For the last few years, federal agencies have defended body scanning by insisting that all images will be discarded as soon as they’re viewed. The Transportation Security Administration claimed last summer, for instance, that “scanned images cannot be stored or recorded.”
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. This follows an earlier disclosure (PDF) by the TSA that it requires all airport body scanners it purchases to be able to store and transmit images for “testing, training, and evaluation purposes.” The agency says, however, that those capabilities are not normally activated when the devices are installed at airports. This privacy debate, which has been simmering since the days of the Bush administration, came to a boil two weeks ago when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that scanners would soon appear at virtually every major airport. The updated list includes airports in New York City, Dallas, Washington, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle, and Philadelphia.
“TSA is not being straightforward with the public about the capabilities of these devices,” Rotenberg said. “This is the Department of Homeland Security subjecting every U.S. traveler to an intrusive search that can be recorded without any suspicion–I think it’s outrageous.” EPIC’s lawsuit says that the TSA should have announced formal regulations, and argues that the body scanners violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits “unreasonable” searches.
Yes, I’m as shocked as you are. So basically they lie through their teeth, and once the policy is in place, do anything they want to do. By the time the truth comes out, no one cares anymore. Heckuva job Barry.
Well, beyond philosophical musings about the desire to remain anonymous in society, what is the actual harm/invasion of keeping a scan that is legally taken?
Please be as specific as possible?
I’ll wait.
c’mon now why is this legal sue the buggers disband the tsa require all tsa ops to be college grads not highschool rejects – everyone whose been scanned gets to file against them for being defrauded and having their privacy invaded and kept in an unlawful way ( various legal jargon done intentionally)
reinitiate the whatever it was when airtravel had class that people complained about
— and it may sound wrong but if you’re traveling in the country why do all these damn scans that cant find jack about anyone ..
can we say train travel or bus!!
where’s the Gyromobile that mr.garrett made when we need them but with the modified button and switch system
bobbo- No harm, governments lie continually, you suck it up.
Good citizen…pat pat.
Well McCullough–an express response showing you got nutthing? C’mon==when your own rational thinking process can’t come up with anything, shouldn’t you rethink your position? Your kneejerk response is so spasmotic, you can’t even address the issue.
Here, I’ll help you out a little bit. Obviously, you think this practice is bad because the government lied/lies about it. You could start with that.
Or, default to the slippery slope argument:
Keeping lawfully taken airport scans of people is bad social policy because it will lead to …….” See, thats where I need your help. Where will it lead to McCullough?
Actually, I thought of one: keeping these images will be of no future use to anyone so keeping them is a waste of money. Overall, its a small amount, but it does all add up.
But don’t we all wish the government would waste only a small amount of money?
Heh, heh.
Find some one else to argue with. Not interested.
check it – cost to passengers and to the tax payers for the storage of the material
i didn’t vote for that initiation nor did i vote for the tsa or any of that federal security b.s
therefore depending on the vote of the situation they should be held accountable for lying and reimburse all passengers that endured those machines
as for what it leads too is too Orwellian for our imagination – body scanning camera’s on the streets ID everyone thats been scanned and can see differences in body heat and use it as a tool to say this guy was runnin hot and lookin for a fight – throw him in jail
this guys body temp isnt right check him as a terror suspect
the lack o anonymity in public ends in a burnin reign of lacking in government oversight of the correct and JUST kind not the paranoid delusions of those that still titter with paranoia of the east — seriously our species has a lot more serious concerns than old blood fueds to worry about
soo lets all be comradeski’s and let it all be and be sensible about cost effective protective measures that dont violate human or american or even other nations laws
cause lets face it america isnt RIGHT just cause its America
lets also forsee that with these body scans insurance companies scan and say ohh he’s drunk cancel his insurance .. ohh he’s got a lump in an weird spot cancel insurance
ohh he’s running a massive fever cancel insurance or raise premiums
does anyone recall positive reinforcement instead of punishment?? lol
#6–hah, hah. I accept your total FAIL on supporting your own posting. Why won’t people just agree with you? Don’t you just want the worship of sheeple? Like a god you are.
#7–THATS the issue with slippery slopes. No stopping where they go.
For the record. I’m all for good cockpit door locks, terrorist data base, and profiling. After that, mostly a waste of money.
Measuring programs by their use of money rather than crockpot notions of privacy/freedom. What a concept.
#1
I’ll bite.
Here is one for ya…
Whole body scans being saved could be used to identify specific marks on the body to ID someone.
Having these pictures from a sting operation is admissible. But using these pictures without warrant is a violation of the right against
self-incrimination.
Now a good judge may not allow it, but it only takes one to set a precedent. Why open the can of worms and invite it?
Cursor_
#2, are we even allowed to sue them over this?
You see, our government decided a long time ago to claim for itself the old concept from English Common Law known as Sovereign Immunity. So even though the people created the government, the government has determined that the people can’t sue it unless it agrees to allow it.
or in Internet meme terms:
step 1: people create government
step 2: government decides it can’t be sued by people
step 3: ???
step 4: profit
Cursor==well, the baseline point here is that the scans were intially legally taken so I don’t see any violation of law after that by their use. Perhaps you would be right “if” the enabling legislation allowing the use of airport scanners says that no permanent image will be retained?
No warrant is needed for “objective evidence” as such things do not require “an admission.” Same as dna testing, fingerprinting, and tatoo picture taking==all objective evidence. Yes, such objective evidence does help identify WHO YOU ARE which is a good thing if the perp has a tat on his right shoulder and you don’t.
So, good idea, just wrong in its import. The search for someone that can tell the difference between the DESIRE FOR ANONYMITY and the RIGHT TO PRIVACY continues.
hey bobbo, perhaps you took McCullough’s OP in the wrong context?
I laughed when i read his snippit..as it was obvious he was being facetious, yet still serious in tone.
to the topic: “anti-terror security” is not the prime motive of the scanners. (although getting you more acclimated to giving up your privacy and other rights for false sense of security-is one prime meme being pushed)
They are looking for, (and cataloging) something entirely different.
I would be able to make a better assessment if i could take one apart as well as examine how the data is storage and cross referenced. Examining the actually frequencies used and the manner in which they are projected would reveal much.
Nonetheless, avoid them if you can. They screw with your biology in a manner which is denied to have any effect (or exist) in western teachings and biology. and if anyone did not know from the getgo, that they were or would be storing the image data, you are extremely naive or perhaps, you missed the data-mining madness memo from back in the 90’s.
-s
soudwash==as always, you are too deep for me, but I admire your continued goodwill towards everyone here.
Unfortunately, as he has posted similar items in the past, McCullough was being totally serious. He is one of those, as you show yourself to be, who doesn’t make a distinction between the understandable DESIRE TO BE ANONYMOUS with the necessary RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
There are fine lines between the two issues, but this is not one of them. My wife as a foreign national and not bad looking got strip searched twice on her entry to the USA. Completely “legal.” Helps to put things in perspective.
Bobbo, do you have a job or are you retired? You spend a lot of time here being snarky. Nothing better to do?
Improb–I control my own hours? Ha Ha. Yes I agree. I get my “news” here. Can barely read a magazine any more as when I disagree, I want to post.
Hopefully there is “some” value to snarking. I know I enjoy being snarked myself but not all are open to being challenged in their views.
I’ll be the last one to defend the TSA, but you are jumping to conclusions. This was the US Marshalls service, not the TSA.
And just because the TSA’s machine can record, does not mean that they have recorded the traveling public. They can record themselves while testing, training, and evaluating. In fact, I don’t see how they could do their job with this tool without having recording ability.
I don’t know what the US Marshalls Service’s policy is. You didn’t mention it is your post. Does this news contradict their statement policy or claims?
I would like to see a federal law that establishes a uniform retention policy of body scanned images. That way we don’t end up with such a mishmash of rules.
I’m only 60 years old and I don’t remember the government ever telling us the truth about anything. I have believed for decades that if our government said it you can eliminate it from the set of all possible truths. It’s a damn good rule and has never let me down.
Just say NO! to Government.
Total # of posts so far: 16
Bobbo’s troll posts: 7
He’s taking over 50% of the traffic.
Poor bobbo, he can’t get anyone to answer his childish question.
JB–evidently, any question you don’t have a bumper sticker response to his childish?
Children do say the darndest things. But yes, half the posts on this thread, like yours, are directed to me. Only polite/responsible to respond don’t you think?
The pathology of live tissue absorption at THz frequencies, really isn’t getting the attention it deserves. MIT Tech. Review, Friday, October 30, 2009 “How Terahertz Waves Tear Apart DNA” http://bit.ly/49rTcF
Out of all the items of information the Gov’t already has on you, no doubt cheerfully disclosed by any business (credit card purchases, grocery store data mining cards, etc.) you’ve used since Hoover had anything to do with anything, this is probably the least significant… Until you have to supply a body scan for your national ID card.
Sargasso==from your link: “These nonlinear instabilities are much less likely to form which explains why the character of THz genotoxic effects are probabilistic rather than deterministic, say the team.” /// Can you bottom line that for me? Does this mean that airport security scans WILL on occasion unzip part of your dna or not?
#1 I don’t get it? You mean to tell me you’re fine with naked pictures of yourself, spouse, and children floating around the TSA?
Stopher==excellent. The first “invasion of privacy” by taking the pic is justified as anti-terrorism security but keeping the pics assumes they will be misused and constitutes a second and actionable invasion/misuse of privacy? I think that has some validity to it.
The xray looking pics I have seen don’t bother me at all. Nor of my wife? And that perhaps goes to a whole other issue: people comfortable with “the truth.” or with nudity. or with human sexuality.
Maybe full distributions of all our pics buck nekkid would actually be a liberating move? Who knew: Freedom thru Truth. Novel concept.
I think Muslims would have a problem with technology. Their women are all modest you know.
Improb—if I said: “That only proves my point.” would that be snarky? And if snarky, appropriate or not?
Fly naked!
Jeez, what’s the problem? Some sort of Puritan thing?
I don’t object to anyone having a clothed picture of me, why should I object to someone having a nude picture of me? Nudity is NOT the same as pornography. I’d strip off if it would get me through the line faster.
Are you the same people who wear swimsuits into the shower at the gym?
How about an inkless fingerprint?
like an Identix system?
also, then they could tie a fingerprint to a scan!
“here,hold on to this while we take this scan”
I’ll try to zoom out from the blog vs bobbo argument for a minute and wonder – if our naked pictures are being taken and stored at checkpoints that we can avoid only with great difficulty, doesn’t this constitute a win for the US-created terrorists? I mean seriously, we’re arguing about a policy imposed on us by the same government that created Al-Qaeda and now wants to examine our cavities to keep us safe from them.