SHARE
flag
the grid

Upfront News


ACLU Hawaii Takes On TSA


Is privacy a neccessary casualty of security? TSA says yes; ACLU Hawaii says no


NEWUpfrontImageTSA_14_24_PR

December 01, 2010 | 01:28 PM
People were grumbling about airport security long before "don't touch my junk" became a national catchphrase. But in recent weeks, minor annoyance has morphed into serious umbrage. Nearly a decade after 9/11, liberals and conservatives alike have finally started missing the rights they once willingly handed over along with their loafers and laptops.

A "national opt out day" on Thanksgiving eve didn't materialize (apparently folks' desire to reclaim their privacy was trumped by a desire to eat Mom's green-bean casserole), but the issue hasn't gone away. We reached out to Laurie Temple, a staff attorney with ACLU Hawaii, to find out about the agency's position on TSA's controversial screenings and pat-downs, and why she thinks public outrage has suddenly reached a boiling point.

Last week, ACLU Hawaii handed out "know your rights" fliers outside the Honolulu Airport. What was the impetus behind that, and what was the response, from both airport officials and travelers?

[We want] travelers to know their rights at the airport, particularly Hawaii residents and visitors who have no choice but to fly and are the hardest hit by the invasive new TSA procedures. TSA has implemented extremely intrusive new procedures and technologies that violate our standards of decency, as well as our fundamental right to privacy and our right to be free from unreasonable searches. Travelers and airport officials alike were appreciative of the information and hopeful that TSA will institute procedures that make us safer without compromising our privacy.

On your Web site, you say that TSA screening procedures provide "a false sense of security." It sounds like you think they not only violate people's rights, but aren't even effective. Explain.

The effectiveness of body scanners is uncertain. It is far from clear that the machines would have detected the "anatomically congruent" explosives used in the Christmas Day attack. Some experts have said explosives can be hidden from the machines by being molded against the human body, or in folds of skin. A study by British officials found the scanners would not be effective for stopping terrorist threats to planes. Enacting ineffective measures designed to make us feel better while taking away our rights won't help anyone.

How do you respond to those who say they're willing to give up their right to privacy in the name of security, at least in some instances?

The government must keep us safe, but it must do so in an effective way that respects our right to privacy. Nobody should be forced to choose between "naked scans" and intrusive groping by strangers.

It's been suggested that a certain amount of profiling—not necessarily based on race, but perhaps things like behavior or countries visited—could allow security to be more targeted and less generally invasive. Is there any level of profiling ACLU Hawaii would support if it meant fewer people having their privacy infringed upon?

The first line of defense should be old-fashioned law enforcement and intelligence work that stops plotters before they get to the airport. Evidence-based, targeted and narrowly tailored investigations based on individualized suspicion would be both more consistent with our values and more effective than diverting resources to a system of mass suspicion.

In the wake of 9/11, when these more invasive procedures started taking effect, there was an outcry, but it was muted and came mostly from the left. Now, people from all sides of the political spectrum are protesting. What do you think has changed?

The TSA screening procedures are an affront to American values. While every American wants to be safe when flying, they also have limits; allowing the government to take naked pictures and touch our bodies just goes too far. Once we betray our own values, we stop looking like a free America, and the terrorists win.

print
Print
email
Email Link
Comment
Feedback
share
Share
  1. print email
    Human
    December 02, 2010 | 10:42 AM

    One other reason that this may be unconstitutional, is that they select only one mode of transportation to do there invasive techniques. They do not do this to train, boat or bus transportation. A terrorist, that wants to kill people or hurt America, do NOT have to do it at an airport where security is high, they can do it easier and better any where else. Why would anyone except suicidal do it on a plane and die too. All of this intrusions are not necessary also because the attitude of passengers not passive anymore, they take action too, and the pilots doors are locked now. Airplanes should be the LAST place a terrorist would choose.

    daniwitz13
  2. print email
    Giving up freedom for security?
    December 02, 2010 | 12:05 PM

    On my way back to Oahu from Kauai, i tried to go to the metal detector side and the TSA agent on the Scan side flagged me over. I didn't want to but I figured it wouldn't be that bad, and it was around 10PM and I just wanted to get it over with already. I understood, a little, that in order to be kept safe that we have to give up some freedoms, so i just went over to the scanner. after the scan i was instructed to step over to the side where there was another TSA agent telling me to wait while the remote person reads the scan and then give the all clear over the radio that the TSA agent in front of me has in his ear. After about 30 to 45 seconds the agent clicks his radio on his shoulder and says copy. he then instructs me that he is going to have to do a pat down ALSO. I asked why and he said that the scanner could not see all the way through my khaki shorts. (Massimo cargo knee length khaki shorts from target) "Its a lot of material" he said. He told me what he was going to do and was very professional about it. I was not happy but there was nothing I could do at that point. He went over both sides of my chest from top to waist, then both sides of both of my legs once in the front and then again in the back. It was pretty intrusive and what didn't make things better was that the other 3 TSA agents by the bag scanner were all watching, not just glancing but intently watching every bit of what was going on. I went in there wearing shorts a t-shirt and slippers and i still had to get scanned and pat down. If TSA if going to force this technology on us and give us no options then at the very least it should work better. I am still unsure how the machine that can see my bones could not see through my empty pockets. Afterward it really did start to bother me more because i did feel... not violated... but very uncomfortable and if anything more untrusting of TSA. I think it was uncalled for and I do not think that this is the solution. It does not seem reasonable to me. I hope that something is done to solve this.

    Rob Green
  3. print email
    Freedoms in exchange for safety...
    December 02, 2010 | 01:43 PM

    Rob, you are so wrong - we do not have to give up any freedoms for security. That is exactly what the government has been shoving down our throats. There are plenty of ways the government can make our lives more secure without violating our rights and taking away our freedoms. The government and obama are blatantly violating our rights and telling us "it's an inconvenience" and "deal with it". But - they are exempt from those same "security" measures..go figure. Maybe you didn't feel violated, but as a sexual assault survivor, it is rape, plain and simple. Rape is defined as a "violation of property"...and my body is my property. Rape is also something done without another's consent - I have never and will never consent to a government thug sticking his or her fingers in my son's or my underwear and feeling us up. R-A-P-E!

    Michelle
  4. print email
    December 02, 2010 | 02:14 PM

    Rob, the "AIT" machines can't "see your bones". They bounce radiation off of your skin, not through your body. What they see is an image of your naked body- nothing like a normal x-ray.

    Nick S.
  5. print email
    Instant background check
    December 02, 2010 | 04:35 PM

    If someone wants to buy a firearm from a retailer an instant background check is mandatory to weed out felons, lunatics,terrorists, etc,and takes a few moments. Rather than FORCING otherwise law abiding citizens into either pornography or prostitution (in my opinion) why not use instant background checks to discover terrorists and other trouble makers? If it works for firearms, why not bombs?

    Rick B.
  6. print email
    Opt-out day was NOT a failure
    December 02, 2010 | 05:10 PM

    On what was supposed to be the busiest day for air travel, 94% of Americans chose to travel by road or rail. The TSA, in airport after airport, turned off the Nude-O-Scopes, thus there was NOTHING TO OPT-OUT OF.
    http://wewontfly.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/tsa-blinked-public-didnt-fly.pdf

    Mainlander Whoisnotgoingtomauianymore
Reader Feedback Submission
Use this form to submit Reader Feedback.
* required value
Your Name*

Town

Email (not shown on website)

Subject

Comment*

Verification*


Calendar Search
Event
calendar icon
Zip Code Proximity
of
Entertainment and lifestyle news for Maui, Hawaii and the surrounding Islands. Maui Time Weekly is Mauis only independent and locally owned newspaper. Mail this link to a friend
Web Analytics