By Micah McCoy, Communications Specialist

If you’ve flown out of the Albuquerque Sunport recently, you may have noticed an addition to the arsenal of gadgets the TSA uses to screen passengers. Standing among the array of metal detectors and x-ray machines is one of forty whole-body imaging (WBI) scanners in use in airports throughout the country. In the wake of the recent Christmas Day bombing attempt by Northwest Airlines passenger Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, many politicians and pundits are loudly calling for these scanners to be put into widespread and routine use in all our major airports.

Advocates claim that routine body scans will reduce the chance of similar attacks occurring in the future. However, given our recent history of sacrificing civil liberties for what is often a false sense of security, let’s stop, catch our breath and think about this first. Specifically, is the non-targeted use of WBI scanners a real security solution worth compromising the privacy of millions?

WBI scanners produce strikingly graphic 3D images of a person’s body under their clothes, rendering their use tantamount to a “digital strip search.” These scans reveal the most intimate contours of the body, including details such as mastectomy scars, colostomy bags and adult diapers. Knowing that a government employee will virtually see them naked is bound to cause many passengers significant mental and emotional discomfort. The ethics of these digital strip searches are even more complicated where children are concerned. Fearing the possible violation of child pornography laws, the UK has already prohibited the scanning of anyone under age 18 outright.

The TSA attempts to address these privacy concerns by viewing scans remotely via closed circuit monitors, blurring faces, and deleting images immediately after screening. These precautions are a step in the right direction, but these scanned body images may prove to be too great a temptation for some TSA workers. If the Internet has taught us anything, it’s that people have an insatiable interest in the anatomy of others. Some of these images are sure to leak.

When we allowed the NSA to wiretap our phones, they illegally eavesdropped on the most private details of our personal lives. Are we certain that the TSA is any more trustworthy with the most private details of our bodies?

Leaving aside the privacy concerns inherent in these devices, their effectiveness is far from certain. For example, WBI scanners are unable to detect any items concealed inside a person’s body. Do we really believe that anyone who is willing to blow themselves up will not also be willing to smuggle explosives in their body cavities? The scanners also prove unreliable in detecting items molded to the body or hidden in folds of skin. Recent British studies suggest that they are less effective in detecting low density materials such as plastic explosives, powders and liquids—precisely the type of material Abdulmutallab smuggled sewn into his underpants.

With this evidence in mind, we need to seriously question whether the $150,000+ required to purchase a WBI scanner could be put to better use elsewhere. Experience has shown us that diligent law enforcement and good intelligence work are still the most effective methods of foiling terrorist plots. At the time of his attempted attack, Abdulmutallab was on watch lists in both the USA and UK. With better communication and follow-up, he could have been stopped long before he passed through airport security.

We were all unnerved and frightened by the close call on Christmas Day, but we must acknowledge that decisions made in moments of fear and anxiety are rarely the best. Before we relinquish more of our civil liberties—ground that, once ceded, is extremely difficult to regain—we must be certain that the wholesale use of WBI scanners is both an effective tool in preventing terrorist attacks and compatible with our nation’s values. The scanners don’t measure up on either count.

This article appeared originally in the opinion section of The Albuquerque Journal on January 17, 2010.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 23, 2009
CONTACT: Micah McCoy, (505) 266-5915 Ext. 1003 or [email protected]
LOS LUNAS, NM – Yesterday, a New Mexico court ruled that the Valencia County Commission could not ban local resident Michael Wood from attending or making public comments at commission meetings. Wood alleged that the ban, issued by the commission on September 16, 2009, was a prior restraint and discriminated against the content of his comments, violating his First Amendment right to free speech. Arguing on behalf of Wood, the ACLU of New Mexico obtained a preliminary injunction from the 13th Judicial District, allowing him to attend and participate in the public comments section of the meetings. The court granted the extraordinary relief and ruled that under the First Amendment, the commission did not have a legal right to ban Wood.
“We are pleased that the a New Mexico court has reaffirmed that individuals have the right to criticize their elected officials on issues of public importance during the public comments section of county commission meetings,” said Peter Simonson, Executive Director of the ACLU of New Mexico. “Non-disruptive public comments cannot be suppressed simply because the commissioners do not like what is being said.”
This ruling comes on the heels of a similar controversy in Truth or Consequences, NM, where the city commission instituted a rule that required all public comments be written and submitted in advance for scrutiny. The ACLU of New Mexico sent a letter to the City Attorney’s office notifying them that the rule is unconstitutional. The rule has since been dropped.
“We are hopeful that other local governing bodies throughout New Mexico will note the outcome of these cases and refrain from initiating similar rules and actions that inhibit free speech,” said Simonson.
“Local governments created these public comments sections precisely so that citizens could speak their minds. Censoring or suppressing this speech is not only unconstitutional, but also defeats the purpose of giving the public a chance to comment during these meetings.”
ACLU-NM cooperating attorney Steven M. Chavez, ACLU-NM Co-legal director Phil Davis, and ACLU-NM Staff Attorney Brendan Egan represent Mr. Wood.

###

The mission of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico is to maintain and advance the cause of civil liberties within the state of New Mexico, with particular emphasis on the freedom of religion, speech, press, association, and assemblage, and the right to vote, due process of law and equal protection of law, and to take any legitimate action in the furtherance and defense of such purposes. These objectives shall be sought wholly without political partisanship.

Real ID is dead. Thirty-six states currently do not meet compliance standards set by federal law, 14 of which have passed binding legislation prohibiting participation in Real ID. In all, twenty-four states have enacted bills or resolutions that oppose the Real ID Act. The people have spoken. Americans have a long and proud tradition of resisting government intrusion into their private lives, and Real ID is just that: a needless, ineffective and burdensome intrusion.
Over the past weeks, much has been made of the rapidly approaching compliance deadline for Real ID. The hand wringing stems from a concern that, come January 1st, 2010, New Mexicans may have to carry their passports if they wish to board a plane or enter a federal building. While this is a frightening prospect, the deadline is almost certain to be extended. With over half the states in non-compliance, suddenly forcing Americans to use their passports for internal travel during one of the year’s busiest travel times would throw airports and airlines into a state of chaos. Is DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano so foolhardy as to risk paralyzing the nation and further wounding an already reeling American economy?
Congress passed the Real ID Act in May 2005 without a single hearing in the Senate, ostensibly to provide Americans with greater security in the wake of the September 11th attacks. Rather than make America safer, Congress created a 20 billion dollar boondoggle (the cost of which would be borne by the states and individuals) that saddles the nation with a big burden and a small security return.
ID-based security is inherently unreliable. What do Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski and Major Nidal Hasan all have in common? They all would have had zero difficulty obtaining Real ID compliant cards. Bad actors will inevitably find ways of obtaining fraudulent cards and may already be eligible to acquire them by legitimate means. The idea that imposing the United States’ first-ever national identity card system will make us safer is founded on a false premise.
What Real ID would do is open the door to greater intrusions on individuals’ privacy and widespread identity theft. These de facto national identity cards could ultimately result in a situation where citizens’ movements inside their own country are monitored and recorded through these “internal passports”. Invasions of privacy will only increase as the purview of Real ID expands over time to encompass other activities necessary to participate in society. Simply look to how the role of drivers’ licenses has expanded beyond merely authorizing one to operate a motor vehicle.
Furthermore, Real ID and its slightly watered-down successor, PASS ID, call for an unprecedented amount of personal information to be collected, stored and consolidated in a system of interlinked databases. This amounts to a one-stop-shop for individuals’ personal information that will prove to be an irresistible lure to determined identity thieves, further exacerbating the fraud epidemic that already costs Americans billions every year.
Leaving aside the logistical nightmare, financial strain and security concerns they create, the bottom line is that Real ID and PASS ID limit the freedom of Americans. They place needless burdens on the constitutionally protected right to travel and various First Amendment guarantees by restricting access to federal buildings. These are all essential liberties we should never give up willingly. And certainly never for the sake of a law that provides so little benefit and creates the potential for so much harm.
Diane Wood, Policy Director ACLU of New Mexico
(This letter first appeared 12/10/09 in the Opinions section of the Albuquerque Journal.)