Your Chance to Comment on TSA Nude-O-Scopes

The Transportation Security Administration has finally complied with a court order to re-evaluate its use of body scanners, requesting public comment on its Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) in the process. (Hat Tip to trims on Slashdot.)

This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is being issued to comply with the decision rendered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Columbia Circuit in Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on July 15, 2011, 653 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The Court directed TSA to conduct notice and comment rulemaking on the use of advanced imaging technology (AIT) in the primary screening of passengers. As a result, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) proposes to amend its civil aviation regulations to clarify that screening and inspection of an individual conducted to control access to the sterile area of an airport or to an aircraft may include the use of AIT.

You can visit Regulations.gov to review and comment on the use of advanced imaging technology at airports. The reference docket ID is TSA-2013-004. At the time I wrote this post, it had already received about 690 comments.

The NPRM itself makes for some interesting reading, including how the TSA justifies its use of body scanners and also the costs it has incurred since 2008 (projected through 2015). For example, Table 3 shows the cost of passenger opt-outs has risen from $7 million in 2008 to an estimated $5.6 billion in 2015. As a percentage of TSA costs, this means an increase from 0.04% to 2.01% over eight years.

(Caveat: I’m not entirely sure how to read the table. I assume opt-outs are a separate cost not contained within TSA costs, but I used TSA costs as a benchmark to compare rates of growth because it seems the column for total costs is missing, as are a couple footnotes. If I calculate the total cost of all expenses each year on my own, the share of passenger opt-outs increase from 0.0067% to 0.79%. Regardless, these numbers suggest the cost of opt-outs is growing at a faster rate than other expenditures.)

Screen Shot 2013-04-21 at 6.19.40 PM

I often arrive at the airport early enough that I opt for a pat down. It’s a bit stressful, but only because I worry about encountering one of the surly TSA employees who would rather pick a fight than do their jobs. I remain convinced that these imaging systems don’t actually improve safety and are about nothing more than enhancing “security theater” so politicians can claim to be doing something. If they want to be so sure, they can give me a full body massage. It’s a lot cheaper than going to Thailand. ;)

New Hyatt.com Offers Numerous Improvements, Few Complaints
Membership Rewards: 35% Bonus Avios through June 7

Scott created Travel Codex after learning how to travel better on a budget during grad school. He now flies over 150,000 miles every year.
Email // Twitter // Facebook // Google+ // Subscribe by RSS

  • http://twitter.com/FriendlySkies1K FriendlySkies

    About time they opened this up to the public, though knowing TSA, I would be surprised if they actually did anything if most of the feedback is against the use of the NoS/use of it as primary.

  • SC Parent

    You bet I commended! In one of my arguments, I took the economic approach – that the nude-o-scopes take longer than metal detectors to process a person. I’m afraid they see what you saw, though – it’s too expensive to allow opt-outs and they’ll decide to not allow opt-outs. After all, you can always drive or take the train :P

  • Jonathan

    Has somebody shown that these scanners conclusively show pornographic images of a persons body? Its my understanding they simply show a persons sillouette. I would think patting you down is more of an invasion of your privacy then seing a scanned sillouette of your body. Most of the “scanner images” on the internet are just doctored b.s.

    • Scottrick

      I don’t care if they see me naked on those scanners or not. I use the term “nude-o-scope” because it’s popular among those who despise them.

      Personally, I think it’s an invasion of privacy whether they pat you down or use a scanner. I think an invasion of privacy has to be warranted by an improvement in security, and I don’t see that improvement. So if they’re going to invade my privacy anyway, I might as well have them do it in the form most inconvenient to the TSA, as a mild form of civil disobedience. Everything I’ve experienced at checkpoints suggests it annoys them a whole lot more than it annoys me.

      • Jonathan

        That’s fair. Though the tsa guys are just underpaid grunts. I try to make their jobs easier so that hopefully they extend me the same favor. I understand where your coming from though.

  • Jamie

    It creeps me out, but as a woman I can always just say I’m pregnant.
    Everywhere that I’ve been me and the kids just walk through a metal detector instead.