There’s a viral video spreading about a San Diego man’s experience at the airport when he decided to opt-out of the TSA’s “new and improved” security process.
When John Tyner was picked to be taken out of the regular, metal-detection security line, he was given the choice to either be subjected to the new, “whole body image scan,” or undergo a pat-down procedure. He refused both, stating that he didn’t find either necessary simply to board an airplane, that he felt his rights would be violated, and made clear his wishes to withdraw and leave the airport.
Seems somewhat obvious that if he didn’t want to be subjected to either procedure, he should have just been allowed to leave immediately. But he couldn’t, because TSA told him he couldn’t, and now he’s been threatened with a civil penalty of $10,000 for his non-cooperation in the matter.
Good thinking on his part – he filmed the whole thing and posted it to YouTube, which is available here via Raw Story .
GAP’s television show discussed this very issue – the rise of whole body imaging in American airports – in a episode of Whistle Where You Work earlier this year (you can click on the video below – the segment runs for the first 20 minutes).
Is this option the best way to go? A coalition of privacy and civil liberty groups certainly doesn't think so, believing that we are sacrificing too much with this technology. Some religious groups also believe that the technology is in violation with their beliefs.
What are the alternatives to Whole Body Imaging? What is the real impetus here?
Guests include:
Lillie Coney is Associate Director with the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in Washington, DC. EPIC was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging civil liberties issues and to protect privacy, the First Amendment, and constitutional values.
When John Tyner was picked to be taken out of the regular, metal-detection security line, he was given the choice to either be subjected to the new, “whole body image scan,” or undergo a pat-down procedure. He refused both, stating that he didn’t find either necessary simply to board an airplane, that he felt his rights would be violated, and made clear his wishes to withdraw and leave the airport.
Seems somewhat obvious that if he didn’t want to be subjected to either procedure, he should have just been allowed to leave immediately. But he couldn’t, because TSA told him he couldn’t, and now he’s been threatened with a civil penalty of $10,000 for his non-cooperation in the matter.
Good thinking on his part – he filmed the whole thing and posted it to YouTube, which is available here via Raw Story .
GAP’s television show discussed this very issue – the rise of whole body imaging in American airports – in a episode of Whistle Where You Work earlier this year (you can click on the video below – the segment runs for the first 20 minutes).
Is this option the best way to go? A coalition of privacy and civil liberty groups certainly doesn't think so, believing that we are sacrificing too much with this technology. Some religious groups also believe that the technology is in violation with their beliefs.
What are the alternatives to Whole Body Imaging? What is the real impetus here?
Guests include:
Lillie Coney is Associate Director with the Electronic Privacy Information Center
Friday, 24 December 2010