[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 9]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 12514-12515]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  ADVANCED IMAGING TECHNOLOGIES (AIT)

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JASON CHAFFETZ

                                of utah

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 29, 2010

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I recently read with interest an article 
by Ralph Nader discussing his concerns with the Transportation Safety 
Administration's (TSA) use of ``whole-body imaging'' scanning machines. 
These machines, now called ``Advanced Imaging Technologies'' (AIT), 
allow TSA screeners

[[Page 12515]]

to search for security risks by looking under passengers' clothing in a 
particularly privacy intrusive inspection.
  I share many of Mr. Nader's concerns, and include a copy of article 
from www.commondreams.org for the record. Last summer I worked with 
many of my colleagues in the House on both sides of the aisle to pass 
an amendment to the TSA Authorization bill which addressed some of the 
problems with the TSA's use of these AIT machines. Our amendment 
prohibited the use of AIT for mandatory primary screening at airports, 
required the TSA to give passengers the option of a pat-down search, 
and prohibited TSA from storing, transferring, or copying AIT images of 
passengers.
  These technologies need not invade Americans' privacy so intrusively 
in order to secure our flights and passengers effectively. After the 
failed Christmas Day bombing attempt, which AIT may or may not have 
helped prevent, I renewed my call for the inventors and manufacturers 
of AIT machines to enhance privacy protections to permit broader 
deployment of these technologies without the tradeoff to Americans' 
rights of privacy.
  Some AIT manufacturers have responded with scanners with ``auto 
detection'' capabilities, which reduce the costs and risks of error 
associated with human screeners. These scanners also produce images 
that go beyond merely blurring faces to blurring the outline of the 
scanned passenger's body. As I observed last December, these 
technologies have already been deployed in Amsterdam at the very 
airport from which the Christmas Day bomber traveled to the United 
States. My staff has seen these machines in action, and I feel the TSA 
should look seriously at whether these enhanced scanners could replace 
the privacy intrusive scanners currently deployed in airports across 
America.
  I hope my colleagues will join with me in discussing the security and 
privacy issues surrounding AIT, and the concerns raised by Mr. Nader 
and others. We all want air travel to be as safe as possible, but this 
can be accomplished without sacrificing our privacy and dignity, and 
that of our fellow Americans.

               [From www.commondreams.org, June 24, 2010]

                            Naked Insecurity

                            (By Ralph Nader)

       If you are planning to fly over the 4th of July holiday, be 
     aware of your rights at airport security checkpoints.
       The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has 
     mandated that passengers can opt out of going through a whole 
     body scanning machine in favor of a physical pat down. 
     Unfortunately, opting for the pat down requires passengers to 
     be assertive since TSA screeners do not tell travelers about 
     their right to refuse a scan. Harried passengers must spot 
     the TSA signs posted at hectic security checkpoints to inform 
     themselves of their rights before they move to a body 
     scanning security line.
       Since the failed Christmas Day bombing of a Northwest 
     Airlines flight by a passenger hiding explosives in his 
     underwear, TSA has accelerated its program of deploying whole 
     body scanning machines, including x-ray scanners, at airport 
     security checkpoints throughout the United States. Scanning 
     machines peak beneath passengers' clothing looking for 
     concealed weapons and explosives that can elude airport metal 
     detectors. So far, TSA has placed 111 scanners at 32 
     airports. They expect to have 450 scanners deployed by the 
     end of the year at an estimated cost of $170,000 each.
       Privacy, civil rights and religious groups object to whole 
     body scanning machines as uniquely intrusive. Naked images of 
     passengers' bodies are captured by these machines that can 
     reveal very personal medical conditions such as prosthetics, 
     colostomy bags and mastectomy scars. The TSA responded by 
     setting the scanners to blur the facial features of 
     travelers, placing TSA employees who view the images in a 
     separate room and assuring the public that the images are 
     deleted after initial viewing.
       Yet, a successful Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the 
     Electronic Privacy Information Center against the Department 
     of Homeland Security (DHS) uncovered documents showing that 
     the scanning machines' procurement specifications include the 
     ability to store, record and transfer revealing digital 
     images of passengers. The specifications allow TSA to disable 
     any privacy filters permitting the exporting of raw images, 
     contrary to TSA assurances.
       It begs logic that the TSA would not retain their ability 
     to store images particularly in the event of a terrorist 
     getting through the scan and later attacking an aircraft. One 
     of the first searches by the TSA would be to review images 
     taken by the scanners to identify the attacker.
       The Amsterdam airport is using a less intrusive security 
     device called ``auto detection'' scanning which generates 
     stick figures instead of the real image of the person and 
     avoids exposing passengers to radiation. Three United States 
     Senators recently wrote to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano 
     urging her to consider these devices. (http://bit.ly/bJFn5K)
       More pointedly, security experts, such as Edward Luttwak 
     from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, have 
     come forward questioning the effectiveness of whole body 
     scanners since they can be defeated by hiding explosives in 
     body cavities. The General Accounting Office, an 
     investigative arm of Congress, has stated that it is unclear 
     whether scanners would have spotted the kind of explosives 
     carried by the ``Christmas Day'' bomber.
       About one-half of these body scanning machines use low dose 
     x-rays to scan passengers. Last May, a group of esteemed 
     scientists from the University of California, San Francisco 
     wrote to John Holdren, President Obama's science adviser, 
     voicing their concerns about the rapid roll out of scanners 
     without a rigorous safety review by an impartial panel of 
     experts. The scientists caution that the TSA has 
     miscalculated the radiation dose to the skin from scanners 
     and that there is ``good reason to believe that these 
     scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and 
     other vulnerable populations.'' (http://n.pr/bKGCKx).
       David Brenner, director of Columbia University's Center for 
     Radiological Research, has also voiced caution about x-raying 
     millions of air travelers. He was a member of the government 
     committee that set the safety guidelines for the x-ray 
     scanners, and he now says he would not have signed onto the 
     report had he known that TSA wanted to scan almost every air 
     traveler. (http://www.columbia.edu/djb3/)
       Passenger complaints to TSA and newspaper accounts of 
     passenger experiences with scanners contradict TSA assurances 
     that checkpoint signs provide adequate notice to travelers 
     about the scanning procedure and the pat down option. 
     Travelers, who reported that they were not fully aware what 
     the scanning procedure involved, said they were not made 
     aware of alternative search options. (http://nyti.ms/9hGtUO )
       Many travelers complained about their privacy, and their 
     families' privacy, being invaded. Some were concerned about 
     the radiation risk, particularly to pregnant women and 
     children. Some travelers felt bullied by rude TSA screeners. 
     The Wall Street Journal reported that one woman who refused 
     to go through the body scanner was called ``unpatriotic'' by 
     the TSA screener.
       Expensive state-of-the-art security technology that poses 
     potentially serious health risks to vulnerable passengers, 
     invades privacy, and provides questionable security is 
     neither smart nor safe. For the White House it is a political 
     embarrassment waiting to happen.
       President Obama should suspend the body scanning program 
     and appoint an independent panel of experts to review the 
     issues of privacy, health and effectiveness. After such a 
     review, should the DHS and TSA still want to deploy body 
     scanners at airports, they should initiate a public 
     rulemaking, which they have refused thus far, so that the 
     public can have their say in the matter.
       If you experience any push-back from TSA screeners when you 
     assert your right to refuse to go through a whole body 
     scanner and request a pat down security search instead, 
     please write to [email protected].
       Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His 
     most recent book--and first novel--is, Only The Super Wealthy 
     Can Save Us. His most recent work of non-fiction is The 
     Seventeen Traditions.

                          ____________________