<![CDATA[Consumerist: Aclu]]> http://cache.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/consumerist.com.png <![CDATA[Consumerist: Aclu]]> http://consumerist.com/tag/aclu http://consumerist.com/tag/aclu <![CDATA[ Do You Have Any Naked Pictures Of Your Mother? The TSA Does ]]> The TSA recently announced that airport security scanners which can see under clothing are being installed at 10 U.S. airports, according to the AFP. Travelers will enter glass booths while a 3-dimensional full-body image is rendered using "millimeter waves." Because the image gives a clear representation of travelers' bodies and genitalia, it has some people concerned about their privacy. More, inside...

The article says,

While it allows the security screeners — looking at the images in a separate room — to clearly see the passenger's sexual organs as well as other details of their bodies, the passenger's face is blurred, TSA said in a statement on its website.

The scan only takes seconds and is to replace the physical pat-downs of people that is currently widespread in airports.

TSA began introducing the body scanners in airports in April, first in the Phoenix, Arizona terminal.

The installation is picking up this month, with machines in place or planned for airports in Washington (Reagan National and Baltimore-Washington International), Dallas, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, Miami and Detroit.

But the new machines have provoked worries among passengers and rights activists.

"People have no idea how graphic the images are," Barry Steinhardt, director of the technology and liberty program at the American Civil Liberties Union, told AFP.

The ACLU said in a statement that passengers expecting privacy underneath their clothing "should not be required to display highly personal details of their bodies such as evidence of mastectomies, colostomy appliances, penile implants, catheter tubes and the size of their breasts or genitals as a pre-requisite to boarding a plane."

Besides masking their faces, the TSA says on its website, the images made "will not be printed stored or transmitted."

"Once the transportation security officer has viewed the image and resolved anomalies, the image is erased from the screen permanently. The officer is unable to print, export, store or transmit the image."

Lara Uselding, a TSA spokeswoman, added that passengers are not obliged to accept the new machines.

"The passengers can choose between the body imaging and the pat-down," she told AFP.

Even if we trust the TSA to blur the faces of travelers and properly dispose of the naked images, and we don't, we believe the TSA has reached yet another milestone in violating our privacy. We appreciate the fact that the TSA is allowing us to choose between the full-body-scan and a pat-down, as if giving us some choice absolves them from any criticism. So which would you prefer, being groped by the TSA or letting them take your naked picture?

Scanners that see through clothing installed in US airports [AFP] (Thanks to Bladefist!)
(Photo: Getty)

]]>
Consumerist-5014590 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:02:15 EDT Jay Slatkin http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5014590&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Remember that guy JetBlue and the TSA wouldn't ... ]]> Remember that guy JetBlue and the TSA wouldn't let on a plane for wearing an Arabic shirt? He, joined with the ACLU, have just sued them for racial profiling. [Seattle Times]

]]>
Consumerist-291267 Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:32:02 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=291267&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Phone Record Lawsuit Over NSA Spying Dismissed ]]> effattlogo.jpgA judge Tuesday tossed out an ACLU lawsuit against the government over over AT&T's alleged turning over of phone records to the NSA.

Forcing the government to confirm or deny the transaction would violate laws against divulging state secret, U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly said.

Furthermore, since the activists could not prove that their individual records might be among the supposed records turned over, they had no basis for a lawsuit.

Let's see....

in order to prove their records were compromised, the activists need access to the records. However, the records are state secrets. Whether the records exist in a compromised state is a state secret. Whether or not there is a state secret... is also a state secret.

Ten thousand spoons and all you need is a hole in the head.

]]>
Consumerist-189997 Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:43:11 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=189997&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ The News; High Interest Charged For Lending Of Ears ]]> • Isn't the real solution just to stop making more children? [NYT] "Congress Identifies Pornography Purchasers"
• Investment slumming on the backs of the marginal of wealth. You stay classy, broker-dealers. [CT] "Subprime Lenders Getting 2nd Look As Investments"
• You guys are so unamerican. [NYT] "Retail Sales Dipped in June"
• Have you ever heard of this wacky new site called Digg? It's all the rage with the kids. [CT] "They Can Digg it: Sites Let People Decide News"
• The "states secrets" that isn't. [CT] "Dismissal Sought of Phone-Records Suit Against AT&T"
• Home field advantage. Shortness of breath ensues amongst the 16,000 coat-tail hopefuls, causing them to reach for their pills. [LAT] "Verdict Bolsters Merck's Vioxx"

]]>
Consumerist-187382 Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:11:56 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=187382&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ The News: Now, 100% Dolphin Safe! ]]> dolphin.jpg• ACLU wants FCC to review hold AT&T's acquisition of BellSouth until the baby bell's complicity in handing customer records to the NSA without warrant can be reviewed. Mmm, name soup. [NYT]
• Powell's Books has such fierce customer loyalty that some customers want their ashes interred there. Just open up a nursery and they'll have the book market cornered, from cradle to grave.[LAT]
• Consumer Reports says that due to high levels of mercury, pregnant women should not eat tuna. Plus, those dolphin bits can get stuck in the baby's umbilical cord. [CT]

]]>
Consumerist-178666 Tue, 06 Jun 2006 10:34:16 EDT popkin http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=178666&view=rss&microfeed=true