On its website, the TSA explains that "this state-of-the-art technology cannot store, print, transmit or save the image. In fact, all machines are delivered to airports with these functions disabled." The last part of the quote here is key -- the machines will be delivered with those functions disabled, not without those functions at all. The TSA's procurement guidelines (PDF) for the body scanners state that the machines will have two modes, a "test mode" and a "screening mode." The machines will not be able to store and transmit images when in "screening mode," but will be able to do so in "test mode." "When not being used for normal screening operations, the capability to capture images of non-passengers for training and evaluation purposes is needed," the TSA document states. It was not immediately clear from those documents how easy it is to switch a machine from "screening mode" to "test mode," or who would have the authority or ability to do so.
The New York Times further notes that "others say that the technology is no security panacea, and that its use should be carefully controlled because of the risks to privacy, including the potential for its ghostly naked images to show up on the Internet." Indeed, as Baltimore Sun columnist Susan Reimer intones: "They say these full-body screening images -- in which I am pretty sure we are naked -- are immediately erased, but I don't believe them for a minute. Either somebody is keeping them on the hard drive to protect himself in case some terrorist gets by on his watch, or some enterprising guy is going to be selling Britney Spears' body scan to TMZ for a hundred thousand bucks. I mean this is America, land of the irrepressible entrepreneurial spirit." Absent clear and enforceable limitations, it seems likely that such scenarios will ensue.
Due to these privacy concerns, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) introduced an amendment blocking the use of full-body scanners as the main way of screening passengers who don't fit risk profiles, and furthermore creating penalties for government employees who copy or share body-scan images. The House of Representatives passed the amendment in June 2009, but the Senate has yet to take it up. Still, despite the myriad concerns and unresolved issues of safety and privacy, recent events have fueled the drive by the TSA to emplace this technology. As the Wall Street Journal concludes, "political pressure on the agency since the alleged failed plot is likely to push officials to move fast." Disturbingly, and perhaps due to the effectiveness of media saturation and the impetus of fear, recent polling suggests that Americans support the new technologies:
Almost three quarters of the American public are in favor of full body x-ray scanners at airports, according to the findings of a new CBS News poll conducted in the wake of the failed Christmas Day bombing attempt on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. Of those questioned, 74 percent said airports should use the controversial machines because they provide a detailed check for hidden weapons and explosives and reduce the need for physical searches. Just 20 percent said the machines should not be used because they see through a passenger's clothing and thus constitute an invasion of privacy.
Despite being known as a fairly Puritanical people in many respects -- at least in terms of what constitutes "public decency" and the like -- it seems that Americans perhaps are more permissive in their sense of decorum than we have been led to believe. Is it still voyeurism when the subject willingly desires to be watched? Must security and privacy exist in tension, or can they be fruitfully reconciled? Is constant surveillance becoming the baseline of our lives, and if so who is watching the watchers? With the proliferation of public cameras, digital recorders, webcams, cellphone cameras, and now terahertz scanners, we will be confronted with the implications of these technologies for the foreseeable future. The fact that our collective fears seem to be the leading edge of the debate doesn't bode particularly well for reasoned decision-making and the eventual utilization of new technologies for emancipation rather than subjugation.
And in the End
The matter
of full-body scanners presents a critical cultural referendum on basic
questions of freedom and autonomy. The circumstances under which the issue is being presented -- a climate of
fear instilled by a well-hyped reminder of the shared trauma of 9/11 -- make it
almost impossible to have confidence in a sound and sober resolution. Moreover,
the primary players behind the use of these technologies exist within
the workings of a growing military-industrial complex that continues to pervade
more aspects of our lives. This watershed moment in the public dialogue about
security and privacy is framed by an increasing militarization of everyday life
in America, as indicated by a recollection of the loci in which companies like
Rapiscan operate -- namely, "at airports, government and corporate buildings,
correctional and prison facilities, postal facilities, military zones, sea
ports and border crossings." This list could easily expand to include schools,
hospitals, malls, arenas, banks, stores, and more.
Now is the moment to rein it in while we still have a window of self-determination in which to do so.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
