Woman in Wheelchair, Underwear, TSA: I am Not Making This Up

Don't get me wrong: I think that intelligent scrutiny of passengers and freight at air terminals is a good idea. Emphasis on intelligent.

Maybe it's just the way news services are handling it, but these 'isolated' incidents of TSA screeners going over the top seem to be coming closer together.

Today's weirdness:

"Woman in wheelchair and underwear misses flight at Will Rogers, blames TSA"
Michael Kimball, NewsOK (December 1, 2010)

"A woman who passed through security at Oklahoma City's Will Rogers World Airport in a wheelchair and her underwear missed her flight Tuesday, and she said TSA denied her boarding. A TSA spokeswoman wouldn't say if the woman was denied by TSA employees.

"A woman in a wheelchair wearing only her bra and panties in hopes of preventing an intrusive search by Transportation Security Administration employees missed her flight Tuesday at Will Rogers World Airport in Oklahoma City.

"She said TSA told her she couldn't board her flight after a lengthy search and questioning....

" 'If it happened anywhere else, it would have been sexual assault.'...

"...Oklahoma City-based TSA spokeswoman Kim Wagner said Banovac 'went through the screening process' and 'she did not catch her flight.'..."

She's 52, by the way, and says that she's usually hand-searched when she flies, because she uses a wheelchair.

In my opinion, the hand-search probably makes sense in this case. Security technology seems to be designed around people who don't have a lot of add-on equipment. Now that I've got artificial hips, I'd probably cause a ruckus at security checkpoints. Another reason why I probably won't fly again. I'll get back to that.

As for Manovac's report that she "felt violated" by the new-and-improved invasive searches at airports? I'm inclined to believe that she feels that way.

I might not: but I'm a man, and I've had people poking and prodding me since before I can remember. (The poking and prodding was partly because of a medical experiment that my parents didn't know about at the time - and that's another topic. (June 17, 2008))

As for "...'If it happened anywhere else, it would have been sexual assault.'..." - She's probably right about that. My opinion. The TSA should take a look at what happened to American law and culture since the sixties: with particular reference to changes in the 'boys will be boys' attitude toward sexual assault. My opinion, again.

Air Travel Options

I've discussed this before, in other posts: for folks in North America, air travel is an option, not always a necessity.

For example, my son-in-law travels a great deal. It's part of his job. He recently bought an RV: one of those houses-on-wheels. It's not a luxury. He can get all of his equipment in the thing, travel to any place that has a road nearby: and when he gets there, he's got his office and living accommodations on-site. We'd discussed his options before he made the purchase - and I think he made a good decision.

He also owns the company, so he didn't have as many hoops to jump through as someone in a corporate job. Yet another topic.

Not everybody travels enough to justify buying or renting an RV.

But if you're reading this: you're already at least halfway to being ready for webconferencing. I've suggested this before: it's nice to be there for the holidays, when it comes to getting together with family. But a pair of computers and webcams, plus a little software and an Internet connection, are a pretty good substitute.

My family did that recently, when another one of my in-laws was in the Middle East. Like I said, it's not quite like 'really' being there, but it's a pretty good substitute.

Clothing-Optional Air Travel?

I don't recommend this - there's about a half-foot of snow on the ground outside my window at the moment, so clothing isn't a luxury in Minnesota at the moment.

On the other hand, as TSA antics continue to be newsworthy, this idea is starting to almost make sense:

"...The Mizarans live far above their world; never going to earth and always able to enjoy the spectacular views of their world and the great fleets of airships that are their sole means of transportation.

This idyllic form of habitation is so original, so picturesque that it is universally regarded as the stupidest idea ever hit upon. Yes, the view is very pretty, but the price is a major pain in the arse, as popping next door means a three-hour wait at airport security both ways. The average Mizaran has had his person searched so many times that they now travel stark naked and without baggage to save time and aggravation...."
("Mizar," Tales of Future Past, Davidszondy.com)

But, like I said, I don't recommend showing up at an air terminal wearing just your skin.

Related posts:

• "The TSA and John Tyner: $10,000 Fine? 'That's the old fine' "
  (November 16, 2010)
• "TSA vs. Holiday Travelers: Radiation Exposure or 'Pat-Down' "
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (November 15, 2010)
• "John Tyner at San Diego: $10,000 Fine or Groin Grope"
  (November 14, 2010)
• "TSA's Latest Options for Air Travelers: Zap or Grope"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (November 13, 2010)
• " 'The System Worked' - Napolitano and an Unscripted Interview"
  (December 28, 2009)
• "Northwest Flight 253: Near Miss on Christmas Weekend"
  (December 27, 2009)
• "TSA: Our Tax Dollars at Work; Protecting the Public From Flash Cards"
  (September 12, 2009)
• "Muslim Family Talks Safety, Gets Booted From Flight"
  (January 2, 2009)
• "FBI: Bruce Ivins Worked Alone in Anthrax Attack"
  
(August 6, 2008)
Particularly
• Kappa Kappa Gamma girls?!
• "Anthrax Suspect Dies as FBI Approach: Case Closed?"
  (August 1, 2008)
• "Thanksgiving, the War on Terror, and the American Traveler"
  (November 23, 2007)
• "Oakland Airport Apologizes to Detained Marines: as much as can be expected"
  (October 5, 2007)
• "If You Hear Someone Speaking Arabic, GET A GRIP!"
  (September 1, 2007)
• "T-Shirt Story 2: Civil Rights vs Common Sense"
  (August 13, 2007)
• "Arrests, Doctors and Terrorists: Keeping a Cool Head"
  (July 2, 2007)
  Particularly
  • The paragraph starting with "Richard Jewell, the overweight white security guard who discovered an abandoned knapsack...."

In the news:

• "TSA to investigate body scan resister"
  SignOnSanDiego.com (November 15, 2010)

The TSA and John Tyner: $10,000 Fine? "That's the old fine"

Before getting into the latest chapter of John Tyner and the TSA's 'zap or be groped' options for air travelers: part of my take on airline security. I'm about as sure as I can be that -

• Outfits like Al Qaeda and the Taliban haven't decided to stop trying to kill people they don't approve of.
• Every last passenger, every pilot, and all cabin attendants in the entire United States of America are not equally likely to try smuggling a bomb or some weapon into an airliner.

The first point means that some level of air travel security is needed.

The second point may need some clarification, given assumptions I've run into from time to time. I don't think that everybody who gets onto an airliner is equally likely to be a terrorist. That is not the same as assuming that all Muslims look like they came from the Middle East. Or that all people who look like they came from the Middle East are terrorists. Or that Ron Paul supporters are terrorists. (You can't make this stuff up, folks. (March 23, 2009))

The TSA might do well to check out what Israel does to make commercial air travel in their country safer - unless there's some daft Federal regulation against doing that sort of thing.

John Tyler: He's a Suspicious One, All Right

Here's what brought me back to the TSA's probably-inadvertent encouraging of RV sales and webconferencing. Actually, traveling overland or using webcams is my suggestion. (Apathetic Lemming of the North (November 15, 2010))

"TSA to investigate body scan resister"
SignOnSanDiego.com (November 15, 2010)

"The Transportation Security Administration has opened an investigation targeting John Tyner, the Oceanside man who left Lindbergh Field under duress on Saturday morning after refusing to undertake a full body scan.

"Tyner recorded the half-hour long encounter on his cell phone and later posted it to his personal blog, along with an extensive account of the incident. The blog went viral, attracting hundreds of thousands of readers and thousands of comments.

"Michael J. Aguilar, chief of the TSA office in San Diego, called a news conference at the airport Monday afternoon to announce the probe. He said the investigation could lead to prosecution and civil penalties of up to $11,000.

"TSA agents had told Tyner on Saturday that he could be fined up to $10,000.

" 'That's the old fine,' Aguilar said. 'It has been increased.'..."

I'm pretty sure that the TSA will finally decide how much money they want from Mr. Tyner. I even think that there may be a reasonable excuse for their 'investigation' of the man who put their "pat down" efforts on the Internet.

Mr. Tyner might - possibly - be some kind of spy or something.

No, really: It's (remotely) possible that John Tyner deliberately got in trouble just to undermine America's confidence in the TSA. Or something.

On the other hand, investigating the man who 'made them look bad' reminds me - slightly - of Iran's various official responses to the on-camera shooting of Neda Soltan. (July 1, 2009)

And, much closer to home, what was done to Steven Hatfill and Richard Jewell.

Conspiracy? More Likely Clueless Bureaucrats and/or Uniformed Nitwits

There's hope that the TSA may learn something useful from the John Tyner's jewels caper. They seem to have drummed it into the heads of the folks working with passengers that nipple rings aren't particularly dangerous. (March 27, 2008)

As for the current mess? I've said this before, but it bears repeating: I have some sympathy with anybody in the TSA who's actually trying to keep American air traffic safe. This hypothetical individual is working against:

• A cultural disinclination to be 'unfair'
  • 'Fair' defined as treating everybody exactly the same way
  • No matter how crazy that is in a given situation
• Prejudiced louts who made 'fair' rules seem sensible, in decades gone by
• Terrorists
  • Real terrorists
  • Not some fellow with a cell phone

There's a very real possibility that whoever was working for the TSA in San Diego that day wasn't like the chap with a thing about nipple rings back in 2008. Whoever dealt with John Tyner could be someone who had the unenviable job of carrying out instructions dreamed up by some desk jockey.

Character Assassination: What I Hope Doesn't Happen

My concern right now is that whoever is calling the shots in the TSA will decide that John Tyner made the TSA look bad: and must be destroyed. Unlikely? I hope so.

On the other hand, we may soon be seeing 'leaked' accounts of John Tyner: how he doesn't pay his bills; cheats on his taxes; abuses rabbits; and burned down an orphanage.

'It can't happen here?' It'd be nice if Federal agencies never made mistakes, but we live in a world where really, really stupid, nasty things are done sometimes. (August 6, 2008)

I hope that John Tyner emerges from this with his life and finances intact.

Related posts:

• "TSA vs. Holiday Travelers: Radiation Exposure or 'Pat-Down' "
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (November 15, 2010)
• "John Tyner at San Diego: $10,000 Fine or Groin Grope"
  (November 14, 2010)
• "TSA's Latest Options for Air Travelers: Zap or Grope"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (November 13, 2010)
• " 'The System Worked' - Napolitano and an Unscripted Interview"
  (December 28, 2009)
• "Northwest Flight 253: Near Miss on Christmas Weekend"
  (December 27, 2009)
• "TSA: Our Tax Dollars at Work; Protecting the Public From Flash Cards"
  (September 12, 2009)
• "Muslim Family Talks Safety, Gets Booted From Flight"
  (January 2, 2009)
• "FBI: Bruce Ivins Worked Alone in Anthrax Attack"
  
(August 6, 2008)
Particularly
• Kappa Kappa Gamma girls?!
• "Anthrax Suspect Dies as FBI Approach: Case Closed?"
  (August 1, 2008)
• "Thanksgiving, the War on Terror, and the American Traveler"
  (November 23, 2007)
• "Oakland Airport Apologizes to Detained Marines: as much as can be expected"
  (October 5, 2007)
• "If You Hear Someone Speaking Arabic, GET A GRIP!"
  (September 1, 2007)
• "T-Shirt Story 2: Civil Rights vs Common Sense"
  (August 13, 2007)
• "Arrests, Doctors and Terrorists: Keeping a Cool Head"
  (July 2, 2007)
  Particularly
  • The paragraph starting with "Richard Jewell, the overweight white security guard who discovered an abandoned knapsack...."

In the news:

• "TSA to investigate body scan resister"
  SignOnSanDiego.com (November 15, 2010)

John Tyner at San Diego: $10,000 Fine or Groin Grope

There's common-sense security, and there's what Americans have to deal with from time to time. Like deciding whether they'd rather be subjected to debatably-safe X-ray screening, or get groped. (Apathetic Lemming of the North (November 13, 2010)) My guess is that the TSA would rather have what their new thing called a "pat down." They probably also wish that the Masses wouldn't fuss so much.

After all - getting their groins checked is 'for their own good.' (Aww, come on: you know you'll like it?)

Maybe there is a reason for the, ah, "pat-down" checks. Maybe.

Groin Grope or $10,000 Fine? It Could be Worse

Or maybe this is another instance of the sort of lunacy that comes up from time to time, when TSA and other government agencies forget that their subjects have cell phones - and aren't afraid to use them.

Not that Americans have as much trouble with crazies in government as, say, Iran does. ("Journalism in the Information Age, Or Nothing Says 'No' Like a Brightly Burning Motorcycle" (June 24, 2009))

So, yes: It could be worse.

I have some sympathy with competent, well-intentioned folks in the TSA and other organizations, who presumably are trying to keep air travelers safe in America. They're in a difficult position, caught between

• Insane rules that insist on treating everybody 'equally'
• Racist jerks who made those insane rules seem sensible
  
• Uniformed nitwits who seem to think that nipple rings are a threat

Nipple rings?! As I said about two years ago: "I am not making this up." (March 27, 2008)

Maybe this week's attempted groin grope was an application of 'equal opportunity?' I doubt it: My guess is that what happened in San Diego was just more clueless (mis)use of authority.

From today's news:

"TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check"
SignOnSanDiego.com (November 14, 2010)

"John Tyner won't be pheasant hunting in South Dakota with his father-in-law any time soon.

"Tyner was simultaneously thrown out of San Diego International Airport on Saturday morning for refusing to submit to a security check and threatened with a civil suit and $10,000 fine if he left.

"And he got the whole thing on his cell phone. Well, the audio at least.

"The 31-year-old Oceanside software programmer was supposed to leave from Lindbergh Field on Saturday morning and until a TSA agent directed him toward one of the recently installed full-body scanners, Tyner seemed to be on his way.

"Tyner balked.

"He'd been reading about the scanners and didn't like them for a number of reasons, ranging from health concerns to 'a huge invasion of privacy.' He'd even checked the TSA website which indicated that San Diego did not have the machines, he said in a phone interview Saturday night....

"...He also did something that may seem odd to some, manipulative to others but fortuitous to plenty of others for whom Tyner is becoming something of a folk hero: Tyner turned on his cell phone's video camera and placed it atop the luggage he sent through the x-ray machine....

"...During the next half-hour, his cell phone recorded Tyner refusing to submit to a full body scan, opting for the traditional metal scanner and a basic 'pat down' -- and then refusing to submit to a 'groin check' by a TSA security guard.

"He even told the guard, 'You touch my junk and I'm going to have you arrested.'...

Okay: maybe this air traveler was "asking for it." Maybe.

I remember the 'good old days,' when "she was asking for it" might work as a defense for rape. Which is one of the reasons I don't miss the 'good old days' all that much. And that's another topic.

Leaving the cell phone camera on might suggest that Mr. Tyner was trying to provoke an incident. On the other hand - demanding $10,000 or a free grope? That seems - just a trifle unreasonable, given the information I've seen.

And refusing a groin check is - in my opinion - not as silly as what some air travelers have done. ("T-Shirt Story 2: Civil Rights vs Common Sense" ((August 13, 2007))

Solution to Air Travel Hassels (1): Don't Fly

My son-in-law does quite a bit of traveling for his business: and bought an RV this week. We'd discussed the pros and cons before the purchase. He'll be spending a bit more time going from one place to another, but will be spending a great deal less money doing it.

Not everybody travels enough to justify buying an RV. On the other hand, in another blog I suggested that families might consider buying webcams and webconferencing for the holidays, as an alternative to being, ah, "searched" at the airports. (Apathetic Lemming of the North (November 13, 2010)

Solution to Air Travel Hassels (2): 'Clothing Optional'

I can't say that I'd recommend this. Remember: I live in central Minnesota, and there are very practical reasons for wearing clothing here during the winter. On the other hand, Mr. Tyner's response to the TSA's "pat down" reminded me of this discussion of a really old science fiction magazine cover:

"...The Mizarans live far above their world; never going to earth and always able to enjoy the spectacular views of their world and the great fleets of airships that are their sole means of transportation.

This idyllic form of habitation is so original, so picturesque that it is universally regarded as the stupidest idea ever hit upon. Yes, the view is very pretty, but the price is a major pain in the arse, as popping next door means a three-hour wait at airport security both ways. The average Mizaran has had his person searched so many times that they now travel stark naked and without baggage to save time and aggravation...."
("Mizar," Tales of Future Past, Davidszondy.com)

A few more outbreaks of bureaucratic nitwittery from the TSA, and Mr. Zondy's Mizaran scenario might start looking good to America's air travelers.

Here's an excerpt from what I wrote about this get-zapped-or-get-groped nonsense, in another blog:

There's Common-Sense Security: And There's Moonbat-Crazy Stuff Like This

"That said, I've opined about the TSA, security, and common sense in another blog. Before someone has a stroke, let the Lemming point out that, in the Lemming's opinion, the safety of the flying public is one thing - the sort of weirdness I've discussed is something else:

• "TSA: Our Tax Dollars at Work; Protecting the Public From Flash Cards"
  Another War-on-Terror Blog (September 12, 2009)
• "Muslim Family Talks Safety, Gets Booted From Flight"
  Another War-on-Terror Blog (January 2, 2009)
• "TSA: Our Tax Dollars at Work; Protecting the Flying Public from Nipple Rings"
  Another War-on-Terror Blog (March 27, 2008)
• "Oakland Airport Apologizes to Detained Marines: as much as can be expected"
  Another War-on-Terror Blog (October 5, 2007)

"Like the fellow said, 'you can't make this stuff up, folks.'..."

"...As for the airlines and the TSA? Like I said: the Lemming doesn't envy folks in the TSA who are trying to do their jobs. As for airlines and everyone else who makes a living flying other folks from on place to another? I've been laid off, fired, let go, and lost jobs in a few other ways. I hope that the TSA and the air travel industry work out some way for folks to fly without risking their health - or getting groped."
(Apathetic Lemming of the North (November 13, 2010))

Related posts:

• "TSA's Latest Options for Air Travelers: Zap or Grope"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (November 13, 2010)
• " 'The System Worked' - Napolitano and an Unscripted Interview"
  (December 28, 2009)
• "Northwest Flight 253: Near Miss on Christmas Weekend"
  (December 27, 2009)
• "Thanksgiving, the War on Terror, and the American Traveler"
  (November 23, 2007)
• "If You Hear Someone Speaking Arabic, GET A GRIP!"
  (September 1, 2007)
• "T-Shirt Story 2: Civil Rights vs Common Sense"
  (August 13, 2007)

American Government Intercepts, Reads Private Correspondence!

And it's a good thing the CIA did.

On September 11 of this year, the CIA intercepted an email to a top member of Al Qaeda in Islamic North Africa, Salah Gasmi. The message brought up the possibility of an attack on the sewage system of Paris.

With no dates or specific places, there's not much to go on. Considering the very real risk, "we can't afford to take the luxury of ignoring it — but it's so vague," a French official said.

Paris isn't alone. London and cities in Italy and Germany are threatened, too.

Don't feel bad if you don't recognize the name Al Qaeda in Islamic North Africa. It's a new name of a Salafist group that's part of an Islamic insurgency in Algeria. That lot now says they're allied to Osama bin Laden's network.

FISA Updated: for a Limited Time Only

I suppose that "half a loaf is better than none." Congress has given law enforcement a little more leeway, temporarily, in how they find out who's going to have a shot at killing Americans again. The bill's last stop is the White House, where President Bush has said he'll sign it.

The FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) bill will "expand the government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants" when communications between foreign suspects pass through the United States.

FISA dates from 1978, and apparently hasn't been overhauled until now. Reviews of U.S. intelligence-gathering rules following the 9/11 attacks made Congress aware of FISA and how poorly it addressed technologies like cell phones and e-mail that had developed in the last thirty years.

Acting with the speed and resolve that I have become accustomed to, a version of FISA that recognizes the last three decades of changes information technology finally passed through congress.

Predictably, the ACLU doesn't want FISA updated.

Also predictably, "privacy" was a concern for many of our leaders. Excerpted from a ZDNet article:
"Can you assure us that no one is being eavesdropped upon in the United States other than someone who has a communication that is emanating from foreign soil by a suspected terrorist, al-Qaida or otherwise?" Sen. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, asked at one point early in the daylong hearing.

Some of the meaningful debate was about due process for communications intercepts. I appreciate the need for, and value of, due process.

What I question is whether in is wise to risk people's lives while a judge gets around to reading a request for a search warrant: and then risking that the request will be denied because of some weird connection to something in the Constitution. (Since the 4th Amendment may be boring in this connection, how about citing the 1st? Quite a few jihadists are religiously motivated, after all.)

Despite these concerns, the House agreed to give law enforcement a little leeway in monitoring terrorists: by a vote of 227-183. For six months. Then it's back to 1978.

That time limit was the Republicans' idea. Democrats wanted the bill limited to four months.

I wish that Congress would ease up on protecting us from the police, and pay more attention to protecting us from terrorists.

The Right to Privacy and/or Anonymity

"Privacy" is important, but I've been interested in the way the term has evolved.

The American Heritage® Dictionary says that "privacy" means "The quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others. b. The state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion: a person's right to privacy. 2. The state of being concealed; secrecy."

That makes sense, to me at any rate.

That "right to privacy" and "condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others" is where things get interesting.

Over the years, I've witnessed people getting upset when retailers put cameras in stores, to inhibit shoplifters. Sometimes the retailer went over the top, with cameras in women's dressing rooms. Generally, though, I'm with the store owners. I pay for what I get, and don't like paying extra to cover the costs of folks who take a five-finger discount.

Now that cameras in stores are accepted, the battle for "privacy" has gone to the streets. And the Web.

For years now, people have been expressing righteous indignation and grave concern over the terrible threat to "privacy" represented by security cameras mounted on light poles, and online merchants keeping track of what a customer buys.

After a while, I realized that these people were not crazy. Rather, their definition of "privacy" was very far removed from mine.

I think of "privacy" as applying to things like:

• Changing my underwear
• Exactly how much is (or isn't) in my bank account
• What my family and I discuss at home

"Privacy" for some people seems to mean not being recognized or remembered when, for example:

• Walking down a sidewalk
• Driving a car
• Looking at something in a store
• Buying something in a store

Those last two points took some real getting used to for me. I love it when someone in a store remembers that I bought a widget last month, and looked at three-pronged blivets last week, and points out a new widget-washing blivet. I may not buy the thing, but I appreciate being told about it.

I've had interesting discussions with acquaintances and friends who are horrified at the sort of invasion of privacy represented by cookies, which track what's done at websites. I see that sort of "spying" as being equivalent to what any half-way alert store owner would do for someone with cash or credit who entered his or her store.

If people are that concerned with "privacy," perhaps they should consider wearing paper bags over their heads when entering a convenience store.

Come to think of it, that would almost guarantee that they get prompt, personal, attention.

A shazam moment struck me some time ago. What many mean when they say "privacy" is what I mean when I say "anonymity."

I have a little more respect for "privacy advocates" now. It seems that what they ardently desire is a world where they are anonymous units in a sea of humanity, going about their solitary existences without knowing, or being known by, those around them.

There's a sort of heroic social asceticism to that desire, but I wouldn't want to live that way.

And I don't. I've lived in a town of 4,000 for the last two decades. There are some folks here who don't know me by sight, but many do. If I walk into a store downtown, the odds are that someone will recognize me. When I drive the family van down main, it would be odd if someone didn't recognize the vehicle, and notice that I was driving it.

And I don't feel that my privacy is being invaded.

Understanding that a branch of the civil liberties community are struggling to establish a citizen's Right to Anonymity has helped me to make sense of an important dialog in contemporary society.

This is a discussion that's likely to get more active, now that cities in the U.S. are talking about following the United Kingdom's lead in using security cameras to dissuade those residents who want to hurt other residents.

A quick look around the Web brought me to a few of the voices in this diverse digital debate. As usual, I don't necessarily agree with all these resources.

• An erudite look at the issue: Privacy as Contextual Integrity ("Interesting law review article by Helen Nissenbaum"). This one is also somewhat diffucult to read. The cited author doesn't seem to believe in paragraph breaks - a communication impediment shared by many in academia.
• The Neighbors Are Watching Via Surveillance Video (from the big-brother-is-next-door dept) "Yes, it's nice to have a world where people are unlikely to commit a crime since they're always being watched, but do we really want a world where no one has any real privacy?" Why are rhetorical questions so common?
• Hundreds of thousands of surveillance cameras across America track our behavior every day in the San Francisco Chronicle, October 17, 2004, "It pits the right to privacy, including anonymity in a crowd, against the potent fears of crime and, particularly these days, terrorism." Citing a Supreme Court ruling about "reasonable expectation of privacy," the article states that, as of 2003, "Even the American Civil Liberties Union doesn't object to video surveillance at national monuments and other potential al Qaeda targets." I must be on the right track, when such a respected journal as the San Francisco Chronicle links the right to privacy to anonymity.
• Back-seat fun: careful, they might film you (July 8, 2007), an Australian article, discussing the dangers of security cameras in taxis. There seems to be a lack of security "when the images are downloaded, a report by Victoria's former privacy commissioner" said. The current privacy commissioner agrees.

This is serious: Aussies making out in the back of a cab face the peril of embarrassment.

Or maybe worse. If one or both of the ultrasmoochers have a significant other, that s. o. might be miffed. Or decide to express their displeasure in a crudely physical way.

Security Cameras, Big Brother, and Good Sense

The London / Glasgow car bombing attempts highlighted the usefulness of security cameras. Finding two of the car bombs before they exploded helped - but so did having footage from the 160 security cameras in the district including Piccadilly Circus and the Haymarket area. Plus all the others distributed around the United Kingdom.

Even with a near-miss like the June attack to demonstrate the utility of security cameras, I doubt that cities in the US will install or upgrade the things without someone raising a fuss.

In fact, I know it: The complaints have already started.

As more cities in the States decide that crime levels are too high, and that terrorists might target them, I think we'll be seeing more headlines like this: "Network of surveillance cameras proposed for Pittsburgh" (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 27, 2007).

The city government is planning to link the hundreds of existing surveillance cameras in Pittsburgh together so that they can be monitored from one place. Besides the cameras they have, there will be two on each of 14 bridges, four on the U.S. Steel Tower, and more in Point State Park.

The system won't be just cameras: devices which can read vehicle license plates and run them through databases will "look" through the cameras; and gunshot detection systems would be set up in two neighborhoods, plus a state park. The latter systems can instantly pinpoint the location of a shooting and take pictures.

It's legal: John M. Burkoff, a University of Pittsburgh law professor, said that using the cameras "is lawful as long as they are used in places, like public areas, where people don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy," in the same article.

It's controversial, of course.

On the one hand, drunk drivers bank robbers, and other lawbreakers will have video evidence to deal with when their turn in court rolls around.

On the other hand, the tried and true phrase "Big Brother" gets brought out and passed around.

Not that everyone who doesn't like the idea of video cameras in public places trots out Orwell's classic. The EPIC (1) chief said, "To make it so that no matter what you're doing, someone is watching -- what kind of a society is that?"

The same public safety/"privacy" debate isn't limited to the States. An article in The Scotsman with the headline "'Big Brother' concerns as secret system of cameras is rolled out" (26 August, 2006) discussed a network of roadside cameras in the UK.

What's secret about the networks seems to be the way that police aren't telling where the cameras are. Even worse, the cameras "looks like ordinary speed cameras."

It occurs to me that disguising the special cameras is hardly sporting.

The privacy brigade is active in the United Kingdom. Quoting from the article, the Assistant Chief Constable of Fife Constabulary said, "the technology also allowed them to identify the faces of drivers. He said legislation would have to be introduced to allow such intimate monitoring and acknowledged 'a debate will have to be had' as to whether such tactics would be acceptable."

A debate about whether it is fair to recognize the driver of a vehicle?

That may be a blog for another day.

And, getting back the EPIC chief, "no matter what you're doing, someone is watching -- what kind of a society is that?"

As a long-time resident in a small Minnesota town, I can answer that question.

A society in which no matter where you are, short of a rest room stall or somebody's home, someone is watching would be very much like Small Town America.

It may not have the "privacy" that so many people seem to crave, but I'd willingly trade the security and mutual support of small towners for being one unit in a metropolitan street scene.

Footnote:
((1) Melissa Ngo is senior counsel and director of the identification and surveillance project of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.)