TSA (Transportation Security Administration) spokeswoman Suzanne Trevino stated in August of this year, referring to the images produced by the full body scanners in airports, “Our images can’t be printed, stored or transmitted.”
An August 6, 2010 entry in the TSA Blog states, “As we’ve stated from the beginning, TSA has not, will not and the machines cannot store images of passengers at airports. The equipment sent by the manufacturer to airports cannot store, transmit or print images and operators at airports do not have the capability to activate any such function.”
The problem with those statements is that the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has uncovered TSA documents which show those statements aren’t exactly supported by the TSA’s own equipment specifications.
Last week, my column, What’s the real lowdown on the Full Body Scanners? discussed the scanners’ privacy, safety, efficiency, and whether or not they actually improve air security. This week, there is new information available which puts the veracity of TSA’s statements about their scanners into serious question.
EPIC has uncovered two TSA documents, TSA Operational Requirements Document, Whole Body Imager, Aviation Applications, and TSA Procurement Specification for Whole Body Imager Devices for Checkpoint Operations.
You can read them for yourself. In particular, look at the “Procurement Specification” on page 7, Section 3.1.1.3.6, Network Interface. TSA requires each full body scanner to have a full TCP/IP network interface, able to run at a speed up to 100MB/S.
Then scroll down to page 10, Section 3.1.1.5.1, Data Storage/Transfer. TSA requires each full body scanner to have a USB (Universal Serial Bus) interface capable of data transfers to and from the scanner. Moreover, each scanner must have enough storage capacity to store a year’s worth of data.
According to the document, “All necessary software drivers and operating system services to support the data collection devices shall be preinstalled and preconfigured.” Apparently the operating system is an embedded version of Microsoft Windows XP, and we all know how “strong” its security is.
With each full body scanner having a full 100Base-T network interface, USB Interface, and a high capacity hard drive, it boggles my mind how TSA can categorically state the scanners can’t store, transmit or print images.
With the security vulnerabilities of Microsoft Windows XPe, coupled with a USB interface, it doesn’t take much of a leap to be seriously concerned about unscrupulous TSA agents surreptitiously plugging a USB memory key into one of the scanners, and off loading scans of starlets, politicians, and other prominent people, as well as ordinary citizens.
TSA has a safety factsheet about the advanced imaging technology used by their full body scanners. It’s polished, well written, and cites the evaluation of the scanners by major authorities, including the renown Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Of course, no matter what way you read the document, it appears to be nothing more than Swiss Cheese, as it’s full of holes.
The document states MMW scanners produce extremely low levels of electromagnetic pulse energy. That’s true. Unfortunately, there are no specific long term studies of the effect of such radiation from these scanners on humans, and on electronic medical implants such as pacemakers. Without such studies, I question how TSA can declare the MMW scanner safe.
The document states, with regard to backscatter x-ray scanners, that “All results consistently confirm that radiation doses are well below the limits specified by the standard established by the American National Standards Institute and through the Health Physics Society” I have no doubt that’s true, but it doesn’t mean the units are safe. Since the effect of x-ray radiation on humans is cumulative, the safety of these units is affected by the unknown cumulative dose of radiation each passenger has received prior to scanning.
Finally the document states that passengers can “opt out” of scanner screening and submit to alternate screening. The problem with that it is, as I have observed, it isn’t true. TSA says that notices are posted at the airport scanner lines which state, “Use of this technology is optional.” I saw no such notice anywhere in the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport at TSA security, last month. I observed no TSA security agent telling passengers who went into the scanner line that they could “opt out.”
World famous security guru, Bruce Schneier has averred the same thing. He has made a written declaration to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that while going through TSA security at Boston’s Logan International Airport, he was instructed to go through a full body scanner device, not verbally offered alternative security screening, and saw no signs indicating you could opt out of full body scans.
I think it’s time for the President to intervene. This mess is part of the executive branch “gone wild.”
Mr. Obama needs to put an immediate moratorium on new scanners, mothball existing units until more is known about their safety, and have TSA and Homeland Security work out reasonable and Constitutional methods to bring safety and security to air travel.
After many years working in corporate America as a chemical engineer, executive and eventually CFO of a multinational manufacturer, Ned founded a tech consulting company and later restarted NSL Photography, his photography business. Before entering the corporate world, Ned worked as a Public Health Engineer for the Philadelphia Department of Public Health. As a well known corporate, travel and wildlife photographer, Ned travels the world writing about travel and photography, as well as running photography workshops, seminars and photowalks. Visit Ned’s Photography Blog and Galleries.
Frankly, I HOPE these machines can store images. Let’s imagine a scenario in which a terrorist manages to sneak something past one of these machines and brings down an airplane. Would you prefer that we have the tools needed to review what the screeners saw and what they may have overlooked, and whether they may have been negligent or complicit in the security breech. Or would you prefer that this information be lost to us forever just because some people are prioritizing their own body shame (or what they think other travelers ought to be ashamed of) over national security?
Joe, I think the point you make is valid. My gym partner and I were talking about this yesterday. Not only would the stored image be helpful as you mentioned, but as a general training tool, as long as the images weren’t connected to personally identifiable information. Of course, I seriously question if we should go ahead with the scanner program for a variety of reasons I’ve articulated in my columns.
Having said that, I don’t think that’s the important point about whether or not the scanners can store their images. To me, the important point, is a question of whether or not we can trust anything TSA says about these scanner units now that evidence has been uncovered that they haven’t been honest about their specs, with Congress or the American public.
While many don’t agree, I believe that privacy issues about the scanners can be eliminated rather easily without impairing the quality of the scans, and without reducing the scanners’ capability. That being said, I think I’ve been clear that I join those who have serious questions about the safety of the units for everyone, and especially for specific classes of individuals.
Even more than that, however, I question the efficiency of the scanners and their efficacy. I don’t believe the scanners do much of anything to add to the safety and security of air travelers, and that a reliance on them will actually make us less safe. Moreover, I don’t think TSA has thought through the use of these units, and the procedures which need to be used with them, and when people have legitimate reasons to not utilize them. I believe they are merely another, albeit more dramatic, part of TSA’s security “theater.”
Personally, I’d like to do away with TSA’s “theater” and have them actually do their job of making air transportation safer and more secure. In many columns I’ve discussed just how I think that can be accomplished.
Joe — I think most people would understand the need for the machine to store images for use in criminal prosecution of individuals caught with concealed illegal items (weapons or explosives). However, TSA has been telling the public that the machines CANNOT store images – this appears to be in blatant contradiction to their specifications. If they had said “The machines do have image storage capability. However, images are only stored when illegal items are detected so they can be used in prosecution of that individual. Images where no concealed items are present are immediately deleted.”, then maybe we would be a bit more understanding. As it stands, though, they have told the public one thing to keep us happy, while doing something else behind the scenes.
Hi Ned! Your column does raise questions about the new scanners. I agree with your point about the TSA saying one thing and doing another. This just continues the culture of dishonesty from government agencies, and then they wonder why people distrust the government. it’s almost as if, once one becomes a government employee or official, with the general exception of military personel, one’s instinct is to lie and decieve, almost as if they are allergic to telling the truth. Thanks for letting me have my say, and please keep these scanners under scrutiny. Great job!
Alan, thanks for your comment and your readership. At Consumer Traveler we welcome comments from everyone, including those that offer an opposing point of view. We only ask that commenters stay within our terms of service.
Ned,
Thanks for your reply. There are a few points that we agree on, and a few that I think represent a fundamental difference in values between us. But I do appreciate your perspective, even when I don’t agree with it.
As long as this remains an issue that is important to you and your fellow writers at Consumer Traveler, I have a few columns that I would love to see on here. These are all areas that I wish I knew more about, and that would fit this conversation well:
(1) All of the regular contributors at Consumer Traveler seem to oppose the new scanners — yet opposition to them is not a core value of the site. I’ve never heard a defense of the machines except by the TSA, but I assume there are people out there who DO think they’re a good idea (and who, unlike me, have the scientific and security knowledge to back up that viewpoint). If you have a system for inviting guest contributors, I’d be interested in reading the views of such an individual.
(2) Our greatest area of agreement is a concern about the efficiency and efficacy of these machines. I’d love to read an article that explores possible alternatives that are now in development, along with their anticipated costs, different features, and likely timelines to deployment.
(3) Your opening sentence in the last paragraph — “Personally, I’d like to do away with TSA’s ‘theater’ and have them actually do their job of making air transportation safer and more secure” — leads me to wonder what you’d like the security screening process to be like. In case my tone is ambiguous, I’m not saying this sarcastically; I’d really be interested in reading your thoughts on security screening, from the moment I step off the subway (or car/taxi/whatever) until I board the plane, and how you think it should function under ideal circumstances.
(4) You’ve talked about the Israeli model, and I share your view that there is no reason it can’t be scaled up. But I have serious doubts as to whether it SHOULD be scaled up. (My most recent flight was out of Ben Gurion, by the way.) The Israeli model openly uses racial profiling, which alienates a huge portion of the Israeli population (not to even mention the population in the territories). In my opinion, it may keep Ben Gurion a bit safer, but contributes to a tension that makes their society much less safe than ours outside the airport. I cannot imagine myself supporting any security protocol that uses racial profiling — but I would be interested in reading your views of the Israeli model, and how it would be applied if scaled up to the U.S. airport security system.
Joe thanks for your thoughtful comments and readership. I know I’ll be discussing security overall in the future, and not just at the airport. For example, last month I took an AMTRAK train in the Northeast corridor, and for the first time in the station that I’ve ever experienced, and I’m a frequent AMTRAK rider, security had set up a table next to the gate for my train and randomly checked passengers’ bags before boarding the train. In addition, they had an explosives sniffing dog giving the once-over to every passenger as we approached the gate. The check was efficient, and I though made sense. I’d like to see more of that.
As to the Israeli model, I’d like to use it as a basis for an American model. I don’t want TSA to adopt it per se. First, I don’t believe the precise model can be merely scaled up. The number of agents we’d have to hire to handle our air traffic would be enormous. Our ten largest airports alone handle more than 300 million passengers per year. Ben Gurion handles about 11.5 million passengers.
Second, there are aspects of the Israeli model which wouldn’t fit here and which I don’t believe are actually necessary or productive, racial profiling being one of them. I believe, through my personal observation, that the Israelis do use racial profiling. Personally, I think it’s a mistake to use it, not so much because it’s counter to American principles and the Constitution, which I believe it is, but because it’s bad security. Terrorists come in all flavors. We’ve experienced that in this country. I don’t want our security personnel to get so hung up on race, that they miss someone who doesn’t “look” like a terrorist, whatever that is.
I agree with Ned – the system is being implemented utilizing half-truths and out right lies. Opting out should not be an admission of guilt or probable cause for an evasive physical search.
For the price of one machine, TSA could train four sniffer dogs These dogs not only smell the residue on your clothing, objects hidden in your clothing, but more importantly, objects secreted in your body – something the current scanners cannot do.
The dogs are also faster at detection and act as probable cause for additional search. The dogs can be brought to the gate areas at instant notice for secondary screening if needed. The same dogs can be brought on board the aircraft prior to departure to screen the aircraft and can be used rampside for baggage and cargo screening.
TSA is going to have to issue a punch card to frequent flyers. Once the passenger completes 24 punches, they are exempt from full body scanners for one year or until they prove that the units are safe.
The real problem here isn’t the scanners themselves, but the agency that insists on subjecting everyone to them in the absence of evidence that the scanners are either effective or safe. If used properly, I actually think the scanners COULD represent genuine progress toward effective security rather than useless theatre. But the TSA’s track record raises serious doubts about whether the agency is capable of realizing whatever potential security benefits the scanners might provide, and also whether they’re capable of operating them safely.
A moment’s thought would suggest that the ability to save images is an essential feature if the scanners are to have any value. If the scanner actually found a terrorist, a saved image of the scan would be vital evidence in any criminal proceeding. And perhaps more importantly to the TSA, a saved image of a scan would be essential to defend the TSA against charges of impropriety should someone ever succeed in bringing a civil suit agains them. So the TSA’s repeated insistence that the scanners are incapable of saving images is obviously a whopper of a lie.
The TSA’s leadership is clearly aware that many people are uncomfortable with the scanners, for a variety of reasons that have been extensively discussed. But they have chosen to address this problem first with dishonesty and contempt, and now with punitive humiliation to force people into the scanners. As with so many things the TSA does, the reason for choosing this approach is utterly unfathomable. Given their agency’s poor reputation, it would only seem to exacerbate their long-standing public relations problems.
I don’t know whether it demonstrates their arrogance and contempt for the public, or else a belief that security (as they define it) is somehow enhanced when the public despises the TSA. Whatever the reason, it’s not something informed, thinking citizens of a country founded on the rule of law should tolerate.
The irony here is that if the TSA would have little difficulty getting people to accept the scanners if they were an accountable and transparent agency that earned the public’s trust and confidence. They could easily treat the public like cooperative adults who share the TSA’s goal of safe aviation. They could admit that the scanners are a strip search, explain how and why the benefits justify this level of intrusion, and clearly explain how their procedures do everything possible to safeguard privacy under these circumstances. If they did that, people would probably welcome the scanners.
But the TSA seems institutionally incapable of operating that way. I can only conclude that they regard the traveling public as enemies who, even if they aren’t terrorists, are not inclined to the unquestioning obedience the TSA expects. So we need to lied to, kept dazed and confused, and shocked and awed into submission. I can’t think of any other explanation for the TSA’s behavior.
At my suggestion, my DH will be asking his company and his union (ALPA) whether it’s legal for the TSA to require him to remove his radiation badge before stepping into the machine. All pilots at his airline wear such a badge, usually on an ALPA lanyard, to measure radiation exposure during their work. Not only are transpolar long haul pilots like him exposed to much higher doses of cosmic radiation annually than folks who dwell at sea level, but their aircraft often carry radioactive substances. Since the film badges are supposed to measure the cumulative doses absorbed by the pilot’s body, they need to be exposed to full body scanner radiation, something that doesn’t happen when they’re taken off like watches etc. and set aside, while the pilot’s body absorbs the photons.
Ending the TSA Insanity thru Boycott
The Congress and Senate are doing nothing to end this trespass on our constitutional rights. The only way we can get them to listen is to strike back at them through their financiers. As it appears they want to restrict our travel, it would not be wise to boycott airlines as the government will just further subsidize them. I am suggesting that other companies are boycotted to the point their stock prices drop until their CEO’s and Board members tell their owned assets in congress to stop the bleeding. I am suggesting a boycott that each week grows with another company name on the list. Within 2 consecutive quarters, the impact will be felt, and those companies listed next will be panic’d to realize the slaves have awoken. Since our congress is not listening to us, let them listen to the executives of:
1. GM- Buy No new vehicles till scanners are removed
2. Chrysler- Buy No new vehicles till scanners are removed
3. Disney- Buy no products or visit the parks or see the movies
4. New York Times- Buy no papers (Perhaps we can identify another advertiser in their paper boycott)
5. FOX news- Stop watching- lowering their Neilsen ratings and thus their price for advertizing on air
After 2 consecutive quarters, let We the people add more to the list- this time we add more companies since the machines may still be in place. I suggest we add:
6. Bank of America- Close all accounts
7. Citigroup- Close all accounts
8. Walmart- No more shopping at ChinaCo
9. Exxon (buy gas but not from here, this will force them to have a surplus and drive their share down)
in 30 days if the machines are still at the airports- add:
10. BP (buy gas but not from here, this will force them to have a surplus and drive their share down)
11. Chevron (buy gas but not from here, this will force them to have a surplus and drive their share down)
Once these companies start seeing their profits disappear they will end the boycott by removing the machines from all airports. IMHO, Cronyism is what led to these machines being put in place, and Cronyism means profit. Take the profits from others in their circles, and those people will clean their own house.
If our votes are not being heard, our Boycott will drive the powers that be into doing the right thing, or our elected officials will lose their campaign contributions.
Ghost of Franklin
P.S- I got replies to previous post that gas boycotts do not work- this is incorrect based on the previous types of boycotts which had people nopt buying gas on Tuesday- what do the gas companies care if they count their profits on Saturday. For the boycott to be successfull against fuel giants it has to be specific companies who must accept shipment or pay penalties.
Seems like we won’t see any change in TSA until people simply demand and expect that they be free from unwarranted search and seizure and take to marching the streets day after day to register their objections.
Dogs could do the job, just as they did for one country in the WWII years, but I’d be happier to see dogs doing the job than already wealthy industrialists milking the taxpayers for the cost of many many intrusive, –probably harmful–certainly unconstitutional– TSA body scanners. Living in fear is just where some want us…….they profit from it……
HEY JOE:
I’LL TRADE YOU YOUR FREEDOM FOR
SOME “SECURITY”
HOW ‘BOUT IT?
Ending the TSA Insanity thru Boycott
Quote
Ending the TSA Insanity thru Boycott
The Congress and Senate are doing nothing to end this trespass on our constitutional rights. The only way we can get them to listen is to strike back at them through their financiers. As it appears they want to restrict our travel, it would not be wise to boycott airlines as the government will just further subsidize them. I am suggesting that other companies are boycotted to the point their stock prices drop until their CEO’s and Board members tell their owned assets in congress to stop the bleeding. I am suggesting a boycott that each week grows with another company name on the list. Within 2 consecutive quarters, the impact will be felt, and those companies listed next will be panic’d to realize the slaves have awoken. Since our congress is not listening to us, let them listen to the executives of:
1. GM- Buy No new vehicles till scanners are removed
2. Chrysler- Buy No new vehicles till scanners are removed
3. Disney- Buy no products or visit the parks or see the movies
4. New York Times- Buy no papers (Perhaps we can identify another advertiser in their paper boycott)
5. FOX news- Stop watching- lowering their Neilsen ratings and thus their price for advertizing on air
After 2 consecutive quarters, let We the people add more to the list- this time we add more companies
6. Bank of America- Close all accounts
7. Citigroup- Close all accounts
8. Walmart- No more shopping at ChinaCo
9. Exxon (buy gas but not from here, this will force them to have a surplus and drive their share down)
in 30 days if the machines are still at the airports- add:
10. BP (buy gas but not from here, this will force them to have a surplus and drive their share down)
11. Chevron (buy gas but not from here, this will force them to have a surplus and drive their share down)
Once these companies start seeing their profits disappear they will end the boycott by removing the machines from all airports. IMHO, Cronyism is what led to these machines being put in place, and Cronyism means profit. Take the profits from others in their circles, and those people will clean their own house.
If our votes are not being heard, our Boycott will drive the powers that be into doing the right thing, or our elected officials will lose their campaign contributions
Ghost of Franklin
Racial profiling is better than the unhealthy cumulative effects of X-rays or being sexually molested in line. Offend a few or offend all … that’s your choice. Israel knows who the potential evil doer’s are … we can’t duplicate their successful model … we all know the answer … PC wins ever time. Stop being PC and think about the effects on 100’s of millions of passengers.
Thanks for your comment and readership PIAS, but personally, I think racial profiling is counterproductive. I’m all for profiling passengers at the airport, psychological profiling. Terrorists come in all colors and flavors these days. Racial profiling puts too much of a bias into the system. By concentrating racially, it’s too easy to miss identifying a terrorist who doesn’t fit the preconceived notions of what a terrorist looks like, and allow them to carry out their plans.
Some interesting comments here and I would like to add one more. I understand the need for increased security and we should try to use technology to become more efficient. As a very, very frequent traveler, I was willing to trade this HUGE invasion of privacy for the efficient screening and thus a faster way to get to my plane. However, my willingness to give up my privacy and, from what I have read, a whopping $170k per machine, is worthless. If you still have to strip down before entering the scanner, what’s the difference/advantage you are getting over the metal detectors? Only more ways for the government to waste money and an ingenious company that got a government contract. I have experience the lines, and the process is twice as long as regular metal detectors. It was not something that was thought through completely. Mayor, mayor dissapointment and I now intend to voice my complaints. The $170k/u are not justified.
I went through the new scanner in West Palm Beach last week and, while I no longer travel enough to be concerned about cumulative radiation from the scans, I can confirm that there were no visible signs that one could opt out and no verbal notice was given. When I got on the security line they were using magnetometers and then started up the scanner. TSA personnel kept the line moving by alternating people between magnetometers and the scanner without ever saying one could opt out.
We were highly impressed with the TSA equivalent in Australia. Efficient, professional, and dare I say, friendly! Oz is just as much in the crosshairs of terrorism as the US (and has lost citizens on 9/11, Bali, etc)
I’m against racial profiling but all for behavioral profiling. Which of the two types of profiling had a better chance of detecting the OKC bombers?