Elder 1
Justin Elder
Kade Parry
English 1010
03 May 2013
Digital Strip Search
The Transportation Security Administration has been familiar with controversy since it
was created. The TSA was created on November 19, 2001 as part of The Aviation and
Transportation Security Act in response of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The TSA
is responsible for the security of all civil aviation functions from the FAA (TSA). The big
question is, are the security policies of the TSA too strict? The Fourth Amendment states, “The
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
the persons or things to be seized.” (Bill of Rights). Some argue that the TSA’s screening
procedure and item restrictions are invasive to their privacy and go against the Fourth
Amendment. Some of the most recent topics are the TSA’s controversial advanced imaging
technology, or AIT scanners. The AIT scanners use X-ray and millimeter-scale waves to create
like-nude images of passengers in an attempt locate items that the metal detectors may not pick
up (Fuller). The person viewing the images never interacts or sees the passengers and the person
assisting the passengers never sees the images.
The consumer or the general public have mix views about the TSA’s policies, although
most tend to think the policies are too strict. Many people argue that the AIT scanners are too
invasive and refuse to go through them. People who refuse to go through the scanners are subject
Elder 2
to an enhanced pat-down search. These enhanced pat-downs have led to many lawsuits and
sexual harassments cases. One report said when the passenger, “refused to go through the AIT or
have his genitals touched in the pat-down, he was threatened with a civil suit and a $10,000
fine.”(Fuller). Privacy advocates also argue that the AIT scanners have an additional effect on
people who have been victim to rape or sexual harassment. Although many do not approve of the
AIT scanners the TSA found during the initial tests that 98 percent of passengers chose the
scanners over the pat-down. Passengers have also argued that the AIT scanners expose people to
unhealthy doses of radiation. More recently the TSA announced they would be removing the full
body scanners from airports because they were unable to come up with a software update to
protect the privacy of the passengers.
The passenger’s main concerns seem to be focused around the intrusion of privacy the
AIT scanners incur. After reading through all of the information about the AIT scanners it made
sense why some people feel the way they do. The argument about rape and sexually harassment
victims makes sense and should not be exposed to two options that are both intrusive.
The TSA began testing the AIT full body scanners in 2007 and began installing them in
airport in 2008 (TSA). The scanners were promoted as a safe efficient way to detected dangerous
or prohibited items. The TSA supports the promotion of the scanners stating, “According to a
CBS poll, 4 out of 5 Americans support the use of advanced imaging technology at airports
nationwide.” Janet Napolitano, the head of the Department of Homeland Security, in an attempt
to advocate for the privacy of the scanners stated, “The imaging technology that we use cannot
store, export, print, or transmit images.” (Fuller). AIT scanners also provide a quicker solution to
people who normally would set off metal detectors with conditions such as joint replacements.
The Department of Homeland Security also explains that the people viewing the images are
Elder 3
isolated from the person being scanned. The Transportation Security Officer or TSO viewing the
image only keeps the image on the screen long enough to detect any suspicious items. The
isolated TSO communicates with the TSO interacting with the individual with a red/green light
system. If a red light is given the TSO uses a radio to tell the other TSO where the suspicious
area is located on the individual. After the scanning is complete the image is deleted (Golden).
Multiple studies have also been done on the amount of radiation passengers are exposed to. One
study from done by The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory found that the
does to scanned individuals were within the requirements.
The TSA’s arguments for the AIT scanner are based around the idea of safety. The TSA’s
job is to provide security for civil aviation. Their arguments for the AIT scanners provide a good
point that although intrusive they make flying safer. However, The Electronic Privacy
Information Center found that the AIT scanners could store images. Later studies have shown
that the AIT scanners may emit more radiation that originally thought. One strong argument the
TSA provides is the TSO that sees the image never interact with the individual. This process
seems like a good compromise to the privacy issue and is handled very well.
Airline pilots in the past have refused to go through the scanners due to the chance of
radiation exposure and invasion of privacy. Captain Dave Bates, president of the Allied Pilots
Association provided a strong argument against the use of AIT scanners stating, “Airline pilots
in the United States already receive higher doses of radiation in their on-the-job environment
than nearly every other category of worker in the United States, including nuclear power plant
employees.” (Yin). Multiple unions encourage pilots to request enhanced pat-downs as opposed
to going through AIT scanners. According to multiple studies the scanners deliver a dose of
radiation 15% less than the Federal Drug Administration allowable single dose of 25 microrem.
Elder 4
However, because the radiation is concentrated only on the skin and underlining tissue experts
argue that the dose to the skin may be dangerously high (Elias). Pilots have also argued that the
alternative pat-down is disgraceful for a pilot in uniform. After refusing the AIT scanners and
opting for the enhanced pat-down “some pilots have said they felt so violated after a pat-down,
they were unfit to fly.” (Alfonsi and Hopper). One US Airways pilot described the pat-down as
sexual molestation and vomited in the driveway to the thought of going back to work with the
possibility of a similar encounter.
The pilots make a strong argument against the radiation exposure of the AIT scanners. It
is mentioned that not only are the pilots exposed to these scanners constantly but their profession
causes them to be exposed higher levels or radiation more frequently due to the high altitude they
fly at regularly (Hunter). If the pilots did chose to opt out of the AIT scanning process this would
submit the pilots to many of the enhanced pat-down process.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center, also known as EPIC, has been one of the
leading organizations against the AIT full body scanners. EPIC files a lawsuit against the TSA to
prevent the deployment of the AIT scanners at airports. EPIC has argued that the full body
scanner program violates the Administrative Procedures Act, the Privacy Act, the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act, and the Fourth Amendment (EPIC). The AIT scanners are also limited
on their detection capabilities. The scanners produce a low enough dose of radiation to only be
able to see the surface of the skin and would not be able to detect hidden items hidden within
body folds. EPIC also argues that the AIT scanners also violate the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act contradicting Muslims and other religious beliefs in modesty and covering their
bodies (EPIC).
Elder 5
EPIC played a key role in the final decision of having the full body scanners removed
from airports. The TSA is going to be introducing scanners that use radio waves instead of Xrays to detect potentially dangerous objects. EPIC’s arguments are bases around both the
unhealthy doses of radiation and the invasion of privacy. The viewpoints of the Electronic
Privacy Information Center go hand in hand with that of the consumers. The argument
concerning the contradiction of religious beliefs provides a strong point that many may not think
of. That brings up the important question; if the security policies prevent people from traveling
due to their beliefs should they be allowed?
During a trip to Long Beach last year I had to go through one of the full body scanners as
part of the security screening. I never felt like my privacy was being violated after going through
the AIT scanners. I do not agree with a security measure that endangers the health of the public.
After researching all of the different viewpoints it seems like it depends on the person if they feel
like their privacy has been invaded. The part which concerns me is the level of radiation an
individual is exposed to during the scan. It is understandable the need to higher security
measures but if the technology is available other methods need to be used instead of using
potentially dangerous technology. Looking toward the future of the security process at airports
the TSA is testing a behavior based screening process. Some people feel that the behavioral
based-screening could be a step in the right direction because this will allow passengers to be
expedited through the screening process without feeling like their privacy has been
compromised. However others argue this new screening process could be subject to ethnic and
racial profiling and question its effectiveness. Hopefully the TSA will figure out a screening
process that will provide safety, privacy, and efficiency that everyone can agree with.
Elder 6
Works Cited
"Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT)." Transportation Security Administration. N.p., 2013.
Web. 22 Apr. 2013.
Alfonsi, Sharyn, and Jessica Hopper. "Pilot Rebellion: Pilots Refusing to Use Full Body
Scanners or Submit to Patdown." ABC News. ABC News Network, Web. 09 Nov. 2010.
"Bill of Rights Transcript Text." Bill of Rights Transcript Text. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2013
Elias, Bart. "Airport Body Scanners: The Role of Advanced Imaging Technology in Airline
Passenger Screening." Fas.org. Congressional Research Service, 2012. Web.
"EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program)." EPIC. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
Fuller, Elizabeth. “TSA screenings at airports too invasive? ‘Opt Out’ protest planned.” The
Christian Science Monitor. Web. 16 Nov. 2010.
Golden, Mike. "Privacy Impact Assessment for TSA Whole Body Imaging." Dhs.gov.
Department of Homeland Security, 02 Jan. 2008. Web.
Hunter, Marnie. "Pilots Urged to Avoid Body Scanning." CNN. Cable News Network, 12 Nov.
2010. Web. 22 Apr. 2013.
"Transportation Security Administration." Transportation Security Administration. TSA, 28 Feb.
2013. Web. 22 Apr. 2013.
"Whole Body Imaging Technology and Body Scanners." EPIC. N.p., Jan. 2010. Web. 22 Apr.
2013.
Yin, Sara. "Airline Pilots Boycott Full Body Scanners." PCMAG. N.p., 08 Nov. 2010. Web. 22
Apr. 2013.