The Freedom Bulletin

Some very good news on the airport security front: the TSA is beginning to test new body scanning machines at three airports, which do not virtually strip-search people. Instead, they simply say “OK” if nothing suspicious is detected, or if something suspicious is detected, they show a generic outline with a box indicating where it is.

“In Tuesday’s demonstration, Transportation Security staffers walked into one of the newly configured machines and stopped with their arms raised, as passenger being scanned are asked to do. A small video monitor near the unit’s exit displayed the results for both the passenger and the security officer operating the machine.

Those who deliberately carried objects were detected and portrayed as generic human outlines, with regions of their body highlighted by a box indicating additional security attention was warranted.

Those who carried no questionable objects saw a screen that was green with ‘OK’ in the middle.”

I never thought I would say this, but thank you TSA. Finally they are beginning to listen to people who care about their privacy and dignity. And thank you to all those who protested the TSA’s policies. Together we made a difference.

I am excited to report that on Monday, former wrestler and Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura filed a lawsuit against the TSA. He is asking for an injunction against their use of whole body imaging (strip search machines) and intrusive pat-downs.

In the complaint, he writes that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and TSA chief John Pistole “have, and unless enjoined or restrained will continue to violate his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” As the host of Conspiracy Theory on TruTV, he must travel frequently. Because of his hip replacement surgery, he sets off the metal detector every time he flies, and is now subjected to full-body scanners and pat-downs, even though prior to November, he had only been subjected to a “non-invasive magnetic hand-wand inspection.”

“TSA and DHS have no factual basis to support any reasonable suspicion that Governor Ventura poses any threat to airline safety, nor does he in fact post any such threat,” he points out. In November 2010 he was selected for “additional security” and “was not free to leave the airport security area or to decline his scheduled flight to avoid additional screening, which is a seizure of his person, and he was subjected to a pat-down body search, which is a search of his person.”

The complaint continues,

“WBI violates Governor Ventura’s basic rights to dignity and privacy and his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, because through generation of a three-dimensional image of his person in an unclothed state, which image is viewed by others and can be electronically stored, saved, reproduced and transmitted, the procedure is tantamount to a warrantless, non-suspicion-based, electronically-recorded strip search.

The WBIs…meet the definition of unlawful video voyeurism…and are demeaning and degrading…

Pat-down body searches violate Governor Ventura’s basic rights to privacy and dignity, and his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, because they include warrantless, non-suspicion-based offensive touching, gripping, and rubbing of the genital and other sensitive areas of his body.

The pat-down body searches…meet the definition for an unlawful sexual assault…and are demeaning and degrading.”

This might be the most high profile anti-TSA lawsuit yet, and I am so glad that Ventura decided to stand up for not only his rights, but the rights of all of us. I agree strongly with everything he says in the complaint. Go Jesse, go!

Read the full text of the complaint (PDF).

It’s been a while since I did one of these. Here is a collection of TSA-related news and opinion articles I’ve noticed from the past few days…

• Chris Liu, a pilot for American Airlines, revealed that he is the ”Patriot Pilot” who created a YouTube video in which he criticizes security procedures. The TSA rewarded him for his brave actions by suspending him from a program that allows him to carry a gun in the cockpit.
• Iain Murphy of the Competitive Enterprise Institute writes, “We need to scuttle the TSA’s equal-risk policy in favor of one that concentrates on genuine potential risks.” (The Herald also has a pretty good editorial.)
• Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, to the surprise of no one, defended strip-search machines and pat-downs on Sunday, saying, “Everything is objectively better than it was a year ago, particularly in the aviation environment.” Umm, not if you place any value on sexual innocence, privacy, dignity, freedom, or constitutional rights.
• Darrell Dawsey wrote in a great opinion piece, “The scanners soil our Constitutional rights, pose a potential cancer risk and get the job done about as effectively as a screen door on a submarine.”
• Auditors and security experts question the TSA’s emphasis on advanced technology.
• A rape survivor was forced to undergo an invasive pat-down and then pushed to the ground, handcuffed, thrown in jail, and charged with criminal trespassing and disobedience to police and TSA agents (didn’t know that was a crime) after arguing (correctly) that she has the right to board an airplane without being molested. Disgusting!
• Pilot Patrick Smith argues for a proposal by the International Air Transport Association that would divide passengers into three groups, with the highest-risk group undergoing procedures that are as invasive as those that everyone is forced to go through now.
• The TSA announced right before Christmas that people carrying thermoses and “insulated beverage containers” may be subject to extra scrutiny. Oh joy.

Khloe Kardashian is not a fan of the TSA’s intrusive airport searches. She said on the George Lopez show…

“Well, they basically just are raping you in public. The people are so aggressive! It’s like, ‘Chill out, you didn’t find anything on me yet, calm down.’ They say, ‘OK, I’m going to be patting you down and I’m going to be touching the crease of your [butt].’ That is so inappropriate!”

But several anti-rape organizations criticized her words. For example, Jessica Sears Brown, founder of Pandora’s Project, said:

“Comparing the two is inappropriate and cheapens the devastation of sexual violence. Rape is sexual contact without consent and the screening procedures are non-sexual contact with consent.”

I’m taking Khloe’s side on this one. The TSA’s search procedures might not be rape, exactly, but I believe that they amount to sexual assault. It is simply false to say that requiring people to go through pat-downs or strip search machines in order to fly is non-sexual contact with consent. Sexual contact is defined not by the intentions behind it but by the action itself. Seeing or touching someone’s private parts is a sexual action, even if it’s done for security purposes and not sexual purposes (touching someone’s private parts over their clothes is nowhere near as bad as the alternative…but it still counts). And no way are these measures consensual: people are required to submit to them in order to board an airplane. So while pat-downs and strip search machines are not as severe as rape, they are a type of sexual assault. Khloe Kardashian may have been exaggerating, but she’s right about the main idea: the TSA’s airport security procedures are inappropriate for sure.

I’m proud of my Congressman, Ed Markey (D-MA). He is standing up to the TSA by questioning the safety of full-body scanners:

Markey wrote letters to TSA Administrator John Pistole and to Inspector General (IG) Richard Skinner at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to request information on how well TSA inspects is whole body imaging devices to ensure TSA workers and air passengers are not exposed to dangerous levels of radiation.

In both letters, dated Dec. 6, Markey said, “I am concerned that TSA’s past history in this area as well as its lack of expertise in radiation health and safety could lead to unintentional exposures to radiation of both TSA employees and members of the public.”

Read the rest at Homeland Security Today.

Donna D’Errico, a former “Baywatch” actress and Playboy playmate, spoke out against the TSA’s strip search machines, which she and her son were forced to undergo at LAX. “They never told me that they were going to be conducting a full-body scan, or that I had the option of being searched instead,” she said.

“I posed for Playboy 15 years ago. I was on ‘Baywatch’ 13 years ago. Both of those were controlled environments, with proper lighting, makeup, etc., and were jobs. I contractually agreed to do both of those jobs. I could have stopped or changed my mind at any time. None of those conditions are present when TSA decides for you that you will consent to being scanned or felt up, or you simply won’t be allowed your constitutional right to travel from one place to another freely….”

“It isn’t right to hide behind the veil of security and safety in order to take advantage of women, or even men for that matter, so that you can see them naked. It’s a misuse of power and authority, and as much a personal violation as a Peeping Tom. The difference is that Peeping Toms can have charges pressed against them.”

A TSA spokesman actually said, “If you see the images, you’ll know it’s not a naked picture.” Take a look at the image below and decide for yourself.

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.