TSA flouts the law on body scanners
For more than five years, the Transportation Security Administration has been deploying full-body imaging scanners in our nation's airports. About 700 scanners have been deployed in nearly 190 airports nationwide.
While the agency keeps installing these devices, there are real doubts whether these are actually making anybody safer. Yet because TSA failed to solicit public comments about the scanners — in violation of federal law — the agency is flying blind.
In 2010, the Electronic Privacy Information Center sued the Department of Homeland Security, TSA's parent department, to compel TSA to solicit public and expert input. In July 2011, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered TSA to “promptly” begin a rulemaking to allow for legally required public comments.
A year later, TSA has not even begun the process. The law empowers courts to compel agency action when it is “unreasonably delayed.”
TSA says it does not have the resources to begin this public comment process. But this supposed lack of capacity has not prevented TSA from opening new proceedings on far less important matters, adding many more body scanners at airports nationwide and launching the new PreCheck program for frequent fliers.
On July 17, EPIC petitioned the court to enforce its mandate. Two days later, the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed an amicus brief supporting EPIC's petition, along with the National Association of Airline Passengers, Electronic Frontier Foundation and six other organizations. This rulemaking is the only way to determine whether TSA's air travel security regime is worth its huge costs and adverse effects on the public's well-being.
Ohio State University professor John Mueller has done a thorough analysis of U.S. air travel security. He found that even assuming the scanners are capable of detecting body-borne explosives, the likelihood of a terrorist carrying out such an attack is so low that the massive annual cost of deploying and using these machines outweighs any security benefit.
Medical experts have raised concerns about repeatedly exposing frequent fliers to potentially harmful radiation. In addition, three Cornell University economists found that the agency's onerous screening rituals have led many people to abandon short-haul flights and take to the road instead. Yet the agency has still not allowed the public to comment on its most invasive — and unpopular — security measure to date.
This is unacceptable, especially as TSA continues deploying body scanners. Experience with “puffer” explosive detection machines shows how TSA's exuberance in adopting unproven screening technologies without consulting the public and independent experts can waste time and money and be unnecessarily intrusive. After spending $36 million purchasing the devices, TSA found them to be ineffective and removed them. They now sit in a Texas warehouse. That was a bargain compared with the $500 million TSA expects to spend on body scanners. The longer TSA delays in complying with the public comment requirement, the more likely it will continue to set bad security policy.
The court should promptly find in EPIC's favor and require TSA to open a rulemaking on these full-body imaging machines within 60 days. If the court fails to act, TSA will be able to continue to evade judicial review, leaving the public with no meaningful recourse.
Robert L. Crandall is former chairman and CEO of AMR and American Airlines. Marc Scribner is the land-use and transportation policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Police: 1 NYC cop dead in shooting, 2nd critical
- Pittsburgh police break up customer fights over Air Jordan 11 shoes
- Penguins missing Martin, Ehrhoff, Adams; prized prospect Pouliot called up
- Undersized Beachum quietly excels at 1 of game’s pivotal positions
- 3 charged in East Deer home invasion
- Police crash victim’s death ruled accidental
- Steelers notebook: Polamalu, Taylor unlikely to play, Harrison ‘ready’
- Cal U students aid Fayette survey
- North Huntingdon residents warned about vehicle break-ins
- Michigan State defensive coordinator a Pitt coaching candidate
- As smokers seek Cuban cigars, retailers point to trade embargo