
Airport full-body X-ray scanners banned across Europe as unsafe - ukdm
http://www.geek.com/articles/news/airport-full-body-x-ray-scanners-banned-across-europe-as-unsafe-20111116/
======
wbhart
Now that the rotten things have been banned, I can tell my story without fear
of being locked up. I went through a body scanner on a trip within Europe
about a year or two ago. There was no random selection, they were just forcing
everyone through the machine (I assume it was an x-ray but didn't actually
have time to check). This machine was of the variety that did not have an
operator viewing the images in a private room, but the operator standing at
the machine had a display mounted on the machine itself (some parts of Europe
are much less fussy about nudity). When I went through, the image was
indistinct but showed "concealments" all over me (I was also permitted to see
the image). The guy looked concerned and started to pat me down so he could
figure out what these "concealments" were. After twenty seconds or so it was
clear to him that I had no concealments and he confidently pronounced that the
machines actually don't work if you are sweaty. Hilariously, a full bottle of
water went through the (bag) X-ray machine unnoticed in my backpack. I pointed
it out and they were kind enough to accept that I had left it in my bag
accidentally and let me have it confiscated instead of what ever else it is
they do with someone who has bottles of dangerous liquids like water in their
bags. Since that humiliating experience I have travelled by plane in Europe as
little as possible, taking the Eurostar train wherever practical. I do not
travel to the US any more for any reason. I am delighted the machines are
unsafe and have been banned, but naturally I believe they should have been
banned on grounds of them being ineffective and an unnecessary invasion of
personal privacy.

Edit: I reviewed the information here:
[http://www.jaunted.com/story/2010/1/5/163631/3181/travel/Ful...](http://www.jaunted.com/story/2010/1/5/163631/3181/travel/Full-
Body+Scanners+101%3A+The+Two+Types+and+How+They+Work) and I do not know which
type of machine it was. Frankly, it doesn't match the description of either.
There were no rotating walls, it did not take 40s, yet it was not a vertical
wall. Unfortunate. It would have been nice to know.

~~~
grannyg00se
What is it about your post that would have you fearing being locked up? And
what about the experience was humiliating? Your story sounds like a basic,
routine scenario.

~~~
ataggart
That a strip-search is "basic" or "routine" is orthogonal to it being a
humiliating violation of ones person.

~~~
grannyg00se
Who said anything about a strip search? Wait a second....someone told this
person to take off their clothes, then proceeded to physically touch them and
probe their orifices searching for contraband?

I don't think it's reasonable to compare what happened with a strip search.
And I don't see how what happened is all that humiliating, though I get the
sense I'm probably just not as sensitive as many others. I find the security
measures annoying and frustratingly misguided, but not humiliating.

~~~
ataggart
You seem to be confusing a strip search with a body cavity search.

These machines are an electronic means of performing a strip search. There
should be nothing controversial in that claim.

~~~
grannyg00se
You're right. I always thought that a strip search would also include some
kind of physical searching while nude in order to ensure that nothing is
hidden in hair, folds, and at least the mouth orifice.

------
tallanvor
While I'm happy to see them banned for any reason, I'd much rather they were
banned on the basis that they constitute an unacceptable violation of peoples'
privacy.

~~~
Cushman
Is there a reason why the concept of "security theater" hasn't caught on in
the mainstream? It seems like it should be easy to oppose things that make us
feel safer but objectively make us _less_ safe.

~~~
martingordon
I experienced "security theater" just this past weekend coming back from
Nashville. As the line for the x-ray scanner started to grow, they started
letting people just go through the metal detectors. Once the line shrunk back
down, they started forcing people to go through the scanner again.

I opted out of the scanner just as they started letting people go through the
metal detector again. The TSA agent told me, "you know these are completely
safe and no human sees the pictures anymore, right?" If I had gotten in line
just a few seconds later, I wouldn't have had to go through the scanner or be
subject to the enhanced pat down. I mentioned this to the TSA agent doing my
screening and he said, "sometimes timing is everything". If the scanners are
as necessary as they want us to think, I'm glad to know that the chance that
my plane gets blown up doesn't depend on how well those scanners work but
simply on whether a would-be bomber went through security during a busy
period.

~~~
roc
The TSA has an absolutely abysmal record for catching weapons and explosives
during security audits.

The most embarrassing bit of security theater is that, even if these new
devices _were_ safe, even if they _were_ necessary, even if they _were_
effective at presenting the relevant data to their operators, that those
operators simply _do not catch_ actual weapons ~80% of the time. [1]

And that number has been that bad year after year after year.

Truly, a given flight's chance of getting blown up depends on little more than
the chance that someone capable _is trying_ to blow it up.

The only comfort to be found is in the relative difficulty in assembling a
suitable explosive and the low co-incidence of that skill alongside murderous
intent.

[1] [http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/loaded-gun-slips-past-tsa-
scre...](http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/loaded-gun-slips-past-tsa-
screeners/story?id=12412458)

~~~
dvdhsu
> The TSA has an absolutely abysmal record for catching weapons and explosives
> during security audits.

I know I'm expressing a view that's probably been expressed.

Nevertheless, I hope you can explain how/why this statement is wrong: "The
scanners are deterring people from carrying weapons right now. If the scanners
were removed, there would be more people carrying weapons."

I suppose you could argue that the people who _really_ want to carry weapons
wouldn't be stopped by a scanner. Then again, there are definitely "impulse
crimes", where people are driven to commit crimes based on nothing but
impulse/pent up anger. Those people would have been stopped by scanners, but
are let through, if there were no/less effective scanners.

~~~
tikhonj
Regarding "impulse" crimes--I don't see why such crimes are that much more of
an issue on a plane than anywhere else. My understanding of psychology is
naturally imperfect, but I don't think that a _hijacking_ would be an impulse
crime.

I could see why explosives would be more dangerous on a plane than elsewhere.
However, people don't generally carry large amounts of explosives with them
for no good reason, so explosives also don't lend themselves to impulse crime.

Other dangers, like getting shot or stabbed--something that is actually likely
to be an impulse crime--are not much more dangerous on a plane than on the
ground. Since we're perfectly content running the risk of being shot walking
around outside, I don't see why airports would need special security just to
prevent impulse crimes.

Of course, this is not an argument against all airport security. While I am
personally against it, I would have to spend more time and do some research
before being confident of making a compelling case against it. I'm just
explaining why I think preventing impulse crimes would not be a good reason
for tight security at airports.

------
mmcconnell1618
Keep in mind that there are 2 types of machines in common use. 1) Backscatter
(X-Ray) and 2) Millimeter Wave (Radio) and they operate very differently.

Based on what I've read I'm comfortable with the millimeter wave system and
have some concerns about the backscatter x-ray system. However, if the
backscatter system operates correctly then the amount of radiation exposure is
really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight.
I still think I'd opt-out of the backscatter system until long term effects
and performance are studied.

Tip: Millimeter wave looks like a circular telephone booth, Backscatter x-ray
looks like a big rectangular wall you stand in front of.

[http://www.jaunted.com/story/2010/1/5/163631/3181/travel/Ful...](http://www.jaunted.com/story/2010/1/5/163631/3181/travel/Full-
Body+Scanners+101%3A+The+Two+Types+and+How+They+Work)

~~~
po
_However, if the backscatter system operates correctly then the amount of
radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive
on the actual flight._

The most compelling argument I've heard about the dangers is that while the
total amount of ionizing radiation you receive is small compared to the flight
itself, the radiation is chosen such that it doesn't pass through you and more
of it is absorbed at the skin.

Even if they are safe, I will probably opt-out but I definitely don't like
being separated from my baggage on the belt during the pat-down process.

~~~
axiak
In my experience (I've opted-out 6 times now in the past 1.5 years), they let
you take your baggage with you to the pat down area, and you never have to
lose eye contact.

~~~
Nrsolis
This is not always true.

I was at JFK Terminal 1 (International) and I got separated from my bags on
the belt for an extended period of time. When I complained that my bags were
at risk of being stolen or lost, the TSA agent said "You opted out. That's
what happens."

Needless to say, I found a supervisor and complained. I'm also filing an
official complaint. I have no problem being patted-down but I do have a
problem with them trying to coerce me to do something I've expressly asked to
be excluded from, and using my fear of property loss to get me to do it.
That's WRONG.

------
Spearchucker
The part that annoys me is that the security clearance process at airports is
invasive. It serves no purpose other than to provide the perception of
security.

Policy dictates that passengers are not allowed to carry any weapons onto
airplanes. The scanners and other mechanisms are used to detect firearms,
knives with blades longer than 6cm, and so on and so forth.

The ridiculous part is that you clear security, go into duty free, and buy a
bottle of whiskey which you're allowed to take onto the airplane.

If you're so inclined, once on the airplane break the bottle and threaten a
passenger or the airhostess with it.

That makes the whole process (at huge cost to the tax payer) a complete farce.

There are other crazy things we're paying for, like finger printing, and
forgoing the right not to have our laptops and phones searched. Anyone who
wants to get around these measures can. It defies belief.

~~~
adnam
As someone once said: "if you can hijack and aircraft with a pair of nail
clippers, you can also hijack an aircraft _without_ a pair of nail clippers".

------
jashkenas
Read the original reporting at ProPublica instead:
[http://www.propublica.org/article/europe-bans-x-ray-body-
sca...](http://www.propublica.org/article/europe-bans-x-ray-body-scanners-
used-at-u.s.-airports)

~~~
raldi
The original source _they_ refer to is
[http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/1...](http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1343&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en)
... which seems to indicate European airports can still use the scanners as
long as they comply with privacy guidelines and the technology uses something
other than X-rays. For example, passive-millimeter:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_body_scanner>

~~~
brlewis
I think "completely inaccurate" is overstating it. Here's a quote from that
source:

 _In order not to risk jeopardising citizens' health and safety, only security
scanners which do not use X-ray technology are added to the list of authorised
methods for passenger screening at EU airports._

~~~
raldi
I edited my comment as you were replying, but still, this writeup totally
buries this part of the story (from the opening paragraph of the original
source):

 _This legislation allows airports and Member States that wish to use security
scanners for the screening of passengers to do so under strict operational and
technical conditions._

People who see the headline are going to think Europe isn't going to be
deploying body scanners. But this story is about the opposite: The headline
should be, "Europe approves passive-millimeter full-body airport scanners,
prepares for rollout."

~~~
llimllib
But the intriguing part of the story is that they banned x-ray scanners, not
that they approved millimeter-wave scanners. The headline is accurate.

This has always been the sensible course of action; millimeter-wave machines
are far safer than x-ray machines.

~~~
pwaring
The headline is technically accurate, but I suspect most people don't know the
difference between x-ray scanners and millimeter-wave scanners and assume if a
scanner shows underneath your clothes then it is an x-ray.

------
danssig
A reddit user on the _real_ reason the US is buying these scanners:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/mdwox/eu_has_bann...](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/mdwox/eu_has_banned_the_use_of_xray_body_scanners_in/c305qjv)

~~~
alttag
I'd prefer you share the poster's assertion with us and provide commentary as
to whether you agree or think the commenter is paranoid.

Just posting a link doesn't add much.

~~~
danssig
He has links and things providing his point. I agree with him, it was clearly
a corruption thing from the start. Otherwise, why would people need to be
scanned while _leaving the airport_. It only makes sense for either (a)
creating useless jobs for people and/or (b) buying useless equipment to do the
useless job.

~~~
alttag
Yes, it was edited following my comment. He originally had just the link, and
it came off as gossip, not insight.

------
ck2
I think we need to start handing dosimeters to anyone working around the
machines.

They aren't allowed to have them and will get fired, problem solved and I have
zero pity.

------
vizzah
I couldn't remember seeing many (if any) x-ray scanners in European airports -
it's almost always regular metal detector gates. X-rays do cause cancer and
must not be used in airports. Enough using terrorists as an excuse, there are
much easier targets - but it's been quiet for a while and hopefully continues
that way.

~~~
furyg3
At Amsterdam Schipol they are used for many flights (especially to the US).
There is no opt-out, as there is in the US.

I don't know if these are X-Ray or millimeter wave scanners, though.

~~~
cskau
> There is no opt-out, as there is in the US.

This is actually not true.

When I flew through Schipol this summer I was indeed on a flight where the
scanners were "required".

However, when it was my turn I stopped up and told the guy at the scanner that
I wanted to opt-out.

At first he just looked puzzled and said he did not understand what I was
saying. After first repeating, and then rephrasing "I do not want to go
through those scanners", he told me to talk to his supervisor.

I then approached the metal detector (which was blocked by a mobile barrier)
squeezed in between the two huge scanners. The guy on the other side then
tried to wave me through the scanners again at which I simply pointed to the
metal detector.

After then shouting to him that I wanted to go through there he finally
approached me. He removed the barrier and told me to then take off my shoes
before going through (notably not a requirement in the scanners).

This is where it a bothersome experience turned into a really lousy
experience. Just as I passed through the detector when I was passing in
between the two active scanners (imagine the radiation there) he came up to me
face-to-face, at a really uncomfortably close distance.

He asked me angrily why I didn't want to go through the scanners. Was it
privacy issues? Because those were accounted for. So what could I possibly be
thinking? It really felt like an interrogation.

I told him I was concerned with the health risks associated with there
scanners, and that a group of American academics had signed a letter stating
that these scanners weren't actually proven safe.

This is then where it got really bizarre, because at this he said plain out
"Oh yeah? What do they know about these machines? What about trusting European
scientists instead??". *

At this point I was simply shocked and horrified. I believe I managed to ask
him if he actually knew where the machines where from, before he finally just
shrugged at me and let me escape from the scanners.

I was later told by another, much nicer guard at another security check (we
all actually had to go through two checks within the span of an hour), that I
sure had the option to opt-out, but only until the end of this year at which
point they would become mandatory for everyone.

Notably, at no point in this security circus was I or any of the other
passengers told that we even had the option of opt'ing-out. And as soon as I
was through the metal detector, they closed it up again, so no other
passengers might get the idea that they too had the right not to be scanned.

* I do not believe these scanners have been tested for real in Europe or "by European scientists", before perhaps now.

------
rmc
Link to the original source:
[http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/1...](http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1343&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en)

------
jamgraham
The opt-out process is very easy in America. For example: When I fly out of
SFO and am in line for the body scanner I simply ask for an opt-out and they
quickly take me over for a pad down. No big deal, all you have to do is ask.

------
techiferous
> plus the fact 300+ “dangerous and illegal items” have been detected by
> employing the body scanners.

300+? Needs more context. What's the percentage of false positives and false
negatives? And what's the cost compared to other alternatives?

------
lgeek
And yet they're still used in Manchester and probably other airports as well:
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-15766544>

> A spokesperson for Manchester Airport said: "Extensive tests by the UK
> Health Protection Agency and the US health authorities have already
> confirmed that back scatter body scanners pose a negligible risk to human
> health. It is irresponsible to suggest that because Europe has yet to
> complete its own health study, our passengers should be concerned."

------
prawn
Just back from the US. Saw what I assumed to be these machines in use in LAX
but couldn't understand the point as it was trivial to just pick the security
lines that had the normal "doorway" scanners. I was pretty blatant in changing
lines too once I'd seen the larger scanners ahead, and no one seemed to pay
any attention.

------
wedesoft
As far as I know the full body scanners are terahertz scanners. They do _not_
use X-rays. An X-ray scan would show your bones! Also if you really want to
reduce your exposure to radiation, you should avoid flying itself.

That said, if there is a significant increase in cancer among TSA workers,
that should be a cause for concern.

~~~
nobody31415926
There are two types.

Backscatter x-rays which use a low dose (hopefully) of x-rays but instead of
measuring those that go through you 9as in a medical x-ray for bones) they
measure the x-rays reflected back by metal objects such as guns and knives.

These do give you a dose of x-rays, hopefully a properly installed, maintained
and operated system will limit this to a safe dose.

The alternative are mm-wave radar (terahertz imaging) these use similar radio
waves to a mobile phone (but at lower power) They measure the change in the
radio signal returned from metal and fluids in your body. Since they work on
the same technology as mobile phones (but even lower power) they are assumed
to be safe(r)

------
nobody31415926
That's because the Europeans have never had a problem with terrorism and so
don't know how to respond.

(It turns out that the IRA and ETA are just cultural groups misunderstood by
the British and Spanish imperialist oppressors and Baader-Meinhof is too hard
to spell so doesn't count.)

------
noduerme
I don't think I'll be donating to the ACA or the ACLU to help out the TSA
cancer victims who stood next to the machines...

------
bauchidgw
visit geek.com with your ipad, its such a classic example of a redicret loop.
(swipeware sucks)

