The Freedom Bulletin

In the midst of the heightened security since Osama bin Laden’s death, I thought it would be a good time to post the above video, in case you haven’t seen it yet. Last week, Susie Castillo, a former Miss USA and Miss Massachusetts, explained her experience of being sexually assaulted by a TSA agent during a pat-down. Please listen to this brave young lady’s words and read her blog post about her ordeal.

I admire Susie for taking the side of freedom and standing up to the TSA. Please support her at her site and follow her on Twitter.

In related news, in response to these unconstitutional, invasive searches, the Texas legislature is considering a bill making them a felony. According to the bill, ”An airport operator may not allow body imaging scanning equipment to be installed or operated in any airport in this state.” Additionally, the bill would make a felon out of anyone who  ”intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly…searches another person without probable cause to believe the person committed an offense [or] touches the anus, sexual organ, or breasts of the other person, including touching through clothing, or touches the other person in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person.”

More from the Tenth Amendment Center and the Humble Libertarian.

May 4 update: The New American has a great article about Texas state representative David Simpson, who introduced three great anti-TSA bills, and the reactions of Congressmen John Carter, Louie Gohmert, and Ron Paul. A majority of the state legislators have signed on as co-sponsors of one bill!

Here in the U.S. of A. our government decided to use strip search machines as a primary method of airport security screening in early 2010. After thousands of people have been robbed of their sexual innocence and dignity by being forced to be seen naked in order to board a plane, the TSA finally decided to start testing a version of the machines that shows a generic paper-doll-like outline instead of the person’s naked body.

Australia, on the other hand, is planning on introducing full-body scanners later this year, with the paper-doll-outline technology already installed:

“The software will detect potential threats such as weapons and explosives and show their location on a generic outline of a person. If no threat is detected, an ‘OK’ will appear on the monitor with no outline. A spokesman for Transport Minister Anthony Albanese confirmed Australia would be getting the ‘stick-figure’ version.”

The best policy would be no full-body scanners at all, but it makes a heck of a lot more sense to ensure that the technology (at least somewhat) preserves people’s dignity and privacy before starting to use it.

Julian Assange recorded a wonderful speech which was shown on Friday at a pro-WikiLeaks rally in his hometown of Melbourne, Australia. He defended his site’s work, said that he would like to return to Australia, and called on Prime Minister Julia Gillard to support him.

He really sounded like a libertarian in this speech. My favorite part:

“We support a cause that is no more radical a proposition than that the citizenry has a right to scrutinize the state. The state has asserted its authority by surveilling, monitoring, and regimenting all of us, all the while hiding behind cloaks of security and opaqueness. Surely it was only a matter of time before citizens pushed back and we asserted our rights. This brings me to another point. We at WikiLeaks recognize the difference between secrecy and privacy. Individuals, not governments, have the right to privacy. Strong powers must be held to account, while the weak must be protected. We believe in transparent power, not in transparent people.”

In related news, WikiLeaks revealed, among many, many other things recently, that the U.S. agreed to share secret information on Great Britain’s nuclear arsenal with Russia as part of the START treaty. Assange seems to be following through on his promise to step up his work on Cablegate.

Assange will be in court for an extradition hearing in his Swedish sexual assault case on Monday and Tuesday. And of course, it seems that someone else decided to leak secret police files in order to make him look bad. The Telegraph has a good write-up of the new information, noting the “contradictions and inconsistencies” and calling the case “weak.” After reading the files (a translation can be found here, which I wouldn’t recommend if you’re easily disturbed by graphic content), I’m inclined to agree. Assange didn’t really do anything wrong, as far as I can tell. It would be sad if he was extradited for this.

Apparently, the Boston Globe opinion page is the place for people who think it’s perfectly OK for people to be forced to have their private parts either seen or touched in order to board an airplane. Well, to be fair, there were two good letters (1 and 2) to the editor today in support of people’s right to travel freely while keeping their private parts private.

But there was one from a lady who gives “a resounding hurray” for strip-search machines because the metal in her hip would set off the metal detectors, and the strip-search machine is “so much easier, faster, and less invasive” than the pat-down that she would otherwise get. What she doesn’t get, though, is that to have strip-search machines available as a secondary screening measure – for people who set off metal detectors – is one thing. That doesn’t mean that everyone should be forced to go through the virtual strip search instead of the metal detector.

Another letter goes as follows:

“I have voluntarily had my body cupped, patted, and otherwise invaded — by doctors — because I wanted to extend my life as long as possible. I see little difference between what occurs at medical establishments and what happens at airports, especially in this day and age. Both activities are attempting to extend life.”

Well, the letter writer makes a good point: invasive searches and invasive medical procedures both make people safer (in theory) at the expense of dignity, sexual innocence, privacy, and quality of life. I do not believe that this tradeoff is worth it.  I would rather maintain my dignity, sexual innocence, privacy, and quality of life and be exposed to more danger and possibly not live as long. But many people, including the letter writer, have the opposite preference. That’s OK; I wouldn’t stop them from acting on their preferences. But neither should they be able to stop me from acting on my preferences. The TSA’s policy of requiring people to have their private parts seen or touched to fly does exactly that. Doctors do exactly that when they pressure people into undergoing medical procedures or refuse to let people have the medications that they want. The legislators who passed the Durham-Humphrey Amendment in 1951 did exactly that by making it possible for doctors to do what I just described.

I oppose the TSA’s security measures and doctors’ paternalistic practices because they impose the preferences of those who want security and safety at all costs on everyone.

…and other TSA-related news from the past few days. Opt-Out Day has come and gone, but the TSA’s screening policies are still making the news, as they should be.

• First of all, two Harvard Law students have joined the ranks of those suing the TSA. Jeffrey Redfern and Anant Pradhan are asking Boston’s federal court to declare full-body scanners and “enhanced” pat-downs unconstitutional. How cool is that?
• Jeffrey Rosen wrote an excellent opinion piece explaining why naked machines and pat-downs are unconstitutional.
• Roger Cohen of the New York Times writes that “The unfettered growth of the Department of Homeland Security and the T.S.A. represent a greater long-term threat to the prosperity, character and wellbeing of the United States than a few madmen in the valleys of Waziristan or the voids of Yemen.”
• Rep. Connie Mack (R-FL) calls the procedures “outrageous” and says that “security must not come at the expense of our freedoms.”
• The TSA forced a disabled boy to walk without his leg braces.
• In Reagan National Airport, at least, the naked machines are not labeled, nor are there any explanations of what they do.
• Nate Silver sensibly points out that statistics about how many people opted out, like those on the TSA’s obnoxious blog, aren’t very useful without knowing how many people had the chance to opt out.

Strip-search machine news roundup:

I don’t know whether I feel happy about the patriots who are courageously standing up to the TSA’s egregious violations of our dignity, sexual innocence, privacy, and freedom, or enraged at the TSA’s attempts to defend same. I’m going to go with the former!

• A brave man, John Tyner, posted a YouTube video of his confrontation with the TSA when he refused to go through a strip-search machine. He was escorted away by police and, according to some people, could face a civil penalty of up to $11,000! “I don’t think that the government has any business seeing me naked as a condition of traveling about the country,” he says.
• A brave New Hampshire woman, Meg McLain, refused both the strip search and pat down. She was handcuffed and her plane ticket was ripped up.
• MyFoxBoston.com has a poll that asks whether “personal comfort” or “national security” is more important. What a biased way of phrasing it. It’s not about comfort, it’s about liberty and individual rights.
• Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano gave a press conference in which she “announced the expansion of a security awareness campaign.”
• Napolitano also wrote a column for USA Today, in which she claims that strip-search machines “protect passenger privacy” and asks for “cooperation, patience and a commitment to vigilance in the face of a determined enemy.”
• A National Opt Out Day, during which people are encouraged to decline the strip-search machine and get a pat down instead, is planned for November 24.
• Another Opt Out Project, during which people will refuse both the strip search and pat down and forfeit their plane ticket, is tentatively scheduled for May 7, 2011.

Questions for the TSA:

1. What’s with the handcuffing and suing of people who decide not to board their plane? I get it, you don’t think that people have any right to board a plane without baring their naked bodies, but even you must admit that people have a right not to go through the security procedures and not board the plane, right? Apparently not.
2. What exactly is the “security awareness campaign”? All that people need to be aware of is a) the Fourth Amendment and b) the fact that the TSA now requires completely innocent people, who are not suspected of crimes, to either be strip searched or have their genitals fondled in order to board an airplane. There is no way that anyone with an IQ above 50 can think that is constitutional.
3. How can the same action be both banned and required by the same government? Taking nude pictures of children is considered child pornography and banned, but children (and adults) are required to have nude pictures taken in order to fly. It is illegal to touch someone’s genitals without their consent, but people are required to have their genitals touched in order to fly. This is the very depth of hypocrisy.
4. Janet, please tell me how on Earth a machine that creates pictures of people’s nude bodies can protect privacy. Examining someone’s nude body with their face blurred, without saving or printing the picture, from a remotely-located room, shreds their privacy essentially just as much as doing the same thing with their face visible, with the picture saved and printed, and with the agent in the same room. Requiring people to have their nude bodies seen necessarily violates their privacy severely. The only way that these scanners can protect privacy is if they don’t show people’s naked bodies.

I do agree with Janet on one thing. I also ask Americans for “vigilance in the face of a determined enemy.” That enemy? The TSA.

A week ago, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed its opening brief in its lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over its use of full-body scanners, AKA strip-search machines.

EPIC, Chip Pitts (lecturer and former president of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee), Bruce Schneier (security technologist and author), and Nadhira Al-Khalili (lawyer for the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations) are suing Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security Chief Privacy Officer Mary Ellen Callahan, and their department in the hopes of putting a stop to the strip-search machines until a proper policy can be created, with hearings and input from the public. This is actually an appeal from EPIC’s earlier motion for an emergency stay, which was sadly denied. The appeal is being heard in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the DHS’s brief is due on December 15.

In this brief, EPIC accuses the DHS of violating several laws, including the Administrative Procedure Act, Privacy Act, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, and most importantly, Fourth Amendment:

“Petitioners object to Respondents’ decision to make Full Body Scanners the primary means of screening in US airports. That decision disregarded the Fourth Amendment, as well as federal laws that ensure agency accountability and help safeguard privacy and religious freedom. Respondents have broad authority to undertake screening of travelers at airports in the United States, but such authority is not unbounded.”

I am not done reading the brief yet, but from what I’ve read so far, I can tell you that it is a beautiful, beautiful thing. No matter what happens in court, I am proud to be from the same country as the people who filed it.

In another awesome development, the Libertarian Party formally endorsed the lawsuit! Gotta love them:

“The TSA should end the strip-search machine program immediately. We’ve reached the point where our government has no qualms about humiliating us. Everyone who cares about civil liberties should be outraged that the Obama administration has shown no respect for travelers’ privacy or their right to be free from unreasonable searches. The fact that I want to travel on an airplane does not make me a threat, and it does not allow anyone to conduct a warrantless search under my clothing. The Obama administration apparently agrees with the neoconservative philosophy that there are no limits on government power in the areas of security and terrorism.”

Full Brief (PDF)