Surprise — TSA body scanners will retain and transmit nude images
The federal government is hell-bent on installing full-body x-ray scanners in airports across the country in the wake of the failed, Christmas Day bomb attempt by the Nigerian Brainiac. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has directed that the government will spend tens of millions of our dollars to purchase and install the fancy-dandy, but largely un-proven, ”back-scatter” machines as quickly as possible. In an effort to quell serious privacy concerns that have been raised about the graphic images the devices create, the government repeatedly has assured the public that the images revealed to Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees manning the consoles, cannot be retained or transmitted.
Well, surprise, surprise — the government is not telling us the truth. In fact, the specifications for the manufacture of the machines mandates that they have the ability to store images on hard disk storage, and that they possess the ability to send the images. Of course, the transmission of such data creates the obvious possibility that hackers could access the data and print out or view the images. The images themselves portray people without clothes on, and include relatively clear depiction of genitalia.
The information establishing that the full-body scanners will have the ability to retain and transmit the images they capture was obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a well-known and highly-regarded public interest research center in Washington, D.C. The organization has sought additional information regarding the machines, but remains engaged in a dispute with TSA over its release.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
139 comments Add your comment
jconservative
January 15th, 2010
10:22 am
If you do not like it, do not fly. Drive.
The American people have yet to come to grips with the fact that the US is in a war, and in war you take casualties. We will try to reduce the casualties, but we will not eliminate casualties. In the end the American people, to feel safe, will agree to the full-body x-ray scanners.
Remember this, “…those who willingly give up their liberties in the name of security, deserve neither…”. (Attributed to Ben Franklin)
James D
January 15th, 2010
10:23 am
Sam,
TSA is going to get one hell of a suprise when they see the Gelbwurst
your packing.
Shar
January 15th, 2010
10:24 am
I think this is a diabolically clever more by Homeland Security. These explosive folks are comforted by the notion that as soon as they push the button they’ll be surrounded by legions of lovely virgins as their reward for sacrificing themselves to Allah. The scanners will offer proof positive that, in fact, the people grouped around their jihadi molecules will be jiggly Americans of all levels of experience. In fact, Mr. Surprise Underwear should have the screening shots played incessantly on his cell wall. Hey, I’m with Jenn on both the jigglies and the preference that people not see them but humiliation has a purpose if the clothesless ME can make a terrorist nauseous!
LibraryJim
January 15th, 2010
10:54 am
Watch out, here it comes, you just KNOW someone will come up with this for real:
“Nudist AirLines: why take any chances? Fly Naked!”
“Those who would give up essential liberties for a little security, deserve neither” — Ben Franklin
Big D
January 15th, 2010
11:02 am
I have the best idea… not PC, but I don’t give a DAMN. If you look like you are a MUSLIM you don’t fly until you prove your not. When the so called good ones get tired of walking and riding the Grey Hound they can blame their “BAD ONES” and DO SOMETHING about it. I’m sick and tired of hearing about the ” good ones” until they PROVE it I’m all for “kill em all and let God sort’em out”.
Jims
January 15th, 2010
11:23 am
The gov’ment has lied again. No surprise.
Obozo, peeonlosi and racistreid need to go – NOW.
Don’t forget: Drug test for welfare.
The American People
January 15th, 2010
11:28 am
Down With Dems In 2K10
Who cares!
January 15th, 2010
11:31 am
1. Can these scanners be set up to screen all of you “except” your head? Maybe that would alleviate the fears of the paranoid.
2. Do you really care who sees what when you get blown up?
3. Agree with the blogger who said flying is not a “right”, it is a priviledge. If you don’t play by the rules, don’t play. You can walk, run, ride a bike, or drive – just stay off the planes.
4. Where did all the conservative “If Bushie says we need it I’m doing it” attitudes go? Did you decide since Obama is President everything the government does to keep us safe is evil – or did it finally click in your head that Bushie/Cheney made us all less safe?
Swede Atlanta
January 15th, 2010
11:32 am
Re: BigD @ 11:02
I share your frustration and wish there was a very simple solution to this problem. It is absolutely true that nearly all of the recent threats have been young Muslim men of Middle Eastern origin.
But remember Reid, the shoebomber, wasn’t wearing any Muslim dress nor look Muslim. It is well known that Al Qaeda is recruiting converts to Islam as sleeper cells not only in the U.S. but throughout the West.
So your plan isn’t foolproof and if enacted, would just mean the next attempt would be by someone who didn’t look Muslim.
Second, this would be great recruiting material for Al Qaeda – “See this is a war on Islam, look how they treat our brothers and sisters”.
Third, without a change to the U.S. Constitution, this would be unlawful. Government discrimination based on religion is afforded the highest degree of scrutiny by the courts. It would be very hard for the government to prevail if we were to simply ban anyone who looked like or were of a particular faith.
I for one am not interested in opening up the Constitution that has served us well and start playing with it. I think there are less dramatic solutions.
You Distort/We Deride
January 15th, 2010
11:33 am
After 8 years of lies and obfuscations by the Bush administration regarding our civil liberties, which many of you not only endorsed but vigorously defended, I find it humorous that you now find yourself whining about Obama’s distortions as if they were exclusively the modus operandi of a liberal government.
Bush stripped us bare. Obama is simply bending us over.
Big D
January 15th, 2010
11:55 am
S.A. I agree that it would not be the end all cure, but what we are offering up does nothing but inconvenience the very people that have nothing to do with it and do nothing to make it hard on the bad. In the prosecution of the “common defense ” clause of the Constitution we can make protection decisions without amendments…the internment of Japanese citizens in WWII.
rdh
January 15th, 2010
12:00 pm
You will NOT be safer. These machines would not have caught the crotch bomber. This is just an attempt by the Obama administration to show that they are “doing something”, even though what they are doing will not catch a single crotch bomber.
For all those who believe that it is perfectly okay:
Those machines will not catch something hidden inside a body cavity. As soon as the next bomber stick something up his rectum, will you feel like it is appropriate for you to strip, bend over and be anally probed to make sure you aren’t carrying something? Whether you like it or not, that is next. Do you feel that getting anally searched is more agreeable than profiling?
Invisus Inauditus Impavidus
January 15th, 2010
12:03 pm
Time to profile ! “Affirmative Action” is profiling and the government mandates that !!
Hillbilly Deluxe
January 15th, 2010
12:05 pm
Maybe somebody could invent a machine that does this scan and a full body CatScan at the same time. Everybody could get a check-up while going through security. Reckon it would cut down on health care costs?
Jims
January 15th, 2010
12:06 pm
PROFILE NOW! obozo already breaking laws (see insurance “reform”) so who cares if we profile – unless, of course, YOU do. And you know who YOU are.
Big D
January 15th, 2010
12:10 pm
S.A> I ‘m sorry I did not address the dramatic portion of your blog. If I had my way it would be much more dramatic than the Twin Towers being bought down and more along the lines of what they did to Daniel Pearl. I know this will offend all the naive, but I sorry we are in a WAR for our survival. All you and the Government are doing is pulling the covers over your head and praying it will go away. It’s not going away! These are not times for cowards, these are times that we need to be brave and see the enemy for what he is. Man up and start using some common sense…”if quacks like a duck and floats” it’s a duck.
Swede Atlanta
January 15th, 2010
12:17 pm
Big D @ 11:55
Remember that the internment of not only Japanese and citizens of Japanese ancestry but also those of German and Italian origin was done to ensure these persons did not enter military exclusion zones. While the Supreme Court upheld the exclusion zones and associated internment in 1944, it did not deal with the issue of discrimination on national origin. These exclusion zones were applicable to ANYONE the military thought was a threat.
Legal scholars tend to agree that had the issue of ancestry been addressed by the court, the outcome could have been very different. The court didn’t deal with the issue of whether it was lawful to intern someone simply because of their ancestry. They ruled on the broader question of whether the exclusion zones and corresponding internment procedures were constitutional. Under today’s jurisprudence I think the implementation of the policy along strict ethnic lines would not fare so well.
One difference between then and now is that at the time was there was hardly any way to really know if they were a threat or would become a threat over time. Internment was a way to keep anyone who might be or become a threat out of the exclusion zones.
The problem with applying that rationale to passengers boarding an airplane is it is possible to determine if someone boarding an airplane possesses materials on his/her body that could be used to harm passengers or the entire aircraft. It could be full body searches, hand searches of all luggage, carry-on and checked, etc. but it is possible.
Under strict scrutiny under the Constitution the government must show there is basically absolutely no other way to achieve its objective, in this case protecting passengers and aircraft. Since there arguably are other methods that are less discriminatory this would be unconstitutional. It would also be unconstitutional because it is overly broad, i.e. it discriminates against people who are no threat, i.e. the majority of Muslims that fly on American aircraft.
BIG BUCK
January 15th, 2010
12:18 pm
AGAIN.. HOW IN THE HELL ARE PEOPLE GOING TO ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN TO CHILDREN. WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO? WE ARE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT OR FAMLIES AND WE ARE ABOUT TO BE LIVING IN A DICTATORSHIP. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE SIGNED UP FOR AS AMERICANS. WHATS NEXT…. MS. CAN YOU PLEASE SPREED YOUR LEGS BEFORE BOARDING. GIVE ME A BREAK!
Mark
January 15th, 2010
12:23 pm
For those who have quoted: “Those who would give up essential liberties for a little security, deserve neither” — Ben Franklin
Is not being screened at the airport an “essential liberty”? Perhaps we should add it to the Bill of Rights?
Mark
January 15th, 2010
12:31 pm
rdh: There is a difference between being safer and being perfectly safe. The new machines would make us safer, even if not safe. Denying it is like saying that we should not lock our doors because it does not make us safe since the thieves can get some other entry.
Invisus Inauditus Impavidus
January 15th, 2010
12:35 pm
To Swede Atlanta:
I heard a black APD sergeant call a radio talk show a few years back. He worked the evening watch in a very dangerous part of Atlanta and told the host that he stopped “every” white person he saw on his beat. He added “they were either lost and he needed to get them out of there for their own safety or they were there to buy drugs”. To him that was “profiling” and he said he would continue to do it.
Makes good sense to me …………….
Swede Atlanta
January 15th, 2010
12:41 pm
Big Buck @ 12:18
I’m opposed to these full body scans but not because of my fears they affect my rights or my privacy. It is because they haven’t been shown to be effective. Trust me, those who wish us ill will find some way to integrate explosives into clothing in a way that it is not detected or potentially even inserting the explosives into the body. These scanners are a waste of money because by the time they are fully deployed the bad guys will have figured out a way around them.
If they worked and, despite what the scanner systems can do (i.e. saving and/or transmitting images), if they were deployed and implemented properly with appropriate safeguards, I would have less opposition.
But deploying them doesn’t mean we live in a dictatorship. Flying is not a right. It is a mode of transportation and the government, in furtherance of a need to ensure it is safe, can impose conditions on its use.
I’m trying to understand how you think deploying these (despite the fact I don’t think they are very effective) means you live in a dictatorship. Remember, you do not have to go through them. You have the option of being physically patted down. It is your option. Either way it is entirely reasonable to ensure you aren’t travelling with something that could be used to harm other passengers or the aircraft.
The issue with children is a valid concern. Unfortunately I don’t know what to do about it. They need to be checked for explosives. So the question is, assuming these scanners work, is to scan them or have them physically patted down. As soon as you exempt children, seniors, etc. the bad guys will simply place the explosives on them to get through security.
But I fail to see how these scanners make this a dictatorship. Have you ever visited a country that is/was a dictatorship, e.g. Cuba or North Korea? There is a very big difference between them and the U.S. That isn’t to say I am not concerned about other forms of surveillance being used by the government such as monitoring and saving millions of telephone conversations and e-mail messages.
Aftermath Of The Haiti Earthquake: Piles Of Bodies In The Streets And The Stench Of Death And Destructions Described As Overwhelming
January 15th, 2010
12:55 pm
[...] turns out that the new TSA full body scanners going into airports across the U.S. will be able to retain and even transmit nude images of [...]
FlyinHigh
January 15th, 2010
1:11 pm
I like what dirtyDawg said about terrorists developing explosives shaped like genitalia… I can hear the TSA pervs now, “Well hello there Mr. Air Traveler, is that a bomb under your pants or are you just happy to see me?”
Rich Pasco
January 15th, 2010
1:41 pm
A few thoughts:
Backscatter scanners don’t use X-rays but millimeter waves.
If you’re going to post in a public forum, Learn how to spell “clothes”, “lose” and even “penile.”
Simple nudity (absent sexual behavior) is not pornography.
It is disrespectful to call someone an “idiot” just because you disagree with them.
I am not harmed if someone gets sexually aroused by looking at me.
J. Craig
January 15th, 2010
1:53 pm
“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.” Thomas Jefferson
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Benjamin Franklin
It is not a matter of one’s “right to fly” but rather his constitutional right prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures provided by the 4th Amendment. They are endeavoring to search citizens without probable cause and without a warrant; this is unacceptable.
Jims
January 15th, 2010
1:56 pm
You quote Legal scholars?
Wow, you are woozy from that Kool Aide!
Keep them stupid, keep them poor
And they WILL come back for more
Swede Atlanta
January 15th, 2010
2:00 pm
Ref: J. Craig @ 1:53
Good luck with that argument.
First I don’t think the Supreme Court would find these searches “unreasonable”. There are compelling state interests in ensuring the safety of air travel to consider these searches reasonable.
Under your logic they couldn’t open your suitcase when you re-enter the country, searches of individuals entering courthouses and other government buildings, the searches that were done at inaugurations, etc. would all be prohibited.
Jims
January 15th, 2010
2:03 pm
S.A.
they really did a good job keeping out the party crashers at the w(?)hitehouse didn’t they?
You need to understand that a marxist society does not work. PERIOD.
J. Craig – you are spot on!
Swede Atlanta
January 15th, 2010
2:15 pm
Ref: Jims @ 2:03
I didn’t comment on the party crashers so please don’t drag unrelated incidents into the discussion. I am not in favor of these scanners because they are not effective. But I can’t see any logic under which their use is unconstitutional. You still have the right to be physically patted down. Ensuring people don’t get on an airplane with explosive is a compelling state interest. Your rights are not unlimited but are subject to reasonable government regulation.
What marxist society are you referring to? Do you know what a Marxist society is? The U.S. is hardly a marxist society is a classless society under which all means of production are commonly owned. The U.S. definitely has classes based on wealth. The means of production are predominantly owned by private parties, not the government. If anything our government is owned by private interests in the form of lobbyists.
Rational Person
January 15th, 2010
2:15 pm
And, once again, Bob is distorting the truth.
TSA has explained that the machines can store and print when they are being used for training at TSA. When they are shipped to the airports, the storing and printing capabilities are switched off, and the people at the airport cannot turn them on.
The images themselves are not Penthouse material. They look like a robot in a swimsuit.
Since they now sell ceramic knives that dogs and metal detectors can’t pick up, something like this is plainly necessary–as the majority of Americans now realize.
Big D
January 15th, 2010
2:26 pm
Swede, You presume I do not understand our current policy that has been totally modified by the judgments brought forth by the A.C.L.U. and other liberal entities. What I am saying to you is this is academic in a real life war situation that we are embarking on. Let me give you some real life back ground. I grew up in a Muslim country( Tripoli Libya )and I KNOW how they think and react. I spent six years in war zones and understand the realities of life. I have no idea of your background, but your ideas make you seem to be lacking in experience of our current situation i.e. Neville Chamberlain, Joe Kennedy.
Big D
January 15th, 2010
2:37 pm
This for all the liberals with their naive ideas about how to handle security and not have enough SENSE to listen. Haiti is a prime example of this folly and how we, who have given them BILLIONS never once made them stock pile water and food stocks after a real scientist told them and us there was a 80% chance there was going to be an earthquake. We are doing the same thing with our planes, borders and ports. We are being told and doing absolutely nothing about except talk.
Swede Atlanta
January 15th, 2010
2:42 pm
Ref: Big D
I also grew up in Tripoli Libya from the age of 9 to 17. My father worked for Marathon Oil. So please don’t lecture me about your superior knowledge about Muslims.
War experience is valuable but it is not a pre-requisite to knowledge or understanding.
I am by no means lacking in experience about the current situation. I fully appreciate the threats to our nation. I have traveled extensively throughout the Middle East and Africa over the past 10 years as part of my job.
My point is we can protect ourselves while still respecting our Constitution and our laws.
Big Dik Al
January 15th, 2010
2:42 pm
I can’t wait to be scanned. My jaw dropping length and girth should be saluted, stored, and spread to every airport and Fed investigator in our mighty nation. They’ll be proud to be American once they eyeball my stunning shaft with its throbbing purple veinage and glistening mushroom head. Why, I just might have sex with the TSA agents right there on the airport floor.
Byron Mathison Kerr
January 15th, 2010
2:57 pm
I believe there are ways to regulate the use of these machines so that only professionally trained screeners have access to the images. I would expect some small level of abuse, with harsh penalties, of course, but there is no such thing as perfection. Many people talk like they are only going to hire pornographers for the job!
It could also be handled like public restrooms or locker room showers with separate machines for men and women that have screeners of the same gender. Personally, it would not matter to me one way or the other.
I cannot understand why this is such a big deal. If I submit to a screening, I know everyone else is submitting to a screening. If it lessons the chance that I might have to wrestle some terrorist in flight to keep him or her from igniting a bomb, or dying in a sabotaged plane crash, well, it just seems like a very small price to pay.
——
“Thank heaven I’m not that modest.” — Scarlett O’Hara, Gone With the Wind (1939)
Big D
January 15th, 2010
2:58 pm
Swede, That’s great that we shared a moment in time. My father was Air Force at Wheelis where I spent a lot of time playing base ball with the ” oil kids”. I’m not trying to lecture you and you are right in saying war experience is not a pre-requisite, but to have both is better. I am a hard core believer in the Constitution and give copy’s of the Federalist as gifts to my liberal friends. I am simply saying we will in time either be on the offense or we will be be playing catch up. I would rather shoot first and not have to spend a lot of time ducking.
Swede Atlanta
January 15th, 2010
3:20 pm
Ref: BigD @ 2:58
Wow! It is a small world. I attented the Oil Company school and we lived in Garden City. Most of my friends lived out in Georgiapopoli (sp) or were out at Wheelis.
I would like to visit again especially to see the ruins at Sabratha and Leptis Magna. But the climate isn’t right yet.
Invisus Inauditus Impavidus
January 15th, 2010
3:25 pm
Swede Atlanta:
Did you miss my 12:35?
Also, I think what the others are saying is there is the “philosophical world” and then there is the “real world”.
joe matarotz
January 15th, 2010
3:27 pm
Tens of millions of OUR dollars (I like that, Bob. Kinda makes us sound like partners) to buy these machines. Cheap at half the price. The real cost kicks in when those poor TSA agents start getting paid hazardous duty pay the first time they have to view me in flagrant delicto. Egads, I pity them. The psychological damage will be dreadful. Thanks for sharing, Bobolink.
Mikey
January 15th, 2010
3:41 pm
I really don’t get this one. People who think it is perfectly fine to have our calls bugged without a warrant or to detain people without a hearing because they are designated by the president as a terrorist somehow are freaked out about some fat TSA guard getting a three second look at a gray scale image of their body. I am confident these people can find much more stimulating images online in about 10 seconds. What is the absolute worst case scenario? That someone somehow downloads your image, then shows it to people who couldn’t possibly know in a million years that it is you. If that is your biggest fear in life, then congratulations.
LibraryJim
January 15th, 2010
3:44 pm
Rich @ 1:41 wrote:
“I am not harmed if someone gets sexually aroused by looking at me.”
Me, neither, but I would be very surprised!
when are they going to come out with the x-ray glasses version?
J. Craig
January 15th, 2010
4:17 pm
Swede Atlanta,
The searches may seem “reasonable” in that there is a reason, but that is not synonymous with probable cause. By your logic the government should in fact control all business and private enterprise because citizens have misused the marketplace; past misuse is a reason and provides a “reasonable” excuse for seizure, but that does not make it constitutional.
The greatest protector of our land is our citizens, not our government. The government is too far removed to understand the needs of its people. This is why the constitution is so brief; the founding fathers knew that, in order for liberty, and even the very country, to survive the central government must be small passing most responsibilities to the states and to the citizens themselves.
This shouldn’t be up to the government anyway, it should be left up to the airports; however, one must keep in mind the social contract theory (the foundation of our country), in that the citizens, government, and private businesses are only given freedom insomuch as it doesn’t infringe on another’s liberty.
Money might be better spend devising a system by which one’s personal liberties are not thrown by the way side. The government is ours, we are not its; at least that was the sentiment of the constitution. Things have so far digressed from the original ideal this is scarcely the USA that was founded.
I am not alright with surrendering any more of my personal liberties to the government whose soul purpose is to protect those liberties they are now revoking.
Swede Atlanta
January 15th, 2010
4:21 pm
Ref: Mikey @ 3:41
Aside from the fact I don’t think these scanners will make us any safer, I completely agree. The image will not be sufficiently detailed to make out a person’s face. The system will not know your name or have any way to identify who you are.
So even if they broadcast the images all over the Internet this is not going to cause anyone any harm.
But I remain opposed to the investment because as soon as we get them deployed the bad guys will figure out a way to circumvent them – integrating the explosives somehow into the weave of fabric, shaping them to look like body parts, carrying the explosives in the anal canal, etc. I’m just not sure they buy us that much protection.
I guess the argument is that at least we get ahead of the terrorists for a little while but know in the end that they will figure out how to counter them.
MrLiberty
January 15th, 2010
4:26 pm
Look at the damn images yourself instead of speculating or worse, believing the lying government or the profiteering manufacturers of these devices:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
Its the internet for god sakes. This information is readily available.
MrLiberty
January 15th, 2010
4:28 pm
You people just don’t care about freedom or liberty or anything anymore do you???
You are ABSOLUTELY what’s wrong with america!
Rational Person
January 15th, 2010
4:31 pm
Who cares!
January 15th, 2010
11:31 am
1. Can these scanners be set up to screen all of you “except” your head? Maybe that would alleviate the fears of the paranoid.
===========
They already are set to blur out the face.
Invisus Inauditus Impavidus
January 15th, 2010
4:32 pm
I guess “Swede Atlanta” doesn’t like me. My feelings are hurt.
MrLiberty
January 15th, 2010
4:33 pm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
Look at the images. They are not outlines of robots, they are not x-rays, they do not show stick figures, they show you in a black and white naked picture. They show your girfried that way, your mom, your grandma, your daughter, your son, you.
But what they really show is how little you care about freedom and liberty or about what your government is doing in Muslim countries and has been doing for the past 150 years that is causing these people to be upset enough at you and other americans to want us dead.
They also show very clearly what a pathetic excuse for a nation we have become.
Richard Jackson
January 15th, 2010
4:35 pm
Why does that blasted Ben Franklin ALWAYS get credit for MY genius quote???