In the wake of the thwarted terrorist incident on Northwest’s Christmas Day Amsterdam to Detroit flight, there’s a renewed interest among many governments in putting more full body scanners to work at airport security checkpoints. The scanners take x-ray-like pictures of passengers, exposing objects that are hidden beneath clothes. The suspect in the Northwest incident was allegedly carrying explosives in his underwear and may very well have been apprehended if a scanner had been in place. So why aren’t more airports using them now? The technology has been available for some time, but both privacy and civil liberty groups have fought hard against them, claiming that the images of passengers’ bodies fall somewhere between obtrusive and obscene, and that the machines violate basic human rights and dignity.
What do TripAdvisor travelers think? We polled more than 2,200 people last week, asking if they would be comfortable with U.S. airports using full body scanners that can see through clothing. A resounding 78% said yes, scanners would enhance security. The remaining 22% felt it was too much of an invasion of privacy. Looks like the majority will feel more secure, as we’re likely to see 500 or so machines in play at U.S. airports by the end of this year, and many European countries — including the U.K., the Netherlands, France, and Germany — move closer to implementing mandatory scans.
In the meantime, some parties continue to debate the pros and cons of full body pat downs, which are a potential — and similarly thorough — alternative to scans. What do you think — which would you prefer?
4 Comments
I think I would rather have an image taken, no matter how obtrusive or obscene, than be patted down. More so for my wife’s sake than mine.
Something that seems to be missing from this latest terrorist discussion is that he almost certainly hid the explosive in his underpants because that is the one area that would NOT be patted down. But if you scan everyone consider the length of the lines. I guess it will prove an impossibility.
For starters, if you want to avoid underwear bombers, stop escorting them through security! FBI! (Google it. The FBI has admitted the “smart dressed man” was theirs and escorted the bomber through.)
It should also be pointed out that experts on this technology also state that the “underwear bomber” would have breezed right through since low density items like plastic explosives and liquids are undetectable with these scanners.
I am also very interested in knowing what kind of radiation people are being hit with. I am sure it can only be harmful and for a frequent traveler (or for the machine operator) perhaps dangerously so. The back scatter scanner descriptions refers to X-rays, the “millimeter wave” scanner describes using non-ionizing electromagnetic waves. How dangerous are these?
Also, if these images cannot be saved or printed as they claim, how can they be used as evidence and even more obvious, HOW am I viewing the images in this article?
I had heard these were only for cases of extra security screening and that a “enhanced pat down” can be chosen as an alternative. Having traveled over the past weekend found they were using the device for routine screening. Nearly half were passed through it.
There is no way that they could keep up if the 20% opposed opted out of it, but I suppose they will become vindictive towards those who opt-out or add them to the hit list of those who get extra screening every time if they choose to opt out.