Print 71 comment(s) - last by bigbrent88.. on Jan 13 at 2:19 PM

Recent research has shown that T-Wave scanners like the full-body scanners at the airport can cause DNA damage, increasing the risk of cancer.  (Source: MIT Technology Review)

Past research showed that scanners, pre-processing, have fully nude images, despite claims to the contrary. Now newly obtained documents reveal that the scanners can send and store pictures, despite TSA claims that they can't.  (Source: Bloomberg)
More evidence indicates that body scanners aren't such a great idea

Body scanners seemed a promising way to protect against terrorists smuggling forbidden items onto airplanes.  However, over the last year the argument for the devices weakened substantially as it was revealed that the scanners would do little to help and could pose serious privacy issues.

The first issue is the price.  According to reports, current T-Wave (Terahertz-Wave) full-body scanners cost around $166K USD each.  The Transportation Safety Administration has thus far been averaging about 2 scanners per airport.  That could put the cost of President Obama's proposed full scale deployment at around $100M USD to cover all of the approximately 600 airports certified for large commercial aircraft (and as much as $3.2B USD to put a single scanner at all airports, including smaller private ones, in the U.S.).

Would that investment be worth it?  Recent studies by the British government revealed that the current generation of full-body scanners are unable to detect lightweight materials like plastics, chemicals, or liquids.  Bags of substances like the chemicals smuggled in the failed Christmas Day attack would likely slip through, as the scanners are unable to detect them.

The TSA claims that the health risk from the high-frequency scans is very low.  However, in population groups with certain mutations that make them sensitive to radiation (typically due to lacking DNA repair mechanisms), this risk could become very serious, though.  Furthermore, recent studies have revealed that this type of scan can cause mild DNA damage -- raising cancer concerns.

And then there's the mountain of privacy issues.  Past reports have shown that the scanners do have fully naked images, generated by the hardware and momentarily stored as raw images, which then undergo processing to obscure breasts and genitalia.  In theory, these images could be extracted, according to security experts.

Well, at least the scanners can't send or store images, said advocates.  However, that turns out to be a false claim as well.  The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has received 2008 documents from the TSA which not only clearly state that the scanners could have such abilities, but they say that the scanners must have them.

The TSA documents state that all scanners need to be capable of storing and sending user images when in "test mode".  Those documents, obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request, catch the TSA in an apparent lie.  It's website claims, "The machines have zero storage capability."

A video on the site adds, "the system has no way to save, transmit or print the image."

A TSA official speaking on condition of anonymity claims that "strong privacy protections [are] in place", adding, "There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put the machine into the test mode."

EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg points out that those claims could suggest any number of hardware or software protections.  About the only way passengers would truly be protected would be if the TSA was removing non-replaceable hardware (such as PCBs) during device deployment.  Mr. Rotenberg suggests that TSA insiders or hackers could overcome more mild obstacles, such as removed storage or software protections.

Mr. Rotenberg concludes, "I don't think the TSA has been forthcoming with the American public about the true capability of these devices.  They've done a bunch of very slick promotions where they show people -- including journalists -- going through the devices. And then they reassure people, based on the images that have been produced, that there's not any privacy concerns.  But if you look at the actual technical specifications and you read the vendor contracts, you come to understand that these machines are capable of doing far more than the TSA has let on."

The TSA official, speaking anonymously, claims the devices cannot be connected to a network.  However, given the fact that past claims were disproven, one can only wonder if that's really the whole truth.

Amid this mountain of concerns, many critics are calling for the President and the TSA to reevaluate the costly program that may endanger both the health and privacy of U.S. travelers.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Another layer of harassment
By omnicronx on 1/12/2010 1:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
You are a complete idiot. Do you seriously proposing that all brown people should be screened, and 'white' people that don't look like terrorists shouldn't be? Did you even see the pictures of those of 9/11? They didn't even look like terrorists, they looked like normal people. Whats worse is do you really think that if the government started searching people of a certain skin colour that terrorists groups won't find those of lighter skin colour to do their dirty work?
Rise up ! Stand up for your rights !

Furthermore you entire point of view is hypocritical. You complain about letting the government 'walk all over us', but you think its alright to persecute a particular race/skin colour?

Newsflash, as an American CITIZEN, these people you speak of have the exact same rights as you.

You sir are a hypocrite of the worst kind..

RE: Another layer of harassment
By Iaiken on 1/12/2010 2:43:00 PM , Rating: 1
I rarely agree with Omni, but he is absolutely right.

The problem with any system (especially profiling) is that security threats are constantly evolving and changing and threats who didn't fit the profile will manage to slip through.

These days when you are dealing with a customs official, you practically have no rights and no power. They can deny you access to your flight because they just don't like the look of you clothes.

I've a co-worker who was an American-born citizen that married a Canadian. He stayed here long enough to naturalize and eventually became a citizen. He made the mistake of using his Canadian Passport (since his US one had long expired) at the airport on a visit to his parents in Florida. He is currently banned from entering the United States despite having been born there. He was so insulted by the entire ordeal that rather than fight the state department, he renounced his American citizenship.

Why? Because he fit some mouth-breathing southern customs officers profile of potential terrorist. He is a CCNE of Iranian decent and a member of the Christian faith and proof that profiling and the ever-shrinking rights of travelers is a load of horse shit.

RE: Another layer of harassment
By MrBlastman on 1/12/2010 3:04:16 PM , Rating: 3
I am sorry to hear about your friend.


Because he fit some mouth-breathing southern customs officers profile of potential terrorist.

You yourself just engaged in profiling. You seem to imply that all southerners are mouth-breathers. I can assure you, being of southern descent, that I am not a mouth-breather. My brother is not one either along with many other friends of mine who are southerners.

I just thought I'd point out your hypocrisy. ;)

RE: Another layer of harassment
By Iaiken on 1/12/2010 5:07:13 PM , Rating: 2
You yourself just engaged in profiling.

I am just passing along his description of said customs officer... :P

RE: Another layer of harassment
By Alexvrb on 1/12/2010 8:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
Discrimination against southern people and rednecks is OK in your book, we understand.

RE: Another layer of harassment
By Reclaimer77 on 1/12/2010 6:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
Do you seriously proposing that all brown people should be screened, and 'white' people that don't look like terrorists shouldn't be?

Yes because you can clearly see the paragraph where I proposed that. Oh wait, it's not there.

but you think its alright to persecute a particular race/skin colour?

So you think it's alright to "randomly screen" 80 year old grandmothers to a strip search ? And where, again, did I say let's persecute people ?

I do think it's "alright" to play the percentages and focus on your highest risk profiles first. Yes, yes I do. And nothing you can say defeats that common sense approach.

Newsflash, as an American CITIZEN, these people you speak of have the exact same rights as you.

Really ? All the terrorist have been American citizens ? I wasn't aware of that.

You sir are a hypocrite of the worst kind..

I really don't see how. I guess in OmniLand your weird circular logic has somehow nailed me to the wall. I congratulate you. Why bother with things like statistics, common sense, and logic when you can be highly emotional and Liberal.

Remember, airline security isn't about security. It should be about making you feel good that you aren't racists !

"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki