Consumer Advocate Legal Update : Class Action Lawyers & Attorneys : Khorrami Pollard & Abir Law Firm : Mass Torts, Products Liability

                 The health concerns about full-body scanners vary with the type of scanner used. The two types of full-body scanners currently in use are millimeter wave scanners, which use radio waves, and backscatter scanners, which use x-rays.  Supporters of the scanners state that the radio waves are totally harmless, and the x-rays used are at a very low level—about equal to the amount of radiation received during two minutes of a plane flight. The actual levels of radiation absorbed by the skin, however, may be up to 20 times higher than estimated. These health fears have led the Allied Pilots Association, the nation’s largest pilot union, to boycott both the full-body scan and the alternative pat down, with other pilot unions considering similar action. If pilots are allowed to skip the scans and pat downs, perhaps the same courtesy should be extended to frequent fliers or others who are willing to submit to background security checks, which would be less physically invasive while likely identifying passengers like the Underwear Bomber who are likely to be threats. Likewise, babies and young children should be spared from possibly traumatizing searches if their parents are cleared.

While the exact health problems associated with full-body scanners are still being debated, it is impossible to dispute the serious invasion of privacy issues associates with the scanners. Currently, 142 full-body scanners are deployed at American airports with 450 more planned for deployment. One writer said that the scan was “icky” and left him feeling “creeped out” and “violated.” The scans are extremely detailed, showing breast enlargements, body piercings, and outlines of genitals. Being seen naked by a complete stranger is bad enough, but there is a possibility that many people may have access to the images: the TSA recently admitted storing the images, despite earlier denying that the images could be stored or recorded. The trend of the government storing and possibly cataloging naked images of citizens is frightening, a gross abuse of power, and a serious violation of constitutional privacy rights.

The largest source of complaints is the TSA agents and corresponding agents in other countries. For example, one security agent at London Heathrow Airport is facing discipline and possible firing for sexual harassment after using a full-body scanner to take a picture of his female co-worker and making inappropriate comments to her. At Miami International Airport, one TSA agent attacked another after his whole body image was taken and repeatedly made fun of by other agents. Clearly, even if only male TSA agents review male passengers and female TSA agents review female passengers, there still exists the likelihood of harassment. TSA agents are also using high pressure techniques to force people to use the full-body scanner, including intimidating a pregnant woman. TSA agents have been known to make life difficult for those who refuse the scans.

The alternative for those who refuse the scanners, a pat down, is also seriously embarrassing, as TSA agents pat up passengers’ legs until meeting “resistance” at the crotch. The level of embarrassment for the pat down, however, seems to vary from airport (“molestation”) to airport (“completely painless and astonishingly civilized”). The TSA searches can sometimes go well overboard, resulting in one woman being accused of embezzlement after TSA agents read through her receipts and check deposit slips and having police contact her husband. In another case, a political campaigner was detained by TSA agents for carrying $4,700 in cash from campaign proceeds, despite this being legal for domestic flights. These sorts of situations are major violations of both the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution (protecting against unreasonable search and seizure) and the TSA’s new policy (“Screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security.”).

                Further, the effectiveness of the scanners is unproven and seems shaky at best. Even if the scanners or a pat down had been used on the Underwear Bomber, it is possible that neither would have detected his explosives. So far, the only items that the scans have turned up have been a pocket knife and a syringe full of liquid, although the TSA has not indicated whether the liquid was dangerous or not. Some security experts have come out and called the scanners a “waste of money.” It seems that full-body scanners are just another part of the TSA’s security theater that makes people think they are safe but actually provides very little protection. Since the scanners provide little protection and threaten passengers’ health and privacy, the only people who benefit from these scanners are the manufacturers and their well-placed lobbyists.