Getting stripped bare with X-ray machines

by David Grand
May 26, 2005

That's what will happen to the hundreds of millions of air travelers each year, if the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) goes ahead with its plans to begin using a controversial X-ray machine that will show what's under a person's clothes (including underwear), the images of which paint a revealing picture of a person's nude body. They say that intrusive device is needed to detect plastic or liquid bombs that could be concealed on a terrorist's body, which the metal detectors at the security checkpoints wouldn't pick up.       

If that's not an unacceptable-if not illegal-intrusion of one's privacy rights, I don't what is. And if what amounts to a virtual strip search is implemented, the lines at those checkpoints would be a lot longer; and with ticket holders having to go to the airports four or more hours before their flights. It also could be the death knell for those airlines who are in deep, financial straits. For the last thing they need is to make air travel even more inconvenient and frustrating than it already is.

And as if it isn't embarrassing enough for women to be padded-down by some stranger, I can only imagine how mortified many would feel in knowing their bodies were being peered at on a screen, not only by the screeners but by those lined-up behind 'em. But men would probably find it less objectionable, having fewer private parts, and who are used to being half-naked at home and outdoors.

However, those so-called "backscatter" machines can serve a useful purpose, like with U.S. Custom agents at 12 airports using them to screen passengers suspected of carrying drugs. But to apply it across-the-board to all air travelers is as absurd as using a guillotine to cure dandruff. And for the Homeland Security Secretary to tell a Senate subcommittee that he wants that technology employed ASAP, and doesn't want an "endless debate" over privacy issues, is the height of arrogance, and doesn't augur well for his time in office.

Speaking of smuggling drugs, a common practice that's being used to avoid detection by screening devices is by swallowing drug-filled condoms or placing them in another orifice; which raises the obvious question, that if drug smugglers can do it, what's to prevent terrorists, who are on a suicide mission at an airport from using the same techniques with explosives? Hopefully, however, there are, or on the drawing board, technologies to counter that real threat, short of conducting proctology and dental exams on those who meet the profile of a possible terrorist, or on those who are acting suspiciously in the minds of the screeners, or are making a big fuss about being X-rayed.

Now, while I don't mean to downplay the importance of airport security, I'm equally if not more concerned about the vulnerability of our seaports to terrorist attacks, which to date has been given scant attention. As the director of the GAO's office of homeland security testified before a Senate committee, "seaports are a ready-made conduit for terrorists groups to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the country; and that a successful attack on a seaport could result in a dramatic slowdown in the nation's supply system, with consequences in the billions of dollars."  (She was right in waving the red flag, what with about 200 ships calling on our 361 ports every day, and with only 2 percent of the more than 6 million cargo containers that arrive here yearly opened and inspected.)

So, it looks like we can only hope that the legislation introduced by a bi-partisan group of senators to step up transportation security, with emphasis on ports and railroads, will be fruitful. Now, where did I put that Greyhound bus schedule for my upcoming vacation trip? Aha, there it is, under my canceled airline ticket!