You can run but you can’t hide nothin’: starting this year, the TSA will start testing so-called backscatter body scanners that can quite literally see through your clothes.
See below for details on another invasive privacy-threatening technology. Update [2005-5-24 5:44:16 by Dvx]: Now with image, plus: test deployment at Heathrow.
From this morning’s Gray Lady:
Airport Screeners Could Get X-Rated X-Ray Views
(Deleted cutsey intro about “x-ray specs”)
Stand by, air travelers, because the Homeland Security Department is preparing to install and test high-tech machines at airport checkpoints that will, as the comic-book ads promised, “See Thru Clothing!”
Get ready for electronic portals known as backscatters, expected to be tested at a handful of airports this year, that use X-ray imaging technology to allow a screener to scan a body. And yes, the body image is detailed.
How does it work? (sources: this, this , and my well-thumbed Penguin Dictionary of Physics)
The subject stands in front of something that looks like a large crate. A narrow, low-powered beam of x-rays is scanned across her (or your) body. A portion of this radiation is reflected back at a longer wavelength (“backscatter”) and picked up using detectors. The detector signals are then image-processed to produce highly revealing images:
Let’s not be coy here, ladies and gentlemen:
“Well, you’ll see basically everything,” said Bill Scannell, a privacy advocate and technology consultant. “It shows nipples. It shows the clear outline of genitals.”
Like this:
Doesn’t leave much to the imagination, does it.
Update [2005-5-24 5:44:16 by Dvx]:Meanwhile, it appears that this system was tested at London’s gigantic Heathrow Airport last fall:
A security scanner that sees through clothes and produces a nude image of passengers has made its debut in a trial at Heathrow Terminal 4, according to a report in the Sunday Times. link
Is this just a perc for underpaid TSA types or why are they doing this?
The Homeland Security Department’s justification for the electronic strip searches has a certain logic. In field test after field test, it found that federal airport screeners using metal-detecting magnetometers did a miserable job identifying weapons concealed in carry-on bags or on the bodies of undercover agents.
In a clumsy response late last year, the department instituted intrusive pat-downs at checkpoints after two planes in Russia blew up from nonmetallic explosives that had apparently been smuggled into the aircraft by female Chechen terrorists. But it reduced the pat-downs after passengers erupted in outrage at the groping last December.
“The use of these more thorough examination procedures has been protested by passengers and interest groups, and have already been refined” by the Transportation Security Administration, Richard L. Skinner, the acting inspector general of the Homeland Security Department, told a Senate committee in January. Mr. Skinner said then that the T.S.A. was ramping up tests of new technologies like backscatter imaging.
Last month, Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security secretary, told a Senate subcommittee that “technology is really what we ultimately have to use in order to get to the next level” in security.
The security that they have doesn’t work. The security that would work is too offensive to fly, even in today’s paranoid climate. And they think a tech solution might make it easier to preserve a pretence of dignity.
Chertoff adds, “We haven’t put it out yet because people are still hand-wringing about it.”
In other words, this technology would already be out there if it wasn’t for us crybabies.
Steve Elson, a former FAA investigator and skeptic of the program, states the obvious:
“Backscatting (sic!) has been around for years,” he said. “They started talking about this stuff back during the protests when they were grabbing women. Under the right circumstances, the technology has some efficacy and can work. That is, provided we’re willing to pay the price in a further loss of personal privacy.“
Is he willing? Like hell he is:
“I have a beautiful 29-year-old daughter and a beautiful wife, and I don’t want some screeners to be looking at them through their clothes, plain and simple,” he said.
Bill Scannell the privacy advocate brings in the money quote:
He does see one virtue, though, for some airport screeners if backscatting technology becomes the norm. “They’ll be paid to go to a peep show,” he said. “They won’t even need to bring any change.”
Noteworthy here is the government’s shift from assaulting our personal dignity and taking away our vestiges of privacy toward making these a matter of routine attendant in going about our daily lives.
The larger issue here is that security and privacy seem to be mutually exclusive. The foregoing implies that the present time-wasting and intrusive security measures at airports do not produce results commensurate with their great expense. Maybe it’s time to shut down the TSA, or at least dial the security rigamarole way back.
I wasn’t intending to write today, but this was too … bad … to pass up. Tips, flames and all help welcome!
I do a bit of international travel and don’t mind rigorous security. Such a scanner seems over the top, though.
For your image: if it is posted on the net somewhere, simply right-click on the image and select “view image”.
Copy and paste the URL you get up on the top into this code
<-img src=”URL”-> without the hyphens at the opening and closing tags.
Check the size of the image – you should reduce it to less than 1MB.
You could also check out superscalar’s primer diary on HTML.
The primer is good, but my problem is that it’s a local image which I clipped from a .pdf. Is there any way to do that?
I’m pretty new to this myself – no expert.
If you have your own homepage, you could host it there. Otherwise, host to someone like Imageshack.
I got quite a bit of help a couple of months ago when in the same situation as you. Check the early comments to this diary where tribbers gave many good suggestions.
I went looking and found an image I could link to. But thanks for everyone’s thoughts!
I use photobucket.com for image hosting, and that’s easy enough that even I can do it! I’d really like to see the images.
This teechnology is a revolting idea. Do you think they’ll be able to pass this over on the sheeple as a necessary part of the war on terra??
Do you think they’ll be able to pass this over on the sheeple as a necessary part of the war on terra??
I hope not, but I fear there are enough who’d go along with it.
Whether by design or not, we are being conditioned to unquestioningly turn over personal information on demand. This technology represents another incremental move in that direction, and not a radical jump (IMO).
Hmmm…maybe the lead underwear market is going to be an up and coming industry…I mean, we can see that the guy in the pictures pants are tight enough around the waist to be uncomfortable (not to mention other things!), and are those his lower leg bones showing?
Creepy.
I didn’t notice the bones before.
Creepy indeed.
Not only do I find the idea of being visually violated everytime I go the airport abhorrent, but the idea that this would be done to my children as well is truly sickening.
there will be a big internet market for this, if it’s at all possible to smuggle the X-ray shots. Do you remember the uproar when it turned out some company’s camcorder could be used to see through clothes at a certain setting? This blows that out of the water.
Goodbye privacy, hello creepy old men trading airport-scanner photos of little kids.
you could ask for a printout and save being scanned at your next check-up.
If this thing is so detailed, are there any health risks to it (or to ask the lesser question – have they even looked for any health risks)? Seems like a radiation source that’s strong enough to seek though a few layers of skin (I’m looking at the leg bones) can’t be all that good for you, especially if you’re a regular – as in four or five times a week – flier. And if it’s OK, why don’t our hospitals have this?
Other considerations – as someone mentioned, if “it clearly shows nipples and the outlines of genetalia,” wouldn’t the screener be watching kiddie porn if a child went though it? Do I have a choice if some lowest-contractor selected agent looks at my mostly naked figure, or can I elect to get a pat-down instead? Can I at least get some guarentees that the screener that will be looking at me is the same gender (as is the current case with pat-downs)? Who will pay to refit all the security terminals so that the srceens can’t be seen by any passers-by? Will there be physical barriers in place to prevent the people who see my scans seeing me in the flesh (i.e. have the scanners be inside a closed room, and have them signal the attendants outside if I’m OK or not – that’s some small degree of privacy left)? Can you imagine what any devout Evangelical Christians/Orthodox Jews/Muslims will say when they’re asked to go on this?
And for the last watching-the-watchers conflict: if you’re going to have something that sees through clothing, you need to superivse it to make sure that no guard has hidden a camera in their clothing, to record and sell the scans. But if you’re going to record that on a video, than the survailance video itself will contain the same said scans, and then it will be the managers who will need to be superivsed so they don’t sell the videos? But if you’re going to record that…
All in all, dumb idea. It’s fine for cargo (where it’s currently used), but not for people.
I was mostly focused on the privacy aspect when I wrote this, but I did note that one manufacturer quoted the radiation exposure as 5 microrems, “equivalent to background radiation” (although – and I’m no physician – I had the impression that radiation exposure was cumulative). Of course, flying itself represents an increased radiation exposure, so I really don’t know if this is a significant aspect in this context.
As for the rest – absolutely. The irony is that one of the reasons they want to introduce this is because people find patdowns objectionable.
I have a friend who has been unable to conceive – she’s was a stewardess for 15 years. I don’t want to get into all the details, but I was wondering if anybody has heard anything about a possible connection. She did mostly international, so was exposed to other stresses like time changes as well – but I’m thinking that excessive radiation exposure may be playing a big part.
A relative of mine is a stewardess and has the same condition. She used to fly one of the longest routes (NY-Tokyo) and the cumulative radiation dose she has received is high. Hell even the route she does now (London-NY) is pretty bad but better in terms of jet lag. She expects (and wants) to fly until she drops. Tough cookie.
But fertility is so complex that it could be a number of factors besides radiation levels.
Is there a chemical on airlines that could effect employees? Are there stress levels associated with the job that effect rates? Could these individuals have a factor not associated with their work environment, i.e. nutrition, exercise habits, genetic predispositions, etc.?
There may be a correlation, but this does not necessarily mean that the factor is the cause. And it would be impossible to tell in such a small number of individuals. A large scale study would be needed to determine this.
flying at high altitude is about 0.3-1.0 mrem per hour, depending on altitude and latitude. average exposure in the usa is about 350 mrem per year.
I never knew that. Thanks!
Maybe this scanner will make the screeners sit up and take better notice in general? It sure would me, pervert that I probably am — hee hee hee.
;>)
As a former airline employee(eight years)I find this totally intrusive.This is not the solution at all to airport security. The solution is rather better trained and better paid screeners. At the time I was employed by an airline, each airline took turns “testing” the screeners. I did this often. One time a fake grenade was put into a backpack and the screener allowed it through. We then had to take that screener of the line and show them what they missed. The screener said to me “What was it a grenade? I thought it might be but wasn’t sure”. This happened all the time. If there was any doubt they are supposed to be trained to immediatley pull that bag and inspect it, also calling for AP(airport police) to detain passenger until bag is checked. Granted this was over ten years ago and yes security procedures have gotten better but not the quality of the screeners. That is where the true problem still exists.
Cumulative radiation exposure sounds like a possible problem long term. But, short of strip searching me and mine, do whatever is necessary to put that bird in the air and bring it down in one piece. It is painfully from all that is published that it isn’t all that hard to get prohibited items on planes.
This is the world we live in, people. Safe is better. I have a beautiful 19 year old daughter too, and I want her back in one piece next time she flies. As far as religious concerns go, we don’t let people off the hook when they don’t want to be photographed for their driver’s liscenses, either. Certain indignities must me borne.
FIRST — before any such technology is put in place, someone needs to do a randomized trial, where people with a variety of concealed weapons try to go through regular security versus this new technology. That means some airport actually puts this into place as if it’s the actual new screening method. Oh yeah, and they should hire the same jaded TSA employees to do it, and those employees shouldn’t know they’re part of a clinical trial — otherwise they might try harder.
Then you look at how effectively various weapons were detected by the standard vs. the new method.
It’s nuts to implement something like this based on theoretical expectations of better performance. Someone needs to PROVE that this thing performs better, in the field, than what we’re doing.
And if it IS better, good practices could limit the extent of privacy invasion.
— screens should be visible to only one employee in some kind of booth, and not to the public, at any time.
— screeners must be scanned prior to their shifts, to keep them from carrying digital cameras or cellphones into the screening booths.
— screeners undergo criminal background checks (you would hope this is already happening).
— screeners have no possibility of discovering the names and addresses of the people whose bodies they are viewing.
— there is no capacity to save data at all — or if there is, it requires a high-level security clearance to do so.
If it really can be proven to work better in the field than what we’re already doing, and those privacy protections were put in place, I could live with it. Besides, if you have to look at naked bodies all day as part of your job, it gets boring after a while. WE just have to make sure those images can’t be exploited.
Right, and as a medical transexual I won’t be stopped every time I fly? A lot, btw, as I overcame my medical condition in order to become a busy professional (educator, not rich unfortunatly). Now I am going to be fun hour for any jerk out there…and it WILL happen…I’ll post after the first fun filled interrogation..
here’s hoping I am way too pessimistic and these guys will be looking for a concealed weapon..<eek> what am I saying??