• Media Enquiries

    07505 448925(24hr)

Full-body scanners can store images

Xray scanners A fascinating case against body scanners is being brought by EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Centre) – basically our equivalents in the United States – who, alongside a number of civil liberties and privacy groups, have sent a petition to the Department of Homeland Security demanding (in their words):

that the agency suspend the airport body scanner program. The petition states that the "uniquely intrusive search" is unreasonable and violates the Constitution. The petitioners also argue that the machines are ineffective and that there are better, less costly security technology.

Basically all the things we have been arguing against body scanners in the UK.

However, what is of more interest is that, as a result of this petition and an accompanying Freedom of Information request, EPIC have discovered that the government agency possesses around 2,000 body scanner photos from devices that the US Department of Homeland Security had said earlier "could not store or record images" – which is exactly what Lord Adonis and the UK government have said. But look at this excerpt from the documents (click to enlarge):

Body scanners

Big Brother Watch has always thought that these scanners must have some capability of storing images – in which case they are in fundamental breach of privacy. If this is going on in the US, there can be little doubt that similar technology exists in the UK.

We are clearly on an uphill struggle with body scanner technology, as the dubious poll from airport security firm, Unisys, showed last week – people are more blasé about body scanners than other intrusive technologies. However, if the government have lied they need to be brought to account. 

Even if it is only for practice scans – as this incident showed – if the capability to capture images exists, we can be sure that it will be misused.

By Dylan Sharpe

Posted on April 22, 2010 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Body Scanners
  • guy herbert

    The nature of the processing means images must be stored as they are created and displayed. (Rather as you have legally “made” an image of this page on your computer as you downloaded it.) The only question is whether that image is retained so as to be accessible or immediately archived, rather than overwritten and destroyed in the course of the normal use of the equipment. If you think it through, automatic archiving would be highly likely as a procedural choice, since bureacratic belt-and-braces thinking will mean the images need to be retained as evidence if they either find anything or don’t are accused of conducting intimate searches without good reason. So deletion/overwriting would have to be an optional function, rather than unconditional.

  • Purlieu

    You’ll find out whether the images are stored or not the next time there’s a terrorist incident on a plane.

  • http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home 1984

    The UK and US Governments are incapable of telling the truth about airport body scanners.
    The scanners ability to store and transmit images is stated emphatically and unequivocably in Rapiscan 1000 FAQ’s:
    Q:’Can the Secure 1000 images be saved?
    A:’ The images acquired with the system can be saved on the system’s hard disk or transferred to floppy disk for training or legal documentation. The stored images can be recorded and viewed on the system monitor or any IBM compatible personal computer with COLOUR GRAPHICS’.
    This could not be clearer. Both the UK DfT and the US TSA are lying to the public and they are treating us all like fools. Unfortunately the Unisys survey, if accurate, shows that most people ARE fools.

  • richard

    A nice piece of doublethink; TSA says “privacy is maintained” when describing the operation of a machine that takes pictures of your genitals.

  • http://faustiesblog.blogspot.com/ FaustiesBlog

    If this is going on in the US, there can be little doubt that similar technology exists in the UK
    What’s the bet the scanners are made by the same corporations – which, no doubt, wrote the legislation, on both sides of the Atlantic, for politicians to rubber-stamp. Probably with financial inducements to temper pesky consciences.

  • mrmovie

    went through Gatwick north terminal yesterday. they are in the process of building one scanner which will be used selectively, later they will have more scanners installed and all passengers will go through them. the security people there were quiet candid about it, ‘well, we wont be choosing all the good looking ones, or all the odd shaped ones either ‘. they did try to explain that the operator could not see the person being scanned’. that last part seems odd, its clearly apparent the person looking at the screen will be able to see the person being scanned…and in great detail