Department of Terror and Graft
November 7, 2011 8:12 AM   Subscribe

"Without knowing what they ought to fear, US citizens might otherwise fail to support profitable national security initiatives." - Malcolm P. Stag III, Secretary of Fear

The Department of Homeland Security has been ignoring (pdf) the DC Appellate Circuit Court ruling (pdf) in EPIC v. DHS, which said the TSA may continue using their dangerous scanners but must solicit public comment. (previously) Past TSA public comment proceedings have not gone well and were not implemented.

In addition, the Department of Homeland Security has been hiding the details about its mass transit program and Z Backscatter Vans, but apparently the devices are not safe for scanning people because the radiation output is too high to comply with ANSI N43.17 (see slide #11 page 6 of this pdf) (related).

Bush's DHS secretary Michael Chertoff's Chertoff Group now lobbies for backscatter scanner manufactures, including Rapiscan Systems.
posted by jeffburdges (39 comments total) 12 users marked this as a favorite

 
The TSA is the main reason I took the train when traveling this summer. But maybe I shouldn't broadcast that, because the likely result of enough people switching would be increased "security" on trains.
posted by DU at 8:26 AM on November 7, 2011


I do NOT like this; however, we are going to continue to see more of this kind of surveillance - and more surveillance in general - because it is slowly becoming possible for more individuals with limited means to cause massive harm. Eventually, the technologies used for scanning and other kinds of surveillance will become safer. Right now, we are guinea pigs. And, the whole thing is driven by fear.

Imagine just *one* successful truck bomb that kills or maims a substantial number of people in the US. Or, a coordinated attack of 2-3 or more, timed for maximum deadly efficiency. Something like this would ratchet up fear in America to a place where some politicians and defense contractors would drool at the prospects of more deployment.

What is required, regarding surveillance in a truly democratic society, is for law-abiding people to be able to access the "memory" of any surveillance system *on-demand*, in order to determine when; how; for what reason; by whom (with necessary identity protections); for what reason; etc. the subject has been under surveillance. I'll coin this process as "meta-surveillance". The primary problem with "meta-surveillance" is keeping someone(s) who means harm from knowing they are under surveillance; it's a huge problem, too. The other solution is to permit surveillance only with informed consent, but that defeats the purpose of surveillance for anyone determined to cause harm.

Eventually, all societies are going to deal with this. I don't see how it can be otherwise, as more and more technology seeps into the hands of persons who can use that same technology to cause massive harm.

Again, I don't like this; I'm uncomfortable with it; I don't know that the so-called "dangers" posed are legitimately severe enough to warrant these actions by government.

Last, this issue is going to come up over and over again; world culture and access to weapons have changed in ways that make many of us more vulnerable to harm caused by any number of persons. Personally, I see these vans as an intrusion; I don't like them; I have told my Congressperson I don't like them, but I have had an eerie feeling about this kind of thing ever since I read this article, by Sun Microsystem's then-Cheif Scientist, in Wired Magazine, some years ago.

Bill Joy is hopeful in this piece, but he portends a future where technology can be used both for good, or evil. Projecting from Joy's thoughts and watching technology grow, untrammeled, gives one pause regarding how so many of our technologies can be used by those who want to cause harm. How does one remove the fear of that happening, now that the Pandora's Box of terror has been opened? I don't know.
posted by Vibrissae at 8:54 AM on November 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


we are going to continue to see more of this kind of surveillance - and more surveillance in general - because it is slowly becoming possible for more individuals with limited means to cause massive harm

Only the richest countries can dream (host nightmares?) about eradicating the risk of merely possible harm. Most are forced to concern themselves with probable harm. There is no end to the number of bottomless holes in which to pour your resources and liberty once you begin to account for what is "possible".
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:02 AM on November 7, 2011 [24 favorites]


"Imagine just *one* successful truck bomb that kills or maims a substantial number of people in the US."

It wasn't that long ago.
posted by dglynn at 9:09 AM on November 7, 2011 [16 favorites]


Where would some local communities and their police departments be without "Security Pork"?
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:14 AM on November 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


Something like this would allow some politicians and defense contractors to ratchet up fear in America to a place where some politicians and defense contractors would drool at the prospects of more deployment.

Compare the things America is afraid of with the things the corporate-run media is telling it to be afraid of.
posted by DU at 9:15 AM on November 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


"Imagine just *one* successful truck bomb that kills or maims a substantial number of people in the US."

Imagine.. all the truck bombs?

Imagine.. all the maimings?

Hmmm, for some reason, I just don't remember that lyric being in the song. It's been a while though.
posted by formless at 9:27 AM on November 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


"Imagine just *one* successful truck bomb that kills or maims a substantial number of people in the US."

It wasn't that long ago.


Seriously. There would have to be at least a 9/11 every year for me to start sacrificing any liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. Freedom isn't free.
posted by mrgrimm at 9:30 AM on November 7, 2011 [13 favorites]


Don't forget about VIPR, the TSA's probably illegal search program -- although the TSA would claim it's already saving lives.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 9:40 AM on November 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


Isn't the TSA's modus operandi to focus upon the most expensive, most flashy, most dangerous, and least useful security, Vibrissae?

American ports aren't really scanning for radiation because a fare market exists for geiger counters, for which the patent expired long ago. Instead, the TSA wants expensive Z Backscatter Vans cruising around, pouring out radiation.

Amtrack trains require identification, but afaik never scan baggage. Afaik, European trains never require identification, except for passport controls when crossing borders. Spanish AVEs stations scan baggage without requiring identification.

Automatic weapons pose vastly more danger than improvised bombs. In fact, armed cops killed about one person per day from 1980 to 2005, making police firearms more dangerous than improvised bombs. Police aren't usually armed in Europe.

Also, anyone seriously discussing grey goo like Bill Joy has little understand Chemistry and should be mocked mercilessly. Reactions need reaction chambers tuned to specific sort of reactions, like stomachs, cell walls, mitochondria, etc. Virus exist, although weaponizing them is challenging. Nano-tech should yield better catalysts, potentially toxic ones. But molecule sized self-replicating robots? Oh, please. lol
posted by jeffburdges at 9:42 AM on November 7, 2011


Seriously. There would have to be at least a 9/11 every year for me to start sacrificing any liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. Freedom isn't free.

Count me in this camp.
posted by odinsdream at 9:45 AM on November 7, 2011 [3 favorites]


Imagine just one truck bomb
It's easy if you try
It's very very scary
You wouldn't want to die

Imagine all the bad things
Happening to you - o hoo ooo

You may think that it's safe here
If you're clean, no need to hide
Now please line up while we check you
Please bend over and spread 'em wide
posted by Meatbomb at 9:59 AM on November 7, 2011 [17 favorites]


Freedom is dangerous. Claiming that we can be both free and safe is an oxymoron.

Being prudent is wise. We passed that point a long time ago.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 10:02 AM on November 7, 2011


Also, anyone seriously discussing grey goo like Bill Joy has little understand Chemistry and should be mocked mercilessly

Maybe so, but the thrust of Joy's article is in the direction of predicting a future where a few people with access to harmful, viral technologies can do great harm. Deny that at your, and your society's peril. As for the far-future possibilities of nanotech, re: Joy's predictions, progress is made every day. Remember, technologies intersect in ways that we never could have imagined, even 10 years ago. The delta between science fiction and reality has decreased.

That said, I despise TSA, and think that they don't have a clue. We should have contracted with the Israeli security agencies to determine how to do it right.

Last, about police firearms. I think it's a fallacy to make police firearms the danger flashpoint, especially when criminals can access high powered weaponry at will. I claim it's the presence of firearms in our culture, as a general rule, that increases danger. 275million+ firearms, and 65million+ handguns. That's sick.
posted by Vibrissae at 10:06 AM on November 7, 2011


Imagine just *one* successful truck bomb that kills or maims a substantial number of people in the US. Or, a coordinated attack of 2-3 or more, timed for maximum deadly efficiency. Something like this would ratchet up fear in America to a place where some politicians and defense contractors would drool at the prospects of more deployment.

More people will die of driving to work than in any foreseeable terrorist attack.

As a society, we don't have to make the choice between dying in a terrorist attack or attempting to create and control an Orwellian surveillance system. We have to decide whether we choose liberty over security.

If you live in a society where freedom is more important than safety, you will have to deal with the realities of terrorism and violence. When you look at free societies across the world, there is no such thing as a 9/11 without decades of interventionist invasions. People may wake up in Iran or Saudi Arabia or Yemen dreaming of killing a Norwegian, but they are probably too crazy to gain any supporters or have any money to do it. More likely than not, in a free society that largely minds its own business, it's going to be a well-to-do domestic psychopath carrying out terrorism. In this case, I'd prefer to give my children and grandchildren a slightly dangerous free society, rather than one filled with fear and surveillance. In the former, you're one man away from totalitarianism. It's far easier to deal with one tragedy and put one man in jail than to try and depose a Commander in Chief with sweeping police powers.

At any rate, the reason people can wake up in those same countries and find dozens of otherwise moderate people to join them to attack Americans is because they can be persuaded by history. "Look at what the Americans did to Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan. Look at those American troops stationed in our country. Look at how they're propping up dictators who are slaughtering our Sunni brothers, or our Shia brothers, or our Muslim brothers. How long before they perform a coup in Saudi Arabia like they did in Iran? How long before they invade another Muslim nation? How many more Iraqi children must die before we fight back?"

Even if these accusations are twisted and false, the presence of Americans cannot be denied by any rational person. And this was the rationale before our invasions and occupations of two Muslim nations, and the bombing of two more. Before Abu Ghraib. Before Guantanamo. Before Bagram.

Ask yourself: before 9/11, how many Muslims thought Osama bin Laden was right when he said that the US was at war with Islam, and how many agree with him now?

When they look up in the sky and see a UAV and know who's flying it. They know who to blame when they're at a mass funeral of yet another wedding party blown apart by hellfire missiles, or at their brother's funeral who committed the crime of not stopping properly at a checkpoint. Their anger is rational, just as ours would be if someone invaded our nation with overwhelming force. You don't just sit there and let people cut your throat, or bomb your town, or take your freedom. If you feel like you've got no chance, desperation will lead to acts of insane violence as a response to acts of military violence (which are only differentiated by your nationality and checkbook): it's simple human nature. And, just as Americans sent money to fund the IRA, moderately wealthy Muslims may not be willing to pick up a gun, but they can certainly be cajoled into writing a check.

If you're serious about terrorism, you'd better get serious about foreign policy. The TSA is a pointless circus that hasn't done anything except further increase the powers of government to subject US citizens to further searches and seizures, which is far more dangerous to our democracy than a few lunatics across the ocean. Proposing a further layer of government control we're hoping to keep out of the hands of domestic lunatics is even crazier. Imagine the second Bush Administration with that sort of policing power in the days after 9/11. An outside attack can't bring our nation to its knees, but a huge military action against its citizens could provoke a civil war.

We are literally the most secure nation on the planet. We're the richest, we have the largest military by far, and we have no hostile neighbors. Does anyone truly believe that Afghanistan or Iran or even Saudi Arabia has the military capability to raise an army, transport it to US soil, and stay there for more than thirty minutes if they managed to hit land at all? Even at its height, the USSR could not have performed that feat. The Japanese Empire didn't even try to occupy colonial Hawaii, and they'd just burned through half of China.

If our society falls apart, it won't be brought on by some outside force. It will be due to our simple stupidity in reacting to it.
posted by deanklear at 10:16 AM on November 7, 2011 [28 favorites]


It's not stupidity. It's manipulation.
posted by seanmpuckett at 10:26 AM on November 7, 2011


If our society falls apart, it won't be brought on by some outside force.

"Once, under the wise rule of the Senate and the protection of the Jedi Knights, the Republic throve and grew. But as often happens when wealth and power pass beyond the admiralble and attain the awesome, then appear those evil ones who have greed to match.

So it was with the Republic at its height. Like the greatest of trees, able to withstand any external attack, the Republic rotted from within though the danger was not visible from outside."

- Journal of the Whills
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:45 AM on November 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


The TSA is a pointless circus that hasn't done anything except further increase the powers of government to subject US citizens to further searches and seizures, which is far more dangerous to our democracy than a few lunatics across the ocean.

Is it? You admit that terrorism is real, and American neo-imperialism is a causal factor contributing to terrorism. That means fear of terrorism is rational. It sounds very brave to refuse to exchange liberty for security, but that just means you are more afraid of totalitarianism than terrorism. I think both are to be feared, but this logic of false bravery -- accepting "a little" terrorism to avoid totalitarianism -- totally ignores the fact that neo-imperialist capitalism is what generates this choice to begin with. Accepting either side is accepting the status quo, but the liberal anti-totalitarian option is probably the worst, because it downplays the violent consequences of our foreign policy on domestic soil.
posted by AlsoMike at 11:42 AM on November 7, 2011


I do NOT like this; however, we are going to continue to see more of this kind of surveillance - and more surveillance in general - because it is slowly becoming possible for more individuals with limited means to cause massive harm. Eventually, the technologies used for scanning and other kinds of surveillance will become safer. Right now, we are guinea pigs. And, the whole thing is driven by fear.

Imagine just *one* successful truck bomb that kills or maims a substantial number of people in the US. Or, a coordinated attack of 2-3 or more, timed for maximum deadly efficiency. Something like this would ratchet up fear in America to a place where some politicians and defense contractors would drool at the prospects of more deployment.

...

Eventually, all societies are going to deal with this. I don't see how it can be otherwise, as more and more technology seeps into the hands of persons who can use that same technology to cause massive harm.


Your example of technology continually increasing one man's destructive capacity is a truck bomb. Really?

William Pierce pointed out the ease with which a truck bomb could be deployed in his 1978 novel, 'The Turner Diaries'. After OKC, law enforcement began to pay more attention to ammonium nitrate and a federal monitoring program of ammonium nitrate sales began a few months ago.

So, no it is not becoming possible for more individuals with limited means to cause massive harm. Acquiring the materials for a truck bomb now would be a pretty serious undertaking.

Last, about police firearms. I think it's a fallacy to make police firearms the danger flashpoint, especially when criminals can access high powered weaponry at will. I claim it's the presence of firearms in our culture, as a general rule, that increases danger. 275million+ firearms, and 65million+ handguns. That's sick.

Who could ever wish for protection from the agents of the state?
posted by BigSky at 11:44 AM on November 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


In 1977 my husband and I took the Grey Hound from Toronto to Mobile (Mobeel we learned to say), to catch a freighter to Europe. Fearless Canadians, we were actually delighted to find out we had to wait a week till our ship came in. We wandered around deserted downtown Mobile neighbourhoods talking with the few residents (usually Afro-American), frequenting the few open stores and restaurants and feeding squirrels in the peopleless parks. There were hundreds of beautiful huge plantation-like houses that could be bought for a pittance and streets of boarded up stores. The only time we saw a large crowd downtown was when a ZZ Top concert was on. At one point we needed a laundromat and inadvertently meandered into the predominately Afro-American section of town. We were stared at but treated with great respect and lots of help in how to operate the machines.

Never did we come across anyone who wasn't cordial or welcoming. One evening in our hotel dining room a salesman started a conversation and was aghast that we had been walking around willy-nilly in downtown Mobile. "Do you realize this is the # 1 murder capital in the US!" he said. "Have you noticed that no one (white) lives down here?" We wondered about that we said, "Where does everyone live? " "Out in the suburbs, no one would live downtown, you could get killed!"

Until that point, we had feared nothing about Mobile only despaired at the emptiness of this beautiful city. In Canada, at the time, shootings were usually accidents out hunting or near a farm where the farmer was shooting gophers .

The hotel clerk immediately piped up and said he would take us out that evening to a more
"safe" place. He took us to a bar in the suburbs where the neon lights were flashing "Cold Beer, Hot Women" with motorcycles all lined up in the parking lot. I was more frightened in there than I was in downtown Mobile. Of course we enjoyed the beer and more!

Point being, we had a wonderful week in downtown Mobile. I am sure if any criminal or alleged killers saw us they would think "stupid f---k--g Tourists". I know Mobile has changed considerably since then.

But until that time I had always assumed Americans were like us Canadians free and fearless within their own country. Yet the American people we met on the Greyhound, in the cities, in Mobile, on the ship and in Europe all had this underlying fearfulness. In fact one or two Americans asked us to sell them the Canadian Flags on our backpacks. When we asked why , one said "I don't want anyone to know I am American."

The experience didn't change our level of anxiety in all the countries we backpacked to. Even with some scary times we continued on in our own Canadian naivety and optimism. "If something is gonna happen, its gonna happen." Your gut always tells you when you are in a seriously threatening situation.

Lets face it, Homeland Security is another scare mongering technique to keep us all, (its in Canada too), hyper-alert and more dependent on the elite to tell us when something is wrong and to make money for big security corporations.

After all, wasn't it FDR that said re: the depression, "Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself"
posted by smudgedlens at 11:53 AM on November 7, 2011 [5 favorites]


In other news: Feds Seek Unfettered GPS Surveillance Power as Location-Tracking Flourishes
posted by homunculus at 11:55 AM on November 7, 2011


"Imagine just *one* successful truck bomb that kills or maims a substantial number of people in the US."

It's only a matter of time before some defense contractor, thinking those terrorists are moving a little too slow for the sake of their bottom line, actually makes such an attack themselves.
posted by JHarris at 12:26 PM on November 7, 2011 [5 favorites]


Imagine just *one* successful truck bomb that kills or maims a substantial number of people in the US.

Okay. Now what?
posted by entropicamericana at 1:02 PM on November 7, 2011


Again, I don't like this; I'm uncomfortable with it; I don't know that the so-called "dangers" posed are legitimately severe enough to warrant these actions by government.

I also don't like this, and am uncomfortable with it. however what I do know is that the dangers here are vastly overrated and over compensated for. Terrorism is certainly a real world concern, but only in the most abstract sense within this country. More people are killed by lightning and sharks than terrorism.

I don't think any one group is solely responsible, nor do I really believe that there is any kind of conspiracy to keep the fear level elevated so that TSA can keep spending money on this shit. What I think is that people are sincerely trying to keep people safe, by wildly overacting to the last threat we faced. What I do think is that, until we break the fear cycle, and get it out there that you are vastly more likely to die in your car or your bathroom than in an aircraft hijacking, people will keep ceding their rights for the illusion of safety.

And for every right we give up for safety, someone out there will probably take the ground they've gained and use it in a way to further abridge the rights of people they don't like. It's happened nearly every time something like this comes up.
posted by quin at 1:06 PM on November 7, 2011


There is a conspiracy in that people use fear mongering to lobby both congress and the public to keep their jobs, enlarge their contracts, etc. There need not be any clear line between knowingly exploiting the public and imagining that because you do something that something has value.

You know, the Sharm el-Sheikh resort bombings were carried out by Egypt's SSIS, JHarris. Interesting link homunculus, I suppose that SCOTUS case explains why Wyden introduced that bill opposing warrantless GPS tracking.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:05 PM on November 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


seanmpuckett: If you're serious about terrorism, you'd better get serious about foreign policy.

and

alsomike: It sounds very brave to refuse to exchange liberty for security, but that just means you are more afraid of totalitarianism than terrorism. I think both are to be feared, but this logic of false bravery -- accepting "a little" terrorism to avoid totalitarianism -- totally ignores the fact that neo-imperialist capitalism is what generates this choice to begin with. Accepting either side is accepting the status quo, but the liberal anti-totalitarian option is probably the worst, because it downplays the violent consequences of our foreign policy on domestic soil.

Couldn't agree more, but do you see the American public, an easily manipulated public that is pathetically uninformed about history, current events, the roots of our problems, etc, etc. coming to grips with "American hegemony", anytime soon? I don't. I see a lot of scattered anger and frustrations at the institutions that have helped curtail the so-called American Dream, because our job-base has been gutted and we have failed to keep pace with retooling our economy and educational structures. I don't see American Imperialism ending until we get money out of politics. In the meantime, half-assed attempts at maintaining hegemony (in oil, minerals, water, food) will continue, and nobody seems the wiser about just how far some agencies will go to maintain a certain kind of security hegemony...just sayin'...

BigSky: Your example of technology continually increasing one man's destructive capacity is a truck bomb. Really?

Yeah, really. There are many ways to cause terror; those who think that a a bomb is the only way - no matter the means of delivery - are deluding themselves (pdf download). Also, once the seeds of fear have been sown, it's very hard to uproot them (this has to do with what our brains tend to remember most obsessively - things like tragedy and humiliation).

Like I said above, I do NOT like what I see happening, but I don't see it stopping, or abating. Small, incipient changes to snooping have begun to creep into everyday culture (look at Facebook!), etc. It's not that short a throw to seeing universal surveillance happening, with tipping points converging from multifarious sources, and little overall protest. That's what I see happening at the moment, with no sign of abatement in sight.
posted by Vibrissae at 2:06 PM on November 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


Oops, I forgot Operation Northwoods when mentioning the Sharm el-Sheikh resort bombings, JHarris.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:21 PM on November 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


>>Your example of technology continually increasing one man's destructive capacity is a truck bomb. Really?
Yeah, really. There are many ways to cause terror


1. The goal to prevent "terror" is stupidly misguided, and ultimately comes from that Republican spin doctor who coined the phrase "war on terror." Terror is a part of our lives, and comes from many other sources, most unpreventable. Anyway, what are we doing against the terror of not being able to pay your medical bills?

2. Truck bomb technology was available in the 1890s. Why are we suddenly worried about it now?
posted by JHarris at 2:34 PM on November 7, 2011


Yes, I would just like to spend a message thanking homunculus for his tireless efforts in keeping threads up-to-date with information, sometimes even long after most respondants have left. Several times now I've checked back in on a two-week-old thread and found Mr. h having posted four lonely links to important, relevant data. He is great, and deserving of recognition. I nominate him as honorary amberglow.
posted by JHarris at 2:38 PM on November 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


I would just like to spend a message thanking homunculus for his tireless efforts in keeping threads up-to-date with information, sometimes even long after most respondants have left. Several times now I've checked back in on a two-week-old thread and found Mr. h having posted four lonely links to important, relevant data. He is great, and deserving of recognition. I nominate him as honorary amberglow

Me, too, because Mr. h has helped to make my point.
posted by Vibrissae at 2:42 PM on November 7, 2011


jeffburdges, wow.
posted by JHarris at 2:54 PM on November 7, 2011


There are threads that I remove from my recent activity because I simply don't care much about them after I've snarked, but once or twice per week I restore all removed threads, mostly because I don't want to miss homunculus' comments. :)
posted by jeffburdges at 4:20 PM on November 7, 2011


Couldn't agree more, but do you see the American public, an easily manipulated public that is pathetically uninformed about history, current events, the roots of our problems, etc, etc. coming to grips with "American hegemony", anytime soon? I don't.

I don't either, but I also don't see opponents of the war on terror informing them. Or confronting the significance of global capitalism forcing the people in the West to choose between totalitarianism and terror to keep the system running. Both sides are part of the problem, even the conspiracy theorists, whose ultimate message is "Stay calm, global capitalism is just fine, any explosions of violence you see are just the authorities tricking you into thinking there are problems so they can take away your rights."
posted by AlsoMike at 4:32 PM on November 7, 2011


Vibrissae, "honorary amberglow" is not a generic term of approval. It's a term of specific awesome.
posted by JHarris at 6:14 PM on November 7, 2011


It seems self-defeating to invest in such technologies. Think of all the good that money could have done! Not to mention all the (human) computing power that goes into developing these "solutions."

I am sure (I've read that) UAVs are already being purchased by police departments and will be regularly used by the government for federal raids. A 'simple' task like finding a bomb that may or may not exist is not a practical justification for the expense. The technology will be leveraged for other more questionable practices, and any abuses will be systematically covered up.

It's really quite depressing when you don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to scare the shit out of yourself.
posted by quanta and qualia at 6:44 AM on November 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


I nominate him as honorary amberglow.

I am honored and humbled. I vow to use the power of the glow only for good, never for evil.
posted by homunculus at 11:58 AM on November 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


TSA puts off safety study of X-ray body scanners
posted by jeffburdges at 4:04 PM on November 16, 2011 [1 favorite]


European Commission adopts new rules on the use of security scanners at European airports

There is no requirement to use the scanners, but any nation or state that does so must implement various regulations, including : scanners must not store, retain, copy, print, or retrieve passenger images; the image viewer must be in a remote location; passengers must be informed how the scanners are being controlled; and can opt out if they choose. Perhaps most importantly: X-ray scanners are banned 'in order not to risk jeopardizing citizens' health and safety.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:36 PM on November 17, 2011


The future of airport security: Thermal lie-detectors and cloned sniffer dogs
posted by jeffburdges at 10:47 AM on November 26, 2011


« Older The Codex Seraphinianus....  |  "Every day in the U.S., about ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments