qondio.com/ysxI

The Controversy Over Airport Body Scanners

By Geoff Cummings

It was partway through 2009 that Manchester Airport, in the north west of England, announced it was installing body scanning machines as part of its airport security.

The need for airport security is beyond question, as terrorists use whatever means they can to inflict harm on their fellow humans. And to cope with this threat airports are trying to stay one step ahead of the terrorists so that anyone carrying anything they ought not is caught before getting on an aircraft.

Recent events have once more put the spotlight firmly on airport security. And the questions of whether body scanners should be used, as well as how effective they are, are being asked.

In the Manchester Airport experiment all those taking part volunteer. They have the option to use the scanner, which takes literally a few seconds, to being `patted down`. One advantage is those facing the body scanner don`t have to remove belts and other bits and pieces. Passengers who are `patted down` have to go through a metal detector machine which first involves removing keys, belts etc, in fact anything which has metal in it. They then face the often viewed `indignity` of being patted down in full public view.

As for whether the full body scanner works, there`s some debate over whether the man who travelled from Schiphol Airport in the Netherlands on a flight to the US would have been detected. The liquid `bomb` was placed in his underwear, but fortunately he never got to detonate it.

As for the morality of using the body scanners, that`s a different debate. How much is the operator able to see? What happens to the photographs later?

Well, the security staff in many if not all airports don`t sit all that close to the scanner. That means the operator is in a closed room and doesn`t see who steps before the scanner. There are no hard copy photographs as such, just the image on the monitor, and if there`s no problem with the passenger the image disappears and can`t be kept.

Some though are concerned about just how much of a person`s body can be seen. It seems that as the X-rays do not go deep under the skin they see only the things which lie over the skin. Anyone with implants, or with a heart pacemaker fitted, or artificial joints, or wearing tampons or coils shouldn`t show up as having those. On the other hand, intimate piercings, breasts and genitals can be made out on the monitor, and it`s that which is making some groups unhappy.

Is this all an unnecessary invasion of privacy? And, could it even be breaking laws designed to protect children? This applies especially in countries which have tight laws concerning children`s privacy, such as in the UK. Under 18`s are exempt in the UK from using the full body scanner. But, what about when all airports not just in the UK but around the world start using body scanners? Will the optional pat down still be offered, or will it become compulsory for all wishing to travel to be scanned? At the moment it`s only passengers travelling from certain listed countries to the US, but surely the time will come when all countries will have to adopt tighter security by use of the full body scanning machine.

PLEASE VISIT THE CONTRIBUTOR'S WEBSITE

Our Home Tools
Suppliers of tools for garden & home.
www.ourhometools.com

		Laraine appreciated this intel. Jun 30, 2011
		Vegetable Oil liked this intel. Apr 12, 2012

Glad you like it, thanks.

Thanks for this informative itel. Vancouver Airport is in the process of implementing the body scanners right now. I'm not opposed to them, IF they are effective, but there seems to be mixed opinions about whether they are going to prevent the bad guys from trying to blow up our planes.

That`s part of the problem, just how effective are they? Would one of these machines have detected the explosive substance the guy had when he travelled form Amsterdam to the US? I`m with you though, the better security is the safer we all feel.

I would have no problem with scanners if they are effective. There is some doubt as to how effective they will be if a person really wants to hide something small because I don't believe the scanners will detect something stuffed inside the body. My fear is becoming so dependent on them that security may get lax in other areas.

True, if people are prepared to insert drugs into their body cavities some will do the same with explosives. What do they care where it goes if the aim is to blow themselves and others up?

Another great intel, Geoff.
It's good to know that other countries are trying to get on the same page and put up a united effort to try to keep us all secure. Nothing is perfect, but making it more difficult, to cause harm, is a step in the right direction.
Thank you for sharing.
Frederick

I live quite close to Manchester Airport so when these body scanners were brought in it was quite big on the local news. Must say passengers do seem happy to use them, but no doubt that`s because those who do are volunteering to anyway.

Great overview of the issues related to this. Although embarrassing I guess I would be okay with it...but only if it is proven effective.

I suppose you just have to keep thinking when stood there "my mother`s seen it all before anyway..." oh, "and my doctor..." and...

Would be most embarassing if the person on the other end of the scanner (the one looking at your image) was a very attractive member of the opposite sxe... could work a charm if you were endowed I suppose!

traveller Mar 5, 2010 09:21

What weighs only 23 ounces (0.7 kg), costs about $450, and, when disassembled, does not register on an airport X-ray machine? That’s right, a plastic gun dubbed the hijacker’s special. Its nickname is attributed to the possibility that a potential hijacker will dismantle the gun and hide the few metal parts in separate pieces of luggage, enabling the plastic pistol to pass undetected through X-ray machines used by airports for security. The Glock 17 plastic gun is produced by an Austrian high-technology firm that specializes in military and police equipment. Since 1985 the gun has been manufactured and distributed in Norway, Sweden, and Canada. Some authorities fear the gun is to become an ideal weapon for terrorists.
An outstanding intel!

The copyright for this content entitled "The Controversy Over Airport Body Scanners" has been specified by the contributor as:

This content may be copied, distributed, and modified, as long as a) the original author is acknowledged with a link back to the content page, and b) if the work is modified, the result is distributed with this same license. If you use this content according to the license specified, you must link to the following URL: