Full-Body Scans Violate Privacy, Fail to Protect

By Andrew Davis on January 13, 2010

Ron Jeremy is against full-body scans at airports. Though Jeremy has made his career taking off his clothes, he draws the line when it comes to having his body exposed to unknown government employees. He calls it an 'invasion of privacy.'

Yet, Jeremy is in the minority when it comes to how Americans view full-body scans at security checkpoints in airports. A Gallup poll, conducted days after the December 25 failed terror attack on a Detroit-bound airliner, shows three out of four Americans are receptive to the use of full-body scans. And, the government plans to add another 150 machines to the 40 that are already in use around the country.

As the term "full-body scan" suggests, the machines are used to get a detailed "x-ray" of contents beneath the clothing of those scanned. These pictures are considered more effective at detecting metallic contraband than pat-downs, and it also takes less time. Proponents of full-body scans argue that these scans provide greater security and would streamline screenings at airports.

However, new reports from the United Kingdom suggest that these full-body scans are ineffective at detecting light plastic, liquids, or chemicals—such as those used in the latest attempted terror attack. Manufacturers of full-body scanners also admit that the machines do not detect items concealed in body cavities.

Such shortcomings leave many civil libertarians asking if the added costs and privacy issues outweigh any potential benefits.

It's understandable that passengers want to feel safe while flying, and are willing to sacrifice certain rights to do so. However, new security measures should not be rashly instituted, especially when better options exist.

"Everyone from Capitol Hill to former and current secretaries of Homeland Security is calling for hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to be spent on not-yet proven 'back-scatter' x-ray machines," Bob Barr, a former Republican Congressman and federal prosecutor, said recently. "Despite legitimate questions about the privacy-invasive nature of these all-revealing machines, the pressure for their purchase and installation is likely to be irresistible."

Emerging reports suggest the government had actionable intelligence on the Nigerian bomber behind the failed December 25 terror attack, but did not make the connection until after the attack. The government also had intelligence on Malik Nadal Hasan, who killed 13 people during a shooting rampage at the Fort Hood military base in Texas. Government officials also missed crucial pieces of intelligence leading up to the September 11, 2001 terror attack.

No body scan will ever compare to the safety that comes from good intelligence. If there is one lesson that can be taken from the drastic curbing of civil liberties during the Bush administration, it's that terrorists will find a way to circumvent even the most rigorous of security checks. After all, America was only a few IQ points away from suffering yet another horrific terror attack.

"There is no magic-bullet technology that can catch all threats all the time," says Doug Lavin, regional vice president for a trade group that represents 230 international airlines, in a recent interview with POLITICO. " We must avoid calls for quick solutions. We need Congress to think about and fund a long-term vision, not a short-term headline grabber."

The rise of social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook have made vastly increased people's awareness of privacy issues. As these types of Web sites expanded to include new features and more members, privacy controls evolved to fit user demands. Facebook, the most popular social networking site in the world, is under constant pressure from users to limit sharing of their private data.

Government, on the other hand, is heading in the opposite direction than these social networking sites--and few are raising the alarm. Whereas most online users would balk at the idea of exposing themselves to strangers, this is exactly what full-body scanners would do.

Government at no level has proven itself trustworthy to handle the mountains of personal data harvested in supposed "anti-terror" policies following the Sept. 11 terror attacks. U.S. citizens overseas had private phone conversations--including phone "sex"--intercepted and eavesdropped-on by the government.

ABC reported that some government employees who were charged with monitoring phone calls "routinely shared salacious or tantalizing phone calls that had been intercepted, alerting office mates to certain time codes of 'cuts' that were available on each operator's computer."

Transportation Safety Administration officials are already misleading the public on the full-body scanners capabilities at storing and transferring images. And, if these scanning machines are operated from a private room, what is to stop TSA employees from recording images with cell phone cameras or other devices?

Americans can never be overcautious about their privacy, whether it be in protecting their personal information from private companies or government agencies. The push for full-body scans is a key sign that government cares little about the privacy of citizens. It is up to citizens to push back.

Americans deserve safety and protection from terrorism. But, government has an obligation to provide this protection with deference to the Constitution and in such a way that provides the greatest security with the least intrusion.

The current full-body scanners do not meet this standard, and fail to provide anything more than a false sense of security. When the government banned box cutters (along with nail clippers and anything else that could be fathomed as a potential weapon), Richard Reid tried to conceal a bomb in his shoe. And, when the government instituted new policies that required air passengers to remove their shoes and have them x-rayed, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab placed explosive chemicals in his underwear. Should government require full-body scans, it is inevitable that terrorists will try to find another way to conceal contraband.

Does this mean that government should abandon its efforts? Of course not, but it should take the lessons its learned and apply them to effective, long-term security solutions based on intelligence-gathering and not intrusive invasions of privacy.