Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
European lawmakers object to full body scans at airports
Gadling's been following the slow implementation of so-called "whole body imaging" machines at US airports for some time now. Machines have been either installed or are coming soon to Dallas, Detroit, Miami, Las Vegas, Reagan National, JFK, LAX, Baltimore, Denver and Albuquerque.
To review, these machines use pretty strong x-ray technology, where millimeter waves are bounced off a passenger's body, producing a very accurate image of his or her body without clothes. The goal, of course, is to get a better view of whether a passenger is concealing something at security.
Not surprisingly, the American Civil Liberties Union has been all over this one, saying the technology at the very least should be a last resort, used only when a passenger qualifies for an intrusive search.
The ACLU has some allies on the other side of the Atlantic.
The European Union has suggested that it would go along with the machines in its own airports. But this week, a group of EU lawmakers brought the matter back for debate, objecting to the scanners for much the same reason that the ACLU does: It violates the privacy of passengers.
One British MP called it a "virtual strip search," according to the Associated Press.
It's hard to say just how many EU lawmakers are against the machines, but Brussels is continuing to debate the program.
The European Commission, which is the executive branch of the EU, said on Tuesday that the legislation it is considering that would install these machines at airports respects established EU safety and privacy rules.
The body scanners were installed in Amsterdam's Schiphol airport last year, and few passengers reportedly complained, instead liking the speed at which lines moved because of them.
I personally think that that argument will eventually propel these machines into wider use. More travelers are likely to be happy about quicker lines and not having to remove shoes, coats, etc. than be concerned whether some security worker is going to see what kind of underwear they have on.
This is especially true in Europe, as Europeans in my experience have considerably less modestly issues than Americans.
Filed under: Airports
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Emland Oct 23rd 2008 8:20AM
Note that the face on this image has been shopped. If it wasn't, you would be able to see the person's face. It isn't underwear you will see, as your post photo shows. Screener's will be viewing the full monty. I've seen these things in action and the potential for abuse is enormous. There'll be dozens of websites dedicated to seeing "Jessica Simpson's whole body image."
I think it would work if they could reduce the resolution to fuzzy up the area between shoulder and knee while still being focused on detecting foreign material. Dense plastic and metal will show up like a beacon with that thing - they don't need to be able to tell if you are circumcised.
GotZenn Oct 23rd 2008 1:20PM
Why is nobody mentioning the significant health implications of this? Security is one thing, but subjecting everyone who wants to board a plane with cancer-causing, high-level radiation just for the sake of speedier lines, or a false sense of greater security? That's absolutely ridiculous, and should not be forced on anyone. At the very least, passengers should be allowed to opt-out and request a search by hand. This, coupled with the incredible invasion of privacy, should make these machines a no-brainer to not even bother with.
Vispilä Oct 28th 2008 4:16AM
In fact the radiation dosage in majority of these equpments is not much more than the natural background radiation. One scan is equivalent to approx. 5 min exposure to natural radiation taking place everywhere.
People are getting higher exposures during the actual flight since the radiation levels are much higher in high altitudes than on the ground.
I do agree that people should have a choice, but using radiation exposure as an excuse is not valid in this case...