GAO: No formal testing for whole-body scanners

by Charlie Leocha on February 9, 2010

With all of the privacy concerns being registered regarding the whole-body scanners, we don’t even know if the machines work … we’re just taking the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA’s) word. And TSA doesn’t really know if these scanners really work and can’t be circumvented.

What we have here, based on fairly basic research, is an expensive new whole-body scanner technology being deployed nationwide by TSA over the howls of numerous privacy groups, without independent testing, using the manufacturers’ claims, all being lead by the former head of the Department of Homeland Security saying, basically, trust us.

You would think that TSA would have some sort of written testing procedures for extensive deployment of expensive equipment, but, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that’s not the case.

A senior TSA official stated that although TSA does not yet have a written policy requiring operational testing prior to deployment, TSA is now including in its contracts with vendors that checkpoint screening machines are required to successfully complete laboratory tests as well as operational tests.

This kind of TSA attitude makes the rapid nationwide deployment of whole-body scanners even more negligent. GAO notes and TSA admits that these machines have not been fully field tested. Worse, TSA admits publicly that they are taking the manufacturers’ word for the scanners effectiveness.

Even more disquieting is the fact that the former head of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chernoff, is representing the manufacturers of these whole-body scanners.

According to GAO, we went through one of these knee-jerk reactions with the deployment of the explosives trace portal (ETP), or in the traveler’s vernacular, the “puffer machine.” In that case it has been verified that TSA rushed these machines to the field based on the manufacturer’s claims and that the machined failed.

TSA’s experience with the ETPs, which the agency uses for secondary screening, demonstrates the importance of testing and evaluation in an operational environment. The ETP detects traces of explosives on a passenger by using puffs of air to dislodge particles from the passenger’s body and clothing that the machine analyzes for traces of explosives. TSA procured 207 ETPs and in 2006 deployed 101 ETPs to 36 airports, the first deployment of a checkpoint technology initiated by the agency.36 TSA deployed the ETPs even though agency officials were aware that tests conducted during 2004 and 2005 on earlier ETP models suggested that they did not demonstrate reliable performance. Furthermore, the ETP models that were subsequently deployed were not first tested to prove their effective performance in an operational environment, contrary to TSA’s acquisition guidance, which recommends such testing.

This expensive and spectacular failure of new technology should be a lesson for TSA as it deploys the whole-body scanners. However, the organization is following in the same footsteps with whole-body scanners that proved disastrous with the puffer machines.

“According to a senior TSA official, as of December 31, 2009, all but 9 ETPs have been withdrawn from airports and 18 ETPs remain in inventory,” GAO reported. Their paper continued, “TSA estimates that the 9 remaining ETPs will be removed from airports by the end of calendar year 2010.”

This most recent GAO report went on to bluntly state, “It is unclear whether the AIT or other technologies would have detected the weapon used in the December 25 attempted attack.”

I have been to several Congressional hearings on both the Senate and the House sides and have not heard any member of Congress ask the simple questions that need answers.

  • Would the whole-body scanners have detected powder in the pants of Abdulmutallab?
  • Can explosives be hidden in a way to circumvent whole-body scanners?
  • What are the weaknesses of whole body scanners?
  • Can these scanners see something hidden in a body cavity or beneath skin? (i.e. can explosives be hidden behind a large woman’s breast, in the buttocks or in the mouth?)
  • What actions will be taken to reduce scanner viewing fatigue by those assigned to the telephone-booth-sized viewing station?
  • Can explosives be detected in the roughly 15 seconds that a TSA official has to view a scanned body image?

Basically, will this contraption work?

Let’s answer these basic questions before we roll out another failed technology to screen passengers.

Print Friendly

Tagged as: Transportation Security Administration, TSA, whole-body scanners

  • Hapgood

    Nobody in Congress will ask those questions because doing so will only hurt them. It actually doesn’t matter whether the scanners work. There was a very embarrassing failure of security, and the government has an urgent need to do something about it. It has to be be high-tech. It has to be expensive. It has to be sufficiently visible and intrusive to each passenger to dispel any possible doubt that the government is sparing no expense to quickly deploy the most advanced technology to defeat the horrible evil terrorists.

    The scanners meet that need, and they’re availab now. So we’re pressing ahead with them. We need them now, so we can’t afford to delay them by testing them and asking whether they work. The manufacturer says they work, so there’s no reason to doubt that. Besides, with every passenger getting scanned, we can be absolutely confident that the TSA’s highly competent staff will be secretly working behind the scenes to iron out any problems, optimize the scanners, and guarantee that they will provide highly effective protection against the horrible evil terrorists.

    So shouldn’t delay things by asking pointless questions that only aid the enemy. In this time of War and Terror, it’s imperative that we suspend any skepticism and, for once, trust the government. We need to give our full support to the dedicated heroes of the TSA who are working round the clock to keep us very safe from the horrible evil terrorists!

    So step into the Freedom Scanner with pride and gratitude for the most advanced, most effective protection of both our security and our privacy! And if it detects your sanitary pad or band-aid, necessitating an “intimate” pat-down, don’t be angry. Be reassured and unquestioningly convinced of the scanner’s clear effectiveness at detecting anything the horrible evil terrorists might try to sneak past the ever-vigilant TSA. And don’t forget to thank the officer who patted you down for doing such a good job of protecting us from horrible evil terrorists. They probably don’t get many compliments, and they’d surely appreciate it.

  • adele

    Here’s a crazy idea: why not have crotch sniffing explosive dogs at the security checkpoint? It’s cheaper, more effective, and arguably less invasive. Sure, people wouldn’t like it, but at least you wouldn’t have to worry about Rover posting your image on the internet.

  • Frank

    Hapgood February 9, 2010 at 11:01 am
    It has to be sufficiently visible and intrusive to each passenger to dispel any possible doubt that the government is sparing no expense to quickly deploy the most advanced technology to defeat the horrible evil terrorists.
    The scanners meet that need, and they’re availab now. So we’re pressing ahead with them. We need them now, so we can’t afford to delay them by testing them and asking whether they work.
    ===================================================

    Where have you been? They were tested:
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301160,00.html

    Thursday, October 11, 2007
    WASHINGTON — The federal government will begin testing a body-scanning machine that could eventually be used instead of the metal detectors passengers walk through at airports.

    Tests were scheduled to begin Thursday at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport with passengers pulled out of the security line for secondary screening.
    Passengers may request the full-body scan — which blurs faces so the person being screened cannot be recognized — instead of the traditional pat-down used across the country.
    The new machine uses radio waves to detect foreign objects.
    Since February, the Phoenix airport has been testing a similar machine that uses so-called backscatter radiation to scan the entire body. The backscatter uses a narrow, low-intensity x-ray beam that scans the entire body at a high speed.

  • http://www.tripso.com/author/leocha Charlie Leocha

    Sorry, but according to the TSA, DHS and GAO, commenting before Congress in October 2009, these machines have not been independently tested by the government. Read it in the GAO report. Out takes are in the article. TSA has tested the process of screening passengers, but, evidently, have not tested the machines technically to see if they can actually detect explosives.

  • Joel Wechsler

    Well, the Oct. 2007 story was from Fox News, after all.

  • Susan

    At SLC opting to go the standard route and not through the scanner is interpreted by the TSA as “I have something to hide.” It’s like one is punished for choosing not to go through it. You can 100% guarantee you’ll get stopped for “additional screening.” This restricition of our civil liberties has GOT TO STOP but no one in Congress will do a damn thing. Petty, nasty, rude TSA employees and zero options to fight it, it’s so frustrating.

  • Hapgood

    @Susan: Petty, nasty, rude TSA employees and zero options to fight it, it’s so frustrating.

    There actually is a simple way to fight it and to completely avoid frustration. It can be boiled down to one simple, magic word: “No!”

    Instead of being frustrated, just say no to the TSA and to the airlines. Buy a guidebook or two and discover all the treasures you’ve overlooked in your own home town. Or buy a ticket on Amtrak, and spend a few extra days watching the panoramic vistas of America slowly parade by your window. There are lots of options, actually, once you get over the notion that travel always requires flying. Try an alternative that doesn’t involve flying, and see how much more enjoyable it is!

    Unfortunately, that’s really the only thing we can do about it.

  • Frank

    Joel Wechsler February 10, 2010 at 10:09 am
    Well, the Oct. 2007 story was from Fox News, after all.
    ================================================

    Is the LA TIMES more credilible to YOU????
    http://travel.latimes.com/daily-deal-blog/index.php/phoenix-airport-secu-850/

    Charlie Leocha February 9, 2010 at 9:15 pm
    Sorry, but according to the TSA, DHS and GAO, commenting before Congress in October 2009, these machines have not been independently tested by the government.
    ===================================================

    The TSA test will determine how well the ProVision machine, made by government contractor L-3 Communications, finds weapons and whether it can operate quickly enough to replace metal detectors at checkpoints. Similar machines are used at courthouse entrances in Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington, and at airports in Amsterdam, Madrid and Moscow.

    The TSA bought eight ProVisions for $1.7 million and will test them at Los Angeles and New York’s Kennedy airports shortly.

  • Frank

    Charlie Leocha February 9, 2010 at 9:15 pm
    Sorry, but according to the TSA, DHS and GAO, commenting before Congress in October 2009, these machines have not been independently tested by the government.
    ===========================================

    SORRY? dont be sorry if you think your right. That’s why sites like this are educational. It invites debate, opinions and comments.

  • Susan

    @Hapgood – your attitude is what gives the TSA their power. If I don’t fly I don’t make money. Simple as that. I, for one, am NOT rearranging my life to accomodate the taking away of basic civil liberites.

    My answer, an ACLU desk at every security point. Hold them accountable.

  • Pingback: As Body Scanners are introduced, more and more issues arise « Orwell's Dreams

  • Pingback: TSA moves forward with untested, costly whole-body scanner deployment

  • Pingback: Scanned but not searched « Phil Ebersole's Blog

  • john

    Yes, the Whole Body Scanner can easily be defeated by an individual carrying an
    explosive formulation.   The amount of explosive required to totally damage the flight
    deck is about 500 grams.

    The Canadian government know the sequence of events needed to cause damage to
    an aircraft via the above.   The probability of success for the attacker is
    much better than 50%  

Previous post:

Next post: