Subject: body scan
Customs Expands Body
Search X-ray Plan
But Civil Libertarians See Privacy Violations
March 27, 2000
By Jane A. Zanca
NEW YORK (APBnews.com) -- A U.S.
Customs Service plan to expand use of
an X-ray device that can see beneath a
person's clothing and undergarments is
raising questions about whether the
scan can -- or should -- replace
pat-down searches to detect illegal
drugs, weapons and other contraband.
Though the BodySearch scan is seen
by some as less intrusive than having a
Customs inspector running hands over
a suspect's body, civil libertarians warn
that the images are detailed enough to
constitute a serious privacy violation.
Additionally, the new device is not powerful enough to detect
drug-filled vials or packets that have been swallowed -- so
suspects still could be subject to a medical X-ray or body cavity
search.
Critics of the nation's drug interdiction policies say the
BodySearch X-ray -- at $125,000 a unit -- is a waste of money,
because only a small fraction of the drugs that enter U.S. borders
are smuggled through Customs.
Coming to an airport near you?
At present, the BodySearch scan is
used only for international air
passengers entering the United
States via six airports: Hartsfield in
Atlanta, O'Hare International in
Chicago, Houston Intercontinental,
Los Angeles International, Miami
International and John F. Kennedy
International in New York.
The device is being installed in about
20 other major airports nationwide.
"We had received a lot of complaints
about pat-downs," said Dean Boyd, a
U.S. Customs Service spokesman.
"The BodySearch gives a choice that
is not so intrusive."
'Dim and unattractive' images
But Gregory Nojeim, legislative
counsel at the American Civil Liberties
Union's (ACLU) national office,
warned that it is not an ideal solution.
"An electronic strip search is not an
advance in passenger privacy,"
Nojeim said. The images are so
graphic that "even a person's navel is
apparent," he said.
"If you saw the pictures -- no one
would want to see them, with so much
real pornography on the Internet,"
said Amitai Etzioni, professor of social
sciences at George Washington
University, and author of The Limits of Privacy (Basic Books,
1999). "The [BodySearch] images are dim and unattractive."
In fact, identifying features -- such as
hair, skin color and facial features such
as moles, scars and mustaches -- are
not visible. And when the image is
projected on the machine's
video-display terminal, it creates a
distorted fun-house effect that depicts
the body as shorter and stockier than it
is.
As with a pat-down search, the scan is
performed by a Customs inspector of
the same sex as the suspect. In
addition, Customs inspectors are
required to get a supervisor's approval
as well as the suspect's written consent before the scan is
performed. Etzioni feels this protocol protects an individual's
privacy.
Most people choose pat-down
In any case, when given the choice, most people choose the
pat-down, "especially smugglers -- they may assume [contraband]
will be missed on a pat-down," Boyd said.
"Getting as far as a pat-down is rare in the big scheme," Boyd
said.
According to Customs estimates, of the 75 million international air
passengers who passed through Customs checkpoints in 1999,
one in every 2,000 was selected for a "secondary search."
Some dispute those figures and accuse Customs inspectors of
disproportionately singling out women and minorities for
searches. In response to allegations of racial profiling by the
agency, a House Ways and Means subcommittee held hearings
on passenger-selection criteria and frequency of searches in May
1999.
A matter of 'reasonable suspicion'
The hearings put thousands of Customs inspectors on the hot
seat.
"[Customs] conducts far too many searches on private people,"
Nojeim said. "The racial profiling aspect magnifies the problem."
Recognizing drug traffickers is not easy, and it boils down to a
matter of reasonable suspicion, Boyd said. "There is no profile of
a smuggler," he said. "[They] come in all shapes and sizes, every
race, gender, nationality and all ages."
He added, "Every scenario you can imagine has been tried.
We've seen every[one] from priests to handicapped people to
children." He cited a recent case in which the family of a
9-year-old boy used him to transport drugs from Colombia to
Miami; the drugs were secreted in a hand-held computer
animation game. The boy had made the trip many times before
he was caught.
$9 million to be spent on devices
Outfitting airports with the BodySearch machines represents "a
small portion of our overall drug budget," Boyd said, adding that
$17.8 billion was allocated in fiscal year 2000 for efforts to
prevent drugs from entering our borders. Out of that amount, $9
million will go toward buying the BodySearch devices.
But Mark Greer, executive director of Drug Sense, said the new
X-ray machines "will have zero effect on the availability of drugs"
and that they are "a monumental waste [of money] when
multiplied by the number of airports in the U.S."
Drug Sense is one of 75 national organizations, including the
ACLU, the American Public Health Association and the National
Mental Health Association, that characterize the "war on drugs" as
a failure.
ACLU: Real trafficking in trucks
The real drug trafficking occurs in trucks and ship holds, Nojeim
said. He noted that in testimony at the May 20 hearing, the
Customs Service confirmed that it seized 1.35 million pounds of
drugs in 1998, receiving only 1,000 pounds -- less than one-tenth
of 1 percent -- through airport searches.
But drug couriers, or mules, are the method of choice when it
comes to certain drugs, Boyd said. "The majority of heroin
Customs has seized has been from commercial passengers. Also,
Ecstasy is going through the roof, coming in on luggage or taped
to [passengers'] bodies."
Could be used to thwart terrorists
Etzioni points out that guns, bombs and other contraband are a
greater concern than drugs.
"The machines are a godsend," Etzioni said. "There are terrorists
coming from Canada with explosives. Nobody wants to shrug their
shoulders at that."
Nonetheless, Nojeim wants "to bring the Fourth Amendment back
into the airports."
"It's a bedrock principle of privacy that the government not
conduct a strip search -- whether electronic or by hand -- unless
there is probable cause of crime."
Etzioni is not sympathetic to this argument. "Are we going to throw
our doors completely open, or do we have a duty to protect our
people?" he asks. "People have no right to enter the country. It's
a privilege."
http://www.apbnews.com/safetycenter/transport/2000/03/27/bodyxray0327_01.html
