Focusing public attention on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues

EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security - Body Scanners

Top News

  • Supreme Court to Hear Case About Enhanced Search Techniques: The US Supreme Court has decided to review Florida v. Jardines, a case that addresses whether a dog sniff at the front door of a home is a search that requires probable cause. This case follows Illinois v. Caballes, a 2005 case in which the Court held that a dog sniff around a car during a routine traffic stop was not a search. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that Caballes was inapplicable in the case, and that a dog sniff in front of a home is a Fourth Amendment search. This case also implicates the government's use of "enhanced" investigative techniques that are designed to detect contraband. Because these techniques are imperfect and also allow the government to search for material that is not illegal, EPIC has argued that a Fourth Amendment probable cause standard should apply. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Airport Body Scanners). (Jan. 6, 2012)
  • EPIC Urges Court to End DHS Delay in Seeking Public Input on Airport Body Scanners: EPIC has asked a federal court seeking to enforce a July 15, 2011 order requiring the Department of Homeland Security to take public comment on the agency's controversial airport body scanner program. As a result of an EPIC lawsuit, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the agency violated federal law when it installed body scanners in airports for primary screening without first soliciting public input. In July, the Court ordered Homeland Security to "promptly" seek public comment, but the agency has failed to respond. EPIC, and a coalition of privacy and civil liberties organizations, first petitioned DHS to undertake a public rulemaking in 2009. This is EPIC's second motion to compel the agency to comply with the court's order. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS and EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology. (Dec. 23, 2011)
  • EPIC Asks Court to Require Release of Documents About Body Scanner Radiation Risks: EPIC has filed a reply motion in EPIC v. DHS, No. 1:11-cv-01991-ABJ, a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for information, held by the DHS, about the radiation risks of airport body scanners. EPIC is asking the court to force the agency to disclose documents about radiation testing results, agency fact sheets on radiation risks, and an image produced by the machines. A recent report from ProPublica states that the "U.S. Government Glossed Over Cancer Concerns As It Rolled Out Airport X-Ray," and the European Union recently prohibited the use of "back-scatter x-ray" devices in EU airports. EPIC has already obtained hundreds of pages of documents discussing the risks of radiation exposure. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS - Full Body Scanner Radiation Risks. (Dec. 5, 2011)
  • European Union Limits Use of Airport Body Scanners: The European Union has adopted strict new guidelines limiting the use of body scanners at EU airports. Under the new guidelines, European Union member states may only deploy airport body scanners if they comply with new regulations that protect health, privacy, and fundamental rights. The European Commission has also prohibited any devices that store, record, or transfer images of travelers as well as devices that display an image of the naked human body. As a result, backscatter x-ray devices are now effectively prohibited in airports in the European Union. The European Commission has also made clear that passengers may not be required to go through body scanners, following the conclusion reached by the federal appellate court in the United States in the EPIC v. DHS case, which held that passengers have a legal right to opt-out of body scanners. The body scanners have not done well during trials in Europe. Most recently a test in Germany found that the devices were ineffective. For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of the Body Scanner Program). (Nov. 14, 2011)
  • EPIC Asks Court to Require DHS Disclosure of Documents Detailing Body Scanner Radiation Risks: EPIC has filed a motion for summary judgment in EPIC v. DHS, No. 1:11-cv-01991-ABJ, a pending Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security for information about the radiation risks posed by body scanners. EPIC has asked the court to force the agency to disclose documents containing radiation testing results, agency fact sheets on body scanner radiation risks, and an image produced by the machines. A new report from ProPublica states that the "U.S. Government Glossed Over Cancer Concerns As It Rolled Out Airport X-Ray." EPIC has already obtained hundreds of pages of documents detailing the radiation risks presented by the machines. For more information, see EPIC: Body Scanners and Radiation Risks (FOIA). (Nov. 1, 2011)
  • EPIC Urges Court to End DHS Delay in Seeking Public Input on Airport Body Scanners: EPIC filed papers in federal court today seeking to enforce an order that requires the Department of Homeland Security to detail the agency's controversial airport body scanner program. As a result of the EPIC lawsuit, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the agency violated federal law when it installed body scanners in airports for primary screening without first soliciting public comment. In July, the Court ordered Homeland Security to "promptly" seek public comment, but the agency has failed to respond. EPIC, and a coalition of privacy and civil liberties organizations, first petitioned DHS to undertake a public rulemaking in 2009. EPIC's subsequent lawsuit alleged that airport body scanners are "invasive, unlawful, and ineffective." For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS and EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology. (Oct. 28, 2011)
  • Documents Reveal New Details About DHS Development of Mobile Body Scanners: EPIC has obtained more than one hundred fifty pages of documents detailing the Department of Homeland Security’s development of mobile body scanners and other crowd surveillance technology. The documents were obtained as a result of a Freedom Information Act lawsuit brought by EPIC against the federal agency. According to the documents obtained by EPIC, vehicles equipped with mobile body scanners are designed to scan crowds and pedestrians on the street and can see through bags, clothing, and even other vehicles. The documents also reveal that the mobile backscatter machines cannot be American National Standards Institute “certified people scanners” because of the high level of radiation output and because subjects would not know they have been scanned. For more information see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of the Body Scanner Program). (Aug. 31, 2011)
  • EPIC Files for Rehearing in Airport Body Scanner Case: Citing significant errors in an earlier decision, EPIC has petitioned a federal appeals court to rehear the organization's challenge to the TSA's controversial body scanner program. "The court overstated the effectiveness of the body scanner devices and understated the degree of the privacy intrusion to the travelling public," stated EPIC President Marc Rotenberg. EPIC's petition challenged the Court's finding that the devices detect “liquid and powders," which was never established and was not claimed by the government. EPIC also argued that the court wrongly concluded that the TSA is not subject to a federal privacy law that prohibits video voyeurism. The panel found that TSA body scanner employees are “engaged in law enforcement activity," contrary to the TSA's own regulations. EPIC is pursuing related litigation on the government's deployment of mobile body scanners. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS. (Aug. 30, 2011)
  • Federal Appeals Court: TSA Violated Federal Law, Must Take Public Comment on Body Scanners: As a result of a lawsuit brought by EPIC, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the TSA violated federal law when it installed body scanners in airports for primary screening across the country without first soliciting public comment. The Administrative Procedure Act requires federal agencies to provide notice and opportunity for comment when implementing a rule that affects the rights of the public. Writing for a unanimous court, Judge Ginsburg found there was "no justification for having failed to conduct a notice-and-comment rulemaking," and said, "few if any regulatory procedures impose directly and significantly upon so many members of the public." EPIC's brief alleged that airport body scanners are "invasive, unlawful, and ineffective," and that the TSA's deployment of the devices for primary screening violated the U.S. Constitution and several federal statutes. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS and EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology. Press Release. (Jul. 15, 2011)
  • EPIC Urges Court to Order Release of 2,000 Airport Body Scanner Images: EPIC asked a federal court in Washington, DC to reconsider its earlier decision allowing the Department of Homeland Security to keep secret 2,000 airport body scanner images in EPIC's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The Court relied on a legal theory in its decision, "Exemption High b(2)," that was recently struck down by the Supreme Court in Navy v. Milner. In Milner, the Court held that FOIA exemption 2 only applies to records concerning employee relations and human resources issues. Milner overturns previous lower court decisions that applied the exemption to broader categories of records, allowing federal agencies to block disclosure of documents to the public. EPIC argues in its motion that the Department of Homeland Security is unlawfully withholding information about the airport scanners from the public. For more information, see EPIC-Milner v. Dept. of Navy and EPIC v. DHS - Body Scanners. (Mar. 25, 2011)

Background

In EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security, EPIC has sought the release of documents regarding whole body imaging (WBI) held by the agency.

In February 2007, the Transportation Security Administration, a component of the US Department of Homeland Security, began testing passenger imaging technology - called “whole body imaging,” "body scanners," and "advanced imaging technology" - to screen air travelers. Body scanners produce detailed, three-dimensional images of individuals. Security experts have described whole body scanners as the equivalent of "a physically invasive strip-search." In 2007, TSA tested whole body imaging systems at airport security checkpoints, screening passengers before they board flights. The agency provided various assurances regarding its use of whole body imaging. TSA stated that whole body imaging would not be mandatory for passengers and that images produced by the machines would not be stored, transmitted, or printed. TSA also stated that an algorithm will be applied to the image to mask the face of each passenger.

But on April 27, 2007, TSA removed from its website assurances that its whole body imaging technology would “incorporate a privacy algorithm” that will “eliminate much of the detail shown in the images of the individual while still being effective from a security standpoint.” And on February 18, 2009, TSA announced that it would require passengers at six airports to submit to whole body imaging in place of the standard metal detector search, which contravenes its earlier statements that whole body imaging would not be mandatory. On April 6, 2009, TSA announced its plans to expand the mandatory use of whole body imaging to all airports.

On June 4, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 2200, a bill that would limit the use of whole body imaging systems in airports. The bill prevents use of whole body imaging technology for primary screening purposes. HR 2200 was referred to the Senate for consideration on June 8, 2009. The legislation was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. TSA renewed its call for mandatory body scans for all air travelers in the wake of the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253, which traveled from Amsterdam to Detroit on December 25, 2009.

EPIC's Freedom of Information Act Requests and Subsequent Lawsuit

On April 14, 2009, EPIC filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for agency records that directly relate to the TSA body scanner program. EPIC requested the following agency records:

  • all documents concerning the capability of passenger imaging technology to obscure, degrade, store, transmit, reproduce, retain, or delete images of individuals;
  • all contracts that include provisions concerning the capability of passenger imaging technology to obscure, degrade, store, transmit, reproduce, retain, or delete images of individuals;
  • all instructions, policies, and/or procedures concerning the capability of passenger imaging technology to obscure, degrade, store, transmit, reproduce, retain, or delete images of individuals.

DHS acknowledged receipt of EPIC's FOIA request, but failed to disclose any documents. On November 9, 2009, EPIC sued DHS to force disclosure of the body scanner documents. The suit challenged DHS's failure to disclose public records and failure to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. On the heels of EPIC's lawsuit, DHS disclosed key documents, including technical standards, but failed to produce all records demanded in EPIC's FOIA request. The lawsuit is ongoing.

On July 2, 2009, EPIC filed a second, related FOIA request. EPIC requested the following agency documents:

  • All unfiltered or unobscured images captured using Whole Body Imaging Technology (WBI);
  • all contracts entered into by DHS pertaining to WBI systems, including contracts for hardware, software or training;
  • all documents detailing the technical specifications of WBI hardware, including any limitations on image capture, storage or copy;
  • all documents, including but not limited to presentations, images and videos used for training persons to use WBI systems;
  • all complaints related to the use of WBI and all documents related to the resolution of those complaints;
  • all documents concerning data breaches of images generated by WBI technology.

DHS acknowledged receipt of EPIC's FOIA request, but failed to disclose any documents. On January 13, 2010, EPIC sued DHS to force disclosure of the additional body scanner documents. The second suit challenged DHS's failure to disclose public records and failure to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. This suit was later consolidated with EPIC's first lawsuit against DHS.

Documents Obtained by EPIC Through Its Lawsuit

On January 11, 2010, EPIC released documents obtained from DHS as a result of EPIC's lawsuit.

The disclosed documents include TSA Procurement Specifications for body scanners, TSA Operational Requirements for the machines, a TSA contract with L3 (a company that manufactures whole body imaging devices), and 2 TSA contracts with Rapiscan, another body scanner manufacturer (1), (2).

The documents contradict numerous assurances made by the TSA regarding the body scanners. The records demonstrate:

  • The device specifications, set out by the TSA, prove the machines’ ability to store, record, and transfer images, contrary to the representations made by the TSA
  • The device specifications, set out by the TSA, include hard disk storage, USB integration, and Ethernet connectivity that raise significant privacy and security concerns
  • The DHS Privacy office failed to adequately assess the privacy impact of these devices
  • The TSA continues to withhold critical documents from the public concerning body scanners' operation.

On March 2, 2010, EPIC obtained further documents from DHS as a result of EPIC's lawsuit. These documents included more than thirty traveler complaints to the TSA regarding WBI machines. The complaints described a variety of problems with WBI machines, including objections to the invasive nature of the machines and complaints about improper signage and a lack of transparency regarding the pat-down alternative. The complaints indicated that TSA was not fulfilling its duty to inform passengers of their options regarding WBI machines.

On March 15, 2010, EPIC obtained hundreds of pages of additional traveler complaints (see below for links). This further contradicted TSA's statements that travelers approve of WBI machines and are being informed of their option for a pat-down.

On April 15, 2010, EPIC obtained several hundred more pages of documents. This included hundreds of pages of traveler complaints, an updated Procurement Specifications Document, and several vendor contracts. DHS refused to release several of EPIC's requested documents, including over 2000 WBI machine generated images.

Legal Documents

EPIC v. the Department of Homeland Security, Case No. 09-02084(RMU) (D.D.C.filed Nov. 9, 2009)

Freedom of Information Act Documents

News Items