House moves to limit virtual strip search

by Charlie Leocha on June 2, 2009

For the past year, TSA has been testing full-body scanners at airports across America. Though they claim that 90 percent of the passengers who have the option to use them agree, Congress and privacy advocates are not so sure.

In fact, the TSA is so happy with the results of the whole-body scanner testing at test airports, they are planning to roll them out to all the airports in the nation and start retiring the current inventory of metal detectors.

Not so fast.

The first vote on limiting whole-body scanners is scheduled for the House tomorrow. If the U.S. Congress goes the same way as the European Parliament, whole-body scanners will be banned.

airport_xray_scanner-thumb1This would be a good time to let your Congressman know how you feel about basically being strip searched whenever you want to board an airplane. Though TSA has instituted controls on the system such as keeping the “watchers” in closed cabins where they can not physically see the person being scanned, electronically blurring the face of each passenger and deleting the images right after viewing (how long after viewing, is probably secret).

The TSA says it protects privacy by blurring passengers’ faces and deleting images right after viewing. Yet the images are detailed, clearly showing a person’s gender. “You can actually see the sweat on someone’s back.”

The last time I checked, there was a law about “reasonable suspicion” before subjecting someone to a strip search. Is simply the act of getting on a plane now considered “reasonable suspicion”?

TSA goes to great pains to tell the public that passengers are comfortable with this technology. Heck, they don’t complain and they choose to use it.

“Over the course of testing this technology as the primary screening procedure in six airports, 99.6 percent of passengers choose this technology over other screening options,” a TSA spokesman said. “Passengers who do not wish to receive millimeter-wave screening can use the walk-through metal detector and undergo a pat-down procedure.”

Now there is a choice — do I want to be x-rayed or groped? What happened to the choice of merely walking through the metal detector like passengers at hundreds of other airports without getting groped.

I’ll bet that the screeners did not clearly explain what was happening and probably did not have sample scan photos available for passengers to see what was being revealed before they made this decision.

It will only be time before some of these screen shots start making their way to the Internet and some of the videos show up on YouTube. Already, when joking with TSA personnel, they say volunteers are lining up to be the “watchers” in the remote cubicle. That tells me a lot.

Let your congressman and senator know you have no interest in being strip searched whenever you travel. If you don’t mind yourself, perhaps you are not particularly interested in having your daughter or wife strip searched and visually groped.

The current bill, H. R. 2027, states, “Whole-body imaging technology may not be used as the sole or primary method of screening a passenger under this section. Whole-body imaging technology may not be used to screen a passenger under this section unless another method of screening, such as metal detection, demonstrates cause for preventing such passenger from boarding an aircraft.”

Click here to find an easy way to send a message to your representative.
——————-
(Springfield, VA, June 3, 2009) TSA has alerted me that the photo above is taken with a different technology — backscatter technology and not millimeter wave. They claim that backscatter is more revealing than millimeter wave. Here is the photo that TSA has released.

tsa-release-images-2-050808-726403

TSA public affairs has said that they will try to set up a demonstration of the millimeterwave whole-body scanner at DCA later this week. More to come.

Print Friendly

Tagged as: TSA, whole-body scanners

  • Frank

    In fact, the TSA is so happy with the results of the whole-body scanner testing at test airports, they are planning to roll them out to all the airports in the nation and start retiring the current inventory of metal detectors.
    =========================================================

    I’m all for new technology that improves aviation safety. This issue is a personal privacy vs personal safety one. Which one is more important????????

    http://www.newsy.com/videos/airport_dilemma_security_vs_privacy

    One, these images are NOT stored and the face is blurred. Two, terrorists continue to look for weaknesses in the aviation system. This is exactly what they saw prior to 9-11.
    Are they developing a weapon to by-pass the metal detector? Does this new machine, stay one step ahead of the terrorists? Is the metal detector outdated?

  • Joe

    I’m a customer, and I’m comfortable with the technology.

    I think the TSA is being honest. And I find the tone of this article hysterical and misleading.

  • Tvl_Dreamer

    I agree with Joe; the article is one-sided, “perhaps you are not particularly interested in having your daughter or wife strip searched and visually groped.” Oh please! I am that daughter and wife and I support the new technology. My husband doesn’t seem to mind when I am patted down thoroughly when flying in Europe.

    If pictures get leaked to YouTube, who’s going to know who it is? Take a supermodel’s body and say it’s me. I won’t mind.

  • Hapgood

    The TSA seems to be taking great pains to emphasize the (supposed) convenience and friendliness of the scanner while obscuring the full reality of what the machine actually does. I suppose that most people who go through the scanner without being fully informed will indeed be enthusiastic, or at least acquiescent (especially if the alternative is a pat-down). The TSA seems to be engaging in a full-press spin and deception campaign to get the scanners fully deployed as the primary screening mechanism. The propaganda smokescreen is presumably supposed to give them enough cover to get it all in place before anyone has a chance to recognize the full implication and try to stop it.

    We’re supposed to trust the TSA’s claims about blurring faces, non-storage, hidden remote viewing, and other measures that are supposed to protect our privacy during what they insist is NOT a strip search. But the TSA has such a dismal track record of trustworthiness and contempt for the public that those claims can only be taken as proof that they can’t be trusted at all with such an intrusive device.

    The unfortunate thing here is that the strip search probably does represent the first genuine security improvement since airport screening began. It’s potentially far more effective than anything the TSA currently does. The trouble is that, along with the apparent new policy of subjecting all passengers to either a strip search or a pat-down, it represents an unprecedented level of intrusiveness. That kind of privacy invasion is normally reserved for prisoners or criminal suspects who have clear probable cause to justify it. If the TSA is going to extend that treatment to people who are guilty only of wanting to fly, it should be on the authority of Congress after a full public debate rather than a decision made at TSA headquarters under the authority of some lawyer’s classified memorandum.

    I’m glad to see that people are making a justified fuss and taking this to their representatives. I suspect we’ll eventually end up getting strip searched. But at least we’ll be fully aware and informed of what it actually is. And more importantly, the TSA will be on notice that they no longer have free rein to do whatever they want in secret.

  • http://www.tsa.gov/blog Blogger Bob

    Good day! I just wanted to pop in real quick and let you know that the image you are using is from backscatter technology and not millimeter wave. It is far more detailed than what our officers actually see. Also, the faces are blurred on the images our officers see. If you’re interested, you can stop by the TSA blog and look at last week’s post on MMW images.

    Thanks,

    Bob
    The TSA Blog Team

  • nora

    WOW these are not the comments I was expecting!
    I thought readers would be as outraged as I am.

    If these images aren’t stored, then where did the one in this article come from?

    No thanks, I’ll drive.

    What about your human rights, people?

  • GPC

    I think you are all laboring under a grave misconception of the value and convenience of full-body scanning. If you have a book of matches or even your wallet left in a pocket (they all have to be emptied prior to entering the scanner), then you go through a pat-down anyway. Because of the potential to abuse this system, I think it should be reserved for scanning persons who exhibit probable cause during the screening procedure, and not for 100% of passengers. It sure does not make me feel any safer than other scanning/search procedures currently in use.

  • Karen

    I am truly shocked at the freedoms people so readily give up because of the fear engendered about the lurking, all-powerful terrorists. I remember crouching under my school desk when we had regular bomb drills in the late ’50s and early ’60s (and thinking at the time that the desk wouldn’t afford me much protection — in other words, it was a waste of time). I always feel that the terrorists must be laughing up their sleeves at us as I have to take off my shoes and sweater or jacket, sometimes get singled out for a special search, or the TSA official decides to go through my bag or confiscate my yogurt to get on an airplane. Where is the common sense as they pat down old ladies with walkers. The indignity of it all — and these scanners seem worse than anything they’ve come up with yet. Pretty soon they’ll have them to go into malls or schools. I, for one, won’t go through one of them.

  • Don

    Charlie, you are usually “right-on” in your observations about the airline industry, e.g. your recent articles on alliances. Thanks for those.

    In my view, you are off the track on this one. Yours seems to be a very American point of view, i.e. way overwrought about sex and body image. I know you are trying to make a constitutional issue (privacy, probably cause, etc) but it just doesn’t fly. There is a much larger imperative: safety of an airline flight and its passengers.

  • http://go4thebest.biz Ivy Istok

    The one who have to say so is those who have the power and authority that need privacy . just as people usually agree because they have nothing to hide….

  • Frank

    On June 2nd, 2009 at 1:39 pm Karen said
    Where is the common sense as they pat down old ladies with walkers. The indignity of it all — and these scanners seem worse than anything they’ve come up with yet.
    ========================================================

    Everytime a passengers comments, “Do I look like a terrorist?”

    I say, “Did Timothy McVeigh?”

  • michael schneider

    I do believe that by the time a terrorist reads about the full body scans they will laugh & say “do you think I would be foolish enough to carry anything on my body”.
    For me the issue is we are slowly becoming a nation of sheep who say if the TSA tells me it’s necessary for us to prevent terrorists from carrying a bomb on their person.
    I have done my service in WWII; but this is a usurpation of my privacy and I will not consent to these scans even if means a full body strip search. Our rights are being abrogated to a ill defined piece of technology !!
    Michael S

  • John

    Umm …Charlie it seems that the TSA has called you out.

    Let’s see
    * One sided article (check). Good journalism would mention the things that this technology finds that a metal detector doesn’t like ceramic weapons.

    * Using an unrelated image to scare the public (check). I looked at the TSA image for this technology. Looks nothing like or anywhere as detailed as the image you put on the Blog. Why not post a picture of a completely naked person? Better fear factor and just as accurate.

    I’m not a fan of the airlines, the TSA or one side journalism. How about some unbaised reporting for once Charlie? With unbiased reporting, the public can make an informed decision. Right now you have everyone believing that their naked pictures will be flashed up on TSA screens and posted on the internet.

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

    Good journalism is not simply a “he said, she said” proposition. Good journalism alerts consumers to parts of their government overstepping their mandate. These machines are a major step beyond anything considered when TSA was created. They were on their way to being used as the primary screening device at airports with no public debate. I called TSA and they confirmed that the agency is already testing these machines as primary screening devices at 9 airports.

    These whole-body scanning machines, in the words of their promoters, provide a “virtual strip search.” According to airport officials and the TSA, these machines can see sweat on the back of a person.

    The photo used in the article was provided by TSA for another news item regarding these whole-body scanners. It was not identified a different technology. I have queried TSA to get a full-sized image, but have been told that the photo currently shown at the end of my story (added today) is the only image available to the public.

    I am awaiting a call from TSA to actually go and see the whole-body scanner in operation at DCA.

  • Pingback: Papers, Please! » Blog Archive » Congress to vote on virtual strip searches

  • Frank

    On June 2nd, 2009 at 1:39 pm Karen said I always feel that the terrorists must be laughing up their sleeves at us as I have to take off my shoes and sweater or jacket, sometimes get singled out for a special search, or the TSA official decides to go through my bag or confiscate my yogurt to get on an airplane.
    ===========================================================

    Now, I think they’re laughing at US when:
    A plane does down due to an explosion of a bomb onboard, like Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

    TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.

    A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.

    Hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed.

    Almost all attacks on AMERICANS happen aboard. Unfortunately, 9-11 CHANGED THAT.

  • Hapgood

    For those who support the use of MMW scanners, and/or want to terminate the debate by invoking the horror of 9/11: What makes you believe that strip searching all passengers will actually make aviation any safer? The TSA continually insists that every hassle and privacy violation they impose on us is a necessary and effective measure to keep us safe. We’re supposed to believe that because they say so. But every undercover test or audit has cast strong doubt on the effectiveness of TSA screening.

    The real question is whether we’re actually getting anything for what these scanners will cost us, in terms of both money and privacy. It’s easy to just say “I’ll let them do whatever it takes to protect us from another 9/11.” But is it actually protecting us, or is it merely surrendering more privacy in the name of pretending that it does? For seven years the TSA has enjoyed a complete exemption from any cost-benefit analysis. Fear has given them a blank check to run a secretive, unaccountable, arrogant and continually-expanding bureaucracy. Now that they’ve made the unilateral decision to adjust the balance of privacy and (claimed) security in this country by strip searching every airline passenger, perhaps it’s time to start asking the questions that should have been asked years ago.

    Yes, 9/11 changed a lot. But that doesn’t mean we have to cave in to fear and let important decisions about our fundamental liberties be made in secret by unaccountable bureaucrats.

  • John

    @Blogger Bob (also posted on his site)

    Ok … Earlier today I posted something commenting on Charlie’s Journalism … in all fairness the TSA deserves some too.

    Bob … Why does the TSA think that these machines are needed (ie what do they detect that the current machines don’t)? What “real threat” would be caught by these machines that isn’t caught today? Is this the least intrusive technology to achieve those goals? What other technologies have you considered?

  • Kweed

    I personally find these to be a huge inconvenience for bringing marijuana with me when I travel. I’m not a security threat, I carry no weapons, and I pose no danger to my fellow passengers, I just want to smoke a joint while on vacation… Guess I will just figure out a new way to travel with it, just like the terrorists will find their own way to get around it. Sounds like a huge waste of time and money, not to mention a gross violation of personal space.

  • Are you Serious?

    You people are clueless. You can easily sneak plastic and ceramic weapons through metal detectors. You are seriously over thinking the situation. These people will screen THOUSANDS of people a day. What make you think they will pay extra attention and remember to save a copy of your image. This article is a joke and it will be a disservice to airline crews and passengers everywhere if they dont allow use of these scanners.

  • Frank

    On June 3rd, 2009 at 11:28 am John said
    Bob … Why does the TSA think that these machines are needed (ie what do they detect that the current machines don’t)? What “real threat” would be caught by these machines that isn’t caught today? Is this the least intrusive technology to achieve those goals? What other technologies have you considered?
    ======================================================

    John, you have me wondering if these machines can detect very threat possible. We are required to take off our shoes and jackets. The screeners can visually access our bodies for hidden weapons. Does plastic set off a “metal” detector? Could a plastic weapon make it onboard?
    We have a machine that is capable of screening everyone very effectively.
    Hapgood, why doesnt this machine make everyone safer? Why does a weapon have to be METAL, because that’s what the machine is ONLY detecting.

  • Pingback: Metal Detector Scoop » Blog Archive » tripso.com | House moves to limit virtual strip search

  • Hapgood

    Frank: “Hapgood, why doesnt this machine make everyone safer? Why does a weapon have to be METAL, because that’s what the machine is ONLY detecting.”

    The effectiveness of the strip search relies entirely on the ability of the screeners hidden away in a remote viewing room to scrutinize images of our naked bodies to reveal anything “suspicious.” That’s similar to what screeners already do when they spend all day staring at x-ray images of our belongings. Undercover tests consistently show that screeners regularly miss simulated explosives, possibly because their eyes glaze over after a while. So why should we believe that the screeners who scrutinize scanner images all day would be any better?

    The TSA is asking us to accept a significantly more intrusive form of screening that is an unprecedented invasion of privacy. (Actually, they’re not asking us to accept anything. They’ve had their secret meetings at headquarters and made a unilateral decision that all passengers SHALL be strip searched. They will surely address any objections in the standard TSA fashion: “Do you want to fly today?”.) There had better be a strongly compelling, demonstrated benefit from treating air travelers like criminals or prisoners, who are routinely strip searched. The only evidence they’ve offered is the usual “trust us.”

    Maybe it’s good that you have enough faith and confidence in the TSA to willingly accept their claims that strip searching everyone is necessary to keep aviation safe, and also that it respects passengers’ privacy. Unfortunately, I have no reason to have faith in anything the TSA does. Their track record speaks for itself, with a dismal lack of effectiveness, competence, or respect for passengers. Whatever the benefit, I cannot entrust the use of such an intrusive technology to the TSA as it currently exists.

  • Frank

    The effectiveness of the strip search relies entirely on the ability of the screeners hidden away in a remote viewing room to scrutinize images of our naked bodies to reveal anything “suspicious.” That’s similar to what screeners already do when they spend all day staring at x-ray images of our belongings.
    =============================================================

    The big difference is by going through a metal detector, could one hide something suspicious under their clothes?

    TSA Week at a Glance: 5/25/2009 to 5/31/2009

    7 passengers were arrested after investigations of suspicious behavior or fraudulent travel documents
    23 firearms found at checkpoints
    2 artfully concealed prohibited items found at checkpoints
    27 incidents that involved a checkpoint closure, terminal evacuation or sterile area breach

    Play a screener (under constant pressure to keep the line moving):

    http://msnbc.com/modules/airport_security/screener/

  • Frank

    On June 3rd, 2009 at 11:17 am Hapgood said
    Yes, 9/11 changed a lot. But that doesn’t mean we have to cave in to fear and let important decisions about our fundamental liberties be made in secret by unaccountable bureaucrats.
    =========================================================

    How lucky we are that most terror attacks against AMERICANS have happened overseas for many decades.

    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

    Is it caving to fear or preparing ourselves for future events?

  • E.O.

    Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin

    This is a ridiculous and unnecessary violation of our privacy. No wonder the European Parliament banned them 361 to 16.

Previous post:

Next post: