Full-body scanners are devices that detect objects on a person's body for the purpose of security checks, without removing physical clothing or making physical contact. Depending on the technology used, the operator can view alternate wavelength images of a person's naked body, or just a cartoon-like representation of the person with an indicator showing where any suspicious item is detected. For privacy and security reasons, the display is generally invisible to other passengers, and in some cases is located in a separate room where the operator can not see the face of the person being filtered. Unlike metal detectors, the entire body scanner can detect non-metallic objects, which are of concern after various attempted aircraft bombings in the 2000s.
Beginning in 2007, the entire body scanner began to complement metal detectors at airports and train stations in many countries.
Three different technologies have been used, although the use of X-ray Backscatter has now been discontinued in many countries:
- The millimeter wave scanner uses non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation similar to that used by wireless data transmitters, in the Very High Frequency radio band (EHF) (which is a lower frequency than visible light). The health risks posed by these machines are still studied, and the evidence is varied, although millimeter wave scans do not produce ionizing radiation.
- X-ray backscatter machines use low-dose radiation penetration to detect suspicious metallic and non-metallic substances hidden under clothing or in shoes and in human body cavities. There is much debate about how safe this technology is.
- All-body X-Ray security scanners emitting high levels of radiation have been supplied by the US to at least two African countries.
Passengers and supporters object to their naked body image shown to the screening agent or recorded by the government. Critics call virtual image striping without any possible cause, and have suggested that they are illegal and violate human rights. However, the current technology is less disturbing and due to privacy issues, most people are allowed to reject this scan and choose traditional obedience.
Video Full body scanner
Sejarah (AS)
The first full body safety scanner was developed by Dr. Steven W Smith, who developed Aman's entire body scanner in 1992. He then sold the related device and patents to the Rapiscan System, which now manufactures and distributes devices.
The first non-grim, full-body filtering tool developed by Lockheed Martin was sponsored by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Office of Science and Technology and the United States Air Force Research Laboratory. The proof of concept was carried out in 1995 through the Defense Advanced Project Project Agency (DARPA). The right to this technology was later acquired by Brijot Imaging Systems, which increasingly crowded down commercial product lines and now manufactures, markets and supports passive millimeter wave devices.
The safety aspect of the Safe 1000 has been investigated in the US by the Food and Drug Administration and the National Council on Radiation and Measurement Protection since the early 1990s.
Maps Full body scanner
Usage
Schiphol in the Netherlands is the first airport in the world to apply this device on a large scale after tests with flight personnel the previous year. On May 15, 2007, two of the 17 security scans purchased were installed.
The entire body scanner was installed in at least one Florida courthouse in 2010 and has begun to appear in court buildings around the US.
At least one New Jersey PATH train station used a full body scanner during a two-week trial in 2006.
On September 3, 2014, the Transportation Security Administration reported that there are nearly 740 AIT Millimeter Wave (Advanced Imaging Technology) [meaning required] scanners now used in 160 US airports
The US government also signaled in 2010 the possibility of deploying the entire body scanners at train and subway stations.
The Italian government has planned to install a full-body scanner at all railway stations and airports across the country, but announced in September 2010 it plans to remove the scanner from the airport, calling it "slow and ineffective."
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has stated in 2010 that they "do not have, will not and engines can not store passenger pictures at airports". But the TSA was later disclosed, in response to home seats on homeland security, that the procurement of airport scanners requires manufacturers to include image storage and transmission features but these features should be disabled before being stationed at the airport. TSA showed 45 people have the ability to turn these machines into 'test mode' which allows image recording, but declares that they will never do this in the production system. US Marshal Service does not operate backscatter machines in the courthouse that record images. However, in a statement they noted that only individuals involved in the test were recorded. Examples of these images were received and disseminated by Gizmodo in 2010, using Freedom of Information Request. It is unclear whether the US Marshal service has put this new scanning machine, which has the capability of recording, into production.
The analyst is in a different room and should not be able to see the person scanned by the BackCatter X-Ray AIT, but is associated with another official who can stop the person being scanned if any suspicious appears on the scan.
In the US, TSA currently uses the exclusive AIM Wave millimeter scanner, which does not show the identification characteristics of the scanned person. Instead, a generic outline of a person is used. In December 2015, "While passengers can generally refuse AIT screening in favor of physical examination, the TSA may direct AIT screening mandatory for some passengers as guaranteed by security considerations to maintain transport security."
The EU currently allows member states to decide whether to apply full body scanners in their countries:
It is for each member country to decide to authorize the use of a scanner at a national airport. That will not change... But where this scanning technology is used it should be covered by EU-wide standards on detection capabilities as well as general protection to ensure compliance with EU health and basic rights provisions.
In Australia, the Government has decided that no opt-out policy will be enforced in connection with airport screening. People with medical or physical conditions that prevent them from doing body scans will be offered alternative screening methods that are appropriate to their circumstances. Infants and children under 140 cm will not be selected to undergo body scans. Body scanners are used in eight Australian international airports - Adelaide, Brisbane, Cairns, Darwin, Gold Coast, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney. So far only passengers are out through affected international flights. Passengers who refuse to scan may be banned. The proposed scanner for use in Australia shows a high error rate in testing. The public outcry over naked images created by the body scanner collected by the policy resulted in a lawsuit in 2010 to stop the body scans.
In Canada 24 airports currently have scanners in use. "Passengers selected for secondary search may choose between a body-wide scanner or physical search."
Civil rights groups in Britain in 2010 argued that the scanning of children's bodies violated laws relating to child pornography.
Controversy
Implementation of a scattered whole body scanner has generated public controversy.
Privacy
Some argue that the use of a whole body scanner is equivalent to a strip search, and that if used without the possibility of this cause violates human rights.
The full body scanning technology enables screeners to see the surface of the skin under clothing, prosthetics including breast prostheses and prosthetic testes, which may require potentially embarrassing physical examination after detection. The scanner can also detect other commonly hidden medical devices, such as colostomy and catheter bags. The transgender community also has privacy issues. and potentially cause harassment.
In the United Kingdom, in 2010, the Commission on Equality and Human Rights held that an entire body scanner is a risk to human rights and may be against the law.
The Council of Europe's decision in 2013 requires that the person analyzing the image should be in a separate location and the image will not be associated with the filtered person.
In 2010, Korea's National Human Rights Commission opposed the use of the entire body scanner and recommended that they not be placed at the airport.
Opponents in the US argue that complete body scanners and new TSA benchmarks are unconstitutional. A comprehensive student record came out in the Fall 2010 edition of the Denver University Transport Law Journal which argues that the whole body scanner is unconstitutional in the United States because they (1) are too invasive and (2) ineffective because the process is too inefficient.
On July 2, 2010, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a lawsuit to suspend the spread of the entire body scanner at airports in the United States:
EPIC believes that federal agencies have violated the Administrative Procedures Act, Privacy Act, Freedom of Religion Act, and the Fourth Amendment. EPIC cites the invasive nature of the device, TSA ignores public opinion, and its impact on religious freedom.
EPIC claimed at the time that the entire body scanner violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because they subjected residents to virtual strip searches with no fault proof.
The American Civil Liberties Union, in 2006, called the machine an invasion of privacy: "It's not just about genitalia but body size, body shape and other things like proof of mastectomy, colostomy equipment or catheter tube.This is a very personal thing. that people have the right to remain private and personal, apart from the consideration of modesty for not wanting to be naked. "
In Idaho, the law was introduced in 2011 to prevent the use of the entire body scanner as a primary screening method, and allows people to request alternative screening methods.
Travelers at the US airport complained that when they chose not to be scanned they were subjected to a new invasive hoax by a traveler in 2010 described as "probing and pushing... in my genital area." Other travelers in the United States complained in 2010 that TSA employees "put four fingers from both hands in my pants and ran his fingers along my waist, his fingers extending at least 2-3 inches below the circle my waist. "
On December 15, 2015, TSA issued a new policy requiring AIT "compulsory" for "some" passengers for "security reasons". However, most individuals in the US can still opt out of the scanner and choose pat-down if they are not comfortable passing through the scanner. Individuals also have the right to be tapped in a private space and have it witnessed by an individual's choice.
In November 2010, a female traveler who opted out of complete body scans at Fort Lauderdale International Airport claimed that TSA's agent handcuffed her to a chair and tore up plane tickets when she asked questions about a new type of invasive downward tug. will accept. In response, TSA posted portions of security camera footage on their blogs, though no sound in the video and passengers were not directly in the camera during most of the incidents.
Other people's imaging technology should not be used as the sole or primary method of screening, nor should it be used to screen others unless other methods of screening, such as metal detection, indicate a reason to prevent the person from boarding the plane or entering a public facility or government buildings.
In the United States, in 2010 TSA required that their entire body scanners "allow the export of real-time image data", and the case of government image storage has been confirmed.
In August 2010, it was reported that the United States Marshals Service saved thousands of images from a millimeter wave scanner. TSA - part of the Department of Homeland Security - confirms that the scanner itself does not store images and the scanner does not have the ability to save images when installed at the airport. However, this statement conflicts with the TSA's own Procurement Specification which specifically requires the machine to have the ability to record and send images, even if those features may be initially disabled during transmission. Opponents also expressed skepticism that if there was a successful terror attack that the machine would not have the ability to save the image for later inspection to find out what was wrong with the scan. On November 16, 2010, 100 of 35,000 stored body scan images have been leaked online and posted by Gizmodo.
In February 2012, an airport employee in Lagos was allegedly found roaming from a room located in a hidden corner on the right side of the screening area to where the full-body 3D monitor scanner is located. In Dallas Ft. Worth International Airport, TSA's complaints have been reportedly disproportionately derived from women who feel that they were selected for playback for the entertainment of male security officers.
Treatment of minorities
Current backscatter and millimeter wave scanners installed by TSA can not adequately filter for security threats in turbans, hijabs, burqas, casts, prosthetics and loose clothing. The limitations of this technology today's scanners often require these people to undergo additional screening by hand or other methods and may cause additional delay or harassment feelings.
According to machine manufacturers, next generation backscatter scanners will be able to filter all types of clothing. This improved scanner has been designed to equalize the screening process for religious minorities.
Treatment of transgender people
The current machines installed by TSA require agents in the US to designate each passenger either as male or female, after which the software compares the passenger's body to the normative body of the gender. Transgender passengers have reported that whole-body scans at several US airports have wrongly increased alarms based on their anatomy. The LGBT National Task Force confirms that the policies associated with these machines "codify discrimination against transgender people."
Health issues
There are health issues related to the use of full-body scanning technology, especially the use of x-ray scanners.
Millimeter wave scanner
Currently adopted millimeter wave scans operate in millimeter or sub-terahertz bands, using non-ionizing radiation, and have no proven negative health effects, although no long-term studies have been done. Thomas S. Tenforde, president of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement, said in 2010 that millimeter wave scans might be within the [standard for safe operation] limits, but there should be efforts to verify that they are safe for frequent use.. WHO (World Health Organization) in 2011 categorizes RF radiation (radio frequency) as a possible carcinogen, but this has not been verified.
X-ray backscatter scanner
In the United States, the Modernization and Reform of FAA Law of 2012 requires all body-wide scanners operated at airports by the Transportation Security Administration using the "Automatic Target Introduction" software, which replaces naked body images with representations such as cartoons.. As a result of this law, all previous backscatter X-ray machines used by the Transportation Security Administration were removed from the airport in May 2013, because agencies said vendors (Rapiscan) did not meet their contract deadlines for implementing the software.
In the EU, X-ray backscatter screening of aircraft passengers is banned in 2012 to protect passenger safety, and placement at Manchester Airport has been removed.
Some radiation security authorities including the National Council for Radiation Protection and Measurement, the Community of Health Physics, and the American College of Radiology, have stated that they are "unaware of any evidence" that whole body scans are unsafe. However, other radiation authorities, including the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Agency recommend not to use ionizing radiation in certain populations such as pregnant women and children, and opponents of the device say that no long-term studies are conducted on the health effects of either x -ray backscatter or millimeter wave scanner: "I do not think the right questions have been asked We do not have enough information to make a decision about whether there will be biological effects or not". (Douglas Boreham, professor in Medical Physics and Applied Radiation Science at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.)
Richard Morin, a medical physicist at the Mayo Clinic, said he was not worried about the health effects of the x-ray backscatter scanner: "From a radiation point of view there is no evidence that there is any undesirable effect of using this device [backscatter scanner] would care about that from a radiation dose standpoint - personal privacy issues are a different matter ". The health effects of the more common millimeter wave scans are largely unknown, and at least one expert believes safety studies are justified. "I am very interested in conducting a National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement study on the use of the millimeter wave security screening system," said Thomas S. Tenforde, chairman of the board. However, no long-term studies were conducted on the health effects of the millimeter wave scanner.
Perhaps the most important and arguable professional opinion regarding the safety of a scanner is the so-called "Holdren Letter" from a number of world-renowned biochemists and biophysics experts from the University of California to Assistant to US Presidents for Science and Technology. John P. Holdren (Co-author of EcoSolutions). Their opening letter letter of concern reads: "We, a number of faculty from the University of California, San Francisco, are writing - see the attached memo - to call your attention to our concerns about the potential serious health risks of recent adoption. re-deploying X-ray airport security scanners.This is an urgent situation because this X-ray scanner is quickly implemented as a major screening step for all air travel passengers. "
Critics of the x-ray backscatter scanner, including the head of the Radiology Research Center at Columbia University, say that the radiation emitted by multiple body-wide scanners is as much as 20 times stronger than officially reported and unsafe for general use. the number of people due to an increased risk of cancer in children and at risk populations. Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) argue that the amount of radiation is higher than that claimed by TSA and the body's scanner manufacturers because the dose counts as if distributed throughout the body, but the radiation from the x-backscatter brakes focus only on skin and surrounding tissue:
Most of the [scanner] energy is sent to the skin and underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose will be safe if distributed throughout the entire body volume, the dose to the skin may be very high.
The dosage of X-rays from these devices is often compared in media with exposure to cosmic rays attached to aircraft travel or chest X-rays. However, this comparison is very misleading: both exposure to cosmic rays of air travel and chest x-rays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of doses of whole body volume. In contrast, the new airport scanner largely deposits its energy to the skin and adjacent tissues directly, and since this is a small part of the weight/vol, perhaps by one to two fold, the actual dose for the skin is now high. In addition, it appears that real independent security data does not exist. The search, finally finding the top FDA radiation physics staff, shows that the relevant radiation quantity, Flux [photons per unit area and time (as this is a scanning device)] has not been characterized. In contrast an indirect test (Water Kerma) is made which emphasizes the value of exposure to the entire body, and thus it appears that the danger is low when compared to cosmic rays during airplane travel and dose of chest X-rays.
Yet another professor in the UCSF radiology department disagrees, saying that the radiation dose is low. "The conclusion is wrong," Ronald Arenson, professor of radiology, told SF Weekly his own letter. "People who are totally unrelated to radiation write it... This is a senior faculty at UCSF They are smart and well-intentioned people, but their conclusions, I think, are beyond the bases They do not understand how radiation is translated into the actual dose in the human body ".
Dr. Steve Smith, inventor of the body scanner in 1991, and president of Tek84, one of the machines producing companies, have stated that Dr. Brenner and UCSF Scientists about the wrong skin dosage of the backscatter scanner. He stated the values ​​used for X-ray penetration are incorrect based on the depth description of the imagery that describes what the instrument sees and some mm into the deeper skin and depth of the dose. He explains the experimental evidence that X-rays have the same properties as other X-rays and penetration is correct to be averaged across the body. Dr. Smith has provided scalable data from the operating body scanner to explain his position.
In October 2010, TSA responded to the concerns of UCSF researchers through White House science advisors.
The scanners also concentrate doses on time, as they provide a high dose rate at the time of exposure. Exposure to high doses has been shown to cause greater damage than the same radiation dose delivered at lower levels. This raises further questions about comparison against background radiation.
The FDA report states:
Because the general-use x-ray system emits ionizing radiation, the social benefits of reliable detection should be sufficient to exceed the potential radiation risk, if any, in the screened individual. The dose of one screening with a commonly used x-ray safety screening system is so low that it poses very little risk to any individual. To place the received radiation dose into perspective:
- Naturally occurring ionizing radiation is all around us. We are constantly exposed to this background radiation during our daily life. In 42 minutes of everyday life, a person receives more radiation from a natural source than from filtration with a commonly used x-ray security system.
- National radiation safety standards (see below) set doses per filtering limit for general use categories. To meet the requirements of the general use category, the entire body x-ray security system must provide less than the dose a person receives during the 4 minute airline flight. TSA has set a dose limit to ensure a person receives less radiation from a single scan with a TSA's general use x-ray security system than from the airline's 2-minute flight.
- A person must be screened more than a thousand times a year to exceed the annual radiation dose limits for screening of persons prescribed by an expert radiation safety organization (see below).
- The millimeter wave security system in accordance with the limits set in the applicable national non-ionizing radiation safety standards (see below) does not cause known adverse health effects.
TSA USA has also announced various independent security assessments of the Secure 1000 Backscatter X-ray Scanner.
Dr David Brenner, head of radiology research center at Columbia University, said although the dangers posed to individual passengers were "very low", he urged researchers to do more tests on the device to see how it affected certain groups. which can be more sensitive to radiation.
Dr. Andrew J. Einstein, director of cardiac CT research at Columbia University, has made the following assertions to support the safety of the body scanner: "A passenger needs to be scanned using the backscatter scanner from front and back again, about 200,000 times to receive the same amount of radiation one regular CT scan, "said Dr. Andrew J. Einstein, director of cardiac CT research at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City. "Another way to look at this is that if you were scanned with a backscatter scanner every day of your life, you would still only receive a tenth of a regular CT scan dose," he said. "For comparison, the amount of radiation from the backscatter scanner is equivalent to about 10 minutes of natural background radiation in the United States," Einstein said. "I believe that the general public need not worry about radiation from scanning airline," he added. "For expectant mothers, there is no evidence to support an increased risk of miscarriage or fetal abnormalities from this scanner," added Einstein. "A pregnant woman will receive more radiation from the cosmic rays she faces when flying than from passing through the scanner at the airport," he said.
In May 2010, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement issued a press release in response to health risk claims from UCSF and Columbia University (claims excessive skin doses and risks to large populations vs. individuals). NCRP claims that the cancer risk quoted by the opponent is completely inaccurate, stating that:
the sum of trivial average risks over a very large population or time period into a single value creates a distorted image of risk, completely out of perspective with the risks received every day, whether voluntarily or not.
and it
the general use system must comply with the effective dose of 0.1 microsievert (Sv) (0.01 millirem) or less per scan, and can be used largely regardless of the number of individuals scanned or the number of scans per individual in a year. Effective dose of 0.1? Sv (0.01 mrem) per scan will allow 2,500 individual scans per year [ie, if each scan requires 0.1? Sv (0.01 mrem)] without exceeding the administrative control of 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) to members of the general public for a single source or series of sources under one control. Assuming 250 working days per year, this would correspond to an average of 10 scans each day, a frequency not possible to encounter.
All the same Radiation Security Interdepartmental Committee which includes the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Nuclear Power Agency and World Health Organization, reports that, "Pregnant women and children should not be subjected to scans, even though the radiation dose from the scanner body is 'very small' ".
It has also been suggested that damage to the engine, damage from normal wear, or software errors can focus an intense radiation dose at one body point only. The researchers wrote:
In addition, there are a number of 'red flags' associated with the hardware itself. Because this device can scan humans in a few seconds, X-ray rays are very powerful. Any errors in power at any point in the hardware (or more importantly in software) that stop the device can cause a strong radiation dose to a point on the skin. Who will monitor the problem with the overall dose after the repair or software problem? TSA has complained about resolution limits; who will keep the manufacturer and/or TSA from raising the dose, an easy way to improve signal-to-noise and get higher resolution? Lastly, given the recent incident (on December 25th), how do we know whether manufacturers or TSA, looking for higher resolution, will scan the slower groin area leading to a much higher total dose?
Supporting X-ray backscatter scanners argues that the ANSI N43.17 standard addresses the safety requirements and system engineering design to prevent the occurrence of intentional high radiation due to defects and errors in hardware and software. Safety requirements include "fail-safe" controls, multiple interlocking and overlapping engineering designs to ensure that any system failures produce a secure or non-operating system to reduce the likelihood of unintentional exposure. Furthermore, TSA requires that certification to the ANSI N43.17 standard be performed by a third party and not by the manufacturer itself. However there are some cases where this type of medical scanner machine, operated by trained medical personnel, is malfunctioning, causing serious injury to the scanned patient. Critics of the entire body scanner cite this incident as an example of how radiation-based scanning machines can overdose people with radiation despite all safety precautions. In March 2011, it was found that some body-wide scans in the US emitted 10 times the normal level of radiation: Contractors who were routinely charged checked the scanner to deliver a report containing incompatibilities, including a mathematical calculation error indicating that some devices emit radiation. level 10 times higher than the norm: "In our review of the survey, we found an example where the technician miscalculated his mathematical calculations and got a result indicating the radiation reading was turned off by a factor of 10," said Peter Kant, executive vice president of Rapiscan Systems.
The x-rays of the backscatter scanner "are the form of ionizing radiation, which is radiation strong enough to disarm the molecules in the body of their electrons, creating charged particles that cause cellular damage and is considered a mechanism in which radiation causes cancer." Humans are exposed to any background radiation day, anywhere on earth, and supporters of X-ray backscatter scanners say that the device exposes the subject to radiation levels equivalent to background radiation. Furthermore, when traveling by plane, passengers are exposed to much higher levels of radiation than on earth due to altitude. Supporters say that X-ray backscatter scanning is equivalent to the received radiation for two minutes of flight.
The UK Health Protection Agency has also issued a statement that the radiation dose of the backscatter scanner is very low and "roughly equal to an hour of background radiation".
The European Commission issued a report stating that the x-ray backscatter scanner did not pose any known health risks, but suggested that the x-ray backscatter scanner, which exposes people to ionizing radiation, should not be used when a millimeter wave scanner that "has a smaller effect on the body human "available:
Assuming all other conditions are the same, there is no reason to adopt X-ray backscatters, which expose the subject to additional - though negligible - ionizing radiation sources. Other WBI [Whole Body Imaging] technologies should be preferred for standard use. However, the European Commission report does not provide data that substantiates the claim that "all other conditions are the same". One area where the x-ray scanner backscatter can provide better performance than the millimeter wave scanner, for example, is in examination of the shoe, groin and armpit area of ​​the body. The EC also recommends that alternative screening methods should be "used in pregnant women, infants, children and the disabled".
In the United States, Senator Susan Collins, Member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee sent a letter on August 6, 2010 to the Secretary of Homeland Security and TSA Administrator, requesting that TSA "own the Head of Medical Department, work with independent experts, review health effects its use for travelers, TSA employees, and airport and airline personnel. "TSA has completed this review.
The US government also supplies higher radiation via X-Ray engines to at least two African countries "for airport security purposes - the type that can see through meat, and that provide the actual radiation dose.US-provided scanners appear to have been deployed at one airport in Ghana and four in Nigeria ". which has led some to question how far the US Government intends to use this technology.
Unions for aviation pilots working for American Airlines and US Airways have urged pilots to avoid a full body scanner.
Child scan
There is a controversy scanner all over the body in some countries because the machine creates virtual strip search images in people under the age of 18 who may violate child pornography laws. In the UK, the scanner may violate the Child Protection Act of 1978 by creating fake pictures or pictures of naked children.
Parents complain that their children are almost ransacked, sometimes without the presence of their parents.
Ineffectiveness
Some critics suggest that whole-body scanning technology is ineffective * for various reasons, including that they can be easily bypassed and a study published in the November 2010 issue of the Transportation Security Journal suggests terrorists might cheat rapiscan Machines and others as it uses the X-ray technique "backscatter". A terrorist, the report found, could record a thin film of explosives about 15-20 centimeters in diameter to the stomach and walk through the engine undetected.
Terrorists have developed their tactics using bombs or surgical bombs hidden in the body cavity.
In March 2012, scientist and blogger Jonathan Corbett demonstrated the ineffectiveness of machines by publishing a viral video showing how he could get a metal box through x-ray backscatter and millimeter scans at two US airports. In April 2012, Corbett released a second video interviewing TSA screener, depicting firearms and simulated explosives that passed through the scanner during internal testing and training. In other tests of the entire body scanner, the machine fails to detect hidden bomb parts around one's body. And in a different test in 2011, an undercover TSA agent was able to carry a gun through a full body scanner several times without being detected by a weapon. However, the error was not due to the engine, but the TSA Agent who was in charge of seeing the scanned image was completely unaware.
Then an Israeli airport security expert, Rafi Sela, who helped design security at Ben Gurion International Airport, said: "I do not know why everyone ran to buy this expensive and useless machine I can handle the body scanner with enough explosives to bring down the Boeing 747... That's why we did not put them at our airport. "
Again, despite the scanners, TSA can not stop weapons such as box cutters and pistols being taken to the aircraft.
The Australian government has been challenged over the effectiveness and cost of full body scanners by public media in which Australian Transport Minister Anthony Albanese says he "does not apologize" for requiring the installation of a full body scanner at Australian airports.
Two alternatives that have been proposed by experts, such as Prof. Chris Mayhew from Birmingham University, are chemical-based scanners and dogs that sniff out bombs. Others argue that passenger profiles, such as those done by Israeli airport security, must replace scanners and fractures throughout the body.
US Public Opinion
Gallup polls given right after the Christmas Day bombings of 2009 showed that 78% of American aviation travelers approved the body scanners while 20% were not approved. 51% indicated that they would have a degree of discomfort with a full body scan, while 48% said they would not feel uncomfortable with the idea. The poll was given in the context of the 2009 Christmas Day bombing effort, and some opponents of the full body scanner said that the explosives used in the bombing attempt would not be detected by the entire body scanner.
The ABC/Washington Post poll conducted by Langer Associates and released November 22, 2010 found that 64 percent of Americans love X-ray scanners all over the body, but 50 percent think that pat downs are too far; 37 percent feel very strong. In addition, opinion polls show the lowest opposition among those who fly less than once a year.
On November 23, 2010, an online poll of 11,817 people on The Consumerist website, 59.41% said they would not fly as a result of the new scan. Additionally, on November 23, 2010, a poll of the online readers MSNBC 8,500 indicated that 84.1% believed that the new procedure would not improve the safety of the trip. According to a CBS poll of 1,137 people published in November 2010, 81% (/- 5%) percent of those surveyed approved the use of TSA scans throughout the body.
There is some debate about security scanners, however, TSA believes that the mmw scanner used does not emit ionizing radiation.
Full-body scanner scanner
Former Home Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has been criticized for vigorously promoting a whole body scanner while not always fully revealing that he is a lobbyist for one of the company making machines. Other full-body scanner scanners with Government connections include:
- former TSA deputy administration Tom Blank
- the former assistant administrator for the policy at TSA, Chad Wolf
- Kevin Patrick Kelly, "a former senior staff member for Senator Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who sits on the Subcommittee on Homeland Security Rights"
- Former Senator Al D'Amato
Expansion of TSA scanning program
Forbes magazine reported, in March 2011, that:
The newly discovered document shows that in early 2006, the Department of Homeland Security had planned a pilot program to deploy a mobile scanning unit that could be set up at public events and at the train station, along with a mobile x-ray capable of scanning pedestrians on city streets.
and that TSA has a research proposal to:
carrying a full body scanner for train stations, mass transit, and public events. The contracts included in the EPIC release show plans to develop long-term scans that can assess what the subjects are carrying from a distance of 30 feet, along with a study involving systems for x-ray scanners mounted in vans and "secret" pedestrian scans.
Body scanner full of "nudity"
New software for scanners has been implemented by US Aviation Security, so the new full body scanner will not give images of people scanned nudity to scanner operators, but only gives images as generic male or female images without features. Opponents of the entire body scanner still consider this an unconstitutional strip search, because even though the operator sees an edited version of the image, the nude image is still captured by the machine, and there is no guarantee that the Government or private company wins. Save the image in case that a terrorist attack succeeds.
This type of software has been implemented at Washington, Atlanta, and Las Vegas airports.
"Our top priority is the safety of the traveling community, and TSA is constantly striving to explore and implement new technologies that enhance security and strengthen privacy protection for the traveling community," said TSA Administrator John Pistole. "The enhancement of this software enables us to continue to deliver high levels of security through advanced imaging filtering technology, while improving passenger experience at checkpoints."
Technical countermeasures
Some people want to prevent loss of privacy or possible health problems or genetic damage that may be related to exposure to an X-ray backscatter scan. One company selling underwear absorbs X-rays that are said to have X-ray absorption equivalent to 0.5 mm of lead. Another product, Flying Pasties, is "... designed to obscure the most private parts of the human body when it enters the entire airport's scanner", but the description does not seem to claim protection from the X-ray rays penetrating the body. of the person being scanned.
See also
- 3D body scan
- Machine portal trace-detection of explosives (puffer machines)
- CT whole body scan (in medical imaging)
References
External links
- List of American airports currently/will use Full Body Scanners in search of passengers
- Challenge Airport Agency Scanners
- Invasion of Body Scanners by Randall Amster, Truthout , January 24, 2010.
- Another way to filter airport passengers without the need for a full body scan
- National Criticism against TSA Body Scanners and Invasive Pat-Downs - video report by Democracy Now!
- Details about the body scanner
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments