In all the controversy over the deployment of full-body scanners in U.S. airports, the health effects of the millimeter wave and backscatter machines has been a muted part of the debate. The backscatter X-ray machines deliver a very small amount of radiation. The millimeter wave machines use radio waves that (as in the case of cell phones) are to pose any risk. Even so, about the health effects, and at the ACLU we have often been asked questions about those effects by people who regard government claims with a lot of skepticism or who just worry that, as so often in the past, there are risks scientists don't yet understand.
What about real X-ray machines? The current body scanners cannot see below the skin, and we have previously pointed out the possibility of explosives being hidden in body cavities, in the context of asking just how far the United States is prepared to go in pursuing privacy-violating security measures. Of course, regular X-rays, like those used when you break your arm, can see below the skin — but because the radiation doses they deliver are significant, those would be a nonstarter in the airline security context.
Or would they? We were surprised to that some agency of the U.S. government is purchasing genuine, "through-body X-Ray" machines for African countries for the purposes of airport security — the kind that can see through flesh, and which deliver real doses of radiation.
The U.S.-supplied scanners have apparently been deployed at one airport in Ghana and four in Nigeria. the X-ray machine supplier OD Security, the machines will be used to "scan selected passengers who have been identified as posing a possible security risk."
The scanners, the company says, offer
a much more effective, cheaper and less disruptive security procedure than mass screening and relying on the inferior image quality of microwave and Backscatter scanners. The Soter will detect any metallic or non-metallic objects, such as narcotics, explosives, precious stones, plastic weapons or other contraband, hidden under clothes or in natural cavities within the human body. Other than the conventional intrusive strip searches there is no other way of detecting these items carried internally.
Well there's no doubt that a real X-ray machine can see things that won't be picked up by other scanning technologies. All kinds of things, in fact. But what about all that radiation? OD Security calls its devices "low dose" X-rays. But what do they mean by "low"? A fact sheet at the web site (PDF) at least, uses "low dose" to refer to any X-ray other than a super-high-dose procedure such as a CT scan. Low dose X-rays are "those that involve only films taken by a technologist" — in short, what everyone thinks of as a regular medical X-ray.
Throughout the 20th century, the experts' definition of a "safe" dose of radiation was constantly downward, until finally it was concluded that there is "no safe dose." RadiologyInfo.org also recommends "if you have had frequent X-ray exams," that it "is a good idea to keep a record of your X-ray history for yourself" so that the "potential risk from radiation" can be balanced against the "likelihood of benefit" from an X-ray. Perhaps travelers in these African countries will need to include their trips through security in those records. Pity the local traveler whose name is on a watch list and gets X-rayed every time. . .
This story, assuming it's accurate, leaves several questions begging to be answered:
- Is Homeland Security considering the use of "through-body X-ray" machines domestically?
- How much radiation do these human-targeted airport X-ray machines deliver?
- Who are they being used on in Nigeria and Ghana? Everyone selected for secondary screening, or only those for whom a body cavity search is deemed justified? Is the United States monitoring their use or did it set any conditions on their use?
- In the medical context, technicians are trained to use the minimal radiation dose required for a particular image. Are airport X-ray operators similarly trained, or are they just blasting passengers away with radiation to minimize the chances of missing contraband?
- Are the X-rays, which can reveal an enormous amount of intimate information about passengers' bodies, being viewed in a separate room, or will passengers' every internal and external bodily quirk, condition, and deformity be exposed to agents standing right there?
- Is the U.S. government encouraging the use of these machines in other countries? Any countries in other areas of the world, such as Europe, Asia, and Latin America?
Ultimately, the biggest question raised by this story is whether the U.S. security agencies behind this program have considered the health effects on African travelers of these machines. If true, this situation just might evoke inevitable comparisons to the fictional plot of the John LeCarré novel and movie , in which an evil pharmaceutical company conducts drug tests on African children, or to the real-life . When Westerners deploy devices with questionable health effects in Africa that they won't or don't deploy at home, it doesn't look good.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.