Loss of Privacy

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.

Despite the fact that most citizens do no want internet monitoring, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano continues to claim that it is needed to prevent terrorism and she believes that the trade-off with respect to civil liberties is worth it. Napolitano believes that a balance can be found and that the government needs to continue its pursuit of terrorists especially now that homegrown American terrorists are appearing more frequently.

“The First Amendment protects radical opinions, but we need the legal tools to do things like monitor the recruitment of terrorists via the Internet,” Napolitano told a gathering of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.

Napolitano said it is wrong to believe that if security is embraced, liberty is sacrificed.
She added, “We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable.”

As an example, she noted the struggle to use full-body scanners at airports caused worries that they would invade people’s privacy.

The scanners are useful in identifying explosives or other nonmetal weapons that ordinary metal-detectors might miss — such as the explosives that authorities said were successfully brought on board the Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day by Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

One major problem with the full body scanners is that, despite the administration’s constant nagging that the scans can’t be saved, we know that they can be. Our constitutional rights also allow us to say we do not want to go through the scanners and would rather have a pat down.

The Constitution and our form of government was created to protect our civil rights and civil liberties from a government that would prefer to keep tabs on every aspect of every citizens’ lives.

If we continue to erode civil liberties in this country, we might as well just dig up Joe McCarthy and ask him for some tips on how to control the citizenry. The Bush administration said that the Patriot Act was necessary for the same reasons. We had to find the terrorists whether they were here or abroad.

This same story keeps getting pushed more and more over the past few months, which makes one begin to wonder why it’s so important. The smart “terrorists” will, of course, use codes or stay off the internet completely. The government won’t be able to stop those that are truly determined. What will happen is people will feel safe in yet more security theater while the government starts to monitor any website they deem to be anti-government. This is how it always works. It doesn’t matter which party has the power, they all do the same thing.

After spending several hours searching for which airports are using full body scanners and what the rules are, the list below details my results. The fact is, most airport websites are useless when giving the information. Schiphol airport has a nice brochure outlining what they’re doing, but most of the information I found comes from various news sites.  Many EU states appear to be waiting for a concise response from the EU Parliament and then issue a united answer.

It appears that nearly everyone is thinking of or already has installed full body scanners. The differences is the type of scanner and whether it’s compulsory or not. Nearly all countries state that they are only doing this on flights to the United States.

The United States has also installed full body scanners at most of their major airports, though, under US law, everyone is supposed to have the option of a pat down as well.

Australia – body scanners will be introduced by early 2011
Belgium – waiting for EU decision
Canada – all airports to get scanners, in Vancouver, US bound passengers are to be targeted first, but have the option of a pat down; suspicious domestic or international travelers will be required to have a full body scan Winnipeg also offers the option of a pat down
China – hasn’t ruled them out, hasn’t decided whether to use them or not
France Charles de Gaulle airport – passengers may request a manual check
Germany – summer 2010 will begin testing
Ireland – seem to be still debating on whether they even want scanners, cost appears to be an issue; nothing noted on the Dublin airport website
Italy – all passengers traveling to the United States would be scanned.  I could not find if this is mandatory or not.
Japan – still deciding if they want them
The Netherlands – at Schiphol you can choose a body scan or pat down. You can download a pdf brochure from Schiphol outlining the details
Nigeria – will be installing them; From the tone of the article, I’d guess they’d be compulsory when it happens.
Russia – body scanners in use in Moscow since 2007, can request a pat down
South Africa – not considering full body scanners at this time
Spain – waiting for EU decision
United Kingdom – all airports mandatory or you do not fly

EPIC: “Body Scanners and Privacy” from Kat Rodriguez on Vimeo.

Featuring:
James Bamford. Author, “The Shadow Factory”.

Monday January 25, 2010.
National Press Club

Organized by: The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). EPIC is a public policy research center in Washington, DC, focusing public attention on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues.

When the full body scanners go on trial next week at Heathrow airport, passengers will not have the choice given in America to have a pat down as they will be required to use the scanners or not fly at all. The UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission strongly advises against this as they consider it an invasion of privacy.

The airport’s owner, BAA, is preparing to install a scanner in each of its five ­terminals. The trials will use two different technologies that see through passengers’ clothing. One trial will involve “backscatter” technology, which exposes travellers to low-level x-rays. This is already in use at Manchester airport.

The second type of machine uses a “millimetre wave” system, which bounces radio waves off the human body to form a 3D image of the passenger. Both types of technology have raised privacy concerns owing to the graphic nature of the passenger images, with civil liberties campaigners calling the process “virtual strip-searching”.

The Department for Transport has drawn up a preliminary code of conduct for using the machines, and it will follow some guidelines used in the US. These state that the security officer guiding the passenger through the machine never sees the image, and that the employee viewing the scan must be based away from the passenger, in a secure room. The two officers communicate with wireless headsets; and, once viewed, the scan cannot be saved, printed or transmitted.

Virtual strip searches are never a good idea, especially when we now know that these images can be saved. The full body scanners will almost certainly break child porn laws in the United Kingdom as well.