Expensive TSA Nudie Scanners Find A New Home: Prisons

from the can-i-get-a-refund? dept

It's been quite a while since we've had much news about the TSA's nudie scanners, other than the admission by one TSA employee that they, you know, don't work to do anything other than show people being naked. Yes, the federal government's oddly belated overreaction to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which they don't think will be attempted again, required a massive influx of taxpayer cash to pay for all this uselessness. That would be your money, my money, all of our money going into a program that didn't work, wasn't needed, and violated our rights. But a story of this kind of futility and waste needs a nice little bow put on it for an ending. The federal government never seems to fail us in this kind of request.

Where are those nudie scanners now that they're being transitioned out of airports? Why, they're in prisons of course, because piling them up on the federal curb would make them look stupid.

So far, 154 of the machines have been transferred to prisons in states including Iowa, Virginia and Louisiana. It’s a good fit because privacy concerns raised by airport passengers do not apply in many cases to prisoners, according to TSA.

“TSA and the vendor are working with other government agencies interested in receiving the units for their security mission needs and for use in a different environment,” TSA spokesman Ross Feinstein said.

Well, hey, that's great. The forty-million dollars of doesn't-work the TSA had in place are being transferred to not work in other federal institutions. And, because nobody worth their political salt is going to bother to stick up for prisoners, there's much less push back there. Nevermind that these devices still don't do the job they claim to do. Nevermind that forty-million bucks were wasted. Prisons! That's the answer, because this is America, damn it, and if there's one thing we know, it's how to bolster our already staggering jail-economy.

Members of Congress had also raised issues about the safety of the machines and their scanning technology, asking the National Academy of Sciences to explore whether people are exposed to unsafe levels of radiation during the process.

Doesn't matter, because the prisoners are all evil and whatnot and safety is no longer a concern. Meanwhile, this transfer of uselessness should be exhibit A at any hearing in which someone in national security insists they need something expensive in order to keep people safe. It's time for some accountability, please.

Filed Under: naked scanners, nudie scanners, prisons, privacy, tsa

Former TSA Agent Explains Full Body Scanners Didn't Work, But Did Let Him See You Naked

from the but-of-course dept

There's been less discussion over the TSA's full body scanners recently, especially since the TSA's brief but insanely expensive (with YOUR money!) experiment with the "nudie scanners" went away. However, Politico has a fascinating story from a former TSA agent revealing that much of what you suspect about the TSA is true: they were able to see you naked even as the scanners had little actual value. They do target attractive women and have a rather long list of official sounding "code names" for good looking women so they can alert each other to them while appearing professional. On those nudie scanners, he has the story of the guy who taught them how to use it, who was then asked what he thought of the machines:

“They're shit,” he said, shrugging. He said we wouldn't be able to distinguish plastic explosives from body fat and that guns were practically invisible if they were turned sideways in a pocket.

We quickly found out the trainer was not kidding: Officers discovered that the machines were good at detecting just about everything besides cleverly hidden explosives and guns. The only thing more absurd than how poorly the full-body scanners performed was the incredible amount of time the machines wasted for everyone.

Of course, what he leaves out is the real reason why these were installed in airports across the country. It had nothing to do with terrorist threats, but the fact that former DHS boss Michael Chertoff was getting rich off of helping to sell them to the government agency he used to run.

As for looking at you naked, yes, the TSA folks would look and laugh:

Most of my co-workers found humor in the I.O. room on a cruder level. Just as the long-suffering American public waiting on those security lines suspected, jokes about the passengers ran rampant among my TSA colleagues: Many of the images we gawked at were of overweight people, their every fold and dimple on full awful display. Piercings of every kind were visible. Women who’d had mastectomies were easy to discern—their chests showed up on our screens as dull, pixelated regions. Hernias appeared as bulging, blistery growths in the crotch area. Passengers were often caught off-guard by the X-Ray scan and so materialized on-screen in ridiculous, blurred poses—mouths agape, à la Edvard Munch. One of us in the I.O. room would occasionally identify a passenger as female, only to have the officers out on the checkpoint floor radio back that it was actually a man. All the old, crass stereotypes about race and genitalia size thrived on our secure government radio channels.

There were other types of bad behavior in the I.O. room—I personally witnessed quite a bit of fooling around, in every sense of the phrase. Officers who were dating often conspired to get assigned to the I.O. room at the same time, where they analyzed the nude images with one eye apiece, at best. Every now and then, a passenger would throw up two middle fingers during his or her scan, as though somehow aware of the transgressions going on.

And yes, he talks about the ridiculousness of confiscating nail clippers and liquids:

I confiscated jars of homemade apple butter on the pretense that they could pose threats to national security. I was even required to confiscate nail clippers from airline pilots—the implied logic being that pilots could use the nail clippers to hijack the very planes they were flying.

Once, in 2008, I had to confiscate a bottle of alcohol from a group of Marines coming home from Afghanistan. It was celebration champagne intended for one of the men in the group—a young, decorated soldier. He was in a wheelchair, both legs lost to an I.E.D., and it fell to me to tell this kid who would never walk again that his homecoming champagne had to be taken away in the name of national security.

Basically, pretty much everything we already knew about the TSA and its security theater seems to be more or less accurate. There's a lot more in the article, but it really paints a picture of typical bureaucratic insanity. The whole setup of the TSA seems designed to do two things: to help make a few ex-gov't officials very wealthy while giving the public appearance that current government officials are "doing something" about terrorism.

As we've noted in the past, even the TSA knows that there's not much of a threat directed at air travel these days, which is probably why they've started giving up the pretense and waving large groups of folks through at times.

Of course, beyond the government officials getting rich part of this, the simple fact is that the political incentives here always will lead to these kinds of ridiculous results. When there is, inevitably, some other attack, questions will be asked about why we weren't "doing enough." So everyone has incentives to do as much useless stuff as possible, even if it's all really useless. That way they can talk about everything they had already been doing -- and then layering on some other idiotic idea (like taking off your shoes, or not carrying water bottles through security) and go on with the myth that they're "protecting" people. It's just that sometimes this leads to bored TSA agents staring at tons of people naked based on no warrant, no threat and no damned reason at all.

Filed Under: naked scanners, nudie scanners, security theater, tsa

Accidentally Revealed Document Shows TSA Doesn't Think Terrorists Are Plotting To Attack Airplanes

from the but-the-body-scans-continue dept

Jonathan Corbett, a long-time vocal critic of TSA body scanners, has been engaged in a lawsuit against the government concerning the constitutionality of those scanners. In the course of the case, the TSA gave him classified documents, which he was ordered not to reveal. In using some of that information to make his case, he needed to file two copies of his brief: a public one with classified stuff redacted, and the full brief under seal, for the government and the courts to look at. Just one problem: someone over at Infowars noticed that apparently a clerk at the 11th Circuit appeals court forgot to file the document under seal, allowing them to find out what was under the redactions... Included in there is the following, apparently quoted from the TSA's own statements:

“As of mid-2011, terrorist threat groups present in the Homeland are not known to be actively plotting against civil aviation targets or airports; instead, their focus is on fundraising, recruiting, and propagandizing.”

Elsewhere, the TSA appears to admit that "due to hardened cockpit doors and the willingness of passengers to challenge hijackers," it's unlikely that there's much value in terrorists trying to hijack a plane these days (amusingly, that statement is a clear echo of Bruce Schneier's statement criticizing the TSA's security theater -- suggesting that the TSA flat out knows that airport security is nothing more than such theatrics).

Elsewhere, in the redacted portions, the TSA is quoted as admitting that "there have been no attempted domestic hijackings of any kind in the 12 years since 9/11."

As Corbett notes in his filing, the entire basis for the nude scanners is that they were somehow necessary to stop terrorists with explosives from getting on planes. Yet, as he makes clear, the TSA knows that there's been little threat of any such attack for quite some time. He also details how the machines are not very good at tracking down explosives, and pretty much everything that has been caught with these machines (such as guns) could be easily found via traditional metal detectors. Further, as noted above, other protections that have nothing to do with the nude scanners are the main reason (which the TSA admits) that terrorists have moved on from targeting airplanes.

Amazingly, it appears that the government forced Corbett to redact the revelation that the TSA's own threat assessments have shown "literally zero evidence that anyone is plotting to blow up an airline leaving from a domestic airport." Corbett argues that this shows why the searches are not reasonable under the 4th Amendment. Corbett also points out that about the only thing the machines seem useful at catching are illegal drugs -- but, as he notes, that's "irrelevant to aviation security." Sure, the government may like the fact that it catches illegal drugs with these machines, but the TSA can't argue it needs the machines for "terrorism" when it knows that's not true, and then tries to keep them just because it finds some narcotics...

While it still seems unlikely that Corbett's lawsuit will actually succeed, he's right that these revelations mean that, at the very least, Congress should be investigating why the TSA insisted that it needed these machines to find terrorists that it now admits aren't actually plotting to attack airplanes.

Filed Under: body scanners, jonathan corbett, naked scanners, terrorism, tsa

TSA Dumps Rapiscan Naked Airport Scanners After Failure To Make Them 'Less Revealing'

from the say-wha...? dept

Lots of folks have noted the ridiculousness of the "Rapiscan" name used by OSI Systems for its x-ray airport security naked scanner -- one of the two popular "new" style scanners used at airports. Over the last few months, I've noticed that I've been seeing fewer and fewer of the Rapiscan machines, and airports that used to have them have been replacing them with the L3 "millimeter-wave" scanners, which have all been outfitted with upgrades so that there's no more "naked" in the naked scanning (and so that operators no longer have to wait for the TSA agent hidden in a dark room with your naked images to give them the "all clear.") Now it turns out that the TSA has ended its contract with OSI and all of the remaining Rapiscan machines will be removed from airports. The main reason is that -- despite having been requested to quite some time ago, OSI failed to make a version of their naked scanner without the nakedness. While L3 was able to do that pretty quickly, apparently it was way too difficult to take the "naked" out of the Rapiscan.

The TSA insists that the decision to dump the Rapiscan has nothing to do with the recent reports and ongoing investigation into the claims that OSI manipulated tests of the Rapiscan machine to pretend that it didn't violate travelers' privacy as much as it did. However, I'm sure that didn't help OSI.

Filed Under: airports, naked scanners, rapiscan, security, tsa
Companies: osi

Naked Scanner Maker Accused Of Manipulating Tests To Make Scans Look Less Invasive

from the well-that-was-useful dept

We'd heard a number of reports about how the TSA was already either retrofitting the various naked scanners or moving on to less privacy invasive versions, but there were two interesting points to come out some Congressional hearings on the devices yesterday. First, apparently there is some concern that the makers of the Rapiscan machine (and, yes, it still amazes me that anyone thought that was a good name), OSI Systems, may have "manipulated" tests in order to claim that the machines did not invade travelers' privacy:

The company “may have attempted to defraud the government by knowingly manipulating an operational test,” Representative Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Transportation Security Subcommittee, said in a letter to Transportation Security Administration chief John Pistole Nov. 13. Rogers said his committee received a tip about the faked tests.

OSI, of course, is denying it, but this is the same company that also apparently ran into problems last year when maintenance reports suggested radiation levels 10 times as high as promised.

The other bit of news? The TSA has admitted that it has simply put a bunch of these machines in storage -- 91 machines, worth $14 million -- because of related privacy concerns.

While it's a good thing that privacy violating machines aren't being used, it raises serious questions about why they were purchased and put into use in the first place -- and done so without ever taking comment from the public, as is required under law. Perhaps if they had actually done that, they would have avoided wasting so much taxpayer money on machines that violate everyone's privacy.

Filed Under: manipulation, naked scanners, privacy, rapiscan, scanners, tsa
Companies: osi systems

TSA Still Not Taking Comments On Naked Scanners; So Public Interest Group Does It For Them

from the politicians-lagging-public-opinion dept

If you needed proof of politicians’ sensitivity to, and encouragement of, persistent terrorism fears, look no further than today’s hearing in the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security. It’s called “Eleven Years After 9/11 Can TSA Evolve To Meet the Next Terrorist Threat?” and it’s being used to feature—get this—a report arguing for a “smarter, leaner” Transportation Security Administration.

Could the signaling be more incoherent? The hearing suggests both that unknown horrors loom and that we should shrink the most visible federal security agency.

Lace up your shoes, America—we’re goin’ swimmin’!

Our federal politicians still can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that terrorism is a far smaller threat than we believed in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks, and that the threat has waned since then. (The risk of attack will never be zero, but terrorism is far down on the list of dangers Americans face.)

The good news is that the public’s loathing for the TSA is just as persistent as stated terrorism fears. This at least constrains congressional leaders to make gestures toward controlling the TSA. Perhaps we’ll get a “smarter, leaner” overreaction to fear.

Public opprobrium is a constraint on the growth and intrusiveness of the TSA, so I was delighted to see a new project from the folks at We Won’t Fly. Their new project highlights the fact that the TSA has still failed to begin the process for taking public comments on the policy of using Advanced Imaging Technology (strip-search machines) at U.S. airports, even though the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered it more than a year ago.

The project is called TSAComment.com, and they’re collecting comments because the TSA won’t.

The purpose of TSAComment.com is to give a voice to everyone the TSA would like to silence. There are many legitimate health, privacy and security-related concerns with the TSA’s adoption of body scanning technology in US airports. The TSA deployed these expensive machines without holding a mandatory public review period. Even now they resist court orders to take public comments.

TSAComment.com has gotten nearly 100 comments since the site went up late yesterday, and they’re going to deliver those comments to TSA administrator John Pistole, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and the media.

The D.C. Circuit Court did require TSA to explain why it has not carried out a notice-and-comment rulemaking on the strip-search machine policy, and assumedly it will rule before too long.

Getting the TSA to act within the law is important not only because it is essential to have the rule of law, but because the legal procedures TSA is required to follow will require it to balance the costs and benefits of its security measures articulately and carefully. Which is to say that security policy will be removed somewhat from the political realm and our incoherent politicians and moved more toward the more rational, deliberative worlds of law and risk management.

Hope springs eternal, anyway…

There could be no better tribute to the victims of 9/11 than by continuing to live free in our great country. I won’t shrink from that goal. The people at TSAComment do not shrink from that goal. And hopefully you won’t either.

Cross-posted from Cato-at-Liberty.

Filed Under: naked scanners, tsa

TSA Agents Have 'Limited Ability' To Spot Prohibited Items In New Naked Scanners

from the comforting dept

This probably won't come as a surprise after hearing about the massively botched TSA screening that resulted in a guy covered in urine, but a new report out by Homeland Security investigators found that training of TSA agents is rushed, poorly supervised, and not up to the necessary level for the new security screening procedures.

For example, given all the talk about just how important these new naked scanners are, you would think that the TSA agents operating them would be properly trained to use them to see the stuff those machines are supposed to spot. Not so, apparently. According to the report, due to a "software problem," TSA agents were trained on images from an older generation of machines which did not adequately prepare them to use the new machines:

TSOs must complete both new hire and recurrent training on screening technologies; however, airport training equipment is sometimes different from the devices used at screening checkpoints. According to an OTT official, when TSA deployed a new generation of x-ray machines to 81 airports, the updated recurrent training for TSOs with these machines had not been implemented because of software problems. TSOs were still training with x-ray images from older generation equipment, which limits their ability to identify prohibited items using the current checkpoint equipment.

So, we're using these naked scanners even though the people operating them haven't been properly trained on them, and they're not really able to spot the prohibited items that we're told can only be spotted using these machines or a grope. Once again, I'm trying to figure out how this makes us any safer. You can see the full Homeland Security report, which is pretty damning, after the jump. It highlights how the agents are often rushed through all aspects of training, and how ill prepared airports are to handle such training. It does not suggest an organization on top of any security threat. It suggests security theater in the extreme. I would think that making sure security is properly trained is somewhat more important than insisting that we must see everyone naked.

Filed Under: naked scanners, privacy, security, training, tsa
Companies: tsa