Whole Body Imaging Technology and Body Scanners ("Backscatter" X-Ray and Millimeter Wave Screening)

Introduction

EPIC has filed a lawsuit to suspend the deployment of body scanners at US airports, pending an independent review. Body scanners produce detailed, three-dimensional images of individuals. Security experts have described whole body scanners as the equivalent of "a physically invasive strip-search." The Transportation Security Administration operates the body scanner devices at airports throughout the United States. On July 2, 2010, EPIC filed a petition for review and motion for an emergency stay, urging the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to suspend the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) full body scanner program. EPIC said that the program is "unlawful, invasive, and ineffective." EPIC argued that the federal agency has violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Fourth Amendment. EPIC cited the invasive nature of the devices, the TSA's disregard of public opinion, and the impact on religious freedom.

Top News

  • EPIC Files Suit to Block "Invasive and Ineffective" Airport Body Scanner Program: EPIC has filed the opening brief in EPIC v. TSA II with the federal appeals court in Washington, DC, challenging the Transportation Security Administration's continued use of body scanners in US airports. TSA issued a regulation mandating the use of body scanners across the country more than five years after the court in EPIC v. TSA ordered the agency to "promptly" solicit public comments on the controversial body scanners program and nearly a decade after the agency deployed the scanners without public comments. EPIC told the court that the TSA's regulation entrenches body scanners over more effective less intrusive screening techniques,  and undermines  the legal right of passengers to opt out. EPIC wrote that the TSA has failed to "justify the use of invasive screening techniques, or to provide the public with an opportunity to respond to the denial of the passenger opt-out right." (Sep. 27, 2016)
  • EPIC Sues TSA to Block Mandatory Body Scanners at US Airports: EPIC has filed a lawsuit challenging the Transportation Security Administration's regulation for airport body scanners. The TSA announcement came nearly five years after a federal appeals court ordered the agency to "promptly" solicit public comments on the controversial screening procedure. Public comments overwhelmingly favored less invasive security screenings. But the TSA decided it may now mandate body scanners at US airports. In 2011, EPIC challenged the intrusive and ineffective TSA screening procedure. EPIC's new lawsuit challenges the regulation because it "denies passengers the right to opt out" of body scanner screening. EPIC also challenged the effectiveness of airport body scanners and the TSA's failure to recommend less invasive security screening. (May. 2, 2016)
  • TSA Releases New Body Scanner Document to EPIC: In response to an EPIC FOIA request, the Transportation Security Administration has released a document describing the technical capabilities of the airport body scanners. EPIC previously obtained documents from TSA revealing that body scanners can record, store, and transmit digital strip search images of airline passengers. Last month, the TSA issued a regulation on airport body scanners, nearly five years after a federal appeals court ordered the agency to "promptly” undertake a rule making. In 2011, EPIC successfully challenged the TSA's unlawful deployment of airport body scanners. Despite public comments that overwhelmingly favor less invasive security screenings, the TSA plans to use invasive body scanners at US airports. The TSA also said it may mandate airport body scanners, even though the agency previously told the D.C. Circuit that the body scanner program was optional and the federal appeals court upheld the program, relying on the agency’s statements. (Apr. 25, 2016)
  • TSA Ignores Federal Court, Public Comments and Mandates Airport Body Scanners: The Transportation Security Administration has issued a final rule on airport body scanners, nearly five years after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the agency to "promptly" solicit public comments on the controversial scanners. In 2011, EPIC successfully challenged the TSA's unlawful deployment of airport body scanners. Despite public comments that overwhelmingly favor less invasive security screenings, the agency will continue to use invasive body scanners at airports. The agency also states that it may mandate airport body scanners. EPIC and 25 organizations have urged Congress to hold a hearing on TSA's decision to end the opt-out for airport body scanners. The agency previously informed the D.C. Circuit that the body scanner program was optional. The Court concluded because "any passenger may opt-out of AIT screening in favor of a patdown" there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. (Mar. 2, 2016)
  • EPIC, Coalition Call for Congressional Hearings on Unlawful TSA Mandate for Body Scanners: EPIC and 25 organizations have urged Congress to hold a hearing on TSA's decision to end the opt-out for airport body scanners. Dozens of organizations petitioned the DHS secretary in 2010 to solicit public comments on the original program. In EPIC v. DHS the lawsuit that followed, the D.C. Circuit ruled that TSA violated federal law when it installed body scanners in airports without public comment. The agency said at the time that the body scanner program was optional. The Court also concluded because "any passenger may opt-out of AIT screening in favor of a patdown" there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. (Jan. 13, 2016)
  • Ignoring Federal Law, TSA Drops Opt-Out Option for Body Scanners: The TSA has used a "Privacy Impact Assessment Update" to announce an unlawful procedure for screening air travelers in the United States. The agency claims that it may "mandate body scanner screening for some passengers." In EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the screening was Constitutional because passengers could always opt out. As Judge Ginsburg explained, "any passenger may opt-out of AIT screening in favor of a patdown, which allows him to decide which of the two options for detecting a concealed, nonmetallic weapon or explosive is least invasive. "The TSA has also failed to "act promptly," as the Court mandated, to finalize the legal authority for the program. (Dec. 19, 2015)
  • TSA Continues Delay of Legal Authority for Airport Body Scanners: The Transportation Security Administration is expected to issue a final rule on airport body scanners by March 3, 2016, nearly five years after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the agency to "promptly" solicit pubic comments on the controversial scanners. In 2011, EPIC successful challenged the TSA's unlawful deployment of airport body scanners. Following EPIC's lawsuit, backscatter x-ray devices were removed from U.S. airports. Still, the agency continues to ignore public comments that overwhelmingly favor less invasive security screenings. (Nov. 24, 2015)
  • D.C. Circuit Orders TSA to Produce Schedule for Final Rule on Body Scanners: The Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit today ordered TSA to comply with the ruling in EPIC v. DHS and conduct an "expeditious" rulemaking on the use of body scanners at airports. EPIC successfully sued TSA in 2011 to compel notice-and-comment rulemaking after the agency failed to solicit public comments as required by law. EPIC said the body scanner program was "unlawful, invasive, and ineffective." The backscatter x-ray devices were subsequently removed from U.S. airports, though the millimeter devices remain. In 2015 the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a petition to compel TSA to issue a final rule as required by the EPIC v. DHS mandate. TSA now has 30 days to submit a rulemaking plan to the court. (Oct. 23, 2015)
  • Security Experts: EPIC Correct About Body Scanners-Invasive and Ineffective: The first independent analysis of backscatter x-ray body scanners corroborate the claims EPIC and others have made for several years: The scanners are invasive and ineffective. In a detailed report published in 2005, EPIC warned that the x-ray body scanners amounted to a virtual strip search and were an ineffective means of airport security. Freedom of Information Act documents later obtained by EPIC revealed that TSA could disable the body scanner's privacy settings, the nude images could be stored on the machines, and the scanners ran on a standard operating system making them vulnerable to outside security threats. EPIC and a coalition of civil liberties organizations then petitioned DHS Secretary Napolitano to suspend the program. When the DHS failed to do so, EPIC sued the agency. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in EPIC v. DHS that the agency must begin a public rule making. The backscatter X-ray scanners were subsequently removed from US airports. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program) and EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology. (Aug. 22, 2014)
  • Congress Investigates Airline Privacy Practices: Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) is currently seeking information from ten U.S. airlines concerning how airlines safeguard consumer traveler data. Senator Rockefeller has requested information regarding: (1) the type of information airlines collect; (2) airlines' data retention periods; (3) airline privacy and security safeguards governing consumer information; (4) whether consumers may access and amend their information; (5) whether airlines sell or disclose consumer information and if so, to whom do they disclose the consumer data; and (6) how airlines inform consumers about airline privacy policies governing consumer information. EPIC routinely urges the Department of Homeland Security to provide privacy protections for air travelers and end the agency's secret "risk-based" passenger profiling. For more information, see EPIC: Air Travel Privacy, EPIC: Passenger Profiling, EPIC: Secure Flight, and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program). (Aug. 20, 2014)
  • TSA Broadens Use of 'Backscatter X-Ray' Machines That Conduct 'Virtual Strip Searches': The Transportation Security Administration is expanding the use of "backscatter X-ray" systems for passenger screening. The $100,000 refrigerator-size machines use "backscatter" technology, which bounces low-radiation X-rays off of a passenger to produce photo-quality images of travelers as if they were undressed. Computer processing partially obscures the image that is available to operators. TSA states that the agency will delete the raw images, but there is no law or regulation that prevents the agency from saving the original, detailed images. Until there is such a prohibition, EPIC believes funding for the program should be suspended. See EPIC's Spotlight on Surveillance and page on Backscatter X-ray. (October 11, 2007)
  • Field Tests Begin in Arizona on Backscatter X-Ray Machines: An X-ray machine aimed at detecting weapons and explosives hidden on passengers is scheduled to make its debut Friday at Phoenix's Sky Harbor International Airport. The "backscatter" will be in operation at Security Checkpoint B in Terminal 4. While any Terminal 4 ticketed passenger can pass through any checkpoint, the B concourse is primarily used by travelers on Tempe-based US Airways. (February 21, 2007)
  • Phoenix Airport to Use 'Backscatter' X-Ray on Travelers: Sky Harbor International Airport here will test a new federal screening system that takes X-rays of passenger's bodies to detect concealed explosives and other weapons. The technology, called backscatter, has been around for several years but has not been widely used in the U.S. as an anti-terrorism tool because of privacy concerns. (December 1, 2006)

Background

Post-September 11, airline travel security has invoked the increased use of technology and better training of security personnel as a means of improving travel security. Some of these proposals, such as improved training for airport screeners, checking all bags for bombs, strengthening cockpit doors, and placing air marshals on flights, do not implicate privacy interests and are sound security measures. Others, however, present privacy and security risks to air travelers because they might create data files directly linked to the identity of air travelers. These files if retained could provide the basis for a database of air traveler profiles. The Transportation Security Administration utilizes two technologies to capture naked images of air travelers - backscatter x-ray technology and millimeter wave technology.

In 1895 x-rays1 were discovered by Wilhelm Röntgen.2 This discovery of how to look through an object to observe details beneath has advanced to include new techniques. One such technique called "backscatter" X-Ray is based on "the emergence of radiation from that surface of a material through which it entered. Also used to denote the actual backscattered radiation.3"

backscatter imageThe application of this new x-ray technology to airport screening uses high energy x-rays that are more likely to scatter than penetrate materials as compared to lower-energy x-rays used in medical applications. Although this type of x-ray is said to be harmless it can move through other materials, such as clothing.

A passenger is scanned by rastering or moving a single high energy x-ray beam rapidly over their form. The signal strength of detected backscattered x-rays from a known position then allows a highly realistic image to be reconstructed. Since only Compton scattered x-rays4 are used, the registered image is mainly that of the surface of the object/person being imaged. In the case of airline passenger screening it is her nude form. The image resolution of the technology is high, so details of the human form of airline passengers present privacy challenges.

Airport security has undergone significant changes since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Recently, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) announced a proposal to purchase and deploy "Whole Body Imaging" X-ray machines to search air travelers at all airports. TSA said it believes that use of the machines is less invasive than pat-down searches. However, these machines, which show detailed images of a person's naked body, are equivalent to a "digital strip search" for all air travelers. This proposal, along with the agency's controversial plan to profile air travelers, shows extraordinary disregard for the privacy rights of air travelers. The Department of Homeland Security is requesting $72 million to invest in detection systems, which includes funding for the backscatter machines, which cost between $100,000 and $200,000 each.

The backscatter machines use high-energy X-rays that are more likely to scatter than penetrate materials as compared to lower-energy X-rays used in medical applications. Although this type of X-ray is said to be harmless, it can move through other materials, such as clothing. When being screened, a passenger is scanned by high-energy X-ray beam moving rapidly over her body. The signal strength of detected backscattered X-rays from a known position then allows a highly realistic image to be reconstructed. In the case of airline-passenger screening, the image is of the traveler's nude form. The image resolution of the technology is high, so the picture of the body presented to screeners is detailed enough to show genitalia. These images are not necessarily temporary - screeners can save the body images to the system's hard disk or floppy disk for subsequent viewing on either "the system monitor or on any IBM compatible personal computer with color graphics."

Backscatter X-Rays and Transportation Screening

The Transportation Security Administration claims that is not storing detailed images of passengers screened by the system. The agency also states that it is providing a screening option for passengers who object to screening by the technology. However, the technology is designed to accomplish what has been described on this page, and until the process of assuring that the claims of the agency are enforced--questions will remain about the use of the technology. EPIC will make available on this page aviation security and privacy -related documents it obtains from the government under the Freedom of Information Act law about the adoption of "backscatter" x-ray technology intended for use in screening air travelers.

womanThe stated goal of these new proposals is to rely on technology to reduce the "hassle factor" in airports and to reduce security threats. The core idea is to focus security resources on suspicious travelers, while ensuring that most people are not inconvenienced by heightened security. Terrorists, however, have been known to go to great lengths to look like most people. Will a technology that will capture detailed images of potentially all airline travel passengers lead to greater safety? Current technology can successfully detect dangerous substances, firearms and other weapons without backscatter x-ray imaging of passengers. Can the goal of safe air travel be reached without reproducing a digital image of a passenger's body? It has long been recognized by security experts that it is impossible to eliminate all threats to airline travel. Is the application of "backscatter" x-ray technology a deterrent and not a solution to perfect airline travel safety? If this is true, then is the trade off in passenger privacy worth the effort to deter terrorists? The application of security technology and increased passenger screening has also resulted in an increased detection of non-violent criminal offenses. Is the application of "backscatter" x-ray technology to screen airline passengers more than just a means of detecting terrorists?

In 2009, the TSA announced that Whole Body Imaging would replace metal detectors at airport security check points. This is a marked departure from the earlier promises by the agency that the technology would only be used for secondary screening of air travel passengers.

Airports Currently Using Whole Body Imagaing Technology

  • Albuquerque International Sunport Airport
  • Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport
  • Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport
  • Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
  • Denver International Airport
  • Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport
  • Detroit Metro Airport
  • Indianapolis International Airport
  • Jacksonville International Airport
  • McCarran International Airport
  • Los Angeles International Airport
  • Miami International Airport
  • Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport
  • Raleigh-Durham International Airport
  • Richmond International Airport
  • San Francisco International Airport
  • Salt Lake City International Airport
  • Tampa International Airport
  • Tulsa International Airport

Jan. 2010 NPC Event Materials

Latest News

Resources

Identification Schemes

Profiling

Other Documents

Analysis

  • Paper on the limitations of profiling, Roger Clark, Australia National University.
  • ACLU testimony before White House Commission on "Civil Liberties Implications of Airport Security Measures" (September 5, 1996).
  • Letter to Privacy Journal editor Robert Ellis Smith from the FAA denying Smith's request for a copy of the FAA Security Directive on identification of airline passengers.
  • HotWired article "Fear of Flying" on proposals. (September 11, 1996).

Other Airline Passenger Screening Resources

  • FAA Proposes Profiling Regulations. The Federal Aviation Administration published proposed regulations on April 19, 1999, governing "Security of Checked Baggage on Flights Within the United States." The draft rules detail the use of computer profiling techniques to identify suspicious passengers.
  • Airline Passenger Profiling Goes Into Effect. The Computer Assisted Passenger Screening System was scheduled to be phased in nationwide beginning on January 1. Under the system, passengers who "fit the profile" will be selected for heightened security measures, which can include a thorough search of their luggage, intrusive personal questioning, tagging of luggage with orange tape, and a physical escort from the check-in counter to the airport gate by security personnel. The ACLU is providing an online complaint form for passengers targeted by the profiling system.
  • Microsoft Chief Architect Charles Simonyi tells what happens when you "fit the profile" (from Slate).
  • Proposed FAA rule for collecting personal information including name, address, Social Security Number, Date of birth and next of kin for every domestic passenger.
  • General Account Office report, Aviation Safety and Security: Challenges to Implementing the Recommendations of the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security (Testimony, 03/05/97, GAO/T-RCED-97-90).
  • The Gore Commission has released its final report recommending passenger profiling. A coalition of 17 groups has sent a letter to Gore opposing ID checks, profiling, new x-ray technologies and excessive secrecy by the FAA in making decisions.

Legislative History

HR 1271. FAA Research, Engineering, and Development Authorization Act of 1997. Funds FAA projects for new surveillance technologies such as advanced x-ray systems for individuals. Introduced on 4/10/97 by Morella (R-Md). Referred to the House Committee on Science. Approved by Committee 4/16/97. Reported to the House H. Rept. 105-61 (CR H1714) on 4/21/97. Measure adopted on 4/29/97, RC #95 (414-7), (CR H1995). Referred to Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation (CR S3843) on 4/30/97.

Bill Passed the Senate: 11/13/1997
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendments: 2/3/1998
Bill Passed the House by a voice vote: 2/3/1998 3:07pm:
Bill Signed into Law by President Clinton: 2/11/1998
Became Public Law No: 105-155.

References

1http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ems3.html#c4
2http://geology.b.dictonarypage.co.uk/backscatter/
3http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/X/X/X-Ray_machine.htm
4http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/comptint.html

Share this page:

Support EPIC

EPIC relies on support from individual donors to pursue our work.

Defend Privacy. Support EPIC.

#Privacy

EPIC Bookstore

Communications Law and Policy

Communications Law and Policy
Jerry Kang and Alan Butler

Other EPIC Books »