Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/8547416.stm

by helwr • 16 years ago

27 65 16 years ago

news.bbc.co.uk

ars• 16 years ago

"Security staff use the X-ray machine...."

It's not an X-ray!! And I thought you always had the option of a pat-down if you refused the machine.

roboneal2• 16 years ago

You do in the U.S., not in the UK.

allenp• 16 years ago

"In US airports where scanners are installed passengers have the option of a undergoing a body search. "

These passengers were in the UK though and didn't have that option/right.

runningdogx• 16 years ago

Are you sure? There are two different technologies being used in various countries for scanning passengers.

1. millimeter-wave

2. backscatter x-ray (low power)

It is not clear whether mm-wave photons can be biologically damaging. However, there are plenty of articles from the UK claiming that UK body scanners (at least some of them) are x-ray, not mm-wave. Are you saying all of them have it wrong, and that the UK is using 100% mm-wave scanners?

CoryMathews• 16 years ago

It's just a matter of time before these body scanners are overruled. Personally I'm glad to see people refusing to use them, its just sad they had to miss their flights.

icefox• 16 years ago

Last time I flew I had to deal with the body scanners so this week rather then flying I drove from Boston to Toronto. I ended up arriving faster then when I flew and I didn't have any of the hassle crossing the boarder (and I brought a cake, something that would have worked on a plane).

evgen• 16 years ago

It's just a matter of time before these body scanners are overruled.

Based on what? You have no particular right to get on a plane, nor do you have especially strong privacy rights when passing through an airport.

I am also glad to see people refusing to use them, but am more pleased by the fact that the people running the system are telling those who are opting out that their option is to choose another mode of transportation. Random screening selection and consistent application of policies are a good start for any such system.

almost• 16 years ago

So you can refuse to go do it if you are randomly selected and you just forfeit your flight. How exactly does that add any protection against anything? Potential hijackers can't just buy another plain ticket?

pbh• 16 years ago

Related: "Carnival Booth: An Algorithm for Defeating the Computer-Assisted Passenger Screening System," Samidh Chakrabarti, Aaron Strauss.

tl;dr Anything other than random is arguably worse.

gnosis5• 16 years ago

"Anything other than random is arguably worse."

Why? If every passenger is screened, how is that worse than random?

avner• 16 years ago

This is security through obscurity. To quote Bruce Schneier:

Security is both a reality and a feeling. The reality of security is mathematical, based on the probability of different risks and the effectiveness of different countermeasure... Security is also a feeling, based on individual psychological reactions to both the risks and the countermeasures. And the two things are different: You can be secure even though you don't feel secure, and you can feel secure even though you're not really secure."

The body scanners give the reactionary populous a reason to "feel" secure; even though the chances of a terrorist being caught by body scanners are slim. (see http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/german_tv_on_t...)

jcl• 16 years ago

I think you mean "security theater".

"Security through obscurity" would mean that there is some flaw in the security that the defenders are aware of but that they are hoping the attackers don't realize or guess at -- but in this case the flaw is pretty obvious to anyone who takes more than a superficial look at the system.

staunch• 16 years ago

Yeah: http://www.schneier.com/essay-241.html

mrduncan• 16 years ago

I actually noticed signs (at IND) a few days ago saying that the scanners were optional. If you chose not to be scanned, you would get a pat-down instead.

roboneal2• 16 years ago

It is inevitable that a SMOKINGGUN-like website with famous peoples body scans will be created.

"But it was COLD in the airport!"

btilly2• 16 years ago

Let me get this straight. Muslims have religious objections to going through machines that were supposed to catch Islamic terrorists?

Yes, I understand and agree with the objections. But I'm still amused.

marshallp3• 16 years ago

I don't think the majority of muslims like to be associated with islamic terrorists just as germans don't like their association with hitler, or we white americans like our association with past slavery.

btilly2• 16 years ago

Obviously true. However Islamic terrorists are clearly a subset of Muslims. So our liberal society is left with a choice between refusing Muslims their basic civil rights, or giving Islamic terrorists an easy way to bypass the expensive machines that we spent a fortune on to catch them. (Machines which, incidentally, are more used on non-Muslims than Muslims for the simple reason that the terrorists are able to use people who don't look like our stereotypes of what Muslims look like if that helps them bypass security.)

I find this kind of predictable policy failure amusing.

jpatte8• 16 years ago

Am I the only one thinking "the hell with privacy"? I understand the need for a certain level of privacy. However people watching these monitors see hundreds if not thousands of people a day... Do you think they care a second about who wears a pacemaker, or a gastric ring? They might notice it, but they will forget it the second after, and most certainly never meet the person again. So tell me, how is it a privacy violation?

jpatte8• 16 years ago

?! Not exactly sure why I was down-voted... This was a sincere question. Did I miss something obvious?

yalurker• 16 years ago

Your post is self-contradictory and illogical. You say to forget about privacy, then acknowledge that some privacy is important, then suggest that privacy invasions don't matter as long as they happen to a lot of people.

Most of us recognize we're more likely to get hit by lightning while winning the lottery than be saved by one of these machines, and as such oppose their use.

Esspe• 16 years ago

Almost nobody likes Big Brother (even if it supposedly doing something for our own good).

marshallp3• 16 years ago

Do you want some random dude looking at your adult daughter trhough one of these.

jpatte8• 16 years ago

As long as this random dude never meets my daughter again, I don't give a damn.

DougWebb• 16 years ago

Forget about the adult daughters; what about children? Aren't these machines generating child porn every time a child walks through it, and turning the viewers into criminals as soon as they see the image of a child walking through it?

Or do children get to bypass the scanner, giving the terrorists useful mules for carrying forbidden objects onto the plane?

iloveyouocean• 16 years ago

I could not care less if some guy looked at my 'adult daughter' gasp. She has breasts and genitals and a woman's body, just like the other billions of females on the planet. I think people consider themselves to be far more unique and important than they should.

By passing through a scanner, what will be revealed about a person that is truly of any consequence? They have a 'small' penis? They are fat? They have various health problems? Deformities? So basically, the technician may, at worst, have knowledge about a person that is certainly already known by other people. Do you think the technician is going to write this stuff down and blackmail people? I just don't understand what the assumed horrible consequence is.

pedalpete2• 16 years ago

How the air security organizations got into buying these machines without thinking through the implications is what I find ridiculous.

I can understand a muslim women's (or any women really) objection where there religion says they have to cover their bodies, and now we tell them to go through a machine so we can see what their bodies look like.

bootload• 16 years ago

"... How the air security organizations got into buying these machines without thinking through the implications is what I find ridiculous. ..."

There is a heavy PR campaign going on for scanners. I found this via Jane News Briefs.

"... Body Scanners, Security and Airport Efficiency A Message from BOZO Systems... Can airports lower costs, improve operations and increase passenger satisfaction - while enhancing aviation security? ... As the world's leading personnel screening technology, a NERK 500 system can be a key part of an integrated aviation security solution. Learn how a NERK 500 can lower airport operating costs and improve checkpoint throughput and passenger satisfaction. Our consultants can demonstrate how a NERK 500 can optimize checkpoint operations.... With the NERK 500, passengers get through the checkpoint faster: total scanning time far faster than competing millimetre wave body scanners. ..."

This is the message being sold to airline owners.

pedalpete2• 16 years ago

But isn't it a serious lack of foresight that passenger would revolt against being scanned? That was my point. I understand the why of doing it, but there needs to be some understanding of the reaction of your customers. And let's not forget. We as travelers, are customers. It often doesn't feel that way.

MikeTLive• 16 years ago

Guilty until proven innocent. I am disgusted at how quickly people give in to this.

Go through the scanner/rectal screen to prove your innocence.

rick8885• 16 years ago

"Guilty until proven innocent. I am disgusted at how quickly people give in to this.

Go through the scanner/rectal screen to prove your innocence."

Do you have a better answer?

We are searching people before they go onto a plane. We can either have less security and potentially allow someone to get through and kill innocent people (which has already happened and almost happened on multiple occasions) or have body-scans and other measures to prevent these situations.

I have flown many times in the last year and I don't mind the extra levels of security that are in place. I think the real problem is that the security measures are working too well and people are getting complacent.

It reminds me of Y2K. After it happened, there were many people that said "see, nothing happened!". When in reality, thousands of people worked for a long time to fix all of the issues that would have been a problem.

defen• 16 years ago

> Do you have a better answer?

Read up about Israeli airport security measures - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1025173

kilian• 16 years ago

From the article: "[T]hey were selected at random to go through the new scanning machine." Two Muslim women? traveling together? picked at random?? Really now.

In The Netherlands we have similar "random" increased security checks for people whom fit a specific profile, but the government refuses to tell what that profile is. Now, I'm a a skinny white guy so will probably never fit any profile, but the whole "do what we tell you to do and we wont tell you why" coming from a governing body really gets under my skin.

ErrantX7• 16 years ago

Just to be clear the article only mentions that one was possibly a Muslim (no comment on the other) and there is not data on if they were travelling together.

ErrantX7• 16 years ago

I always get "randomly" chosen (for a variety of specific reasons) when going through foreign (not UK, they are fine ;)) checkpoints. Usually I either have to do body scanner or interview/pat down/strip search.

So I've seen all sorts of security setups and privacy intrusions.

In an opinion on this I am biased because going through a scanner doesn't worry me. There is no feeling of sexual or privacy intrusion for me. It's just step in, scan, step out and move on.

But I can understand how it does concern people.

I think if they must use these things there should be alternatives offered - refusal of all of which would, I feel, make it fair to refuse entry to the plane.

roundsquare2• 16 years ago

Maybe I'm missing something incredibly obvious, but one way to make much less invasive is to hire both male and female specialists and only allow a person to be scanned by someone of the same gender.

gnosis5• 16 years ago

How is that really any less invasive?

It sounds like the reasoning behind this sort of attitude (also seen in the frequent requirement of using someone of the same gender to frisk people) is that someone of the opposite gender must be heterosexual and would "get off" on seeing/frisking someone of the opposite sex.

But the screener could easily be homosexual. Or bisexual. But I really doubt if they're even asked what their sexual orientation is. And, honestly, do you even care if they get off on seeing/frisking you? How does their stimulation or lack thereof hurt you?

Another explanation for this sort of attitude might be that people are simply embarrassed when seen/frisked by someone of the opposite gender. But the reverse could just as easily be the case. Someone might feel no embarrassment from being seen/frisked by someone of the opposite gender, but might feel embarrassed by someone of the same gender.

Mandating that everyone be frisked by someone of the same gender based on these flimsy justifications makes no sense to me. If these are concerns at all (and they clearly are for some people), it's much more reasonable to simply allow the passenger a choice of being screened by a male or female screener.

roundsquare2• 16 years ago

The fact of the matter though is that most people don't consider it as invasive, despite the factors you listed (which, to be honest, are probably edge cases). Your solution seems fine, but doesn't change the basic premise that having technicians of both genders would solve a good proportion of the problems.

I also said this because my understanding of the main religious reason that muslim women wouldn't want to go through the scanner is because they men other than their husbands aren't supposed to see them. As per the particle:

One, who is believed to be a Muslim, refused on religious reasons

gnosis5• 16 years ago

People need to get over their neurotic, up-tight attitude towards sexuality, and their own and other people's bodies.

So someone will see you naked... what's the big deal?

plinkplonk• 16 years ago

"So someone will see you naked... what's the big deal?"

If it isn't such a big deal why don't you walk around naked all the time then? (Given decent weather) why wear clothes at all?

Yes I am exaggerating to make a point, but "getting naked" in front of strangers is a big deal for many people. The debate is about whether improved security in airports is worth "getting naked". Dismissing peoples concerns as "no big deal" doesn't help.

gnosis5• 16 years ago

"If it isn't such a big deal why don't you walk around naked all the time then? (Given decent weather) why wear clothes at all?"

I would have absolutely no problem with that myself. Unfortunately, where I live it's illegal.

I do understand perfectly well that many people do have problems with others (particularly non-intimate strangers) seeing them naked. But I just think this is the result of socialized neurosis. Hopefully with time our society will get over it.

Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

Related Stories