Video shows advanced TSA screening devices failing to detect large metal objects

Earlier this month, Jonathan Corbett of the site TSA Out of Our Pants! released a video that allegedly demonstrated that he was able to sneak large metallic objects passed TSA's most advanced screening devices without being detected. These devices have been deployed by the hundreds across the US over the last couple of years and were intended to detect metal objects, explosives, and other prohibited items. In some airports, these have been used as the primary screening device for passengers, bypassing the traditional metal detector.

What is noteworthy is that Corbett performed his tests against both types of advanced screening devices currently in use by the TSA. The video below provides details on how Corbett discovered key weaknesses in these scanning devices, and how he used a very low tech method to successfully get large metal objects through the scanners without being detected:

What may be far more alarming than the demonstrations in the video are Corbett's claims that TSA representatives have attempted to intimidate him, as well as several journalists, warning them not to cover this story. If these claims of intimidation are true, it would represent a very wrongheaded approach by TSA. AirSafe.com's position is that claims such as the ones made by Corbett are best dealt with by providing the information to anyone who is interested and letting them judge for themselves.

This event is similar in some ways to a 2009 incident where TSA accidentally released a TSA document that contained extensive information about TSA testing of devices and TSA security procedures. In spite of concerns in some areas of government about the possible security risks, The TSA could do little to prevent the public from downloading the document. AirSafeNews.com also published an article explaining why the TSA has little authority when it comes to taking documents offline. While these procedures manuals may be currently out of date, they still make for very interesting reading.

The TSA responds to Corbett's video
The TSA, in their official blog at blog.tsa.gov, responded to the claims made in Corbett's video. The highlights of the response by TSA's representative Bob Burns, along with AirSafe.com's comments are below:

I watched the video and it is a crude attempt to allegedly show how to circumvent TSA screening procedures.

For obvious security reasons, we can’t discuss our technology's detection capability in detail, however TSA conducts extensive testing of all screening technologies in the laboratory and at airports prior to rolling them out to the entire field. Imaging technology has been extremely effective in the field and has found things artfully concealed on passengers as large as a gun or nonmetallic weapons, on down to a tiny pill or tiny baggies of drugs. It’s one of the best tools available to detect metallic and non-metallic items, such as… you know… things that go BOOM.

With all that said, it is one layer of our 20 layers of security (Behavior Detection, Explosives Detection Canines, Federal Air Marshals, , etc.) and is not a machine that has all the tools we need in one handy device. We’ve never claimed it’s the end all be all.

However, our nation's aviation system is much safer now with the deployment of 600 imaging technology units at 140 airports. It is completely safe and the vast majority use a generic image that completely addresses privacy concerns. Also, keep in mind that is optional. Anybody can opt out of the body scanner for a pat-down.

Dr. Curtis of AirSafe.com comments on TSA's response
The most important thing about the response by Burns is that it did not refute the key point made in the Corbett video was true, specifically if it were possible to sneak a large metal object past both kinds of advanced scanners deployed by TSA. It isn't necessary to discuss the detailed detection capability of these scanners, but it would make TSA's response more useful if it came out and said that Corbett demonstration was either real or not.

Burns did state several obvious points about security that I agree with, point which I discussed in some detail in a 2010 article describing how the TSA is unable to eliminate the threat from bombs. The most important point is that there are several layers of security, and that no one layer of security is sufficient.

One area where the Burns article may have misled his readers is in his emphasizing how much more safe the current system is with the advanced devices. There are few problems with this claim. First, he did not define what he means by safe. If he meant some measurable quality such as a reduced likelihood of sneaking a bomb or gun through security, then it would be helpful to tell the audience what that measurement is. Also, he mentions that the machines are at 140 US airports, but does not mention that there are hundreds more US airports that offer some kind of commercial airline service. A review of the the FAA's online air traffic database revealed that in 2011 over 440 airports offered some kind of airline service and 250 of these airports averaged one or more airline flights per day.

Perhaps a more accurate claim from Burns would have been that these advanced screening devices adds a layer of security for some passengers at some airports. Perhaps a more useful response would have been one that emphasized the the risks that the screening technology reduces, in this case the measurable reduction in the likelihood that someone could sneak a dangerous or banned item onto an aircraft, rather than on saying that the system is safer, where he does not define what safety means, and does not give any solid data to support this belief.

What I said in my 2010 article about why the TSA could not eliminate threats of bombs is just as true today, and if anything Corbett's video supports my position:

The threat from those who want to disrupt the air transportation system is one that constantly evolves. For every system or procedure that is put into place, those who intend to bring harm to the system will take steps to either avoid those measures or find a way to defeat them. While extra measures will not make air travel perfectly safe, they will likely make travel less risky.

Related resources
April 2010 reader poll results on the use of scanners

Is the TSA allowing convicted rapists to perform pat-down searches?

Last Thursday, without much fanfare, TSA announced that it would start a new screening procedure that would include more pat-down searches nationwide. USA Today reports that in the new procedures, screeners' hands would slide over a passenger's body, requiring screeners to touch passengers' breasts and genitals. In addition to questions over whether this change is necessary or effective, another question that many passengers may have in the backs of their minds is whether the TSA screeners have a criminal background that should preclude them from such sensitive duties.

Possible reasons for the new procedures
There is some debate over whether these procedures are either useful or necessary. There are certainly threats to airliners from bombs that could be carried on a person's body, such as the bomb used in the unsuccessful bombing attempt on a Delta airliner last December. However, it is not at all clear that this new pat-down procedure would have found that explosive device.

The more recent incident involving two bombs sent as cargo from Yemen to the US could indicate renewed efforts to target US airliners. However, there has been no public acknowledgement by the TSA, the US government, or any other government that there is any increased threat to air travel from bombs hidden beneath clothing. Certainly the new pat-down procedure is a very public and very noticeable increase in security, but not one that is directly linked to any immediate threat.

TSA employees with faulty criminal background checks
The TSA serves a very important and vital role in airline security, and all of their employees are required to pass security and background checks. However, those checks in the past have been less than thorough. For example, in 2004, the Department of Homeland Security (which includes TSA) released a report that stated that TSA had allowed some screeners to perform their duties before their criminal background checks were complete, and allowed others to continue working while problems with their background checks were resolved. Even if this problem no longer exists for current applicants and employees, a more serious problem may be that the current system of background checks may have allowed those convicted of rape and other sexually based offenses to join TSA.

Are current TSA background checks too limited?
The 2004 DHS report stated that federal regulations (49 CFR. § 1542.209) specified were 28 kinds of felony convictions that would have disqualified an applicant for a TSA screener position, including rapes or crimes involving aggravated sexual abuse, but only if those convictions had occurred in the previous 10 years. It implies that a person convicted of rape, attempted rape, child molestation, or similar crimes may not be required to report such convictions during their background check and may be allowed to perform pat-down searches on passengers.

It is unclear if TSA has changed its background check requirements since 2004 to exclude any convicted sex offenders from working directly with passengers. However, the fact that in the past it may have been possible that someone with that kind of criminal past may be a TSA screener may concern most passengers.

Are convicted rapists performing pat-down searches?
The full details of the the TSA's process for reviewing current and potential employees is not available to the public. Whatever those procedures are, a reasonable passenger would agree that anyone who has been found guilty of any crime that involves rape or some similar criminal act should not be allowed to search passengers. If the TSA could publicly address the following questions, it may go a long way toward reducing the public's concern over the new pat-down procedures:

• Are there any current TSA employees who are convicted sex offenders (either for a felony or lesser crime, either as an adult or juvenile), even if the conviction occurred more than 10 years before joining TSA?
  
  
• If the answer to the first question is yes, are any of these employees acting as security screeners who must have direct physical contact with the flying public?
  
  
• If the answer to the first question is no, have all TSA employees, as part of their background check, been asked if they have been convicted of rape or some other sexually based crime, whether it were a felony or lesser crime, either as an adult or as a juvenile, even if the conviction occurred more than 10 years before joining TSA?
  
  
• If the first question can't be answered for a TSA employee because of inadequate information, would this employee be restricted from working in a position that involves direct physical contact with the flying public?
  
  
• Are TSA security screeners who are convicted of rape or another sexually based crime, no matter how minor, immediately removed from any position where they may have physical contact with the traveling public?

Unless the TSA is both willing and able to answer these and similar questions, the average traveler may be very reluctant to submit to invasive searches where TSA security officers have to physically touch them in sensitive areas, making it more difficult for the TSA to accomplish its security mission.

What to do if searched
While searching passengers, including pat down searches of breasts and genital areas, may be necessary for security purposes, it would be considered very intrusive by most passengers. If you are selected for this kind of search, you should insist that it be done in a dignified manner. It should be done in a screened off area so that you can't be viewed by others in the vicinity, and the TSA representative should act in a professional manner.

Dealing with abuses
If you feel that you were not treated with dignity or respect during a pat down search, you should take appropriate actions such as calling attention to anything that you think is unnecessary or having a TSA supervisor or law enforcement official present. You can also file a complaint with the TSA, with the AirSafe.com complaint process, or with an organization like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU has noted several types of common abuses:

• Unnecessary groping of passengers’ breast or genital areas
  
  
• Humiliating experiences including for disabled or transgendered passengers
  
  
• Lack of privacy during pat-downs
  
  
• Lack of respect for religious requirements.

If you feel that you have not been treated in a fair and professional matter, you can contact the ACLU and provide them with details about your experience.

Resources
Interviews on Rudy Maxa's World featuring Dr. Todd Curtis (10:40)
DHS report on TSA screener background checks
WTOP interview on November 16, 2010 with Dr. Todd Curtis about new pat-down TSA procedures (5:12)

Photo: Joe Philipson

Survey Results on the Use of Full Body Scanners

In the January 2010 article reviewing security measures taken in the wake of the Christmas Day bombing attempt on Northwest flight 253, AirSafeNews.com conducted a poll about the US government's intention to increase the use of full body scanners. It was the most popular poll ever on AirSafeNews.com, with 103 responses. The questions were as follows:

• Do you approve of full body scans at US airports?
  
  
• Should children be scanned in this way?
  
  
• Have you flown on an airliner at least once in the past 12 months?
  
  
• What do you think about the increased security?

Those who responded were overwhelmingly in favor of the scanners. Of the 103 responding, 80 were in favor of using the scanners, and 75 of the 80 were in favor of using them on children. Of the 90 respondents who had flown during 2009, 70 approved of the scanners and 63 of them were in favor of using them on children.

Perhaps more revealing were the 59 people who wrote responses to the last question, What do you think about the increased security? Below, with some minor spelling and grammar corrections, are the responses:

1. It works to a point. More emphasis on racial profiling as we all know who the real culprits are. What is done currently punishes the normal traveler at the expense of being politically correct.
   
   
2. Good start. I was thinking about the shoe bomb guy We all had to take off our shoes and now the underwear bomb guy... would we all have to take off our underwear? LOL The big question would you rather have some probably bored TSA guy look at your private parts in a scanner or get on that plane and never return home? I don't think its a hard question.
   
   
3. I'm all for it. We should do all we can do to ensure safety of the traveling public. I've traveled world-wide for 35 years to over 60 countries. Passenger and airplane safety MUST be the top priority for the future. The people who want to kill Americans are not going to go away.
   
   
4. It will never be enough and most security measures are now for window dressing. Let us close all shopping centres in the airports and all food outlets. The airports will become safer. But an airport is not a military base and can never be 100 percent protected.
   
   
5. Considering the threat level, I think it´s acceptable.
   
   
6. Just part of flying.
   
   
7. The odds of a successful bomb on an airline are infinitesimal. As long as we live in fear, terrorism is working. What is needed is an information campaign to show how terrorism is NOT working, given that the chance of being on board a jet about to be blown up is zero, for all practical purposes.
   
   
8. Hogwash!
   
   
9. Better that than being blown out of the sky.
   
   
10. I think they should use anything to make flying safe. Would you prefer being dead over scanning?
    
    
11. Necessary in all airports that fly in & out of the US. Additional face to face interview with anyone who buys one-way ticket with cash & offers no personal background information. These are all red flags.
    
    
12. ALL available measures should be taken, including interviews of certain travelers, as the Israeli's do.
    
    
13. If it keeps us safe, I think the extra security is great and cannot understand why some people object to it.
    
    
14. WHATEVER IT TAKES IS OK.
    
    
15. By all means. Profile folks too!
    
    
16. Some parts are plain stupid, e.g. not going to the toilet an hour before landing will not stop anything. If they stopped me i would urinate in my seat if i really had to.
    
    
17. It is not worth the hassle, using screening lists is a better procedure.
    
    
18. Not enough.
    
    
19. Fine by me. Whatever it takes to minimize the risk of a person or persons coming on board with weapons or bombs.
    
    
20. Waste of time.
    
    
21. No matter what the governments do the terrorists can always find a way around the security. Either by waiting until security guards get relaxed or by moving to smaller airports or by using more sophisticated methods. Security can never ever be 100% successful all of the time. The terrorists only have to be successful once.
    
    
22. I am not worried about the increase at all, I would rather be safe than sorry.
    
    
23. It is scaring and makes Air travel worrying. We hope this will be fully utilized without any reservations ,airline crew must also be subjected to this type of screening .
    
    
24. I think that there should be more profiling. Concentrate on potential risk persons, even if this leads to accusations of racism or nationalism. Maybe passengers should be given clearance levels, similar to the classification system for national secrets. There could then be a group of low risk passengers who would go through the normal security procedures. Others might have to go though extra procedures.
    
    
25. I don't like it - but is very much a necessary evil.
    
    
26. Even though full body scan imaging is inarguably helpful in detecting threats and prohibited items, the TSA's use of this technology is a full attack on passengers' privacy. The TSA has proven over and over that it misrepresents and abuses full body scan technology. At many airports where the technology is in use, there is little or no hint that this method of screening is optional. For example, at BUR (Burbank, CA), the incoming stream of passengers gets randomly split between a regular metal detector and a millimeter wave machine. Here, the TSA gives no indication that the purpose of the machine is to view nude images of travelers, and only a small sign with tiny fine print indicates that passengers may request a traditional screening method instead.
    
    The intended purpose of forcing the technology on the unknowing public appears to be to allow the TSA to turn it into a primary screening method in the future with reduced public outcry. While US Customs have strong legal footing to invade passengers' privacy prior to admitting them into the country, the TSA has absolutely no legal footing whatsoever to peek underneath the clothes of US citizens and lawful residents.
    
    Every couple of weeks, there is a new story like that of the lady who was put into a TSA restricted hallway and forced to walk like a duck to see if something falls out of her private area; or one of my friends who was put into a concrete room without camera or supervision and a TSOP stuck their hand into his underwear trying to fish for nonexistent contraband. Even if the technology is automated such that prohibited items can be detected without a TSOP viewing nude images of passengers, it is still not the government's business what people have below their clothes or in their underwear. Other than explosives, this amounts to an unreasonable search which is prohibited by law, whether the passengers are carrying an implanted medical device, drugs, medication, or whatever they wish to carry.
    
    Technology may get better and better, but there must be a set limit how far the government can use it. Maybe one day technology will be advanced enough to detect the chemical composition of the blood flowing in passengers' veins from hundreds of feet away. The existence of the technology doesn't imply that the TSA or Customs or any law enforcement organization has a right to make use of that information or harass innocent people.
    
    
27. It is a real nuisance to the traveler but I suppose it is for the good of all of us.
    
    
28. Lame
    
    
29. I think our government needs to do what ever steps are necessary to protect the passengers and flight crew. I feel our government needs to get more experienced TSA employees. Why not hire our soldiers and give them a good job once they have fulfilled their tour of duty rather than go back to some other jobs they might have had before they went in.
    
    
30. Not enough
    
    
31. Waste of time and money
    
    
32. Too many irrelevant procedures. Security personnel, while performing assigned tasks, appear to lose sight of their goal. It would be good for the public to know what the increased procedures are yielding, this would bolster public support.
    
    
33. I approve of the full body scanners, but my concern is two fold. Why was the TSA not using them more before December 2009, and why are we still not accepting that "threat profiling" (I did not say racial or ethnic) is the way to go! Since all of the 9-11 attackers were male, arabic, in ages of 20-40 years old, that should be a dead giveaway to profile. We were not attacked by young "italian nuns" or "young Brazilian tourists", but by 19 young men of arabic descent or origin. I believe it would be far more effective and cost beneficial to start doing this "threat profiling" on anyone that fits that description, instead of this "charade" of doing a "computer random" sampling, which means we waste our efforts on a 79-year-old Irish nun, or a 62-year-old auto worker from Michigan.
    
    
34. Good. Questionary (Asking questions) like El Al would be good.
    
    
35. Complete waste of time and money. Current systems are adequate for the task.
    
    
36. It's a must.
    
    
37. Negligible
    
    
38. Some of the rules are ridiculous like no getting up during the last hour of the flight and no carryons for flights heading to the U.S. Those wouldn't have prevented the Northwest bombing attempt.
    
    
39. It was hurry-up and wait, it could be a smoother process if we would adopt the Israeli security practices, (especially their predictive profiling and security questioning).
    
    
40. Keep us safe.
    
    
41. Happy to spend a few extra hours to help reduce the probability of NOT arriving at my destination.
    
    
42. Only stands to reason nowadays.
    
    
43. I am writing my Dissertation on Commercial Aviation Security to complete me Doctorate in Business Administration. Dr. Andrew Thomas is one of my committee members; I enjoy his guidance and conversations. I believe that we are in big trouble and politics is getting in the way of real security. The people in charge are clueless to direct the security, most of the TSA leadership does not have a aviation background and the average person does not understand that it is the leadership causing the system to be flawed.
    
    
44. Extra care is needed.
    
    
45. The first question is not well formed; the question should include how the full body scanners are used; if they were used as a secondary screening of those people of interest or for suspicion, I would approve. Second, the thing that saddens and amuses me is that all the measures the TSA is pushing in response to the December 2009 attack are imposed at US airports on mostly US passengers. If such screening were carried out at airports to foreign airports for flights destined for the US, I'd believe in their positive efficacy. Lastly, the reports or requirements to turn off electronic equipment and remain seated during an extended period before landing, keeping laps clear of items such as blankets for large portions of the flight, and additional restrictions on when the lavatories (can be used) seems absolutely ridiculous. This is sort of like closing the barn door after the horses ran out. What this means is that the potential terrorist will start their actions a little earlier than planned but literally millions of passengers will be unnecessarily bored,and scared senseless, with no chance of increasing safety.
    
    
46. It is the right thing to do.
    
    
47. Increase it more.
    
    
48. Body scanner will help overcoming some fundamental deficiencies when it comes to passenger screening. However, it will require screeners to be able to 'interpret' devices, items or substances identified by these systems. Again, technology is not the only means and there is no single 100% cure for aviation security.
    
    
49. I am still uneasy about flying. How do the TSA know who to screen and who not to, what if a terrorist does not get a full body scan? I would much rather take the risks of driving than flying at this point.
    
    
50. Necessary evil.
    
    
51. Every reasonable method must be used to stop would be terrorists. Full body scanner fall within the realm of reasonable. Better ticket counter 'tip off', and identification and alerts for secondary screening should be implemented ASAP. Hidden CCTV cameras should be installed at each ticket counter so that positive ID can be made for those deemed suspicious (no luggage, cash ticket, nervous behavior, etc.) by the ticket agent so that secondary screening can be conducted by TSA and foreign airports with flights to US. Use Israeli screening methods at secondary screening points.
    
    
52. Cero
    
    
53. What is needed for air safety must be done. Safety before privacy when you want to fly.
    
    
54. While I do not object to more security procedures, I do believe the airports should be profiling people. We have had proven data that young males of middle eastern nationality are prime suspects. Subjecting children under say the age of 10, elderly people in wheelchairs, and medal of honor recipients to screening and searching is NOT the answer to better security. Body scans would help, but since not all airports would be having the equipment, that leaves holes in the process
    
    
55. If somebody shows abnormal behavior, it is possible for him/her. But it must not be for everybody.
    
    
56. FUD
    
    
57. A joke. Implement it ASAP regardless of who complains, especially the ACLU (all criminals love us).
    
    
58. Security definitely needs to improve and be strong enough to prevent future hijackings. I don't want any terrorist attacks happening ever again.
    
    
59. It really is pointless, I personally can think of a few major holes in the security procedures which still have not been discovered and could easily bring down a plane. What's more, they aren't even difficult to do. My point being you will never truly make a flight totally safe as was said here. Arm the Pilots and Crew and you might be safe though.

Photo: gregoryjameswalsh

GAO recommends cost and benefit analysis for new scanners

The failed attempted bombing of Northwest flight 253 last Christmas, highlighted the reality that in spite of all of the security measures implemented since 9/11 and the attack by convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid, that someone could still get past those measures and get a bomb on board a US airliner.

One response of the US government was to speed up the delivery of full body scanners to airports around the country, with plans to install about 300 by the end of 2010. While the scanners may be capable at finding explosives hidden under their clothing, a key issue is whether this effort, which may cost several billion dollars, is effective and reliable enough to justify the costs.

Role of the GAO
The General Accountability Office (GAO), a US government organization which examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to the US Congress, reviewed recent efforts to put advanced imaging technologies in US airports, specifically the full body scanners, to help find hidden items under a passenger's clothing.

TSA policy changers after the Christmas attack
After the Christmas bombing attempt, the TSA made two major policy changes. First, to increase the number of planned full body scanners from 878 to about 1,800, and second, to use these scanners as a primary screening device whenever feasible rather than as a secondary screening. Full deployment would not occur until 2014, and even then, these advanced scanners would only be available at about 60% of the checkpoint lanes of the US airports with the three highest TSA security categories.

To give you an idea of how limited this coverage would be, the TSA is responsible for security at about 450 airports, and according to a 2007 GAO report, less than 40% of all airports are in these three highest categories, and nearly 300 smaller airports are in the two less sensitive security categories.

Costs and benefit analysis not done
The most recent report, plus the earlier report from 2007, provided several important insights into the the use of the advanced screening technologies:

• Advanced imaging systems will not be fully deployed for at least three years
  
  
• When fully deployed, they will be only in a fraction of airports
  
  
• In the airports with these new scanners, not all passengers will be screened using these advanced technologies

Perhaps the most important point made by this report was one that there has not yet been a cost and benefit analysis done for these new technologies. While the rush to do something to prevent airborne bombers appears to have been done with the best of intentions, it seems sensible that someone should review whether this effort will be effective, especially given the expense involved with getting it done.

Why the TSA Can't Eliminate the Threat from Bombs

In the wake of last month's attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines A330, the US government has taken several steps which were intended to reduce the risk of someone else getting on an airplane with a bomb. While steps like these will reduce the risk, it will not eliminate the risk.

How Safe is Safe Enough?
When it comes to bombs on an airplane, the average passenger would consider the situation safe enough if the probability of a bomb on board an airplane were zero, but the reality of the situation is that as long as people have a desire to blow up airplanes full of passengers, steps can be taken to make flying safer by reducing that probability, but as long as there are airliners flying, the probability can't be eliminated.

Risk Management and Airline Security
Risk can be defined as the probability of some undesirable event like a bomb exploding on an airplane. Risk management is the process of reducing risk by either reducing the probability of an event or reducing the severity of the event. The steps taken by the US government are risk management steps that may reduce the likelihood that a bomb will be exploded on an airplane, but none of these steps are 100% effective.

How Airline Security Works
The short story is that there are multiple things that can be done to stop bombings, hijackings, sabotage, and other mayhem out of the skies. Passenger screening at the airport is one of the things that everyone can see, and there is much more that is not so visible, from bomb-sniffing dogs to terrorists watch lists. There are many procedures and systems in place because no one system or procedure can prevent every attempt to bring down an airplane. For an example, you can look at one part of the US government's response to the Christmas day bombing event, placing advanced screening systems in US airports.

Advanced Imaging Units Deployed to US Airports
Last week, the Department of Homeland Security announced that it would was adding at least 300 advanced imaging units throughout the United States by the end of 2010. This technology produces a full body scan that would show a graphic image of a person's body underneath his or her clothes. Had one of these devices been used to screen the alleged bomber, it would have presumably detected the the explosive device hidden under his clothes.

Sample Image from a Full Body Scan Device

How the Technology Was Used in 2009
While these detection systems may be useful, the way that they have been deployed in the past and the way that they will be deployed in the near future guarantee that not all passengers will be screened using these systems. The Transportation Security Administration provided a detailed overview of how 40 of these units were used in they were deployed in 2009 at 19 US airports. They were used as a primary screening method at only six airports, and as a secondary screening method at the 13 other airports. TSA plans to install hundreds more this year, but not all US airports will have this option available.

Why this Method Can't Be 100% Effective
In addition and plans to deploy at least 300 additional units in 2010. Even if the TSA meets its goal and adds 300 units to the 40 currently in use, not every airport will have them, since the TSA provides screening at about 450 airports. This means that for some airports passengers will have to be screened with systems or methods that don't have the advantages or capabilities of these advanced detection units.

Even if an airport has these devices in available, they may not be used. The TSA emphasized that these technologies were optional, and any passenger that did not want to use them could be screened with another method.

Why a Less than Perfect System Is Acceptable
While some passengers may wonder why TSA would place these advanced devices only in some airports, and would not require that all passengers be screened in this way, keep in mind that this kind of technology is only one kind of protective system, designed to protect airliners against individuals who try to sneak weapons, bombs, and other banned items into the secure area of an airport. Even a partial implementation of these security measures may find some banned items, and may deter some potential terrorists from attempting to bring bombs and guns on board aircraft.

Why Extra Security Is not Enough
The threat from those who want to disrupt the air transportation system is one that constantly evolves. For every system or procedure that is put into place, those who intend to bring harm to the system will take steps to either avoid those measures or find a way to defeat them. While extra measures will not make air travel perfectly safe, they will likely make travel less risky.

Resources
TSA imaging technology background information
Bomb related deaths on US and Canadian airliners since 1949

Poll Question of the Day
The USA Today newspaper and the Gallup polling organization recently released a poll that says 78% of air travelers who have taken at least one trip in the last 12 months approve of US airports' using full body scan imaging on airline passengers. AirSafe.com would like to know how you feel about this technology:

The survey is now closed. The survey asked the following questions:

• Do you approve of full body scans at US airports?
  
  
• Should children be scanned in this way?
  
  
• Have you flown on airliner at least once in the past 12 months?
  
  
• What do you think about the increased security?

The results of the survey are available here.