Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) said Friday he would demand answers from the Department of Homeland Security about its domain seizure program known as Operation in Our Sites after it was revealed that the government kept a hip-hop music review site’s name for a year without affording the owner a chance to challenge the seizure.

Wyden also wants to know why there was no court record of the case, other than the initial seizure filing a year ago.

“I expect the administration will be receiving a series of FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] requests from our office and that the senator will have very pointed questions with regard to how the administration chooses to target the sites that it does,” said Jennifer Hoelzer, a Wyden spokeswoman. She said the senator was “particularly interested in learning how many secret dockets exist for copyright cases. There doesn’t seem to be an obvious precedent or explanation for that.”

Wyden’s interest comes a day after federal authorities returned the domain name dajaz1.com, which was back online greeting visitors Friday with a powerful message about proposed web-censorship legislation that expands the government — and copyright holders — power to shutter and cripple sites suspected of copyright infringement.

The federal government already has the power to seize web domains under the same forfeiture laws used to seize property like houses, cars and boats allegedly tied to illegal activity such as drug running. A year ago, it started invoking that law against sites marketing and trafficking in counterfeit goods, unauthorized sports streaming and unauthorized music — seizing more than 350 domain names in all.

One of those sites caught in that crackdown (.pdf) was dajas1.com. Operation in Our Sites, run by the Department of Homeland Security, accused the site of allowing its users to download pre-release music. But as it turns out, some of that music was sent to the popular blog by the artists or labels.

The site’s homepage on Friday was dominated by a video pointing to alarming legislation known as the Protect IP Act — which is stalled in a procedural muck — that a Senate committee passed months ago basically giving copyright owners the right to shutter websites believed to be dedicated to infringing activities. Judicial oversight is not needed. In a recent editorial, we spoke about such dangers that this and a similar proposed House measure are ripe for abuse. After all, if the movie industry had its way, the VCR would have been outlawed.

Techdirt disclosed Thursday that for a year, the government refused to allow the site’s owner, who goes by the moniker Splash, to challenge the November 2010 seizure of the domain name by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office, which is a branch of DHS. The only publicly available court record regarding the seizure was the initial filing of a court order a year ago. Everything else was sealed — invisible to Splash, his lawyer, the public and the press. On Thursday, the site was returned to the owner of the Queens, New York-based site with the only explanation being that forfeiture was unwarranted.

ICE’s complaint against the site listed four songs that the site allegedly linked to in violation of copyright law. Three of them were e-mailed to Splash by record executives associated with labels that belong to the Recording Industry Association of America, which helped create the complaint.

“It’s not my fault if someone at a record label is sending me the song,” Splash told The New York Times last year.

His attorney, Andrew Bridges of San Francisco, said in a telephone interview Friday that the issue underscores that “powerful corporate copyright interests have taken advantage  of the post 9-11 era to obtain the services of Homeland Security to enforce commercial interests.”

The Immigrations and Customs Enforcement’s public response to keeping Splash’s property for a year, without due process, boils down to a belief that it’s acceptable collateral damage:

Operation In Our Sites utilized the civil forfeiture statute provided by Congress for intellectual property theft to seize domain names of 350 separate websites engaged in copyright or trademark violations. In each instance, ICE, working with our partners at the Department of Justice, demonstrated the requisite probable cause to a federal magistrate judge to justify the seizure of the website. This process is the same that federal law enforcement uses for seizures of all types. During the subsequent forfeiture process, law enforcement continued not only to investigate potential criminal wrongdoing, but to objectively consider all applicable evidence resulting from the ongoing investigation. The goal of every law enforcement operation is to ensure a just result. In the case of this domain name — out of 350 seized — the government concluded that the appropriate and just result was to decline to pursue judicial forfeiture.

It just seems wrong that the United States would seize somebody’s property without affording any opportunity for a challenge — and ICE has tried to say that sites can fight back.

The Justice Department told Wyden in May that the Operation in Our Sites would indeed allow targets an opportunity to challenge the seizure. The only known challenge so far to Operation in Our Sites was by  the Spanish site Rojadirecta, which prevailed on First Amendment grounds Wednesday.

“Property owners are are entitled to challenge the forfeiture of their property, in which case the government would be required to demonstrate the basis for forfeiture by a preponderance of the evidence,” Ronald Weich, an assistant attorney general, wrote (.pdf) Wyden in May. “Even where the government can demonstrate that property was used to commit a criminal offense, an innocent owner who was unaware of the criminal activity, or who took reasonable measures to notify law enforcement upon learning of the criminal conduct, may nevertheless avoid forfeiture.”

The dajaz1.com seizure was based on an investigation from the RIAA, which said in a statement that for the 18 months before the site was seized, “nearly 2,300 recordings linked to the site were removed from various file-sharing services.”

“We are aware of statements by the site operator that suggest that music companies themselves were the source of at least some of the thousands of recordings available on Dajaz1. Even assuming this to be accurate, it does not excuse the thousands of other pre-release tracks also made available which were neither authorized for commercial distribution nor for uploading to publicly accessible sites where they were readily downloadable for free,” the RIAA said in a statement.

Apparently the RIAA is none too happy about the dajaz1.com site being given back, and suggested it was returned for “technical issues.”

“If the site continues to operate in an illegal manner,” the RIAA said in a statement, “we will consider all our legal options to prevent further damage to the music community.”

Photo of Ron Wyden: Charles Dharapak/AP

The lawsuit was filed by officials at the Rutherford Institute, who earlier filed a lawsuit on behalf of pilots also subjected to the enhanced scanning and pat-down procedures implemented by the TSA in recent weeks.

The Fourth Amendment complaint explains that a woman who survived a mastectomy was groped by federal agents while her teen son was told he was exempted from a physical search because he did not have “boobs,” a male traveler was subjected to a physical manipulation of his testicles and a young girl was scanned with radiation without her parents authorizing – or even knowing.

Join tens of thousands of Americans in a petition demanding action against the intrusive airport screening procedures implemented by Janet Napolitano and send a letter to Congress, President Obama and others telling them exactly what you think about the issue.

“No American should be forced to undergo a virtual strip search or be subjected to such excessive groping of the body as a matter of course in reporting to work or boarding an airplane when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “To do so violates human dignity and the U.S. Constitution, and goes against every good and decent principle this country was founded upon.”

He said Americans aren’t deprived of their privacy rights when they enter an airport or board an airplane.

The newest lawsuit challenges the legality of TSA’s demand that air passengers either submit to airport security screening that relies on advanced imaging technology (AIT), which exposes intimate details of a person’s body to government agents and has been called a virtual strip search, or submit to highly invasive pat-down searches during which TSA agents may go so far as to reach inside a traveler’s pants.

Such procedures, the lawsuit explains, violate the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The complaint asks that DHS and TSA be prohibited from using AIT technology and enhanced pat-downs as the first line of airport security screening in the United States.

Rutherford Institute describes the procedures as “profane, degrading, intrusive, and indecent.”

The plaintiffs are:

• Adrienne Durso, a recent breast cancer survivor, who repeatedly and aggressively was groped by TSA agents in the area where she had undergone a mastectomy, even after informing agents of her condition. The Institute explained Durso’s teenage son who accompanied her allegedly was informed by TSA agents that he was not being patted down because he “did not have boobs.”
• Chris Daniels, a business traveler, aggressively and repeatedly was touched in his genital area after initial screening showed an abnormality in his genitals that was the result of a childhood injury. When Daniels asked to leave the security area and forego flying rather than submit to the intimate groping, he was refused permission and the search proceeded.
• C.N., a 12-year-old girl traveling with family friends, was pulled out of line while passing through security and subjected to a whole body imaging scan without the knowledge or consent of her adult guardians, leaving her frightened and traumatized.

“Plaintiffs all desire to protect themselves and their fellow travelers from security risks while flying,” the lawsuit explains. “At the same time, however, plaintiffs are unwilling to undergo unnecessarily invasive and degrading practices merely in the name of security if doing so would violate constitutionally protected rights. [Whole body imaging] scanners and enhanced pat-down procedures, when employed as primary means of airline traveler screening, violate such rights.”

“WBI scanners use technology that enables screeners to see beneath individuals’ clothing and view a graphic and intrusive level of detail, including the contours of a person’s genitalia,” the lawsuit warned.

And under the new pat-down policies, “the officer runs his or her open hands and fingers over most parts of an individual’s body including the breasts… Additionally, officers slide their hands all the way from the inner thigh up to the groin until the hand cannot venture any higher because it is literally stopped by the person’s groin.

“As part of the enhanced pat-down, a TSA officer will also insert his fingers into an individual’s pants and move his fingers, while still inside the pants, around the entire circumference of the waistband,” the lawsuitsaid.

The processes demanded by the government are no more or less than a “government-imposed search and seizure.”

They are, the lawsuit explains, “patently unreasonable and violative of the Fourth Amendment.”

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Published November 19, 2010

| FoxNews.com

The new full-body scanners in place at 60 airports across the country have been causing outrage in recent weeks – and that’s putting it pretty mildly.

From lawsuits being lodged against the Transportation Security Administration due to their “intrusive” pat-down procedures, to passengers getting into scuffles with TSA agents, these new scanners are creating a lot of turmoil. And as the busiest travel days of the year fast approach – with more than 1.6 million Americans expected to flock to airports over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend – there’s no telling how some passengers are going to react.

But let’s move past all of that for now and concentrate on the safety of the backscatter X-ray scanners. What I want to know is – are we putting our health at risk every time we walk through one these machines at an airport? And because I’m an OB-GYN, I am also concerned about women who are pregnant. Could these scans affect a fetus?

To get a little insight into that, we contacted Dr. David Schauer, executive director of the National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements (NCRP) in Bethesda, Md.

Q. How much radiation does one of these backscatter X-ray scanners actually emit?

A. Radiation exposure is reported in units called millirem (mrem). The effective dose per scan of 0.01 mrem is 100 times less than the annual negligible individual dose (NID) of 1 mrem recommended by the NCRP. It would therefore require at least 100 scans of the same individual in a year to reach an amount that is considered negligible.

To put that into perspective, a typical chest X-ray is over a thousand times greater than what a person is exposed to per scan when they walk through an airport full-body scanner.

NOTE: Remember, radiation is all around us. We are exposed to it every day while we walk, breathe, eat and sleep. On average in the United States, a person is exposed to approximately 620 mrem (whole-body exposure) per year from all sources. According to the TSA, one scan is about the same as a person would get from flying for about three minutes in an airplane at 30,000 feet, where atmospheric radiation levels are higher than on the ground.

Click here for more information from the FDA.

Q. How do these scanners differ from your typical medical X-ray machines?

A. It’s important to note that backscatter X-ray systems are not like standard medical X-ray machines that operate in a transmission mode. That is to say, medical X-rays are transmitted though a patient’s body. Backscatter X-rays are not transmitted through a person’s body, they are, as the name would suggest, backscattered (or reflected) to a detector that is used to create an image. As a result of this fundamental difference, doses from backscatter X-rays are orders of magnitude less than doses from medical imaging with X-rays.

Q. In your opinion, do these scanners pose a risk to a fetus? Are we potentially putting women in danger?

A. Given the low levels of effective dose involved per scan (and the resultant low levels of equivalent dose per scan to the embryo or fetus of a pregnant woman), no special precautions are required for the embryo or fetus of a pregnant woman, for infants, or for children.

Q. And finally – in general – should the general public be concerned about these scanners?

A. It is important that all scanned individuals be well informed about the security screening process, its benefits and its potential risks. Information, in lay language, about the security screening process, its benefits and its potential risks should be provided to individuals prior to their being scanned.

In an email, Dr. David Brenner, director of the center for radiological research at Columbia University in New York City, told us the bigger concern is the overall population risk.

“Even though the individual risk is very small, the impact on the population may not be small if the exposed population is large. This is potentially the case with airport X-ray scanners. We know the individual risk is very small, but multiply that by the number of people going through airport security each year in the U.S. – currently about 700 million, maybe one billion a decade from now – then we start to have a concern about the population risk.”

So – what’s the bottom-line here? Should we be really concerned?

“From an individual personal-risk perspective, the risks of going through the scanner just a few times are very small, even for a child,” Brenner told us in an email. “So while the pat down is an option, the radiation exposure is not something to be too concerned about from the perspective of individual risk, assuming you are going through the scanners just occasionally.”

Whatever you decide to do the next time you have to travel – remember this – you can always opt for a good old fashioned road trip with your family or hop on a train. You might just see the country in a whole new way, especially since there are still a lot of unknowns about these airport scanners.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/11/19/airport-scanners-putting-danger/#ixzz15mwWbLJD

As the U.S. government begins deploying whole-body scanners to replace metal detectors at airports nationwide, some security experts worry that the new technology could make it easier, not harder, to sneak weapons and explosives onto airplanes.

In the wake of the attempted Christmas Day airline bombing, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) decided to double its investment in the new machines, with a goal of installing 450 across the country by the end of the year, 950 by the end of 2011, and 1,800 by 2014.

The machines are best-known for the privacy issues they pose, because they can peer through clothes and present screeners with an image that some have likened to a virtual strip search. The government has addressed those concerns by obscuring the faces of those being screened, preventing examiners from seeing the passengers, and allowing the option of a physical pat down.

Ken Dilanian writes in the Los Angeles Times that TSA has not been able to ease concerns among some aviation security specialists about the body imagers. “I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747,” said Rafi Sela, former chief security officer at the Israel Airport Authority, who is now a security consultant (see “Security specialist: Canada’s new airport security scanners a waste of money,” 23 April 2010 HSNW).

The TSA would not talk about specific capabilities but says the body imagers will better enable screeners to find nonmetallic weapons, including concealed powdered and liquid explosives that do not set off metal detectors. “No technology is going to be the silver bullet, but this is a significant enhancement,” said Robin Kane, assistant administrator for the TSA’s Office of Security Technology.

Officials hastened deployment of the scanners after Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab allegedly smuggled a powdered explosive sewn in his underwear onto a Detroit-bound flight from Amsterdam last Christmas, but failed to detonate it.

Stephen M. Lord of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) told Congress in March, however, that the TSA’s classified testing shows it is unclear whether the technology would have detected Abdulmutallab’s bomb.

The GAO also noted that unlike metal detectors, the body imagers rely on TSA employees to accurately read the image, as they must do with X-ray images of carry-on bags.

Dilanian quotes Clark Ervin, former DHS inspector general, to say that classified tests show that X-ray screeners routinely miss threats. The rate of detection for baggage X-rays is “disastrously low, and it’s no better than it was on 9/11 — that’s the scary thing,” he said.

Two of the $170,000 body imaging machines are in place at Los Angeles International Airport, nineteen at Chicago’s O’Hare, and four at Baltimore Washington International Airport, the TSA says. The extra staff needed to operate them eventually will cost several billion dollars, the GAO says.

The technology, although effective against certain threats, is too easily beatable, said several aviation security experts, some with ties to competing products.

“I think it is a mistake to use this as a primary screening tool,” said Rich Roth, a former Secret Service official now with Maryland-based CTI Consulting. “The things it can miss are more likely to be used as a weapon than the things it can catch.”

Art Kosatka, chief executive of Transecure, a Leesburg, Virginia, airport security consulting firm, said the machines will not detect material concealed in the groin and in body cavities. “You can get metallic items by that screening technology that you can’t get by metal detectors,” said Douglas Laird, former head of security for Northwest Airlines.

Dilanian notes that many security experts have a financial stake in the debate: Laird is now a consultant whose clients include CEIA, a metal-detector maker; and Sela consults for clients that market different security measures.

A consulting firm run by Michael Chertoff, the former DHS secretary and an advocate for the imagers, has represented vendors trying to market the technology, though it no longer does, said J. Bennet Waters, a firm member and former TSA official.

Kane, who spent twenty years in the Coast Guard before joining the TSA in 2005, says the imagers have “met our requirements,” and can detect small items hidden on the body.

In a testing center at Washington’s Reagan National Airport, he showed a reporter photos of small items that had been detected on passengers, including a one-inch-square packet of cocaine. “Not all of these were in easy-to-find places — they were artfully concealed to get past security,” he said.

The critics do not dispute that the imaging technology is superior to metal detectors at finding hidden nonmetallic objects. Some say, though, that it should be used only in conjunction with metal detectors and other technologies. “Every machine can be beaten to one degree or another,” said John Huey, who in a widely circulated blog post blasted the TSA’s decision to deploy imagers. “What you need is layers of machines.” Huey has a patent for such a multitiered security system.

“The Iscon system is a next generation imaging and detection system that creates a temperature differential between clothes and a hidden object,” said company founder and President Izrail Gorian. “We’ve eliminated the two most prevalent concerns about airport scanner technology–radiation exposure and privacy issues.”

The Iscon system is being introduced in two configurations. The whole body scanner portal, Iscon 1000D, is less expensive than other systems and takes up less space, the company claims. A complete scan and detection takes 30 seconds.

Then, to detect objects hidden in “difficult” hiding places, the company offers a handheld system, “GameChangeIR,” for use in conjunction with a metal detector.

“The GameChangeIR simply automates the intrusive, time consuming pat-down, which is a welcome advancement for airport security personnel as well as any passenger who has been unnecessarily subjected,” said Gorian.

It is easy to deploy and can be operated with minimal training. The company envisions its use beyond airports, at government and corporate buildings and retail establishments for example.

The failed Christmas Day attempt to blow up a U.S.-bound airplane has spurred increased orders worldwide for detection gear and baggage-scanning devices. For example, Britain introduced whole body imagers at Heathrow airport on Monday.

The higher demand will benefit companies such as L-3 Communications Holdings Inc, OSI Systems Inc, American Science & Engineering Inc and Analogic Corp.

“All countries are taking a much closer look at this particular technology and also other methods to address this kind of threat,” said Brook Miller, a vice president at Smiths Detection, a unit of Britain’s Smiths Group Plc that supplies X-ray machines and other detection equipment to airports.

Smiths Detection is seeing increased interest not only in its body imaging product that is undergoing U.S. lab testing but also in its overall suite of aviation-security products, and it expects its $800 million-a-year business to grow.

“We anticipate this (rising interest) pushing our commercial options a little bit further, a little bit faster,” Miller said.

L-3 and OSI Systems, currently the only two qualified vendors for whole body scanners to the U.S. Transportation Security Administration, told their earnings conference calls last week that increased sales of the devices, which have raised privacy concerns since they can see through clothing and spot hidden items, provide upside to revenues this year.

“There’s really been no bust for most companies” following the increase in demand for infrastructure security products that came after the September 11, 2001, hijack attacks, said Tim Quillin, an analyst with Stephens Inc.

“There’s plenty of things to worry about which will drive long-term demand for security products,” he added.

Quillin said a body imaging system from American Science & Engineering is also likely to gain TSA certification because it is similar to OSI’s product.

ACQUISITIONS COULD COME

At the same time, the move to more rigorous screening measures could also drive mergers and acquisitions in aviation security, a market made up of a few larger players and other smaller companies.

“I think we are in the beginning stages of a re-acceleration in the consolidation of the defense markets,” said Michael Lewis, senior vice president for BB&T Capital Markets Equity Research.

Stifel Nicolaus analyst Stephen Levenson said American Science & Engineering and Analogic could either initiate or be on the receiving end of aviation security deals.

“They both have plenty of cash available and they could both be targets — or they could be buyers if they find the right technology and the transaction that makes sense,” Levenson said.

BB&T’s Lewis said L-3 could play the role of consolidator in a bid to gain market share. L-3 has already stated it is looking for acquisitions in areas such as systems that gather and monitor defense intelligence.

“L-3 has the financial wherewithal to be able to reach deep into its pockets and invest in an area where it sees great opportunity,” Lewis said.

“As a result of the expected increases that we should see in this (security) area, I think L-3 has a great chance to take additional market share versus its pure competitors.”

(Reporting by Karen Jacobs, editing by Gerald E. McCormick)

Napolitano, just back from a weekend of meetings overseas with her European  counterparts, said there is now an unprecedented “consensus” among European countries that something needs to be done to boost security at airports and elsewhere.

“One of the differences [now] is urgency and international recognition that the terrorists will look for any gap they can find in the system,” she told reporters in Washington on Tuesday. “Now we need to use this as an opportunity, as a catalyst as it were, for international efforts.”

Napolitano said that, before Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab allegedly tried to blow up a U.S.-bound flight over Detroit, the international community had agreed to work together to fight terrorism, but the consensus was “not at the level we are talking about.”

There is a “recognition by these nations that there were passengers from [at least] 17 countries on Flight 253, all of whom would have perished if Abdulmutallab had been successful,” according to Napolitano.

But she said preventing attacks like the failed Christmas Day bombing requires a different approach than stopping attacks like the 9/11 plot, which she described as “a large-scale conspiracy involving the takeover of airplanes and then flying them as weapons into buildings.”

The Christmas Day plot “was a very different kind of thing from a detection, information-sharing [and] passenger-vetting type of environment,” she said. “So that is why it is necessary to use December 25 as the catalyst in saying, ‘Nations of the world, we all have an interest in this. The international aviations system is international in every respect. It is only as strong as its weakest link. We need to get together this year, right now, and move to get the agreements that have been discussed for years.’”

She said governments around the world — including those of the Netherlands, England, France and Germany –- have recently initiated steps to add whole-body imaging, more K-9 teams and other security measures at their airports.

“When [the] system has its weak links, we must address them without delay,” she said.

Asked whether the privacy laws of European countries could be an obstacle to U.S. security and information-sharing efforts, Napolitano said the United States and European countries can reach agreements “in a way that deals with their privacy issues.”

“Discussions we had in Europe were not only [about] getting information but standardizing the kind of information that we get,” she said, adding that discussions she had over the weekend focused on being able to identify passengers ahead of time and being able to “run passenger lists against the terrorist watch list, the no-fly lis, and the like.”

She said there’s only so much the U.S. government can do without help from international partners.

“Our department, despite its name, is not solely responsible for this effort,” she said, adding that it’s a military, intelligence, law enforcement and “diplomatic” effort.

She said the role of DHS is to protect air travelers, prevent illegal entry, enforce immigration laws and utilize local law enforcement as “force multipliers.”

“We don’t do screenings at international airports, just as we don’t prepare the no-fly list — we receive the no-fly list,” she said.

However, according to one U.S. official, DHS now has greater ability to recommend that authorities in other countries interview specific passengers before allowing them to board planes.

Before the Christmas Day attack, DHS was able to recommend “secondary screening” for people on the “no-fly list” and “selectee list.” But DHS was unable to recommend “secondary screening” for people on the broader “TIDE” database, which has nearly 500,000 names on it. That has now been changed, according to the U.S. official.

Napolitano alluded to this change on Tuesday.

“One of the things we have done is taken a particular part of the State Department’s database … which is where had that [information] been available in Amsterdam [before the attemped attack] Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab would have been pulled aside for secondary questioning, or we would have recommended to the Dutch that they pull him aside for secondary questioning,” she said. “We have now pushed that particular kind of information out internationally.”

Asked whether DHS itself has a “renewed sense of urgency” about terrorism, Napolitano insisted that terrorism has always been her department’s “top priority.”

“The attempted attack on the 25th of December was a powerful illustration that terrorists will stop at nothing to kill Americans and that counterterrorism remains our top priority,” she said. “This administration is determined to thwart those plans.”

FOX NEWS

Liquid bomb detectors and whole-body screeners will be installed at the nation’s main gateways including Incheon International Airport during the first half of this year, according to the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.

The move is aimed at stepping up safety checks amid fears that local airports could also be vulnerable to terror threats after a bomb attempt was reported last month at a U.S. airport, the ministry said.

The measures are also intended to tighten safety precautions ahead of the planned of the Group of 20 summit in November when heads of states from the world’s major advanced and emerging economies gather here, it added.

Liquid detectors will help scan for liquid-based bombs more effectively while whole-body imaging devices will allow airport staff to detect bombs or other weapons made of non-metallic materials without touching passenger’s bodies.

The stepped-up safety checks have become a source of some controversy, however, as critics claim the whole-body scans violate individual privacy, and could amount to virtual strip searches and “naked” pictures of passengers.

Reflecting such concerns, the ministry said that it will strictly prohibit body images from being stored, printed or transferred, while the face and other parts of a passenger’s body will be blurred to protect privacy, it added.

The new Iscon system reveals the thermal imprint of any material — plastic, wood, ceramic powder, as well as metal, the company said.

“The Iscon technology is a next generation imaging and detection system that creates a temperature differential between clothes and hidden objects,” said founder and President, Izrail Gorian. “We’ve eliminated the two most prevalent concerns about airport scanner technology – radiation exposure and privacy issues. TSA is currently testing our technology which we are ready to sell to airports and other security sensitive facilities.”

The patented, proprietary Iscon system is being introduced in two configurations. The Iscon Video Imaging said the whole body scanner portal, Iscon 1000D, is less expensive than other systems and takes up less space at cramped security check-in areas. A complete scan and detection takes 30 seconds so passengers can quickly move through security areas.

The company also is introducing a portable system called “GamechangeIR”, a hand-held device, using the same technology in the 1000D for more selective scanning applications. Security personnel can use it to detect objects hidden in “difficult” hiding places. Used in conjunction with a metal detector, it provides the operator with a sophisticated body scanning system at a fraction of the cost of other body-scanning portals, Iscon said.

How do I get a good deal this year?

Situation: No one, not even the airlines, knows if travel will pick up this year, or if it will continue to struggle. Consequently, no one knows where fares are headed in 2010.

Fewer people are flying than two years ago, and the airlines reduced capacity to match the drop in demand. This, along with low fares, allowed carriers to keep their planes relatively full in 2009. But it’s those same low fares that cast doubt on 2010: The main reason people were flying is because tickets were cheap. If fares go up, will people still travel?

In this environment, airlines will be extra vigilant in looking for ways to increase revenue while offering competitive fares. So-called holiday surcharges are already in place for several dates this spring, and it’s fair to assume airlines will continue the practice as the year goes on. These surcharges allow carriers to pinpoint specific, high-demand dates with $10 to $20 surcharges while keeping base fares low.

Strategy: For one thing, keep track of those surcharges, and see if you can avoid flying on popular holiday travel dates. The airlines are banking on these high-demand days, and flexible travelers will benefit from adjusting their schedules accordingly.

Most importantly, compare, compare, compare. It’s a time-worn adage, but it’s also as relevant as ever this year. Airlines are in tough competition for a reduced number of travelers, and it’s fair to assume we’ll see lots of fare wars and competing sales as the summer travel season approaches. Start benchmarking fares to your destination as much as two or three months ahead of time, and monitor them for a few weeks to see what happens. When you find a price you like, you’ll know just how good a deal you’re getting.

Further, this is a year where discounted last-minute flights may play a larger role in the airline business. Carriers will no doubt try to push up fares in advance of flights, with the hope that public uncertainty about pricing trends will lead people to book early rather than risk watching their fare go up. If you have a strong enough stomach, you may be rewarded with a deal if wait until a week or two before your trip to book your flight. (Caveat: This won’t necessarily apply to the most popular destinations, such as Europe.)

Dealing with fees

Situation: We will certainly see fees go up this year—in fact, we already have. The only questions are which fees will rise, and by how much? Baggage fees, in particular, stand to rise incrementally throughout the year. Each time it seems the airlines have maxed out their first- and second-bag fees, they tack on another few bucks. If there’s a limit to how much the airlines will charge, they clearly haven’t hit it yet.

There is also a growing consensus that more airlines may adopt the Ryanair model of checking in online—and charging a fee to travelers who don’t. This makes sense from a business perspective, but empties the wallets of travelers who can’t access a computer. But it could be a way for especially desperate carriers to bring in some extra revenue, so long as they can tolerate some consumer outrage.

Strategy: Keep factoring ancillary fees into your fare comparisons, and consider airlines that charge fewer fees than the competition. Most importantly, keep up with all the new fees so that you know exactly what you’ll be paying, and try to travel with only a carry-on if you can.

United has an annual bag fee program that may work for frequent travelers. For $249 a year, you can check an unlimited number of bags on all United flights. If you know you’ll be traveling a lot, and United’s service and fares work for you, this could be a good money-saving option. So far, no other carriers have come out with a similar program.

Choosing an affordable destination

Situation: It’s been a rough few years for several prominent vacation destinations. Las Vegas, in particular, has struggled amid the recession, but hotel rates have dropped across the country in cities like San Diego, Chicago,New York City, and Hawaii.

Unlike airlines, which can be more flexible with how much capacity they offer, hotels are stuck with a set number of rooms. Sure, hotels can close floors or simply sell fewer rooms, but this fixed inventory forces hotels to lower rates in order to keep their rooms full.

Strategy: In 2010, the real bargains will likely be on the ground, and savvy shoppers would be wise to start any search by looking for great hotel deals and worrying about airfare later. Most travelers take the opposite approach—airfare first, hotel almost as an afterthought—but unstable fare pricing in 2010 suggests this may not be the way to go. In fact, this is a good year to base your destination choices on price, since some destinations may offer deals too good to pass up.

Within hotels, high-end properties have generally seen larger price drops than other properties. This has resulted in price compression, where the difference between rates at high-end hotels and those at middle-of-the-pack accommodations has shrunk, making upscale rooms more accessible to budget-conscious travelers.

Lastly, take a long look at vacation packages this year. For the same reasons above, online travel agents likeExpedia and Travelocity will look to sell bundled packages as a way of clearing unsold hotel inventory. This desperation could lead to some pretty good deals on vacation packages, especially in some of the harder hit U.S. cities.

But what about Europe?

Situation: Transatlantic travel is one of the areas hit hardest by industrywide capacity cuts over the past 18 months. As demand for travel dropped off, so too did the number of passengers flying across the Pond, leaving airlines with half-empty planes flying long, costly routes. But now, people thinking of a vacation in Europe face a market with decidedly fewer flights, and the potential for a very expensive summer travel season.

Further complicating the matter is high demand for flights to the U.S. from Europe. George Hobica, at our sister site Airfarewatchdog, has noticed very high Europe fares lately, and attributes this to a weak U.S. dollar attracting budget-conscious European travelers. This spike in demand, of course, also affects fares for U.S. travelers looking to head to Europe.

Strategy: This could be a tough year for Europe travel, especially if airlines don’t move quickly to restore some of the transatlantic capacity. Carriers will likely be hesitant to do this for two reasons: 1) A reluctance to trust early signs of recovery, and 2) the fact that they can charge more on popular routes with limited seats.

For U.S. travelers, the best way to grab a deal may be to price the ideal route for your travels, such as Chicago to Rome, and then price a flight to one of Europe’s main hubs such as London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, or even Reykjavik on Icelandair, with a connecting flight to your destination on a low-cost carrier. This latter option may be less convenient, but it could save you some serious money. Bear in mind that many European low-cost carriers charge exorbitant fees, so make sure you factor these costs into your comparison (and pack light if you can).

Airport security issues

Situation: This year, it’s just as important to pay attention to the practicalities of air travel as well as the price. Last year ended with a close call on Christmas Day, and 2010 began under a cloud of security issues and questions about airline safety.

Things have quieted for the moment, and travelers flying domestic routes shouldn’t experience much out of the ordinary. Passengers entering the U.S. from other countries, however, can expect to encounter long waits and, in some cases, additional screening at the airport. For U.S. citizens, prolonged security lines should be the worst of it, but there is a chance that you’ll be selected for random screening.

Strategy: You simply need to give yourself extra time. You may not need it here in the States, but consider it an investment in peace of mind. Abroad, give yourself an extra two hours or more beyond what you would normally budget. Again, you may not need it, but you may also be glad you arrived early.

Beyond time, be prepared for some new experiences. The Department of Homeland Security is expected to add roughly 300 whole-body imaging scanners to U.S. airports this year. These scanners can see beneath your clothing and detect some non-metallic items such as bomb-making materials and composite knives. They also create a greyscale image of your body, which many people feel is a violation of privacy. For the average traveler, this will be a very new and potentially unsettling aspect of airport security, but it appears these scanners will nevertheless become a part of the flying experience.

Lastly, keep an eye on the news, as the security situation is constantly evolving. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and foreign security officials may make policy changes, for better or worse, and you don’t want to be surprised at the airport. Make sure you pack in accordance with current restrictions so your security wait time is minimized. Use common sense and check anything that might invite time-consuming additional scrutiny.

By Carl Unger, SmarterTravel.com