Ethics of TSA Full-Body Scanners, Research Paper Example

Abstract

This paper examines the ethical issues involved in the use of TSA Full-body scanners in the United States of America.  There have been issues involved concerning invasion of privacy by taking nude digital images of the body and implications of radiation exposure from the scanners, as such providing health concerns.  The paper examines existing scholarly research in this area and provides some insight as to the advantages and disadvantages using this technology in Airports.

Introduction

The Transport Security Administration (TSA) has misled the public concerning the use of digital imaging full-body scanners in use at most Airports.  The Agency stated that the devices do not retain images and have been disabled for this purpose. Recent information obtained by EPIC[1] has proven that the scanners can save, store and retain images.  This invasion of privacy has developed into a controversial issue.  In addition, questions concerning health safety as a result of exposure to radiation have also been raised.

The paper is structured into three distinct sections:  Section 2: This examines the background and significance of these machines. Section 3: Considers the arguments applicable to the privacy issues and Section 4: Examines the health implications resulting from exposure to radiation from the full body scan.

Background and Significance

The introduction of Full-body scanners to the US Airports has been the result of increased homeland security measures to counter the terrorist threat at our Airports. With the increasing number of security penetrations it was decided a more thorough means of scanning individuals, before boarding aircraft, was required. The driving force behind introducing these came after the Christmas bomber incident in 2009 when a Nigerian born man attempted to set off an explosive device fixed into his underwear.  This being on a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.  The concept of a mid-air explosion over the Atlantic Ocean would result in tremendous loss of life.  The important aspect here is that the terrorists are stepping up their game by using more sophisticated technology. This in turn will require the security forces to increase their vigilance and use the most sophisticated technology at their disposal in order to safeguard the lives of passengers.  The argument being that such security concerns override personal privacy issues.  A German Newspaper called Die Welt made very specific comments in the defense of the use of this technology “Privacy finds its limits when the life of others is at risk, and that is the case in this matter. People who are worried and put their privacy above the lives of others should not underestimate the extent to which Germans would like to stay alive.” (Marquand). The German interior Minister stated that Germany would be committed to the installation of full body scanners if they were both safe and could guarantee the privacy of individuals. The Dutch and British have adopted similar stances and both planned to make these standard operating procedures at their airports.

Technology and the Ethical Dilemma

The UK was amongst the first vocal group to complain about the ethical considerations in the use of full body scanners.  In particular the violation of child protection laws and how these might be interpreted for taking digital images of children under 18 “

Legislation forbids the creation of indecent images of children and privacy campaigners and civil liberties groups say the images are so graphic the process amounts to ‘virtual strip searching’. The hi-tech scanners produce an anatomical image of passengers’ bodies, including breasts and genitalia.” (Knudsen).  Despite this objection the British Authorities subsequently overturned this law and offered no reason or justification.

The technology has also raised concerns about health issues and exposure to radiation. Despite that fact that this is stated to be a low exposure to the radiation an American Doctor [2] stated “exhaustive research leads him to conclude that there is NO SAFE DOSE-LEVEL of ionizing radiation. His studies indicate that radiation from medical diagnostics and treatment is a causal co-factor in 50 percent of America’s cancers and 60 percent of our ischemic (blood flow blockage) heart disease” (Knudsen).

There will be certain ethnic groups that will feel both intimidated and threatened by the technology. Amongst these are Muslim women, of which the UK now has a significant population. Muslim women dress modestly and will feel very insecure about appearing naked through the use of full body scanners at Airports.  This may make them fearful of travelling and feel virtual captives in the UK.  It is probably important to note that going through the body screens is not compulsory and you can opt to have a personal body search as opposed to using the scans.  This may be appropriate where individuals have medical implants and may feel uncomfortable about the ramifications of the machines.

Privacy Issues – The Arguments

Children Issue

The main issue here is associated with that of nude digitised images of children. The concept of such images getting into the hands of paedophiles or perverts.  This becomes a privacy issue but in the UK this has been over-ruled and it is likely that security issues will take precedence in other countries too.  There is also the question of the integrity of those security persons using the devices. Images are not supposed to be stored but the machinery certainly has that capability.

Sensitivity

This is the concept of people looking at medical implants, women’s breasts and personal genetalia. John Adler[3] perhaps stated the bigger picture here when putting the privacy issues into true context “I don’t consider the full-body scanners an invasion of privacy,” Adler said. “I think a bomb detonating on a plane is the biggest invasion of privacy a person can experience.” (Rucker).

Not a Full Solution

One of the arguments is that this does not represent a full solution to stop those committed terrorists. As such the public are placed through a lot of indignity and discomfort in their travel arrangements.  It has been stated that the scans only penetrate 4mm of skin depth and as such an explosive device could be placed inside a person and detonated by a cell phone called a “booty bomb” – “There’s a way to beat it. It’s called a ‘booty bomb,’ where you actually insert the explosive inside the human being and then you detonate the explosive with a cellphone.” (Rucker).

The Bottom Line

The most important concern relative to the invasion of privacy is that these devices essentially take images of you naked.  The fear is that these images may somehow be saved and then copied that may allow them into the public domain. The end result being your naked picture might appear on the internet in Facebook, U Tube or similar.  The fact that the TSA did not reveal the fact that these machines can both store and transmit images compounded the privacy concerns in the minds of the passengers. The Security agencies do take every precaution in terms of viewing the images in a private room and cellphones or other recording devices are not permitted in the room.

The Health Implications

The Radiation Threat

The amount of radiation that you are exposed to as a result of the scan is extremely miniscule. It is said that you get more exposure from the actual flight itself.  The point is that there is no real safe level or dosage of exposure to radiation. Nevertheless, it would appear if you are at greater risk if you are a frequent flyer.  This is one reason why many pilots refuse to have the full-body scan. They are already getting enough radiation exposure with the amount of flying that they do, the concern being that this would seriously compound their case.  The main concern of radiation is that of cancer risk, heart disease etc.

One letter to the TSA compiled by a number of physicians[4] cast considerable doubt on the health and safety implications of the full body scanners “Our overriding concern is the extent to which the safety of this scanning device has been adequately demonstrated. This can only be determined by a meeting of an impartial panel of experts that would include medical physicists and radiation biologists at which all of the available relevant data is reviewed.” (Adams).

Most alarming is the comparison with that of XRAY machines and how these differ dramatically. The full body scanners coming in much closer contact with the skin and thereby the radiation consequences are far more severe “This comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest X-rays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight / volume, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high.” (Adams).

The Health Risks

Source: (Adams)

Given the array of potential problems, as outlined above, there is indeed significant room for concern and public assurance that all safest measures have indeed been considered before these machines are placed into widespread circulation.  At the moment there is still room for considerable doubt, yet the machines are being widely deployed throughout the USA, Europe and elsewhere.

The objections of full body scanners, as raised by the Doctors and Scientists at the University of California, was really to emphasise the point that inadequate research has been carried out on the subject matter.  They concluded that until all of the health and safety scientific research has been conducted, then this remains a serious health risk.  In particular they point out past mistakes of the Federal Government in the USA, applicable to where similar decisions have impacted the lives of thousands of people.  Specific examples were stated in their letter.  They clearly state that there has been no scientific research studies conducted on the  intermediate and long term effects of radiation from the full body scanners. Of particular concern are those men and women classified as frequent flyers and the increased risk of Cancer to children.

The pilots obviously see this as a concern as they have been exempted from the use of the scanners. The Physicians and Scientists were unanimous in their decision that this does represent a significant health risk without full medical and scientific research being carried out in this area.  In addition, they stressed that whilst the scan only lasts a few seconds there are certain flaws with this.  The scan might be prolonged if they wish to inspect a specific area e.g. the groin area; hence this could see the increase in doses of radiation being applied which are above the specified norm.  Equally any malfunction or glitch in the hardware could result in an overdose of radiation to a specific spot on the skin. As such this would increase the risks of Cancer.

Despite these objections there has not been an adequate response from the Government and they have forged ahead with the implementation of these scanners across all of the major airports in the country.

Conclusions

With regard to the Privacy issues it would appear that Governments do acknowledge and understand the concerns that these represent from the varying lobby groups that have raised these issues. Whilst the Governments state that they respect and attempt to uphold these concerns, nevertheless they are equally dismissive of them and believe that the full body scanners remain a vital part of their weapon arsenal against counter terrorism measures. As such these over-ride people’s general concerns about lack of privacy. The program of implementing these scanners has not abated in any way and in fact it has accelerated throughout North America and Europe.  Without a doubt this debate will continue for some to come.  The further we move away from events like 9/11 and incidents of a similar nature in Madrid and London, then the more people will galvanise on the subject of why there travel should be hampered in this way.

The health issues are of more paramount concern with particular emphasis on young children and frequent flyers.  The imposition is the need to spend more time in your travelling arrangement program if you opt to have the full body search instead of going through the full body scanner.  The program of introducing the body scanners is one that appears to have been implemented in haste as a direct response to the need for increased surveillance measure to counter the terrorism threat at our airports.  The Federal Government and other European Governments have so far not been able to produce any convincing evidence on the health and safety standards of these machines; particularly applicable to intermediate and long term exposure to radiation. Equally how they might respond to any malfunctions in these machines that may result in providing excessive doses of radiation to those being scanned.

Works Cited

Adams, Mike. Radiation scientists agree TSA naked body scanners could cause breast cancer and sperm mutations. 3 12 2010. 1 2 2011 <http://www.naturalnews.com/030607_naked_body_scanners_radiation.html>.

Knudsen, Theresa. Body Scanner, the Constitution, Ethics and X-Ray. 11 1 2010. 1 2 2011 <http://www.suite101.com/content/body-scanner-the-consitution-ethics-and-xray-a187816>.

Marquand, Robert. Europe warms to full body scanners at airports after Northwest bomb scare. 30 12 2009. 1 2 2011 <http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2009/1230/Europe-warms-to-full-body-scanners-at-airports-after-Northwest-bomb-scare>.

Rucker, Philip. TSA tries to assuage privacy concerns about full-body scans. 4 1 2010. 31 1 2011 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/03/AR2010010301826.html?sid=ST2010010301836>.

[1] Electronic Privacy Information Centre

[2] Dr. John Gofman, of the University of California at Berkeley

[3] Federal Law Enforcement Officer

[4] Drs John Sedat Ph.D., David Agard, Ph.D., Marc Shuman, M.D., Robert Stroud, Ph.D., all from the University of California.