A drunk's-eye view of the #TwitterJokeTrial gig

UPDATE: This was originally published as part one of a two part series, but I decided that I wanted it all in one piece.

 

I got very drunk last night. Very, very drunk. It would have been hard for me not to. The atmosphere was not conducive to staying sober. Luckily my wife was there to make sure it didn't get too far out of hand. From today, I am on the proverbial wagon. It's not that I'm ashamed of anything I got up to last night. I'm not. It was a blast and fortunately I have retained the memory of it. The truth is that I had already given up. It was the first drinking I'd done in nearly three weeks. Call it a temporary suspension of the wagon. I won't really get into why I've decided to quit except to say that this is the third time in my life that I've done this. I've gone years without drinking and I've felt that my life generally runs better in that mode. Drinking doesn't really go well with my depression. When I've come off the wagon after these experiences it has always been in a conscious and controlled manner. I'd felt more mature, as though I'd turned a corner and things would be different. Somehow though I always seem to end up back here. Excess. So here we go again.

Anyway, enough about that. That's not really what this piece is about. This is about a very special night and some very special people. The Twitter Joke Trial gig was a comedy event hosted by the very slick Al Murray, a.k.a. the Pub Landlord. Before the gig a bunch of us met up in a pub not far from the venue. Bee got to meet Paul and Sarah for the first time and we also met Martin, Danny, Louise, Helen, Maria, Clive, Emi and many others. I'm sorry I didn't get to meet Gavin. Maybe next time. I got to meet up again with David and Mo and Vanessa, who have become friends. All great tweeps. All lovely people. I drank a lot of beer. Paul's mum and a bunch of her family turned up and it was really delightful to see the support from that quarter. I think they were a bit in awe of what this has turned into. Who could blame them? Stephen Fry, Al Murray, Jack Whitehall, Graham Linehan, Rufus Hound, David Schneider, Robert Popper, Stephen Grant, Gary Delaney, Susan Calman, Katy Brand. All these excellent people of comedy came out to do this benefit gig in support of the cause that Paul Chambers has become identified with. And they all felt honoured to be a part of it. It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy really. I suppose that's the point. If Paul were a jerk this would still be important, but it wouldn't be quite so apt. The willingness (perhaps eagerness) of the police, the Crown and the courts to make criminals out of decent people in order to show that the criminal justice system is vigilant on our behalves is frightening. We are letting them know that this is not acceptable - that they have overreached the set of responsibilities that our consent endows upon them. The ordinary person test that judge Jacqueline Davies concocted in her ridiculous judgement to deny appeal cannot possibly stand up in court now. Not after all this welcome attention. As we head into a possible summertime High Court appeal, let's hope it's third time lucky.

I digress. Back to the gig and the people. That's what this is really about. Bee and I were pleased to discover another friend, Ashley, sitting in the row behind us. We also met Audrey and Liam. There were many highlights to the show. My personal favourite was a bit where Rufus Hound played an audio clip of an argument he'd had on Radio 5 Live with Edwina Currie. It's a must listen. Stephen Fry made headlines by declaring that he'd be prepared to go to prison in order to ensure that the verdict is not allowed to stand in law. Robert Popper showed some of his zany call in pranks that are the hallmark of his comedy. Emi (@krunchie_frog) got called up on stage with David Schneider, who was on great form. Gary Delaney dazzled with his superb puns. Paul's solicitor David Allen Green made a terrific speech after the interval in which he expressed how the decisions in this case have made him feel as an officer of the court. I'm not so coy as to fail to mention that I was pleased for the name check he gave me on account of my campaigning work. He didn't have to do that. It was nice of him. Well, we are mates after all. Because of this. All because some guy got annoyed in January 2010 and blew off a little steam. All because we are apparently not allowed to make jokes about terrorism in public.

I remember the second time I met David. It was at the second meeting I attended of Westminster Skeptics in the Pub, which he convenes. It just happened to be the evening of the day when Paul lost his case in the magistrates court. We both wore the same wounded, incredulous expression. It was something nearing shell shock. He shook my hand and said "this was a terrible, terrible decision today." So strongly did he feel about that decision that he took the step of organizing Paul's appeal, which he undertook pro-bono. Nearly a year on, I find myself sitting in the audience of a comedy concert in which the fabulous Graham Linehan shows off some of his favourite corners of the web. Funny stuff, whether or not that was the creators' intentions. Two video clips in particular are worth a mention. UGLY FURNITURE and the Super Broker Shuffle. I briefly met Graham at the after show party and had a nice chat with his wife Helen. Of all the performers at this gig, Graham is the one whom I most wanted to meet. He has been a very active and eager supporter of Paul since quite early on.

The rest of the night is a blur. Bee and I stayed at the party until quarter to 2. I consumed a lot of alchohol. I got very silly. There was a lot of karaoke singing and I did a bit of what some have described as interpretive dance to some of the other performances. It was that kind of night, folks. David Allen Green and former Liberal Democrat MP Dr Evan Harris sang a duet together while Al Murray looked on in quiet amusement. I can't remember what they did. If anyone has a video of this, please come forward ;-). Alex and I did a duet with Under Pressure. We flipped a coin to decide who got to be Bowie. I won the coin toss but chose Freddie if you can believe it. I didn't realize it at the time, but Alex is Emi's other half and he was splendidly picked on by Al Murray at the beginning of the gig. It was around this time that I met Mike and Chris in person. Mike is often very jokey on Twitter, but he was very serious as we spoke about the absurdities of the Twitter Joke Trial. As we were getting ready to go, I spotted James and Liz who do The POD Delusion podcast. Check out the Twitter Joke Trial special edition, where they were backstage interviewing Paul, Stephen Fry, Graham Linehan and a few of the other performers. They had to miss out on the gig itself, but I rather think it was probably worth it, don't you? I'm in danger of going on and on, so I think I'll wrap it up here. In summary, I'm a drunk. I had a great time. It was an amazing night and it is a great and important movement of which I am proud to be a part. I look forward with some measure of apprehension but a larger portion of hope to the next leg of the appeal, which will probably happen in the late summer or early autumn. I will be there. I moved a pre-booked holiday to be at the gig. I'm not going to miss the trial. If you're anywhere near London, then I hope you'll join me. Whatever the outcome, it will be historic. And you might get to meet some of the special people I've mentioned. The many ordinary people who like myself do not fit the profile described by Judge Davies. People who when the chips are down are prepared to stand up and shout "I am Spartacus!" Ordinary people can make a difference if enough of them get together. Just occasionally, ordinary can become extraordinary. I am Spartacus!

Why is free speech so difficult for some people to comprehend?

This post is an archive. The live version can be found on a new blog called Arsehole Justice (no offence).

I haven't been very good about writing in my blog recently. The urge comes and goes. There's something I wanted to write about last week, but I waited too long and lost the desire. Something I've just seen has brought it back though. What I'd intended to write about this time last week was the attitudes of a couple of US Senators towards free speech. The Senators are Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and the context is the recent burning of a copy of the Quran by Florida pastor Terry Jones (the same one who threatened to burn copies of the Quran last year). The two Senators are upset and rightly so by the rioting in Mazar-I-Sharif, Afghanistan that killed eight United Nations workers. But somehow they overlook the fact that these killings were done by people who share a warped sense of justice, regardless of how or even whether they might have been incited to violence.

On Sunday the 3rd of April, Senator Reid had this to say to Bob Schieffer on CBS's Face the Nation explaining that some members of Congress were considering some kind of action in response to the Quran burning, a political expression protected by the First Amendment: "Ten to 20 people have been killed," adding "We'll take a look at this of course...as to whether we need hearings or not, I don't know." On the same program, Senator Graham said the following (which would be laughably ridiculous if he weren't a law maker):

"I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war. During World War II, we had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy. So, burning a Koran is a terrible thing but it doesn't justify killing someone. Burning a Bible would be a terrible thing but it doesn't justify murder. Having said that, anytime we can push back here in America against actions like this that put our troops at risk we should do it, and I look forward to working with Senators Kerry, and Reid, and others to condemn this, condemn violence all over the world based on the name of religion. But General Petreaus understand better than anybody else in America what happens when something like this is done in our country and he was right to condemn it and I think Congress would be right to reinforce what General Petreasus said."

So much to pick apart here. Free speech is not just a great idea. It is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy. It must be protected at all costs, barring certain well established exceptions where actual harm is directly caused. Graham is right that Koran burning is a terrible thing (to some) and that it doesn't justify killing someone. Why not leave it there? That says it all. Pastor Jones is in no way responsible for the killings of innocent people in Afghanistan. You might as well claim that the Martin Scorcese film Taxi Driver is responsible for the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan or the rock group AC/DC is responsible for the work of serial killer Richard Ramirez, who claimed to have been influenced by their track Night Prowler. Some have tried to make the latter claim, but thankfully these people have always been a sliver of a minority. It is worrying though that this attitude is becoming acceptable and even mainstream, particularly where terrorism is concerned. The people responsible for the killings are the rioters and the mullahs who spurred them on.

Terrorism is nothing new, although it has taken on elevated political significance since the al-Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in September 2001. The history of terrorism is thought to go back to the beginning of the first century AD, when a Jewish extremist group called the Sicarii Zealots attacked collaborators with Rome. Why should such an ancient form of violence suddenly threaten our core freedoms? Freedom of speech is a great idea especially because we are at war. It is a war that the West will probably always be waging. Although he refers to World War II, Graham is most likely thinking of World War I when President Woodrow Wilson passed the Espionage Act 1917 and the Sedition Act 1918. The second of these two laws was a horrible overreach that forbade the use of "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, its flag, or its armed forces or that caused others to view the American government or its institutions with contempt. It was thankfully repealed two years later. This goes to show just how fragile freedom of speech can be, particularly in times of war. The Espionage Act is still in force today and Congress are attempting to use it to prosecute Julian Assange of Wikileaks.

Does the action of one crackpot in Florida put our troops at risk? No. That would be attaching too much importance to Pastor Terry Jones. Let's not inflate his ego or next thing he'll be setting mosques alight. What might put our troops at risk is United States foreign policy. I believe General Petraeus would agree. As Jim Treacher of The Daily Caller says in the headline of his article from the 4th of April, "The President of the United States bombs a Muslim country, and some nobody in Florida burns a Koran. Guess which one's to blame for rioting in Afghanistan?" Yes, the rioters were incited to violence. However the blame for this lies squarely on the shoulders of a few angry mullahs, not some idiot halfway round the globe who burned a book.

What got me thinking about this again was something my friend Padraig Reidy of Index on Censorhip wrote about the Independent columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and her "interesting" take on freedom of speech as she outlined it in her column today. Some may remember Alibhai-Brown for her involvement in a case that briefly paralleled the Twitter Joke Trial, when she initially sought the prosecution of conservative councillor Gareth Compton over a provocative comment he made about her on Twitter. Free speech seems to be a difficult concept for some people to grasp. Our prejudices sometimes get in the way. This is precisely why it must be protected.

Blog is moving to posterous. URL will remain the same

If you are one of the dozen or so people who subscribe to my blog through Blogger.com, you may want to know that I have decided to move to posterous.com. The URL will stay the same but you would need to subscribe again. Thanks.

If you think the Japanese earthquake and tsunami are "payback for Pearl Harbor" then you're an ignorant cretin.

A US naval base was bombed by Japanese planes in 1941, and thank Christ that happened otherwise the US would not have entered WWII and the whole thing would probably have ended differently. Four years later in order to bring the war to a speedy end, Harry S Truman ordered the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This resulted in a loss of life of around a quarter million. It was justified at the time (and still by many) as probably saving millions of lives in the long run. Japan were not keen to surrender. Between 1942 and 1946, the US government interned around 110,000 people of Japanese extraction, 62% of whom were American citizens. So I think it's safe to say that the earthquake of 11 March 2011 is not payback for Pearl Harbor.

Click to see a rogues gallery of ignorant Americentric cretins.

Is America Losing its Sense of Liberty?

This post is an archive. The live version can be found on a new blog called Arsehole Justice (no offence).

This week I made a contribution to the podcast at The POD delusion. It was meant to go up last week, so some of the references are not quite timely. Following is the script I was speaking from. The text is slightly different, as the audio version was edited for length.

America. Land of the Free. Home of the Brave. Country of my birth. The United States of America was founded at the end of the 18th century by visionaries who sought to create “a more perfect union” and “secure the Blessings of Liberty” among other lofty goals. A government of the people, by the people, for the people. And underpinning all of this was the grand idea of Liberty. “Give me liberty, or give me death” proclaimed Patrick Henry to the Virginia Convention in 1775. Give me Liberty or give me death. This is a demand for freedom for tyranny - one that can scarcely be ignored. Agreement among the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 to enact a Bill of Rights helped to ensure the ratification of the Constitution itself, addressing the concerns of some of the Founding Fathers that the Constitution did not protect the fundamental principles of human liberty. The Bill itself borrowed heavily from the English Magna Carta and consisted of the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. 

All this talk of liberty, but what is it? At its most basic, liberty refers to the natural condition whereby a human being is free from outside compulsion or coercion. Freedom is therefore limited by the extent to which one’s actions infringe upon the freedoms of another. This is certainly the meaning of liberty that is ascribed to the Constitution. Surely with its rich history of rugged individualism and its stalwart bootstrap culture, America the free would always jealously guard basic liberty, no? I’d always thought so. But I’m worried now. I worry that Americans are losing the sense of liberty and what it means to be truly free. Americans seem ever more willing to tolerate the intrusion of government into their private lives for the sake of some false sense of security. It may not be too late, but when I think of all that has been lost in the last decade I don’t know quite how to go about getting it back. 

Last year an American man from Seattle, Washington called Phil Mocek was arrested at the airport in Albuquerque, New Mexico after he refused to stop filming his security screening by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), a division of the Department of Homeland Security responsible for travel security. He also failed to provide identification on request. Last month after a two day trial, Mr Mocek was found by a jury to be Not Guilty of all charges brought against him without even presenting a defence. The video taken by Mr Mocek that the police used as evidence showed that he had politely and calmly asserted his rights at all times. TSA agents and police who testified were forced to admit in cross-examination that there were no laws prohibiting the use of photographic or audiovisual recording equipment in the public areas of an airport, nor is a ticketed passenger required to show ID for a domestic flight, nor can the TSA or police legally interfere with his ability to travel by air unless the police have a reasonable basis for believing that a crime has been or is being committed. The Not Guilty verdict was a major victory for liberty and common sense, yet it’s difficult to see how anything will change as a result of it. The TSA do not publish their standard operating procedures, which would inform members of the public of what powers TSA agents have and what travellers must submit to. The Department of Homeland Security refused to furnish the TSA’s procedures when requested under the Freedom of Information Act, instead merely furnishing the titles of these procedures. Even these had never previously been published. How can a traveller assert his or her rights in the face of such arbitrary authority without a published code to refer to? How can the legislature, the judiciary and “We The People” decide whether these procedures are necessary and in the public interest unless they are published? I’m genuinely at a loss. I’ve written to my Congressman, both state Senators, Secretary Janet Napolitano and President Obama. I’m not expecting much of a response. Phil Mocek has incurred thousands of dollars in legal costs for which he has not been compensated, nor have there been any disciplinary proceedings against any of the agents or officers who abused their powers, nor has there been any corrective action taken by the agencies involved. How did we get here? How could America allow the creation of a security apparatus that is unaccountable? Is this what it takes to feel safe at home? I don’t feel safe. Land of the Free. Home of the Brave. 

Yesterday I learned that the Department of Correction (DOC) of the state of Maryland has a blanket policy whereby any new hires or recertifications are required to submit to a background check and to provide the government with their social media account usernames and personal passwords. 

Yes. That’s right. Let that sink in a minute... and let’s continue. Raise your hand if you can think of anything that is wrong with this. Raise both hands if you’ve managed to work out that there are many aspects of this policy that are deeply disturbing and in fact outrageous. In a letter to the DOC by the American Civil Liberties Union acting on behalf of an employee undergoing recertification, the ACLU describes this policy as “a frightening and illegal invasion of privacy for DOC applicants and employees -- as well those who communicate with them electronically via social media”. The rationale, according to one investigator, is “to enable the government to review wall postings, email communications, photographs, and friend lists, in order to ensure that those employed as corrections officers are not engaged in illegal activity or affiliated with any gangs”. This is equivalent to a demand to read an applicant’s private diary and rummage through the photo albums on his shelf – in his home. Oh, and also to read letters that his friends have sent to him and to rummage through their personal effects as well. This makes me livid. What gives a government department (or any employer for that matter) the right to do this? Nothing. It violates at least two of the first ten amendments. Some bureaucrat thought this sounded like a good idea and nobody thought to challenge it. Led to believe he had no choice but to comply, officer Robert Collins surrendered his Facebook login details to his employer. Ask yourself what you would have done in his place. Land of the Free. 

In July 2010, hacker extraordinaire Jacob Applebaum, creator of the Tor privacy and security project and Wikileaks volunteer, was detained at Newark’s Liberty Airport in New Jersey after a return flight from Holland. Applebaum was pulled aside by Customs and Border Patrol agents who informed him that he was selected for a random search. According to sources, Appelbaum, a U.S. citizen, was then taken into a room and frisked, and his bag was searched. Receipts from his bag were photocopied, and his laptop was inspected. He was then questioned by officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and from the US Army. When he asked to speak to a lawyer, he was told that he was not under arrest and therefore did not have the right to legal counsel. His laptop was returned to him after three hours, but his three mobile phones were seized. During this time the officials asked him about his Wikileaks activities and his opinions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and God knows what else. Applebaum declined to answer without a lawyer present. He was not allowed a phone call. 

I would be grateful if someone could please explain to me how a person can be detained against his will and questioned by government officials with the possibility of self-incrimination without in fact being under arrest. As far as I know, this is what it means to be under arrest. This is the very definition of under arrest. A law enforcement official cannot simply say “you are not under arrest” in order to get around the pesky problem of constitutional rights. That’s a bit like pouring a bucket of water over someone’s head and then saying “you are not wet”. Yet they will do this because they have the power to. They ought not to have this power, but they do because we allowed it by default. Home of the Brave, my arse. 

Governments always want more power over their governed. The national security gambit is the most sure fire way of grabbing more. Our security services manage to convince us that we need to give them more power so that they can more effectively keep us safe from harm. They feed on our fears and remind us that we expect them to do everything in their power to keep us safe. We believe them and hold them to account when they fail, as they inevitably will, to keep us completely and absolutely safe. They convince us yet again that they need more power, and the hysterical feedback loop begins its next cycle. It must stop. America, please wake up and take back what is yours before it is too late. When government grants itself new powers it is very reluctant to give them back. Emergency powers, which were only ever meant to be temporary, somehow manage to remain in effect for years, even decades. The threats don’t retreat; they remain. Total security in a democratic society is a pipe dream. But we must take a risk based approach to managing threats, otherwise the biggest threat to peace and prosperity, the biggest threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the government monster that is incapable of protecting its citizens from itself.

My Reply to Scott Brown Re TSA

Here's the letter I sent to US Senator Scott Brown today following up on his reply of earlier in the week. I have no doubt he will treat it with the seriousness it deserves. Will update whenever I hear anything. To his credit, I note that Senator Brown is the only official to respond to me so far out of the five I sent letters to.

Dear Senator Brown:

Thank you for your response by email which I received on the 28th of February to a website correspondence I gave to you on the 18th of February. I appreciate that you are a very busy man with many correspondences to answer. My original letter and your response are attached to this letter. By way of reintroduction, I am an American citizen living abroad in the United Kingdom and my voter registration is with the town of Framingham, MA. This letter finds you by post and by fax.


I have found your response to be unsatisfactory as it seemed to miss the point of my query. The response offers assurances about the safety and necessity of several security procedures employed by the TSA, the merits of which I have not disputed. I brought to your attention a case whereby TSA agents, supported by local police, invoked arbitrary and assumed powers to interfere with the legal activities of an air traveller who insisted upon asserting his rights. There is evidence suggesting that this exercise of arbitrary powers by agents of the Department of Homeland Security in general and the TSA in particular is commonplace. Phil Mocek of Seattle, Washington was arrested at an airport in Albuquerque, New Mexico and charged with four separate offences for using a video recording device during a TSA screening and for failing to desist and provide identification when ordered to. The case went to court. The jury found him Not Guilty on all charges solely on the weakness of the prosecution's case. Despite this, there is little reason to believe that the TSA will correct this type of behaviour. There has been no disciplinary action against any of the officials involved, nor has there been any indication of corrective action on the part of the TSA.


To make matters worse, the TSA do not publish their standard operating procedures and have refused a Freedom of Information Act request by a group called the Identity Project for the disclosure of these, creating an impossible situation for an air traveller wishing to assert his or her rights. Here is more information on the Identity Project in relation to this case: http://www.papersplease.org/wp/mocek/ . Here is the (very late) response they received after a Freedom of Information Request. This has been appealed: http://papersplease.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tsa10-0179-appeal-attach-5jan2011.pdf.


I hope you will agree with me that any law enforcement or security agency must publish its regulations and codes of conduct and practice in relation to the manner in which it interfaces with the public that it serves. Accountability demands this. TSA agents are human beings with varying levels of training, of varying qualities of judgement and with imperfect understanding of the law and their roles. As such, they cannot be relied upon at all times to carry out their duties in accordance with applicable laws. When a TSA agent (or any security or law enforcement official) abuses the power he is given or misapplies it, there should at the very least be retraining specified. There is a strong public interest in the publication of these crucial procedures; indeed the public has a right to scrutinize them. How else can members of the public understand how they are required to comply? This refusal is utterly unacceptable especially in light of the fact that private security firms may obtain access to these procedures in order to become TSA compliant. In the event that you have not fully familiarized yourself with the case I have outlined and the concerns I have voiced, please do so now by rereading my initial letter and following any of the supporting web links you might find useful for clarification. Thank you for your continued attention to this matter.


Sincerely,
Matthew Flaherty

TSA Complaint - A Response from Senator Scott Brown

A couple weeks ago I wrote a letter to several US government officials complaining about the behaviour of the Transportation Security Administration in the wake of the conclusion to the criminal case against Phil Mocek, who was found Not Guilty without presenting a case. Here is that letter. Today I've had a response from my Senator, Scott Brown (R) MA. It is an entirely unsatisfactory response, having completely missed the point of my letter. It is obviously a cut-and-paste answer to any query concerning the TSA, most of which are apparently related to their controversial security procedures. Most likely the Senator never even saw my letter. Here is the response from Senator Brown, or one of his aides.

Dear Matthew,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the recent changes in Transportation Safety Authority (TSA) security procedures. I always value your input on all issues and appreciate hearing from you.

As you may know, on June 24, 2010, Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) introduced the SAFER AIR Act, which would implement new forms of airport screening technology. S. 3536 would authorize the use of full-body scan machinery to search for weapons, explosives, or other hazardous materials that are otherwise undetectable. While this bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for consideration during the 111th Congress, the Administration began testing this type of program and has implemented it in select airports nationwide. Many of the concerns voiced about these procedures have surrounded the health implications of millimeter wave technology utilized by these full-body scan machines. The TSA has assured travelers that the non-ionizing radio frequency energy emitted by the machines is safe, and gives off about 100,000 times less energy than that of talking on a cell phone. 

For those concerned about their privacy as a result of images taken by the full-body scanning machines, please know the TSA worked closely with the manufacturers of these machines to make sure that the capabilities to store and send the images were removed prior to installation. Additionally, there are specific prohibitions on the Department of Homeland Security from retaining images used in airport scanning and require that faces of individuals be blurred. You may be interested to know the imaging technology is of lesser quality than that of basic photography and does not present sufficient detail to be used for personal identification. 

In addition to the full-body imaging machines, the TSA has also implemented new pat-down procedures for those air travelers who opt out of using the full-body imaging machines. According to the TSA, these new pat-down procedures are designed to prevent another "Christmas Day" style attack, where Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate a bomb concealed in his underwear.

The TSA has stated that these new pat-down procedures are part of a multi-layered security protocol that, along with explosive trace detection, the full-body imaging technology, and canine teams, has been implemented to ensure the safety of the traveling public. Most recently, on November 19, 2010, the TSA agreed to let airline pilots skip the security scanning and pat-downs in response to pilot groups voicing concern about the bolstered security. As the TSA continues to receive feedback from the public, other revisions could be made to parts of the new security procedures. 

Our nation's number one goal when it comes to airport security must be the deterrence of terrorist attacks. I certainly understand the concerns of some regarding the new screening procedures, and I agree that these procedures must be as non-intrusive as possible and respectful of Americans’ privacy concerns. But when it comes to our families’ safety, I come down on the side of caution. Protecting American lives is the most important thing to me during these times of potential terrorist threats. As a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, I will continue to be actively engaged in these issues and related policies. As the legislative process moves forward in the 112th Congress, I will be closely monitoring the implementation of these security procedures. 

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. If you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact me or visit my website at www.scottbrown.senate.gov. 

Sincerely,
Scott P. Brown
United States Senator

My letter did not discuss the security procedures in use by the TSA. It sought to highlight an apparently arbitrary use of power by TSA agents with the support of police to interfere with lawful activities of travellers. Mr Mocek was arrested and charged with four separate offences for using a video recorder during a TSA screening in a public area of an airport and for failing to provide identification when ordered to. The jury found him Not Guilty on all charges solely on the weakness of the prosecution's case. Despite this, there is little reason to believe that the TSA will correct this type of behaviour, which I'm led to believe is commonplace. The TSA do not publish their standard operating procedures and have refused a Freedom of Information Act request for the disclosure of these, creating an impossible situation for an air traveller wishing to assert his or her rights. Senator Brown, you've not heard the last of me.