Loss of Privacy

You may have the option to not use the full body scanners at the airport, but you may not have a say in being strip-searched without your knowledge. The SPO-7 is a new type of scanner now in place at several airports. Though they were tested in 2007 and 2008 in non-sterile areas of many airports, including Denver, most people don’t know what they look like or what they’re for.

Bradley International Airport in Hartford, CT is among the first to install and use this new scanner, called an SPO-7, which uses passive millimeter wave technology to “spot hidden objects on people as they move through the airport.” Oh yea, and TSA officers are also able to capture images of people using it. And you won’t know nor feel a thing as they do so.

While it is of little comfort that the scanners don’t use lasers or x-rays and they can’t see under your clothes, it is still highly disconcerting. The SPO-7 is being used as a pre-security tool in which they hope to stop security dangers before they reach the airplane. So, what’s the really scary part?

the machines will be manned by a small group of TSA agents, including a behavior detection officer “who is trained to look for physiological signs that could indicate that something is wrong.” We already have a guilty conscience (thanks, Catholic school!) and so now we’re destined to be nervous from the moment we enter the airport.

This isn’t going to make anyone feel any safer. It’s going to make things worse because people are going to be freaked out by the machines. Because the machines are movable, you don’t know where they are from day to day. Your anxiety will end up being a false positive result, causing you undo stress. While passive scans are preferable, one has to question why they are even necessary. One has to wonder just how far implied consent is going to be pushed and if the TSA is violating Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).



Complete with sexy body scanners.

Have you had a bad experience at the airport with full body scanners? You can make a report at EPIC.

EPIC is a public interest research center in Washington, D.C. It was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging civil liberties issues and to protect privacy, the First Amendment, and constitutional values.

EPIC relies on individual citizen support to keep fighting for your rights. They have also filed a lawsuit to stop the use of full body scanners.

Thieves robbed a manager’s office in Terminal A of Newark Liberty Airport on June 27, 2010 and we’re just now hearing about it. The Port Authority police want help finding the crooks, who made off with $20,000.

Canada has said that it is considering giving their flight information to the United States if one of their flights flies over US air space. Prime Minister Harper’s government is under fire for a new bill introduced into the House of Commons that would allow airlines to do just that. If passed into law, the USA would have final say on who could and could not board a plane in Canada.

“Canadian sovereignty has gone right out the window,” Liberal transport critic Joe Volpe told The Gazette in recent telephone interview. “You are going to be subject to American law.”

I tend to agree with Mr. Volpe. There is no reason why the Canadian government should permit such a thing.

Bill C-42 would comply with the U.S. Homeland Security’s Secure Flight program, which requires that airlines submit personal information about passengers 72 hours before a flight’s departure. Secure Flight has already been introduced for U.S. airlines, and Homeland Security wants to implement it internationally, including with Canadian airlines, by the end of this year.

If Bill C-42 passes, passengers leaving Montreal on a flight to Cuba or France, for example, while flying over the U.S., would have their name, birthdate and gender subject to screening by U.S. Homeland Security, which involves running that information through various government databases to determine whether there is a terrorist threat.

Volpe noted that Bill C-42 does not refer specifically to the United States, adding that “with a stroke of the pen” the government is agreeing to provide data on Canadian passengers to any foreign government.

This would set a dangerous precedent as Canadians could then, theoretically, be subject to laws of countries they never have any intention of flying to. It seems everyone is playing into the United States’ hands on security. They are allowing a foreign nation dictate who can and cannot fly on their planes.

The United States has agreed to erase after seven days passenger information “that is confirmed to not be linked with terrorism.”

Initially, the U.S. also wanted passenger information for domestic Canadian flights that crossed U.S. airspace.

Again, why are they keeping the information for seven days? If the passengers do not pose a threat, then there is no reason to keep the information longer than the flight time. Once the flight has landed, the USA doesn’t need the information. Given the fact that many databases are regularly backed up, you can be sure that your information will never truly be “erased.”

While it’s good that Canada said they couldn’t have access to passenger information for domestic Canadian flights, it takes a huge set of balls to even ask for it. This is the position America is taking and they are seeing just how far they can push the security theater envelope into getting the private data of a country.

If every country that the United States asks for this information would just send a resounding NO, then we wouldn’t even be in this position. The fact that anyone says yes or considers saying yes tells the United States that they have all the power and can run roughshod over other countries’ laws.

This is yet another case of enacting useless laws that don’t protect sovereignty or privacy. If it was so prudent for Canada to have such a law, why has the Harper government introduced it nine years after 9/11? If Canada and her flights over the USA were truly a danger to America, we would have known by now.

America is a vast and beautiful country. Her people are open and welcoming. It’s a shame that it’s run by ugly, cynical, untrustworthy people.