Tag Archives: scanners

Dept. of Homeland Security Releases 2012 Privacy Report

Kaye Beach

September 28, 2012

Th report touts small improvements but bigger problems are revealed.

EPIC the Electronic Privacy Information Center reports;

The Department of Homeland Security has released its 2012 Privacy
Office Annual Report to Congress. The report details the expansion of
the National Counterterrorism Center’s five-year retention policy for
records on US Persons, the agency’s social media-monitoring initiatives,
and privacy training for fusion centers personnel; however, it does not
discuss several new DHS-funded initiatives, including the Future
Attribute Screening Technology, or FAST, a “Minority-Report”-like
proposal for “pre-crime” detection. Also, according to the report the
Transportation Security Administration has still failed to adopt
privacy safeguards for airport body scanners.

Two DHS Privacy Office investigations led to the finding of agency non-
compliance. One of those investigations involved DHS’s use of social
media monitoring. EPIC filed a FOIA request on DHS’ social media
monitoring program in April 2011, then filed suit against DHS in
December 2011 in order to force the disclosure of documents related
to the monitoring program, which searched for both suspicious
“keywords” and dissent against government programs. Earlier in 2012,
Congress held an oversight hearing on the DHS social media monitoring
program, and cited the documents obtained by EPIC.

While the report acknowledges agency shortcomings, it also touts DHS
privacy and transparency training as well public engagement through
speaker series, a redesigned FOIA site, and quarterly privacy advocacy
meetings. Significantly, the report fails to address the lack of timely
notice-and-comment rulemakings, particularly the TSA’s lack of
rulemaking on body scanners, ordered by a court in 2011 in response to
a suit brought by EPIC.

The report discusses DHS’ increased use of Privacy Compliance Reviews
(PCRs), which cover programs including cybersecurity, information
sharing, and the use of social media. The DHS Privacy Office used these
reviews to fail eight of its own agency programs for their lack of
privacy compliance documentation. None of the eight programs are
identified in the report, nor are any details of their lack of privacy
compliance.

The DHS Chief Privacy Office must present annual reports to Congress
and is also required by law to ensure that new agency programs do not
diminish privacy in the US.

DHS Privacy Office:  2012  Annual Report to Congress (Sept. 2012)
http://epic.org/redirect/092812-dhs-2012-privacy-report.html

EPIC:  DHS Privacy Office
http://epic.org/privacy/dhs-cpo.html

EPIC:  Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST)
http://epic.org/privacy/fastproject/

EPIC:  Fusion Centers
http://epic.org/privacy/fusion/

EPIC:  EPIC v. DHS (Social Media Monitoring)
http://epic.org/foia/epic-v-dhs-media-monitoring/

EPIC:  EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program)
http://epic.org/redirect/092812-epicvdhs-scannersuspend.html

 

Volume 19.18                                       September 28, 2012
———————————————————————–

Published by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Washington, D.C.

http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_19.18.html

“Defend Privacy. Support EPIC.”
http://epic.org/donate

Advertisements

Naked Body Scanners-TSA Thinks We Should Be Seen But NOT heard!

Kaye Beach

July 28, 2012

I rarely ask people to sign petitions but I am making an exception for this one-please sign it!

An online petition posted in “We the People” demands that the White House “Require the Transportation Security Administration to Follow the Law!”

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/require-transportation-security-administration-follow-law/tffCTwDd

Remember the naked body scanners that were forced upon us by the Department of Homeland Security through the TSA a couple years ago?

The Naked Truth about TSA’s Naked Body Scanners

I remember it well because when I attempted to provide some “public input” about the devices, this is the reaction I got from a TSA agent-

TSA: “I thought maybe you might be representing a terrorist organization”

Well, EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, has been fighting DHS and the TSA tooth and nail on this issue ever since.  They have made an impact.

On July 15, 2011, in EPIC v. DHS, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that the Transportation Security Administration violated federal law when it refused to conduct a public rulemaking over the use of whole body imaging scanners to screen airport passengers.

(Read more about EPIC’s battle against the naked body scanners http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/ )

In brief, the TSA has been found in federal court to be in violation of federal law because they did not include any opportunity for public input in the rulemaking process  regarding the use of these devices.

The court noted that “few if any regulatory procedures impose directly and significantly upon so many members of the public,” and then ordered the Department of Homeland Security to fix the problem.

Here we are over a year later and DHS has done nothing!  They have yet to publish their rules and they have not begun to accept public comments nor made any announcement to indicate that they intend to do so.

Please sign the public petition to help push the TSA to do what it was ordered to do and what it should have done in the first place.  The public deserves to have their voice heard. 

We are down to the wire on this petition and lack only 9,000 signatures. Yes, you have to register to sign this and that is a pain but please take the time to register so that you can sign.  We have just 2 weeks left to get the remaining signatures needed!

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/require-transportation-security-administration-follow-law/tffCTwDd

Please share this information with your friends on Facebook, twitter and through email.

Thanks!

You are being tracked-the National Vehicle Location Service

Kaye Beach

April 1, 2012

You know what would really be disturbing?  If all of the ALPR (Automatic License Plate Recognition) tag scanning cameras (both public and private) were taking all of the millions of tags that they were capturing indiscriminately and uploading them into a searchable,  central database.  Remember that ALPR systems not only collect the tag number of the vehicle but also the exact time and location of the vehicle.  Now THAT would be very disturbing!    We could effectively be tracked wherever we go.

As a Los Angeles Police Department Chief of Detectives explained, “the real value” of ALPR “comes from the long-term investigative uses of being able to track [all] vehicles—where they’ve been and what they’ve been doing.” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1956787

Well, they ARE doing it.  Want to see how many?

National LPR database counter

What is NVLS?

NVLS stands for National Vehicle Location Service and is a service delivered in conjunction with National Vehicle Service – NVS (http://www.nvsliens.org/) to LEA’s via the NLETS messaging system. The LPR data delivered as part of the NVLS web portal comes from a nationwide LPR data repository managed by Vigilant Video containing both private and publicly gathered LPR data.

Read more
Take a look at Vigilant Video’s PowerPoint;

NVLS_Tier_I_R1

Naturally, the first I heard of it was through the International Association of Chiefs of Police in their agenda for what I call The IACP’s Big Brother Fest 2010. (They have one every year)  If you are feeling brave,  take a look for yourself.   Forewarned is forearmed.

Here is a great article about Vigilant Video’s incredible new service.

Private company hoarding license-plate data on US drivers

January 12, 2012 | G.W. Schulz

Capitalizing on one of the fastest-growing trends in law enforcement, a private California-based company has compiled a database bulging with more than 550 million license-plate records on both innocent and criminal drivers that can be searched by police.

The technology has raised alarms among civil libertarians, who say it threatens the privacy of drivers. It’s also evidence that 21st-century technology may be evolving too quickly for the courts and public opinion to keep up.

. . .Meanwhile, police around the country have been affixing high-tech scanners to the exterior of their patrol cars, snapping a picture of every passing license plate and automatically comparing them to databases of outstanding warrants, stolen cars and wanted bank robbers.

The units work by sounding an in-car alert if the scanner comes across a license plate of interest to police, whereas before, patrol officers generally needed some reason to take an interest in the vehicle, like a traffic violation.

But when a license plate is scanned, the driver’s geographic location is also recorded and saved, along with the date and time, each of which amounts to a record or data point. Such data collection occurs regardless of whether the driver is a wanted criminal, and the vast majority are not.

While privacy rules restrict what police can do with their own databases, Vigilant Video, headquartered in Livermore, Calif., offers a loophole. It’s a private business not required to operate by those same rules.

Read More

Pre-Crime Detection Scanners Coming Soon…

Kaye Beach

Dec 7, 2011

Barring legal hurdles and adverse public response, this is what we have to look forward to.  I have little faith that legal hurdles will trip this program up.  It is up to us to provide a public response that will stop DHS and its spy machines that scrutinize us with cameras, sniff us, detect our heart rate, respiration and gender, and decide whether or not we are naughty or nice by algorithm.

From the SEO Law Firm Legal News Center;

Pre-Crime Detection Scanners Heighten Legal and Scientific Debates

By Krystina Steffen, staff writer – November 17, 2011

The Department of Homeland Security has already successfully tested a pre-crime detection scanner on humans. Barring the legal hurdles and public response once this is officially unveiled, these scanners will gauge facial expressions and other biometric data to detect if someone is giving cues for mal-intent. [1] The DHS’ algorithm also includes scanning a person’s gender, ethnicity, breathing, and heart rate in a non-intrusive way via video and audio scanning. The DHS would like to utilize this technology not only at airports, but in bigger settings such as sporting events, border checkpoints, and more.

As society gets acclimated to full body scanners at many U.S. airports, it begs the question of having scanning in more facets of our life. Remote sensors could become a reality to track our eye movement, thermal cameras could target our respiration, and high-resolution videos could detect a whisper or subtle movements of the eyebrow. Pheromone detection is also on the table. [2]

Read more

Prison-Yard America

10-17-2011  •  Future of Freedom Foundation/Wendy McElroy 

Since September, a public-school district in Florida has been taking fingerprint scans at the entrance to schools as a way to monitor attendance. The scans are compared against a database of students to detect truants. As in most highly intrusive school policies, parents are thrown a bone of control by allowing them to request an “opt out” for their children. An opted-out student needs to pursue a teacher and go through a special sign-in every day. In terms of time, convenience, and avoidance of stigma, students have a strong incentive to comply quietly.

But the current scanner setup is not efficient enough; the location makes it “difficult to keep track of every student.” And so the district is experimenting with supplementary scanners on the school buses that almost every student uses.

The schools’ superintendent, Sandra Cook, acknowledges that the transition has not been easy. Why not? Have parents complained about the Orwellian violation of children’s privacy? Are they outraged by the state’s assumption that children’s fingerprints are state property unless objections are raised?

TV station WJHG explains, “One of the biggest challenges they’ve faced is where to put the devices on the buses. State safety codes require the aisles to be kept completely clear, so one of the ideas they’ve discussed is to put a laptop on one side of the steering wheel and the finger scan system on the other.” The discussion revolves, not around rights, but around technical issues.

 Read more

Will Rogers World Airport to Install Body Scanners

Kaye Beach

Sept. 25, 2011

The Will Rogers World Airport is expecting to receive it’s naked body scanners soon.

Body scanners produce detailed, three-dimensional images of individuals. Security experts have described whole body scanners as the equivalent of “a physically invasive strip-search.” EPIC

From the Journal Record Sept 12, 2011;

. . . Tulsa was one of the first airports to receive the new technology at the time. Higgins confirmed that some travelers expressed concern or outrage that strangers with the federal government were invading their privacy by studying their bodies. Read more

The scanners are expected to be installed at Will Rogers World Airport before the end of the year.  But these scanners,  we are assured, will be less naked-izing that previous versions.

Promises, promises

In 2009 the TSA assured us that

“these technologies cannot save, print, or transmit images.”

And those assertions have proved to be patently, provably FALSE.

Information obtained through a FOIA request showed that the machines are able to store and transmit the raw images by design and furthermore this capability was required by the TSA.

Not only are the images capable of being kept,we know they have been.

Leaked Images Belie Our Implicit Pact with TSA  Gizmodo’s Joel Johnson writes, “At the heart of the controversy over ‘body scanners’ is a promise: The images of our naked bodies will never be public.” But the Florida marshals who saved 35,000 of those images, suggesting that promise may be a lie. “That we can see these images today almost guarantees that others will be seeing similar images in the future. If you’re lucky, it might even be a picture of you or your family.”

Really, do official assurances of anything mean anything after so many of them have turned out to be lies?

So, rather than your nekked body in ll it’s bald and bluish glory, the new software, we are told, will generate an image of a fully clothed, generic, genderless cartoon figure.
Will Rogers World Airport spokeswoman Karen Carney says she expects that the new and improved body scanners will be accepted by the public. (Read more from the Journal Record published Sept. 19, 2011)

Modesty aside, there are health, safety and questions about effectiveness surrounding the devices that have not yet been satisfactorily answered.

EPIC v. DHS Lawsuit — FOIA’d Documents Raise New Questions About Body Scanner Radiation Risks : In a FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, EPIC has just obtained documents concerning the radiation risks of TSA’s airport body scanner program. The documents include agency emails, radiation studies, memoranda of agreement concerning radiation testing programs, and results of some radiation tests. One document set reveals that even after TSA employees identified cancer clusters possibly linked to radiation exposure, the agency failed to issue employees dosimeters – safety devices that could assess the level of radiation exposure. Another document indicates that the DHS mischaracterized the findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, stating that NIST “affirmed the safety” of full body scanners. The documents obtained by EPIC reveal that NIST disputed that characterization and stated that the Institute did not, in fact, test the devices. Also, a Johns Hopkins University study revealed that radiation zones around body scanners could exceed the “General Public Dose Limit.” For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security – Full Body Scanner Radiation Risks and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program). (Jun. 24, 2011)

Some countries have rejected the machines entirely and even scoffed at the machines, saying that they simply aren’t worth it.

For example;

Full-Body Scanners Don’t Work, Israeli Security Expert Says

The whole program has been plagued with problems from start to finish.

Federal Appeals Court: TSA Violated Federal Law, Must Take Public Comment on Body Scanners: As a result of a lawsuit brought by EPIC, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the TSA violated federal law when it installed body scanners in airports for primary screening across the country without first soliciting public comment. The Administrative Procedure Act requires federal agencies to provide notice and opportunity for comment when implementing a rule that affects the rights of the public. Writing for a unanimous court, Judge Ginsburg found there was “no justification for having failed to conduct a notice-and-comment rulemaking,” and said, “few if any regulatory procedures impose directly and significantly upon so many members of the public.”

EPIC’s brief alleged that airport body scanners are “invasive, unlawful, and ineffective,” and that the TSA’s deployment of the devices for primary screening violated the U.S. Constitution and several federal statutes. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS and EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology. Press Release. (Jul. 15, 2011)

So the TSA unlawfully implemented the body scanning program, lied to the public about the capabilities of the machines, lied about safety testing, may be overstating the detection abilities but now we are supposed to be pacified by some supposed “privacy enhancing” software?

Oh, and did I mention the mobile naked body scanners that may be coming to a mall or highway near you?

DHS Refuses to Disclose Details of Mobile Body Scanner Technology: New documents released by the Department of Homeland Security to EPIC indicate the the agency continues to hide details about body scanners. In November 2010, EPIC filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the agency regarding the deployment of body scanners in surface transit and street-roving vans. In its latest document release the agency supplied several papers that were completely redacted. As a result of the agency’s failure to comply with the Freedom of Information Act, EPIC has filed suit to force disclosure of the records. For more information, see: EPIC: Body Scanner Technology and EPIC: FOIA Note #20. (Aug. 17, 2011)

Digital nudity and health risks are what we are asked to trade for dubious security value but the nekked scanners do make some people smile..

SIEGEL: In your current role as a consultant, do you have an interest in body scanners?

Mr. CHERTOFF: You know, I, to be – we consult with all kinds of firms including firms that you manufacture body scanners.

SIEGEL: You do have some interest in…

Mr. CHERTOFF: Correct. That’s correct.

SIEGEL: …in more sales of body scanners.

Mr. CHERTOFF: As well as a lot of other security measures.

NPR Dec. 29, 2009

Body Scanners Create Profits for Chertoff and Others

No, No- A thousand times NO! 

There is no satisfying the governments need to watch, track, scrutinize and control every facet of our lives.  Whatever we give up, they will always want more.

If you have an opinion on this you should share it with Will Rogers World Airport.

Karen Carney  405.316.3262 

Email:  karen.carney@okc.gov


TSA Denies Naked Machine Radiation Level Testing for Workers

Kaye Beach

July 6, 2011

 

Kids Are Giving Oklahoma Schools the Finger

Kaye Beach

12/7/2010

There it is!

Parents report that finger scanning has been implemented in Putnam City Schools.

“A computerized cashiering system is used for all students in middle school cafeterias. This system, known as “biometrics,” allows your child to access his or her meal account by touching a finger to a small scanner at the cafeteria cash register. Students will have their finger scanned and the system will create a template based on the scan. Students will no longer be required to carry meal cards.”

Why has the school decided to implement finger scanning?  Apparently to make the lunch lines faster.

“The real plus of this system is that while students’ meal cards can be misplaced or loaned to friends, fingers cannot. Using a touchpad scanner means every time students step up to the cafeteria cash register, they’re good to go,” says Jennifer Strong, the district’s director of Child Nutrition.

Read More

The collection of biometric data is an extremely sensitive matter and nothing less than fully informed active consent should be acceptable.  Active consent is when the parent must grant permission in writing before their child is allowed to participate in something, passive consent means if the parent does nothing, it is assumed  that permission is granted.

Putnam City Schools say that;

Parents who prefer that their students use the meal card system rather than the biometric system may contact the cafeteria to opt out of the biometric system. In this case, students must carry their meal cards in order to access their cafeteria accounts. Read More

Parents may also “opt out” by signing this form and returning it to the school.

The schools and the vendors assure  parents that the scanners pose no security or privacy risks to children.

It’s not the scanners I’m worried about, is the people in charge of administering the system.  I also don’t fear guns jumping up and shooting me but I do keep a close eye on the person handling it.

Sodexo, a food service provider, is the corporation running the finger scanning operation in Oklahoma and in other states has a less than stellar record regarding safety.

SodexoFood Safety:

Bad Burgers Make Metro Students Sick

Posted at 11:02 AM on January 17, 2006

ChannelOklahoma.com reports that several metro middle school students were sick Friday night after eating food that had been left out since before Christmas.

Read More

OSHA Fines New Jersey School Contractor Sodexo for Serious Safety Hazards

SOUTH PLAINFIELD, N.J., July 23 – SOUTH PLAINFIELD, N.J., July 23 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has fined Sodexo, one of the state’s largest school contractors, for nine serious safety hazards that endangered workers and could have harmed students in the South Plainfield School District.

Read More

Nov. 2007

BATAVIABatavia school administrators are considering ending their contract with food-services provider Sodexho after a child sex offender was found working in two school kitchens last week.

READ MORE

Sodexo Busted for Overcharging Scheme-

ATTORNEY GENERAL CUOMO ANNOUNCES $20 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH FOOD SERVICES COMPANY FOR OVERCHARGING NEW YORK SCHOOLS

Settlement part of ongoing, industry-wide investigation

http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2010/july/july21a_10.html

Sodexo. not surprisingly, is also pretty laid back when it comes to collecting your kids’ biometrics;

Sodexo  Cottonwood-Oak Creek School District’s new food service contractor violated state law when it collected fingerprints from students

Monday, Aug. 16 2010

Arizona law forbids schools from collecting “biometric information,” including finger scans, without proper advance notice and written consent from parents.

Read more

These stories are just a sampling of the problems with Sodexo.

The schools tell parents;

“This system is very secure and can only be used for identification in the school cafeteria. It does not store fingerprints or images of the fingerprint.”

I have no specific knowledge of the system they are using so I can’t refute or affirm these claims.  I do know a bit about biometrics and identification systems as well as the governmental policies in place regarding the use of biometrics and this much I know this much for sure;   our government is hell bent on collecting our biometrics.  They have been working diligently on database interoperability (ensuring that various systems are using a universal language  so that they can “talk” to one another)

They don’t simply want the biometric (technically, they use the “template” of the biometric), they want the associated biographical data as well and  are moving into an access controlled society and your biometrics data is the preferred credential.

In order to access a given place, service or good first your credentials or ID must be checked to determine if you are authorized access.  Just like the kiddo’s lining up to scan then eat.  By the way, this is great training for them to accept a numbered, cashless society without a fuss.

Here’s the problem.  If some authority has the power to permit access then they also have the power to deny access.  With biometrics, your body is your ID.

Recently I read an article where a former  East German lady was being interviewed about life before the wall came down.  She was asked why German’s didn’t raise a ruckus when Checkpoint Charlie went up.  She said because they always let everyone pass…until one day they didn’t.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/44675297/Sensor-Nets-the-Business-of-Surveillance

Every time you are ID’d you are at a checkpoint but with this technology there are no papers involved, the effect is exactly the same.  The reality is that you will pass only if the authority approves your credentials and guess what?  They get to set the criteria for who is allowed to pass and they can also change that criteria at any time.

Right now it is simply for lunchroom ID but in short order the ID system will expand and when it does they will begin to make the databases interoperable.  I mean, why have a separate system for the bus and the library?  Just combine the data systems and make one database for the whole school.

Then the separate school systems may as well combine because there will be some crossover services between schools like busing to ball games.  There will also be more and more electronic services like tele-classes, virtual library borrowing and don’t forget health care which is rapidly moving into the school systems.  So school wide, district wide statewide and nationwide interoperable databases are becoming be a must. 

How do I know?

Because I am watching the same thing happen with data systems everyday. 

Separate data bases are referred to as “silos” by our government and corporations who really want to gain access to as much of our information as possible. They want to break down these silos, and they are doing it.  Public schools are NO exception!  In fact, we are moving to common data standards systems right now for the express purpose of combining multiple student information data sets into one national data warehouse.


The Schools Interoperability Framework (SIF)

SIF is not a product, but an industry initiative that enables diverse applications to interact and share data. As of March 2007, SIF is estimated to have been used in more than 48 states and 6 countries, supporting five million students

SIF-Breaking Down Silos

“We recognized that only through some kind of integration system could we effectively manage these expanding stores of siloed data,” he says. “[No Child Left Behind] would later emerge as a driver of this integration, but just the notion of systemic use of the information was appealing. It became clear that we couldn’t leave it all in silos. The creation of the SIF specification solved that problem. In fact, it was created to do just that.” Read More

Facts:

•Oklahoma is the first state to become fully SIF compliant
•Oklahoma is the first state to do so legislatively.
70 OKLA. STAT. tit. 70, § 3-161 (2007), available at http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/OK_Statutes/CompleteTitles/os70.rtf (Student Tracking and Reporting (STAR) Pilot Program)

SIF Category Information (the info they are collecting and sharing now)

“SIF is interested in internationalising the specification. This of course expands the marketplace for vendors who have implemented SIF-enabled products”–from the Report on the Schools Interoperability Framework (SIF) 2003

Our financial records, health records and driving records are all separate systems and this is good!  With our information safely ensconced in “silos” Only the people that need to know a specific piece of information about you see that information.  Put ALL of that info together and what happens if it gets stolen or compromised?

But don’t take my word for it, listen to Zbigniew:


“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society.  Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. […] The capacity to assert social and political control over the individual will vastly increase.  It will soon be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and to maintain up-to-date, complete files, containing even most personal information about the health or personal behavior of the citizen in addition to more customary data.

These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”
-Zbigniew Brzezinski

another quote:

“We need to take very great care not to fall into a way of life in which freedom’s back is broken by the relentless pressure of a security State.” Sir Ken Macdonald QC, Director of Public Prosecutions (2003-2008)

Personally, I don’t want any part of it.

Senators ask Marshals Service why it stores images of full-body scans

By Katherine McIntire Peters and Aliya Sternstein 08/20/2010

Unhappy Senate lawmakers have asked the U.S. Marshals Service, an arm of the Justice Department, to explain why it has stored more than 35,000 whole body imaging scans taken at a federal courthouse in Florida.

In an Aug. 19 letter to the agency, Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said they were concerned individuals’ privacy might be compromised. The advanced imaging technology used during security screening procedures at the federal courthouse in Orlando “are able to scan through clothing and capture detailed images of the bodies of those who are scanned,” the lawmakers said in the letter.

Read More

‘The Naked Truth about TSA’s Naked Body Scanners’

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!

Campaign to Stop Whole Body Imaging “Naked Scans” at Airports

Stop TSA Scanners

TSA Scan This

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;

TSA: “I thought maybe you might be representing a terrorist organization”

**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

Full “Dis-Clothes-ure”

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

A4L_2010-08-06_128k.mp3

A4L_2010-08-06_16k.mp3

AxXiom for Liberty airs every Friday from 6-8 pm CST on

www.RuleofLawRadio.com

‘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 [1]” 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.”

Read More

____________________________________________

Recently updated list of Airport that use the scanners

You will find full-body scanners at the following US airports:

http://www.jaunted.com/story/2010/7/15/173456/975/travel/Updated:+Airports+With+Full-Body+Scanners

____________________________________________________

SHOW NOTES

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;

A4L_2010-08-06_128k.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.

450 Additional airports to get full-body scanners, feds say

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

Read more

Body Scanner Manufacturer Accompanies Obama on Trip to India

November 14, 2010

———————————-

EPIC Sues Dept. of Homeland Security, Demands Additional Documents About Airport Body Scanners

Sec. Napolitano says airport full-body scanners ‘do not see everything’

DHS-You Lie! Naked Body Scanners cannot “store or record images”

Peek-a- Boo! “Naked Machines” Can Record, Store and Transmit Images

‘Naked machines’ headed for airports Oklahoma Watchdog Reports

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

Senators ask Marshals Service why it stores images of full-body scans

November 2010-

The Latest from EPIC- the Electronic Privacy Information Foundation

EPIC Says TSA’s Program Violates Travelers’ Right

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?

The latest;

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.

Read more

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.”

Truth-

Documents obtained from the TSA show that the agency specifications require the machines to have the ability to store and transmit images

Truth-

-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

Truth

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.

TRUTH

-EPIC states;

-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:
http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/…d_patdown.shtm

_____________________________________________________

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.

Balderdash!

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.

Read More

TRUTH

EPIC states;

-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.

TRUTH-

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.

Read  More

-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

AxXiom forLiberty

www.RuleofLawRadio.com