CHILD RAPE BY TSA

COWERING: Transportation Safety Administration employee Sean Shanahan of Winthrop tries to cover his face as he is moved into East Boston District Court yesterday where he was charged with statutory rape.

No, he did not do it at work. But that is not the point; the point is, in a job such as he had, he had access to information that made tracking down any young person possible. People in such a position must have absolutely sterling characters. Seeing one naked adult after another, because face it, that is what it is, is just plain wrong.

The body scanners not only produce a perfect naked picture, they give off dangerous levels of radiation which can cause cancer. Michael Chertoff, former head of homeland security, has a huge financial interest in the company that's supplying these machines.

More and more people are boycotting flying until these dangerous machines are taken out. Don't fly until they are pulled. How come the article does not say he's been fired, just "He has not worked since his arrest?"

BOSTON HERALD.COM
March 12, 2010
By O'Ryan Johnson

Transportation Security Agency worker who pats down members of the flying public was charged with multiple child sex crimes targeting an underage girl yesterday.

The bust outraged privacy and passenger advocates who say it justifies their fears about Logan International Airport’s full-body scanner.

“It’s a huge, huge issue,” said Kate Hinni of FlyersrRights.org. “The TSA needs a complete overhaul . . . If you have a pedophile looking at those naked pictures, they’ve got all your information, it’s a gross violation of their authority. . . . They should make sure none of them is corrupted in any deviant sexual manner.”

Sean Shanahan, 44, of Winthrop was held on $50,000 bail after he was charged with two counts of statutory rape, two counts of enticing a minor and one count of indecent assault and battery. He was arrested yesterday at Massachusetts General Hospital, where he had checked himself in after a suicide threat, prosecutors said.

TSA spokeswoman Ann Davis said Shanahan had passed two background checks, neither of which picked up any record that would prevent him from getting a job.

Davis said Shanahan was hired in 2006, and there are no passenger complaints on record against him. He has not worked since his arrest.

Boston ACLU spokesman Chris Ott said while full body scanner backers tout the devices’ privacy blocks that obscure a passenger’s face, he said the process is a virtual strip search, rife for abuse.

“Whatever safeguards that are built into the machines are only as good as the people operating the technology,” he said.

Shanahan kept his back to the court and hid behind his court-appointed lawyer in court as Suffolk Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Okeeffe rolled out a disturbing story that started in early February.

The 14-year-old victim watched a movie at his house, Okeeffe said. She said during the film, he massaged the victim’s thigh and touched her under a blanket, then during the February school vacation the girl stayed at his house with his daughter.

Okeeffe said Shanahan nicknamed the victim “Kitten,” and that she was seen going into his bedroom. Shanahan’s daughter also told investigators her father asked her how she would feel if he dated a girl her age, prosecutors said. When his daughter confronted the victim about what was happening as she left her father’s room, the victim told her “You’ll have to deal with it,” Okeeffe said.

Shanahan fled the state last week, prosecutors said, sending his ex wife a text asking her to get rid of his computer, adding “I (expletive) up bad.”

Where was the girl's parents for the length of time she stayed in that home?

TWO MUSLIM WOMEN REFUSE "NAKED" BODY SCAN

Two modestly dressed young Muslimah

March 3, 2010
MAILONLINE

Two Muslim women have become the first passengers to refuse to subject themselves to controversial 'naked' full body airport scans, it emerged today.

The pair ~ who security officials insist were selected at random ~ opted to miss their flight to Pakistan and forfeit tickets worth £400 each rather than be screened.

One of the women refused to go through the full-body scanner at Manchester Airport on religious grounds while her companion also declined for 'medical reasons'.

The women were traveling together to Islamabad when they were selected to pass through the controversial security screen after checking-in at Terminal Two at the airport.

An estimated 15,000 people have already passed through the scanners, with the pair the first passengers to refuse a scan.

Both told airport staff they were not willing to be scanned. They were warned they would not be allowed to board the Pakistan International Airlines flight if they refused.

The pair decided they would rather forfeit their £400 tickets and left the airport with their luggage. The £80,000 scanners were introduced at Heathrow and Manchester airports on February 5.

The X-ray machines allow security staff to see a 'naked' image of passengers to show up hidden weapons and explosives, but it has attracted criticism for also showing clear outlines of passengers' genitals.

Manchester Airport confirmed the passengers had refused to be scanned but said it had received no complaint from the women.

However, civil liberties campaigners say the incident could form the basis of a legal test case to challenge the use of the Rapiscan device in airports.

Alex Deane, director of campaign group Big Brother Watch, said the organization would represent the women if they wished to challenge the decision in court.

He said: 'People shouldn't have to sacrifice their health, their faith, their dignity, or their privacy in order to fly.

'People with health and religious concerns shouldn't be forced to go through these scanners if they have good reason not to. Foolishly, the government has ignored both issues and ignored privacy concerns to boot ~ they are in the wrong on this.'

There is one Rapiscan scanner in use in a trial at Manchester Airport's terminal two, which has seen 15,000 people pass through it.

A further two devices ~ one each for terminals one and three ~ have been delivered and are set to be operational within the next month.

The scanners have been criticized by the human rights group Liberty and the government's own Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Only selected passengers are scanned. Security staff say they are chosen at random and not according to race, religion or ethnicity.

Councilor Afzal Khan, who was Manchester's first Asian lord mayor, said the vast majority of Muslims believed that any privacy concerns should be outweighed by ensuring they are safe when flying.

He said: 'Hundreds of Muslim passengers have gone through without a problem. While I appreciate people's concerns for privacy, these steps are necessary for our safety and security.'

A Manchester Airport spokesman said: 'Two female passengers who were booked to fly out of Terminal Two refused to be scanned for medical and religious reasons.

'In accordance with the government directive on scanners, they were not permitted to fly.

'Body scanning is a big change for customers and we are aware that privacy concerns are on our customers' minds, which is why we have put strict procedures in place to reassure them that their privacy will be protected.'

Last month, Transport Secretary Lord Adonis stressed that an interim code of practice on the use of body scanners stipulated that passengers would not be selected 'on the basis of personal characteristics'.

Two weeks ago, a week after the scanners were introduced at Manchester and Heathrow airports, Islamic scholars in the U.S. said Muslim travelers should not pass through the scanners because they violate religious rules on nudity.

The Fiqh Council of North America issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, warning Muslims not to go through the scanners.

‘It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women,’ read the order.

‘Islam highly emphasizes haya (modesty) and considers it part of faith. The Quran has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts.'

In the U.S., there are now 40 scanners in 19 airports and could be as many as 450 by the end of the year.

The powerful council of ten scholars that issued the fatwa is affiliated with the Islamic Society of North America.

NAKED BODY SCANNER IMAGES OF STAR CIRCULATED BY AIRPORT STAFF

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Claims on behalf of authorities that naked body scanner images are immediately destroyed after passengers pass through new x-ray backscatter devices have been proven fraudulent after it was revealed that naked images of Indian film star Shahrukh Khan were printed out and circulated by airport staff at Heathrow in London.

UK Transport Secretary Lord Adonis said last week that the images produced by the scanners were deleted “immediately” and airport staff carrying out the procedure are fully trained and supervised.

“It is very important to stress that the images which are captured by body scanners are immediately deleted after the passenger has gone through the body scanner,” Adonis told the London Evening Standard.

Adonis was forced to address privacy concerns following reports that the images produced by the scanners broke child pornography laws in the UK. When the scanners were first introduced, it was also speculated that images of famous people would be ripe for abuse as the pictures produced by the devices make genitals “eerily visible” according to journalists who have investigated trials of the technology.

However, the Transport Secretary’s assurances were demolished after it was revealed on the BBC’s Jonathan Ross show Friday that Indian actor Shahrukh Khan had passed through a body scan and later had the image of his naked body printed out and circulated by Heathrow security staff.

“I was in London recently going through the airport and these new machines have come up, the body scans. You’ve got to see them. It makes you embarrassed – if you’re not well endowed,” said Khan, referring to how the scans produce clear images of a person’s genitals.

“You walk into the machine and everything – the whole outline of your body – comes out,” he said.

“I was a little scared. Something happens [inside the scans], and I came out. Then I saw these girls – they had these printouts. I looked at them. I thought they were some forms you had to fill. I said ‘give them to me’ – and you could see everything inside. So I autographed them for them,” stated Khan.

The story was carried by Yahoo News under the headline “Shah Rukh signs off sexy body-scan printouts at Heathrow”.

Khan’s reference to “girls” with printouts of his naked body scan can only refer to female airport security staff responsible for processing the images produced by the scanners, “professionals” who are supposed to instantly delete the images, according to Lord Adonis.

The revelation that airport security staff are completely abusing any notion of the professionalism promised by authorities by printing out and circulating images of naked body scans should set alarm bells ringing, especially in light of the fact that such images of minors break child pornography laws. British authorities have made it mandatory for travelers to submit to the naked body scanners when asked and have overturned previous rules that prevented under 18’s from passing through the devices.

Within days of the devices being introduced at Heathrow, staff have abused their professionalism and printed out naked scans of a famous actor for their own titillation.

We were promised all along that the body scanners “increased privacy” because they were only accessible to a single staff member who had no personal contact with the passenger taking the scan, in addition to the assurance that the images could not be saved and were instantly deleted. It in fact turns out that airport staff have been saving, printing and circulating naked body scans in complete violation of these supposed guarantees.

Furthermore, we were told that the identity of the person undergoing the virtual strip search would also be kept private. The fact that Heathrow employees must have known that the actor was about to take the body scan in order to print out copies of the image also proves this claim to be a total fallacy.

The abuse of the naked body scan images in this instance is a total violation of every data protection law in the UK. Far from treating the story in a comical manner, Khan should be filing a very expensive lawsuit and preparing for a successful and lucrative outcome.

In the meantime, the revelation that the naked body scanner images are being freely printed out and circulated by airport security staff should prove to be the death knell for plans on behalf of governments worldwide to institute the scanners on a widespread basis.

Courts have consistently found that strip searches are only legal when performed on a person who has already been found guilty of a crime or on arrestees pending trial where a reasonable suspicion has to exist that they are carrying a weapon. Subjecting masses of people to blanket strip searches in airports reverses the very notion of innocent until proven guilty.

Barring people from flying and essentially treating them like terrorists for refusing to be humiliated by the virtual strip search is a clear breach of the basic human right of freedom of movement. Security experts agree that such scanners would not even have stopped the incident that has been exploited to justify their widespread introduction – the Christmas Day underwear bomber.

Not only have the scanners proven to be a total violation of privacy, but major international radiation safety groups are now warning of the health risks they pose.

Despite governments claiming that backscatter x-ray systems produce radiation too low to pose a threat, the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety concluded in their report that governments must justify the use of the scanners and that a more accurate assessment of the health risks is needed.

Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, according to the report, adding that governments should consider “other techniques to achieve the same end without the use of ionizing radiation.”

“The Committee cited the IAEA’s 1996 Basic Safety Standards agreement, drafted over three decades, that protects people from radiation. Frequent exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” reported Bloomberg