Why Would TSA Delete The Images?

The TSA scan(ner)dal has way too many facets to cover all in one post, so I'm doing this piece meal. 

According to CBSnews:

"The (body image scanning) technology is sent to the airports without the ability to save, transmit or print the images," said Greg Soule, TSA spokesman, in an interview with CBSNews.com. "At airports, the images are examined by a security officer in a remote location, and, once the image is cleared, they're deleted."[emphasis added]

 Why would they delete the image right after someone is cleared?  The same lack of logic that caused them to go to scanners instead of using other ways to (like thinking human beings instead of machines) to stop terrorists causes them to say they delete the images right away.

If I were going to the trouble to take images of every passenger, I'd at least save them until the flight landed safely.  Suppose they delete the images, and a plane explodes and goes down.  Wouldn't you want to go through the images to find out what you missed?  I sure would.

And CBS' report goes on to discuss the 100 images from a Florida Federal Courthouse that have gone public, which you can see at Gizmodo.  

And anyone with a computer knows it can do things you didn't intend.  And anyone who knows a human being, knows they don't always do what they're told.

Previous posts on this topic:
1.  Updating Havel's "Power of the Powerless" for Airline Pilots
2.  Creating Child Porn to Stop Terrorists

Updating Havel's "Power of the Powerless" for Airline Passengers

Vaclav Havel's Power of the Powerless, is a brilliant analysis of how a totalitarian government keeps its population obedient through the use of seemingly minor, but obligatory functions.  There are many, many things that could and have been said about TSA's new scan or grope policy.  I posted about this already last January.  In my mind this crosses way over what normal people should be subjected to in order to get on a plane.  There are other ways than getting naked pictures of everyone to prevent hijackings and suicide bombers.

I think the most basic reason I'm opposed is how it moves us one step closer to totalitarianism.   So I'll just post this aspect of my objections for now.

From Havel's Power of the Powerless from

Image from The Guardian

history.hanover.edu:

The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

Let's update this.

The airline passenger obediently lines up at the airport, takes off his shoes, puts all his belongings onto a conveyor belt to be x-rayed, and walks through a scanner,  which essentially sees through his clothes and shows quite clearly his body including his genitals. Why does he do it?

 

I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life "in harmony with society," as they say.

Update:  The compliance with the security measures is to protect himself and his fellow passengers from terrorists.  If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for being uncooperative and jeopardizing air safety and someone might even accuse him of disloyalty.  Plus he won't be allowed to board the plane.

Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer's superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan's real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer's existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

Update:  While many passengers may feel safer knowing everyone has gone through a scanner, many others believe there are more efficient and effective ways to prevent terrorist attacks than forcing every flier to submit to body scans or the equivalent to what would be illegal molestation if done by anyone else. Submitting to this huge invasion of privacy, verbally might be expressed this way:  "I, the passenger, know what I must do.  I behave in a manner expected of me.  I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach.  I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace (after I'm scanned or groped.)"

Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, "What's wrong with the workers of the world uniting?" Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.

Update:   Let us take note: if the passenger had been instructed to sign a loyalty oath,  "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The passenger would be embarrassed and ashamed to sign an unequivocal statement of his own degradation, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity.

 But there's no ideology in this case, you say, it's just safety.   In this case it's fear fueled by the ideology that proclaims Islam a terrorist religion that lives to destroy freedom and capitalism. Look, even if ten planes crashed killing 3000 people, it would still be less than  10% of the annual US traffic deaths.  So it isn't concern for lives or we'd allow cameras to catch red light runners.  But that would be an invasion of privacy and freedom.  (More than these body scans??!!)  Or we make sure people with two or three DUI's could not drive again. 

There are better ways to save lives than these scanners.  There are better ways to prevent terrorists on planes than these scanners.  But someone is making a fortune selling scanners to airports.  In the meantime, as Havel suggests, when the government treats us all as they treat terrorist suspects, we are closer to a totalitarian regime.  And when we comply against our will and without protest, we help the government get there.  

I'm hoping to develop a list of alternatives in a coming post.  

See also:
Why Would TSA Delete These Images?
Creating Child Porn to Stop Terrorists

Creating Child Porn to Stop Terrorists?

At what point do we say, "Enough is enough"?   For some reason, we are willing to let 40,000 people a year die in traffic accidents in the US and others to die because they don't have adequate health insurance, but we're willing to give up more and more of our dignity every year to make sure no one dies from a terrorist attack on an airplane.

The terrorists don't have to take any planes down, they just have to think up new ways to mess with the security equipment and we all have to go through another hoop at the airport.  This new one is pretty invasive.

This picture comes from the Guardian which carried an article about the full body scanners in the UK, where they've been delayed because they would breach child pornography laws.  

Here are some excerpts from the story which you can get in full at the link.

The rapid introduction of full body scanners at British airports threatens to breach child protection laws which ban the creation of indecent images of children, the Guardian has learned. . .

They also face demands from civil liberties groups for safeguards to ensure that images from the £80,000 scanners, including those of celebrities, do not end up on the internet. The Department for Transport confirmed that the "child porn" problem was among the "legal and operational issues" now under discussion in Whitehall after Gordon Brown's announcement on Sunday that he wanted to see their "gradual" introduction at British airports.

A 12-month trial at Manchester airport of scanners which reveal naked images of passengers including their genitalia and breast enlargements, only went ahead last month after under-18s were exempted. . .

And what sort of rays pass through our bodies?  Do we know they don't cause cancer or some other harm?  When I was a kid we had fluoroscope machines in the shoe stores so we could see our feet inside our shoes.  Until someone realized this was not healthy for kids.   Will this be the same?  Scan now, check on health dangers later? 

What if airline passengers were ready to turn around from security and say no?   Just flying less doesn't seem to work.  Can we figure out ways that get people to join in a mass boycott of airport security, ways that overcome all the pressures to just suck it up and let them do it to you - the cost of the ticket, the inconvenience of making huge changes in one's plans, the threat from the TSA for doing anything to question them, etc.   

It has to be planned so people can get their refunds (buying first class tickets maybe?), where enough people do it to get attention, where airlines are affected by the loss of already paid passenger revenue, and where people have the time to deal with the likely hassle.   It's time to force the powers that be to consider reasonableness as well as safety in designing security.

Maybe here in Alaska where privacy is protected by our State Constitution we can argue that TSA is forcing us to give up our State Constitutional rights to privacy if we want to exercise our Federal Constitutional rights to interstate travel. 

You know the frog in the pot of water story?  Well, bubbles are starting to appear as I write.

Liberty Watch - TSA Guarding the Nation

Here's the beginning of the story of an Icelandic visitor who was chained and handcuffed at JFK held without sleep or food and very delayed phone contact, then taken to a jail in New Jersey. I found a number of other sites carrying the same story, but not futher corroboration of the story. It appears from the story that her crime was having overstayed a visit by three weeks in 1995. So let's withhold judgment at the moment, but put it into our Liberty Watch file as we watch Naomi Wolf's ten steps to dismantling democracy take place. This seems to fit 5. Arbitrarily detain and release citizens. Although this is not a US citizen, would American citizens expect this sort of treatment when visiting other nations? The whole story is at this site.

[Note: Later stories say it is Erla, not Eva]

The story of Eva, [Erla] Ósk Arnardóttir:

During the last twenty-four hours I have probably experienced the greatest humiliation to which I have ever been subjected. During these last twenty-four hours I have been handcuffed and chained, denied the chance to sleep, been without food and drink and been confined to a place without anyone knowing my whereabouts, imprisoned. Now I am beginning to try to understand all this, rest and review the events which began as innocently as possible.

Last Sunday I and a few other girls began our trip to New York. We were going to shop and enjoy the Christmas spirit. We made ourselves comfortable on first class, drank white wine and looked forward to go shopping, eat good food and enjoy life. When we landed at JFK airport the traditional clearance process began.

We were screened and went on to passport control. As I waited for them to finish examining my passport I heard an official say that there was something which needed to be looked at more closely and I was directed to the work station of Homeland Security. There I was told that according to their records I had overstayed my visa by 3 weeks in 1995. For this reason I would not be admitted to the country and would be sent home on the next flight. I looked at the official in disbelief and told him that I had in fact visited New York after the trip in 1995 without encountering any difficulties. A detailed interrogation session ensued.

I was photographed and fingerprinted. I was asked questions which I felt had nothing to do with the issue at hand. I was forbidden to contact anyone to advise of my predicament and although I was invited at the outset to contact the Icelandic consul or embassy, that invitation was later withdrawn. I don't know why.

The rest of the story is at this site.

[12/26/07 See related/follow up story here.]