By Micah McCoy, Communications Specialist
If you’ve flown out of the Albuquerque Sunport recently, you may have noticed an addition to the arsenal of gadgets the TSA uses to screen passengers. Standing among the array of metal detectors and x-ray machines is one of forty whole-body imaging (WBI) scanners in use in airports throughout the country. In the wake of the recent Christmas Day bombing attempt by Northwest Airlines passenger Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, many politicians and pundits are loudly calling for these scanners to be put into widespread and routine use in all our major airports.
Advocates claim that routine body scans will reduce the chance of similar attacks occurring in the future. However, given our recent history of sacrificing civil liberties for what is often a false sense of security, let’s stop, catch our breath and think about this first. Specifically, is the non-targeted use of WBI scanners a real security solution worth compromising the privacy of millions?
WBI scanners produce strikingly graphic 3D images of a person’s body under their clothes, rendering their use tantamount to a “digital strip search.” These scans reveal the most intimate contours of the body, including details such as mastectomy scars, colostomy bags and adult diapers. Knowing that a government employee will virtually see them naked is bound to cause many passengers significant mental and emotional discomfort. The ethics of these digital strip searches are even more complicated where children are concerned. Fearing the possible violation of child pornography laws, the UK has already prohibited the scanning of anyone under age 18 outright.
The TSA attempts to address these privacy concerns by viewing scans remotely via closed circuit monitors, blurring faces, and deleting images immediately after screening. These precautions are a step in the right direction, but these scanned body images may prove to be too great a temptation for some TSA workers. If the Internet has taught us anything, it’s that people have an insatiable interest in the anatomy of others. Some of these images are sure to leak.
When we allowed the NSA to wiretap our phones, they illegally eavesdropped on the most private details of our personal lives. Are we certain that the TSA is any more trustworthy with the most private details of our bodies?
Leaving aside the privacy concerns inherent in these devices, their effectiveness is far from certain. For example, WBI scanners are unable to detect any items concealed inside a person’s body. Do we really believe that anyone who is willing to blow themselves up will not also be willing to smuggle explosives in their body cavities? The scanners also prove unreliable in detecting items molded to the body or hidden in folds of skin. Recent British studies suggest that they are less effective in detecting low density materials such as plastic explosives, powders and liquids—precisely the type of material Abdulmutallab smuggled sewn into his underpants.
With this evidence in mind, we need to seriously question whether the $150,000+ required to purchase a WBI scanner could be put to better use elsewhere. Experience has shown us that diligent law enforcement and good intelligence work are still the most effective methods of foiling terrorist plots. At the time of his attempted attack, Abdulmutallab was on watch lists in both the USA and UK. With better communication and follow-up, he could have been stopped long before he passed through airport security.
We were all unnerved and frightened by the close call on Christmas Day, but we must acknowledge that decisions made in moments of fear and anxiety are rarely the best. Before we relinquish more of our civil liberties—ground that, once ceded, is extremely difficult to regain—we must be certain that the wholesale use of WBI scanners is both an effective tool in preventing terrorist attacks and compatible with our nation’s values. The scanners don’t measure up on either count.
This article appeared originally in the opinion section of The Albuquerque Journal on January 17, 2010.
