"Will New Airport X-Rays Invade Privacy?"

Sunday, October 9, 2005

Will New Airport X-Rays Invade Privacy? 
By AUSTIN CONSIDINE
The New York (NY) Times


WITH each of the terrorist attacks in New York, Madrid and London over the
last several years, new and increasingly complex questions have arisen for
security experts, posing fresh challenges. One of the greatest debates now
is between pushing security-related technical capabilities and protecting
the right to privacy. 

Among the most controversial technology being looked at by the
Transportation Security Administration is the backscatter body scanner. The
device - a boxy contraption that beams low-level X-rays through people's
clothing - has received a lot of attention because of the explicit images of
passengers' bodies it can produce.

This summer, for instance, Lori Borgman, a family humor columnist, wrote
that such images were "bound to find their way to the break room, the
Internet and the tabloids." The American Civil Liberties Union has called
the backscatter a "virtual strip search." 

As a result, the Transportation Security Administration has approached the
deployment of the machines tentatively over the last several years. "I think
that as we make the decision to roll out and go to pilot tests and move
forward, we need to be sure we're doing it in a responsible manner," said
the agency's chief technology officer and assistant administrator, Clifford
Wilke. "A person's first experience with a new technology will determine
their perception."

But there are signs that the T.S.A. is preparing to make its move. The
agency said it did not have a specific timeline, but statements made in
early August by the two manufacturers of the technology - American Science
and Engineering and Rapiscan Systems, a division of the OSI Systems
electronics company - indicated that the plans could be made public within
the next two months. 

One reason the agency may be ready to go forward is that it has found what
some see as a middle ground between security and privacy: "cloaking"
software that turns the explicit images into something resembling a generic
chalk outline of the body, identifying plastic, ceramic, biological and
other nonmetallic and metallic objects on the body. American Science and
Engineering said it felt its cloaking software - first introduced in July
during testimony before a House of Representatives committee - adequately
addressed privacy concerns. 

"If you look at backscatter images in their raw form, they're pretty
explicit, no doubt about it," said Bob Postle, American Science's vice
president of sales and marketing. But with the new software, he said, "it
would be impossible to recognize from these images who we're talking about
here." 

There is little indication on how Americans would react to backscatter
searches, either explicit or cloaked. There was a brief test in 2002 at
Orlando International Airport, where backscatter was tried out along with
several other emerging technologies, but the T.S.A. said the results were
unavailable. According to Rapiscan, more than 90 percent of passengers
searched while their machines have been being tried out at Heathrow Airport
near London have chosen the backscatter over a pat-down.

Some still question whether a middle ground is possible, or even desirable.
There are groups like the American Civil Liberties Union that maintain that
even the cloaked images are too intrusive.

"There will have to be some significant evidence that you represent a
threat" before a passenger should be scanned, said Barry Steinhardt,
director of the technology and liberty program of the A.C.L.U. Such
evidence, he said, could include the repeated tripping of a metal detector
or passenger matches with a "legitimate watch list."

The A.C.L.U. has also suggested that the technology be used as a less
intrusive alternative to body-cavity searches. But because a backscatter
emits radiation strong enough only to pass through a person's clothes, it
would not see into body cavities or body folds. 

"It's looking for things hidden on the body," said Peter Kant, Rapiscan's
vice president for government affairs. "So you don't want to penetrate the
person at all, you just want to get through the clothing." 

Since a backscatter's purpose is to detect both metallic and nonmetallic
objects, manufacturers said the suggestion that backscatter be used as a
follow-up to metal detection - the way physical pat-down searches are often
used today - defeats the technology's advantages.

"It's the guy, randomly, that's not making the sucker go beep that you want
to take a look at," said Peter Williamson, vice president for global sales
of Rapiscan, who says that his company already supplies around half the
country's airports with metal detectors.

Both manufacturers of backscatter machines also recognized that cloaking
images can compromise detection abilities. American Science and Engineering,
which, in their House testimony, released images produced by the cloaking
software, acknowledged such a trade-off. 

"There certainly is a chance to begin to miss some things that might be
vital," Mr. Postle said. "So there's a balance between security and between
the privacy issue." 

BAA, the company that runs seven major airports in Britain, bought three
Rapiscan backscatter machines in late July for use at Heathrow; the machines
had been on lease. The devices do not use cloaking software. 

"In Britain, they put a premium on security," said Mr. Kant of Rapiscan. 

But Mr. Steinhardt of the A.C.L.U. said Americans did not have to take their
cues from Britain. "The British are leading the world in creating a
surveillance society," he said. "I mean, they've outdone America in that
regard." 

Radiation exposure is another concern for some. Both manufacturers' machines
fall well under voluntary standards put forth by the American National
Standards Institute as well as limits outlined in a report by the National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements in 2002. But scientists
like David J. Brenner, director of the Columbia University Radiological
Research Accelerator Facility, who worked on the report, say there is no
completely safe level of radiation. 

"If you multiply that very small risk by, shall we say, 700 million, which
is the number of people, roughly, who use airports in this country, then
you've got a significant public health issue that one should be concerned
about," Mr. Brenner said. He cited particular concern for children - who he
said can be up to 10 times more sensitive to radiation than adults - and for
pregnant women.

Yet, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements report
says the levels of radiation from backscatters fall well within the
acceptable, lower limits for children and pregnant women. 

Mr. Williamson of Rapiscan suggested, as did many others in the industry,
that various technologies and methods be continually rotated or even used in
con- cert, in order to stay a step ahead of potential terrorists. "Like
everything, it's got to be part of a layered process," he said. "I don't
think there is a silver bullet out there in security." 

Attached Photo:

LEFT A backscatter X-ray image shows the skin surface and objects hidden by
clothing. RIGHT A "cloaked" backscatter image turns the X-ray into an image
resembling a drawing.

09xray.large.jpg