Thank you for contacting me to express your concern about full-body scanners at airports. I appreciate hearing from you about this important issue. 

As you may know, under new guidelines established by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), passengers at some airports are subjected to a full-body scan to detect prohibited items that may be concealed under their clothing. Individuals who do not want to go through a full body screening may decline in favor of a pat-down screening. There are more than 300 full body scanners in use at airports with TSA planning to increase that to more than 1,000 devices. Currently, no airport in Maine has a full body scanner. 

I recognize the need for enhanced security guidelines that keep our skies safe for travel and understand that TSA has instituted these new guidelines to protect passengers. However, like you, I think TSA policies need to apply common sense in their approach to provide security. 

Although these new guidelines have been created to enhance security for travelers and combat the threat of terrorism, we must be assured that the constitutional rights of American citizens are not being violated in the process. I have concerns about TSA full body scanners because of the potential invasion of privacy and lack of Congressional direction and oversight.  Additionally, there are reports that the pat-down alternative to full-body scanning can be overly intrusive and time-consuming. 

We need to ensure that these precautionary measures are the most appropriate methods to discover previously undetectable threats or explosives. The House passed H.R. 2200, the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act on June 4, 2009, with my support. It included an amendment to prohibit the TSA's use of full-body scanners as the primary screening method. This legislation is currently pending consideration in the Senate, and it is my hope that it is considered quickly. 

Fortunately, the House Committee on Homeland Security plans to hold hearings on the body scanning procedures and alternative technologies. Congress must execute its oversight responsibilities, investigate claims of constitutional violations, and produce recommendations for restoring trust between the public and the TSA. 

I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind as Congress continues its consideration of this issue. Thank you again for being in touch and I hope to see you in Maine soon.

Sincerely,

Chellie Pingree

Member of Congress

I declined to fly this time around because of the TSA’s new policies. If I’d decided to fly from Portland, I would have flown JetBlue into JFK. According to the TSA’s FAQ, however, JFK is one of the airports featuring the new Advanced Imaging Technology full body scanners manufactured by, among other entities, Rapiscan Systems Limited. And no, before you ask, that name is not a typo. I’ve detailed my frustrations with the TSA’s current policy previously. The short version is that the benefits to the TSA’s new approach are marginal – Bruce Schenier calls them “a waste of money and time” – and thus do not justify the violations of my fourth amendment rights. 

Until these rules are changed, then, I will be flying as little as possible. The question is: how little is that?

As much as I long for a future of cross-country high speed rail, the estimated $500+ billion price tag puts that solidly in the realm of “pipedream.” To travel to San Francisco, then, as I need to next week, rail is not, realistically, an option. It would take a combination of trains and buses four days to get me across the country, against a door to door transit time of approximately nine hours by air. And if I wanted to actually sleep for the two nights I’d be in transit, the cost of the fare is $936.00 – one way. 

California, then, is regrettably outside my TSA radius. But what are the numbers for regional travel in the North East. While it’s obvious that even high speed rail such as the Acela is slower than the shuttle in absolute transit time – 2:34 minutes by train, typically, against 1:12 by plane – there are a number of things acting to mitigate that apparent advantage. Here’s a quick look at the numbers I came up with. The route is based on door to door times from the Copley Place in Boston to the Westin in Times Square, New York, a trip I have made in the past. 

Plane:

• Copley Square to Logan (13 minutes)
• Advised arrival time at the airport (60 minutes)
• Flight time (72 minutes)
• La Guardia to Westin Times Square (50 minutes)
• Total transit time: 3:15

• Copley Square to Westin Times Square (3:51)
• Advised arrival time at the station (:30)
• Total transit time: 4:21

The question for travelers then is whether the extra time can be offset. The answer will vary from person to person, of course, but for me the answer is yes. The reasons for this are many.

• Trains feature both power and wifi: planes on this route are unlikely to have either
• Train seats are longer, wider and more comfortable
• Rail doesn’t have restrictions on device usage, unlike air travel which requires passengers to shut down for takeoff and landing
• Rail does not have TSA screening, so I do not have to take my shoes and belt off, my laptop out, or be subjected to an “enhanced” pat down
• Due to the lack of screening, I am not restricted from bringing items like bottled water on board
• Also due to the lack of screening, I do not have to show up for trains an hour ahead of time to board
• Train stations are generally located in city, so there is no long cab ride waiting for me upon arrival as when flying

Rail is not an option for all or even most of my travel, unfortunately. But whenever it is, I will continue to give it my business. Whatever it gives up in time, it gives back in comfort. 

 

Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns about the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) enhanced pat-down procedures.  I appreciate your taking the time to do so.

 

The TSA has implemented enhanced pat-down procedures for travelers who opt out of screening by whole-body scanning or Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) machines.  I share the concerns of many passengers about privacy and the exposure to radiation associated with AITs.

 

On November 17, 2010, at a hearing on aviation security before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, where I serve as Ranking Member, I told TSA Administrator John Pistole that the TSA should consider adopting the AIT technology being used in the Netherlands.  Using different software, those machines produce "stick -like," featureless images of passengers and indicate with a red box where concealed material is located on the body.  This technology does not use images that have physical details of the passenger's body.  In addition, this technology does not expose people to radiation, but is still able to effectively detect weapons or other dangerous materials.

 

Stephen O’Grady

[REDACTED]

Georgetown, ME 04548

November 12, 2010

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree

1037 Longworth HOB

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Ms. Pingree, 

Besides being a Maine resident and business owner, I travel frequently for work. It is about that travel that I am writing you today. 

As you are likely aware, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has begun the wide scale rollout of Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) machines, commonly referred to as “backscatter” devices because of the type of radiation they employ for their imaging. According to the TSA, there are 317 such devices in use at 65 airports nationwide.[1]

That AIT is invasive is not in question. With it, every screened passenger is effectively strip searched, albeit digitally. The TSA claims that AIT both respects their privacy and is safe for passengers. It is possible that the TSA genuinely intends to respect our privacy. If the history of these devices at the Orlando Federal Courthouse is any guide, however, it would appear that it is not a matter of if these backscatter recorded images are captured and stored, but when. The associate general counsel for the US Federal Marshals Service has acknowledged storing “approximately 35,314 images” there. [2] According to the TSA itself, each of the 317 devices currently in use has the technical capability to store images. We are meant, rather, to be reassured by the following: “image storage functions will be disabled by the manufacturer before the devices are placed in an airport and will not have the capability to be activated by operators.” [3] Personally, I believe that if the capability is present, it will be used. 

Even if we could be assured that it would be impossible to store AIT derived images, there are legitimate questions of safety involved. In April of this year, four professors from the University of California San Francisco submitted a letter to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Dr. John P. Holdren. [4] The purpose of the letter was to “call…attention to serious concerns about the potential health risks of the recently adopted whole body backscatter X-ray airport security scanners.” To his credit, Dr. Holdren responded to their concerns with a detailed reply. [5] Nowhere in his reply, however, is the concept of cumulative absorbtion addressed. For frequent travelers such as myself, this is a concern, as even minuscule doses of radiation can become problematic over time. Pilot unions for US Airways and American Airlines, in fact, are advising their members not to submit for backscatter screening. [6] Capt. Mike Cleary, president of the U.S. Airline Pilots Association – a 5,000 plus member union – communicated the following in a letter to members: 

“Based on currently available medical information, USAPA has determined that frequent exposure to TSA-operated scanner devices may subject pilots to significant health risks.” At a minimum, then, there seems to be disagreement over the potential health implications of the devices. 

Travelers are not required to submit to backscatter screening, of course. They are permitted to “opt out” of this process in favor of what the TSA is referring to as an “enhanced” pat-down. [7] Having been subjected to this while traveling on October 31st, I can personally attest that it is the definition of invasive. After loudly yelling “opt out,” TSA officers make physical contact with your genitals (and breasts, for females), and run their hands over your entire body. The press has documented numerous accounts where individuals were substantially affected by the experience, because the TSA officer was overly intrusive, because the experience reignites memories of past physical or sexual trauma, or simply because having a stranger intrusively touch you in a public venue is unpleasant. [8] [9] The experience was humiliating for me, but I cannot imagine having to watch my wife be touched in such a manner. 

If we assumed, counterfactually, that the backscatter devices and enhanced pat downs were both safe and non-intrusive, the question that would remain would be of expected benefit. The primary goal of both procedures, of course, is to prevent contraband from being smuggled onto an aircraft. As the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg notes, however, neither procedure is capable of detecting items stored in body cavities, nor those surgically implanted. [10] [11] It is highly likely that would be terrorists will be aware of these limitations and will exploit them. 

Security is, inevitably, a trade off. Historically, air travelers have traded inconvenience for improved but provably incomplete safety. With the introduction of the AIT devices and the rollout of the enhanced pat-down, travelers in the United States are for the first time being asked to trade their dignity, their peace of mind, and access to their person for what amounts to a marginal benefit to detection, one easily sidestepped by determined attackers. 

This trade off is not worth it. I ask you to act to reverse the existing policies not for me, but for my wife. Current federal policy is forcing my wife and I to have to choose between having her irradiated and virtually stripped or touched in inappropriate ways by a stranger. 

We all want to be safe while flying. It is time, however, for us to recognize that air travel, like any other means of transportation, is not now, nor ever will be, 100% safe. In spite of all of our best efforts. Given that, we should aim to keep travel a reasonable compromise between security and convenience. 

This is the United States. We cannot and must not consent to being strip searched and physically handled simply to travel from one city to another. If we do that, and voluntarily surrender our dignity, those looking to inspire fear in us have accomplished their goal. 

As someone who supported you on election day, I hope you can find time in your schedule to look into this important matter.

Sincerely,

Stephen O’Grady

[1] TSA Frequently Asked Questions: http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/faqs.shtm

[2] “Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images”, CNET News: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

[3] “Reply from the TSA to the Honorable Bennie G. Thompson”: http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/TSA_Reply_House.pdf

[4] “Letter to Dr. John Holdren from Dr. John Sedat, Dr. David Agard, Dr. Marc Shuman, Dr. Robert Stroud.”: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ucsf-jph-letter.pdf

[5] “Reply from Dr. Holdren to the University of California – San Francisco”: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/SecuritySystems/ucm231857.htm

[6] “Pilots urged to avoid body scanning,” CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/11/pilots.body.scanning/?hpt=T2

[7] “Enhanced Pat-downs,” The TSA Blog: http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/08/enhanced-pat-downs.html

[8] “Local man claims TSA pat-down went too far,” ABC 13: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7780727

[9] “Airport screeners get more aggressive with pat-downs,” USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-10-29-tsa-pat-downs_N.htm

[10] “For the First Time, the TSA Meets Resistance,” The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/

[11] “Terrorists ‘could use exploding breast implants to blow up jet’,” The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/7510350/Terrorists-could-use-exploding-breast-implants-to-blow-up-jet.html