Thread: Body scanning images being banked

Body scanning images being banked

When officials claim limited goals and strong privacy guarantees with security technology, don't believe them
By Dan Gillmor

When government officials launch new security technologies, they always promise that the devices and methods will A) not unnecessarily invade people's privacy; B) have strong policies in place to prevent abuse; and C) not go beyond their initial mandate. Then they break the promises.

The latest case in point involves the full-body scanners that are being installed in airports and some other federal installations: As CNET reports:


For the last few years, federal agencies have defended body scanning by insisting that all images will be discarded as soon as they're viewed. The Transportation Security Administration claimed last summer, for instance, that "scanned images cannot be stored or recorded."

Now it turns out that some police agencies are storing the controversial images after all. The U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had surreptitiously saved tens of thousands of images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse.


It's an example of "mission creep" -- the pervasive tendency to expand original goals or tactics beyond supposedly narrow original goals. It's how laws supposedly aimed solely at crime lords end up being used against average folks. The only surprise in this case is that anyone would be surprised.

The misrepresentations about the body scanners have been a key feature of the machines' rollout. First we were told that no images could be stored because they'd be automatically deleted. Whoops, not true. In fact, these machines are specifically designed to store the images.

Now the Department of Homeland Security has done what everyone paying attention knew was coming: It's mandating the rollout of the body scanners nationwide. Soon, everyone who flies will be invited to bare all for the sake of security.

But you don't have to actually go through the scanner, right? Isn't there an option to be checked in some other way? There sure is, but be prepared for a serious hassle if you do.

Be prepared for some other upcoming realities. Even though lots of celebrities make sex tapes, there are at least a few movie stars and other public figures who have retained some old-fashioned modesty. Think any of these folks, however they regard their own privacy, won't be targets? Think again.

And watch as the full body scan becomes less and less optional if you want to actually catch your flight. Either it'll be mandatory, or the alternative will be hugely time-consuming and/or physically invasive. So if you find yourself shocked one day that yet another vestige of your liberty and dignity has been taken away, you won't have been paying attention.

http://www.salon.com/technology/dan_gil ... sion_creep

This is a vitual strip search.

I have a big problem with minors being scanned. I can't help but think if the Government officials that have recently been caught poring over child porn while at work.

From the UK
New scanners break child porn laws (2134)Tweet this (1123)Alan Travis, home affairs editor guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 January 2010 22.14 GMT Article history
A 12-month trial at Manchester airport of full body scanners only went ahead last month after under-18s were exempted. Photograph: Paul Ellis/AFP/Getty Images

The rapid introduction of full body scanners at British airports threatens to breach child protection laws which ban the creation of indecent images of children, the Guardian has learned.

Privacy campaigners claim the images created by the machines are so graphic they amount to "virtual strip-searching" and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved.

Ministers now face having to exempt under 18s from the scans or face the delays of introducing new legislation to ensure airport security staff do not commit offences under child pornography laws.

They also face demands from civil liberties groups for safeguards to ensure that images from the £80,000 scanners, including those of celebrities, do not end up on the internet. The Department for Transport confirmed that the "child porn" problem was among the "legal and operational issues" now under discussion in Whitehall after Gordon Brown's announcement on Sunday that he wanted to see their "gradual" introduction at British airports.

A 12-month trial at Manchester airport of scanners which reveal naked images of passengers including their genitalia and breast enlargements, only went ahead last month after under-18s were exempted.

The decision followed a warning from Terri Dowty, of Action for Rights of Children, that the scanners could breach the Protection of Children Act 1978, under which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a "pseudo-image" of a child.

Dowty told the Guardian she raised concerns with the Metropolitan police five years ago over plans to use similar scanners in an anti-knife campaign, and when the Department for Transport began a similar trial in 2006 on the Heathrow Express rail service from Paddington station.

"They do not have the legal power to use full body scanners in this way," said Dowty, adding there was an exemption in the 1978 law to cover the "prevention and detection of crime" but the purpose had to be more specific than the "trawling exercise" now being considered.

A Manchester airport spokesman said their trial had started in December, but only with passengers over 18 until the legal situation with children was clarified. So far 500 people have taken part on a voluntary basis with positive feedback from nearly all those involved.

Passengers also pass through a metal detector before they can board their plane. Airport officials say the scanner image is only seen by a single security officer in a remote location before it is deleted.

A Department for Transport spokesman said: "We understand the concerns expressed about privacy in relation to the deployment of body scanners. It is vital staff are properly trained and we are developing a code of practice to ensure these concerns are properly taken into account. Existing safeguards also mean those operating scanners are separated from the device, so unable to see the person to whom the image relates, and these anonymous images are deleted immediately."

But Shami Chakrabarti, of Liberty, had concerns over the "instant" introduction of scanners: "Where are the government assurances that electronic strip-searching is to be used in a lawful and proportionate and sensitive manner based on rational criteria rather than racial or religious bias?" she said.

Her concerns were echoed by Simon Davies of Privacy International who said he was sceptical of the privacy safeguards being used in the United States. Although the American system insists on the deletion of the images, he believed scans of celebrities or of people with unusual or freakish body profiles would prove an "irresistible pull" for some employees.

The disclosures came as Downing Street insisted British intelligence information that the Detroit plane suspect tried to contact radical Islamists while a student in London was passed on to the US.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's name was included in a dossier of people believed to have made attempts to deal with extremists, but he was not singled out as a particular risk, Brown's spokesman said.

President Barack Obama has criticised US intelligence agencies for failing to piece together information about the 23-year-old that should have stopped him boarding the flight.

Brown's spokesman said "There was security information about this individual's activities and that was shared with the US authorities."

Feds Store Body Scans; US Marshals Saved 35,000 Images from Just One Courthouse.

TSA's millimeter wave body scan (TSA.gov)
NEW YORK (CBS/CNET) Homeland Security has announced that body scanners will appear at virtually every major airport in the United States; however, not everyone is happy with what critics call a "virtual strip search," especially since a government agency has recently admitted to saving the images of people in their birthday suits.

The Transportation Security Administration and other government agencies have insisted that the "scanned images cannot be stored or recorded," but apparently the U.S. Marshals Service have figured out how to do just that, reports CNET.

Just this week the U.S. Marshals admitted to saving tens of thousands of images recorded at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse.

An associate general counsel with the Marshals Service acknowledged that they had saved more than 35,000 images from the Orlando, Fla. federal courthouse.

According to CNET, body scanners are able to penetrate clothing to provide a highly detailed image of one's anatomy, including the good and the bad.

The U.S. government likes the scanners because they are able to detect concealed weapons better than other methods.

On the other hand, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and its executive director Marc Rotenberg told CNET that these "devices are designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded, which is exactly what the Marshal Service is doing. We think it's significant."

EPIC has filed a lawsuit asking that a federal judge pull the plug on the TSA's body scanning program, says CNET.

"TSA is not being straightforward with the public about the capabilities of these devices," Rotenberg told CNET. "This is the Department of Homeland Security subjecting every U.S. traveler to an intrusive search that can be recorded without any suspicion--I think it's outrageous."

A TSA agent maintains that the recording function is turned off and that they are "not ever activating those capabilities at the airport."

Still, the debate over how much loss of privacy is too much seems likely to intensify, as the deployment of the millimeter wave body scanners is poised to take off.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162- ... 04083.html