backtop


Print 40 comment(s) - last by Qapa.. on Feb 7 at 7:12 AM


Despite health and privacy concerns, and reports of inaccuracy, Britain is embracing expensive full body scanners. The nation is implementing a no-scan-no-fly policy at some of its airports. The policy should help citizens feel safer, even if they aren't really, some say.  (Source: CNN.com)
Scanners can't necessarily detect threats, but perhaps they will grant the illusion of security

The United States, in the wake of a failed Christmas terrorist attack on an airline headed to Detroit, Michigan, is looking to step up airport security.  In particular, it is considering adopting on a broader scale 3D scanners which are currently being tested at select airports across the U.S.  Other countries, including Great Britain are also considering adopting the devices.

Two technologies currently are competing in the full body scan arena, each with unique problems.  The first technology, used slightly more heavily in the U.S. is millimeter wave scanning.  There are numerous concerns about the technology including recent studies that showed it could cause DNA damage (which could increase the risk of cancer), inefficiency at detecting contraband placed at the genitals (they are obscured in the image, typically), and reports that the scanners are capable of storing images and transmitting them -- raising privacy concerns.

The second most prevalent technology is backscatter X-Rays.  The chief technology in Britain and also put in use at some American airports, this technology also has numerous concerns.  It is even less effective and detecting contraband as it depends on contrast with the skin -- so items smuggled in clothing lifted off the body surface aren't typically shown.  There are similar DNA damage concerns and privacy issues as well.  And both backscatter X-Rays and millimeter waves have been shown to not always detect low density materials like liquids, plastics, or powders, raising the possibility of explosives or plastic weapons escaping the scans.

Despite the abundant concerns, Britain has issued a sharp ultimatum to travelers -- no scan, no fly.  Transport Secretary Lord Adonis, a member of the ruling Labour Party proposed the rules which first will go into effect at Manchester and Heathrow airports.  He writes, "If a passenger is selected for scanning, and declines, they will not be permitted to fly."

He adds, "The code will require airports to undertake scanning sensitively, having regard to the rights of passengers."

Despite the numerous concerns, the head of customer experience at Manchester airport, Sarah Barrett states, "It will enhance security for everyone, which can only be a good thing, without compromising people's privacy.  The image generated by the body scanner cannot be stored or captured nor can security officers viewing the images recognize people."

The British government and U.S. governments claim the scanners obscure genitalia. However, the accuracy of those claims are being questioned after the Australian government -- also testing the scanners -- admitted that it unblurred the genitalia to increase the accuracy of the devices.  Admitted Australia's Cheryl Johnson, general manager of the Office of Transport Security, "It will show the private parts of people, but what we've decided is that we're not going to blur those out, because it severely limits the detection  capabilities."

Amid numerous concerns -- privacy, health risks, and inefficiency -- governments have to decide whether to try to charge ahead with the unproven and potentially damaging technology -- or to wait until it is sufficiently refined and improved.  Most world governments seem to be opting for the latter approach, throwing caution to the wind.  While the new scanners may not necessarily increase security significantly, they may at least offer people the illusion of safety at the airport, albeit at the cost of privacy and health risks.  And perhaps that's worth the high taxpayer expenses as Britain rolls out its new policy and the U.S. considers similar mandates.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Well let's just admit it......
By jabber on 2/2/2010 1:13:35 PM , Rating: 4
....the terrorists have won...and we let them.

Well done guys. Never have so few made so many look really really stupid.

Not that the result could have been any different.

I bet Russia is furious that it could have made the west dissapear up it's own asshole in fear if it had just used a couple of hand grenades, some box cutters and semi-exploding underpants. Total cost of changing the western world into a nervous breakdown - $50!

Pretty incredible really.




RE: Well let's just admit it......
By Engi on 2/2/2010 6:24:36 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed they have

Not only will these scanners do little to stop anyone serious about doing damage and cost millions resulting in a small increase in flight tickets. It will subjecting millions of people to full body X-rays every time they go through security and if your transferring it can be more then once.

The X-rays are gonna do damage to thousands of people particularly business men and women who have to fly regularly, let alone air crew. In 30 years time we'll have a increased % of the population of people dying of cancer (probably lung cancer as the lung is sensitive) and related diseases, medical funding will need to be increased. I bet it will be the new "asbestos" of our day. Unfortunately as this affect is not immediate and will not be seen for some time. People do not consider it or they do not care, what fools.

Seriously, sometimes the west is too stupid for its own good. Fluoridation of water supplies is another example. If you actually think fluoride does your teeth good, your sadly mistaken. We are increasingly creating more carcinogenic environment's to live in, justifying it by any means how and then wondering why cancer & other related health cases are on the rise.

Prevention is the answer but you can't sell it to anyone so we will continue poison, irradiate ourselves and eat poorly causing more cancer. All the while looking for the miracle 'cure' drug that will kill cancer before it kills us. Whether we find it or not, the drug/medical companies don't actually care as long as they can keep funding research with the sympathy appeals of those dying from the diseases.

The interesting question is; how many more people will die with these machines as a contributing factor in the future then terrorists blowing up planes?


By myhipsi on 2/3/2010 11:10:11 AM , Rating: 2
Well said, and oh so true.

Some interesting quotes from Osama Bin Laden:

quote:
All that we have to do is to send two mujahedin to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.


quote:
Rather, the policy of the White House that demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations – whether they be working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction – has helped al-Qaeda to achieve these enormous results.


It's not al qaeda, the Taliban, or Osama Bin Laden that we should fear. It's the drones and cowards that make up the majority of western society that we should fear. They are the ones who have enabled the unfettered rise of the military/industrial complex and the security/safety/nanny state in exchange for the illusion of safety and security.

Everytime liberty, freedom, and/or your constitutional rights are given up in the name of security, the "terrorists" win.


"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki