excerpt from AIT transcript

The officer who assists the passenger at the machine never sees the image the technology produces. The image is evaluated for security by a second officer who is remotely located in a secure resolution room, and will never see the passenger. A privacy filter is applied to blur all images to protect the passenger’s identity. This technology cannot store, print, transmit or save images. In fact, all machines are delivered to airports with these functions disabled.¹

—

In recent months, the TSA’s Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) has been surrounded by intense debates and newsworthy incidents. Two of the more covered stories–a pilot refusal of both primary and secondary screening (here) and an altercation between two TSA officials alleged due to the revealing nature of one official’s AIT images (here)–provide ample insight into how such surveillance devices function as tools of public power and closed observation.

Figure 1: AIT devices

Figure 2: Image produced by millimeter wave imaging

Figure 3: Image produced by back scatter imaging

In the first story, Michael Roberts, a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines², refused to be scanned by one of the two imaging technologies (see figures 1-3) as he felt the observational capacity of the machines was an invasion of privacy. As per the TSA protocol, officials must offer a secondary option–a physical pad down to the individual; Roberts refused this screening as well. These refusals led Roberts to be immediately grounded, ostensibly placed on unpaid leave. For Roberts, the measures seemed unreasonable as he is (maybe was) a pilot and therefore ought to be trusted. For the TSA officials, there are no de facto circumstances for safety, and “[c]rew members have access to sensitive areas of both airports and airplanes, making it necessary for all crew members to be subject to multiple layers of security” just as passengers are.³

For the second news story, during a training session of airport security, images of Rolando Negrin were observed by colleagues, including Hugo Osorno, for instructive purposes about the new technology. Due to the images’ revealing high fidelity, Negrin’s genitalia were visible (or, at least, appeared visible as the images only can outline body parts). This led to jokes about the size and appearance of his genitals, resulting in Negrin assaulting Osorno with a police baton.⁴ Despite measures to secure the images as private (as explained in the TSA-provided video above), ACLU says the devices “represent an invasion of passengers’ privacy”⁵ and call the process an “electronic strip search”.

What is important to note about these news stories is not the perceived breaches in personal privacy, nor the undifferentiated rigidity of the organization, but how images and protocol play a central role in how privacy and security are manifest by the AIT. Where one might be quick to assume that visibility ensures security, it is important to understand how objectivity, privacy, and security are culturally constructed notions, and how AIT mediates discourse in non-negotiated physical space.

1. http://www.tsa.gov/assets/doc/073010_0_ait_how_it_works_transcript.doc [↩]
2. http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-20/travel/pilot.refuses.body.scan_1_body-scanners-tsa-full-body-scan?_s=PM:TRAVEL [↩]
3. http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-20/travel/pilot.refuses.body.scan_1_body-scanners-tsa-full-body-scan?_s=PM:TRAVEL [↩]
4. http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/06/1617423/miami-airport-screener-beats-co.html [↩]
5. http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/06/1617423/miami-airport-screener-beats-co.html [↩]