Lawsuit Challenges TSA To Prove Body Scanners Aren't Killing People

Body scanners make some people choose driving over flying, but does that mean the TSA is responsible for deaths caused by traffic accidents?


Gary C. Caskey/UPI/Newscom

When the Transportation Safety Administration was rolling out its brand new body scanning machines in 2010, the response was pretty much exactly what you would expect: 94 percent of public comments on the policy were opposed.

None of that made much of a difference to the TSA. Neither, apparently, did the cost or technical problems with the machines, which were installed in airports across the country and are still being used today.

Maybe the TSA should have spent some time reading through the 5,129 public comments opposing body scanners in airports. They might have noticed that, mixed in with concerns about the efficacy, cost and violations of personal privacy, there were a number of people—more than 80 of them—who said the use of the body scanners would cause them to reconsider flying at all.

One commenter at the time said they would prefer to drive across the country twice instead of "being subjected to what is clearly a violation of privacy by this intrusive form of airport passenger inspection."

Today, that person might be dead—and even if they're not, the TSA's use of body scanners has increased the likelihood, however minutely, that they are.

That's the premise of a lawsuit filed against the TSA by Iain Murray and Marc Scribner, research fellows at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

In a brief filed this week in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Murray and Scribner argue that the TSA knew its body scanners would cause some segments of the public to switch from flying to driving, creating a safety issue because flying is the mathmatically safer form of transportation.

Despite that knowledge, the TSA didn't do the math to determine how many people might die because they wanted to avoid having TSA agents see pictures of their naked forms.

Scribner and Murray did.

They looked research by economists at Cornell University showing that a decline in 1 million passengers on planes would lead to an additional 15 fatalities on highways. Combining that with data about how many Americans fly every year and mixing in the fact that an estimated 1.5 percent of people (based on the comments on the TSA's policy shift) would rather drive than go through the body scanners, they had the ability to determine—in a rough way—how many people over the last six years might have died because they didn't want to fly.

The final tally?

"We came up with 184 additional road deaths due to that effect, of people driving rather than flying," Scribner told Reason on Thursday.

(Update: Scribner tells me via Twitter that this is an annual total calculated for the period between July 2014 and June 2015. If you include all six years that the body scanners have been in use, the estimated total is probably close to 1,000.)

If this all sounds a little bit theoretical, that's because it is. The lawsuit isn't claiming that anyone in particular has been harmed by the TSA's scanners—though Scribner claims he has standing for the legal challenge because he, like many Americans, regularly travels on airplanes and by car—but merely that the TSA didn't do the proper amount of math before rolling the hulking machines into airports and making passengers queue up for them.

The interesting thing is that the government actually does these assessments of theoretical trade-offs all the time.

The best example might be the federal rules for taking small children on planes. Under current regulations, parents are allowed to take children under two years old onto planes without buying a separate ticket and without putting the child in a seat belt. Occasionally, that puts kids' lives at risk—mostly from severe turbulance, rather than actual plane crashes.

About two decades ago, the Federal Aviation Administration considered banning those so-called "lap children" and requiring separate seats for them. Then, they did the math. The FAA found that making that policy change would lead many parents of young children to choose to drive instead of fly.

For every life saved by requiring small children to wear seat belts on planes, there would be an additional 16 fatalities on the road, the FAA concluded.

Morbid? Yes. But logical.

"This is an effect that aviation safety regulators have dealt with before, and this is a major effect," Scribner said. "All we're asking the court to do is require the TSA to go back and do this proper analysis."

By not doing that analysis, he says, the TSA is in violation of the law.

It's an interesting case, but not one that will probably be resolved anytime soon. Scribner says it's unlikely that there will be a ruling before next year.

For what it's worth, the TSA says this whole thing is too much funky math for them to handle.

"It is unclear to TSA how the risk associated with motor vehicles should influence TSA's decision making on airport screening," the agency said in its explanation of the body scanner policy. "Regardless of the safety or security risks associated with other modes of transportation, TSA should pursue the most effective security measures reasonable available so that the vulnerability of commercial air travel to terrorist attacks is reduced."

That's either a laudably intense focus on its mission or an example of tunnel vision.

It's understandable that the TSA wouldn't want to consider the possibility that making one form of travel so completely secure that no terrorist can get through could make other forms of travel slightly more dangerous. If it accepts that premise, it might have to accept other theories about its usefulness as a government agency.

The reality is that security always involves trade-offs. Understanding those trade-offs is essential to knowing whether invasive security measures are worth it.

NEXT: Radical Libertarians Now Have a (Write-In) Choice for President

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. There's always the chance that Congress could step-in and tell the TSA to do the assessment...

    Looking into possible or actual consequences of policy? Do they really want to pull at that thread?

    1. No kidding. There are a ton of government regulations that reduce employment, which causes people to be poorer, which is correlated with poorer health and therefore more deaths. Time to trim the federal register!

  2. Murray and Scribner argue that the TSA knew its body scanners would cause some segments of the public to switch from flying to driving, creating a safety issue

    A more direct, less "theoretical" safety argument might be that going through TSA's, um, procedures raises the blood pressure of many people, some of whom succumb to heart attack or stroke.

  3. When I flew out of Seattle the other week, my luggage went through something called the
    "Rapiscan 620".

    Yep, that's the real name. My luggage got rape scanned.

    1. Say that out loud at the airport, and you'll find yourself on the no-fly list.

      1. And if you are on a no fly list both of the current candidates want to prevent you from exercising your rights....Oh those unintended consequences.

        It all starts with a little sarcasm and the next thing you know you have a black bag on your head and you are in a prison where no one speaks English.

        And this is why you never order an Irish Car Bomb at an Airport lounge.


  4. thousands standing about irradiating hundreds of thousands every day.

  5. So if I understand the legal argument here correctly, if I drive to the Indian place a few exits down the highway from me and get in an accident, I can sue the McDonald's down the block for not offering lamb vindaloo...

    1. Not unless government thugs stopped you from visiting McDonald's.

      With that said, I would prefer the TSA's actions be ruled outright unconstitutional on fourth amendment grounds, but good luck ever getting our insane, authoritarian courts to recognize that obvious violation.

  6. RE: Lawsuit Challenges TSA To Prove Body Scanners Aren't Killing People

    That is not the point here.
    The little people have no right to sue, much less question, their obvious betters enslaving them.
    What next?
    Making the State responsible for their actions?
    The very idea!

  7. I did the sums more than once; you don't even need to cite specific deaths to show that TSA is taking lives.
    Merely figure the number of people flying X an hour delay each and compare that to human life spans; TSA costs lives, period.

    1. Not as much as my taxes do, by that measure.

  8. The only thing I hate more than overreaching government is stupid lawsuits. These people need the book thrown at them. There are a million things you could more viably sue the TSA for than this. You might argue that people have already tried to sue them over the myriad constitutional problems with essentially strip searching everyone who seeks to use a particular form of public transport and failed, but if even those lawsuits have failed what makes you think this groundless lawsuit that lacks standing and can't show harm (in the legal sense) has a snowball's chance in hell?

    You know the answer is going to be, in this order:
    1. Security at airports is a compelling government interest because terrorism
    2. The brave agents of the TSA obviously prevent tens or hundreds of times as many people dying from terrorism every day
    3. FYTW

  9. Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,
    ------------------>>> http://www.4cyberworks.com

  10. as Alfred implied I am startled that any one able to get paid $4915 in 4 weeks on the computer . hop over to this website
    see more at----------->>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  11. This is the sort of "analysis" that lots of government agencies do every day to justify proposed actions. The vast majority of them are BS. I used to do some of them and I can say that from experience.

    If this argument had merit, then the plaintiffs should be able to offer up at least a few names of real people who chose to drive and died in the process. Where are the names and the dead bodies?

    These analyses are nothing but mathematical masturbation . The CAGW people do this all the time.

  12. I looked at the bank draft which had said $7437 , I be certain ?that?my friend could realie earning money in their spare time on-line. . there neighbor has done this for less than twelve months and resentlly paid the morgage on their mini mansion and got a great new Lancia . have a peek here?.

    ?????????? http://www.ReportMax90.com

  13. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this...You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer...I'm Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  14. My takeaway from this article is that we have too many lawyers.

    1. My takeaway from all articles, forums, cartoons, social media, and newspapers is that we have too many lawyers.

  15. Bryce . even though Samuel `s story is unbelievable... on tuesday I bought a great Peugeot 205 GTi after making $4790 this - four weeks past an would you believe $10k last month . it's definitly the most-comfortable work Ive ever done . I actually started 4 months ago and right away startad earning more than $85 p/h . find more info

    ................ http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  16. my friend's mom makes $67 an hour on the internet . She has been fired for five months but last month her pay check was $20360 just working on the internet for a few hours. view....
    >>>>>>>>> http://www.Reportmax20.com

  17. Bryce . even though Samuel `s story is unbelievable... on tuesday I bought a great Peugeot 205 GTi after making $4790 this - four weeks past an would you believe $10k last month . it's definitly the most-comfortable work Ive ever done . I actually started 4 months ago and right away startad earning more than $85 p/h . find more info

    ................ http://www.BuzzNews10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.