We Wont Fly. Act Now. Travel With Dignity. Jam TSA Checkpoints By Opting Out Until Removal of Scans

[Christer Forslund]

[B]Dr. Blaylock: Body Scanners More Dangerous Than Feds Admit[/B]

Dr Russell Blaylock – NewsMax November 24, 2010
[B]http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/health_stor...ode=B2F7-1
[/B]

Dr. Russell Blaylock is a nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon, health practitioner, author, lecturer, and editor of The Blaylock Wellness Report.
The growing outrage over the Transportation Security Administration’s new policy of backscatter scanning of airline passengers and “enhanced pat-downs” brings to mind these wise words from President Ronald Reagan: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.’”
So, what is all the concern really about — will these radiation scanners increase your risk of cancer or other diseases? A group of scientists and professors from the University of California at San Francisco voiced their concern to Obama’s science and technology adviser John Holdren in a well-stated letter back in April.
The group included experts in radiation biology, biophysics, and imaging, who expressed “serious concerns” about the “dangerously high” dose of radiation to the skin.
Radiation increases cancer risk by damaging the DNA and various components within the cells. Much of the damage is caused by high concentrations of free radicals generated by the radiation. Most scientists think that the most damaging radiation types are those that have high penetration, such as gamma-rays, but in fact, some of the most damaging radiation barely penetrates the skin.
One of the main concerns is that most of the energy from the airport scanners is concentrated on the surface of the skin and a few millimeters into the skin. Some very radiation-sensitive tissues are close to the skin — such as the testes, eyes, and circulating blood cells in the skin.
This is why defenders using such analogies as the dose being “1,000-times less than a chest X-ray” and “far less than what passengers are exposed to in-flight” are deceptive. Radiation damage depends on the volume of tissue exposed. Chest X-rays and gamma-radiation from outer space is diffused over the entire body so that the dose to the skin is extremely small. Of note, outer space radiation does increase cancer rates in passengers, pilots, and flight attendants.
We also know that certain groups of people are at a much higher risk than others. These include babies, small children, pregnant women, the elderly, people with impaired immunity (those with HIV infection, cancer patients, people with immune deficiency diseases, and people with abnormal DNA repair mechanism, just to name a few).
As we grow older, our DNA accumulates a considerable amount of unrepaired damage, and under such circumstances even low doses of radiation can trigger the development of skin cancers, including the deadly melanoma. I would also be concerned about exposing the eyes, since this could increase one’s risk of developing cataracts.
About 5 percent of the population have undiagnosed abnormal DNA repair mechanism. When exposed to radiation, this can put them at a cancer risk hundreds of times greater than normal people.
It also has been determined that when skin is next to certain metals, such as gold, the radiation dose is magnified 100-fold higher. What if you have a mole next to your gold jewelry? Will the radiation convert it to a melanoma? Deficiencies in certain vitamins can dramatically increase your sensitivity to radiation carcinogenesis, as can certain prescription medications.
As for the assurances we have been given by such organization as the American College of Radiology, we must keep in mind that they assured us that the CT scans were safe and that the radiation was equal to one chest X-ray. Forty years later we learn that the dose is extremely high, it is thought to have caused cancer in a significant number of people, and the dose is actually equal to 1,000 chest X-rays.
Based on these assurances, tens of thousands of children have been exposed to radiation doses from CT scanners, which will ruin the children’s lives. I have two friends who were high-ranking Environmental Protection Agency scientists, and they assure me that in government safety agencies, politics most often override the scientists’ real concerns about such issues.
This government shares House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s view when she urged passage of the Obamacare bill sight unseen — “Let’s just pass the bill, and we will find out what is in it later.”
When the real effects of these scanners on health become known, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and the rest of the gang who insist the scanners are safe will be long gone.
[URL="http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/health_stories/blaylock_TSA_scan_safety/2010/11/24/363489.html?s=al&promo_code=B2F7-1"]
[/URL]

[Peter Lemkin]

Group slams Chertoff on scanner promotion


WASHINGTON - Since the attempted bombing of a US airliner on Christmas Day, former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has given dozens of media interviews touting the need for the federal government to buy more full-body scanners for airports.


What he has made little mention of is that the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, includes a client that manufactures the machines. Chertoff disclosed the relationship on a CNN program Wednesday, in response to a question.

An airport passengers’ rights group on Thursday criticized Chertoff’s use of his former government credentials to advocate for a product that benefits his clients.

“Mr. Chertoff should not be allowed to abuse the trust the public has placed in him as a former public servant to privately gain from the sale of full-body scanners under the pretense that the scanners would have detected this particular type of explosive,’’ said Kate Hanni, founder of FlyersRights.org, which opposes the use of the scanners.

Chertoff’s advocacy for the technology dates to his time in the Bush administration. In 2005, Homeland Security ordered the government’s first batch of the scanners - five from California-based Rapiscan Systems. Rapiscan is one of only two companies that make full-body scanners in accordance with current contract specifications required by the federal government.

Currently 40 body scanners are in use among 19 US airports. The number is expected to skyrocket, at least in part because of the Christmas Day incident. The Transportation Security Administration has said it will order 300 more machines.

In the summer, TSA purchased 150 more machines from Rapiscan with $25 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. Rapiscan was the only company that qualified for the contract because it had developed technology that performs the screening using a less-graphic body imaging system, which is also less controversial. (Since then, another company, L-3 Communications, has qualified for future contracts, but no new contracts have been awarded.)

-- Washington Post [an old article (10 months old)..now there are many hundreds sold and thousands ordered.]

[Peter Lemkin]

Airports using the machines: [as of a few weeks ago]
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-sa...anner.html
ABQ - MMW used in all C/P lanes
ATL - South C/P - 2 devices installed in the DL F/Elite line - Two MMW @ Concourse E C/P after Customs - Central C/P has MMW
BDL - BKSX used occasionally. FTer reports that the device is installed @ Concourse A (main C/P). Not used very often.
BIS - Receiving devices within the next year
BNA - MMW installed in all lanes. Occasionally roped-off. C C/P has 4 MMW installed
BOI - **More Information Requested, please click here to PM - BKSX
BOS - Term. A, Term. B (US Shuttle, AA), Term. C, UA, B6, Term E. INTL - Left lane of UA C/P (TERM C) does not have a NoS..
BRO - **More Information Requested, please click here to PM
BUF - Five BKSX Installed!
BWI - Only the C Gates (AA,DL) are free of the NoS. All other gates have MMW
CLE - C/P for B gates has two MMW - C/P for C gates also has MMW - Unsure of A gates C/P - Both C/Ps can be used for access to all gates - MMW
CLT - BKSX Installed @ Concourse A, B, D - Concourse C C/P is SAFE!
CMH - Concourse B has machines installed. Pax can self-select NoS or WTMD line, though still run the risk of being redirected - BKSX
CRP - BKSX in use at the only C/P
CVG - AA/UA/US Terminal 2 & DL (Term. 3) have BKSX installed
DCA - DL/CO Terminal C/P (gates 10-22), Also installed at Gates 35+, Terminal A C/P is safe
DEN - Two MMW at Bridge C/P. MMW also used at East & West C/P
DFW - MMW in use @ ALL D C/Ps - Installed @ A21, A36, C8, C21, C31 (left/main lane) - SAFE A12, B9, B19, B33, C31, E8, E15, E16, E33 - B24 in progress
DTW - Used @ (DL) McNamara Terminal - Primary at the N. Terminal C/P (AA, CO, LH, UA, US, WN). Westin C/P has MMW - Used for incoming INTL pax - MMW
ELP - Screening clerks were forcing pax to use the NoS over the summer. According to Blogdad Bob, all pax can opt-out. YMMV. - BKSX
EWR - NoS now in operation! - Terminal A (AA) gates 30-39 do not have the NoS - Term. B MMW @ DL Gates B40-B47
FAR - Receiving devices within the next year
FAT - According to TSA @ FAT, NoS in use. MMW
FLL - BKSX installed @ Concourse C C/P, DL Terminal 2 & 3 E/F Fates. - BKSC PRIMARY FOR ALL PAX
FWA - Replaced one of the two WTMD with a MMW - WARNING: Clerks have been sending all pax through the MMW. YMMV..
GEG - Horizon Air (Term C) SAFE - Far lane @ C/P for A & B using BKSX
GFK - Receiving devices within the next year
GPT - One BKSX in use
GRR - NoS installed, and in use!
HNL - C/P # 3 @ Lobby 5 & 6 has four MMW - C/P 5 @ Lobby 7 & 8, MMW in use @ elite line, left-most lane. If elite, use gold line, then self-select WTMD
HRL - **More Information Requested, please click here to PM
IAD - BKSX installed in Diamond Line & Crew Lanes downstairs; main C/P Unknown - Crew line is the only lane open overnight...
IAH - Term. A, one MMW Term. B has two MMW. Two WTMD still setup. Term. C has MMW installed. Terminal E, but easy to avoid - MMW - INTL Arrivals has 3 MMW
IND - A & B C/P 3 installed - MMW
JAX - Two MMW @ both left and right C/Ps
JFK - Terminals 1-8 have separate C/Ps, with no way to transfer airside. T8 has BKSX in all lanes Safe = B6 (T5) & UA (T7)
LAS - Multiple MMW @ A/B/C C/P. Old C C/P also has MMW. Most of the WTMDs @ D C/P also have MMW. Old A/B C/P has MMW, T2 (INTL) - Be observant!
LAX - T1 (US & WN) -- T3 (AS,VX) T4 (AA), T5 (DL,AM), T6 (CO) right side of C/P BKSX, T7 (UA) Left Lane - TBIT C/P has BKSX - T2 has 3/4 BKSX
LGA - BKSX in use on the farthest lane to the right @ Concourse D. Use the elite line to avoid. Central Term. Conc. (A-D) No airside transfers
LIH - Used at the main C/P
LRD - **More Information Requested, please click here to PM
MIA - Terminal J has MMW in use. -- Terminal E (AA) is SAFE! - AA Term. D C/P has one MMW - H C/P has WTMD, no NoS
MCI - Left side of WN C/P - Term. B - DL Gates @ Term B has BKSX - Terminal A & C Safe! - MMW
MCO - BKSX in use @ West End C/P (Gates 1 - 59) - One BKSX to the extreme left side entrance, and two near extreme right entrance. Center section still has WTMD.
MDT - MMW installed @ only C/P. Pax are constantly sent into the machine
MFE - **More Information Requested, please click here to PM
MEM - Used at A/B/C C/P - BKSX
MKE - Concourses C & D - MMW
MSP - In use at C/P 10, C/P 2 has two NoS, C/P 6 has NoS in use. Avoid by using C/P 1 or 5. All C/Ps lead to the same area. - MMW
MSY - MMW Located @ Concourse C & Concourse D C/Ps. - Unsure of MMW @ Concourse B.
OAK - In use at Terminal 1, 3 installed @ Terminal 2 (WN) C/P - BKSX
OMA - BKSX used @ AA gates (1-8) C/P
ORD - T1,T2,T3(2 @ K C/P) (Backscatter)
PIT - Devices are installed at both the main and alternate C/P (BKSX)
PBI - MMW in use at all C/Ps. Concourses A,B,C - Concourse C MMW on the 2 right hand lanes of the C/P - Avoid by using Elite/Crew lanes on main level
PHL - Terminal A & F has one MMW - Terminal B, C, D, & E are SAFE - Use Term D to access all gates - PHL is expecting one @ each C/P in 1-2months
PHX - C/P B & D Terminal 4 - BKSX
PVD - Main, and only, C/P has received a Backscatter
RDU - 4 MMW installed @ Terminal 2 C/P. Entire C/P rearranged, possibly for opening of new terminal
ROC - Machine in use. Staff are rude to opt-outs MMW
RIC - MMW installed @ Concourse A, B & C C/P
SAN - BKSX installed @ UA C/P, Commuter Terminal, DL C/P @ Term @, Gate 1A/1/2 C/P for WN - T1 WN is SAFE!
SAT - NoS is now in use. BKSX - LOCATION UNKNOWN. PLEASE PM DETAILS.
SEA - A (South) C/P (DL) has the NoS, Central/Main C/P has the NoS, C gate C/P & D/N gates C/P has BKSX.
SFO - 3 MMWs in INTL Terminal C/P, 1 MMW in Terminal 1 C/P for AS,CO,US,WN. MMW is in use @ AA gates T3 60-67
SMF - B2 C/P has the NoS
SJC - BKSX at all lanes, except for the family line. - Terminal B has eight lanes @ the C/P, and 4 BKSX, X-RAY machines in odd lanes feed to WTMD
SJU - BKSX installed @ Concourse B
SLC - Terminal 2 (DL) - Terminal 3 has a single line for the C/P - MMW @ both C/Ps
STL - 2 BKSX installed at Terminal 1 A C/P - BKSX @ Term. 2 (East Terminal)
TPA - Airside A & Airside E C/P (AC, DL, UA) - MMW
TUL - All lanes have the MMW


US & International Airports receiving the NoS soon

DAY - Receiving before Thanksgiving, and in use by Christmas
HOU -
ICN - According to airport information, receiving devices "soon". None installed as of November
LGA -
MDW -
ONT - Receiving within the next few weeks
SPN -


International Airports using the NoS

AMS - Two MMW per gate for US-bound departures. One MMW @ C/P for crossing from non-schengen to schengen. Avoid by staying to the right
DME - One MMW in the business security area of the international terminal
LED - MMW - Screener looking at images is right in front of you...
LGW - MMW - Details pending
LHR - MMW @ Terminal 1 Main C/P - Nothing @ Transit C/P for T1 - No NoS, T3 C/P - No NoS, T5 - NoS in use! - Used for secondary/random no opt-out
HAM - Testing the NoS, entirely optional!
MAN - T2 has NoS in use, while T3 does not - CNN Reporting that NoS will be up and running before the end of the year
PVG - Machines used sporadically and only in certain lanes. Not in family lane
YEG - MMW in use for domestic/transborder flights. Random, but opt-out permitted
YHZ - MMW in use in domestic/international departure area. All lines have WTMD. Unsure of transborder departure area.
YOW - 1 NoS in the Domestic/Intl C/P - Appears to be used for secondary screening - TYPE UNKNOWN
YUL - MMW in far left lane being used on all pax. OPT OUT Permitted
YVR - US-bound pax use the MMW, randomly determined by a machine - Domestic, C gates has a MMW for "random selectees" - OPT-OUT POSSIBLE!
YYC - US-bound pax use the MMW, randomly determined by a machine - OPT-OUT POSSIBLE!
YYZ - T1, US Departures has the NoS for SSSS/Random Selection/Resolution of WTMD alarms - T1 Domestic - 2 MMW for Secondary only. None in NEXUS line, not always in use - MMW - YYZ Concourse Level (between Arr/Dep) C/P has the MMW, usually sits idle
YXU - Installed @ Transborder terminal


Domestic & International airports not using the NoS

ABE -
ACY -
AKL -
ASU - (South America)
AUS -
BTR -
BUR -
CLD -
COS -
DAY -
DUB -
ECP -
EZE -
GTR -
HPN -
ICT -
JAN -
KOA -
MDW - According to reports, this airport will be a disaster once BKSX or MMW is installed
MEL -
MSN - Receiving within one year
NRT -
OKC -
ONT -
ORF -
PDX -
PEK -
PER -
PHF -
PUQ -
PVG -
PWM -
SAV -
SBP -
SCL -
SNA - still safe!
SYD -
SYR -
TUS -
TVC -
ZRH -

Glossary of Abbreviations Used

AA - American Airlines
AC - Air Canada
AS - Alaska Airlines
B6 - JetBlue Airways
CO - Continental Airlines
DL - Delta Airlines
UA - United Airlines
US - US Airways
VX - Virgin America
WN - Southwest Airlines

C/P - Checkpoint
MMW - Millimeter Wave
BKSX - Backscatter
TERM - Terminal

[Peter Lemkin]

EPIC has filed a lawsuit to suspend the deployment of body scanners at US airports, pending an independent review. On July 2, 2010, EPIC filed a petition for review and motion for an emergency stay, urging the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to suspend the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) full body scanner program. EPIC said that the program is "unlawful, invasive, and ineffective." EPIC argued that the federal agency has violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Fourth Amendment. EPIC cited the invasive nature of the devices, the TSA's disregard of public opinion, and the impact on religious freedom.
Top News

EPIC Demands Documents from DHS about Mobile Body Scanners, Use of Devices at Trains Stations and Stadiums: EPIC has filed a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Homeland Security, demanding that the agency turn over documents concerning the use of body scanner technology by law enforcement agencies in surface transit and street-roaming vans. EPIC cited previous DHS testing of body scanners on New Jersey's PATH trains and the development of street-roaming backscatter vans. EPIC has also filed a lawsuit to suspend body scanner program. EPIC has called the devices "invasive, inefffective, and unlawful." For more information, see: EPIC: Whole Body Imaging and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS. (Nov. 24, 2010)
Majority of Americans Now Oppose Body Scanners and TSA Pat Downs: A new poll by Zogby International finds that 61% of Americans polled between Nov. 19 and Nov. 22 oppose the use of full body scans and TSA pat downs. Of those polled, 52% believe the enhanced security measures will not prevent terrorist activity, almost half (48%) say it is a violation of privacy rights, 33% say they should not have to go through enhanced security methods to get on an airplane, and 32% believe the full body scans and TSA pat downs to be sexual harassment. The Zogby Poll is the most recent survey of American opinion on the new airport screening procedures. Combined with earlier polls by USA Today and the Washington Post-ABC News, the Zogby Poll reflects declining support for the TSA program. (Nov. 23, 2010)
EPIC Releases Analysis on TSA Body Scanner Program - "Deployment and contracting for body scanners should be suspended": EPIC is making available to the public today the report EPIC prepared in January 2010, following the release of documents from the DHS in an open government lawsuit. The analysis, based on the internal records obtained from the agency, reveals that the "device specifications, set out by the TSA, include the ability to store, record, and transfer images, contrary to the representations made by the TSA...include hard disk storage, USB integration, and Ethernet connectivity that raise significant privacy and security concerns...include "super user" ("Level Z") status that allows the TSA itself to disable filters and to export raw images..." The EPIC memo states "Based on the materials received to date, EPIC concludes that further deployment and contracting for body scanners should be suspended until the privacy and security problems identified are adequately resolved." The documents were obtained in EPIC v. DHS (FOIA) EPIC has since filed papers in federal court to suspend the program. See EPIC v. DHS (body scanners). (Nov. 22, 2010)
Congress Raises New Questions About Airport Screening Procedures: Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS) and Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), two leading members of Congress, have sent a letter to TSA Administrator John S. Pistole, objecting to the new airport screening procedures. Reps. Thompson and Lee wrote, "we are concerned about new enhanced pat down screening protocols and urge you to reconsider utilization of these protocols." Reps. Thompson and Lee further said that "the TSA should have had a conversation with the American public" and should have ensured that "these changes do not run afoul of privacy and civil liberties." EPIC has filed a lawsuit against the TSA for failing to provide an opportunity for public comment, which is required by law, and implementing a screening procedure that violates privacy. EPIC President Marc Rotenberg has called the new screening procedures "invasive, unlawful, and ineffective." For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS. (Nov. 21, 2010)
EPIC Files FOIA Suit to Force Disclosure of Body Scanner Radiation Risks: EPIC has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, seeking records concerning radiation emissions and exposure associated with airport full body scanners. The Department recently implemented the scanners as a primary screening mechanism for all airline travelers. In August, many senators questioned the safety of the scanners. In September, Ralph Nader also sent a letter to the Senate expressing concern about radiation exposure. Earlier this year, EPIC requested DHS to release all information about radiation emissions. DHS failed to respond to EPIC's FOIA request and when DHS also failed to reply to EPIC's administrative appeal, EPIC filed a lawsuit in federal court. Earlier EPIC FOIA lawsuits uncovered evidence that body scanners can store and record images and that the Marshals Service had captured more than 35,000 images. For more information see, EPIC v. DHS (Body scanner images) and EPIC v. DOJ (Body scanner images). (Nov. 19, 2010)
Rep. Ron Paul Introduces Bill to Halt Body Scanner Program: Representative Ron Paul introduced a bill that would hold TSA agents legally accountable for airline screening procedures. Rep. Paul cited abusive screening procedures as the reason for the legislation, titled the American Traveler Dignity Act. In a floor speech, Representative Paul also endorsed National Opt-Out Day, a grassroots movement of passengers who plan to refuse the devices on November 24th. EPIC is suing in federal court to suspend the body scanner program. For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS. (Nov. 18, 2010)
New York City Moves to Ban Body Scanners: Members of the New York City Council announced today that they would introduce legislation to ban the use of body scanners in New York City. Councilmember David Greenfield said, "I am deeply troubled that we are subjecting New Yorkers to this humiliating process, which breaches the most basic privacy rights." EPIC President Marc Rotenberg joined the Councilmembers on the steps of City Hall for the announcement. For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program). (Nov. 18, 2010)
Senators Grill TSA Official About Airport Body Scanners: In a hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Sentors asked TSA Administrator John Pistole tough questions about the privacy and health implications of airport body scanners. Senators also asked about the invasiveness of pat-downs and the problems that the machines pose for religious objectors. Pistole failed to provide proof of independent studies regarding radiation risks and consistently downplayed privacy and religious concerns. EPIC has filed a lawsuit to suspend the body scanner program, calling the program "unlawful, invasive, and ineffective." For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program). (Nov. 17, 2010)
Senate to Hold Hearings on TSA, Congress to Examine Impact of Body Scanner Program on Airline Industry: The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation will hold an oversight hearing on the Transportation Security Administration on November 17, 2010. Hon. John S. Pistole, the TSA Administrator, is expected to testify. EPIC has filed a lawsuit to suspend the body scanner program, calling it "unlawful, invasive, and ineffective." Opposition to the program is growing. The Libertarian Party, the American Pilots Association, Airline CEOs, flyers rights organizations, religious groups, and others are calling for an end to invasive searches at airports. A National Opt-Out Day is scheduled for November 24. For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program). (Nov. 15, 2010)
Government Seeks to Exclude Religious Objectors from EPIC Body Scanner Challenge, EPIC Opposes DHS Motion: In a motion filed in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the Department of Homeland Security has attempted to exclude religious objector Nadhira Al-Khalili from EPIC's body scanner lawsuit. Ms. Al-Khalili is Legal Counsel for the Council on American Islamic Relations, one of the organizations that supported EPIC's petition, which is the basis for the challenge to the body scanner program. Ms. Al-Khalili's claims are based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Islamic modesty requirements. EPIC has opposed the government's motion and stated that the agency is "simply afraid to have the Religious Freedom Restoration Act claims heard by this Court." EPIC further argued that "Respondents hope by seeking to exclude Ms. Al- Khalili . . . they will avoid judicial scrutiny of an agency practice that substantially burdens the free exercise of religion in violation of federal law." For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Emergency Stay, Body Scanners) and EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology. (Nov. 9, 2010)

Background

In 2005, the Transportation Security Administration, a component of the US Department of Homeland Security, began testing passenger imaging technology - called “whole body imaging,” "body scanners," and "advanced imaging technology" - to screen air travelers. Body scanners produce detailed, three-dimensional images of individuals. Security experts have described whole body scanners as the equivalent of "a physically invasive strip-search." The agency operates the body scanner devices at airports throughout the United States.

As part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, EPIC obtained documents which established that the TSA required that have the ability to store, record, and transfer detailed images of naked air travelers. EPIC also obtained hundreds of pages of traveler complaints, which described the invasive program and the lack of proper signage and information regarding the machines. The images captured by FBS devices can uniquely identify individual air travelers. The TSA uses body scanners to search air travelers as they pass through the TSA’s airport security checkpoints.

The TSA recently established body scanners as primary screening. Complaints obtained by EPIC as part of its Freedom of Information Act lawsuit also revealed that the body scanner screening is effectively mandatory because the agency routinely denies air travelers alternative screening.
EPIC's Lawsuit

EPIC's Emergency Motion

In July 2, 2010, EPIC, human rights advocate Chip Pitts, and security expert Bruce Schneier petitioned the D.C. Court of Appeals for review of three DHS actions— one failure to act, one agency Order, and one agency Rule—of the TSA, a DHS component. The petitioners filed a motion for emergency stay, urging the Court to shut down the program as soon as possible in order to prevent irreparable harm to American travelers.

In EPIC v. DHS, No. 10-1157, petitioners argue that DHS violated the Administrative Procedures Act when it failed to act on EPIC's May 31, 2009 petition to the agency and when it refused to process of EPIC’s April 21, 2010 petition. The Administrative Procedures Act states that each agency shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule. Courts have found that petitioning parties are entitled to a response on the merits. Agencies are obligated to respond within a reasonable time. EPIC argued that because TSA failed to deny or grant either of EPIC's two petitions, the agency has violated the Administrative Procedures Act.

EPIC, et al. also argued that the DHS Privacy Office failed to comply with its statutory mandate to protect travelers’ privacy. EPIC argued that the DHS Chief Privacy Office prepared an inadequate Privacy Impact Assessment of the TSA’s body scanner test program which failed to identify numerous privacy risks to air travelers. EPIC also argued that the DHS Chief Privacy Office failed to prepare any Privacy Impact Assessment concerning the TSA’s current body scanner program. The TSA’s current body scanner program is materially different from the TSA’s body scanner test program. The program erodes, and does not sustain, privacy protections relating to the use, collection, and disclosure of air traveler’s personal information.

EPIC asserted that the body scanner program violates travelers' Fourth Amendment rights. Courts have required that airport security searches be ;minimally intrusive, well-tailored to protect personal privacy, and neither more extensive nor more intensive than necessary under the circumstances to rule out the presence of weapons or explosives. Searches are reasonable if they escalate in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening discloses a reason to conduct a more probing search. EPIC argued that the TSA’s body scanner program fails to meet these standards because the TSA subjects all air travelers to the most extensive, invasive search available at the outset. EPIC asserted that the TSA searches are also far more invasive than necessary to detect weapons. Alternative technologies, including passive millimeter wave scanners and automated threat detection, detect weapons with a less invasive search.

EPIC argued that the TSA’s body scanner program violates the Privacy Act because it creates a system of records containing air travelers’ personally identifiable information. The system of records is under the control of the TSA, and the TSA can retrieve information about air travelers by name or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. However, EPIC argued, the TSA failed to publish a “system of records notice” in the Federal Register, and otherwise failed to comply with its Privacy Act obligations.

Lastly, EPIC asserted that the TSA’s body scanner program violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which bars the government from placing a substantial burden on a person's exercise of religion even if the burden arises from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates a compelling governmental interest, and uses the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. The TSA's use of body scanners violates the RFRA because the capture and transmission of naked images of individuals offends the sincerely held beliefs of Muslims and other religious groups. Muslims believe in maintaining modesty and covering their bodies. Body scanners enable the capture and viewing of naked human images that violates this belief and denies observant Muslims the opportunity to travel by plane in the United States as others are able to do.

EPIC urged the Court to act as soon as possible to prevent irreparable injury to the the public.
Litigation Documents

EPIC v. the Department of Homeland Security, Case No. 10-1157 (D.C. Cir. filed July 2, 2010).
EPIC's Opening Brief
Department of Homeland Security's Motion to Exclude Religious Objector Nadhira Al-Khalili As a Party
EPIC's Opposition to Department's Motion
EPIC's Petition for Review(pdf)
EPIC's Motion for Emergency Stay(pdf)
Exhibit 1: EPIC: Petition to the DHS Regarding Body Scanners, May 31, 2009
Exhibit 2: TSA: Letter to EPIC, June 19, 2009
Exhibit 3: EPIC: Petition to DHS Regarding Body Scanners, April 21, 2010
Exhibit 4: TSA: Letter to EPIC, May 28, 2010
Declaration of Petitioner Bruce Schneier
Department of Homeland Security's Opposition to EPIC's Emergency Motion(pdf)
Exhibit 1: Privacy Impact Assessment, January 2, 2008
Exhibit 2: Privacy Impact Assessment, July 23, 2009
Exhibit 3: Privacy Impact Assessment, August 17, 2008
Exhibit 4: Backscatter Sign
Exhibit 5: Millimeter Wave Sign
EPIC's Reply(pdf)
Exhibit 1: Image from Body Scanner Machine
Exhibit 2: USA Today: Backlash Grows Against Full Body Scanners in Airports
Exhibit 3: TSA Operational Requirements
Exhibit 4: TSA: Procurement Specifications
News Stories

Administration to Seek Balance in Airport Screening, Scott Shane, New York Times, November 21, 2010.
Protest Over Airport Body Scanners, Press Association, November 21, 2010.
Obama Says Understands Ire Over Airport Screenings, Julie Pace, Associated Press, November 20, 2010.
Ron Paul Introduces the American Traveler Dignity Act, E. D. Kain, Washington Examiner, November 19, 2010.
Incoming Speaker Takes Commercial Flight, but Skips the Pat Down, Jeff Zeleny, New York Times, November 19, 2010.
Lawmakers Jump Late into Airport-Scanner Uproar, Carol Pucci, Seattle Times, November 19, 2010.
New York Lawmakers Try to Ban Body Scanners From Airports, Amar Toor, Switched, November 19, 2010.
TSA Pat-Downs 'Overly Intrusive,' Key Lawmakers Say, Alan Levin, USA Today, November 19, 2010.
Pilots to be Exempt from Airport Scanners, Intrusive Pat-Downs, Brad Knickerbocker, Christian Science Monitor, November 19, 2010.
Pat-Downs at Airports Prompt Complaints, Susan Stellin, New York Times, November 18, 2010.
Nader: TSA is Delivering Naked Insecurity, Ralph Nader, USA Today, November 18, 2010.
U.S. Must Improve Traveler Privacy After Pat-Down Backlash, Lawmaker Says, John Hughes, Bloomberg News, November 17, 2010.
'Sully' Joins Opposition to Heightened Airport Security Measures, CNN, November 17, 2010.
Body Scanners, Pat-Downs Violate Law and Privacy, Marc Rotenberg, CNN, November 17, 2010.
Napolitano 'Open' to Fliers' Gripes Over Screening, Charisse Jones, USA Today, November 17, 2010.
TSA Backlash Grows Over Leaked Body Scans, Many Other Scandals, Max Fisher, The Atlantic, November 16, 2010.
Screening Protests Grow as Holiday Crunch Looms, Joe Sharkey, New York Times, November 15, 2010.
Oceanside Man Challenges Airport's Full-Body Scan, Los Angeles Times, November 15, 2010.
Growing Backlash Against TSA Body Scanners, Pat-Downs, Phil Gast, CNN, November 14, 2010.
'Invasive' Airport Screening Stirs Backlash Among Airline Passengers, Stephen Clark, Fox News, November 12, 2010.
Ralph Nader and EPIC Take On Full-Body Airport Scanners, Neal Ungerleider, Fast Company, November 8, 2010.
Airline Pilots Boycott Full Body Scanners, Sara Yin, PC Magazine, November 8, 2010.
Group Slams Airport Naked Body Scanners, Dan Goodin, The Register, November 3, 2010.
New Uproar over Security Scanners After Agency Acknowledges Storing Images, Mary Forgione, Los Angeles Times, August 9, 2010.
Group Concerned Airport Security Scanners Capture Nearly Naked Images, NBC, August 5, 2010.
Feds Admit They Stored Body Scanner Images, Despite TSA Claim the Images Cannot be Saved, Aliyah Shahid, New York Daily News, August 4, 2010.
Lawsuit Challenges Airport Full-Body Scanners, Katie Johnston Chase, The Boston Globe, August 4, 2010.
Body Scan Images From Security Checkpoints Were Saved By Feds, Bianca Bosker, Huffington Post, August 4. 2010.
Feds Admit Storing Body Scan Images, Declan McCullagh, CNET, August 4, 2010.
EPIC Files Suit Against the Deployment of Full Body Scanners in US Airports, Yosie Saint-Cyr, Slaw (Blog), July 15, 2010.
EPIC Files Lawsuit Against Airport Body Scanners, Growing Consumer Backlash, Consumer Federation of America, July 13, 2010.
Backlash grows against full-body scanners in airports, Gary Stoller, USA Today, July 13, 2010.
Privacy Group Files Lawsuit to Block Airport Body Scanners, Roger Yu, USA Today, July 9, 2010.
Civil Rights Coalition: TSA Violates Travelers' Rights, Amy E. Ferrer, Bill of Rights Defense Committee Blog, July 6, 2010.
Full-body security scanners scrapped at Dubai airports, officials say the device "contradicts Islam", Aliah Shahid, New York Daily News, July 6, 2010.
Sikh concerns delay hand search plans at UK airports, Dil Neiyyar, BBC News, June 30, 2010.
Body Scanner Resources

EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology (Body Scanners)
Spotlight on Surveillance, Body Scanners
EPIC v. DHS (FOIA, Body Scanners)

[Magda Hassan]

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/985.html
Lying dogs and useful dogs.

[Peter Lemkin]

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/985.html
Lying dogs and useful dogs.

Good. And as much as I don't much like Police and Intel People, I have noticed that those in Canine Units treat their dogs very well - better than they treat most humans they contact outside of their buddies. A good idea.....but too cheap to convince those who stand to profit financially and by the hightened fear. Dogs don't up the ante of fear at an airport or other facility.

[Magda Hassan]

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/985.html
Lying dogs and useful dogs.

Good. And as much as I don't much like Police and Intel People, I have noticed that those in Canine Units treat their dogs very well - better than they treat most humans they contact outside of their buddies. A good idea.....but too cheap to convince those who stand to profit financially and by the hightened fear. Dogs don't up the ante of fear at an airport or other facility.

A lot of them are attracted to those units, dogs, horses and search and rescue because they are a bit different from the rest of the institution. Far less corruption too. One member of my family specifically sought out such a unit because the alternative if they stayed where they were was a life of crime in uniform.

[Ed Jewett]

TSA Frisks Groom Children to Cooperate with Sex Predators, Abuse Expert Says

December 2nd, 2010 Via: Raw Story:
An expert in the fight against child sexual abuse is raising the alarm about a technique the TSA is reportedly using to get children to co-operate with airport pat-downs: calling it a “game”.
Ken Wooden, founder of Child Lures Prevention, says the TSA’s recommendation that children be told the pat-down is a “game” is potentially putting children in danger.
Telling a child that they are engaging in a game is “one of the most common ways” that sexual predators use to convince children to engage in inappropriate contact, Wooden told Raw Story.
Children “don’t have the sophistication” to distinguish between a pat-down carried out by an airport security officer and an assault by a sexual predator, he said.
The TSA policy could “desensitize children to inappropriate touch and ultimately make it easier for sexual offenders to prey on our children,” Wooden added.
Following an outcry last month over the use on children of “enhanced pat-downs” — which involve the touching of genitals — the TSA announced a new “modified” pat-down for children under 12. However, as the LA Times noted, the new rules are “unclear” on whether TSA agents can touch children’s genitals.

[Peter Lemkin]

"Will that be naked pictures, or being fondled, with your flight ticket, miss?"

We've all heard about it of course, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) x-raying under people's clothes or groping them like on a clumsy second date. Maybe the new security procedures will finally disturb enough people enough times so that they'll start to raise the issue that dare not speak its name: What can we do to stop creating all the anti-American terrorists we're now engaged full time in protecting ourselves from?

As despicable as their philosophy and actions are, anti-American terrorists are not just mindless, evil madmen from another planet. They are not motivated by hatred or envy of American freedom or democracy (as George W. liked to tell us), or of American wealth, secular government, or culture. They are instead motivated by decades of terrible things done to their homelands by US foreign policy. There should be no doubt of this, for there are numerous examples of terrorists explicitly citing American policies as the prime motivation behind their acts.2 It works the same all over the world. In the period of the 1950s to the 1980s in Latin America, in response to a long string of hateful Washington policies, there were countless acts of terrorism against US diplomatic and military targets as well as the offices of US corporations. 9/11 was a globalized version of the Columbine High School disaster. When you bully people long enough they are going to strike back.

The US bombing, invasion, occupation and/or torture in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia in recent years, as well as the eternal Israeli-US genocide against the Palestinian people, have created countless new anti-American terrorists. We'll be hearing from them for an awfully long time.

Following an act of terrorism, we rarely receive from our officials and media even a slightly serious discussion of the terrorists' motivation. Was there any kind of deep-seated grievance or resentment with anything or anyone American being expressed? Any perceived wrong they wished to make right? Anything they sought to obtain revenge for? And why is the United States the most common target of terrorists?

But such questions are virtually forbidden in the mainstream world. At a White House press briefing in January concerning an attempt to blow up a US airliner on Christmas day 2009, conducted by Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security John Brennan, veteran reporter Helen Thomas raised a question:

Thomas: "What is really lacking always for us is you don't give the motivation of why they want to do us harm. ... What is the motivation? We never hear what you find out on why."

Brennan: "Al Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder and wanton slaughter of innocents. ... [They] attract individuals like Mr. Abdulmutallab and use them for these types of attacks. He was motivated by a sense of religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al Qaeda has perverted Islam, and has corrupted the concept of Islam, so that [they're] able to attract these individuals. But al Qaeda has the agenda of destruction and death."

Thomas: "And you're saying it's because of religion?"

Brennan: "I'm saying it's because of an al Qaeda organization that uses the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way."

Thomas: "Why?"

Brennan: "I think ... this is a long issue, but al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland."

Thomas: "But you haven't explained why." 3

Osama bin Laden, in an audiotape, also commented about the Christmas Day would-be bomber: "The message we wanted you to receive through him is that America shall not dream about security until we witness it in Palestine." 4

We have as well the case of Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, a Jordanian doctor-turned-suicide bomber, who killed seven CIA employees at a base in Afghanistan last December 30. His widow later declared: "I am proud of him. ... My husband did this against the U.S. invasion." Balawi himself had written on the Internet: "I have never wished to be in Gaza, but now I wish to be a ... car bomb that takes the lives of the biggest number of Jews to hell." 5

It should be noted that the CIA base attacked by Balawi was heavily involved in the selection of targets for the Agency's remote-controlled aircraft along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, a program that killed more than 300 people in the previous year. 6

So, feel-ups of our private parts and involuntary disrobing are the price we pay for waging war against the world. We get our cavities probed because our victims get predator drones up their asses. 7
"Thank you for not putting a bomb in your luggage."

"Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear — kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor — with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real."

– General Douglas MacArthur, 1957 8

Do you remember the "shoe bomber"? Richard Reid was his name and he was aboard an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami on December 22, 2001; he tried to detonate explosives hidden in his shoes, didn't succeed, and was overpowered by attendants and passengers. It's because of him that we have to take our shoes off at the airport.

There was also "the underwear bomber", Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian, referred to above. On Christmas Day, 2009, he tried to set off plastic explosives sewn in his underwear while aboard a Northwest Airlines flight as the plane approached the Detroit airport. But he failed to detonate them properly, producing only some popping noises and a flame; another passenger jumped him and restrained him as others put out the fire. It's because of him that we now have to, virtually, take our underwear off at airports.

Then there was Faisal Shahzad, the "Times Square bomber", who on May 1 of this year parked his car in the heart of New York City, tried to detonate various explosive devices in the car, but succeeded in producing only smoke. He then walked away from the car, leaving it to lead to his arrest. It's because of him that cars are no longer permitted in Times Square. (No, that's a joke, but maybe not for long.)

The incompetence of these three men in being unable to detonate their explosives is remarkable. You'd think they could have easily gotten that critical and relatively simple part of the operation down pat beforehand. What I find even more remarkable is that neither of the two men aboard airplanes thought of going into the bathroom, closing the door, and then trying to detonate the explosives. An eight-year-old child would have thought of that. Are we supposed to take these guys and these incidents seriously? Are we supposed to take the "threat" posed by such men seriously? A month before the Christmas incident Abdulmutallab's father had gone to the US embassy in Nigeria to express concern that his son was in Yemen and had fallen under the influence of religious extremists.9 Moreover, the New York Times later reported: "In early November, American intelligence authorities say they learned from a communications intercept of Qaeda followers in Yemen that a man named 'Umar Farouk' ... had volunteered for a coming operation." 10

And yet Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had no problem getting on an American airplane in Amsterdam and flying to the United States.

The latest example of the terrible terrorist threat was in late October when we were told that two packages addressed to Chicago had been found aboard American cargo planes, one in Dubai, the other in England, containing what might, or might not, be an explosive device; which might, or might not, have exploded. Authorities said it was not known if the intent was to detonate the packages in flight or in Chicago.

Now get this. Terrorists, we are told, are shipping bombs in packages to the United States. They of course would want to make the packages as innocuous looking as can be, right? Nothing that would provoke any suspicion in the mind of an already very suspicious American security establishment, right? So what do we have? The packages were mailed from YEMEN ... and addressed to JEWISH SYNAGOGUES in Chicago. ... Well folks, nothing to see here, just keep moving.

Is it also perhaps of interest that L'Affaire Package Bombs took place less than a week before election day, perchance focusing the American public's mind away from things economic?

[Magda Hassan]

JANUARY 13--The woman who sued the Transportation Security Administration after her breasts were exposed during a frisking at a Texas airport will receive a "nominal" payment from the government as part of a legal settlement, The Smoking Gun has learned.
The settlement was disclosed in documents filed last week in U.S. District Court in Amarillo, where Lynsie Murley last year filed a lawsuit accusing the TSA of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress in connection with the May 2008 incident at the Corpus Christi airport.
Murley's lawyer, Jerry McLaughlin, declined to disclose the exact amount of money that his client is receiving, but termed the payout a "nominal settlement." Asked if the amount hit six figures, McLaughlin laughed loudly and said the negotiated payment was "way less than that. It wasn't a whole lot of money." Murley, he said, "was never interested in the money," and would not have filed a lawsuit if TSA officials had simply sent her a letter of apology.
Murley is pictured above in a photo from her Facebook page.
The 24-year-old Murley alleged that after being "singled out for extended search procedures," a TSA agent frisked her and "pulled Plaintiff's blouse completely down, exposing Plaintiff's breasts to everyone in the area." Her complaint noted that, "as would be expected," Murley was "extremely embarrassed and humiliated."
Murley charged that TSA employees "joked and laughed about the incident for an extended period of time." After leaving the security line to be "consoled by an acquaintance who had brought her to the airport," Murley returned to the line, where a male TSA worker said that he had wished he was there when she first passed through. The employee, Murley recalled, added that "he would just have to watch the video."
The court settlement was reached shortly after government lawyers deposed Murley. The agreement, McLaughlin said, "got her some justice." (5 pages)



DOCUMENT: Stupid TSA Pays Off In Breast Exposure Suit

Texas woman, 24, receives "nominal" settlement



View Document

TSA Exposure Suit

• TSA Exposure Suit
  
  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/tsa-ex...uit?page=0
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  TSA Exposure Suit
  
• TSA Exposure Suit
  
  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/tsa-ex...uit?page=0
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  TSA Exposure Suit
  
• TSA Exposure Suit
  
  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/tsa-ex...uit?page=0
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  TSA Exposure Suit
  
• TSA Exposure Suit
  
  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/tsa-ex...uit?page=0
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  TSA Exposure Suit
  
• TSA Exposure Suit
  
  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/tsa-ex...uit?page=0
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  TSA Exposure Suit