Airport X-Ray Peep Shows
posted by Daniel Solove
According to the New York Times, the TSA is moving closer to deploying a new kind of X-ray machine at airports, one that sees through people’s clothing:
Among the most controversial technology being looked at by the Transportation Security Administration is the backscatter body scanner. The device – a boxy contraption that beams low-level X-rays through people’s clothing – has received a lot of attention because of the explicit images of passengers’ bodies it can produce.
This summer, for instance, Lori Borgman, a family humor columnist, wrote that such images were “bound to find their way to the break room, the Internet and the tabloids.” The American Civil Liberties Union has called the backscatter a “virtual strip search.”
As a result, the Transportation Security Administration has approached the deployment of the machines tentatively over the last several years. “I think that as we make the decision to roll out and go to pilot tests and move forward, we need to be sure we’re doing it in a responsible manner,” said the agency’s chief technology officer and assistant administrator, Clifford Wilke. “A person’s first experience with a new technology will determine their perception.”
But there are signs that the T.S.A. is preparing to make its move. The agency said it did not have a specific timeline, but statements made in early August by the two manufacturers of the technology – American Science and Engineering and Rapiscan Systems, a division of the OSI Systems electronics company – indicated that the plans could be made public within the next two months.
Does this technology establish the appropriate balance between privacy and security?
The TSA will be employing technology to minimize the extent that nudity can be viewed:
One reason the agency may be ready to go forward is that it has found what some see as a middle ground between security and privacy: “cloaking” software that turns the explicit images into something resembling a generic chalk outline of the body, identifying plastic, ceramic, biological and other nonmetallic and metallic objects on the body. American Science and Engineering said it felt its cloaking software – first introduced in July during testimony before a House of Representatives committee – adequately addressed privacy concerns.
“If you look at backscatter images in their raw form, they’re pretty explicit, no doubt about it,” said Bob Postle, American Science’s vice president of sales and marketing. But with the new software, he said, “it would be impossible to recognize from these images who we’re talking about here.”
There is little indication on how Americans would react to backscatter searches, either explicit or cloaked. There was a brief test in 2002 at Orlando International Airport, where backscatter was tried out along with several other emerging technologies, but the T.S.A. said the results were unavailable. According to Rapiscan, more than 90 percent of passengers searched while their machines have been being tried out at Heathrow Airport near London have chosen the backscatter over a pat-down.
Another issue is radiation exposure:
Radiation exposure is another concern for some. Both manufacturers’ machines fall well under voluntary standards put forth by the American National Standards Institute as well as limits outlined in a report by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements in 2002. But scientists like David J. Brenner, director of the Columbia University Radiological Research Accelerator Facility, who worked on the report, say there is no completely safe level of radiation.
“If you multiply that very small risk by, shall we say, 700 million, which is the number of people, roughly, who use airports in this country, then you’ve got a significant public health issue that one should be concerned about,” Mr. Brenner said. He cited particular concern for children – who he said can be up to 10 times more sensitive to radiation than adults – and for pregnant women.
Yet, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements report says the levels of radiation from backscatters fall well within the acceptable, lower limits for children and pregnant women.
Even if the exposure is small, would the accumulated exposure for frequent fliers pose a problem?
I wonder whether this new technology is worth the costs — both in terms of privacy and in terms of money. We already are providing tremendous security at the airport — more than any other mode of travel and more than almost all other potential terrorist targets. With recent news reports about how woefully unprepared we are for a potentail bird flu pandemic, I wonder whether we should be wasting our time and money on these X-ray machines. The greatest terrorist is Mother Nature, and her power makes human terrorists seem like gnats.
If you are interested in reading more about this issue, you should read The Naked Crowd by my colleague and friend, Jeffrey Rosen.
October 9, 2005 at 4:07 pm
Posted in: Privacy, Technology
Print This Post
Responses (13)
EPIC West: Electronic Privacy Information Center West Coast Office - October 10, 2005 at 3:14 pm
Privacy Prof’s New Blog: Concurringopinions.com
Fans of Daniel Solove’s blogging at Prawfsblawg and Balkinization should visit his new blog, Concurringopinions.com. Already, Dan has quite a bit of privacy commentary on the new blog, including a post about credit scoring post-Katrina and the Pubescan…
Bruce - October 10, 2005 at 3:53 pm
This is one of those instances in which the concerns of individuals about their privacy seems to me to overlap with the concerns of copyright owners about their works. Namely, my comfort with this system depends largely on the security of the images generated by it, and whether they are subject to being viewed and redistributed for purposes unrelated to airport security. Similarly, a content owner’s comfort in a home or personal use of content depends largely on the security of that use, and whether the content is subject to being viewed or redistributed beyond that use. In both cases, a trusted security mechanism governing use of digital information could have benefits to both parties (increased airport security, increased variety and portability of content).
John Burgess - October 11, 2005 at 6:38 pm
Based on the sample photo provided, I don’t think there’s much chance of matching an individual to his/her X-Ray portrait. Were there to be an electronic tag linking, say, the bording pass with the picture, perhaps there might be grounds to complain. If they were being projected on a large-screen TV, in real time, for all the queue-standers to enjoy, there might be reason to complain as well. Neither of those seem either present or projected.
But having a somewhat anatomically correct picture loose on the Internet is hardly going to raise eyes, forget attract an audience older than 8-year-olds. I’d rather “flash” for the camera and photo analyst than have something nasty sneaking aboard my flight.
Just in case, though, I’m going to corner the market on stick-on tags that say, “Implants”. I’ll sell them to TSA officials so that they can paste them on passengers as they pass through the portals of shame.
Lourdes - September 25, 2006 at 8:36 am
i would like to see what a weapon looks like in images,knife, plastic others
J. Allen - December 3, 2006 at 10:55 am
As a current student in a local Radiography Technology program, a great deal of x-ray radiation information is fresh in my mind.
One of the major concerns in medical diagnostic X-rays is skin exposure. Great pains are spent to limit skin exposure.
This devices is designed to irradiate the skin. This device raises a great deal of concern as it supposedly uses higher energy x-ray photons than diagnostic x-ray.
There is no ’safe’ x-ray. The radiation from x-rays is non-threshold. There is no ’safe’ dose. Any exposure runs the risk of causing cancer. Even if the device is only measuring backscatter, The higher energy xrays still pass through the body. It’s akin to basting someone with a fire-hose and measuring the spray that hits you in the face.
Lets not forget that just traveling cross country in an aircraft at high altitudes increases your exposure to cosmic radiation significantly (akin to a CT scan). Now these customers are dosed with ionizing radation before they even board the plane.
In the medical field, we tend to sheild sensitive body parts that are Highly sensitive to ionizing radition. This includes the thyroid and gonads. No shielding is used here.
In the medical field, radation therapy/diagnostics cannot be used without a doctor’s order. That is because the risk vs. benifit factors need to be concidered. With this device, its a lot of needless risk to innocent people and the only benefit is a gambled one that you may be able to stop a threat ..should you find one.
This device goes against all ideas of radiation protection being taught to those medical professionals who’s job is to protect patients from unneeded radation exposure and its proven, documented health risks.
Rebecca - December 27, 2006 at 6:21 pm
The discription of the software seems to indicate that the software merely transforms the original vivid image of the naked body to a sketch outline, but the original image is still viewable and saved on the database.
Rebecca - December 27, 2006 at 6:21 pm
The description of the software seems to indicate that the software merely transforms the original vivid image of the naked body to a sketch outline, but the original image is still viewable and saved on the database.
James Hilton - June 1, 2007 at 1:23 am
After intensive research for a book I just wrote on the subject of x-ray safety (Playing With Fire), it is almost unbelievable that any competent and honest scientist or doctor could, with a straight face, argue that medically unjustified exposure to ionizing radiation is not a precurser to cancer, especially for infants and children. ALL x-rays cause genetic mutations which accumulate with each additional exposure, regardless of how tiny the dose.
Sylvie Frossard - April 1, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Do we have a choice:
March 31, 2008
Dear Friends,
I have created a new poll “Health Concern from Backscatter Screening at Airports for Kids under 11”, a very hot and controversial topic.
It seems that “Backscatter X Rays” are going to take over the “Security Gates”. There are definite concerns with even the security-gate issue. The devil’s argument is that the magnetic field the kids are exposed to is very small, not more than magnetic field of earth. Now, look at this. Magnetic field of earth is one part in a hundred-thousand tesla, but it is uniform, and our body has adapted to it. Now, passing through gates (current does not go without wires, so you won’t have current in your body, but magnetic field travels in vacuum), you experience the field there. The magnetic field in your brain is of the order of one part in 10 000 000 000 000 tesla (13 zeros), and I don’t like kids getting through gates under any circumstances.
Also, consider the emotional scar from the following situation.
Alarm at the security gate beeps for reasons unknown to parent or child. Airport authorities label the child as a potential traveling bomb, and forcibly strip the child naked, sometimes in public, the child, totally unprepared for the situation, not realizing what is happening to him or her.
Now, consider backscatter X rays, which penetrates clothes and gets images. What would it cause to human skin upon reflection? How much dose would be built up for a frequent traveler? What would be their effect on kids, when they get married? Would girls experience breast cancer, blood cancer or ovarian cancer at a later age? We do not know the answers as yet. The question is to let kids experience this because of “security”. Here, we have to compromise between security, modesty and privacy. I am proposing an optimized solution in this poll, and would like to get your frank views and comments. Poll address is:
http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/330827
Also, there is a new launch of “Clothing and health policy for kids under 11 in school”. The address is:
http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/330702
Please fill that out too. Many thanks. A new version of “Thoroughness of Physical Examination” shall be available soon.
Regards,
Sylvie Frossard
sylvie_frossard@yahoo.fr
Sylvie Frossard - April 1, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Do we have a choice:
March 31, 2008
Dear Friends,
I have created a new poll “Health Concern from Backscatter Screening at Airports for Kids under 11”, a very hot and controversial topic.
It seems that “Backscatter X Rays” are going to take over the “Security Gates”. There are definite concerns with even the security-gate issue. The devil’s argument is that the magnetic field the kids are exposed to is very small, not more than magnetic field of earth. Now, look at this. Magnetic field of earth is one part in a hundred-thousand tesla, but it is uniform, and our body has adapted to it. Now, passing through gates (current does not go without wires, so you won’t have current in your body, but magnetic field travels in vacuum), you experience the field there. The magnetic field in your brain is of the order of one part in 10 000 000 000 000 tesla (13 zeros), and I don’t like kids getting through gates under any circumstances.
Also, consider the emotional scar from the following situation.
Alarm at the security gate beeps for reasons unknown to parent or child. Airport authorities label the child as a potential traveling bomb, and forcibly strip the child naked, sometimes in public, the child, totally unprepared for the situation, not realizing what is happening to him or her.
Now, consider backscatter X rays, which penetrates clothes and gets images. What would it cause to human skin upon reflection? How much dose would be built up for a frequent traveler? What would be their effect on kids, when they get married? Would girls experience breast cancer, blood cancer or ovarian cancer at a later age? We do not know the answers as yet. The question is to let kids experience this because of “security”. Here, we have to compromise between security, modesty and privacy. I am proposing an optimized solution in this poll, and would like to get your frank views and comments. Poll address is:
http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/330827
Also, there is a new launch of “Clothing and health policy for kids under 11 in school”. The address is:
http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/330702
Please fill that out too. Many thanks. A new version of “Thoroughness of Physical Examination” shall be available soon.
Regards,
Sylvie Frossard
sylvie_frossard@yahoo.fr
Dania - July 2, 2008 at 11:55 am
I just have one question,
What happend with the pregnat woman will be going throught to this X.ray machine?
Dania - July 2, 2008 at 11:55 am
I just have one question,
What happend with the pregnat woman will be going throught to this X.ray machine?
Sylvie Frossard - July 10, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Backscatter-X rays: low intensity, but high energy
What does the above mean?
To understand, let’s go to some basics. According to quantum theory, light consists of small packets of energy, called photons. The energy carried by each photon depends upon the frequency of light. In fact, the energy possessed by a photon (of light or X ray) is directly proportional to energy. Hence, X-ray photon shall, always, carry more energy as compared to visible light. Certain processes, like photoelectric effect and Compton effect depend, critically, on the energy of the photon participating the processes. Hence, light below a certain frequency (above a certain wavelength), shall not produce photoelectric effect in certain metals, no matter how intense is the light (intensity could be visualized as the number of photons striking a surface/passing through a given area in 1 second).
The ‘nature’ of damage depends on the energy of the photons interacting with the surface.
The ‘extent’ of damage depends on the number of photons (intensity) interacting with the surface.
Therefore, it should be very clear to the end-user, what the parent is accepting, when using low-intensity-, but high-energy-X rays (in fact, in the language of nuclear physicists, it is medium energy)
Technical Note:
Cross section for photoelectric effect is high for low-energy photons, drops as energy is increased. The cross-section increases for Compton effect and maximum for intermediate energies, drops off for higher energies. When the energy is more than 1.02 MeV, pair production is possible and the cross section increases for higher energies.
Leave a Reply