No Scan, No Flight

[samh004]

From /.:

it is now compulsory for people selected for a full body scan to take part, or they will not be allowed to fly from Heathrow or Manchester airports. There is no optional pat down. Also, a rule which meant that people under 18 were not allowed to participate in the body scanner trial has been overturned by the government.

I didn’t realise there was a choice involved before, but surely it’s all about timing as you go through security, just as you time yourself so you don’t get the explosive check now

 

[anat0l]

You want random?

What they should do is that everyone after security check-in throws a normal unbiased die, just like the ones in the casino.

If you roll any of two certain numbers (we can call them "today's numbers"), you're selected for secondary screening.

Simple?


Of course the simpler thing to do is everyone must be screened. It is slower, but it also stops all this discrimination BS. Heck, in the Philippines, everyone is frisked.

 

[samh004]

If the idea is that everyone must be screened, then they’re going to need a much bigger budget to buy a lot more machines.

Seeing how much airports make from screwing over passengers, surely they should pay

 

[anat0l]

If the idea is that everyone must be screened, then they’re going to need a much bigger budget to buy a lot more machines.

Seeing how much airports make from screwing over passengers, surely they should pay

Or you could just tell pax to arrive 8 hours before departure

Airports can be highway robbers much more than airlines.

But why stop at the airports? It's a ripe time for revenue for the security industry.

 

[MelUser]

I think your choice is whether you travel by aeroplane or some other mode of transport.

Don't get me started on security staff that work in UK airports. If I spoke on this topic I would be accused of being all sorts of things which I'm not!

 

[medhead]

Any activity involving exposure to radiation requires informed consent. Without it this scanning would not meet the recommmendations of the IAEA. Didn't the UK go to war with Iraqi for not meeting IAEA recommendations.

 

[moa999]

Certainly no choice when I flew DME-ORD about 18 months ago, in the Priority line.
When the big Russian security guard points you to go in there you don't argue.
Qualms - None. Even if I could see the officer reviewing the results. Heck most people show near the same at the beach anyways.

 

[codash1099]

If the idea is that everyone must be screened, then they’re going to need a much bigger budget to buy a lot more machines.

Seeing how much airports make from screwing over passengers, surely they should pay

I can see it now - compulsory screening financed by coin-in-the-slot scanners.

 

[tuppaware]

Unless you have something to hide I dont see the issue.

 

[dajop]

Unless you have something to hide I dont see the issue.

Like a big weapon

(sorry someone had to say it)

 

[samh004]

Like a big weapon

(sorry someone had to say it)

I think you’d be proud to go into said machine in that case.

 

[medhead]

Unless you have something to hide I dont see the issue.

The problem is the radiation dose from these things. I did some calculations a year or so ago. Based on the flying population for the USA in about 2006. I worked out the life time deaths expected from one scan. The number was about 1/3 to 1/2 of the number of people killed on aircraft terrorist related events. That is for an adult with a 50 year lifetime. The number goes up for children or infants.

Given that the screening is not 100% of pax then they can't guarantee to stop all terrorists. And based in my rough calculation it is hard to see how they can justify the radiation risk, especially for children

 

[samh004]

I’m surprised a civil watchdog group hasn’t used radiation detectors while using the machines and published the results then.

 

[stryker]

Given that the screening is not 100% of pax then they can't guarantee to stop all terrorists. And based in my rough calculation it is hard to see how they can justify the radiation risk, especially for children

You mustn't have heard of politicians.

 

[JohnK]

Unless you have something to hide I dont see the issue.

Radiation? Privacy?

We are constantly told what to do (actually forced) and apparently it is all for our own good. When do we say enough is enough? When they install surveillance cameras in your home?

 

[medhead]

I’m surprised a civil watchdog group hasn’t used radiation detectors while using the machines and published the results then.

The problem is that it is a low level of radiation dose per scan. But with a large group of people (everyone flying) then the theoretical fatalities can start to add up. But still as I mentioned the justification is that fewer people are going to die from the radiation than have already died from terrorists. So it must be good for us.

 

[Mal]

The problem is that it is a low level of radiation dose per scan. But with a large group of people (everyone flying) then the theoretical fatalities can start to add up.

One expert predicts an additional rate of cancer of 1.6 people per 100 million people. ( Experts Say Radiation Fears From Full-Body Scans Unfounded - ABC News )

Hardly a relevant risk statistically. In fact, while up in the air you would be receiving as much, if not more radiation - let alone the background radiation you get while walking down the street.

 

[medhead]

One expert predicts an additional rate of cancer of 1.6 people per 100 million people. ( Experts Say Radiation Fears From Full-Body Scans Unfounded - ABC News )

Hardly a relevant risk statistically. In fact, while up in the air you would be receiving as much, if not more radiation - let alone the background radiation you get while walking down the street.

The article is interesting but it confuses issues and statistics. But what you need to remember is that theory tells use that the risk from radiation exposure is culumative. So the fact that you get 17 times as much exposure from cosmic radiation on a flight as you do from a scan before the flight is irrelevant. That scan is increasing your exposure to radiation and creating a risk.

The key statement is:

"The risks are small, but they are there," he said. "And if you multiply these risk by a billion scans a year, that becomes a significant risk."

Whenever you see an anto-nuke person on the news telling you that 1 billion people are going to die from a uranium mine or the reactor at Lucas Heights. They are using a similar low radiation risk multipled over a massive population. So if you believe the anti-nuclear campaigners and are against nuclear power then you should also be against these whole body scanners.

Just to add to this the article also mentions that 1/3 of all people will get cancer. Based on average background radiation exposure out of about every 15000 people in Australia, 1 of them will get cancer because of the radiation. Over a 50 year lifetime that is 50 people get cancer because of background radiation, but 5000 get cancer - 4950 get cancer from other causes.

Finally, in terms of risk the article says that 2500 scans is the same radiation exposure as the public dose limit. The risk at the public dose limit is about the same as the risk of being run over by a car on city streets. Background radiation is about double in public dose limit.

Risk is not the issue. The key issue is justifying that extra exposure. Based on my calculations they can probably justify it, by saving lifes. But certainly in Australia the companies selling these scanners have not attempted to do any level of justification.

 

[SeaWolf]

Unless you have something to hide I don't see the issue.

I hate it when people say this. It reveals a severe deficiency in our education system that when people are being taught civics and politics they're not being taught the basic building blocks of democracy that stem from simple concepts like privacy. And so we've started wading into a situation where we all just bend over and take it no matter how outrageous the government intrusion. Roll the clock back 20 years and think about how we would have reacted to 'nude scanners'.

The whole 'nothing to hide' argument is based on the faulty premise that privacy is about hiding bad things and a distorted view that privacy is just a form of concealment.

Add on top of all of this the well founded doubts expressed by the UK's Home Office and Department for Transport about the effectiveness of these things and it quickly starts to look like the only winners are the companies selling them.

 

[albatross710]

Unless you have something to hide I dont see the issue.

The issue for me is that they spend 95% of their effort scanning people who aren't a risk. Much of the screening process is about making the travelling public think that they are doing a good thorough job.

So, while screening me every time I fly is of very little benefit to safety I'd rather they develop better intel to identify and respond to the nasties. Difficult yes, impossible no.