[tptacek]

I'm shocked, shocked! that electronic strip searches might be misused by the crack team of professionals at the TSA.

This is very simple:

(a) call these things what they are: electronic strip searches.

(b) refuse to submit to them at the airport.

I just did this on a flight from Kansas City. Guess what? Not a big deal. You'll get the same pat-down search you get when you're "randomly selected for additional screening", which is not a big deal. It'll add 5 minutes to the security line for you.

To those who suggest that the pat-down searches are as intrusive or more intrusive than the electronic strip searches: no. By and large, the human beings manning the security checkpoints are as squeamish about invading the personal space of another actual human being looking them in the eyes as you are about having your space invaded.

The same is not true of a series of images on a screen in an isolated room. Images on screens are not people. There is no social conditioning that normal human beings have that will cause people to automatically respect images on a screen.

Step 1 in defending your rights from ludicrous invasions like this: be an actual person, not an abstraction.

[MartinCron]

To those who suggest that the pat-down searches are as intrusive or more intrusive than the electronic strip searches: no

I haven't been through an electronic strip search, so I can't speak to that. I can speak to the last time I had a pat-down at the airport: I found it pretty invasive. I've never thought of myself as a big "personal space" guy, but here is this TSA agent, grabbing aggressively at all of my pockets, having me empty them out for him, etc. All the while, I'm angry, but I know that I can't complain or give him a hard time because he's in a position of power to give me a much harder time, make me miss my flight, whatever. It's so frustrating when you know it's just security theatre, and doesn't do anything besides make people feel safer.

When I asked "must we do this?" he gave me the option of doing it in private (no thank you) and told me that I consented to this by entering the checkpoint. It's like click-wrap licensing, only with your feet.

There is no third option for people who don't want their nude photos persisted who also don't like being groped by strangers.

[swombat]

I can't recall where I heard/read that, but I seem to remember some psychology research that proposed that the psychologically damaging thing about the search you describe is not actually the search itself, but precisely the fact that you can't do anything about it.

IIRC, the conclusion of that research was something along the lines of: to completely destroy someone's self-confidence/emotional stability, all you need to do is that every day, for five minutes, at the same time, five people appear out of nowhere and hold him down, without harming him, for five minutes. If you do that every day for a year or two, you'll have a remnant of a human being at the end (in most cases).

My father works with victims of "mobbing" (basically bullying at work). One of his clients was a normal office worker who was being bullied by the security guard at work. Every morning, the security guard would single him out for a pat down search - every single morning. Apparently the guy was on the verge of a nervous breakdown by the time my dad saw him.

[Zak]

I have to ask: why would a security guard in a normal office situation have the authority to randomly pat down someone who is known to work in the building?

[swombat]

I don't know, I never asked... I think it was a government job... there might have been some special security. No idea, though, sorry.

[Splines]

FWIW, my son was selected for a pat-down search when we flew in Canada on a domestic flight. Notwithstanding the logic of deciding that a 10 year old carrying a Nintendo DS was a security threat, the agent was quite respectful, asking for my permission first, being very clear what was going on, and performing the pat-down in a professional (to my eyes) and efficient manner.

[tptacek]

The guy who screened me said "I may need to touch you near a sensitive area now, just let me know if you have a problem, I'm going to use the back of my hand only" something like 5 times, so I'm pretty sure they're scripted to be "respectful".

[jeebusroxors]

The (unfortunate) third option is not flying, or at least not commercially and via airlines.

[mrduncan]

The same is not true of a series of images on a screen in an isolated room. Images on screens are not people. There is no social conditioning that normal human beings have that will cause people to automatically respect images on a screen.

I'd argue that has pretty much been proven by the Milgram experiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

[_ouxp]

While I believe the article is correct, and later experiments probably bear it out, Milgram's experiments don't directly support that cliam: The "teacher" (the subject) could not see the person he believed he was shocking at all.

Nonetheless, it's a relevant link to bring up because of the chain of command and obedience to authority aspects at play here.

[eru]

There were several variations. In one variation the `teacher' could see the `pupil'.

[ekidd]

In another variation, the teacher actually had to physically press the (fake) pupil's hands onto the device that gave electric shocks. IIRC, this squicked out a few more people, but quite a large portion still went through with it.

[electromagnetic]

Proximity to the teacher was the biggest influencer rather than proximity to the student. When the teacher was further away (in some simply on a phone) the subject would more frequently refuse, more so than when they were in close proximity to the student.

Proximity to the student shouldn't be ruled out, after all it would get a few more people behaving like they really should, however its these screening people's proximity to their bosses that is the biggest influence on whether they treat a person with humanity or not.

[eru]

Are you mixing up `teacher' and experimentator? Because the subject who's tested is the `teacher' and can't be far away from herself.

[5teev]

Object while you can, before it's mandatory to surrender all civil rights in order to fly.

[tptacek]

These millimeter wave devices aren't being installed in a secret plot to eliminate everyone's civil rights. They're being installed because regulators sincerely believe that they represent a reasonable compromise between privacy (which is actually not one of your ironclad civil liberties) and safety.

Airport security is probably a bad joke. But acting and talking as if that's a foregone conclusion --- or worse, that it's part of some malignant scheme --- is counterproductive. It marginalizes everyone with a more reasonable or nuanced perspective about this issue.

Take off the "Buck Fush" t-shirt and be civil to the TSA guy. Say "I'm going to opt out of the body scanner". If enough people do, it'll get easier for everyone to avoid the electronic strip search machine.

[jonhohle]

> These millimeter wave devices aren't being installed in a secret plot to eliminate everyone's civil rights.

There likely is no plot to eliminate civil rights, however, devices like these erode privacy, increase distrust in government, and, worse, increase the time and comfort it takes to get from point A to point B.

From the late 80s to today we've gone from a time when only metal detectors were required to get back to a gate, to requiring tickets (making it more inconvenient and less safe for small children to fly alone), removing clothing in public view (shoes, belts, outer garments), unpacking/packing luggage in public view, potentially being patted down, heavily paramilitary patrolling gateways, detainment for arbitrary reasons, etc.

I worry more about running into a TSA agent in a bad mood (potentially ruining my day) than just about anything else when traveling.

[ghshephard]

Re: Children - at least the TSA has some clue about this: "...arrangements may be made for non-travelers to accompany children. Contact your airline to make arrangements."

[5teev]

Eliminating civil rights isn't the goal; like much of the evil in the world, it will be a side-effect of people who thought they were doing the right thing.

[patio11]

Thomas speaks much sense here. Relatedly, that is exactly the attitude you should take with cops who try to ask you questions or seize your papers or effects. "I respectfully decline. If you are not arresting me, I am leaving; if you do not have a search warrant, leave my property expeditiously. Have a nice day."

[pyre]

There are a number of charges that you can be arrested for at the sole discretion of the officer. I've heard exchanges like:

  officer: Don't go anywhere
  friend: Am I under arrest?
  officer: No, but don't go anywhere.
  friend: If I'm not under arrest, then I'm leaving.
  officer: If you leave, I *will* arrest you with impeding an investigation / obstruction of justice

(That exchange followed from someone not involved in a protest, who was filming police officers trying to contain a protest. They tried to fine her friend $400 for littering (i.e. a candy wrapper that was already on the ground) or something equally ridiculous when you consider the amount of time (and tax-payer money) that they wasted harassing her and her friends.)

Also, in a number of jurisdictions, you can be arrested for being 'drunk and disorderly' with only the officer's word that you were actually drunk and/or causing a scene.

Keep in mind, that it doesn't matter much whether or not the charges stick. The police have successfully harassed you if you have to spend the night (or weekend) in prison before you are able to get out (and/or get the charges dismissed).

{update} Some corrections. Also, the 'investigation' that was being impeded was a $400 fine for littering a candy wrapper (ignoring whether or not the candy wrapper was actually littered).

[tptacek]

Your first example is naive. The police cannot arrest you absent an actual crime, but they can detain you for a "reasonable" amount of time; if you simply walk away from an officer, you are in fact impeding an investigation. There is a clear difference between an arrest and being "detained": during an arrest, the police can search you and your vehicle, put you in restraints, and drive you away to a police station.

That there are subjective offenses you can be arrested for and that the police could abuse strikes me as a simple fact of life. You can also file complaints, (in most jurisdictions) record the abuse with your camera phone, and (in crazy cases) sue.

[pyre]

In my example, the people were 'detained' for a few hours, during which they were not asked any questions at all. They just had to sit around at the police station twiddling their thumbs. In my mind, this just police intimidation. Some police officer didn't like them or what they were doing, so they decided to harass them. I don't think that, as a society, we should just accept this as a fact of life. By doing so, we give the police carte blanche to continue doing so, and to attempt to push the envelope even further.

[patio11]

If a cop ever pulls that on you, lawyer up instantly. If you're not free to leave, you're under arrest, regardless of what state they say you are in, whether they have mirandized you, etc.

[tptacek]

Again, you can be "not free to leave" for a whole hour on the side of the street and have a judge call that a "reasonable" period to detain you for questioning. You're not under arrest while that's occurring. A bunch of other processes get set in motion once you're arrested, all of them bad.

Probably don't overreact if you hear a cop say "stop, get back over here!" or "no, you may not leave until I get to the bottom of this!"; they're legally authorized to do that pretty much on a whim.

If you've been handcuffed or transported or confined in a police station, you're under arrest, and yes, demand a lawyer.

[ekanes]

Can you say a bit more about "lawyering up"? I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean specifically to call a lawyer, or imply that you have one... etc. Thanks.

[Tamerlin]

"They're being installed because regulators sincerely believe that they represent a reasonable compromise between privacy (which is actually not one of your ironclad civil liberties) and safety."

No, they're being installed for profit. They have nothing to do with civil rights and even less to do with security -- I highly doubt that anyone involved actually cares about either.

What they do care about is milking money from the government by taking advantage of the asinine government contracting and acquisitions processes -- and most likely also the fact that fattening the right wallets greases the right wheels to make things very profitable for them.

[bitwize]

> (which is actually not one of your ironclad civil liberties)

Not in the US, anyway.

Thankfully, there's Europe, which has progressed considerably further than the U.S. in terms of actually protecting people's rights.

[tptacek]

Having had the experience of observing the frontiers of my civil rights while being searched on the train from Zurich to Rome, I find this notion that things are better in Europe amusing. From what I can tell, the situation Americans find themselves in at the TSA checkpoints is identical to the situation all Europeans find themselves in everywhere.

You realize that (contrary to popular opinion) Americans don't even need to carry ID, right?

[pmjordan]

Flying between Schengen countries, 99% of the time I have my bag X-Rayed and my ID checked by airline staff on check-in, and that's it. At no point do I even have contact with a government official.

Land border crossings are even more of a non-event, you have to pay attention or you might miss them. In some countries you can indeed be IDd on the spot though. Not that it's ever happened to me (except by traffic police checking my license).

Entering or leaving the Schengen area is a slightly different story - you pass through emigration/immigration, plus some countries like the UK are slightly more draconian about air travel "security" and have body scanners. I assume your trip was before Switzerland's entry to the Schengen zone in December 2008?

[tptacek]

It was prior to that, but it wasn't at a border crossing. It was a drug search inside the borders of Switzerland.

[die_sekte]

As a German I need to have an ID card, but do not need to carry it with me. The same is true for many other EU states.

Civil liberties are apparently in decline everywhere, but I would argue that the EU is somewhat better than the US in that regard and that the actual abuse of laws is better in the EU.

I think you are slightly overacting. It could be that you as a non-EU-citizen were subjected to harsher standards. May I remind you that the US isn't that nice to non-citizens?

[tptacek]

Are you sure? In Germany:

* Can the state police demand that you open a bag for inspection on a train?

* Can you be detained at length (for instance, removed to a police station) if you're asked to identify yourself and don't have documentation?

* Are the police under any circumstances permitted to randomly stop and search cars?

* Can the police check your pockets during a pat-down search for weapons?

Each of these is something for which US jurisprudence has issued decisive and binding decisions (no, absent probable cause they can document and justify on the stand, they can't open your bag; no, unless they arrest you for an actual crime, they can't take you to a police station; no, under most circumstances the police can't even pull you over unless you've committed a "primary" offense, and cannot absent probable cause of an actual crime search your car; no, the police in the US can't demand to see the contents of your pockets).

Incidentally, you have the same protection under the 4th Amendment as a German citizen in the US as I do as someone born in Chicago. I assume that's true vice-versa in Germany as well.

The bag issue is what got me; Swiss police rifled through my bag. I was not the only person in the train car that happened to, so I'm doubting I was simply selected for it as a noncitizen --- not that that should matter.

[Locke1689]

May I remind you that the US isn't that nice to non-citizens?

Recent extra-legal actions notwithstanding, the US Constitution applies to everyone in the US equally. Citizen or not.

[pmjordan]

Already the case in the UK as far as I know. Not everyone is required to go through them, and not all airports have them, but if you're one of the "lucky" ones and you refuse, you don't fly.

Can't seem to find the article from some months ago to back this up, unfortunately.

[Silhouette]

I don't fly from Heathrow airport for this reason. As far as I'm concerned, I do have something to hide: the intimate details of my body are not for the amusement or abuse of random "security" staff. If you don't like that point of view, f@#% off: we voted out the government who tried to turn us into a fear-driven police state, and now we are laughing at all the former ministers when they bleat about how much the world will end when the new government starts undoing all the abusive laws and regulations that the old one imposed.

[pmjordan]

Is there a list of airports (terminals?) where these scanners are being used? I visit family in the UK a couple of times a year, usually by plane, but this is one of the reasons we're taking the car & ferry on the upcoming trip. And yeah, I strongly hope the Tory & LibDem government make good on their civil liberty promises and then some.

[SoftwareMaven]

We did the same thing here in America. Guess what? Nothing changed.

Once a power is taken by the government, it is not likely to let it go. I hope you have better luck than we did.

[Silhouette]

I sympathise with your predicament. However, from my outsider's point of view, the US political system is something of a different beast to those here in Europe: it now appears to be systemically corrupt, representing special interests rather than those of the common citizen and with well-established feedback loops that make the unfortunate bias stronger with every election.

Consequently, I'm not sure elections in the US really mean very much at the moment. In the grand scheme of things, the two big political parties are closely aligned on most issues. Those distinctions that do exist between them are minor disagreements, which get dramatically exaggerated in election propaganda, rather than differences of any real substance.

I hope that here in the UK, where we have never quite fallen into the trap of having only two big political parties, we have more chance of seeing real improvement. It helps that we didn't give government to any single party at the last general election, for the first time in many years. That must have been a nasty wake-up call for those old-school Conservatives who had arrogantly assumed that they were somehow entitled to form the next government just because Labour were not going to. (Labour, does anybody remember them? No? Good. :-))

Fortunately, the principles of restoring civil liberties and rolling back the nanny/surveillance state are among the major issues on which the two coalition partners now in government strongly agreed anyway, and where there are politicians from both parties in the coalition with a long track record of criticising the sorts of measures we are talking about in this discussion. They need this sort of issue of common interest in order to build a successful and lasting coalition, and it's also a politically popular stance: FUD about terrorism threats doesn't really cut it with the average voter here any more, partly because people's minds are more focussed on basics like getting/keeping a job and paying the rent/mortgage, and partly just because you can only keep a population accepting of draconian laws for so long when there is no serious bad stuff happening to convince them to Be Afraid.

In short, I like to think that we are in with a chance, because while the political system in the US seems to have other systemic concerns and little incentive to put right the abuses of the past, here in the UK it is politically expedient to do so both for the popularity of the changes themselves and as a means of strengthening the governing coalition. Time will tell...

[scott_s]

To those who suggest that the pat-down searches are as intrusive or more intrusive than the electronic strip searches: no.

There's no objective answer to this. I believe you and I have discussed this before. Personally, the scans don't bother me at all. Being patted down doesn't bother me too much, but it does bother me at least some. So, for me, I'd rather walk through a scanner unobstructed than be patted down.

[tptacek]

Would it bother you to find a name-attributed copy of your body scan in a zip file on Rapidshare? Why do you assume that won't happen? I assume the opposite.

[scott_s]

Not too much. It would bother me some, of course. But not enough to take the extra five minutes for the alternative. (It seems you assumed I hadn't thought of the worst case, and then further assumed it would bother me.)

I would be embarrassed to walk around naked, of course. But there the embarrassment is mostly from violating social norms. The remaining part is, of course, exposed genitalia. The rest of my body concerns me not at all - I routinely go for runs wearing just athletic shorts.

Further, while that is the worst-worst case, I think the more realistic-worst case are a dump of images with no names associated with them. Given the process as I understand it, I don't see a plausible way for the scan-name mapping to remain.

I'm genuinely curious: why does the worst case situation bother you so much?

[roc]

The burden of justification for new security measures should be on the TSA. And they have failed at this. This sort of thing is a gross violation of personal privacy, entirely without cause. That it adds expense and delay for no demonstrable increase in plane security is but adding insult to injury.

Hearing people approach security measures with the argument "whatever would you have to hide, citizen?" is the worst part of the ongoing "War on Terror" debacle.

I'm hoping you're playing devil's advocate here.

[scott_s]

You misunderstand what I'm saying. I personally find this less invasive than the current security measures.

[roc]

What default security procedure does an electronic strip search replace, that is more invasive?

Removing your shoes?

[barrkel]

The question you have to ask is not just whether it bothers you, but whether it bothers anyone you care about - and not just "bother", but materially affect them, anything from bullying (think: teenagers at school) to body shame.

[sprout]

And? Why would anyone other than an art student want a body scan of every person going through Chicago on a busy day? What is the horror that will befall me if someone sees me naked?

[Devilboy]

Someone with a smaller penis than yourself might be embarrassed at his scan getting posted on Facebook or wherever - even if you personally are OK with it.

[gojomo]

If you're one of the few people who have their body scans leaked, you'll be a sort of celebrity. If you're one of the many, it'll be no big deal.

The scan pose and false-colors are so clinical that any such image wouldn't be titillating. I suppose it might reveal an embarrassing piercing/implant/deformity. ("OMG! He has a tail!")

As a mechanism for harassment of public figures, it seems less harmful than photoshopped fake nude (or other compromising position) pictures -- and you can't stop those, and they're more likely to mislead the unwary.

I'm concerned about the idea that an arbitrarily detailed personal search can be required before travel -- but that concern applies at least as much to pat-downs and carry-on-searches as body-scans. In fact, probably more, because while we all have naked bodies, an agent rifling through my carry-on sees my books and personal effects -- unique to me.

[blackguardx]

It wouldn't bother me too much. I am not ashamed of my body and neither should you be.

It is a shame that we as Americans are taught to be afraid of our bodies and nudity in general. Why is this? I think it is a cancer on our culture that we need to change.

[billybob]

Whether you'd like people to change their definition of personal privacy is a very different question from whether it's OK to invade their privacy.

I mean, if I'm poking you in the face with my finger and going 'nya-nya-nya,' and you ask me to stop, and I respond that you really shouldn't be bothered by that because it doesn't hurt you, how convincing would I be?

People don't like having their nudity exposed. Saying "it shouldn't bother them" is really not anyone else's place.

[sliverstorm]

No, it wouldn't bother me. In fact, it might motivate me to put on some muscle and get a little more fit.

[johngalt]

Refusing these searches is important even if pat-downs are considered more intrusive. If we all do this, and the machines sit idle; eventually they will be removed.

[tptacek]

The machines are never going anywhere; the government invested zillions of dollars in them after the underpants bomber. Too many career civil servants would lose their jobs if they got sidelined.

But you're right: things will improve if most people refuse the strip search; the TSA will get better at pretending to screen the opt-outs, and the machines won't matter anymore.

[jamesseda]

Wait until some politician's daughter's "scan" shows up in public.

[cynicalkane]

From what I have heard, career civil servants don't often lose their jobs.

[tptacek]

One of the reasons for that is that civil service selects for people who are ultra conservative and sensitive about job security, and therefore are unlikely to allow a failed project to actually fail.

[Alex3917]

The government invests billions of dollars in lots of projects that get sidelined. Just look at Afghanistan.

[barrkel]

That random selection for additional screening was really getting to me until I shaved my beard, and it stopped.

[hackoder]

random, you say? ;-)

[makmanalp]

Isn't this an offense? Can't they be sued for lying to the public? Why do they get to get away with this?

[TallGuyShort]

It's easy to tell the public you're invading privacy to prevent terrorism. It's hard to tell the public that terrorists killed people because you respected their privacy.

I'm not saying I agree - in fact I completely disagree - but as a public policy maker and politician, it probably seems illogical to do it any other way. Better to have people blame you for no privacy than blame you for death, right?

[mcantelon]

Also, there are campaign donations to be had from the vendors of full body scanners. Less so from civil liberty groups.

[tptacek]

It seems extraordinarily unlikely to me that campaign donations from millimeter wave vendors will exert anything resembling the force that game theory does; to wit, "voting yes to anything that might improve airport security, and avoiding at all costs voting no on something that might later be tied to some catastrophe".

[Tamerlin]

I think kickbacks is a more likely motivation here.

[lurchpop]

Good comment! Finally info from someone who actually refused it and it's not a horror story.

Salon http://www.salon.com/technology/dan_gillmor/2010/08/04/body_... today bummed me out. They've got the right POV on it, but he's going along with the rest of the press just saying it's a new shitty reality we're going to have to get used to. fuck that!

[melling]

It will add 5 minutes for everyone else too. Get in a security line on a busy travel day and 10 extra pat-downs will add up. We need a better solution. I want to arrive, with my carry-on luggage, 30 minutes before takeoff for my 1 hour flight home.

[tptacek]

The fast-path TSA agents don't do the opt-out pat downs. They couldn't: the search happens in a semi-secluded area of the checkpoint, and the whole line would have to shut down if they didn't have people dedicated to that task. You do not in fact add 5 minutes for everyone else.

What is true is that you may end up in line behind 1 other person waiting for extended screening (if they don't have their ID, or if they got randomly selected), and you may add 5 minutes to those people's time. I have very little problem with that.

I'd refuse (politely) even if I knew I was screwing over the line, though. A strip search is a strip search. It crosses the line.

[lutorm]

But you are suggestion everyone "opt out". chaos would ensue.

[tptacek]

If I could get everyone to do anything at my command, I'd have a lot more fun with it than simply getting people to opt out of strip searches. Suffice it to say that chaos is not going to ensue, but a helpful amount of backpressure in the system might.

[loewenskind]

Sorry for inconveniencing you while trying to protect your civil rights. Some people....

[statictype]

By and large, the human beings manning the security checkpoints are as squeamish about invading the personal space of another actual human being looking them in the eyes as you are about having your space invaded.

I think this is partly because they are still new at the game. In certain countries, hand-searches have been the norm for decades. And those officers don't feel quite as squeamish as you do while its going on.

[revorad]

(b) refuse to submit to them at the airport.

From personal experience, that's probably not a good idea if you look South Asian or have a beard. I've been stopped a few too many times in London as part of a "random check" (everytime I hadn't shaved). I wouldn't want to increase the suspicion by being unco-operative.

[pvg]

You'll get the same pat-down search you get when you're "randomly selected for additional screening", which is not a big deal.

Just out of curiosity, did they actually turn you into 'selectee' (mark your boarding pass, etc) or was it just the extra search at the security checkpoint?

[tptacek]

I've been selectee'd before, and the search I got for "opting out" (that's what they said, "opt out! we've got an opt out!") was identical. They didn't mark my boarding pass or anything, though. In case you're worried that you'll get re-harassed at the gate... no.

[pvg]

An opt out, I love these guys' verbiage. As a master of personal organization, I've flown without id a few times and yes, I was mostly wondering about the chance of getting an extra search at the gate. Which, really, isn't that big of a deal either and certainly not compared to someone taking digital naked pictures of you.