Surprising Conclusion from Mainstream Publication

I almost didn't click through on this older post on the Scientific American blog, titled,  "Is That Airport Security Scanner Really Safe?" I figured the answer would be: Don't worry! Trust us! Similar to the Time article that came out around the same time.

I was wrong.

Written by a physician, it concludes that since we don't know the answer definitively, and we also have zero evidence that they are effective at preventing terrorism, it's not worth the risk to go through a millimeter wave naked scanner.

More than that, it's a good overview of the technology and its recent history in American airports.

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!

Passive Scanning Takes Another Step Forward

This very short article was the most informative so far on the March towards passive scanning (that already started in NY and LA train stations). The TSA is expanding its testing. The scanner is made by Thruvision:

"[Thruvision's Kevin] Gramer said, the passive terahertz technology reads the energy emitted by a person, similar to thermal imaging used in night-vision goggles.

"'It’s 100% passive. There is no radiation coming out of our device.'"

This seems like an improvement on the privacy front, but it really depends on how the technology is used. I have more to say on this, but I'll save it for another time.

Naked scanners confirmed in LA train station

I have been following the testing of new technology in train stations over the past year or so. It has been hard to find information on exactly what technology has been used. This NPR report has bad news for those of us who value liberty: portable naked scanners are now being used on subway commuters.

"As travelers approached the large black box on wheels, known as a portable millimeter wave scanner, they appeared on its screen as energy waves."

Millimeter wave scanning is the same technology being used in airports. The machine is looking through your clothes -- and, quite probably, your skin -- in real time. The computer software no longer shows the offensive nude image of a passenger, but marks the locations of suspicious items under clothes.  This could be a prosthetic, an abnormal body part, a personal hygiene product, a legal weapon, or, in very rare cases, an illegal weapon being carried with an intent to harm. (NB: It will not catch a strategically placed weapon or explosive.)

What happens when an abnormality is found? Will you be subject to a very personal groping on your way to work?

Listen to the whole story:

<iframe src="https://www.marketplace.org/2018/09/14/tech/after-la-other-major-cities-consider-subway-body-scanners/popout" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="240px"></iframe>

"I Am A Liberal"

As recently as January, Cato published a warning about the use of facial recognition by law enforcement in the U.S.. Add I reported last week, not only is DHS interested in facial recognition technology, they are running trials of it. The Cato column lays out why this is an illiberal, anti-freedom, anti-American idea:

In the not too distant future, our faces will be our “papers.” Police officers won’t need to talk to us, let alone examine ID documents, in order to identify us. Those who don’t appear in a facial recognition network or take steps to avoid facial scan detection will be the subject of extra scrutiny. Unless lawmakers take steps to ensure that only wanted suspects and those with a history of violent crime are included in law enforcement facial recognition networks those who wish to avoid being identified via facial scans will have to take steps that come at high social and economic cost.

England got rid of it's national ID card when one man spoke up and took action,  stating, "I am a liberal, and I am against this sort of thing. "

Passive naked scanning at Penn Station

Passengers at Penn Station are being unwittingly strip-searched. Although software modifications have been applied to mask the privacy invasion, it is nonetheless a privacy invasion to have a machine see through your clothes!

TSA is running a trial of these scanners, stepping individuals as they go up and down an escalator. No warrant or consent necessary!

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.

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?

Yikes! Qylatron?

Sometimes there is something unassuming in the news that shocks me.

I wonder how many 49ers fans are aware that they may soon be guinea pigs for some invasive screening. I have no idea what this technology is, aside from a brief explanation from USA Today:

Radiation and chemical sensors survey the passers-by for explosives, X-ray machines scan for weapons, and a color-coded light array gently guides users through the process with green, red and purple prompts.

It is supposed to passively search large crowds so that there are minimal bottlenecks (since private companies are quite interested in not irritating their customers). But, will there be some sort of notification in the fine print on tickets?

(I also find it interesting that the article notes that Disneyland Paris tried this technology.)

Passive body scanners

There is a new technology that is not only on the horizon, but already in use, according to this article. It passively scans an area (that is, it does not produce radiation, but only detects it) to identify anomalies under clothing. There is no health concern here, but there is a privacy concern. Do you have an expectation of privacy when you are wearing clothing in a public place? If an anomaly is detected, is that reasonable cause for an invasive physical search?

The next generation scanner

Good news! The next generation full-body scanner, now in use in prisons, does away with privacy concerns because, "There are no soft tissue images created by the SecurPASS System eliminating privacy concerns."

SecurPASS image from Mikron
Digital's website

The operator can't see genitalia, breasts, and other private areas, because the machine looks right through the skin. Like an x-ray.

No privacy concerns there. Feel free to not only virtually undress me, but look what's under my skin.

And, of course, it's safe. Trust us.

       Q: Is the SecurPASS Scan safe?

       A: Yes. The exposure received is less than the average            amount of background radiation that a person receives              standing in the sun for about 1 hour.

Why would you even wonder if wardens (and future TSA administrators?) don't have each prisoner's (passenger's?) best interest at heart? We can't just have scientists and doctors given unfettered access to such an important piece of national security equipment!!!

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.

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.

Egregious violation of safety and privacy at American borders

Around the time I was warning that unseemly practices of other countries could come to the US if we weren't, Obama's DHS was purchasing the very technology that I was worried about: scanners that were capable of seeing through the metal bodies of cars and trucks. I knew that DHS has been using these for VIPR inspections of trucks, but I did not know that any had been installed at the border. They have and CNET has the story.

False alarm rate is alarming Europeans

Millimeter scanners are not only a gross violation of privacy, they are also ineffective. Of choose we knew this anecdotally from the number of people who report getting the scan-n-grope. But now the European states are coming forward with their own numbers, and the false alarm rate is about 50%.

Belly bombs: We knew this was coming

It didn't take a genius to see this fear-mongering coming.

A spokesman for the Transportation Security Administration, Nicholas Kimball, said that passengers flying to the United States are likely to face additional screening measures.

"These measures are designed to be unpredictable, so passengers should not expect to see the same activity at every international airport," Kimball said. "Measures may include interaction with passengers, in addition to the use of other screening methods such as pat-downs and the use of enhanced tools and technologies."

Wake up, America!

UPDATE: Here's Slate's coverage, making the same point.