Would Body Scanners Make Us Safer?

Friday, January 22, 2010

By Lisa Caruso, National Journal

Ever since 23-year-old Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's failed attempt to blow up his Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day, the country has been engaged in a fierce debate over whether to significantly increase the use of whole-body screeners in U.S. airports.

There are already 40 body scanners deployed in 19 airports throughout the country, including Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and Los Angeles International Airport. But they are used for initial screening in only six airports and their use for either primary or secondary screening is optional for all passengers. TSA has another 150 scanners set to be deployed and is planning to buy 300 more.

Proponents insist that full-body scanners could have detected the plastic explosives Abdulmutallab had sewn into his underwear and argue that widespread use of body scanners would deter potential terrorists from trying to smuggle non-metal explosives onto planes. Critics counter that the graphic images they produce violate personal privacy and that at roughly $150,000 each the machines are too expensive for widespread deployment while their effectiveness is unclear.

NationalJournal.com asked several experts in aviation and security whether widespread use of whole-body imaging to screen travelers would make planes safer from the threat of terrorism. These and other experts spoke with us for an article on international aviation security.

NJ: Would widespread use of whole-body screeners make air travel safer from the threat of terrorism?

Stephen Flynn, president of the Center for National Policy, a bipartisan security think tank: There tends to be an overreliance on technology and inadequate attention given to the human dimension of how we try to detect risk. You need to inform people what you're looking for and empower them to help you out. We need alert passengers and flight crews, especially when we now have terrorists assembling bombs onboard.

The reality is that the risk is there and the most likely line of defense is going to be everyday people, so you need to tell people what they should do. This stuff is scarier if you don't talk about it an adult-like way. The goal is informing and empowering the people who are most likely to be in the wrong place at the right time.

Robert Crandall, former chairman and CEO of AMR Corporation and American Airlines: It isn't practical and it doesn't make sense. The first thing is, you shouldn't be trying to identify things [like bombs]. You should be trying to identify people [like potential terrorists]. We're focused on things, not people.

Second, we're focused on what could happen on the plane, not what could happen on the ground. We don't do anything about what people bring into the airport before they get to the checkpoint. If you wanted to create a lot of havoc and loss of life, you could come into an airport and leave two suitcases full of bombs in the entrance and blow the whole place up.

In Israel they don't let you get near a terminal with your bags until they've looked at you. They're all over you like a blanket. They look at passengers. We simply haven't adopted best practices.

Michael McCormick, executive director and COO of the National Business Travel Association: That is part of the process of making a safe and secure travel process. It is a next step and part of an overall security plan. If the equipment is in widespread use and is properly deployed, it should make the process more efficient.

Michael Jackson, former deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security: The problem is that the technology has not been universally embraced. We got a strong signal from the House [which voted 310-118 last June to prohibit the use of body scanners for primary screening] that there is no consensus.

I hope that Congress now will affirmatively embrace the whole-body imaging tool and appropriately insist that privacy be protected so that the tool not be misused. Even so, we can't buy all of the machines and train the personnel and develop the infrastructure to support to require their use in the United States right now anyway.

Kip Hawley, former administrator of the Transportation Security Administration: Absolutely. They should be required for primary screening of nearly 100 percent of passengers, and the rest should get some version of a pat-down. People need to get over their privacy worries and this idea that they're somehow being picture naked. They're not.