Dec 31st, 2009
Posted by Jay Stanley, Technology & Liberty Program at 1:56pm	Consumer Privacy, National Security

ACLU Opposes Body Cavity Searches For All Airline Passengers

Okay, so no one is explicitly calling for body cavity searches for all airline travelers — yet. But the logic of those pushing for body scanners for all airline passengers, and criticizing the ACLU for opposing that, leads to the inescapable conclusion that these critics would support such a policy.

Consider:

1. When Richard Reid brought explosives onto an airliner hidden in his shoes, the authorities made everyone remove their shoes. When security experts and other critics pointed out that this was "silly security," defenders argued that we must put up with it in order to block that particular kind of plot.
2. Now that a disturbed person has brought explosives onto an airliner in his underwear, panicked voices want the TSA to essentially view naked pictures of every passenger who boards an airline — that's up to 2.5 million people per day on domestic flights alone. When the ACLU and members of Congress object, critics cry that we must abandon our personal dignity and privacy in order to block that particular kind of plot.
3. It is far from clear that body scanners will, as so many people seem to be assuming, detect explosives concealed the way that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab concealed them. Some experts have said plastic explosives can be concealed against the human body. It's not clear how good scanner operators would have been at detecting the "anatomically congruent" explosives Abdulmutallab hid in his underwear (let alone how consistently effective bored operators would be if these $200,000 machines were placed at every screening station in every airport for 2.5 million people a day).
4. However, if terrorists even perceive that scanners will work, they take the next logical step and conceal explosives in their body cavities. Al Qaeda has already used this technique; in September a suicide bomber stowed a full pound of high explosives and a detonator inside his rectum, and attempted to assassinate a Saudi prince by blowing himself up. (The prince survived.)

So it seems that when the next terrorist tries to blow up an airliner using this technique, all the usual jittery voices surely will once again say that we must abandon our personal dignity and privacy in order to block that particular kind of plot. So we'd just like to get ahead of the game and state right now that the ACLU will be opposed to that.

Of course, even if body cavity searches for all were made policy, terrorists would probably shift their efforts to just hiding explosives in their carryon baggage, and the TSA's level of success in catching contraband has always been, shall we say, mixed. And reliably catching every possible means of hiding 50 grams of explosives is probably impossible given the millions of people who fly each day.

Yes, the government must zealously work to make us as safe as possible and to take every reasonable step to make sure security breaches like the ones that led to the Christmas Day attempted attack are not repeated. But we need to act wisely. That means not trading away our privacy for ineffective policies. We should be investing in developing technologies such as trace portal detectors (a.k.a. "puffer machines") that provide a layer of security without invading privacy, and in developing competent law enforcement and intelligence agencies that will stop terrorists before they show up at the airport.

Ultimately, it is up to the American people to figure out just how much privacy they want to abandon to block a few particular means of carrying out terrorist attacks. The ACLU represents those who value privacy in this debate. But when Americans make that decision, they should do so with their eyes wide open, without any illusions that this will prevent all attacks on airliners, much less attacks on shopping malls or all the infinite number of other plots and targets that terrorists could come up with if they are not stopped by competent law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

(Cross-posted to The Seminal and Daily Kos.)

Permalink |	Consumer Privacy, National Security

Tags: TSA

1. Anonymous Says:
   Dec 31st, 2009 at 3:46pm

   I do not care what I have to do to be safe on a flight.

2. Anonymous Says:
   Dec 31st, 2009 at 5:22pm

   Like so many measures before, this seems like a terrible price to pay for what ultimately amounts to a false sense of security. Unfortunately in cases like these, fear is often the prime motivator.

3. Anonymous Says:
   Jan 1st, 2010 at 11:29am

   The airplane solution is simple..airplane seats with locking shackles for all....

4. Anonymous Says:
   Jan 2nd, 2010 at 3:48pm

   The United States is becoming, if not already one of the most regressive and oppressive countries since the STASSI of the cold war era.

   I am proud t be card carrying member of ACLU.

   Keep up the good work.

5. Anonymous Says:
   Jan 3rd, 2010 at 12:32pm

   Wait till someone tries a breast implant explosive.

6. Trent Says:
   Jan 4th, 2010 at 8:43am

   Inescable conclusion. Huh,well one cannot make such a conclusion. I say integrate scanner technology with puffer technology. I understand scrutinizing actions taken by the government,but keep it real.

7. Anonymous Says:
   Jan 4th, 2010 at 12:59pm

   It is indeed a slippery slope... giving in to body scans for the false sense of security. Terrorism is a tactic and it seems to have worked because the fear driven media is feeding the frighten masses and at the same time lining the military industrial complex with lucrative "safety" contracts. I'm just waiting for a website featuring airport security pics. I wonder of www.celebrity-security-pics.com is taken.

8. Anonymous Says:
   Jan 4th, 2010 at 5:12pm

   Competent law enforcement and intelligence agencies? A contradiction in terms.

9. Anonymous Says:
   Jan 4th, 2010 at 11:01pm

   He who trades Liberty for (the illusion of) safety deserves neither and loses both.

10. Anonymous Says:
    Jan 5th, 2010 at 12:56pm

    I am in favor of body cavity searches if the first person whose cavity we search is the head of the TSA.

11. Katie Says:
    Jan 5th, 2010 at 1:04pm

    I seldom agree with the positions of the ACLU, but his time I do.

12. patriotic liberation front Says:
    Jan 5th, 2010 at 1:06pm

    One again the deceitful and slippery ACLU has reared its ugly face. This dangerous organization prefers to advance the interests of Islamic Terrorists over the rights of hard working-tax paying and freedom loving American Citizens. ACLU is a plague that can only inflict pain and death upon true American Patriots!!

13. Paen Says:
    Jan 5th, 2010 at 2:33pm

    I bet Ben Laden cracks up laughing at how he has made the U.S. become a police state.

14. Anonymous Says:
    Jan 5th, 2010 at 5:09pm

    I am a member of the ACLU and disagree with its stance on this issue. These are not violations of privacy.

15. Anonymous Says:
    Jan 6th, 2010 at 5:51am

    "Give me liberty or give me death". Fake terror is the road to dictatorship. As far as Washington is concerned the Constitution means nothing.

16. Anonymous Says:
    Jan 7th, 2010 at 5:58pm

    We could just get a barium enema the day we travel. It's a 2-for-1: the TSA can look for explosives and colon polyps at the same time! No terrorism and no colon cancer.

17. Anonymous Says:
    Jan 11th, 2010 at 11:27am

    #16 has the right idea haahhaa

18. Erik G. Says:
    Jan 26th, 2010 at 1:36am

    What is the ACLU's position on requiring exploratory surgery for all airline passengers?

19. CTLovesNathanHale Says:
    Feb 10th, 2010 at 10:23pm

    ACLU is a fraud, although I'm sure there are some well meaning dupes working for it. ps Anyone who relies on government for security and safety is a buffoon.

20. Maksutovian anarchist Says:
    Feb 12th, 2010 at 9:18am

    The complete non-activity of our illustrious Congress on this issue, and its associated 'risk reducers' and terrorist 'exposes,' as with its inability to re-instate banking regulations is largely due to its lowest common denominator affectations.

    And those are in abundance here in the comments.

21. katz Says:
    Feb 22nd, 2010 at 2:28pm

    More invasive screening seems futile, since the TSA still didn't catch the Leatherman I accidentally left in my carry-on.

Name

E-mail

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Homepage

• Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
• Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

What code is in the image? *

Enter the characters shown in the image.