Alex Hern covers the DfT's statement ending the option for a opt-out from new scanners which reveal the naked body of the person being scanned
Transport secretary Justine Greening set the government on yet another collision course with the European Union and civil liberties groups today.
She has announced that passengers departing from Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester airports will not be allowed to opt out from going through the controversial new full body scanners, which penetrate clothes.
Her statement reveals:
“Most responses to the consultation expressed discomfort with the idea of having an image of their body captured for analysis, and they indicated that – if selected for a security scan – they would prefer to opt for an alternative method of screening.
“I have considered this carefully. However, I have decided against it, on security, operational and privacy grounds. I do not believe that a ‘pat down’ search is equivalent in security terms to a security scan.
“A full private search – involving the loosening and/or removal of clothing in the presence of security staff in a private room – would deliver a reasonable level of assurance.
“However, I believe that this is likely to represent a greater intrusion of privacy than a security scan, and that nearly all passengers, if they fully understand the procedures, would be unlikely to opt for this alternative.
This puts her in contrast with new EU on the use of the scanners released last Monday, which said:
Security scanners shall not store, retain, copy, print or retrieve images; any unauthorised access and use of the image is prohibited and shall be prevented; the human reviewer analysing the image shall be in a separate location and the image shall not be linked to the screened person and others.
Passengers must be informed about conditions under which the security scanner control takes place. In addition, passengers are given the right to opt out from a control with scanners and be subject to an alternative method of screening.
Greening’s response was firm:
“I am aware that the proposals recently agreed by the European Parliament include the right for passengers to request an opt out from scanning. The UK did not support these proposals when they were presented to the aviation security committee.
“Given the security arguments against permitting such an opt-out, and the threat level that exists in the UK, the government intends to use its powers under the Aviation Security Act to maintain the current position. Those passengers selected for scanning will therefore not be able to fly if they are not willing to be scanned.”
So from now on, if you have the bad luck to be selected for enhanced scanning, you have no choice but to allow someone to see your naked form. Happy Holidays!
See also:
• As they have done before, Norwegians need to “keep the red hats flying there” – Fiona Twycross, July 23rd 2011
• Extremism at university: What is to be done? – George Readings, June 6th 2011
• Per-flight tax pledge just another per-day coalition failure – Natan Doron, March 10th 2011
• Teflon Teather’s u-turn in the sky – Natan Doron, November 3rd 2010
• Flying to Manchester? Well that’s just criminal! – Shamik Das, October 7th 2009
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
12 Responses to “Greening orders no opt-out for clothes-penetrating scanners”
Jpierce
ANSWERS @Sleohesra.
1) The images are not displayed at full resolution as on a screen. The US TSA Field Manager for Denver airports has been quoted as saying the images “are very graphic.” Furthermore, the TSA boasts on their website of being able to find a “thumbnail-sized” package in their detections. So, short answer, the images are graphic and not for public consumption.
2) In the US, we have something called the 4th amendment that prevents searches of our bodies. The TSA is ignoring this of course. There have been 0 fatalities by suicidal airline passengers on US domestic flights using non-metallic bombs over the last 48 years. So, the odds are insignificant. In the UK, I would say there has been 1 attempt by a suicidal airline passenger with a non-metallic bomb. It FAILED MISERABLY, despite the sponsors of this action having 5 years to plan, test, refine, and deploy a working non-metallic bomb. Of EVERY PLANE FLIGHT EVER in the whole world, the last non-metallic bomb that worked was in 1997 in Brazil. It killed 1 person and the plane landed safely. It is unknown if the person planting the liquid bomb (peroxide based bomb) was on-board at the time or just left it there.
2) If the images are not realistic enough to show our sexual organs in detail, then their effectiveness at detecting hidden packages becomes suspect. In the US, a TSA tester smuggled a gun past Dallas/Ft.Worth airport scanners 5 times, which technically decreases security vs metal detectors.
3) The false positives on scanners have resulted in ZERO non-metallic bombs detected. There is a record of 0% detection such that any “anomaly” found by scanners has not been a working non-metallic bomb. The threat is basically non-existent, and no doubt more people are injured driving to the airport than by the threat the scanners are being used to theoretically thwart.
Beetlebug
RT @leftfootfwd: Greening orders no opt-out for clothes-penetrating scanners http://t.co/XcqPHuYa