas day underwear bomb. Neither would the scanners have caught the explosives from the 2006 airliner liquid bomb plot, nor the explosives used in the 2005 London Tube train bombing.–The body scanners aren’t very useful for detecting liquids and plastics http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/01/06/5-reasons-body-scanners-might-not-solve-our-terrorism-problem/
–Full body scanners can’t see inside your body . In September, an Al Qaeda suicide bomber hid explosives in his rectum in an attempt to kill a Saudi Prince
–Full-body scanners are waste of money, Israeli expert says
–A leading Israeli airport security expert says the Canadian government has wasted millions of dollars to install “useless” imaging machines at airports across the country.
“I don’t know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747,” Rafi Sela told parliamentarians probing the state of aviation safety in Canada.
“That’s why we haven’t put them in our airport,” Sela said, referring to Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world.
-Brian Sullivan and Steve Elson, two former Federal Aviation Administration security agents, say the machines are ineffective for finding explosives and preventing a terrorist from smuggling explosives on board an aircraft.
-Billie Vincent, the FAA‘s former security director, says the machines “incrementally improve” on metal detectors if TSA agents alertly resolve identified threats. source USA Today
The British Department for Transport (DfT) and the Home Office tested the new 3D scanners thoroughly and found that while they were relatively accurate in catching high-density materials that pat-downs missed (such as knives, box-cutters, or other problem items), they failed to detect most low-density items, including bags of liquid.
We are told that the scanners are absolutely safe.
TSA states; “Millimeter wave technology is safe for all travelers including children and pregnant women. The radio frequency energy it transmits is 10,000 times less than an average cell phone.”
TRUTH-Experts disagree, the jury is still out, no long term studies have been done.
It’s true: Airport body scanners could give you cancer
Oct 18, 2010
The new, full-body security scanners being introduced at airports pose a greater skin cancer risk than governments have previously acknowledged and are especially dangerous to children and pregnant women, a new study has found.
-Radiation dose actually 20 times higher than Official estimate
-The concentration on the skin — one of the most radiation-sensitive organs of the human body — means the radiation dose is actually 20 times higher than the official estimate according to David Brenner, head of Columbia University’s Center for Radiological Research.
-Dr. Brenner, who was consulted to write guidelines for the security scanners in 2002, claims he would not have signed the report had he known the devices would be so widely used.
-UCSF (Nobel Laureats, Professor Emeritus Biochem and Biophysics with expertise in imaging, member Nat Academy of Sciences, internationally respect cancer expert, X-ray crystallographers, imaging experts,etc) letter to Holdren;
“There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations. We are unanimous in believing that the potential health consequences need to be rigorously studied before these scanners are adopted. Modifications that reduce radiation exposure need to be explored as soon as possible”
“These negative effects may on balance far outweigh the potential benefit of increased detection of terrorists.”
The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volumeof the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high.
The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmicray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, this comparison is very misleading
-it appears that real independent safety data do not exist.
Our colleagues at UCSF, dermatologists and cancer experts, raise specific important concerns:
- • A) The large population of older travelers, >65 years of age, is particularly at risk from the mutagenic effects of the X-rays based on the known biology of melanocyte aging.
- • B) A fraction of the female population is especially sensitive to mutagenesis provoking radiation leading to breast cancer. Notably, because these women, who have defects in DNA repair mechanisms, are particularly prone to cancer, X-ray mammograms are not performed on them. The dose to breast tissue beneath the skin represents a similar risk.
- • C) Blood (white blood cells) perfusing the skin is also at risk.
- • D) The population of immunocompromised individuals–HIV and cancer patients (see above) is likely to be at risk for cancer induction by the high skindose.
- • E) The risk of radiation emission to children and adolescents does not appear to have been fully evaluated.
- • F) The policy towards pregnant women needs to be defined once the theoreticalrisks to the fetus are determined.
- • G) Because of the proximity of the testicles to skin, this tissue is at risk for sperm mutagenesis.
- • H) Have the effects of the radiation on the cornea and thymus been determined?
A number of ‘red flags’ are related to the hardware itself–
Xrays are intense but duration should be short. Machinary glitches stopping or slowing scan, agents purposely slowing scan down to improve resolution (TSA is already complaining about low resolution) Source: UCSF Letter to John P. Holdren (science and tech czar) from a variety of experts expressing concern about the health risks of the TSA’s full body scanning program.
T-rays and DNA
The technology used in the full body scanners is either backscatter x-ray or millimeter waves . Both use a form of radiation call terahertz photons (T-rays). T-rays are a form of infrared energy that lies between radio waves at the low-end and microwaves at its higher end. It may be non-ionizing unlike x-rays; however, the energy is able to penetrate tissue, clothing, paper, plastic, wood and ceramics among other things.
–Alexandrov et al. at Los Alamos National Laboratory theorized that the
thermal energy given off by T-rays can damage DNA By unwinding or unzipping the double helix strands of DNA. This could possibly lead to mutations as the DNA attempts to repair itself.
“It is clear that the rush to deploy these machines may put the public at unacceptable risk.”. http://biggovernment.com/egeorge/2010/01/11/are-total-body-scanners-safe-the-jury-is-still-out/
So, let me see if I have this straight?
We have been lied to about the safety of the scanners, the capabilities of the machines, the manner in which they would be utilized, and the purpose of them.
Our government is ignoring lawfully submitted petitions and requests for information, while at the same time it is apparently disregarding legal precedent as well as statutes on top of basic constitutional law. And in the face of criticisms and questions from the GAO, acknowledged experts and a wide variety of organizations, our officials just forge ahead as if the laws, courtesies and rules that the rest of us are expected to or forced to comply with have no bearing upon the government itself.
That seems to be the situation in a nutshell.
Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State…. Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms the State as the true reality of the individual.–Benito Mussolini, Fascism: Fundamental Ideas