Domestic Security Body Scanners - Bad for Women?

[justinbrett]

I never said that it’s ok to violate blokes. It appears that if it never happens to you, then it is either not a problem or it doesn’t exist. What a privileged life that must be! I simply relayed the story of something that did, and does happen, and asked if anyone else has come up against it. Thanks for your input.

I suggest you reword your initial post, as per the first line it read to me that you were questioning the tech itself (or its configuration), not the conduct of the humans involved;

As for the tech I can attest just as many guys trigger it and the frisk is quite invasive.

In fact they related to her that with this new scanning tech, about 60-70% of their searches now are women of a certain age.

You'd hope its not the intention to have such a result, but on the evidence we have, that's the result.

When you've done the study as to the results, come back and let us know.

I'm happy with my own observation and experience thanks. I don't know the context of that comment - considering those female staff members only get asked to search women, it seems unlikely they would have a good grasp of the gender ratio; and if they were only referring to the private frisks, yes, it makes sense to me that men are more likely to accept a public frisk. I don't believe they publish or even record statistics, so one person's observation is as good as any other.

 

[mrsterryn]

Being fat I don't think I have ever gone through without setting off the alarms at Sydney international. Don't think I have been offered a private room from memory .....
Always my upper torso in a variety of areas.
Mulling this over I have had my legs patted down both inside leg and outside. The females who have down this have been quick and impersonal.
I wonder if international will have changed procedures ?

 

[car2]

As stated I've always declined the private search, but yes it's a back of the hands sweep first in a downwards direction and then across from left to right, across the entire front of my shorts/trousers from waist to just above the knees.

You don't elect for the scanner, you do the scanner first, and then the choice is either a private or public frisk.

In my case I wasn't asked to self-rub and then be swabbed, they swabbed my crotch directly.

I don't know what happens if you select the private search. The OP comment referred to the "scanning tech" targeting women, which I can absolutely say is not true. It doesn't seem to discriminate at all.

Obviously I was speaking only if they actually search ("frisk") you.

From the government website:

Your rights at the screening point
Screening is compulsory for all travellers. When you enter a screening point, you are agreeing to each screening procedure. Where you need a frisk search, you will be asked for your consent to this process. If you consent to the frisk search, you will be offered the option of having it conducted in a private room. A screening officer of the same gender will conduct the frisk search. They must ensure that the frisk search is conducted in a way that preserves dignity and treats all travellers equally.

You have the right to refuse any screening process. If you refuse you will not be permittedto continue to the gate or board your flight.

If you feel you have experienced an inappropriate screening process at a security checkpoint, you can ask to speak with a supervisor at the checkpoint. You can also lodge a complaint with the airport or you can submit your concern to the Department online.

Glad

I suggest you reword your initial post, as per the first line it read to me that you were questioning the tech itself (or its configuration), not the conduct of the humans involved;

As for the tech I can attest just as many guys trigger it and the frisk is quite invasive.

I'm happy with my own observation and experience thanks. I don't know the context of that comment - considering those female staff members only get asked to search women, it seems unlikely they would have a good grasp of the gender ratio; and if they were only referring to the private frisks, yes, it makes sense to me that men are more likely to accept a public frisk. I don't believe they publish or even record statistics, so one person's observation is as good as any other.

Thank you for sharing... BUT please understand... public search was not offered and when requested it was denied. And, please do not underestimate the IQ and EQ of the women staffing the screening stations alongside their male counterparts. They know the ratios. All I can say is enjoy your liberties (and be understanding that others don't enjoy the same)

 

[Pushka]

Being fat I don't think I have ever gone through without setting off the alarms at Sydney international. Don't think I have been offered a private room from memory .....
Always my upper torso in a variety of areas.
Mulling this over I have had my legs patted down both inside leg and outside. The females who have down this have been quick and impersonal.
I wonder if international will have changed procedures ?

I'm thin. And still set them off. Maybe its Bones.

 

[JohnM]

It would do my ego quite some good if a large red patch showed up in the image of my front groin...

Sadly, it is yet to happen...

It only picks up a handkerchief in my pocket - not a pistol...



But, seriously, these new-fangled gadgets, along with the conga-line of human checkers lined up ready to jump on you, are just farcical.

 

[encryptededdy]

I completely understand why we moved away from showing the raw image from the mmWave scanners to the pictorial body representation with red boxes for privacy reasons, although I do wonder sometimes whether we'd have way less false positives if we had a human visually verify the scanner image rather than the computer comparing the image against reference images.

 

[justinbrett]

Thank you for sharing... BUT please understand... public search was not offered and when requested it was denied. And, please do not underestimate the IQ and EQ of the women staffing the screening stations alongside their male counterparts. They know the ratios. All I can say is enjoy your liberties (and be understanding that others don't enjoy the same)

If the staff aren't following Australian regulations (regarding conducting the search at the scanner, with an option for a private search - forcing you to sign a rights waiver), then I'm not going to be listening to any "facts" they wish to share about the screening process. They clearly have no clue what they're doing, and if that is the case, need to be reported.

The allegation was "is the new scanning tech in QF D terminal meant to demean women and subject them to unwanted and unwarranted attention" and there's absolutely no evidence that is the case, and if it was so, it would be a leading story on 4 Corners or similar. That's not to detract from your experience of these invasive searches, but saying I have some sort of liberty even though I've been subject to the same searches is detracting from mine.

The professionalism of the staff is another matter, but wasn't the question.

 

[Himeno]

I completely understand why we moved away from showing the raw image from the mmWave scanners to the pictorial body representation with red boxes for privacy reasons, although I do wonder sometimes whether we'd have way less false positives if we had a human visually verify the scanner image rather than the computer comparing the image against reference images.

There would be less false positives if body scanners went were they belong.

The bin.
They do not belong in airports.

 

[drron]

Well I for one am happy that the scanners are in airports. Going through the x ray and am going to be wanded plus pat down 100% of the time if the machine is turned on. with the body scanners less than 50% of the time and then usually due to perspiration generally around the armpits.
However I do wonder why the belt needs to be removed. After losing nearly 25Kg over the last 18 months I had my trousers drop to the floor in a scanner as not allowed to use your hands to hold them up.
Also bemused at the English. The last twice I have left LHR on SQ I noted a body scanner and I asked to use that. Both times I was asked to go through the Xray first and then the body scanner. Both times I ended up being wanded and patted down after exiting the scanner. On the last occasion I asked why the pat down - because you set off the alarm at the xray. WTF. Did they think I wanted to use the scanner for a thrill and not because i wanted to miss the compulsory pat down after using the xray?

 

[RooFlyer]

Tried to find good stuff about how the technology works beyond the generic 'looks for things under clothing'.

Here's one that has a go (yes, the source is a bit funny, but lets focus on the content for now):

What might accidentally set off a body scanner?​

Aside from the items you’ve forgotten to put in the bin, there are a few unusual things that can cause a body scanner to come back with that dreaded red signal. The TSA declined to respond to this question, but according to Malvini Redden, the most contentious trigger is thick hair, especially if it’s in a braid or a bun and if there are clips holding it. Other things that accidentally set off body scanners are body piercings and wire supports in undergarments. External tumors might also trigger the machine, but growths inside—such as fibroids—will not.

“Perspiration is probably the weirdest thing that can set off the scanners,” Malvini Redden says. “It has to do with millimeter wave technology and how the waves bounce off water.” She adds that since these machines often generate false alarms like this, some countries (including France and Germany) have banned them.

That sorta makes sense, given what we've been told about where the follow-up interest has been.

Then again: Millimeter waves significantly affect the polar interface of the membrane causing a decrease of the heavy water quadrupole splitting.

There you go.

Anyone read this by Malvini Redden? 101 Pat-Downs – an undercover look at airport security and the TSA

 

[Lynda2475]

As someone with very thick and long hair that is usually in a bun when flying id say 90% of the time (albeit held in place with an elastic not unnecessary pins or a clip) I can say this has never ever set the body scanner off. Bolivia where there was no scanner involved as it was on arrival at customs was only time anyone insisted on checking inside my bun.

I agree that underwire from bras can be a problem but that is only ever
on the old school metal detector ones at some airports, not the new body scanners.

Heat and handkerchiefs seem to be more of an issue.

 

[exceladdict]

It would do my ego quite some good if a large red patch showed up in the image of my front groin...

Sadly, it is yet to happen...

Reminds me of the scene from Spinal Tap.

I had a flag on the screen in this area last time I went through, I assume because my jeans had slipped down a bit, in turn because i had removed my belt.

If I recall correctly the guy swabbed the outside of my pants for the check, didn't request a private room.

 

[Princess Fiona]

As someone with very thick and long hair that is usually in a bun when flying id say 90% of the time (albeit held in place with an elastic not unnecessary pins or a clip) I can say this has never ever set the body scanner off. Bolivia where there was no scanner involved as it was on arrival at customs was only time anyone insisted on checking inside my bun.

I agree that underwire from bras can be a problem but that is only ever
on the old school metal detector ones at some airports, not the new body scanners.

Heat and handkerchiefs seem to be more of an issue.

I sometimes wear my hair in a messy bun with a scrunchie and more often than not that sets the scanner off.

 

[Lynda2475]

I sometimes wear my hair in a messy bun with a scrunchie and more often than not that sets the scanner off.

More likely the scrunchie than your hair as it seems to dislike excess fabric like hankies.

I tie my bun with a latex band and its never an issue.

 

[stm1sydney]

Yes, the crucial thing is to decline the offer of being taken to a private room for the pat down.

 

[Seat0B]

Under the old scanners, I used to get the wand and pat down every time because I have both my knees replaced. With the new scanners, it is more like 50% of the time and it is almost always my left shoulder area. After reading up thread, I think this might be fabric disturbance from my handbag. Fortunately I have not had the groin issues mentioned by many posters. I would hate that type of a search, private room or not. I never opt for a private room as it's just a waste of time in my experience. Although in the Middle East, any women who need to be wanded or patted down are taken to a private room, even if you ask for it to be done quickly in public. I have never been asked to sign anything, anywhere.
I just hate these scanners and I honestly wonder what value they are offering these days other than public theatre

 

[Lynda2475]

The decision to hide the actual image and replace with Red circles has lead to more pat downs and swabs; if the images had remained (as they do overseas) they could more easily tell when its bunched up fabric rather than a weapon/drugs.

 

[encryptededdy]

The decision to hide the actual image and replace with Red circles has lead to more pat downs and swabs; if the images had remained (as they do overseas) they could more easily tell when its bunched up fabric rather than a weapon/drugs.

I generally agree this is likely true, although I've never personally seen the images shown on the display, even overseas. Only ever red circles over a diagram.

 

[justinbrett]

I generally agree this is likely true, although I've never personally seen the images shown on the display, even overseas. Only ever red circles over a diagram.

TSA do the same as us.