Big Brother Watch

USA to begin body-scanning pedestrians?

Over at Forbes, there's a truly alarming write-up of documents uncovered by our friends at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which reveal a TSA Research Proposal to Body-Scan pedestrians and train passengers:

Giving Transportation Security Administration agents a peek under your clothes may soon be a practice that goes well beyond airport checkpoints. Newly uncovered documents show that as early as 2006, the Department of Homeland Security has been planning pilot programs to deploy mobile scanning units that can be set up at public events and in train stations, along with mobile x-ray vans capable of scanning pedestrians on city streets.

The documents, obtained from the Department of Homeland Security, show that from 2006 to 2008 the agency planned a study of of new anti-terrorism technologies that EPIC believes raise serious privacy concerns:

The projects range from “a walk through x-ray screening system that could be deployed at entrances to special events or other points of interest” to “covert inspection of moving subjects” employing the same backscatter imaging technology currently used in American airports.

Nice.

The 173-page collection of contracts and reports, acquired through a Freedom of Information Act request, includes contracts with Siemens Corporations, Northeastern University, and Rapiscan Systems. The study was expected to cost more than $3.5 million.

One project (allocated to Northeastern University and Siemens) would mount backscatter x-ray scanners and video cameras on roving vans, along with other cameras on buildings and utility poles, to monitor groups of pedestrians, assess what they carried, and even track their eye movements.

In another program, the researchers were asked to develop a system of long range x-ray scanning to determine what metal objects an individual might have on his or her body at distances up to thirty feet.

Forbes says:

1) It’s not clear to what degree the technologies outlined in the DHS documents have been implemented.

2) Multiple contacts at the DHS public affairs office didn’t respond to a request for comment Wednesday afternoon.

In August of last year, Joe Reiss, the vice president of marketing of security contractor American Sciences & Engineering told Forbes that the company had sold more than 500 of its backscatter x-ray vans to governments around the world, including some deployed in the U.S. Those vans are capable of scanning people, the inside of cars and even  the internals of some buildings while rolling down public streets. Reiss admitted that the van scans do penetrate clothing.

Check out the full documents over at the Forbes write-up...

By Alex Deane

Hat-tip: IM

 

Airport scanners useless

Following on from the news that Manchester Airport has been forced to turn off its facial recognition scanners after they were unable to tell the difference between a man and a woman, body scanners have run into the same difficulties.

According to reports in the US, an undercover security agent working for the Transportation Security Administration was able to get through security at Dallas International Airport with a handgun during testing of the enhanced-imaging body scanners

So, not only are these body scanners overly intrusive and potentially dangerous - they also don't actually do anything to enhance the safety of airline passengers.

Hat-tip: DA

EU committee critical of body scanners

At Big Brother Watch, we have long campaigned against the use of dangerous and overly intrusive body scanners in airports and other public places.

While the US Allied Pilots Association, world’s largest association of pilots has announced a boycott of full body scanners at airports on the basis of health fears, scanners have to date avoided drawing the same level of controversy in Europe. 

That was at least, until the latest meeting of the European Commission's Economic and Social Committee which this week outlined concerns about the limited ability of the scanners to actually improve passenger security, their impact on personal privacy and health implications associated with their use.

While the committee's report is likely to receive limited coverage in the the United Kingdom - or indeed in any of the EU's other twenty-six member states - it is encouraging that a full and frank debate is now taking place about their use. 

Click here for the full piece.

Judge blocks investigations into body scanners

Regular visitors to the Big Brother Watch blog will know that we have been active in opposing the use of body scanners in airports.  In particular, we have raised serious concerns about the retention and misuse of photographs captured by the machines.

When seeking to defend the use of body scanners, airports have often been quick to state that images from the machines are discarded immediately after they were captured in order to protect the privacy of travellers.

According to US news report, a judge's response to a complaint by the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center will allow the Department of Homeland Security will be allowed "to keep from public view the naked body images of air passengers who were screened at airport checkpoints". 

The ruling means that civil liberties advocates will be unable to ascertain exactly what kind of information is being recorded by passengers - essentially giving the Homeland Security Department free reign to snoop as they wish without the full weight of public scrutiny upon them.

Click here for the full story.

Scientists warn Obama on body scanners

It might be a new year, but Big Brother Watch won't be giving up our campaign against the use of intrustive body scanners... 

In a letter to President Obama's science and technology advisor John Holdren, four University of San Francisco professors who are experts in biophysics, imaging, and cancer have expressed concern over the potential for severe health effects due to whole body back scatter X-ray airport security scanners. They call for an urgent review of the safety of these devices, which they argue have not been adequately evaluated for human safety.

The letter states:

"We are writing to call your attention to serious concerns about the potential health risks of the recently adopted whole body backscatter X-ray airport security scanners. This is an urgent situation as these X-ray scanners are rapidly being implemented as a primary screening step for all air travel passengers.

"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.

"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.

"...we urge you to empower an impartial panel of experts to reevaluate the potential health issues we have raised before there are irrevocable long-term consequences to the health of our country. These negative effects may on balance far outweigh the potential benefit of increased detection of terrorists."

Click here to read the full letter. 

Hat-tip: DA

Last minute gift idea: the Playmobil Security Check Point

With only a few hours left until to do your Christmas shopping, we would like to introduce you to the Playmobil Security Check Point:

No, it's not a joke: this little piece of surveillance hell really can be yours by clicking here.

In fairness, even the manufacturer appears to see the funny side, posting this tongue-in-cheek product description online:

"The woman traveler stops by the security checkpoint. After placing her luggage on the screening machine, the airport employee checks her baggage. The traveler hands her spare change and watch to the security guard and proceeds through the metal detector. With no time to spare, she picks up her luggage and hurries to board her flight! "

The real treat, however, is found in Amazon's Customer Review section.

Highlights include:

"This toy would be a lot more realistic with about 350 people standing in line for an average of an hour. It still makes a nice set with the interrogation room"

"This is just a sop to the authoritarians among us. I am holding out for the release of the Guantanemo Playset. Hopefully this will come with an extrordinary rendition option"

"I here Playmobil is coming out with a waterboarding torture set. I think I'll wait for that and buy them together to save on shipping"

"This toy is a wonderful start but...I think expansion packs would really increase the enjoyment. Could you imagine the fun kids could have with the "Mother forced to drink bottled breast milk to prove it's not explosive" expansion, the "What do you mean I'm the No-Fly List?" and especially the "Body Cavity Search, Wait, What?" set."

"This is a great product, but it has several shortcomings. It's a shame that Playmobil has allowed itself to be swayed by the ultra-liberal political correctness mongers. When I opened the box I was dismayed to find that all of the characters in the set are Caucasian.  We all know that only people named Muhammad, Khalil, Ahmed and Haji are selected for the random security search. I was really looking forward to my 3 year old daughter getting use from that small tube of KY jelly and that latex glove that fits the female security guard with the short-chunky hair-cut."

View the full selection of comments here.

The British Airline Pilots' Association and body scanners - no news is bad news

Readers will remember that early in November I wrote to the British Airline Pilots' Association about the Association's policy on body scanners, given the boycott that had been announced by the Allied Pilots' Association (the largest such association in the world).

You can read it for yourself, but I think it's fair to say that my letter was reasoned, polite, considered and asked questions about a key subject for their members - a number of whom have been in touch with BBW about their privacy or health concerns.

Just thought I'd keep you updated - alas, effectively, there is no update. We have yet to hear back from BALPA. The Association, that supposedly represents the interests of their members, have yet to find the time to respond on this, perhaps the biggest issue in their patch at present, to us, the (ahem, he said immodestly) foremost critics of scanners and, I daresay, the only ones to bother to write to them about it.

Perhaps in the New Year, eh..?

By Alex Deane

Canadian privacy watchdog to investigate passenger treatment

Over the past few months, Big Brother Watch has received many complaints from members of the public about their treatment at airports around the world. In one distressing case, a seven year old girl was so traumatised her experience of heavy-handed airport security staff that she is now afraid to fly.

As such, the announcement this morning that the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority is to conduct a "sweeping audit to find out whether the federal government is doing enough to protect the privacy of air travellers".

Perhaps the Coalition Government might consider holding a similar such review here in the UK?

Click here for the full story.

Ifs and butts

Asking men of all shapes and sizes to undress probably isn’t most people’s idea of a good day out, but, for airport security staff it comes with the territory… However, what if this frigid monotony could be shattered with the aid of a body scanner? What if a smouldering former Baywatch actress just happened to ooze into the departure lounge? Yes, you guessed it, Donna D’errico has accused airport officials of singling her out for a body scan on account of her dynamite assets and perilous loins.

Since the introduction of body scanners last year BBW have questioned the health implications, privacy concerns, misuse and overall effectiveness of body scanners. Miss D'errico's concerns mirror those of many passengers who, short of choosing not to fly, are given two of the least desirable options you will ever face, a full ‘naked’ scan, or an intrusive pat down. D’errico claims she was not even given this lamentable alternative and was simply directed to the scanner.

The former on screen lifesaver commented:

"It is my personal belief that they pulled me aside because they thought I was attractive," she said.

"After the search, I noticed that the male TSA agent who had pulled me out of line was smiling and whispering with two other TSA agents and glancing at me. I was outraged."

Thousands of passengers have to endure this violation when they fly and this is just another example that highlights the potential for exploiting a technology that fails on so many levels.

By James Stannard.

US Senator plots body scanner privacy law

Over the last few weeks, this blog has often touched upon the heated political debate in the United States surrounding the issue of airport body scanners. Indeed, public discussion of intrusive nature of this technology has been considerably more widespread in the US than here in the United Kingdom.

US Senator Chuck Schumer, who is likely to be the next leader of the Democratic caucus in the Senate, has moved forward with a bill that "would make the recording or distribution of images taken by the machines a federal crime".  Under his proposed legislation, infringing this law would result in a prison term of up to a year and a maximum fine of $100,000.

Commenting on his proposal, Schumer said:

"As we put in place new technologies to detect and capture those who wish to harm us, we need to do everything we can to protect the privacy rights of the air travelers.

"This new law will send a loud and clear message to the flying public. Not only will we do everything we can to protect your safety, but the government should do everything it can to protect your privacy as well. And as you know, most Americans have said they're willing to accept new screening procedures if it means increased safety".

Click here to view the full article.

Aviation industry warned of scanner fear

Woman wears bikini to pass airport security

Of course when they say ‘LAX security’ they mean Los Angeles International Airport, not that security guards were remiss...

Hat-tip: EB

Are Republicans doing a David Davis?

One of the more amusing episodes to come out of the appalling assault on air travellers’ rights in the US was the Transportation Security Administration’s counter-proposal.

They offered to demonstrate the sexually-explicit ‘pat-down’ technique on any legislator. Some, after all, don’t have to undergo them. I don’t know about you, but if I were a seventy-year-old Senator, I wouldn’t be too keen on a TSA officer giving me the grope.

Far from just being personally offensive to America’s ageing statesmen, it’s taken on a party-political aspect. Now, it’s Republicans arguing we’ve given up too much of our liberty for little security. As unbelievable as that may be. Republican congressman John Mica co-created the TSA – he now regrets it. So too do Senator George LeMieux and Senator-elect Rand Paul, Jimmy Duncan, and a host of other Republican representatives. Ever at the barricades, Ron Paul has proposed an ‘American Traveler Dignity Act’: banning federal agents from being more… ‘intimate’ than any of us can.

David Davis’s resignation ignited and united a hesitant Conservative grassroots against intrusion into our private lives here. So, too, might these few incidents move the great unreconstructed Republicans in the right direction. As Dan recognised last month, there’s a long way to go. It’s the same Republican Party that worships the Patriot Act [sic.]. They introduced electronic surveillance without a warrant. They started whaling on air passengers in the first place. They are second-to-none in the fear-mongering stakes.

But on this small piece of turf, at airports across the nation, Republicans are fighting to keep the government’s hands off your junk. And if they can, how could a Conservative-Lib Dem government not over here?

By Oliver Cooper.

If you would be interested in writing a guest post, please e-mail [email protected].

View from America: We do not consent

In new efforts to protect citisens against domestic and international terrorism, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has implemented body scanners at airports nationwide. In addition to metal detectors, these machines capture 3-D images of potential passengers and transmit the photos to agents responsible for analytics. Originally, the TSA claimed the "scanned images cannot be stored or recorded” but this claim has since been debunked.

Steve Bierfeldt, development director of one of the soundest liberty activism hubs in the states, has rolled out a plan to give citizens options when confronted by invasive security tactics. After being detained in March 2009 for carrying $5,000 in sales from a conference, he sued the Department of Homeland Security for unconstitutional search and detainment. “I was threatened with arrest and criminal prosecution if I did not divulge what I did for a living and where I got the money. Unbeknownst to TSA and local police, I recorded the conversation with my cell phone...”.

As the civil rights arguments develop around these new travel regulations and more citizens are responding daily, it seems as though this project is right on time. “The screening procedures by TSA are unacceptable. Passengers are forced to choose between machines that take naked pictures of you, or they must allow a TSA worker to perform an enhanced pat-down which is nothing short of sexual molestation”.

The TSA Opt-Out Project’s goal “is to make a public showing that there is massive opposition to the TSA's tactics”. In order to exhibit the ground swell of resistance they believe that, “by forcing the TSA to personally pat-down or deal with hundreds or thousands of individuals who opt-out would create an initial half in their pornographic screening process. If done properly and consistently, it would force them to re-consider their stances. When done effectively, boycotts and protests do work... often times it takes individuals willing to risk their time and money to take a stand.”

Penn and Teller on their VIP treatment...

More partners in crime...

By Corey Hubbard, an American citizen who is currently interning at the House of Commons.

If you would be interested in writing a guest post, please e-mail [email protected].

Nothing left to the imagination

Thankfully, the sixteen hour journey the Big Brother Watch team have just undertaken in order to get to Taiwan involved neither body scanners nor an invasive pat-down.

On the other side of the world, however, a fellow traveller has reacted in a, well, unconventional way to the procedure:

"Amid the furore over airport security, Sam Wolanyk had a plan to avoid his second intrusive pat down in a week ... he stripped off.

"But Mr Wolanyk, who had previously campaigned for the right to openly carry guns, was arrested. He stripped to his underwear at San Diego International Airport but refused a body scan and pat-down search because "it was obvious that my underwear left nothing to the imagination".

Click here for the full story.

24 November 2010: body scanner opt-out day

24 November is "National Opt-out Day" for body scanners in the USA - a campaign which, needless, to say, we wholeheartedly support.

If you or someone you know opts out on the day, or is bullied not to, get in touch.

Of course, in the UK - and only in the UK - you don't have the right to opt out. Here and here alone, if you're "selected" to go through the zapper, you can't opt for anything else - here, it's no scan, no fly.

(oh, and do consider what they're opting into instead - a direct groinal search. Of course, "you don't have to - you can opt not to fly." Great.)

By Alex Deane

BAD BOY OF THE WEEK - Airport security officials

Over the past seven days, Big Brother Watch has been inundated with messages from supporters drawing our attention to concerns about the dangers associated with body scanners and the excessive pat-downs those who decline to pass through them are subjected to.

First was the case of the heroic John Tyner who was denied permission to board a flight after cautioning an overly hands-on security guard not to "touch his junk" during what the American Transport Security Administration call a "groin check". 

Secondly, Captain Sully Sullenberger - the pilot who managed to successfully land his aircraft in the River Hudson - came out against body scanners as "unnecessary" and a "radiation risk".

Finally - and most alarmingly - was the case of three year old Mandy Simon who was forced to undergo the terrifying ordeal of having a full body search after already being upset at having seen her teddy bear pass through an x-ray machine.  Despite screaming "stop touching me", security officers continued their search.

So, this week's BAD BOY OF THE WEEK award goes to the legion of security officials the world over who have lost all sense of perspective when it comes to airport security.  Big Brother Watch doesn't blame individual airport security staff (although there are indeed many who use and abuse their powers) but rather the senior officials who enforce these invasive diktats on ordinary air passengers.

Big Brother Watch understands the need for passengers to undergo checks before boarding aircraft.  Of course, for example, it makes sense for passengers to be scanned to check they are not boarding flights with large metal objects which could be knives or guns, yet it goes one step further when airport staff have a licence to terrorise three year old little girls.

As New Jersey State Assemblywoman Valerie Vanieri Huttle said, "We're not talking about eliminating security; we're talking about using security wisely". 

Guest post: Washington’s “sweetheart” deals may have gone too far this time

That is at least what one U.S. Congressman is saying. John Duncan Jr. argued that these body scanners were proof of the type of back room deals that have become synonymous with the federal government.
Mr. Duncan, who was testifying on the House Floor, condemned the Transportation Security Administration  (TSA) for what he called “invasive pat down” and debated the role that lucrative contracts had in delivering the scanners.

He debated the issue further by arguing the cost of installing the scanners $300 million dollars was very beneficial to Michael Chertoff, former head Dept of Homeland Security (DHS). Chertoff represents Rapiscan, the company selling the scanners to DHS.

Mr. Duncan has opened the debate about these contracts with Texas Congressman Ted Poe also investigating Chertoff’s role in these scanners. 

While this issue will need further investigation and debate, Congressman Duncan is right to say that there “must be more common sense” and obviously less government intrusion. While these “sweet heart deals” have become the accepted norm in Washington, this time they go too far in what has become a spectacle of the U.S. airline industry and people’s personal privacy and freedom.

By Josh Mead.

If you would be interesting in writing a guest post, please e-mail [email protected].

Congressman: Body scanners violate the Fourth Amendment

Earlier this week, the New Jersey state legislature passed a near-unanimous resolution urging the House of Representatives to launch a investigation into the user of full-body scanners at American airports.  The resolution, which was passed with the consent of both the majority Democratic and minority Republican caucuses, was critical of both the health risks associated with the technology and the overly-invasive nature of the pat-downs given to those declining to be scanned.

Yesterday on floor of the House of Representatives Texas Congressman Ted Poe alleged that the over-the-top body searches being carried out at many airports violates the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, namely that:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

It would be fair to say that the debate about body scanners is at a much more advanced stage in the United States than here in Britain, particularly as public awareness of the health implications of boydy scanners increases and the intrusive nature of pat-downs rises.  At Big Brother Watch, we look forward to contributing to ever-advancing debate in the UK in the coming months.

By Daniel Hamilton.

Don't touch my junk!

The Sky News blog this afternoon carries an amusing video of a man who refused a pat-down by a member of the security staff at San Diego International Airport.  

Indeed, the passenger was so incensed by the detailed body search he received from a member of staff after refusing to go through a body scanner that he told the officer: "if you touch my junk I'm going to have you arrested".  I am assured by American friends that the slang phrase "junk" relates to ones private parts...

Manchester Airport to introduce eye scanners to track passenger movements

Following on the back of the controversy surrounding the decision of some airports to force people to pass through potentially dangerous body scanners, Manchester Airport has announced it will be the world's first airport to install iris-scanners designed to track the movements of passengers around their terminals. 

The scanners are being installed as part of a government scheme and could ultimately be rolled out across the entire British airport network.

According to a report in the Manchester Evening News:

"Passengers who agree to take part will have their iris scanned at check in and it will then be used to identify them as they enter the security search area when it is scanned again.

"Although the system is in the early stages of development, officials hope it could stop criminals from swapping boarding cards between arriving at the airport and getting on a plane – as the technology will scan the person, not the ticket.

"It could also be used to allow international transfer passengers to mix with domestic travellers in the departure lounge because they would be securely identified before boarding their flight"

Has anyone been through this process? Does anyone know anything about it? Please comment here or get in touch if so...

Update at 2:15pm: Guy Herbert from No2ID writes:

"It's almost certainly a version of MiSense which was previously trialled at London airports under the Home Office sponsored IRIS programme. The topic is a fairly subtle one, since some versions of such systems are absolutely fine from a privacy point of view (better than having a human-readable pass in fact), but others are potentially monstrous mass-surveillance mechanisms and you cannot as the punter see any difference. See my brief discussion back in 2007, here"

100 body-scanner images leaked

Aside from obvious fears about the safety of airport body-scanners, one of the most frequently cited concerns about the technology is the possibility for images captured by the machines to be released into the public sphere.

Proponents of the technology argue, of course, that such a mishap would be impossible as images are not retained for extended periods.  Few people placed much faith in this assurance.  It turns out they weren't wrong to be sceptical.

Over at the Gizmodo blog, they carry information about more 100 photographs which have been stored by US Marshalls operating the machines at an Orlando court and obtained following a freedom of information request.

In releasing the photos, the website says:

"We understand that it will be controversial to release these photographs. But identifying features have been eliminated. And fortunately for those who walked through the scanner in Florida last year, this mismanaged machine used the less embarrassing imaging technique.

"Yet the leaking of these photographs demonstrates the security limitations of not just this particular machine, but millimeter wave and x-ray backscatter body scanners operated by federal employees in our courthouses and by TSA officers in airports across the country. 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"

Click here to view the full article.

Sullenberger against body scanners

Regular visitors to the Big Brother Watch blog will know that we have been active in opposing the use of body scanners in airports.  We are disappointed that, despite a statement from the world's largest airline pilots union opposing the use of such technology, the British Airline Pilots Association has so far not voiced opposition to scanners.

Captain Sully Sullenberger, the pilot heroically avoided a mass loss of human life when he successfully landed a plane in the Hudson River, today added his voice to the chorus of concerns about scanners, stating "I think it's unnecessary for the flight crew to go through them first, and second, I think it poses some radiation risk".

Click here to read more about the scientific case against body scanners.

For our American friends:

 

Surveillance society "soon a reality"

Over at the Guardian, Alan Travis has written a post highlighting comments by the Information Commissioner Christopher Graham calling for government ministers to introduce new privacy safeguards in order to guard against the expansion of the surveillance society.

In particular, Travis draws our attention to an updated version of the 2006 Surveillance Studies Network report to the Home Affairs Select Committee in which MPs were warned the UK was "sleepwalking into a surveillance society".

In many respects. the report concludes, the surveillance state is actually more powerful today than it was four years ago with "full body search scanners and workplace surveillance techniques to monitor employees as worrying indicators of what is to come".

Click here to read the full article.

By Daniel Hamilton

BBW writes to British Airline Pilots Association over "false assertions" on body-scanner safety

Further to the news yesterday that the largest association of pilots has announced a boycott of full body scanners at airports, BBW Director Alex Deane has written to the Chairman of the British Airline Pilots Association Capital Mark Serle calling on him to join his US colleagues in their boycott.

In his letter, Deane says:

"You no doubt know that your colleagues in the Allied Pilots Association have issued guidelines recommending that their members do not submit themselves to body scanners.

"I was dismayed to see your Association issue blithe assurances in the media yesterday that the scanners were safe.

"While our American friends are now discussing this issue openly, the British media remains unwilling to engage with this serious issue because of the false reassurance gained by the approach you have adopted"

Click here to download a PDF of Alex's letter.

More Stansted shenanigans: scanned 7 year old now afraid to fly

Hot on the heels of the story of a woman forced to go into a private room to expose scars from her hip-replacement surgery to Stansted Airport security officials, a BBW supporter has written with news of yet another case of intrusive scanning at the airport. 

Hi there,

As I write this I am still annoyed as to why, on Saturday 23rd October, when my husband and I checked in for the 8pm Flight Stanstead to ***** our 7 year old daughter was scanned.

She was crestfallen and thought she had done something wrong.  She did not set off the metal detector and was wearing skinny jeans with a t-shirt and cardigan.  As such, she was wearing no bulky clothing that could be hidden anything.

To date we have had no answer as to what the heck they were scanning her for.

The need for security at airports is vital.  I have removed by shoes on previous occasions without complaining - but a little primary school child?  It's just pathetic!

I can only conclude they did this as some kind of ludicrous PC exercise.  She's blonde haired and fair skinned, so they must have been searching her in order to appear "fair".

In scanning small children in the name of security we have made our country look frankly ridiculous.

The jobsworth middle-aged security officer who decided to do this has successfully soured our daughter's view of airports.  I think we'll just use the ferry and drive the car to Europe for our holiday next year.

Yours Mrs *****
***** , Essex

The e-mail speaks for itself.  Nice one, guys...

The lady in question has contacted Stansted Airport twice, asking for a full explanation.  She has not yet received a reply.  Perhaps Mark Davison would care to comment?

Please do send us examples of over-zealous scanning - either at Stansted or elsewhere.  Y'all know how to reach us...

If you came to this post looking for our rolling list of airports with body scanners, please click here.

By Daniel Hamilton

World's largest association of pilots boycotts body scanners

The world’s largest association of pilots has announced a boycott of full body scanners at airports, citing health risks.

The stance is taken following the suspension of an American pilot for refusing to be scanned, and the emergence of news that scanners may deliver 20 times more radiation than was announced by the authorities who introduced them.

The Allied Pilots Association recommends that members take a “pat down” search rather than expose themselves to the increased radiation from scanners.

Quite right too. As regular readers will know, Big Brother Watch has opposed body scanners since they were introduced, and pilots and cabin crews have been joining our campaign by the dozen ever since. Scanners are dangerous. There’s a reason that the nurse stands behind a screen when you get an x-ray at hospital. Radiation is potentially harmful, even in small doses, and the regularity with which frequent flyers are exposed to potentially cancer-causing radiation.

(All of this, of course, in quite apart from the significant privacy intrusion of body scanners, which have been abused by workers since they were introduced.)

If pilots aren’t going to be scanned, why should members of the public? This stance from a professional group, the world’s leading association of pilots, must shake the government out of its absurd position on scanners. In the UK alone you cannot opt for a pat-down search instead of a scan.

The Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety  (which includes the European Commission, International Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Agency and the World Health Organization) has written a report that states that

1)    Air passengers should be made aware of the health risks of airport body screenings,
2)    governments must explain any decision to expose the public to higher levels of cancer-causing radiation
3)    Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning

By making scanning compulsory for all and by failing to publicise this guidance, the British Government is failing to do all of these things and is potentially jeopardising the health of vulnerable people as a result. The APA’s stance will hopefully wake our government to that fact.

By Alex Deane

Big Brother Watch maintains a rolling list of airports with scanners

Airports making money from terror checks

This week, this blog carried news of an unpleasant case of an elderly lady made to undress and expose scars from a recent hip replacement in order to pass through security at Stansted Airport. We also blogged about Lord Lawson's treatment at the hands of the check-in gestapo.

With many people finding flying an increasingly arduous experience, British airports appear to have found a way to cash-in on the long queues caused by excessive security checks.

According to the Daily Mail, eight British airports have introduced 'queue-jump' services where passengers can pay a fee in order to vault to the front of the queue. While it's difficult to argue against airports having the right to offer a 'VIP service' of this kind, what is unacceptable is the allegation that there is a "deliberate policy" at Luton Airport "to let the queues grow to encourage people to pay for the express lane".

Simon Evans of the Air Transport Users Council was right when he said that "going through security is not a service, not a perk, it is something that people have to do".  While security scans are, of course, needed, slowing down the speed of security scans on some passengers in order to profit from others is unacceptable.

By Daniel Hamilton

Passenger: they made me strip. Stansted Airport: yeah, that's what we do.

You can see my write-up of an incident at Stansted involving a BBW supporter here. She has had both her hips replaced and when going through airport security she was taken off to a room and made to undress to show her operation scars to prove that she had had the surgery claimed.

I challenged the airport about it. Here's the airport's response. You'll see that they try to have their cake and eat it - on the one hand saying that they don't require pasengers to strip to show scars and, on the other, in saying you have to go to a private room for a further seach, they basically say, yes, we do that.

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: 04 November 2010 17:41
To: Alex Deane
Subject: Re: Press enquiry

Hi Alex,

At Stansted, all security processes and procedures are implemented in line with the DfT's guidance.

For obvious reasons, I cannot go into all the specifics around security but I can clarify the current process if a passenger activates the security arch. Firstly, the passenger would be subject to a body search. A hand held metal detector would also be used to help resolve the activation. The security officer would also be engaged in conversation with the passenger to help understand what may have caused the activation. If the two previous searches have not identified the issue, the passenger would be invited to a private area, away from other travellers and under the supervision of a manager, for a further search to resolve the activation. This does not involve undressing to show any operational scars or the removal of all outer clothing.

While some passengers may unfortunately feel inconvenienced by some airport security procedures, our overriding priority has to be providing a safe and secure security operation for all airport users.

If you are able to supply any details of the date, time and the passenger's name, I could see if I can get any more specific details regarding the passenger's  experience at Stansted.

Regards,

Mark Davison
Head of Media Relations
London Stansted Airport

Nice to see the old "For obvious reasons, I cannot go into all the specifics around security" trope... because, of course, that masks all sins. It's for your own good, all this indignity and intrusion, don't ask too many questions, there's a good chap... of course I don't have to justify myself, this is security we're talking about!

By Alex Deane

Body scanner "humiliation"

Following Dan's post about Lord Lawson, Big Brother Watch has head from a supporter who wishes to remain anonymous but is, in her words, a lady "old enough to have her bus pass".

She tells us that she was subjected to a humiliating experience at Stansted. She has had both her hips replaced and when going security she was taken off to a room and made to undress to show her operation scars to prove that she had had the surgery claimed. 

She said the whole experience was utterly humiliating.  She questioned the need to put her through this and was just told that it was the law.

Big Brother Watch will be contacting the airport to ask them if that is in accordance with their policy and would love to hear from you if you have heard or seen anything similar, at Stansted or elsewhere.

By Alex Deane

Check-in security and common sense

Over the last few years, we've all watched with exasperation as airline check-in procedures have become increasingly time-consuming and invasive.

The Evening Standard carries a concerning story about the 78 year old peer Lord Nigel Lawson's treatment at the hands of airport security busybodies at London Gatwick Airport.

Faced with demands to take off his shoes, the former Chancellor explained that as a result of surgery he has had to his legs, he is unable to bend down and therefore needs to sit on a chair to remove his footwear.  After much grumbling, a chair was provided with what Lord Lawson's son Dominic describes as "spectacular gracelessness".

Following, this a more senior security officer demanded Lawson hand over his passport.  He refused.  Following this, the officer 'phoned ahead to the airline's passenger gate and ordered EasyJet to deny the peer access to the fight for "not having passed through security".

No elderly - or indeed any - traveller should expect to be insulted by security staff for their medical condition or have to contend with Stasi-style demands to view their documentation.

Should there not be an element of common sense when it comes to check-in security procedures?  Did Lord Lawson really pose a "threat" that had to be dealt with in such a heavy-handed manner?

By Daniel Hamilton

Why Theresa May should stand firm tomorrow

An interesting reaction both here and on Facebook to my post about tomorrow's speech by Theresa May. Tomorrow - a day, and as the West Wing knew too well, a word that stands for the future. It's an argument I've had before, but I thought that I would take a moment to set out my thinking here.

The Yemeni bomb plot could not have come at a worse time. Just as the Government - already showing deeply worrying signs of bureaucratic capture and authoritarian reactions to headlines - comes to decide on the next steps to be taken in counter-terrorism, a plot like this is discovered.

In reaction to it, serious commentators like Matthew D'Ancona effectively advocate the abandonment of the Government's commitment to a freedom agenda, saying - and I quote - that "this campaign for civil liberties is a gift for Al Qaeda." They would have us resume business as usual, as things were in the Blair/Brown years.

But to do so would be to lose all sense of proportion. It seems almost forgotten by the scareocrats that the attack was actually foiled, that it was relatively uncommon, that nobody was injured; moreover, much more importantly, it is entirely overlooked by the authoritarian lobby that our forebears withstood appalling actual harm without caving into such pressures. Members of Margaret Thatcher's cabinet were pulled from the rubble of the Grand Hotel, in an attack in which five people died, but her Brighton conference went on and liberties were not curtailed. Likewise, in the course of the "Troubles", the IRA killed thousands. And yet, faced in the present-day by this small band of ineffectual thugs, D'Ancona and co would have our Home Secretary abandon the path of freedom upon which she and her party pledged to embark when offering themselves as candidates at the ballot box a mere few months ago.

Let's be plain about what's at stake. Detention without trial for a month. Random stop and search, under which the police can demand your papers, bullying the law-abiding and demonstrating who's in charge, interfering with your basic freedom of movement, freedom of association, freedom of speech. Control orders, anathema to any democratic society, under which the freedom of the individual can be curtailed - in principle, in perpetuity - without him knowing the details or even nature of the charge against him. When you cannot know the nature of the accusation or the name of your accuser, it is of course impossible to rebut the allegation concerned. Certainly, it doesn't affect you at present - after all, first they came for the 45 people who have been subject to such orders to date. But who's next? And when the charge never has to be justified to any objective standard, don't be fooled - it could happen to anyone. It could happen to you. Let us not hope that, then, others would not turn away from you as D'Ancona and co turn away from those whose liberty is thus curtailed now. Finally of course, the ridiculous end of privacy and freedom and dignity that is the circus at modern airports. All these things matter enormously. May must not shirk on any of them.

Values held only in good times are without worth. Indeed, they can be positively harmful, providing a false sense of freedom in a society in fact all too willing to resort to knee-jerk curtailment of rights at the first sign of trouble. As our American cousins, at the polls toda,y remind us, "Freedom is not Free." It will cost more to defend, it will be difficult, yes, it will involve more risk - but our values are worth defending and freedom is a cause worth fighting for. It is the lot of democracies to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, to put aside some tools even though they might help - it is a very slippery slope when you start abrogating freedoms, and the retention of them - even when the going gets tough - is what makes us different from the terrorists we face.

Stick to your guns, Ms May.

By Alex Deane

Airport security - some common sense at last

Good for British Airways - now our favourite airline (for these purposes, at least). Martin Broughton, their chairman, has criticised some of the security checks at airports:

The chairman of British Airways has said some "completely redundant" airport security checks should be scrapped and the UK should stop "kowtowing" to US security demands.

Spot on. Of course we need security at airports, but the current arrangements are a farce - an expensive and intrusive farce to boot, and one that empowers some deeply irritating jobsworths with powers they luuurve to wield.

And here's some more music to any sensible person's ears. Speaking at the UK Airport Operators' Association annual conference, Broughton went on to say:

Practices such as forcing passengers to take off their shoes should be abandoned, Martin Broughton said. And he questioned why laptop computers needed to be screened separately.

Of course, the demands from the USA are pretty hypocritical:

Mr Broughton also criticised the US for imposing increased checks on US-bound flights but not on its own domestic services.

The US stepped up security in January in the wake of the so-called Christmas Bomber, introducing tougher screening rules, including body pat-down searches and carry-on baggage checks, for passengers arriving from 14 nations which the authorities deem to be a security risk. Passengers from any foreign country may also be checked at random.

Mr Broughton added the UK should only agree to security checks that the US requires for passengers on domestic flights. "America does not do internally a lot of the things they demand that we do," he said. "We shouldn't stand for that. We should say, 'we'll only do things which we consider to be essential and that you Americans also consider essential'."

Martin Broughton - good stuff.

by Alex Deane

Essay on Body Scanners

I have a piece on body scanners over at Critical Reaction today.

By Alex Deane

US pilot refused permission to board plane after he declines to be body scanned

We reproduce here in full the account of Michael Roberts, an American pilot whose life and career has seemingly been ruined by his principled opposition to body scanners.

The account is remarkable and needs no commentary from us, except to say that, even if they worked, applying these security protocols to pilots is self-evidently absurd. He's about to fly a multi-ton hunk of metal above densely populated areas - he doesn't need to smuggle anything on board to be dangerous. Either we trust pilots, or we don't.

**

My name is Michael Roberts, and I am a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., based in Houston (that is, I still am for the time being). This morning as I attempted to pass through the security line for my commute to work I was denied access to the secured area of the terminal building at Memphis International Airport. I have passed through the same line roughly once per week for the past four and a half years without incident. Today, however, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents at this checkpoint were using one of the new Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) systems that are currently being deployed at airports across the nation. These are the controversial devices featured by the media in recent months, albeit sparingly, which enable screeners to see beneath people’s clothing to an extremely graphic and intrusive level of detail (virtual strip searching). Travelers refusing this indignity may instead be physically frisked by a government security agent until the agent is satisfied to release them on their way in what is being touted as an “alternative option” to AIT. The following is a somewhat hastily drafted account of my experience this morning.

As I loaded my bags onto the X-ray scanner belt, an agent told me to remove my shoes and send them through as well, which I’ve not normally been required to do when passing through the standard metal detectors in uniform. When I questioned her, she said it was necessary to remove my shoes for the AIT scanner. I explained that I did not wish to participate in the AIT program, so she told me I could keep my shoes and directed me through the metal detector that had been roped off. She then called somewhat urgently to the agents on the other side: “We got an opt-out!” and also reported the “opt-out” into her handheld radio. On the other side I was stopped by another agent and informed that because I had “opted out” of AIT screening, I would have to go through secondary screening. I asked for clarification to be sure he was talking about frisking me, which he confirmed, and I declined. At this point he and another agent explained the TSA’s latest decree, saying I would not be permitted to pass without showing them my naked body, and how my refusal to do so had now given them cause to put their hands on me as I evidently posed a threat to air transportation security (this, of course, is my nutshell synopsis of the exchange). I asked whether they did in fact suspect I was concealing something after I had passed through the metal detector, or whether they believed that I had made any threats or given other indications of malicious designs to warrant treating me, a law-abiding fellow citizen, so rudely. None of that was relevant, I was told. They were just doing their job.

A review of the current playing field for civil liberties

I have written an extended piece for the website Critical Reaction reviewing the various outstanding civil liberties issues under the Coalition. Part 1 is here - Part 2 is here.

By Alex Deane

Italians reject body scanners

In a remarkable volte face (yes I know that's French, not Italian) the Italians have rejected body scanners at airports - a very different position to the debate in Italy three months ago, when installing body scanners at railway stations was being advocated.

There's a wealth of evidence against body scanners being the best (or even worthwhile) use of funds for security purposes. Just click on the body scanners tab on the right, to see an abundance of documentation from us over the past year. The Italians have tested the technology in a trial process - and their decision is to abandon them.

The Italian decision begs the question - given that our allies and friends are realising the pointlessness of this invasive and intrusive technology, shouldn't the UK reconsider our dogmatic commitment to buy loads of these pricey machines?

(Especially as for the foreseeable future, flights into the UK from Italy will be coming with passengers who haven't been through the revealing machines - and that will presumably be perfectly acceptable...)

By Alex Deane

Body scanners on US streets

Recently I asked, body scanners - where next? That post, a mere couple of months ago, featured scanners already in airports and those proposed in railway stations and prisons. Then I wrote about their use in courts.

But here's the answer to my rhetorical question: on the streets.

American Science & Engineering, a company based in Billerica, Massachusetts, has sold U.S. and foreign government agencies more than 500 backscatter x-ray scanners mounted in vans that can be driven past neighbouring vehicles to see their contents...

“This product is now the largest selling cargo and vehicle inspection system ever.”

Here’s a video of the vans in action.

The vans "bounce" a narrow stream of x-rays off and through nearby objects, and read which ones come back. Absorbed rays indicate dense material such as steel. Scattered rays indicate less-dense objects that can include explosives, drugs, or human bodies.

“It’s no surprise that governments and vendors are very enthusiastic about [the vans],” says Marc Rotenberg, executive director of EPIC. “But from a privacy perspective, it’s one of the most intrusive technologies conceivable.”

The manufacturers admit that the systems “to a large degree will penetrate clothing.”

EPIC’s Rotenberg says that the scans, like those in the airport, potentially violate the fourth amendment:

“Without a warrant, the government doesn’t have a right to peer beneath your clothes without probable cause.” Even airport scans are typically used only as a secondary security measure, he points out. “If the scans can only be used in exceptional cases in airports, the idea that they can be used routinely on city streets is a very hard argument to make.”

The TSA’s official policy dictates that full-body scans must be viewed in a separate room from any guards dealing directly with subjects of the scans, and that the scanners won’t save any images. Just what safeguards might be in place for scanning vans isn’t clear, given that the company won’t reveal which law enforcement agencies, organizations within the DHS, or foreign governments have purchased the equipment. AS&E says that it has customers on “all continents except Antarctica.”

The vans do have the capability of storing images. “Sometimes customers need to save images for evidentiary reasons... We do what our customers need.”

By Alex Deane

Hat tip: @adamshostack

If you came to this post looking for our rolling list of airports with body scanners, it is here.

Scanners at airports are manned by mature, experienced, responsible, highly trained professionals, remember!?

I wrote recently about three separate examples of abuse of power by those operating security procedures at international airports.

Here's a further example. A member of staff responsible for carrying out screening at Heathrow Terminal 5 has been accused of stealing from a passenger during the screening process.

As far as this individual case is concerned, I of course remind myself that his trial has not yet been concluded and that he is entitled to the presumption of innocence. But his guilt or innocence isn't the point for this post - the point is that the authorities have accused him of dishonesty, of being a thief, just as it is the authorities who assure us that we shouldn't worry about the abuse of body scanners at airports because those manning them are mature, experienced, responsible, highly trained professionals.

By Alex Deane

If you came to this post looking for our rolling list of airports with body scanners, it is here.