PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 24, 2010
Securing Aircraft From Explosives Responsibly: Advanced Imaging Recognition Act of 2010 or SAFER AIR Act of 2010 - Expresses the sense of Congress that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should: (1) increase efforts to address privacy concerns regarding the screening of passengers using advanced imaging technology at airports; and (2) conduct additional testing of advanced imaging technology; and (3) deploy technology to standardize images, remove personally identifying characteristics, while providing transportation security officers with necessary information, and upgrade equipment to detect new threats without major capital expenditures.
Declares it to be U.S. policy to aggressively seek, develop, and timely deploy primary screening technologies capable of detecting and protecting against threats to domestic and international aviation travel that cannot be effectively and efficiently detected by other technologies currently more commonly used, such as metal detectors.
Directs the Secretary to ensure that advanced imaging technology and other advanced technology with capability to detect weapons, on-body plastic explosives, and other nonmetallic explosives are timely deployed for the primary screening of aircraft passengers. Requires the Secretary to provide passengers with an option for primary screening other than the use of such technologies.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires all advanced imaging technology equipment used at airport checkpoints to be configured so that passenger: (1) images are not retained; and (2) facial features are blurred, while allowing detection of individual on-body threats. Prohibits DHS employees from having cameras or cell phones present while viewing such images. Requires such employees to communicate with other DHS employees using a wireless headset or another comparable method of communication that does not allow for the transmission of the image.
People & committees
Sen. Bennett, Robert F. [R-UT] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S5486)
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.3536 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.3536 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.3536 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.3536 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.