DHS: Let’s Capitalize On “Renewed Urgency”

The “urgency” felt by other nations about terrorism may have “dissipated over time” since the 9/11 attacks, but the recent Christmas Day attack has “renewed” that “sense of urgency,” and now is the time to take advantage of it, according to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

Napolitano, just back from a weekend of meetings overseas with her European  counterparts, said there is now an unprecedented “consensus” among European countries that something needs to be done to boost security at airports and elsewhere.

“One of the differences [now] is urgency and international recognition that the terrorists will look for any gap they can find in the system,” she told reporters in Washington on Tuesday. “Now we need to use this as an opportunity, as a catalyst as it were, for international efforts.”

Napolitano said that, before Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab allegedly tried to blow up a U.S.-bound flight over Detroit, the international community had agreed to work together to fight terrorism, but the consensus was “not at the level we are talking about.”

There is a “recognition by these nations that there were passengers from [at least] 17 countries on Flight 253, all of whom would have perished if Abdulmutallab had been successful,” according to Napolitano.

But she said preventing attacks like the failed Christmas Day bombing requires a different approach than stopping attacks like the 9/11 plot, which she described as “a large-scale conspiracy involving the takeover of airplanes and then flying them as weapons into buildings.”

The Christmas Day plot “was a very different kind of thing from a detection, information-sharing [and] passenger-vetting type of environment,” she said. “So that is why it is necessary to use December 25 as the catalyst in saying, ‘Nations of the world, we all have an interest in this. The international aviations system is international in every respect. It is only as strong as its weakest link. We need to get together this year, right now, and move to get the agreements that have been discussed for years.’”

She said governments around the world — including those of the Netherlands, England, France and Germany –- have recently initiated steps to add whole-body imaging, more K-9 teams and other security measures at their airports.

“When [the] system has its weak links, we must address them without delay,” she said.

Asked whether the privacy laws of European countries could be an obstacle to U.S. security and information-sharing efforts, Napolitano said the United States and European countries can reach agreements “in a way that deals with their privacy issues.”

“Discussions we had in Europe were not only [about] getting information but standardizing the kind of information that we get,” she said, adding that discussions she had over the weekend focused on being able to identify passengers ahead of time and being able to “run passenger lists against the terrorist watch list, the no-fly lis, and the like.”

She said there’s only so much the U.S. government can do without help from international partners.

“Our department, despite its name, is not solely responsible for this effort,” she said, adding that it’s a military, intelligence, law enforcement and “diplomatic” effort.

She said the role of DHS is to protect air travelers, prevent illegal entry, enforce immigration laws and utilize local law enforcement as “force multipliers.”

“We don’t do screenings at international airports, just as we don’t prepare the no-fly list — we receive the no-fly list,” she said.

However, according to one U.S. official, DHS now has greater ability to recommend that authorities in other countries interview specific passengers before allowing them to board planes.

Before the Christmas Day attack, DHS was able to recommend “secondary screening” for people on the “no-fly list” and “selectee list.” But DHS was unable to recommend “secondary screening” for people on the broader “TIDE” database, which has nearly 500,000 names on it. That has now been changed, according to the U.S. official.

Napolitano alluded to this change on Tuesday.

“One of the things we have done is taken a particular part of the State Department’s database … which is where had that [information] been available in Amsterdam [before the attemped attack] Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab would have been pulled aside for secondary questioning, or we would have recommended to the Dutch that they pull him aside for secondary questioning,” she said. “We have now pushed that particular kind of information out internationally.”

Asked whether DHS itself has a “renewed sense of urgency” about terrorism, Napolitano insisted that terrorism has always been her department’s “top priority.”

“The attempted attack on the 25th of December was a powerful illustration that terrorists will stop at nothing to kill Americans and that counterterrorism remains our top priority,” she said. “This administration is determined to thwart those plans.”

FOX NEWS

South Korea To Step Up Safety Checks At Major Airports

SEOUL, Jan 27 (Bernama) — South Korea said Wednesday that it will intensify airport safety checks by establishing high-tech detectors that can more effectively screen passengers at major international airports this year, Yonhap news agency said.

Liquid bomb detectors and whole-body screeners will be installed at the nation’s main gateways including Incheon International Airport during the first half of this year, according to the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.

The move is aimed at stepping up safety checks amid fears that local airports could also be vulnerable to terror threats after a bomb attempt was reported last month at a U.S. airport, the ministry said.

The measures are also intended to tighten safety precautions ahead of the planned of the Group of 20 summit in November when heads of states from the world’s major advanced and emerging economies gather here, it added.

Liquid detectors will help scan for liquid-based bombs more effectively while whole-body imaging devices will allow airport staff to detect bombs or other weapons made of non-metallic materials without touching passenger’s bodies.

The stepped-up safety checks have become a source of some controversy, however, as critics claim the whole-body scans violate individual privacy, and could amount to virtual strip searches and “naked” pictures of passengers.

Reflecting such concerns, the ministry said that it will strictly prohibit body images from being stored, printed or transferred, while the face and other parts of a passenger’s body will be blurred to protect privacy, it added.

TSA Tests New Iscon Video Imaging Technology

Iscon Video Imaging said TSA is testing its patented Thermal-Boosted Infrared Detection System, which will be introduced in two new airport passenger scanners. The technology shows only objects and clothing without using radiation.

The new Iscon system reveals the thermal imprint of any material — plastic, wood, ceramic powder, as well as metal, the company said.

“The Iscon technology is a next generation imaging and detection system that creates a temperature differential between clothes and hidden objects,” said founder and President, Izrail Gorian. “We’ve eliminated the two most prevalent concerns about airport scanner technology – radiation exposure and privacy issues. TSA is currently testing our technology which we are ready to sell to airports and other security sensitive facilities.”

The patented, proprietary Iscon system is being introduced in two configurations. The Iscon Video Imaging said the whole body scanner portal, Iscon 1000D, is less expensive than other systems and takes up less space at cramped security check-in areas. A complete scan and detection takes 30 seconds so passengers can quickly move through security areas.

The company also is introducing a portable system called “GamechangeIR”, a hand-held device, using the same technology in the 1000D for more selective scanning applications. Security personnel can use it to detect objects hidden in “difficult” hiding places. Used in conjunction with a metal detector, it provides the operator with a sophisticated body scanning system at a fraction of the cost of other body-scanning portals, Iscon said.

Five crucial travel strategies for 2010

This year, planning your travels isn’t just about finding the best price, though that’s certainly on everyone’s mind. There are also new practicalities to consider that could have just as big an impact on your travels as how much you pay for your ticket. But in a year that will be marked by economic uncertainty, there’s a lot to consider before you take out your credit card and book that trip.

How do I get a good deal this year?

Situation: No one, not even the airlines, knows if travel will pick up this year, or if it will continue to struggle. Consequently, no one knows where fares are headed in 2010.

Fewer people are flying than two years ago, and the airlines reduced capacity to match the drop in demand. This, along with low fares, allowed carriers to keep their planes relatively full in 2009. But it’s those same low fares that cast doubt on 2010: The main reason people were flying is because tickets were cheap. If fares go up, will people still travel?

In this environment, airlines will be extra vigilant in looking for ways to increase revenue while offering competitive fares. So-called holiday surcharges are already in place for several dates this spring, and it’s fair to assume airlines will continue the practice as the year goes on. These surcharges allow carriers to pinpoint specific, high-demand dates with $10 to $20 surcharges while keeping base fares low.

Strategy: For one thing, keep track of those surcharges, and see if you can avoid flying on popular holiday travel dates. The airlines are banking on these high-demand days, and flexible travelers will benefit from adjusting their schedules accordingly.

Most importantly, compare, compare, compare. It’s a time-worn adage, but it’s also as relevant as ever this year. Airlines are in tough competition for a reduced number of travelers, and it’s fair to assume we’ll see lots of fare wars and competing sales as the summer travel season approaches. Start benchmarking fares to your destination as much as two or three months ahead of time, and monitor them for a few weeks to see what happens. When you find a price you like, you’ll know just how good a deal you’re getting.

Further, this is a year where discounted last-minute flights may play a larger role in the airline business. Carriers will no doubt try to push up fares in advance of flights, with the hope that public uncertainty about pricing trends will lead people to book early rather than risk watching their fare go up. If you have a strong enough stomach, you may be rewarded with a deal if wait until a week or two before your trip to book your flight. (Caveat: This won’t necessarily apply to the most popular destinations, such as Europe.)

Dealing with fees

Situation: We will certainly see fees go up this year—in fact, we already have. The only questions are which fees will rise, and by how much? Baggage fees, in particular, stand to rise incrementally throughout the year. Each time it seems the airlines have maxed out their first- and second-bag fees, they tack on another few bucks. If there’s a limit to how much the airlines will charge, they clearly haven’t hit it yet.

There is also a growing consensus that more airlines may adopt the Ryanair model of checking in online—and charging a fee to travelers who don’t. This makes sense from a business perspective, but empties the wallets of travelers who can’t access a computer. But it could be a way for especially desperate carriers to bring in some extra revenue, so long as they can tolerate some consumer outrage.

Strategy: Keep factoring ancillary fees into your fare comparisons, and consider airlines that charge fewer fees than the competition. Most importantly, keep up with all the new fees so that you know exactly what you’ll be paying, and try to travel with only a carry-on if you can.

United has an annual bag fee program that may work for frequent travelers. For $249 a year, you can check an unlimited number of bags on all United flights. If you know you’ll be traveling a lot, and United’s service and fares work for you, this could be a good money-saving option. So far, no other carriers have come out with a similar program.

Choosing an affordable destination

Situation: It’s been a rough few years for several prominent vacation destinations. Las Vegas, in particular, has struggled amid the recession, but hotel rates have dropped across the country in cities like San Diego, Chicago,New York City, and Hawaii.

Unlike airlines, which can be more flexible with how much capacity they offer, hotels are stuck with a set number of rooms. Sure, hotels can close floors or simply sell fewer rooms, but this fixed inventory forces hotels to lower rates in order to keep their rooms full.

Strategy: In 2010, the real bargains will likely be on the ground, and savvy shoppers would be wise to start any search by looking for great hotel deals and worrying about airfare later. Most travelers take the opposite approach—airfare first, hotel almost as an afterthought—but unstable fare pricing in 2010 suggests this may not be the way to go. In fact, this is a good year to base your destination choices on price, since some destinations may offer deals too good to pass up.

Within hotels, high-end properties have generally seen larger price drops than other properties. This has resulted in price compression, where the difference between rates at high-end hotels and those at middle-of-the-pack accommodations has shrunk, making upscale rooms more accessible to budget-conscious travelers.

Lastly, take a long look at vacation packages this year. For the same reasons above, online travel agents likeExpedia and Travelocity will look to sell bundled packages as a way of clearing unsold hotel inventory. This desperation could lead to some pretty good deals on vacation packages, especially in some of the harder hit U.S. cities.

But what about Europe?

Situation: Transatlantic travel is one of the areas hit hardest by industrywide capacity cuts over the past 18 months. As demand for travel dropped off, so too did the number of passengers flying across the Pond, leaving airlines with half-empty planes flying long, costly routes. But now, people thinking of a vacation in Europe face a market with decidedly fewer flights, and the potential for a very expensive summer travel season.

Further complicating the matter is high demand for flights to the U.S. from Europe. George Hobica, at our sister site Airfarewatchdog, has noticed very high Europe fares lately, and attributes this to a weak U.S. dollar attracting budget-conscious European travelers. This spike in demand, of course, also affects fares for U.S. travelers looking to head to Europe.

Strategy: This could be a tough year for Europe travel, especially if airlines don’t move quickly to restore some of the transatlantic capacity. Carriers will likely be hesitant to do this for two reasons: 1) A reluctance to trust early signs of recovery, and 2) the fact that they can charge more on popular routes with limited seats.

For U.S. travelers, the best way to grab a deal may be to price the ideal route for your travels, such as Chicago to Rome, and then price a flight to one of Europe’s main hubs such as London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, or even Reykjavik on Icelandair, with a connecting flight to your destination on a low-cost carrier. This latter option may be less convenient, but it could save you some serious money. Bear in mind that many European low-cost carriers charge exorbitant fees, so make sure you factor these costs into your comparison (and pack light if you can).

Airport security issues

Situation: This year, it’s just as important to pay attention to the practicalities of air travel as well as the price. Last year ended with a close call on Christmas Day, and 2010 began under a cloud of security issues and questions about airline safety.

Things have quieted for the moment, and travelers flying domestic routes shouldn’t experience much out of the ordinary. Passengers entering the U.S. from other countries, however, can expect to encounter long waits and, in some cases, additional screening at the airport. For U.S. citizens, prolonged security lines should be the worst of it, but there is a chance that you’ll be selected for random screening.

Strategy: You simply need to give yourself extra time. You may not need it here in the States, but consider it an investment in peace of mind. Abroad, give yourself an extra two hours or more beyond what you would normally budget. Again, you may not need it, but you may also be glad you arrived early.

Beyond time, be prepared for some new experiences. The Department of Homeland Security is expected to add roughly 300 whole-body imaging scanners to U.S. airports this year. These scanners can see beneath your clothing and detect some non-metallic items such as bomb-making materials and composite knives. They also create a greyscale image of your body, which many people feel is a violation of privacy. For the average traveler, this will be a very new and potentially unsettling aspect of airport security, but it appears these scanners will nevertheless become a part of the flying experience.

Lastly, keep an eye on the news, as the security situation is constantly evolving. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and foreign security officials may make policy changes, for better or worse, and you don’t want to be surprised at the airport. Make sure you pack in accordance with current restrictions so your security wait time is minimized. Use common sense and check anything that might invite time-consuming additional scrutiny.

By Carl Unger, SmarterTravel.com

Demand for body scanners boosts R&D in industry

ORLANDO, Fla., Jan. 14 (UPI) — The security industry’s rush to secure a slice of the new global business in body scanners at airports and entry checkpoints in buildings has given a new impetus to research and development of all the related gadgetry.

Business worth billions of dollars is set to be generated from 2010 onwards because of the stepped-up security after the Christmas Day incident involving Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab aboard a Detroit-bound flight.

Abdulmutallab was indicted last week on charges of attempting to blow up a Northwest Airlines plane on Dec. 25, 2009, by igniting a package of explosives concealed in his underwear.

The resulting security clampdown shifted attention on technologies deployed to rule out repeat incidents. Body scanners, used in some but not all airports in Europe, North America and elsewhere, are currently the hottest commodity in the security industry, industry analysts said.

From simple scanners that cost a few thousand dollars to machines priced above $200,000 apiece, manufacturers have found an unexpected upturn in buyer interest in the equipment.

A rise in demand has also led to more investment being poured into research and development. Industry sources cited investments worth tens of billions of dollars made by speculative entrepreneurs diverted away from banks, bonds and stocks by low interest rates and poor yields.

One of the manufacturers, Orlando-based Brijot Imaging Systems, Wednesday unveiled two new whole-body imaging machines that preserve privacy and safety of those being scanned.

The device, known as a passive millimeter wave security checkpoint screening system, now comes in two new variations: SafeScreen and MobileScan, Brijot said.

“With the launch of these two products, Brijot takes its imaging systems to the next level by directly addressing the key deployment-related issues — throughput, portability and footprint size,” the company said.

With its small footprint, Brijot added, SafeScreen answers the infrastructure and operational needs of many airports and other facilities that have limited space to incorporate large-scale technologies.

SafeScreen is a compact device that can be used with existing passenger screening equipment for an added layer of security to enhance primary screening capabilities and throughput. It detects smaller objects, offers a low total cost of ownership, and requires minimal training and maintenance, said the company.

MobileScan, the first fully portable whole-body imaging system, is a self-contained unit on wheels that can be plugged in and made operational within minutes. MobileScan is ideal for both primary screening and secondary screening, or for use in conjunction with intelligence for random screening.

Both systems can detect metallic and non-metallic items such as liquids, explosives, weapons, drugs or cash without emitting any radiation or energy, making the systems safe, while protecting personal privacy. Brijot said no anatomical details are revealed during the process.

Mitchel J. Laskey, Brijot president and chief executive officer, said SafeScreen and MobileScan address the changing demands of the marketplace.

© 2010 United Press International, Inc.

Body Scanners May Not Catch All Weapons

Lost in all the hype and hysteria following the Christmas Day attack and subsequent security overhaul is this: Whole-body imaging, a major aspect of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) airport security overhaul, is far from perfect. In fact, many are wondering whether they are effective enough to warrant widespread implementation, and if that implementation is even widespread enough.

NPR reports that while whole-body imaging does a great job of detecting objects concealed beneath clothing, it performs poorly with items hidden in body cavities. According to NPR, whole-body imaging machines “use X-rays that penetrate through clothing and about an inch into a person’s body,” unlike X-rays, which use far higher and potentially more harmful levels of radiation to look beneath the skin. Body scanners can also miss explosives materials that aren’t dense enough to reflect the machines’ low-level X-rays.

Steven Smith, who designed early versions of today’s whole-body imaging machines (also called backscatter machines), told NPR, “In general, body scanners are able to give you the same degree of detection capability as frisking someone would, but it is far less invasive.”

But that’s the problem: If all body scanners offer is a quicker, friendlier version of frisking, do they really have much to offer airport security?

Well, yes, they do, just not as much as people might think or, more crucially, hope. Quickly frisking each passenger at a given airport would obviously be a new and effective security element, and, ignoring the privacy issue (and the cost, of course), this is a no-brainer from a security standpoint.

But if the capabilities of whole-body imaging only go so far, then so does the government’s plan to implement them. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano recently pledged to install 300 of these machines, if not more, here in the U.S. Combined with the 40 or so that are already in place, that brings our national total to somewhere around 350 by year’s end. Which sounds like a lot—until you consider there are roughly 100 primary and secondary airports in the country. That averages out to less than four machines per U.S. airport. And if you think JFK is only getting four body scanners, think again.

The problem, as security consultant Bruce Schneier points out to NPR, is that there simply aren’t enough scanners to cover major airports like JFK or Atlanta and small airports like, say, Burlington, Vermont. This puts DHS in a tough position: If these scanners really are part of the future, where do we put them? Obvious locations like San Francisco International, or off-the-beaten-path airports like Manchester, New Hampshire? As Schneier notes, “The 9/11 terrorists didn’t go through security in Boston,” he says. “They went through security in places like Maine.”

So if the new technology is so full of holes, why bother? If it doesn’t catch everything, and can’t quickly be placed at every security checkpoint at every airport in the country, and comes with a host of privacy issues, is it worth it?

I can’t and won’t pretend to know the answer to those questions. But if the body-scanner debate reveals any certainties, it’s that when it comes to air crime, there’s no silver bullet.

Posted on January 14, 2010 at 10:59 am ET by Carl Unger, SmarterTravel.com Staff

Senior House lawmaker urges diligence on aviation screening technology

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has told President Barack Obama that it is critical that new aviation security and screening technologies are fully tested and certified before receiving major investments, as the government moves to bolster aviation security.

“Your predecessor’s experience with explosive trace portals should serve as a cautionary tale,” Thompson wrote to Obama in a letter dated Jan. 8. “By the time that the plug was pulled on this ineffective screening technology, the Transportation Security Administration [TSA] had expended nearly $30 million.”

In the wake of the failed terror attack on Christmas Day, some have advocated for expanding the use of whole body or advanced imaging technology at airport checkpoints to improve aviation security. However, others remain worried about privacy implications of technology.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Jan. 7 said that even before the failed attack DHS had plans to deploy 300 advanced imaging machines, in addition to the 40 that are currently in use. Thompson urged Obama to “continue engaging the American public in a national discourse” on the further deployment of whole body imaging technology and “other promising technologies.”

In addition, Napolitano said that DHS, the parent agency of TSA, will establish a partnership on aviation screening technology with Energy Department to develop new and more effective technologies.

Thompson also said that one of the most dramatic areas of security improvements since the 2001 terrorist attacks involves screening technology and protocols. However, Thompson said the official avenues for testing and evaluating emerging technology aren’t flexible enough and that the process for reviewing new screening technologies must be reformed to deal with emerging threats in a forward-thinking way.

Meanwhile, Thompson said the failed attack brought security challenges “into stark focus,” and in addition to screening technologies he identified issues related to information sharing, the terrorist watch list, and personnel vacancies that he said “need immediate attention.”

Thompson said the results of the Obama administration’s preliminary review of the failed attack are “frank, informative and could provide a basis for critical security enhancements and process improvements.”

“However, progress is unlikely if timely actions are not undertaken by the entire intelligence community, the Departments of Homeland Security and State and the Congress,” he added.

The Homeland Security Committee has scheduled a hearing on the incident for Jan. 27.

By Ben Bain

Detection systems market at a crossroads

In the wake of the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner over Detroit last month, there has been a lot of public outcry for enhanced screening measures at airports, particularly as it pertains to body scanners. However, more traditional screening methods such as metal detectors and baggage X-rays, may remain the most prevalent solutions if Congress enacts legislation that prohibits the use of body scanners as a primary screening method.

Despite that fact that President Obama ordered the Department of Homeland Security to acquire nearly $1 billion worth of advanced-technology, including body scanners in sweeping changes earlier this month, a bill currently sits on the floor of the Senate that would render that technology useless.

H.R. 2027, also known as the Aircraft Passenger Whole-Body Imaging Limitations Act of 2009, “prohibits the use of whole-body imaging technology as the sole or primary method of screening aircraft passengers. Allows its use only if another method of screening, such as metal detection, demonstrates cause for preventing a passenger from boarding an aircraft.”

According to Justin Siller, a market analyst for IMS Research, the legislation was passed in June by the House and currently awaits a vote before the full Senate. Siller believes that if the resolution passes that there will not be widespread implementation of body scanners across the nation.

“It’s two markets, the millimeter wave and the backscatter (body scanning technologies) and metal detection,” he said. “The metal detection (market) will continue to grow well if (it) remains the primary screening option. If it doesn’t, basically the markets will reverse and you will see these other technologies growing at a rapid pace while metal detectors will slow.

The two types of aforementioned technologies, millimeter wave and backscatter X-ray, both essentially provide users with a full body image of a subject using different methods. The millimeter wave or ultra high-frequency wave is transmitted from two antennas simultaneously as they rotate around the body. The wave energy reflected back results in a three dimensional image of the person. With a backscatter X-ray, the radiation that reflects back from an object is used to construct a two-dimensional image of what it being scanned. Both Smiths Detection and L-3 Communications have millimeter wave scanning systems available on the market, while Rapiscan and American Science & Engineering offer backscatter X-ray systems.

Another type of technology that was being used in pilot testing by the Transportation Security Administration, but have now been banned for use include trace portal detection systems, also known as “puffers.” These systems were designed to shoot multiple puffs of air at an airline passenger, thus flushing out particles that could be analyzed for explosives or drugs. According to Siller, these systems are not being phased out by the TSA due to reliability problems.

BY JOEL GRIFFIN, ASSISTANT EDITOR

SecurityInfoWatch.com

Scanners can store images, group says

Full-body scanners operating in 19 U.S. airports can store and export captured images, says a U.S. privacy group, contradicting statements by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration.

The revelation came a day after Transport Minister John Baird said 12 full-body scanners will be arriving in airports across Canada this week.

The Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center obtained five documents from the TSA, including technical specifications and vendor contracts for Whole Body Image devices, through a freedom of information lawsuit filed last November.

A guide to imaging technology on the TSA’s website says: “All machines have zero storage capability.” Similar statements have been made by TSA officials.

“These documents clearly refute what the TSA has told the public about privacy,” said Marc Rotenberg, EPIC executive director.

Among EPIC’s key findings is the TSA machine’s capability to store, record, and transfer images while operating in “test mode.”

“I’m very skeptical that it’s not possible to switch the machine into test mode,” Mr. Rotenberg said. “I would be surprised if these features cannot be enabled on site.”

The documents even reveal details about the TSA’s request to potential vendors for a number of hardware specifications, including USB integration, Ethernet connectivity and hard disk storage.

“When they [TSA] tell the public it can’t store information … What are these [specifications] used for? Decoration?” Mr. Rotenberg said.

However, Mathieu Larocque, a spokesman for the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, said the scanners Canada plans to use will not be able to store captured images.

“Additional hardware is required to enable the storage capacity of images … we have no intentions of purchasing this hardware.”

In total, CATSA will oversee 44 full-body scanners, all of which will use millimetre wave technology – the same technology found in the scanners south of the boarder.

The TSA says it is committed to ensuring the privacy of the travelling public to the greatest extent possible, and claims the technology used in their scanners is part of their “multi-layered” security strategy to stay ahead of evolving threats.

Joel Tiller

Published on Tuesday, Jan. 12, 2010 11:33PM EST

The fight against full-body scanners at airports

‘We don’t need to look at naked 8-year-olds and grandmothers to secure airplanes,’ a lawmaker says. The TSA is adding machines to screen more passengers, much to the chagrin of privacy advocates.

Reporting from Washington – The government has promised more and better security at airports following the near-disaster on Christmas Day, but privacy advocates are not prepared to accept the use of full-body scanners as the routine screening system.

“We don’t need to look at naked 8-year-olds and grandmothers to secure airplanes,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said last week. “I think it’s a false argument to say we have to give up all of our personal privacy in order to have security.”

After each major terrorism incident, the balance between privacy and security tilts in favor of greater security. But in the last decade, privacy advocates have been surprisingly successful in blocking or stalling government plans to search in more ways and in more places.

A conservative freshman in the House, Chaffetz won a large bipartisan majority last year for an amendment to oppose the government’s use of body-image scanners as the primary screening system for air travelers. He was joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, which said the scanners were the equivalent of a “virtual strip search.”

The pro-privacy stand does not follow the traditional ideological lines; Republicans and Democrats have joined together on the issue now and in the past.

Advocates of increased security are frustrated.

“Privacy and attacks on profiling have been the big hurdles” to developing a better security system for air travelers, said Stewart Baker, who was a top official in the Department of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush.

Since 2001, privacy advocates have twice blocked moves to collect more personal data on passengers and to compile it in a computerized government system. Critics said mass databases would give the government too much information about ordinary Americans. And they said too many innocent people showed up on the watch lists.

At the same time, privacy concerns slowed the move to put more body-imaging scanners in airports. Currently, 19 airports have at least one scanner in use. Now, however, the specter of a man authorities say is a young Al Qaeda convert walking onto a transatlantic flight with a plastic explosive in his underwear has spurred the drive to put the full-body scanners in all the major airports.

The Transportation Security Administration had already announced plans to buy 300 devices, and is likely to purchase more.

The Senate did not adopt the Chaffetz amendment, so the TSA is free to press ahead with installing the body scanners.

“They significantly enhance security because they can detect metallic and nonmetallic items hidden under clothing,” said Greg Soule, a TSA spokesman. “And on average, it takes 12 to 15 seconds.”

He also suggested that privacy concerns were exaggerated. “It is 100% optional for all passengers,” he said. “They can choose to be screened with a full-body pat-down.”

Moreover, the screener who observes the passenger’s body image is “in a remote location” and cannot see the individual’s face, he said. And the body image itself “looks like a chalk etching of a passenger.”

Chaffetz disputes that point. He said the body scanners give an explicit view of a naked person. “It is a whole-body image, and they can spin it 360 degrees. And they can zoom in and see something as small as a nickel or dime,” he said. “But they can’t spot something hidden in a body cavity. A good old-fashioned sniffing dog is more effective.”

ACLU lawyers said air travelers should not have to face the prospect of exposing potentially embarrassing medical details, such as colostomy bags or mastectomy scars or their use of adult diapers.

“We continue to think the American people are being sold a bill of goods with these body scanners. Giving the government the authority to scrutinize your body is a tremendous invasion of privacy, and the benefits are questionable,” said Jay Stanley, a privacy expert in the ACLU’s Washington office.

If the scanners become standard, “the terrorists will adapt to it,” he added. “What will we do the next time if someone inserts an explosive in a body cavity and takes it out in the bathroom of the airplane? At some point, we need to draw the line on how much privacy we are willing to give up.”

Despite their disagreements, the defenders of privacy and advocates of increased security agree that a better use of information should permit the government to focus its screening on the individuals who pose a threat.

“We clearly need to move faster to a point where we’re looking for terrorists, not just weapons,” said Baker, a Washington lawyer and formerly general counsel to the National Security Agency. “And the key to that is having more data and using it with more discretion in screening passengers. The current system condemns children and grandmothers to intrusive screening without any assurance it will catch sophisticated terrorists.”

He blames Congress, business travelers and privacy advocates for stalling computerized data systems that could alert airport officials to passengers who pose some risk, so they could be given additional screening. Because of past rebuffs in Congress, the Department of Homeland Security “has been quite gun-shy about programs that could be called profiling or data-mining,” he said.

Shortly after the Christmas Day incident, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) called for making it easier to add travelers to a government watch list so they will get extra screening or be denied the right to fly.

President Obama and his top aides also said the government needed to focus more on “high-priority threats” and add names quickly to the no-fly list.

Chaffetz said he strongly supported extra screening — including the use of a full-body scanner — if a passenger’s name appeared on any of the government watch lists.

“I favor secondary screening for all 550,000 persons in the government database. They should be required to go through a mandatory secondary screening,” he said. “If there is some basis for doing a secondary screening, do it. But don’t do it for every person. You don’t have to screen the grandmother from Boise.”

By David G. Savage

January 13, 2010

Next Page »