Loss of Privacy

The new administrator of the TSA, John Pistole, tried to address the issue of why we still need to keep the ban on liquids when we fly. His reasoning may have sounded plausible, until you read the comments. That’s where the truth lies.

The liquids rule continues to be a necessary step because current intelligence shows that liquids are still a threat, and until TSA has the technology to screen liquids at checkpoints, the only other alternative is to ban all liquids. We’re not going to do that. TSA is getting closer to finalizing upgraded software for X-rays that will allow liquids to be screened. Until this happens, we will continue with 3-1-1 to keep you safe when you fly.

Thus, Mr. Pistole claims all he is trying to do is keep Americans safe. Then, you start reading the comments.

If liquids are such a threat please explain how the TSA screens the tens of thousands of bottles of soda, water, and other beverages that are sold in airports?

Further, if liquids are such a threat, why is the threat disposed of without care or consideration in waste bins near the checkpoint? Surely explosive liquids disposed in such a way would pose a threat to at least as many people as a liquid bomb on a plane would.

I can go one step further by asking why my soda was such a threat that the TSA agent needed to remove it from my bag, then give it to another TSA agent, who opened it and promptly drank it before I was even out of eyesight.

You guys are completely useless. You serve no other purpose than to make naive people feel secure, and I don’t even think you do a great job of doing that.

Can’t say I disagree with this statement either.

If these liquids are such a threat then why are aircrew exempt from these same regulations?

Why does TSA violate EPA hazardous waste storage and disposal regulations by combining unknown and possibly explosive liquids in common trash containers.

How many ounces or baggies of liquid explosives has the TSA confiscated from terrorists over the last month? Over the last 6 months? Over the last year? Since the program’s inception?

Come to think of it, I’d like to know the answer to that too. The best comments, however, come from the user Adrian.

Terrorists have wanted to (and tried to) use liquid explosives for decades before the limits went into effect. One was actually detonated on a flight, killing one passenger in the mid 1990s. Why didn’t we overreact then?

Most explosives come in solid form, and there have been far more terrorist attacks using solid explosives. Why don’t we limit the amount of solids through the checkpoint?

The UK plot involving liquid explosives also depended upon a second (solid) explosive/detonator disguised as a AA battery. Why haven’t we banned all batteries from flights? Can the X-ray machine tell the difference between a real Duracell and an explosive wrapped to look like one?

The fact of the matter is, that solid or liquid, explosives require a detonator. Detonators are hard to get through the checkpoint because they look funny on x-rays and they set off the metal detectors. Some may even be detected by the random residue testing. That’s a big reason why Mr. Sizzlypants failed last Christmas. That is a security success. We don’t need absurd restrictions on liquids. (We also don’t need to waste hundreds of millions of dollars on privacy-invading whole-body imaging machines.) The only reason this stupidity isn’t undone, is that nobody wants to admit it was stupid.

And if that doesn’t explain why this is all security theater to you, well, you’re just too stupid to see it.

In what they call an effort to stop terrorism, the EU wants to install surveillance cameras on airplane flights.

Those people who plan to go off for a week in the sun could have their conversations and movements monitored while they’re flying due to a European Union project going ahead. The plan has alarmed civil liberties campaigners, who fear further growth in the surveillance state.

As usual, opinions are divided. Some air passengers see additional surveillance as interfering with their privacy, a sort of last line pushed in by regulations. Others say they have nothing to hide so it would not worry them personally.
Everyone has something to hide. Everyone. To suggest otherwise is, at this point either naïve or stupid.

The EU project is aimed at tackling terrorism, by analyzing the way passengers behave in a bid to isolate potential bombers or hijackers when they’re already on board. At the moment, surveillance on planes is mainly limited to a CCTV camera near the cockpit.

Behavior that the system will eventually be able to pick up includes sweating, moving around the cabin in an erratic way, and repeated visits to the toilet. Dr. James Ferryman insists it will distinguish between potential terrorists and nervous flyers.

This is, of course, if they even have someone manning the cameras in the first place. The logistics of having someone watch every single flight in the EU is astronomical and not economically feasible. In all likelihood, such an implementation would not be viewed in real time. It would, instead rely on a computer program designed to detect your behavior.

What a computer can’t decide is that the person is going to the bathroom to throw up repeatedly because they could be pregnant or have an anxiety to flying that causes them to vomit. Someone might have diarrhea. What are they supposed to do with the cameras? I suppose the response from the EU would be to sit and soil themselves repeatedly so they aren’t labeled a terrorist by some sterile computer system.

“It treats everyone as a suspect, and that completely contradicts one of the main tenets of democratic law, which is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty,” proclaimed the spokesperson for NO CCTV, Alex Tabor. “Continuing surveillance, mass surveillance – be it video, communications, whatever the many ways that seem to be creeping forward – completely goes against that.”

Every single person that has any sort of travel anxiety is going to be affected by this. You’re already treated like a criminal through the numerous checks on the ground. Now, suppose you fear flying. You’re sitting in your seat, trying not to vomit and freak out because you’re of this fear. Well, now you can add the extra fear that you’re going to be fingered as a terrorist because of it.

And what if they do identify you as a terrorist thousands of feet in the air? Are they going to turn back? Are they going to wait until they land to take you into custody and interrogate you? What, exactly is the point? If you truly are a terrorist and have managed to get past the numerous security checks that are supposed to stop you before you board the plane, what use is identifying you then? If the plane turns back, you simply start your “terror” prematurely and if they don’t turn back, you proceed with your plan as usual.

So this plan for CCTV really accomplishes nothing other than more security theater and to put fear into those who are already anxious to begin with.

You can read a detailed description of what happened to Robert Phillips and the weird disappearance of Dave Vasey’s charges.

From CBS News:

About 80 miles from the U.S.-Mexican border in Arizona, the desert has become a battlefield for armed civilian patrols who claim they are ready to kill drug smugglers crossing the border. Steven Fabian reports.

Read more here and here. 

From EPIC:

On July 20, 2010, the Department of Homeland Security announced a substantial change in the deployment of body scanners in US airports. According to the DHS Secretary, the devices, which had once been part of a pilot program for seconary screening, will now be deployed in 28 additional airports. The devices are designed to capture and store photographic images of naked air travelers. EPIC has filed an emergency motion in federal court, urging the suspension of the program and citing violations of several federal statutes and the Fourth Amendment. Public opposition to the program is also growing. For more information, see EPIC v. DHS (Body scanners) and EPIC Body Scanners.