We're still waiting for anyone at the TSA to explain what they've caught with the naked backscatter millimeter wave scanners, but the more people look into these devices the worse they look in terms of actually providing security. Glyn Moody points us to a story in Europe, where the same machines are being tested, tests have shown that the machines regularly malfunction and a big problem is that it has trouble comprehending folds in peoples' clothing. Yes, that's right. It might be a bomb... or it might just be your pleated pants. In other words, rather than being an either/or situation, there seems like a half decent chance that you'll both have a naked scan and then get groped, just because you wore something with folded fabric. Updated: to reflect that this is the millimeter wave scanners, not the backscatter ones, though the two are similar overall.

One of the complaints frequently leveled at the mainstream press is that they don't do much critical thinking. All too often, it feels like they've simply turned into scribes, rather than people who will help everyone in the community better understand things. Case in point: Time Magazine's Alex Altman has published quite an article suggesting that the anthropmorphized "internet" is making too big a deal of the TSA's "naked or a grope" security procedures. Of course, the internet itself doesn't have "ephemeral obsessions," as Altman implies: people do. Altman could have a point that people are overreacting but let's look at the evidence he uses to support this position. Amusingly, it's actually two pieces of info that we had already discussed and debunked, which Altman and Time Magazine took at face value. First up:

With furor of the full-body scans and invasive pat-downs reaching critical mass, TSA Administrator John Pistole went before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Wednesday morning to explain why the new screening measures are a necessary evil.

Pistole was conciliatory but resolute: If you're going to get on a plane, you're either going to be photographed with advanced imaging technology--the "full-body scans" that render all-too-detailed impressions of travelers' physiques--or endure an uncomfortably thorough pat-down.

We already discussed Pistole's testimony and why he's actually lying. Contrary to what Pistole claims (and Altman bought without checking), the vast majority of people getting on planes in US airports are going through neither full body scans or "an uncomfortably thorough pat-down." Most people are still just going through traditional metal detectors. Even in the airports that have the backscatter naked image scanners, most passengers still just go through traditional metal detectors. Claiming that all passengers now go through either the backscatter scans or get a thorough pat-down is a lie.

While you'd never guess it from the hysterical media coverage, most people are...pretty OK with that. The breathless headlines and expert discussion forums provide a distorted picture of public perception. According to a CBS News poll, 81% of Americans approve of the decision to use full-body X-ray machines to weed out terrorist threats. Sometimes the screams of an aggrieved minority drowns out the rest of the public, and this may be one of those cases.

Except, again, this isn't quite accurate. As we discussed in our post about the poll, if you go and look at what the poll actually asked it phrased the question in a way that leaves out all of the concerns people have about the scanners and only implies that the scanners help security. That's obviously not a fair poll and the results should be discounted accordingly. Does Altman bother to check on all of this? Of course not.

Altman may be right that people are overreacting but he didn't help by simply repeating the claims of Pistole and a weak poll, when both have already been proven to be misleading at best and downright false at worst. Perhaps instead of rushing to mock "the internet" and its mythical "ephemeral obsessions," Altman could have taken some time to actually research the issue and to inform people of the details rather than just repeating the misleading claims from the TSA. That's the kind of thing that would actually build up trust in the press, rather than disdain for the press.

A few months back, we wrote about how the backscatter x-ray technology, which is now causing concern in airports for effectively showing the "naked" you to TSA staffers, was also being used in vans by law enforcement. They could drive around and see scans of what was in cars and buildings around them.

We noted at the time that 500 of these had been sold, mostly in war zones, but noted some were in use in the US. Now, there's a report that looks more deeply at the vans and the controversy surrounding them and notes that the company that makes them also appears to sell them to private individuals. Most of the reports of sales are to various government agencies, but as you dig deeper, the sales become more vague:

Other releases are more vague, however, identifying the purchasers only as "the U.S government," a "Latin American customs agency," an "international government agency," "U.S. law enforcement officials," a "South American government," a "Middle Eastern country," a "Middle Eastern government," a "Middle East government agency," a "Middle East law enforcement agency," a "South American law enforcement agency," a "new African customer," a "European Union (EU) and an Asia Pacific (APAC) client," and a "Middle Eastern customer."

Defenders of the systems basically say that people shouldn't be afraid of such things because they need to be used within the requirements of privacy laws (in the US, at least), but seem to ignore how the US government has been more or less ignoring the 4th Amendment pretty regularly lately. They also say that the technology isn't good enough to really get the "naked scans" unless you're right next to the van. Of course, since the vans are made up to look like ordinary vans, most people will have no idea if they're standing right next to one. And, on top of that, you have to assume that the scanning technology is only going to improve over time, meaning that it will be able to get much more detailed scans from a much greater distance.

There's been a lot of talk lately about the new body scanners at airports, which create a "virtually naked" image of you -- bringing up all sorts of privacy concerns, especially as reports are coming out about how the machines can record images. Many people, concerned about how these machines operate, have asked not to use them, and there are usually other options. Boing Boing points us to the story of a working, uniformed pilot (working for ExpressJet) who refused to go through the backscatter scanner. After being directed to a normal metal detector, and declared an "opt-out," he was told he needed to be patted down by security. He refused, noting that it was intrusive and that he had made it through the normal metal detector without a problem (the same security review he'd been given for many years as a pilot -- even in that same airport).

At that point, the TSA got upset, and a bunch of other folks got involved, including the airport police. He was detained, asked all sorts of questions (some he refused to answer), and not allowed to leave when he asked. At one point he was told he was free to leave, but then was stopped again and told he was not allowed to go until he spoke to one more person. The pilot, Michael Roberts, noted during his explanation of what happened that he's actually taught the TSA-mandated security training program at ExpressJet. The whole story is yet another example of security theater in action -- people just doing things because it's on the checklist, not because it makes anyone more secure.

"What do you mean I 'should know better'? Are you scolding me? Have I done something wrong?"

"I'm not saying you've done something wrong. But you have to go through security screening if you want to enter the facility."

"Understood. I've been going through security screening right here in this line for five years and never blown up an airplane, broken any laws, made any threats, or had a government agent call my boss in Houston. And you guys have never tried to touch me or see me naked that whole time. But, if that's what it's come to now, I don't want to enter the facility that badly."

Already thought those full body scanners at the airports were a bit much when it came to privacy? How about having government officials sitting in a van next to you scanning your car as you drive by with the same basic technology, without you even knowing about it? Jay points us to the news that a version of the same backscatter x-ray scanner technology found in airports has also been sold to the US and other governments to mount on vans to scan nearby vehicles to see what's inside. Apparently, the company has sold 500 of these already. Many of them are used in war zones to scan for things like car bombs, but apparently some of them are in use in the US, letting them see views such as the following on nearby vehicles:

Now, I can see the argument for using such a technology in a war zone, but it seems to open a lot of questions concerning how it's used in the US. Is it an illegal search to scan a car without a warrant? A decade ago, the Supreme Court ruled that using thermal imaging to scan someone's house (say, for potential marijuana growing) was a search, and thus subject to the 4th Amendment requirement for a warrant. I find it difficult to believe that a court would find this technology any different -- so the fact that it's already being used in the US makes me wonder if it's only being used with a warrant... or if we should expect to see a lawsuit on this topic soon.