1 Charlotte Gerchick ENGL 1010-25/Dr.

Smaji Tulane University, Fall 2012 Major Essay #4 Full-Body Scanners: A Reasonable Invasion of Privacy Since the flight-based terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has sought to find advanced technology that can reduce the risk of terrorism in airports and on airplanes. The latest, most efficient, and successful method of security technology is the full-body scanners. Since the installation of these devices in airports across the United States, though, there has been controversy over whether the scanners are an unreasonable invasion of privacy. In reality, the full-body scanners are an effective way to counter terrorism, they tend to reduce racial profiling by having each traveler pass through the machine, and they diminish security-screening time. They also do not reveal the identity of the people being scanned, or their private areas. Full-body scanners offer the best current technology to prevent terrorism in a way that, while it does invade an individuals privacy, is still reasonable. The right to privacy is a fundamental personal right that is protected by the United States Constitution. Like other constitutional rights, however, privacy is subject to reasonable invasions for the good of society. A balance must be struck between a persons right to privacy and the publics need to protect against terrorist attacks. The issue at hand is what is a reasonable balance. An action is considered reasonable when the benefits, in terms of public good, outweigh the costs to a persons privacy. In the case of full-body scanners, the benefits do outweigh the cost. The costs include an

2 increased risk of terrorism, delayed security lines, racial profiling, and physically invasive pat downs. The full-body scanners solve these issues, justifying the scanners usage. There are two different types of full-body scanners used in airports around the world, one using millimeter wave technology and the other using x-ray backscatter technology (Ganesh 51). Both types serve the identical purpose of scanning individuals for dangerous objects. Once in the full-body scanner, the individual being scanned is directed to stand with his or her legs about shoulder width apart with hands raised over the head. Once in position, a TSA agent starts the scan, which takes approximately two seconds (Department of Infrastructure and Transport of Australia). The machines are designed to detect weapons a would-be terrorist might be concealing under his or her clothes (Glueck). The scanner generates an image of the person nude yet makes the persons face unrecognizable. The image highlights any weapons hidden under the persons clothes. Currently, there are approximately 800 imaging technology units at over 200 airports (TSA). The full-body scanners have the most effective technology to counter terrorism. The scanners can reveal if there are [high density] packages concealed beneath a passenger's clothing (Cendrowicz). Full-body scanners take a photo of the body beneath the top layer of clothing to see if there are any foreign objects hidden on the body. Spokesperson for the TSA Kristin Lee, explains, The person reviewing the images must be in a separate room and cannot see who is entering the scanner (Schwartz). The image is scanned for a couple of seconds, and when no objects are found, the person being scanned is cleared. Senior research fellow for national and homeland security at the

3 Heritage Foundation James Jay Carafano states, Scanners render faces nondescript. Breasts and genitals are tactfully blurred (10). Although the scanners images used to be somewhat graphic, revealing private body parts, in 2011 TSA announced that it would begin installing software on . . . body scanners that will display a generic stick figure on a computer monitor and not the naked bodies of individual air travelers (EPIC). The images currently seen by TSA agents are androgynous (see Fig. 2). The full-body scanners are able to maintain security in airports, while now guaranteeing privacy to travelers.

Fig. 2. Stick figure image seen by TSA after a full-body scan is conducted, from Reuters and Jonathan Ernst, U.S. Pilots New Airport Scans After Privacy Concerns (Virginia: Reagan National Airport, 2011). Not only are the full-body scanners an effective and quick tool for finding dangerous objects, they also avoid the risk of racial profiling. After September 11, 2001, yet before the widespread introduction of the full-body scanners, people who looked to be of Middle Eastern descent were frequently singled out for searches based solely on their ethnicity. The rapid installation of the full-body scanners in airports started in 2009 (Mehta; Smith-Bindman 1112). This installation caused simple metal detectors to become

4 obsolete. Once the full-body scanners were the main method of security used, there was a drastic decrease in discriminatory racial profiling. The speed of scanning makes it possible to screen everyone. That, plus the impersonal nature of the technology screen, eliminates human discretion to pick and choose who is searched. By using the scanners, TSA not only avoids racial profiling, but also does not miss a terrorist whose appearance might be innocuous. Full-body scanners are not only thorough; they are fast. Every individual files through the scanner, and once cleared is free to collect his or her belongings. The fullbody scanners being used today take about two seconds to scan the person in the machine (Department of Infrastructure and Transport of Australia). Travelers do not wish to spend several hours in an airport; the faster they can get on their plane, the better. With the fullbody scanners, fliers do not need to arrive at the airport many hours ahead of their flights departure. Full-body scanners do not sacrifice the highest level of security available for a shorter time at the security checkpoint. There are drawbacks to full-body scanner technology. Many individuals have expressed concern over radiation caused by the full-body scanners (Ganesh 51). This concern is assuaged. The TSA website states, In 17 minutes of ordinary living, a person receives more radiation from naturally occurring sources than from one scan(TSA). The Harvard Health Letter explains, Airplane travel itself exposes people to extra radiation . . . the radiation from an airport scan is less than 1% of the radiation exposure a person typically receives during a six-hour flight (1). The amount of radiation one would receive by going through a full-body scanner is not nearly as significant as radiation from

5 everyday life. If one is worried about radiation, he or she should not be flying in the first place. Another major concern of many fliers is the fear of being seen naked in the image produced by the full-body scanner. While this could have been considered a legitimate concern prior to 2011, this concern is now outdated because the images currently produced by the scanners do not resemble a specific individual (see Fig. 2), in fact, TSA calls them stick figures. While nudity could have been a concern prior to 2011, the images that were taken then were still not naked pictures. The negative images appeared semi-androgynous. Faces were blurred and gender was barely perceptible (see Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Image seen by TSA agents prior to the stick figure model, from Paul Ellis, Body Scanner FAQ (EPIC, 2010). In addition, the TSA agent who would be viewing these images would only see them for a few seconds. The pictures taken prior to the stick figure images should not have been of great concern, and the stick figure images taken in airports today should be of no concern at all.

6 There are limits to what full-body scanners can do. Full-body scanners cannot detect anything that resembles skin, such as thin pieces of plastic, loose powder, or liquid; objects that some terrorists have tried to use as weapons. In addition, the scanners cannot detect objects stowed in bodily orifices or concealed within the folds of an obese persons flesh, as was stated by Michael Chertoff, the former secretary of Homeland Security (Schwartz). Thus far, there are no acceptable methods of airport security that could detect the presence of object hidden inside the body. As for the ability to detect powders and chemicals, the most effective way to find these would be an enhanced pat down, which Americans consider to be a greater invasion of privacy than the full-body scanners. Since imaging technology has been deployed at airports, more than 99 percent of passengers choose to be screened by this technology over alternative screening procedures (TSA). Even though the enhanced pat downs are evidently not the optimal method of security, they are still used but only if a person opts for the pat down instead of going through the scanner, or if the scanner highlights areas on the body where an object appears to be concealed. The enhanced pat downs are used as a backup alternative. Currently, the full-body scanners are the most effective, as well as the most accepted, form of security in airports because they guarantee the security an enhanced pat down does without physically touching the person being screened. They have the additional advantage of being able to scan the entire body very quickly, searching areas that a TSA agent performing a pat down might miss. There remain concerns, though, about how far the government will go, in regards to the invasion of privacy, in order to secure airports and airplanes. Marc Rotenberg, executive director of EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, thinks, the next

7 thing after body scanners is for attackers to hide bombs inside their bodies. If the TSA implements body-cavity searches, air travel will be very disconcerting to a lot of people. And that's a bit of an understatement" (Glueck). The government is not willing to completely violate a persons privacy in order to end terrorism. TSA stepping back and making the scanned images less personal reflects the restraint the government has and its desire to make travelers comfortable. The whats next question should be asked less often because TSA is not willing to perform cavity inspections or even take nude pictures of travelers. TSA recognizes that there is a line drawn between a reasonable invasion of privacy and one that is unacceptable and makes sure not to cross it. The full-body scanners strike the correct balance between individual right to privacy and public need for security. Recognizing the understandable concerns of those who have issue with the full-body scanners, TSA and many fliers feel the method of security is justified by the importance of keeping the American people safe. The fullbody scanners are also considered less invasive than the enhanced pat downs, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll taken in 2010 (see Fig. 1).

8 Fig. 1. Poll taken demonstrating, comparatively, how well accepted full-body scanners and enhanced pat downs are, from The Washington Post, Poll: Nearly Two-thirds of Americans Support Full-body Scanners at Airports (Washington Post and ABC News, 2010). Safe air travel is a chief concern of all Americans who fly, and the most effective and least invasive form of security is what the population wants. Mr. Chertoff notes, nothing is 100 percent, but added, The more difficult you make it for someone to conceal weapons, the fewer people who are going to be willing or capable of concealment and the harder it would be to make effective weapons (Schwartz). Fullbody scanners are a reasonable tool for diminishing the likelihood of successful terrorism as much as possible. As Mr. Carafano put it succinctly, Terrorism is the ultimate invasion of privacy (10).

9 Works Cited "Airport Body Scanners - Frequently Asked Questions." TravelSECURE. Australian Government Department of Infrastructure and Transport, 4 Dec. 2012. 4 Dec. 2012 <http://travelsecure.infrastructure.gov.au/bodyscanners/faq.aspx>. "Are Full-body Airport Scanners Safe?" Harvard Health Letter 36 (June 2011): 1-2. "Body Scanner FAQ." EPIC. 04 Dec. 2012 <http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/body_scanner_faq.html>. Carafano, James Jay. "Should the TSA Rely Upon Full-Body Scanners? YES." U.S. News Digital Weekly 15 Jan. 2010,: 10. Cendrowicz, Leo. "Can Airport Body Scanners Stop Terrorist Attacks?" Time. 5 Jan. 2010. 3 Dec. 2012 <http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1951529,00.html>. Cohen, Jon, and Ashley Halsey, III. "Poll: Nearly Two-thirds of Americans Support Fullbody Scanners at Airports." The Washington Post. 23 Nov. 2010. 3 Dec. 2012 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/11/22/AR2010112 205514.html>. Ganesh, T. "Full-body Scanners at Airports." Journal of Medical Physics 36 (2011): 5152. Mehta, Pratik, BA, and Rebecca Smith-Bindman, MD. "Airport Full-Body Screening." Archives of Internal Medicine 171.12 (2011): 1112-115. Pascarella, Sarah. "You vs. TSA: How to Choose Between Body Scanners and PatDowns." Smarter Travel. Smarter Travel Media, 13 Apr. 2011. 3 Dec. 2012

10 <http://www.smartertravel.com/travel-advice/you-vs-tsa-how-to-choose-betweenbody-scanners-and-pat-downs.html?id=7307216>. Pelofsky, Jeremy. "U.S. Pilots New Airport Scans after Privacy Concerns." Reuters. 1 Feb. 2011. 3 Dec. 2012 <http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/01/us-usasecurity-aviation-idUSTRE71083820110201>. Schwartz, John. "Debate Over Full-Body Scans vs. Invasion of Privacy Flares Anew After Incident." The New York Times 29 Dec. 2009. 4 Dec. 2012, sec.: A14. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/us/30privacy.html?_r=0>. "Traveler Information." Transportation Security Administration. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 3 Dec. 2012 <http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information>. "TSA Announces Installation of "Stick Figure" Software for Some Body Scanners." EPIC. 21 July 2011. 3 Dec. 2012 <http://epic.org/2011/07/tsa-announces-installation-of.html>.