In addition to the stimulus money recently administered, the U.S. Army just announced an award of a no-bid contract to Rapiscan for 12 scanners to be used at military bases in Iraq and Kuwait. Previously, in December 2009, Rapiscan received a $5 million contract from NATO to provide screening devices for use in Afghanistan, as noted by WorldSecurity-index.com: "The award by NATO is the latest in a number of recent awards to Rapiscan Systems for integrated security systems that combine cargo, vehicle and personnel screening. Within the past twelve months, Rapiscan has also received contracts from the U.S. government, UK Customs, the European Union and multiple customers in Asia and the Middle East." This is, in short, a company with strong and steadily increasing ties to the U.S. military and the international defense industry.
Conflicts and Shortcomings
Following the Christmas Day incident, a particularly vocal proponent of full-body scanners has been former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff who, as reported by the Washington Post, has given "dozens of media interviews touting the need for the federal government to buy more full-body scanners for airports." As it turns out, Chertoff has a direct stake in the issue:
What he has made little mention of is that the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, includes a client [Rapiscan] that manufactures the machines. The relationship drew attention after Chertoff disclosed it on a CNN program". Chertoff's advocacy for the technology dates back to his time in the Bush administration. In 2005, Homeland Security ordered the government's first batch of the scanners -- five from California-based Rapiscan Systems.
This new paradigm of high-tech security by way of scanning devices has become lucrative in recent years, and promises to become even more so in the near future. However, as Mother Jones Senior Washington Correspondent James Ridgeway notes in his blog Unsilent Generation, "the TSA has a dismal record of enriching private corporations with failed technologies, and there are signs that the latest miracle device may just bring more of the same." Citing an article from the Washington Examiner that details some of the major players in what is being called the "full-body scanner lobby" and that warns of the dangers of a rising "Homeland Security-industrial complex," Ridgeway observes that the new technologies are hardly fool proof:
Known by their critics as "digital strip search" machines, the devices use one of two technologies " to see through clothing, producing ghostly images of naked passengers.Yet critics say that these, too, are highly fallible, and are incapable of revealing explosives hidden in body cavities -- an age-old method for smuggling contraband. If that's the case,a terrorist could hide the entire bomb workswithin his or her body, and breeze through the virtual strip search undetected.Yesterday, the London Independent reported on "authoritative claims that officials at the [UK] Department for Transport and the Home Office have already tested the scanners and were not persuaded that they would work comprehensively against terrorist threats to aviation." A British defense research firm reportedly found the machines unreliable in detecting "low-density" materials like plastics, chemicals, and liquids -- precisely what the underwear bomber had stuffed in his briefs.
Still, despite these noted limitations, cheerleaders such as Chertoff continue to unabashedly assert that incidents of the sort that occurred on Christmas Day -- which has fanned the flames of public fear and ushered in calls for the widespread use of full-body scans -- could have been averted, thus providing "a very vivid lesson in the value of that machinery." Even more disconcerting is the statement of Rapiscan vice president Peter Kant, who told CNN that this technology could be effective in detecting explosives such as those that were allegedly hidden in the underwear of the Christmas Day bomber. "If Rapiscan's scanners had been in place, according to Kant, the incident could have been averted. "We do believe, from what we know from published reports, that we would have detected it," he said." Considering that we are poised to fundamentally alter the balance of privacy in America (yet again) based on the fear-inducing qualities of the recent botched bombing attempt, it would seem that something more than a "belief" based merely on "published reports" is warranted under the circumstances.
Is the Technology Safe?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
