By *Andrea Sachs
Washington Post Staff Writer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020402882.html
A real inspector would have focused on the powdered substance hiding in
my bra, the box cutter tucked into my tights and the plastic-explosive
material snuggling inside my dress pocket. But because I was too close
to the subject under scrutiny, I fixated on the position of my
bellybutton: How strange that it sits so high up on my torso.
Get over yourself, honey: The full-body scanning machines at airport
security checkpoints weren't created to point out corporeal flaws but
to detect suspicious objects lurking beneath airline passengers'
clothing. The advanced imaging technology identifies forms that aren't
traditionally part of the human physique, such as an oval mound on the
hip that could be a potential bomb, or a pen shape near the ankle that
might be a knife. Since I hadn't harbored any contraband in my navel,
there was no cause for alarm.
Yet in a broader context, plenty of people are alarmed. The machines have sparked an electric storm of controversy
that touches on such knotty issues as the U.S. government's
anti-terrorist strategies and an individual's privacy rights. Compared
with body scanning, removing our shoes is as benign as trying on
footwear at Payless.
To understand the debate from all angles, I decided to undergo a
scan, experiencing technology's prying eyes firsthand. Standing before
a bank of uncovered windows in a second-floor office in Rosslyn, I
bared almost all.
* * *
If you've ever walked into a boothlike apparatus, stepped on colored
footprints and moved your arms like a clumsy cheerleader, you've been
body-scanned. The Transportation Security Administration
piloted the new technology in 2007 and rolled out 40 of the machines in
19 airports. Last fall, the agency bought 150 imaging machines, and it
has since procured funding for 300 more. If all goes according to plan,
the TSA will have installed 490 scanners by year's end.
"This enables the officers to identify without any physical contact
something concealed under clothing," said Jonathan Allen, a TSA
spokesman. "We need to have as many different layers of security as we
can. When we put them all together, it's more formidable."
The au courant technology addresses a gap in security that garnered critical attention after the failed bombing of a Christmas Day flight
to Detroit. X-ray machines catch only metal objects, and explosives
trace detectors, such as the sneezelike puffers, collect only the
residue of hazardous material. With pat-downs, searchers can detect
foreign objects stashed on a person's figure, but private areas, such
as the underwear zone of the recent terrorist, are off-limits.
"Unless it's a grope, we never would have found that device," said
Brian Jenkins, a homeland security expert and senior adviser to the
president of Rand Corp. "We can increase the restrictions, or we can
deploy another array of hardware."
For now, the TSA has chosen the latter, adding another machine to
its already gadget-laden process. "Since Americans are enamored with
technology, we tend to look for a silver bullet," Jenkins said. "Will
the body scanner add to the security? Yes. Will it solve the problem
and prevent all future terrorist attacks? No."
The TSA has approved two types of imaging machines
that utilize different technologies but share the same purpose: peeling
back a passenger's clothing to reveal suspect objects on the body. With
the millimeter-wave model, radio waves bounce off the skin, lighting on
foreign substances; the emission is equal to one ten-thousandth of the
energy released by a cellphone. The backscatter uses low-level X-rays
-- about what you'd be exposed to during a two-minute plane ride --
that seek out energy discrepancies. While the passenger is being
scanned, a security official in a remote location studies the captured
image for strange shapes and anomalies. The whole procedure takes 15
seconds or less.
The millimeter wave transmits a black-and-white 2-D hologram that
resembles an overexposed photo of an X-Man gone soft. The backscatter
image looks like a body sketch by an amateur artist, unrefined and not
worth hanging on the fridge door.
"It's not pornographic; it's not titillating," said Jenkins. "I
would regard these as the most unerotic images." Unless you have a
hankering for panty lines.
* * *
Only six airports operate body scanners for primary screening, so
unless you depart from one of those locations (such as Miami or San
Francisco) or are selected for a secondary inspection, your chances of
being scanned are fairly random. Rather than leave it to fate, I
arranged an imaging session with Smiths Detection, an engineering firm
that designs equipment for the TSA, including a millimeter-wave machine
about to be field-tested.
(Note: A few weeks later, I requested a scan
at the Atlanta airport. Though a TSA official told me that it wasn't
"some amusement park ride," he directed me to a machine near lanes 1
through 4. The screeners there thought I was strange but apparently not
dangerous, as I received an "all clear; copy that.")
In its Rosslyn office the company keeps an array of Security 'R' Us
toys, some of which looked familiar (X-ray machine), others foreign (a
bottle scanner that ascertains the safety of liquids) and one
reminiscent of my old Dustbuster (a portable explosives trace
detector).
The body scanner stood against an unadorned wall opposite a
wall of windows. A pair of white footprints faced a tall detection
panel as exciting as a clean blackboard. A small computer screen sat on
a table within view of the feet.
Shannon Town, a Smiths Detection office manager, agreed to go first.
As she raised her arms and spun with comfort and ease, I sensed that
she was a frequent guinea pig. In fact, Town is such a veteran model
that she was able to slip some "weaponry" under her clothes without
attracting notice. Only after studying her image did I detect the
smuggled box cutter and explosives stand-in material.
"We are looking at differences in shapes, sizes and densities,"
explained vice president Brook Miller. "You see what you need to see."
Truth be told, I didn't think I needed to see this much of Town: her bra straps, the buttons of her pants, her wiggling toes.
"It's better for females than males," said a male volunteer, who
also pranced before the machine with a fake gun tucked into his
waistband. "It looks like what you wear at the beach."
But only if your bathing suit style tends toward Germans on holiday.
* * *
Body scanners may appeal to the nudists of the world, but a number
of (clothed) groups are not so supportive of the technology, viewing it
as a threat to an individual's right to privacy. In 2006, the American Civil Liberties Union
testified before Congress, questioning the equipment's ability to foil
terrorists and raising concerns about potential violations of basic
rights. More recently, the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed
a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Homeland
Security, requesting the images generated by these machines.
"Before the new technology is implemented, there should be evidence
of its effectiveness against the threat. The device does not locate
well-concealed items in body parts and cavities," said Michael German,
policy counsel at the ACLU, citing as one example a British study that
found the scanners inept at detecting low-density materials. "It's asking a lot of people to sacrifice their privacy for technology that's not effective."
Though many folks may be ashamed of outing their beer paunches, privacy
advocates also worry that the machines could violate a person's
religious beliefs or cultural customs, or may unnecessarily expose a
physical disfigurement or medical condition, such as a colostomy bag.
"With the current threat, this isn't the answer," German said. "There
are other technologies that don't have these privacy issues."
To address those concerns, the TSA has implemented a number of
safeguards. Faces on the images are blurred or covered with a bar, and
hair is absent, creating an extended family of look-alike baldies. The
Smiths Detection model gender-proofs the review process by matching
female inspectors with female passengers and male inspectors with male
passengers.
Screeners surveying the images are physically separated from the
person being scanned, minimizing the risk of an awkward encounter. L-3
Communications, which makes the millimeter-wave scanner, is taking it
further: With its new automated version (in use at Amsterdam's Schiphol
airport), machine replaces man, highlighting questionable objects on a
Gumby-like figure. In addition, the images cannot be saved or stored;
the next scan can take place only if the previous picture is erased.
Finally, travelers may opt out of the experience and request another
type of screening. Note: Plan B could be a pat-down.
"There are full-body searches for those who want them," said Rand Corp.'s Jenkins. "They're available."
If a recent poll by USA Today and Gallup
is any indication, Americans will be queuing up for the scanners.
Seventy percent of those surveyed said that, for comfort reasons,
they'd rather undergo a body scan than a pat-down. Another finding:
More men than women support its use, with the majority of guys saying
they have no qualms about being virtually strip-searched.
"I don't see any big deal if it provides safety and security," said Carl Moroff, a passenger at the Atlanta
airport who said he is always screened because of a metal hip. "I guess
I am very confident, as long as I don't have to see the pictures and my
traveling companion can't see them."
Fear not: It's for TSA eyes only.
* * *
To prepare for my scan, I had packed some essentials: a screwdriver,
a Swiss Army knife, a container of Kiehl's lotion, a fork, a candle and
an orange that could be used as a weapon or a snack. However, after
seeing the company's buffet of (faux) hazardous material lined up on
the countertop, I quickly abandoned my props for theirs.
Before entering the chamber, I sneaked into the kitchen to
accessorize my body, throwing a small Mini Moo's creamer into my bra at
the last minute. Bulked up, I stepped onto the footprints and lifted my
arms. My first spin was too fast, so I slowed the pace for the second
turn, allowing the waves enough time to penetrate my threads. From my
position, I could peek at the screen, and I was impressed: I looked
like a terrorist-kicking avatar dressed in a liquid catsuit.
Upon closer inspection, my superhero uniform fell away. I noticed the outlines of my underwear,
tights and bra, and the mid-waist tie of my dress. A shot of my
backside, revealing more than a plumber's peep show, made me realize
that I needed to add squats to my exercise routine. I could see the
glint of my dangly gold earrings and the white of my teeth. And then
there was the odd placement of my navel, a small dot too far north.
Of course, America's safety -- not my ego -- was on the line. So I
got serious, discerning the various shapes atypical of the basic human
form: the crinkly mass above my ribcage (the baggie of sugar), the
shine by my shoulder (a paper clip), the dark shadow beside my heart
(the Mini Moo's). I was a voodoo doll of potential danger.
Miller eventually deleted my image, but my mind held on to it as I
tried to grasp the new bare-it-all phase of airport security. In the
end, I found it comforting to know that the body scanner would uncover
items missed by older equipment and that we travelers have one more
layer of protection against those exceedingly crafty terrorists.
For that, I could live with an exposed bellybutton.
* Being a writer and journalist, I should have prefered to put more of my own work here, but cannot help sharing impressive readings I come across every now and then . . .
