Compulsory use of Full Body Scanners in SYD and MEL

[legroom]

The thing that annoys me about this new process is that you need to remove ALL items from your pockets etc., not just metallics.

Not just your pockets !

I had to strip down and removed a (100% cotton) shoulder holster carrying cash which was worn under the shirt.

Annoying to say the least, let alone the time waiting for Staff A to discuss with Staff B who then consulted with Staff C.

Eventually, staff D came to hand pick the shoulder holster to pass it through the XRay machine.

Thereafter, I stopped wearing the shoulder holster in the USA.

 

[anat0l]

I don't see why they can't have an opt-out with pat down and - if they really want to be b******s - strip search.

They can even charge for it and have only one such station at the security point. It'll definitely give others the option, but it'll come more as a premium rather than as an 'alternative', and if many people opt-out then it'll be a long wait.

The thing that annoys me is that the procedure doesn't make the whole security screening thing any easier than it does now. Sure, maybe we don't have to remove shoes or belts (actually, we just might have to remove both of those), so we're doing the same thing we are doing before except we have this new apparatus and we have to be more meticulous about what is not on our body (i.e. belongings) than before. So... that's a net increase in effort, and there isn't even a ballet case or excuse to back it up (i.e. "new world standards", someone tried to conceal a bomb in a shoe, etc.)

I'll probably just put up with it because I won't necessarily trade that in for my love of travel. If I had to give half a pint of blood each time I had to travel I might strongly reconsider. If I die earlier due to the extra radiation... well, that's not such a huge loss but I'm guessing that at least someone might take up the case a la James Hardie and asbestos.

I had to strip down and removed a (100% cotton) shoulder holster carrying cash which was worn under the shirt.

To be fair, if you were caught with said holster (e.g. protruding through shirt, found during a frisk, etc.), you would most likely be told to send it back through the machine no matter where you are in the world. One of the main reasons I really didn't like those kinds of holsters / bags that you wear inside the shirt (except possibly when you arrived at your destination, i.e. not when in an airport).

 

[auskiwiflyer]

Given the lack of an opt out your observations of pat down take up don't really tell us much.

My point about noone else even asking for a pat down shows that the general public has no knowledge of these scans at all, as they are not identified clearly. Most from what I could observe just viewed the FBS (full body scanner) as a different shape magnetic type hoop.

I notice you didn't answer my question about whether you raised the medical side of this and the exemption.

Yes I did (raise it) and it was at the end of the day my argument on the medical side that was the only reason they caved in to my refusal to partake in the scan.

I might add that it is interesting these are not being installed in domestic. Is it the US govt putting pressure on the AU govt to use this tech?

At the end of the day - whether you believe there is harm or not from these things - refusing to offer a pat down alternative is overbearing as far as I am concerned. It will deter me from coming to Australia as often and that will only hurt the industry.

 

[anat0l]

My point about noone else even asking for a pat down shows that the general public has no knowledge of these scans at all, as they are not identified clearly. Most from what I could observe just viewed the FBS (full body scanner) as a different shape magnetic type hoop.

Yeah the boffins who introduced this tech are relying on the public ignorance (you have to remember that this is Australia; we are in general pretty lazy on these things).

Most of the public probably don't even know anything about the previous security procedures and what's involved, given by the number of people I see at security checkpoints who are obviously not frequent travellers and beep when they forget to remove metallic items from themselves, or need to be pulled aside for not removing laptops from bags. Most also don't know what's going on if they get pulled aside for explosives checks.

So, overall, the public in general knows very little about any of these kinds of security ballet, whether it be old or new. That's also why at check-in the airlines have to ask the numerous questions about sharps, LAGs > 100 mL, etc... it's rather boring but if they don't do it then people won't pay attention.

Yes I did (mention it) and it was at the end of the day my argument on the medical side that was the only reason they caved in to my refusal to partake in the scan.

Do you have a medical certificate with you? I assume security checkpoints are not the only sources of possible radiation that you may have to avoid and need to justify accordingly. Not to mention other factors that can affect pacemakers (e.g. microwaves).

If you had a medical exemption in the future I'm sure that this whole procedure would be much more straightforward. That said, the procedure, if there is one, is not well documented at all and obviously the security personnel that you dealt with were extremely ill trained.

At the end of the day - whether you believe there is harm or not from these things - refusing to offer a pat down alternative is overbearing as far as I am concerned. It will deter me from coming to Australia as often and that will only hurt the industry.

Where are you from? (Not being belligerent, just curious)

The local industry is already hurting as it is, and Australians like to travel overseas rather than in their own country. I've never seen any government around the world react strongly for the good of their tourism industry against airport procedures or the like, and I frankly don't expect our government (either party) to react adversely either. Our loss? Oh well........

It stands to reason that there is a lot more that Australian tourism has to do to help itself before making a big song and dance about how strict it can be to travel through Australia (new screening, quarantine etc.).

 

[simongr]

At the end of the day - whether you believe there is harm or not from these things - refusing to offer a pat down alternative is overbearing as far as I am concerned. It will deter me from coming to Australia as often and that will only hurt the industry.

There is no pat down alternative for the Walk Through Metal Detetctors so why should there be one for FBS?

 

[medhead]

My point about noone else even asking for a pat down shows that the general public has no knowledge of these scans at all, as they are not identified clearly. Most from what I could observe just viewed the FBS (full body scanner) as a different shape magnetic type hoop.

Lack of an opt out has been publicsed in Australia. An alternative view is they are aware of this.

Yes I did (mention it) and it was at the end of the day my argument on the medical side that was the only reason they caved in to my refusal to partake in the scan.

I might add that it is interesting these are not being installed in domestic. Is it the US govt putting pressure on the AU govt to use this tech?

At the end of the day - whether you believe there is harm or not from these things - refusing to offer a pat down alternative is overbearing as far as I am concerned. It will deter me from coming to Australia as often and that will only hurt the industry.

There are a number of key differences between the US and Australia when it comes to flying. I don't know about pressure on the australian government but I do know that Australia has done a fairly good job on trailing and testing the scanners. They have developed a justification process for their installation.

As for a pay down option truely have put out a fairly good reason for not offerring a pat down. It sounds like it is basically to avoid the "don't touch my junk" type of situation.

There is a report that explains the reasoning better than I can.

TravelSecure.infrastructure.gov.au/international/files/privacy_impact_assessment.pdf

 

[medhead]

Yeah the boffins who introduced this tech are relying on the public ignorance

I disagree. The boffins I know are not like that and would never seek to hide things from people.

 

[anat0l]

I disagree. The boffins I know are not like that and would never seek to hide things from people.

Are the ones you know top brass or just the ones that did most of the real leg work in implementing the technology?

 

[medhead]

Are the ones you know top brass or just the ones that did most of the real leg work in implementing the technology?

I wouldn't describe top brass as boffins. But they were involved from a technical POV at all levels.

 

[simongr]

Personally I would view a TSA style pat down as a lot more invasive than the FBS:

 

[anat0l]

Personally I would view a TSA style pat down as a lot more invasive than the FBS

I think the predominant "anti" argument here is not concerned at all about the invasive nature of the pat down compared to full body scanner; it's purely the radiation issue (perceived or real), as well as, as it seems, the in principle argument that there should be that choice of a pat down.

Certainly in the USA, for most of the vocal frequent flyers who often opt out of the new screening procedure, they often say that they do not mind the whole invasive nature of the TSA "massage".

 

[auskiwiflyer]

I think the predominant "anti" argument here is not concerned at all about the invasive nature of the pat down compared to full body scanner; it's purely the radiation issue (perceived or real), as well as, as it seems, the in principle argument that there should be that choice of a pat down.

Certainly in the USA, for most of the vocal frequent flyers who often opt out of the new screening procedure, they often say that they do not mind the whole invasive nature of the TSA "massage".

Exactly. I don't care if I get a "thorough" pat down - as I said in the OP I offered to be strip searched. Like someone said they didn't know asbestos was dangerous when they used it as a building material.

As far as the TSA pat downs go, they did not differ at all from the one I had in Sydney just now, they were thorough but at no time touched my genitals or buttocks. There is no privacy invasion, and even if there was, I am all for airport security so it wouldn't bother me. For the record when I was in USA earlier this year I probably had around 8 TSA pat downs.

The issue is we the frequently travelling public are being denied the option to opt for a pat down when this is a completely viable solution as is proven in the USA.

I don't care how many times you tell me the scan is harmless - the tech is too new to prove it. It's exactly the same as no one will say for certain mobile phones don't harm you. They say we think not, it's most unlikely, but if you are worried lessen your exposure.

When I fly into and out of Sydney two or three times a month, that isn't me "lessening my exposure".

As someone asked, I live in NZ.

 

[AVC]

Think of it from a security standpoint.
An edged weapon is basically impossible to hide from an FBS, whereas one can be easily missed with a pat down. Especially with modern ceramics.
If the OP is externally paced, and the FBS is an issue, then I think there are much greater things to worry about just walking down the street, with the amount of RF in the air these days.

 

[Gold Member]

Do you think my 12" gold member would set off the scanners or just get a few of em excited and want to 'pat me down'?

 

[sydflyer]

Scanning is a necessary part of travel - unfortunate as it is. If you don't like it, then look into other transport options.

 

[medhead]

I don't care how many times you tell me the scan is harmless - the tech is too new to prove it. It's exactly the same as no one will say for certain mobile phones don't harm you. They say we think not, it's most unlikely, but if you are worried lessen your exposure.

As someone asked, I live in NZ.

I don't know when you got radio in New Zealand, but Australia has had it for at least 80 years. Sorry but the technology is rather old and is well known and understood. There are plenty of people who will say there is no known mechanism for harm at low levels. There has been plenty of research done to demonstrates that the body is more than capable of disapating the heat created in tissues at the levels of mobile phones and these scanners are a fraction of that level. Heating tissue is the mechanism of how this type of radiation affects the body. I'll tell you that there is no harm, why because the levels are so low it is impossible to ever determine if there is any harm.

What you're doing now is called irrational fear of that which you don't understand but some member of the flat earth society has told you it's dangerous, which is an outright lie.

 

[auskiwiflyer]

Medhead - I have had EIGHTEEN international departures from SYD just in this year to date. That would have been 18 Scans should the machines been in place since Jan 1. It's 18 exposures I don't want to have with unproven new tech, just as I don't use my mobile phone very much without hands free so as to minimize my exposure to mobile phone RF. Call me a member of the flat earth society as much as you want, the fact is I want the option for a pat down and I believe the aus govt denying me that is wrong.

Maybe I am alone in this view, but I tell you what, I'll be cutting my visits to AUS way down.

 

[Hvr]

Too hard to get info on such matters. Words like can't give out operational information, and might compromise the use get used when asking such questions.

So we can't be advised of the efficacy of the process? Surely that goes to the heart of the debate? If the machines don't work then they are a waste of money and if they do work then this can be presented as justification for their introduction.

No need at all to discuss how they work, just prove that they do work.

 

[ColinP]

I'm living in Chiang Mai at the moment and have been visiting the airport for various reasons about once a week.

You can't even enter the building without going through a metal detector. They have an X Ray machine for items of luggage but you're allowed to walk through the metal detector with all the paraphenalia that you usually put in a tray. This always results in me setting off the detector and getting a wanding and pat down by an attractive young woman in uniform. I love it

 

[medhead]

So we can't be advised of the efficacy of the process? Surely that goes to the heart of the debate? If the machines don't work then they are a waste of money and if they do work then this can be presented as justification for their introduction.

No need at all to discuss how they work, just prove that they do work.

I've had the exact same thoughts and comments. I'm not going to repeat anything in an open forum but these security types can be extremely frustrating with the lack of information.

Still the document I linked earlier does make some comment of the effectiveness.

Medhead - I have had EIGHTEEN international departures from SYD just in this year to date. That would have been 18 Scans should the machines been in place since Jan 1. It's 18 exposures I don't want to have with unproven new tech, just as I don't use my mobile phone very much without hands free so as to minimize my exposure to mobile phone RF. Call me a member of the flat earth society as much as you want, the fact is I want the option for a pat down and I believe the aus govt denying me that is wrong.

Maybe I am alone in this view, but I tell you what, I'll be cutting my visits to AUS way down.

Why don't you try reading what I'm writing. Minimising you phone use does very little to reduce your exposure. The fact is you are walking through a sea of RF radiation everyday, that you have absolutely no control over, and that is exposing you to more RF than those theoretical 18 scans. The fact that you can't put this into perspective is the issue. Even carrying your mobile phone around for a few hours a day will give you more exposure than those 18 scans. This is all well known. The technology is not new and unknown. It is just wrong to keep saying that, have you bothered to read the report I linked.

People who hide behind ignorance with false little catch phrases are so frustrating. You've had you little rant, you're technologically wrong, please keep your falsehoods to yourself.

We certainly don't need anymore people in Australia who spread fear and ignorance while ignoring the extensive research that contradicts their position.