Feds Say Airport Body Scanners are ?Minimally Intrusive?

The government said late Thursday the full-body imaging scanners being deployed to airports nationwide are ?reasonable,? ?minimally intrusive,? and their ?interference with individual liberty is limited.?
The Justice Department?s remarks (.pdf) were the first publicly explaining the scanners to the courts. The legal filing was responding to a leading privacy group?s lawsuit urging the courts to suspend their use for, among other things, Fourth Amendment privacy breaches.
The Justice Department, on behalf of the Transportation Security Agency, conceded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) machines are not foolproof. But their privacy threats, however slim, are designed to protect against terrorists concealing ?non-metallic items,? the government said.
?While TSA has not proclaimed that any single screening device or procedure can provide a 100-percent guarantee of security,? the government wrote, ?pre-procurement testing and initial operational use of AIT indicates that the deployed systems are indeed capable of detecting small quantities of non-metallic items that passengers have concealed on their persons.?
The TSA in March began deploying about 450 of the machines, at a cost of about $1 billion. A brief public outcry against the machines erupted and fizzled around Thanksgiving. The media frenzy came weeks after the Electronic Privacy Information Center urged the appellate court to take action against the devices.
The government responded Thursday, saying that Congress required the TSA to use advanced technology to protect the airports, and that the machines ?deter and detect without physical contact.?
The Justice Department also said that in the post 9/11 world, the populace should expect the procedures, even if they are believed to be invasive.
?Since 9/11, attempted terrorist attacks against airlines have evolved to become even more sophisticated, including the use of nonmetallic explosives as well as other potential threats in the form of powders, liquids, and other nonmetallic materials, ? the government wrote. ?AIT screening procedures advance the public interest in preventing terrorist attacks.?
Wired.com, however, has written extensively that the machines may not be that effective when it comes to body cavities.

What?s more, the government said the screening process is constitutional because it is ?narrowly tailored? to ensuring airport security. In addition, ?the transportation security officer who views AIT images during the screening process is always located remotely from the individual being screened, and within a walled and locked room,? the government said.
The Justice Department noted that passengers have the option of bypassing the machines if they are chosen to go through one. Passengers refusing to partake undergo an intense pat-down search that is similar to the ones given to travelers who set off the rank-and-file metal detectors. The government said 98 percent of passengers acquiesce to the advanced screening.
In case you were wondering, a legal challenge to TSA procedures is usually lodged with the Columbia Circuit appellate court.
Here is a sampling of key nuggets from the government?s brief:
*The privacy safeguards incorporated into the implementation of AIT ensure that AIT screening is appropriately-tailored and minimally intrusive. ?
*?As terrorist threats continue to evolve, the most effective available means of deterring and preventing terrorist attacks requires screening for both metallic and nonmetallic weapons and explosives prior to boarding. ?
*?As the experts at TSA have determined, when implemented along with several other layers of security screening, AIT represents a key layer of defense against terrorist threats.?
*The technology can ?deter and detect, without physical contact, both metallic and nonmetallic threats concealed under layers of airplane passenger clothing.?
*?AIT is being deployed as a primary screening mechanism precisely because metal detectors are not adequate to detect non-metallic explosives and weapons that may be concealed underneath clothing. The AIT scanners identify concealed objects and flag anomalies for further inspection.?
A hearing date has been set for March 10.
See Also:
100 Naked Citizens: 100 Leaked Body Scans
National Opt-Out Day Called Against Invasive Body Scanners
Airport Scanners Can Store, Transmit Images
Lawmakers Move to Eject Nude Scanners From New York Airports ?
Body Scanners Might Violate U.K. Child-Protection Laws
11 More U.S. Airports Get Body Scanners
Powered by WizardRSS | Work At Home JobsAir Purifiers