Millimetre Wave Scanners and Mastectomies

There's an interesting discussion piece on politicsdaily.com by a woman who whose breast surgery confused TSA officials following a 'full body scan' prompting further examination.

She is not upset about her experience, concluding simply that 'the takeaway here is, if you have fake body parts, you should be prepared to explain them to the full-body screening folks at the TSA.' However, a number of comments left underneath her article report terrible experiences of insensitive, and wholly avoidable treatment. A selection:

"Wow, I thought I was the only one. TSA in Tampa held me on display for about 20 minutes while they tried to figure out was was on my chest. I was put through the full body scanner also sans shoes. After I was finished, I was told "DO NOT MOVE!" "Ok, but can I please have my sandals, they have already been scanned?" 'DO NOT MOVE." I suppose they were busy, scanning another woman's BARE FEET." Ok, they were having communication problems with the guys in the little room. I figured they were laughing so hard at the scan they could not respond. I am a 66 year old grandmother, the scan had to be really exciting. After 20 minutes the "gentleman" returned and announced to all who were within a 100 foot radius, "There is something on her left breast." They must be fixated on left breasts. At that point I realized they were talking about my breast prothesis. I am a breast cancer survivor. I explained this and was told "DO NOT MOVE!" At this time, the TSA moron told another that she would have to pat me down. No, would you please step into a private area, just pat her down. I offer to whip it out. He was not happy with that idea. I understand security, but please, a little consideration. Would they stop a man with a penal implant? Doubtful. After all, this was a bomb of a boob."

"Okay, I have to comment. I had the same problem. When they did a biopsy to diagnose my breast cancer, they inserted a few metal clips to mark the place of the tumor. Because I went out of state for my mastectomy and reconstruction, I had to fly. And I had the same thing happen. Stopped at security for setting off a metal detector (this was before the full body scans) and then "searched" with the wand right there in the airport, in front of everyone...and she kept waving it over my left breast (yeah - my left, too) and saying, "It's something here." I kept telling them it was probably the surgical clip. I finally had to take out my mammograms (I'd brought the films for my surgeon, and thankfully, they were in my carry-on) and show them it was just a clip. It helped that my neighbor, who works for TSA, showed up about then and told them he knew me."

News: European Parliament Says No to US Bank Access

From BBC News: By 378-196 with 31 abstentions, the European Parliament has voted down the agreement to continue allowing the United States' counter-terrorism authorities access to the SWIFT database of European banking transactions, citing concerns at the 'inadequate privacy safeguards'. The deal, agreed by EU governments, would have granted US access for another nine months and follows intensive lobbying on the part of the American government:

Last week the Greens' home affairs expert, Jan Philipp Albrecht MEP, said that in backing the new deal the European Commission and EU governments had "not respected the fundamental criticism about the lack of sufficient protections with regard to privacy and the rule of law".

The leader of the Socialist group, Martin Schulz MEP, said: "We want a new and better deal with proper safeguards for people's privacy."

Comment: Gambetta on In Flight Terror

Diego Gambetta, well known for his social scientific studies of the Mafia and organised crime, has an interesting article in the Guardian about why terrorists continue to target aeroplanes when other, less well protected targets might seem more attractive.

Admitting the necessarily speculative nature of the endevour, he discusses purely practical issues: the fact that only a small amount of explosive, for example is needed to cause the intended chaos and the fact that flights, as they involve both an origin and a destination, raise questions and fears in two countries at once. He goes on to make a vivid case for the symbolic value of successfully hitting 'the enemy' in exactly the spot where most effort and resources have been expended in the name of security:

My hunch is that a reason to target air travel is precisely because it is the area in which the west has concentrated its maximum overt security efforts after 9/11. Piercing the thick barriers of checks all passengers have to go through to board a plane is in itself a success. It amounts to defying the toughest challenge, freshening up memories of 9/11, showing that even a puny David, farcically armed with just a pair of explosive underpants, can hit Goliath right where he feels strongest.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab failed to kill, but succeeded in making the west quake in its boots, engendering a hysterical worldwide security response, shaming the US security services, and inducing Obama to resurrect the dismal and counter-productive rhetoric of "we are at war against al-Qaida", which one hoped had departed with Bush. Had Abdulmutallab succeeded in killing, the global havoc caused would not have been that much greater. He could never have achieved that by aiming at softer targets.

I think there is always a danger in trying to infer to much about the intentions of actors from the effects of their actions, particularly in the case of violence. I do, however, think its interesting to reflect on governments' (and societies') reactions to terrorism and the calculus of risk - while countries targetted by terrorists have a necessarily limited ability to stop terrorism from happening its at least plausible to think they have more control over how they choose to respond to such events.

U.S. Mobile Phone Provider Received Some 8 Million Requests for Geo-Locational Data

Chris Soghoian has an interesting blog post from December. While attending the ISS World conference (Intelligence Support Systems for Lawful Interception, Criminal Investigations and Intelligence Gathering), Chris heard some surprising things. Counsel for the US telecom company Sprint Nextel indicated in a presentation that, within the space of a year, the company had received some 8 million requests from law enforcement for geo-locational data associated with mobile phones on the company’s network. In the comments on the post, one person conjectures that those don’t represent requests on 8 million distinct individuals, and that supposition is corroborated by another Sprint representative. This makes sense since typically police will want to know a single suspect’s location at various times throughout the course of an investigation. They may even want to check location continuously at regular intervals, say, every 1-2 minutes, in order to essentially track the suspect’s every move. Given the price lists associated with obtaining this information from telecoms (see Chris' post), a question for economists is whether that kind of electronic tracking is more cost effective than simply assigning a police officer to tail the suspect. The answer may depend on the particular level of crime incidence within the police force’s jurisdiction. Where crime incidence is higher, it may be more “economical” to assign officers to walk the beat and be available for incident response as opposed to conducting surveillance. It’s also unclear whether the +/- 8 million requests include emergency calls, where the location of the caller is revealed in the event that he or she is unable to give locational details verbally. But another interesting revelation related to the 8 million or so requests concerns how those requests were made and processed: evidently, Sprint has set up a special network interface to allow police agencies to submit geo-locational queries via computer.

News: European Parliament due to Decide on SWIFT Soon

From the Financial Times: We have reported on the issue of US access to the SWIFT banking transactions database before. The agreement provisionally came into force on February the 1st, but is subject to confirmation by a European Parliament vote in the plenary session of 8th-11th of February next week. The FT reports that the Parliament, long concerned at the privacy implications of US access, is likely to vote down the agreement in the face of strong objections from the US:

Adam Szubin, director of the Office of Foreign Assets control at the Treasury, said the intelligence programme processing the Swift data "provides perhaps the most important source on terrorism financing".

The European parliament looks set to block an interim agreement negotiated by the European Commission and representatives of the member states. "It's very unlikely to go in favour of the Swift agreement," one diplomat said.

News: 'Climate Change Emails a Foreign Intelligence Hack'

The lead story on the Independent today: Former chief scientific advisor to the Blair government David King says that the climate change emails leak bears all the hallmarks of a foreign intelligence agency operation:

Quite simply, it's the sophistication of the operation. I know there's a possibility that they had a very good hacker working for these people, but it was an extraordinarily sophisticated operation. There are several bodies of people who could do this sort of work. These are national intelligence agencies and it seems to me that it was the work of such a group of people," he said.

More than 1,000 emails, and some 2,000 documents, were stolen from a university back-up server where remote access is difficult. This represents a small fraction of the total number of emails for the period from 1996 to 2009, suggesting they had been selected for the most incriminating phrases relating to possible scientific misconduct and breaches of the Freedom of Information Act. The leak of the emails in the weeks running up to the climate change conference in Copenhagen appeared to be carefully timed to destabilise the meeting.

He does not draw concrete conclusions about who might be responsible, but responding to the fact that the emails appeared on a Russian company's server he speculates:

"If it was a job done on behalf of a government, then I suppose there is the possibility that it could be the Russian intelligence agency," he said.

"If it was a maverick group then I suppose it could be the Americans, but I am hazarding a guess as much as anyone else. The only thing is, I've worked within government and I've seen this in operation," Sir David added. "It was a sophisticated and expensive operation. In terms of the expense, there is the American lobby system which is a very likely source of finance. Right now, the American lobbyists are a very likely source of finance for this, so the finger must point to them," he said.

News: UK Introducing Compulsory Body Scans

From BBC News: Under new security rules passengers selected for screening by the Millimetre Wave 'Naked Body Scanners' will be forced to consent to the scanning on pain of not being allowed on the flight. The machines are in place at Heathrow and Manchester airport and will be installed at Birmingham airport later this month:

Transport Secretary Lord Adonis said in the immediate future only a small proportion of airline passengers would be selected for scanning.

In a written statement to the House of Commons, he said: "If a passenger is selected for scanning, and declines, they will not be permitted to fly."