<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;jfk&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:11:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>TSA Continues To Embarass The Elderly With Unnecessarily Degrading Search Procedures</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111212/03463017042/tsa-continues-to-embarass-elderly-with-unnecessarily-degrading-search-procedures.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111212/03463017042/tsa-continues-to-embarass-elderly-with-unnecessarily-degrading-search-procedures.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The TSA is, once again, <a href="http://blog.tsa.gov/2011/12/clarification-on-screening-of-three.html" target="_blank">defending its screening procedures</a> after reports came out of degrading and embarrassing searches performed on three different elderly passengers at JFK, each of which involved passengers with medical equipment that it appears the TSA did not know how to handle in a reasonable way.  While the TSA emphasizes that it didn't do a "strip search" on any of the passengers, that seems to ignore the point that, in all three cases, the searches appeared to be highly inappropriate.  An MSNBC story about all of this summarizes <a href="http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/11/9369886-strip-search-claims-prompt-call-for-advocate-at-us-airports" target="_blank">the three passengers' complaints</a>:
<blockquote><i>
In one case, Lenore Zimmerman, 85, of Long Beach, N.Y., said TSA agents took her into a private room in late November to remove her back brace for screening after she decided against going through a scanning machine because of her heart defibrillator.
<br /><br />
"Zimmerman said she had to raise her blouse and remove her undergarments for a female TSA agent," said Schumer and Gianaris' letter.
<br /><br />
[....]
<br /><br />
In another recent incident, Ruth Sherman, 88, of Sunrise, Fla., was asked about a visible protrusion from her waist band, which she identified as her colostomy bag.
<br /><br />
She was "escorted to another room where two female agents made her lower her pants for an inspection. Sherman raised concerns that the agents would disrupt her colostomy bag, causing pain and potential damage," the letter said.
<br /><br />
A third woman, Linda Kallish, of Boynton, Fla., said that after she revealed she was a diabetic with an insulin pump in her leg, she was escorted to a separate room where she was told to remove her pants so the agents could check the pump, the letter said, without saying when that incident took place. 
</i></blockquote>
The letter discussed above came from Senators Chuck Schumer and Michael Gianaris, asking the TSA to have an "on-site passenger advocate."  It seems like that would certainly make some amount of sense, though I imagine getting rid of security theater would be a better solution.  But, in absence of that, having someone in authority who actually has the passengers' interest in mind seems like it could be useful.
<br /><br />
Even more bizarre, however, is that while the TSA admits that its agents were at fault in the first case above, and should not have removed the brace, it still seems to recommend that passengers be the ones to bone up on the rules:
<blockquote><i>
We recommend that all passengers familiarize themselves with security protocols and inform officers prior to screening if they have medical devices that require special screening. It makes things easier for everybody if all parties know in advance what to expect.
</i></blockquote>
Yes, JFK personnel are receiving additional training as well, but should traveling by plane really require individuals to study up on what inhumane and degrading treatment they should expect before hitting the airport?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111212/03463017042/tsa-continues-to-embarass-elderly-with-unnecessarily-degrading-search-procedures.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111212/03463017042/tsa-continues-to-embarass-elderly-with-unnecessarily-degrading-search-procedures.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111212/03463017042/tsa-continues-to-embarass-elderly-with-unnecessarily-degrading-search-procedures.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>why-grandma-and-grandpa-don't-fly</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111212/03463017042</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2010 21:38:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>JFK On Secrecy And Censorship</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101206/01134912143/jfk-secrecy-censorship.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101206/01134912143/jfk-secrecy-censorship.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/glynmoody/statuses/11011668435800064" target="_blank">Glyn Moody</a> points us to a blog post that has a video/audio clip <a href="http://theotherthomasotter.wordpress.com/2010/12/04/john-f-kennedy-the-very-word-secrecy-is-repugnant-in-a-free-and-open-society/" target="_blank">of a John F. Kennedy speech to the press about secrecy and censorship</a>, which is getting some attention for the contrast to the way our government is responding to the Wikileaks controversy.  
<center>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xhZk8ronces?fs=1&#038;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xhZk8ronces?fs=1&#038;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
</center>
The key paragraph is the one that opens the video:
<blockquote><i>
 The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
</i></blockquote>
Compare that to the way our government has been responding -- demanding that US companies block access to Wikileaks and other such moves.
<br /><br />
Of course, if you <a href="http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03NewspaperPublishers04271961.htm" target="_blank">read the full speech from JFK</a> (which was given to the American Newspaper Publishers Association), it's really quite nuanced.  JFK argues forcefully against censorship from the government -- but actually is suggesting that the press consider self-censoring itself, taking into account the impact that it could have if it publishes certain information.  However, he does try to make it clear that he does not want criticism or errors to be shielded from the public -- just that he hopes the press will decide for themselves to avoid publishing info that directly reveals vital points to enemies of the country.
<br /><br />
In the end, I actually think these two paragraphs may be even more powerful than the one that most people are talking about:
<blockquote><i>
   I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
<br /><br />
     Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
</i></blockquote>
Too bad we're not hearing much of that from our politicians today.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101206/01134912143/jfk-secrecy-censorship.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101206/01134912143/jfk-secrecy-censorship.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101206/01134912143/jfk-secrecy-censorship.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>blast-from-the-past</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101206/01134912143</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>