Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

The Big Question: Do New Airline Security Scanners See Too Much?

Aired March 18, 2002 - 09:41   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: The big question this hour: do new airline security scanners see too much? Right now, Orlando International Airport in Florida, the testing ground for six prototype scanning systems that can penetrate clothing in order to sport weapons, and/or drugs. They can sniff a person for explosives and determine what's in a bottle without opening it. The trouble is, the systems may work too well. The see-through passenger scanner leaves nothing to the imagination, and the bomb sniffer can also test for drugs.

The ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union, is concerned about passengers being embarrassed and harassed, and about possible misuse of the equipment.

Associate director Barry Steinhardt is with us this morning from New York. And also joining us from Orlando, Florida is Congressman John Mica, who's a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Welcome, both of you.

Congressman, let me start with you get reading on how soon this equipment may be up and running, and whether or if it's in widespread use across the country at some point whether all passengers will be subjected to these scanners?

REP. JOHN MICA (R), FLORIDA: Well, right now, we're in the test phase, and our goal right now is to try to find the most effective equipment that can do the job and move people along through a long lines you see now at most of our airports, but be certain that they have been screened and they don't have explosives or weapons, or other dangerous materials on them.

CAFFERTY: Now, based on just the interruption to the interview, it sounds like this technology might be the answer to the problem. If it can, in fact, see through clothing, detect weapons and explosives, determine contents in closed container like a bottle. I mean, this sounds like might be the real deal, yes?

MICA: We're facing a new type of terrorist threat, and we found terrorist are willing to blow themselves up, and they can conceal explosives even within body cavities, so we are going to have to have equipment that will detect those explosives if we want people to be able to fly with security and safety.

CAFFERTY: All right now, let's address for a moment the concerns of our other guests, and I'll get your response first, congressman. Obviously if these things can see through clothing, not everybody will be real anxious to stand in front of one of these and potentially be embarrassed by what the machine is capable of seeing. Address that concern.

MICA: Well, there are several things. First of all, we can separate folks male and female. People can do this voluntarily and be subjected to some other type of examination. The third thing, I'm hoping that the equipment is sophisticated enough we don't need a human monitor, that we can have an alarm go off and those people then be subject to further searching. So it can be done and we can't stop this next generation that we need to be in as far as screening and explosive detection devices.

CAFFERTY: Let me bring Barry Steinhardt into this. He's the associate director of the ACLU. Mr. Steinhardt, you've likened this to a virtual strip-search. How concerned are you?

BARRY STEINHARDT, ACLU: Very concerned. There's a number of different technologies here. We don't oppose all of them, but we certainly do oppose the widespread use of what I do call I think accurately enough a virtual strip-search. You showed the image. It's a very graphic picture of the naked body. We don't need to use this technology. In fact, we don't even need to test it. We know it works. It works too well.

There are other technologies which are being tested, which will allow us, for example, allows to detect the presence of plastic explosives. We don't oppose those, if that's what they're going to be used for. This kind of virtual strip-search, for those of us who fly a lot, we know that this will not remain voluntarily very long. This will become mandatory. People are going to become embarrassed. All those flight attendants out there who are complaining now of being sexually harassed at the airport by male guards.

CAFFERTY: What about the Congressman's suggestion that -- I don't mean to interrupt, but what about the congressman's suggestion that this could be done in such a way human eyes would never see this, that some sort of an alarm would go off. The screening would be done in private, in a booth or something, and then if there was reason to pursue it further, an alarm would go off, and then that person be taken aside. Would that answer your concerns?

STEINHARDT: You know, we have to ask the question of now, does that technology now exist? The answer is no. Right now, it requires human eyes to look at it, and frankly, it's going to use a lot of men who are going to operate these machines, who are going to use it for the purposes of video voyeurism, and for nothing else. We have to be very concerned about the reality of this.

CAFFERTY: What about the other possibility, which is, in addition to detecting explosives, this technology may also be used to detect drugs, in people who might be carrying drugs through airport security checkpoints?

STEINHARDT: If it can do that, why not? Well, you know, I fly a lot, and one of the things I've noticed is that the security personnel already pretty distracted at the airports. We don't want them further distracted. We don't want them turning into the drug police. That's not what they're trained for. That's not what they do. They're there to provide security for us on the plane. That's what they ought to be looking at. We shouldn't be turning this people into the DEA.

CAFFERTY: What about that, Congressman? If someone is carrying drugs and this equipment can detect that, why shouldn't the airport security personnel be able to go ahead and alert law enforcement on the premises, whatever?

MICA: We absolutely should be using that. We are using some of this technology already. Customs is using some of it for searching some baggage. One of the problems we have is these folks that always want us to be so politically correct, both in security and also intelligence matters, are doing a great deal of damage, not only to the traveling public, which is left in these long lines, but in the advancement of technology. We can get to that next stage, but they can't be saying no, no, no.

CAFFERTY: All right.

MICA: And I think it's time that we get a way from X-ray machines and 1960s technology and get into the 21st century.

CAFFERTY: Gentlemen, we're out of time. I thank you both for coming on "American Morning" this morning. It's an interesting new technology, many questions yet to be answered.

Congressman John Mica, Republican from the state of Florida, and Barry Steinhardt, associate director of the ACLU. Thank you both very much.

STEINHARDT: Thank you.

MICA: Thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com