NOLA Airport Remodel Boasts Seven Naked Scanners

A $1 billion upgrade to the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport is nearly complete. Among other things, it sounds like privacy violations have been made more "efficient." Indeed, the introduction of naked scanners in the past decade has led to cramped security screening areas as the existing spaces could not accommodate the new machines. Rest assured that you will be groped and scanned in an airport with a "wide-open feel":

Down the escalators, in the second-floor TSA checkpoint area, are 15 luggage X-ray conveyor belts and seven body scanners. Officials hope the consolidated area will make the security process much smoother than the bottlenecks that were a frequent feature at separate security checkpoints at each concourse in the old terminal.

Scanner Technology Update

According to this article from December,  2018, Denver now has new naked scanners. The upgrade is that it's faster (and possible has fewer false positives):

"The new machines can transmit and receive information almost instantly, because they’re multistatic, rather than multi-monostatic systems, Rappaport said. So, people only need to stay still for one second, not three."

At that time, Denver airport had the new machine, but the are plans to continue rolling them out. TSA continues to find ways to spend money!

Big brother implements facial recognition at LAX

We knew it was a matter of time:

The [facial recognition] works to automate ID and boarding pass verification, allowing international fliers to use a biometric recognition system to verify their identity. Their photo is taken and matched against their passport photo, and the system automatically matches the passenger’s name on their boarding pass and passport.

Not to worry, though. They've improved the naked scanners so that you don't have to put your hands in the air (like a criminal). Big brother is kind and loving (and all-seeing).

Read the whole press release.

Illusions In Vegas

Here is a first-hand account of getting Pre-Check in the name of expediency. Are TSA procedures not about keeping us safe? From the author:

"Of course, deep down we all knew this already. The TSA is not about keeping us safe, nor is it about apprehending would-be terrorists. The TSA serves one purpose and one purpose only: To create the illusion of safety, the perception that someone is in charge and taking care of things, even if any sensible person can see that it’s all a charade."

Anecdotally, I've heard of this happening at other times and places. Proof that it is all security theater for those paying attention.

Double-speak: When "surrendered" means "stolen"

A friend writes:

I was flying from SBA [Santa Barbara airport] to SFO [San Francisco airport].  I only had carry on since I was just going away for 2 nights to a friend's.  I absentmindedly packed my full size (5.2oz) Tom's toothpaste instead of a smaller tube because I had run out of the small tubes and I didn't think the 3oz liquid rule applied to toothpaste any longer.  

I have TSA pre-check, but - for some reason I haven't quite cleared up - United isn't recognizing me as that so my boarding pass didn't have it noted that way and I had to go through the song and dance of taking my shoes off, and going through the scanner. At SBA they require you to remove your liquids from your suitcase when putting luggage through the x-ray no matter who you are.  As a side note, if I had gone to the ticket counter to insist on Pre-check on my boarding pass (because SBA is so small) the only change would be that I could leave my shoes on and I would go through the old school metal detector.   

After I passed through the full body scanner and was waiting for my luggage and bags to come through they pulled my bag of toiletries aside and said the toothpaste violated the 3 oz rule.  I right away said, "Since when is toothpaste liquid? And, by the way, I've gotten that size tube through in the past."  (I may have fibbed there; not quite sure to be honest.)  They then said I could check my luggage if I like.  At this point who wants to get dressed again to then go downstairs, check in a bag (which is going to add 30 minutes to my trip by waiting for it on a carousel in SFO), then come back up to then just get undressed again and go through security again?  In hindsight I should have said OK, then just went back to my car to put my toothpaste in and still done carry-on.  But, I get so annoyed I can't think straight.  

So, after refusing and saying no, the TSA agent advised that I was surrendering my toothpaste.  That is when I lost my cool.  Hell no! I'm not surrendering anything.  I then accused her of stealing my toothpaste and she said, again: no, she was not; that I was surrendering.  I then decided to school her on the difference of surrendering (doing something voluntarily in my book at that point) vs the TSA taking my toothpaste without me agreeing to it (stealing).  I then grabbed my stuff in a huff and went over to a bench to put everything back on and back together.  Then to the bar to have a stiff drink.  

I just want to pause here and look at a couple things.

Blask: Are these TSA claims true?

An airport director has made some surprising claims about naked scanners:

"'It allows TSA to process our passengers faster,' said Airport Director Kip Turner. 'It’s the same kind of equipment you see at most airports now.'

"The body scanner also reduces the number of pat-downs, he said."

On speed, walking through a metal detector is faster than standing still in a scanner for several seconds Additionally, the metal detector only requires that you remove metal objects - not all objects - from your pocket. Are there any studies that compare processing at metal detector-only checkpoints and naked scanner checkpoints?

I wonder if Mr Turner is referring to using the naked scanner in addition to the metal detectors. If 1 passenger  can be scanned while 3 walk through the metal detector, then that would increase processing by 33%. However, adding a second metal detector would increase processing by 100%, so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison to say the scanner is inherently faster. This is all assuming my guess above about scanner inefficiency is correct.

On pat-downs, I  am baffled. Prior to 2008, pat-downs were virtually non-existent. If you triggered the walk-through  metal detector, they used a handheld wand to isolate the problem. In my experience, one was frequently allowed to remove the offending metal and walk through the detector as many times as was necessary to pass. I assume that people with metal implants would get localized pat-downs, but the majority of passengers were sent on their way. Certainly, full-body pat-downs using a pre-custody search method were unheard of.

My understanding of naked scanner use - ignoring opt-out pat-downs, which are presumably still a small minority - is that many scans identify anomalies that require a full or partial pat-down. These anomalies are not resolved by the equivalent of a hand-held wand, and visual inspection followed by re-scanning is against policy.

Now that scanners and pat-downs are policy, are the TSA  patting down more passengers who trigger the metal detector? In other words, is Mr Turner's comment,  again, less to do with the efficiency of the two technologies and more a reflection of new policies? Or is he just wrong that there will be fewer pat-downs?

TSA policy on children

Someone I trust kindly let me know that it appears that the TSA is no longer putting children through naked scanners, and, furthermore, that parents get whatever screening the children get (that would be: no naked scanners). I decided I should investigate.

Unfortunately, despite my friend's personal experience and stories (like this one) with similar anecdotes, it is not official TSA policy to keep kids out of naked scanners:

If your child is able to remain standing in the required position for 5 seconds, he or she may be screened through the advanced imaging technology. If a child 12 and under goes through the machine and alarms, they have an opportunity to go through again or the TSA officer may use other procedures to resolve the alarm to reduce the need for a pat-down.

You may not be screened by this technology when carrying an infant or child.

(You may recall that they changed policies for the under-12 set 4 years ago due to bad publicity, including a "modified" pat-down and the above-stated ability to go through the scanner a second time.)

It may very well be unofficial policy to put kids through metal detectors with their parents, and - just to keep us on our toes - they won't acknowledge it. But, it may also just be at the discretion of the supervisor(s) at a given airport.

For a large hub, with several security lanes - some with and some without naked scanners - it is probably quite easy to pick and choose who goes where. The randomized PreCheck may also increase odds if airlines can get families onto the list ad hoc. I do wonder what experiences are like at small airports with a single security lane (such as my hometown airport). What have you experienced firsthand while travelling with children?

Futuristic biometrics at several airports

This is the first I have heard of iris scanners being used to get passengers through expedited security, but they (or fingerprint scanners) have already been in use at several airports. My thoughts:
1) This is not a step forward for liberty.
2) Ugh. Public-private partnerships.
3) If you are already flying anyway, and this speeds up you're travel time sufficiently to warrant the cost and intrusion, I can't fault you for using it. Just know that it is not *really* a good thing (see 1 and 2).

There is always a question of whether this would be appropriate if airports and airlines were operating on a completely free market. The key is that in that case, every action and association is voluntary, and competition would be able to assess consumer opinion. My guess is that, in a free market, airlines wouldn't care if you were who you said you were nearly as much as the government does. At least that's the way it used to be, not too long ago.

The last hold-out?

I am surprised that there are any airports left without naked scanners. But, Syracuse is about to get its first one:

TSA had been waiting until a bigger checkpoint was built that could accommodate the expensive devices, Airport Executive Director Christina Callahan said...

This particular write-up is actually less pandering about the scanners than I typically see. Even the final "postive" quote is nuanced:

“I in no way feel uncomfortable when going through a full-body scanner,” said [passenger] Hernandez. “Going through a metal detector is only a few seconds quicker so it’s not really an extra hassle. If full-body scanners are helping airport security be more efficient and trustworthy then I’m all for them.” [Emphasis mine.]

That's a pretty big "If!"

Correction: Manchester airport substituting one naked scanner for another

The headlines for all of the articles this past week about the backscatter naked scanners trial ending at England's Manchester airport are so misleading. For example, "Manchester Airport's body scanners scrapped" and "Manchester airport axes controversial 'naked' scanners after EU fails to approve them."

Here's what has really happened. The EU approved backscatter naked scanners on a trial basis. The trial automatically expires in October, and Manchester was the airport where these scanners were installed. Therefore, the scanners will be illegal in the EU starting next month and Manchester has to stop using them.

But, the EU has no such law against the millimeter wave scanners. So Manchester will be swapping one naked scanner - the MMW version with the software upgrade showing cartoon figures - for the old naked scanner - the x-ray backscatter version. As I've written here before, the MMW scanners with the cartoon software are still taking an image of unclothed people, virtually strip-searching them. But, instead of showing the security goons that data in a format that looks like an actual naked person, it shows the data in the form of a cartoon. Either way, the data exists to reconstruct an unclothed person - the software is just hiding it.

Not another run-of-the-mill press release

Kudos to the KPAX reporter who wrote of the naked scanners set to arrive in the Missoula airport soon. Normally these articles are virtually word-for-word copies of TSA press releases and just repeat the propaganda  about how these are effective, privacy-protecting machines being deployed by our saviors at DHS. So I clicked through on this article expecting to see the same thing.

Not so. It starts:

Passengers traveling through Missoula International Airport security will be subject to search with those controversial "body scanners", starting later next week.
From there, it continues to use quotes for all TSA-approved words, and to highlight the controversy surrounding the naked scanners.

Sixteen more airports to get naked scanners

A partial list is reported here.

Poor Austin

The center of some of the best activism against the TSA and its porno-scanners and groping, Austin, has lost the battle: Scanners have been installed.

Another Democrat sells out

I thought the Democrats were supposed to be concerned about our civil rights. Well, Sen Barbara Boxer (D-CA) prefers that the hugely illegal PreCheck program is expanded to LAX (as scheduled next year) so that California tourism will perk up. Way to stick to principle, Babs!

You're next, Alaska!

The TSA has confirmed that porno-scanners are coming to Anchorage within weeks. Think of it as an early Christmas present! Or, maybe just boycott flying (hard to do for Alaskans, I know... d'ya think that's the point?).

Sensible passengers in Elmira, NY

Here's what passengers are quoted as saying when asked about the cartoon-image software scanner coming to Elmira, NY (which already has scanners):

Reinhard Dieg, of Elmira, says, "Obviously we need something, but i don't think Elmira is that big of a hurry to get body scans. I don't think we have to worry about terrorists right away."

Sharon Michaels, of Elmira, says, "I'm more concerned with the handicap people and how they're trying to get through after watching another lady have to struggle in and out and have a lady lift her."

The first passenger realizes that this is security theater, and the second passenger realizes that the disabled are harassed by TSA as a matter of course (but erroneously thinks abridging their rights in a more sugar-coated way is better).

Scanners moving to smaller airports

The Central Illinois Regional Airport is "expected to be among the first facilities of its size to receive the screening equipment from the [TSA]." Expect to start seeing more scanners at smaller airports.

Security theater is expensive!

Because many airports were "built at a time when security was much less of a concern," many airports have been getting expensive renovations. Portland's airport just got a $75 million addition. Colorado Springs is starting a $4.7 million renovation, including:

The airport also has plans to expand its security area to make room for larger required security equipment, such as full body scanners.

Don't you just feel warm and fuzzy that your paycheck goes to pay for a bunch of politically-connected contractors to build what should be unnecessary additions? Me too.

Watch what you say

In Orlando, a passenger said the wrong thing at a Jet Blue counter (not even in the security line) and was detained for questioning.

Outrage over predictable bureaucratic behavior

This type of thing makes me laugh: Investigator: Makeover for airport boss's office while public repairs wait. Why? Because it's amusing (and sad) that people are surprised the bureaucracies - particularly government bureaucracies, who have no profit-loss motive - are wasteful in spending their money, and, furthermore, that bureaucrats look out for #1 first (and not the public interest, I suppose).

Here's the thing: This is not so shocking at all. It would not surprise me if, say, a Walmart store manager had discretionary funds that he could use to buy new carpet and a new desk chair in his office, but, in order to renovate the store, he would have to wait for corporate headquarters to release the cash and approve the project. There are two big differences here, though. First, if you are a Walmart customer and there is a leaking roof ruining the packaging on something you want to buy, it would be quite easy for you to patronize another store instead. Second, if Walmart mis-spends its money (as you perceive it), it's none of your business because it's not your money. In contrast, the airports are government-owned and operated, so tax dollars are in play and local monopolies are in effect.

Anyway, I picked this up because - outrage of outrages - the article mentions that a scanner was damaged by rain through the leaky roof at Cleveland's airport. I say "Hooray!" I don't like to see my tax dollars wasted, but, since the whole TSA is a waste, I'd rather see a minor improvement in freedom due to a scanner being taken off-line and funds being diverted to repairing said scanner instead of buying a second scanner or hiring another goon. I do hope that Congress will at some point stop giving the TSA so much money so they lose their equipment and workforce through attrition. One can hope!