Austin advisory board says no to new airport scanners

[7.62NATO]

It looks like the airport commission's resolution urges the City Council to "oppose the installation of (the imaging technology) at (Austin-Bergstrom) and further oppose the practice of invasive body searching' and to inform the federal agency and lawmakers of such opposition." It also looks like the mayor is completely disregarding this advice, so the effect of their resolution is basically null and void.

Question: If the mayor actually had a backbone and stood up to the Feds and said, "Sorry, we're not going to allow the installation of these scanners in the Austin-Bertstrom Airport," but the Feds responded by saying, "Tough. We are installing them anyway," what would be the appropriate response from the council?

http://http://www.statesman.com/news...s-1133508.html

‘Come and take it," it's not.

But your very own Austin Airport Advisory Commission last week went to the barricades, bureaucratically speaking, over the federal Transportation Security Administration's intention to install the new peekaboo body scanners at our airport sometime next year. That commission, which as the name implies has the job of advising the Austin City Council about policy at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, unanimously passed a resolution Tuesday calling on the council to officially resist getting the "advanced imaging technology" machines.

For those of you who have been under general anesthetic or really, really busy since early November, the Transportation Security Administration this fall has replaced old-fashioned magnetic scanners at about 70 airports with the new scanners. The federal agency plans to install them next year at dozens more airports, including Austin-Bergstrom. These devices, the feds say, can spot not only metallic objects but also nonmetallic stuff — plastic explosives, in other words, of the kind that terrorists might try to sneak onto an airliner.

Unfortunately, they can also spot everything else under your clothing, producing a shiny nude image of everyone scanned. Don't worry, the security administration says, the facial image is artificially obscured. The shots are viewed away from the security line, and the images are not retained (unless presumably it includes something suspicious looking). But many people are disturbed by what they see as a privacy breach.

This included, by a 5-0 vote, the airport commission.

The machines and associated procedures (including intimate "pat downs" of those who refuse to be scanned or whose images raise questions) "have been the source of derision, ridicule, embarrassment, and other negative connotations," the 11-paragraph resolution says.

It urges the City Council to "oppose the installation of (the imaging technology) at (Austin-Bergstrom) and further oppose the practice of invasive body searching" and to inform the federal agency and lawmakers of such opposition.

I talked to Robert Torn, a longtime pilot with a major U.S. airline (he preferred I not name it) and the airport commission member who sponsored the measure. "It's me ultimately that this whole thing is trying to protect," Torn said. "I'm on the pointy end of the airplane. But to me, it's overkill."

He has several issues with the machines that can be summarized as follows: They don't always detect troublesome contraband, they delay travel, they could be hazardous to your health, they trample on the U.S. Constitution, and they probably will be banished through court challenges anyway. All of those contentions are disputable, with the possible exception of the delay argument.

A group called Texans for Accountable Government, which opposes installing the machines, was on hand with a row of speakers at the lengthy advisory commission meeting. And they staged a protest at the airport Saturday.

Torn said he's aware, certainly, that neither the Austin Airport Advisory Commission nor Austin City Council can direct what happens with the scanners.

But Congress can do so, he said, and members of Congress on occasion respond to the wishes of constituents as expressed through local elected officials.

In this case, however, those wishes may remain unexpressed. An aide to Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell told me that the mayor, though he is no fan of the machines (mostly because of concern about longer backups at security checkpoints), considers the matter outside the purview of the council. Leffingwell and his colleagues, I was told, probably will not discuss the matter or vote on it.

And even if they do, would federal officials — with over $100 million invested in these machines amid persistent security concerns — be persuaded to leave Austin off the list?

Consider that a rhetorical question.

For questions, tips or story ideas, contact Getting There at 445-3698 or bwear@statesman.com.

I can't figure out why everyone is up in a tizzy over these scanners. So big deal, they can see the beans and franks. Worst things can happen.

I guess I could care less if someone can see me.

[7.62NATO]

Originally Posted by bigcountry

I can't figure out why everyone is up in a tizzy over these scanners. So big deal, they can see the beans and franks. Worst things can happen.

I guess I could care less if someone can see me.

You could? How much less?

I guess the ever-increasing and invasive power of the Federal gov't is of no issue to you. Goes right along with the mindset about street corner cameras. "I ain't go nothin' to hide. Onliest folks who got somethin' to worry 'bout iz dem criminelz." Next it will be a camera in your cable box cause you ain't got nothin' to hide. Too far a stretch?

Not to mention there are very real medical/health consequences from being exposed to these x-rays. Not worried about it? Why don't you travel frequently with your pregnant wife or little kids and see how they turn out. Be the little gov't guinea pig. Or let your kids, rather. See if your little boy, when grown, can squirt out live ones to give you grand children. Maybe he'll be shooting blanks instead.

Originally Posted by 7.62NATO

You could? How much less?

I guess the ever-increasing and invasive power of the Federal gov't is of no issue to you. Goes right along with the mindset about street corner cameras. "I ain't go nothin' to hide. Onliest folks who got somethin' to worry 'bout iz dem criminelz." Next it will be a camera in your cable box cause you ain't got nothin' to hide. Too far a stretch?

Not to mention there are very real medical/health consequences from being exposed to these x-rays. Not worried about it? Why don't you travel frequently with your pregnant wife or little kids and see how they turn out. Be the little gov't guinea pig. Or let your kids, rather. See if your little boy, when grown, can squirt out live ones to give you grand children. Maybe he'll be shooting blanks instead.

I am not sure if you realize it, but you are exposed to X-rays every day.

Maybe I am wrong here, but it appears you only worry about things that the news or media outlets tell you to be concerned about.

I am not a big fan of absolutes. In other words, I encourage practices that make sense. Cameras on every street corner, not a fan. Scanners at airports or extensive patdowns, part of life. I do travel frequently, so I would imagine I have more to worry about than you. Maybe anyway.

I guarantee you if the media wasn't pushing this one, you probably wouldn't even know about it.

I mean how much medical experience do you have, to know if it the exposure is too high or low. Do you realize how much of the RF spectrum you are exposed too every day? Why are you not worried about that? I am quite familuar with the RF spectrum. Stuff I do at work, I get exposed to it more than the average person. We have emitters that puts out 10-50mW of high frequency we blast at our product to test compliance. We eletromagnet coils that we shock the racks with to simulate lightning strikes.

[7.62NATO]

I am not sure if you realize it, but you are exposed to X-rays every day.

That is irrelevant. I am exposed to a lot of things every day. It doesn’t mean I want to be exposed to anything I’m already exposed to by force, especially in a more concentrated amount.

Maybe I am wrong here, but it appears you only worry about things that the news or media outlets tell you to be concerned about.

You’re throwing an accusation out based on absolutely nothing. Not even going to address it.

I am not a big fan of absolutes. In other words, I encourage practices that make sense. Cameras on every street corner, not a fan. Scanners at airports or extensive patdowns, part of life. I do travel frequently, so I would imagine I have more to worry about than you. Maybe anyway.

A reasonableness test, I get that. To you, the security measures have no possible ulterior motive and are worth their weight in their respective infringement of freedoms in order to keep us “safer.” But you’re not a fan of street corner cams. Someone else might be, and think they are being equally as reasonable as you are in your tolerance of the airport scanners and pat downs.

I guarantee you if the media wasn't pushing this one, you probably wouldn't even know about it.

Oh, now you are guaranteeing it, are you? Well, since you are guaranteeing it, you must have proof of this. I really want to see what your guarantee is worth.

I mean how much medical experience do you have, to know if it the exposure is too high or low. Do you realize how much of the RF spectrum you are exposed too every day? Why are you not worried about that? I am quite familuar with the RF spectrum. Stuff I do at work, I get exposed to it more than the average person. We have emitters that puts out 10-50mW of high frequency we blast at our product to test compliance. We eletromagnet coils that we shock the racks with to simulate lightning strikes.

What does my medical experience have to do with it? I don’t have to have any “medical experience” to know that I do not want to ingest lead, and that the less lead I ingest, the healthier I will be. Why do you think I am not concerned with how much of the RF spectrum we are exposed to, or any unhealthy substance for that matter? Do you know how I live my life? Do you know whether or not I take precautions the average person doesn't take? You get exposed to more crap at work than the rest of us. Good for you. However, it is completely irrelevant. You may end up with some grotesque tumor that average person won’t develop, and that’s a risk you’re willing to take. There have been enough government “whoopsies” and “we didn’t know that was bad for you,” or, “that is good for you…no wait, that is bad for you.” I will simply not allow, for myself and my family, our rights to be trampled and our health to be jeopardized at the hands of the government.

I did not intend this thread to be a debate about whether or not scanners are good/bad. There have already been threads about that. If you think the federal gov’t has the right to foist these upon us, then the response to the question originally asked is, “Nothing…the mayor/council should do nothing.” If you think that local law trumps unconstitutional federal power grabs, then what do you think the mayor’s response should be towards an arm of the federal gov’t that ignores his authority? The question is obviously hypothetical since it appears the council will not act on the advice given by the commission.

Originally Posted by 7.62NATO

That is irrelevant. I am exposed to a lot of things every day. It doesn’t mean I want to be exposed to anything I’m already exposed to by force, especially in a more concentrated amount.

Easy answer then. Don't fly. Easy choice.

You’re throwing an accusation out based on absolutely nothing. Not even going to address it.

I bet you won't. I don't blame you. Losing battle and all.

A reasonableness test, I get that. To you, the security measures have no possible ulterior motive and are worth their weight in their respective infringement of freedoms in order to keep us “safer.” But you’re not a fan of street corner cams. Someone else might be, and think they are being equally as reasonable as you are in your tolerance of the airport scanners and pat downs.

Sure, thats why we vote. Some want complete anarchy. Others don't. Only complete anarchy would be complete freedom. But I am sure not a fan of that. Every law put i place constricts us in one form or the other. So I am curious what freedoms are being infringed upon that the founding fathers had? Whenever anything comes up on phone tapping, and email snooping, you see people saying thier freedoms was infringed. How would these laws affected George Washington and the founding fathers? They didn't have email. They didn't scanners. They didn't even have plane travel.

Oh, now you are guaranteeing it, are you? Well, since you are guaranteeing it, you must have proof of this. I really want to see what your guarantee is worth.

Nothing new. Its called common sense. We, the forum sees it everyday from folks like you.

What does my medical experience have to do with it?

Everything. If you do not have the knowledge to even understand what is going on, then you are basing your opinions on what a media outlet tells you. Now, they could have credibility or maybe they don't. But rarely does the media have it.

I don’t have to have any “medical experience” to know that I do not want to ingest lead, and that the less lead I ingest, the healthier I will be. Why do you think I am not concerned with how much of the RF spectrum we are exposed to, or any unhealthy substance for that matter?

Because you chose to post on a topic that is in the media hotseat. You post on what your media outlet wants you to post on. Extremely intuitive.

Do you know how I live my life? Do you know whether or not I take precautions the average person doesn't take? You get exposed to more crap at work than the rest of us. Good for you. However, it is completely irrelevant. You may end up with some grotesque tumor that average person won’t develop, and that’s a risk you’re willing to take. There have been enough government “whoopsies” and “we didn’t know that was bad for you,” or, “that is good for you…no wait, that is bad for you.” I will simply not allow, for myself and my family, our rights to be trampled and our health to be jeopardized at the hands of the government.

Nobody is forcing you to fly an airplane. Our founding fathers made it without them. Happy motoring or horseback if you prefer.

[7.62NATO]

Easy answer then. Don't fly. Easy choice.

Rights vs. privileges. It is only permissible if the gov’t allows it. People just can’t go around flying on airplanes or driving cars unless we tell them they are allowed to. With the granting of any privilege, we can likewise restrict the privilege any way we see fit. Somebody drove a van full of explosives into the WTC. We cannot allow that to happen. If people didn’t have the privilege to drive, things like this wouldn’t happen. So, we’ll have to make sure that people don’t go around driving vehicles with explosives in them. If you want the privilege to drive, you must have a camera and microphone installed by your state DMV in order to monitor your use of the driving privilege.

Sure, thats why we vote. Some want complete anarchy. Others don't. Only complete anarchy would be complete freedom. But I am sure not a fan of that. Every law put i place constricts us in one form or the other. So I am curious what freedoms are being infringed upon that the founding fathers had? Whenever anything comes up on phone tapping, and email snooping, you see people saying thier freedoms was infringed. How would these laws affected George Washington and the founding fathers? They didn't have email. They didn't scanners. They didn't even have plane travel.

Rights and freedoms are not tangible things. How silly I was to think you understood this.

Everything. If you do not have the knowledge to even understand what is going on, then you are basing your opinions on what a media outlet tells you. Now, they could have credibility or maybe they don't. But rarely does the media have it.

Yet another improvable assumption. Tell me, is there anything you feel you have a reasonable understanding and knowledge of that you are not involved with in any official capacity? Does one need to have formal medical training to research and understand the negative effects lead (as the previous example) has on the human body?

Because you chose to post on a topic that is in the media hotseat. You post on what your media outlet wants you to post on. Extremely intuitive.

Indeed. Because I am posting something from the Statesman, a very high-profile media outlet that I often seek for my daily ingestion of “news,” being a Virginian and all. I posted the story because I am interested in the opinions of the hypothetical (which it should not be) question I posed. I was not seeking a debate on the hot media topic of the legitimacy of the scanners. The true topic at hand is the authority of state and local governments vs that of the federal government. You are the one that ignored the question I posed and keyed into the topic MY “media outlet wants me to post on.”

I bet you won't. I don't blame you. Losing battle and all.

Nothing new. Its called common sense. We, the forum sees it everyday from folks like you.

As for these two comments, the dialogue can stand. Whoever is reading this can judge it for themselves.

[RobertSubnet]

I guess the ever-increasing and invasive power of the Federal gov't is of no issue to you.

+1 7.62Nato

Originally Posted by 7.62NATO

Rights vs. privileges. It is only permissible if the gov’t allows it. People just can’t go around flying on airplanes or driving cars unless we tell them they are allowed to. With the granting of any privilege, we can likewise restrict the privilege any way we see fit. Somebody drove a van full of explosives into the WTC. We cannot allow that to happen. If people didn’t have the privilege to drive, things like this wouldn’t happen. So, we’ll have to make sure that people don’t go around driving vehicles with explosives in them. If you want the privilege to drive, you must have a camera and microphone installed by your state DMV in order to monitor your use of the driving privilege.

You know, you tin hat folks always crack me up. Its almost like you laid down the bong one day and it occured to you, you don't live in a free country, while the rest of us look at you and explain in 3rd grade level language that its always been that way.

Yet another improvable assumption. Tell me, is there anything you feel you have a reasonable understanding and knowledge of that you are not involved with in any official capacity? Does one need to have formal medical training to research and understand the negative effects lead (as the previous example) has on the human body?

To some extent "yes". If not, your just sheep, and repeat what some media outlet tells you too. One like you, could wake up one day screaming like your hair is on fire that you heard from hannity that the water is polluted. Now, a smart guy will research and find out how much its polluted and make a calculated decision on if its over personal set limits. But you seem to take the other route, to pick and choose your media outlet to tell you what to think.

posted the story because I am interested in the opinions of the hypothetical (which it should not be) question I posed. I was not seeking a debate on the hot media topic of the legitimacy of the scanners.

You ought to create your own forum where you can get opinions just like you want them. Until then, you have to realize that forums and posts don't always go the way you want them too. And quit kicking and screaming.

The true topic at hand is the authority of state and local governments vs that of the federal government. You are the one that ignored the question I posed and keyed into the topic MY “media outlet wants me to post on.”

Life is rough, got to roll with the punches. You don't always get what you want.

[7.62NATO]

We've both said our piece. I'm fully content to let the comments stand or fall where they are.