TSA Admits That Body Scan Machines Can Record Images

from the but-that-won't-be-used.-really.-trust-us. dept

Mon, Apr 12th 2010 3:51pm — Mike Masnick

With the new body scanning machines showing up at more and more airports, there still are lots of concerns over privacy and what might happen to the images of the scans. The TSA insists that the images are quickly discarded, but Michael Scott points us to the news that the TSA has now admitted that the devices can store and record images, but insists that's only done for "testing, training, and evaluation purposes." However, the TSA also admitted that there's nothing preventing this "test mode" from being turned on while in regular use. How long until there's some sort of "terrorist" incident that leads to a new requirement that all scans be recorded?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: body scanning, privacy
Companies: tsa

44 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Freedom, 12 Apr 2010 @ 3:55pm

First ...
Sweat! I can see it now:

airport-scanner-porn.com/moviestars
airport-scanner-porn.com/pregnant

...

Freedom
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2010 @ 3:57pm

wow, preggos made your top two
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2010 @ 4:01pm

Seeing as anyone with a cell phone camera can just take a shot of the screen means that it doesn't matter whether or not the machine "saves" the images.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
scarr (profile), 12 Apr 2010 @ 4:35pm

Old news?
Wasn't this test mode thing admitted to ages ago?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sam, 12 Apr 2010 @ 4:44pm

Re:
i find that to be the most disturbing thong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheStupidOne, 12 Apr 2010 @ 5:01pm

Re: Old news?
Yea, but they said it could be turned on while the machine was in service
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Big Al, 12 Apr 2010 @ 5:05pm

Re: Re:
Actually I find your typo even more disturbing...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BearGriz72 (profile), 12 Apr 2010 @ 5:08pm

Re: Old news?
"However, the TSA also admitted that there's nothing preventing this "test mode" from being turned on while in regular use."

This is the important line ... TSA has been trying to deny that the body-scanning equipment has the capability to print/store/distribute Images except during "Testing at a secure facility"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
in the USA, 12 Apr 2010 @ 5:11pm

This could only happen
Other people around the world are way less prudish about nudity. Ironic that violence is OK in movies and TV but one little nipple slip from a wardrobe malfunction and there's chaos. Childish.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 12 Apr 2010 @ 5:17pm

Re: Re: Re:
Nonsense. There are no disturbing thongs. All thongs are wonderful things. Some people that might choose to wear them however....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 12 Apr 2010 @ 5:20pm

Re: This could only happen
Not at all, since loose sexual conduct leads to more crime than violence. Follow with me:

At worst, violence leads to 1-2 copycat crimes. This is considered virtually negligible in a society with 300 million people. Unstable people would probably do something different anyway.

Loose sexuality leads to more people growing up without father figures in their lives. Since approximately 80% of prisoners grew up with no father figure in their life, this is something to be reduced. Movies repeatedly showing loose sexuality will cause looser sexual ideals in society, causing a rise in the type of environment that spawns people who commit crime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 12 Apr 2010 @ 5:37pm

Re: Re: This could only happen
That is absolutely ridiculous sophistry at its best. I have never seen a study that suggests that more sexually liberal society correlates with higher violent crime....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Skeptical Cynic (profile), 12 Apr 2010 @ 6:01pm

Wow! Where is this conversation going?
Everything in the thread so far misses the point. The scanners can see through clothing!!! And now we learn they can record those images. Who should have the right to invade your privacy in that way when you are not guilty of any crime?

Are you people losing it?

I could careless about violence or sex in movies. But this is a situation where you are subjected to scans where you can almost be view naked.

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
John Adams (1735-1826)

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences of too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson (1791)

History teaches us that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.
Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall (1989)

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DevConcepts (profile), 12 Apr 2010 @ 6:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Nonsense. There are no disturbing thongs. All thongs are wonderful things."

Sure. Maybe take the helmet off....

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0910/fat-guys-in-thongs-fat-guy-thong-f unny-stairs-demotivational-poster-1256013470.jpg
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2010 @ 6:20pm

Re: Re: This could only happen
Go back to GlennBeckistan
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 12 Apr 2010 @ 6:26pm

This is particularly sad because there are machines currently available which do a better job for less money and they do not obtain detailed pix of your junk. They have been demonstrated to detect things like the Fruit of the Loom Kaboom dood, which the porn machines of today would miss.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2010 @ 6:29pm

Re: Re: Re: This could only happen
That is absolutely ridiculous sophistry at its best. I have never seen a study that suggests that more sexually liberal society correlates with higher violent crime....

In fact, from what I've seen, countries with more sexually liberal societies tend to be less violent. So you can see why the US would be against *that*.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2010 @ 6:32pm

Lying Again?
So you mean to tell me that the US gov't, and the TSA in particular, have been caught lying once again?

I'm shocked, I tell you! Shocked!
/s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 12 Apr 2010 @ 6:52pm

Re: Re: Re: This could only happen
I think I'd rather live in Afghanistan than THAT crazy ass place...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2010 @ 7:23pm

the guns that airport security can be used to shoot people when used in test mode inside the airport property. that test mode should only be used at a firing range but is sometimes engaged in public areas. remove all their guns, they are dangerous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Charlie Potatoes (profile), 12 Apr 2010 @ 7:37pm

sexually liberal
I performed cunnilingus once ... It made me want to rape and kill.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2010 @ 8:48pm

Re: Wow! Where is this conversation going?
The answer to all your questions is simple:

TERRRRRISTS!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2010 @ 9:15pm

To echo the words of George Carlin...

it's FUCKING POINTLESS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob Battle, 12 Apr 2010 @ 9:43pm

Great comments
These comments are generally hilarious. But this is still just the illusion of security at it's worst. Bombers have already put explosives up their butt trying to kill someone. As far as the images, it's all about choice. If people choose to take their clothes off in public it causes an uproar, but now you cant travel across the nation without some perv getting to oggle your wife and your kids. Every celebrity or politician will have their photos passed around the internet. If you think this is right, then you shouldn't complain if I post photos of you with of those cameras that looks through hotel room peep holes. See you on the internet funnies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob Battle, 12 Apr 2010 @ 9:48pm

Re: Wow! Where is this conversation going?
Bravo on your quotes. You got any good ones on hindering interstate commerce, to add to the list?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jesse, 12 Apr 2010 @ 11:40pm

There are some that feel that people are too prudish. It's one thing to say that a person is too prudish when they go on a rant about what other people should be allowed to do with their own body; for example, if a person protested the presence of a nude beach. But it's entirely unfair to say that someone is prudish for wanting to maintain the sanctity and dignity of their private person by not having others see under their clothing.

I'd prefer that I be able to fly and have my body remain private. That is not an unreasonable request.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek, 13 Apr 2010 @ 2:09am

Naked body Scanners
Gordon Brown is a traitor to his country.
In Britain if you are asked to go through one of the scanners you must comply. If you refuse you will be barred from flying and your name will be kept on a list. Guilty before you fly. You are not given the opportunity to have a pat down.
The terrorists have scarred the not properly elected Prime Minister (what a joke) in to forcing civilised human beings in to getting there naked bodies photo graphed and looked at in detail by anyone who is TRAINED. Have these perverts been vetted or are they on the sex offenders list. I bet all the Trained individuals are men.
A Doctor is the only other man i would willingly let look at my wife’s naked body for medical reasons not some floor cleaner who applied for a job as pervert. Looking for bombs or staring at naked woman all day. What a job to have. Not having to pay for porn but also getting paid to look at it. I spoke to a friend at an airport and he told me that the images are kept for an hour before they are deleted. Just encase something happens on the plane they can then go back and have another look at the porn. So all this “the images aren’t stored in anyway and are deleted straight away” is complete rubbish!
In order for myself and family to have a nice holiday in the sun I am expected to let my wife expose herself to a complete stranger.
I didn’t marry a slag. Porn stars have a choice to get photo graphed, our wife’s and children don’t. Until these Skandalis machines are destroyed I am stuck in this country for a holiday. To drive to a hot country far away with a young family is unfair on them.
The dignity of our loved ones has been thrown away just because of some mud hut dwellers go boo !!!
Do you think Winston Churchill would have aloud his loved ones to expose there genitals to strangers just so they could go on holiday.
Get some Genitals Brown. Don’t jump on the first band wagon that they say will stop terrorists. This last attack would still of happened even if he had gone through a scanner.
I served in the Army for my family and friends protection. Now my Supposed Leader is making them strip in front of anyone deemed TRAINED.
Disgusting behaviour from a supposed leader of men.
Bend over Britain all is lost.

PS.funny how the shares in these machines are on the up. Some one is making a lot of money out this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 5:24am

Re:
That was just plain silly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Big Brother island, 13 Apr 2010 @ 6:50am

Given a choice.
Suppose they have 2 separate lines at airport security, line A has the scanner and passengers for flight A must go thru line A. Line B has no scanner; people can use this line for flight B. Flights A and B go to the same place in the same amount of time, B leaves 10 minutes before A.
I know which line I’m in.
If you don’t want to submit to the requirements for flying, don’t fly. The scanners offer more perceived security, and that is what everyone wants. And if anyone wants to post a picture of my junk on the ‘net, let them. As long as I can feel good about getting on a flight without worrying about the guy near the front with the funny accent.
Look, there is no such thing as prevention, TSA can only hope for deterrents. It’s like a cheap car alarm, it won’t stop your car from getting stolen if someone is determined to steel it. But it may make the casual thief think twice and move on to the next flight…errr…car.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek, 13 Apr 2010 @ 7:21am

Naked Body Scanners done by any jo blog.
What was plain silly?
The fact I love my wife and don't wont any old bloke taking pictures of my wife's naked body with her leg apart or that Gordon Brown is forcing people to be violated in the name of terrorism?
The images you are being aloud to see aren’t as clear as they can be as a reporter here in England tried to do a documentary on the scanners. He went through a miller meter wave scanner and then when he came out the other end he asked to see the image that was generated. He was refused to see it.
Why!
He wasn’t aloud to see the generated image as it would have caused everyone who was going to fly to change there minds. No self respecting person would willingly strip before a strange spread there legs and raise there hands in the (I surrender) pose and have a picture taken.
My wife would refuse that request from a fully trained Doctor let alone from a person who was going through your dirty under ware yesterday.
What’s the difference between some one going through the scanners and a porn star?
Nothing!
Except the porn star gets paid. Who’s the idiot?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 7:36am

Re: Great comments
Celebrities and politicians will be exempt from scanning, of course. Naturally.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 8:47am

Re:
Cameras, or phones are not allowed in the booths where the scanning would take place. Supposedly........... I'm sure it wouldn't be impossible to get a photo if you wanted one that badly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 8:50am

Re: Re: This could only happen
I think you are stretching that a little far. I don't see someone seeing an outline image of someone leading to an increase in prison population or crime sprees.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
known coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 8:53am

But we take naked pics of the children
TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN.

it is all starting to make sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 8:57am

To put it simply, there is not much we can do to prevent a Terrorist getting on a plane with a bomb. When we go to full body scanners, then they will stick the bomb where the sun doesn't shine. Or as recent article pointed out, Dr's are putting explosive breast implants in women to attempt to conceal bombs. The bad guys will always be a step ahead. Personally I have no problem with the scanners. I am willing to give up a little bit of my privacy for better security. The same people complaining that this is an invasion of privacy will be the same people demanding that the Gov't do more to protect them after then next bomb gets found on a plane.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James Shuford, 13 Apr 2010 @ 9:24am

?
I fail to understand why the deployment of these machines are in the U.S. I have noticed that the originating point's of those who would do Americans harm are usually overseas!

Why aren't the Americans asking this question as well as other obvious one's?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IrishDaze (profile), 13 Apr 2010 @ 9:47am

Re: Re: Wow! Where is this conversation going?
"I regret to say that we of the FBI are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate commerce."
~J Edgar Hoover

;-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 13 Apr 2010 @ 10:03am

Re: Given a choice.
Oh boy, you piled up so much wrong in that comment, it's amazing, really.

If you don't want to submit to the requirements for flying, don't fly.

Yes, instead take a train to Hawaii. I mean, hey, you didn't want a stranger to see you naked, you're probably a terrorist anyway.

As long as I can feel good about getting on a flight without worrying about the guy near the front with the funny accent.

Because people without accents are safer? Really? So, as long as someone forces you to do something in the name of 'perceived security', you're all good? You see where the trend is going, don't you? Man shoots through cockpit door = reinforced door; man hides bomb in shoe = remove your shoes; man hides bomb in underwear = they look at you naked; man hides bomb... in a 6 year old girl = ????

Yeah, you'd be okay with body cavity searches of children, then? Hey, in the name of 'perceived security', right, so it's all good?

Look, there is no such thing as prevention, TSA can only hope for deterrents

Notice the trend, though. Each new form of 'security' didn't make anything safer, because there is something after it. So, if looking at my naked body isn't actually going to *do* anything, I'll pass, thanks.

It's like a cheap car alarm, it won't stop your car from getting stolen if someone is determined to steel it.(sic)

Think back to the last time you heard a car alarm. Did you rush over to the potential crime scene, or call 911? Did you even bother to *look* at the car? No, you wished someone would turn off that damn noise.

So many people have died for the freedoms you are casually giving away to pretend to feel safe. It's so sad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
alternatives(), 13 Apr 2010 @ 10:33am

yes they will be stored
After any kind of 'attack' that 'could have been stopped' with the expensive toy. 'Proof' will be wanted that the workers did their job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 13 Apr 2010 @ 12:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or maybe read the rest of his comment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 13 Apr 2010 @ 1:32pm

Re: Given a choice.
"I know which line I’m in."

Me too. Flight B.

"If you don’t want to submit to the requirements for flying, don’t fly."

That's the choice I made. Until I can fly without pointless measures that treat me like a criminal, I won't fly. Which is too bad, because I love to fly and used to do it frequently.

"The scanners offer more perceived security, and that is what everyone wants."

Not everyone wants that. I don't. Perceived security is worthless. I don't even want more actual security, as it is not even close to being worth the cost. The risk of terrorist acts occurring on any given plane are well below my threshold of concern.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Justa Comment, 13 Apr 2010 @ 2:28pm

From a Regulatory Perspective
There should be some FDA or OSHA oversight. This should minimise safety and privacy concerns using something like device design and manufacturing rules (for energy-emitting scanners); operational rules (operator certification and regulation); workplace/environmental safety (energy exposure); and personal privacy (hippa-like rules). As it seems, we and the 'operator' are exposed to undefined and unregulated imaging emissions from unspecified machines by unlicensed 'operators' who have no oversight. And, since this is the US, no responsibility or penalties for the corrupt or stupid in charge. I'd avoid these things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek, 14 Apr 2010 @ 2:40am

Naked pictures at airports
In Britain if you are asked to go through one of the scanners you must comply. If you refuse you will be barred from flying and your name will be kept on a list. You are not given the opportunity to have a pat down. Have these perverts been vetted. In order for myself and family to have a nice holiday in the sun I am expected to let my wife expose herself to a complete stranger. I didn’t marry a slag. The dignity of our loved ones has been thrown away just because of some mud hut dwellers go boo!! The images you see are from the back ground scatter scanners not the fully disgusting Millimetre wave scanners which revel everything your body has to show. Even down to the size of your labia.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 14 Apr 2010 @ 8:39am

Re: Wow! Where is this conversation going?
Sorry Skeptical Cynic, but the foresight our founding fathers has been lost in the past couple of generations. We no longer posses the spirit of resistance, and will be doomed to ever tightening laws that will strip away our rights. When the tyranny becomes great, and it will, it will be too late. We no longer will be fighting muskets and cannons. Our little guns are NOTHING compared to the technology that WILL be used to oppress us to the point of slavery. When we do try to resist, you will be labeled a domestic terrorists and placed into a FEMA camp. Thanks Democrats AND Republicans.
[ link to this | view in thread ]