Some ads are provided by Google

They are not endorsed by The New American

Banner
House Bill Limits Whole-body Imaging | Print |  
Written by Steven J. DuBord   
Saturday, 06 June 2009 00:00
whole body imagingOn June 4, the House voted 310-118 for a bill (H.R. 2027) limiting the use of whole-body imaging devices as the sole or primary method of screening at airports. Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) sponsored the bill, which drew support from both sides of the aisle.
 
Whole-body imaging technology uses radio waves to form a 360-degree, three-dimensional image of a person’s body beneath their clothes. While this reveals any concealed items the person may be carrying, it also reveals the person’s body in a fair amount of detail. The Transportation Security Administration tries to reassure travelers by stating that the images “cannot be stored, transmitted or printed,” and they are “deleted immediately once viewed.” The TSA adds that “all facial images are blurred.” Persons with artificial limbs, joint replacements, or an aversion to a pat-down search that takes two to four minutes can opt for this procedure, which the TSA describes as only taking about 15 seconds.
 
The Salt Lake Tribune on June 4 gave some of the reasons Chaffetz opposed making whole-body imaging the sole or primary method of screening. He noted that the images are so clear the TSA operator can see the “difference between a dime and a nickel” and could identify the person in the image if the face were not blurred. Speaking of the balancing act required, Chaffetz said “there comes a point when, in the name of safety and security, we overstep that line, and we have an invasion of privacy.” He emphasized, “You don't need to look at my wife and eight-year-old daughter naked to secure that airplane.”
 
The bill does not ban whole-body imaging. It seeks to make sure passengers know what is involved if they submit to the imaging, to ensure that the imaging is not used unless another screening method like metal detection presents an alert, to give passengers options that fit their comfort level if an alert condition is detected, and to allow the punishment of any TSA official who “knowingly stores, transfers, shares, or copies an image” with up to three years imprisonment and/or a fine.
 
A question still remains: Does this bill actually give airline passengers any real choice in the matter? They can submit to a virtual strip search or a more hands-on groping. Does Chaffetz actually prefer that someone lays hands on his wife rather than merely seeing her unclothed on a computer screen with her face blurred out? Neither option is appealing.
 
While H.R. 2027 seems well intended, perhaps the worst thing is that the whole matter is in the hands of government in the first place. The Transportation Security Administration has given the federal government vast power over U.S. air travel, with all the expense, ineptness, and potential for abuse that comes with big-government bureaucracy. Heaven help the innocent person whose name shows up on the no-fly list by mistake or who is having a bad day and makes a scene at a security checkpoint!
 
Even if Americans are personally comfortable with being strip searched or groped, they would do well to consider the words of Benjamin Franklin: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
 
Photo: AP Images
Trackback(0)
Comments (6)add comment

Carl said:

0
Liberty
Which liberty are you referring to when you quote Benjamin Franklin?

Liberty is a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will.

Where is having your person screened for weapons on when flying impeding on your 'liberty'.

I've yet to have someone explain what all the fuss is about having your body viewed. Are we really this hung up on nakedness?

Perhaps we all need to abide by the 'Law of Chastity'?
June 06, 2009

The Captain said:

0
...
I think this is just a TSA recruitment ploy. smilies/grin.gif
June 08, 2009

realtorgal said:

0
Passengers with loaded guns would have stopped 9-11.
"Captain",
Passengers throughout history riding on various forms of conveyances have faced dangers. The term "riding shotgun" is a term that grew out of the 19th century American west. No doubt many a passenger didn't rely on the man with the shot gun to protect them but added that extra layer of security by packing a "six shooter or a Winchester rifle.

21st century American passengers and pilots were pre-disarmed due to the feds interfering in the business of a private airline. After disarming passengers and denying even pilots to carry guns on planes we are subjected to being viewed by some blue-gloved wearing TSA goon. The paid peeping Tom isn't going to make you safe. He is going to look through your clothes that's all!

You may think it is funny but your last wise crack is not the least bit humorous. In fact it's assinine and shows how ignorant you are about this entire issue. The issue is that it is none of the federal government's business to be frisking Americans at city airports with batons or x-ray machines!

Nobody- not you, nor an employee at at a city airport,(just because they are called "international" doesn't make them city run), nor TSA goons have a right to violate a person's privacy.

Americans today have become soft and weak like you seem to be and would rather be safe than free. Before that one the popular left-wing slogan was "better Red than dead."





June 08, 2009 | url

realtorgal said:

0
Take some more "cap"
Suppose a Catholic nun sets off a TSA 3-alarm bell with her gigantic metal crucifix of the Savior. She is told to step aside so that the blue-gloved freak who just got back from his hour lunch where in between bites of his sandwich he has studied every detail of a "girlie" mag. The nun is shaken and some idiot screams at her not to be "hung up on nakedness!" What if that TSA goon is looking at your mom, your kid sister, your wife or maybe your daughter. They look at the "captain" for protection but his machismo is limited to making wise-cracks at those who really do take the issue of "privacy" seriously, not like the phony "liberals" who claim to have invented the term.

In the old west that sort of demented TSA "security" would never have been tolerated for one second. Why should we have our privacy infinged upon? Just because the feds invent a war on terror and use it as a pretext to get us accustomed to being lined up and herded around like cattle does not give them a special privelege to think that they are doctors with blue gloves who are going to peek for your own good! smilies/angry.gif
June 08, 2009 | url

missmurphy said:

0
to carl
Why don't you and your family just go to the airport naked then if it is not a big deal?
June 09, 2009

Ellen Howe said:

0
Millimeter Wave is Needed
As a former member of the TSA senior leadership team and someone who was at the table when the privacy measures were put in place, I can tell you that a lot of thought went into deploying this technology. Remember the 9/11 commission? They said better technology was needed. All we've had to date is the metal detector and that does not get at plastic explosives -- explosives are still the biggest threat to aviation security.

One of the reasons this issue is so inflamed is that the opponents often show an image of backscatter that is much more revealing than the image that millimeter wave produces. It looks like a fuzzy photo negative.

Visit the Security Debrief blog, TSA.gov or Google Lesley Stahl and 60 Minutes to see her reaction to millimeter wave when she saw it last November in the airport.

People need the facts and 8 years after 9/11 travelers are complacent about terror because a lot of dedicated government professionals are working to protect against it every day.
June 17, 2009 | url

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy