fbpx
Wikipedia

Full body scanner

January 01, 1970

This article is about body scanners for security purposes. For other body scanning technologies, see 3D body scanning.

A full-body scanner is a device that detects objects on or inside a person's body for security screening purposes, without physically removing clothes or making physical contact. Unlike metal detectors, full-body scanners can detect non-metal objects, which became an increasing concern after various airliner bombing attempts in the 2000s. Some scanners can also detect swallowed items or items hidden in the body cavities of a person. Starting in 2007, full-body scanners started supplementing metal detectors at airports and train stations in many countries.

Full body scanner in millimeter wave scanners technique at Cologne Bonn Airport

Image from an active millimeter wave body scanner

Three distinct technologies have been used in practice:

  • Millimeter wave scanners use non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation similar to that used by wireless data transmitters, in the extremely high frequency (EHF) radio band (which is a lower frequency than visible light). The health risks posed by these machines are still being studied, and the evidence is mixed, though millimeter wave scanners do not generate ionizing radiation.[1]
  • X-ray-based scanners
    • Backscatter X-ray scanners use low dose radiation for detecting suspicious metallic and non-metallic objects hidden under clothing or in shoes and in the cavities of the human body. The dosage of radiation received is usually between 0.05 and 0.1 μSv[2] Considerable debate regarding the safety of this method sparked investigations, ultimately leading multiple countries to ban the usage of them.
    • Transmission X-ray scanners use higher dosage penetrating radiation which passes through the human body and then is captured by a detector or array of detectors. This type of full body scanners allows to detect objects hidden not only under the clothes, but also inside the human body (for example, drugs carried by drug couriers in the stomach) or in natural cavities. The dosage received is usually not higher than 0.25 μSv and is mainly regulated by the American radiation safety standard for personal search systems using gamma or X-ray radiation[3]
  • Infra-red thermal conductivity scanners do not use electromagnetic radiation to penetrate the body or clothing, but instead use slight temperature differences on the surface of clothing to detect the presence of foreign objects. Thermal conductivity relies on the ability of contraband hidden under clothing to heat or cool the surface of the clothing faster than the skin surface. Warm air is used to heat up the surface of the clothing. How fast the clothing cools is dependent, in part, on what is beneath it. Items that cool the clothing faster or slower than the surface of the skin will be identified by a thermal image of the clothing. These scanners are less often used compared to X-ray-based and mmWave-based scanners.

Passengers and advocates have objected to images of their naked bodies being displayed to screening agents or recorded by the government. Critics have called the imaging virtual strip searches without probable cause, and have suggested they are illegal and violate basic human rights.[4] However, current technology is less intrusive and because of privacy issues most people are allowed to refuse this scan and opt for a traditional pat-down. Depending on the technology used, the operator may see an alternate-wavelength image of the person's naked body, merely a cartoon-like representation of the person with an indicator showing where any suspicious items were detected, or full X-ray image of the person. For privacy and security reasons, the display is generally not visible to other passengers, and in some cases is located in a separate room where the operator cannot see the face of the person being screened. Transmission X-ray scanners claim to be more privacy neutral as there is almost no way to distinguish a person but they also have a software able to hide privacy issues.

History edit

The first (ultra-low-dose backscatter X-ray) full body security scanner was developed by Dr. Steven W Smith,[5][6] who developed the Secure 1000 whole body scanner in 1992. He subsequently sold the device and associated patents to Rapiscan Systems, who now manufacture and distribute the device.

Safety aspects of the Secure 1000 have been assessed in the US by the Food and Drug Administration, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and other independent sources since the early 1990s.[7]

In 2000,[3] Dr. Vladimir Linev patented a system for scanning a person based on transmission (penetrating) X-ray technology focused on the search for unwanted objects and contraband, which was later the base for CONPASS body scanner.

The first millimeter-wave full body scanner was developed at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in Richland, Washington. The operation is one of the four national laboratories Battelle manages for the U.S. Department of Energy. In the 1990s, they patented their 3-D holographic-imagery technology, with research and development support provided by the TSA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).[8] In 2002, Silicon Valley startup SafeView, Inc. obtained an exclusive license to PNNL's (background) intellectual property, to commercialize their technology.[9] From 2002 to 2006, SafeView developed a production-ready millimeter body scanner system, and software which included scanner control, algorithms for threat detection and object recognition, as well as techniques to conceal raw images in order to resolve privacy concerns. During this time, SafeView developed foreground IP through several patent applications. By 2006, SafeView's body scanning portals had been installed and trialed at various locations around the globe. They were installed at border crossings in Israel, international airports such as Mexico City and Amsterdam's Schiphol, ferry landings in Singapore, railway stations in the UK, government buildings like The Hague, and commercial buildings in Tokyo. They were also employed to secure soldiers and workers in Iraq's Green Zone. In 2006, SafeView was acquired by L-3 Communications.[10][11] From 2006 and 2020, L-3 Communications (later L3Harris) continued to make incremental enhancements to their scanner systems, while deploying thousands of units worldwide. In 2020, Leidos acquired L3Harris, which included their body scanner business unit.[12]

The first passive, non-radiating full body screening camera device was developed by Lockheed Martin through a sponsorship by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ)'s Office of Science and Technology and the United States Air Force Research Laboratory. Proof of concept was conducted in 1995 through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Rights to this technology were subsequently acquired by Brijot Imaging Systems, who further matured a commercial-grade product line and now manufacture, market and support the passive millimeter wave camera devices.[13]

Usage edit

Video from the TSA explaining the procedure

Schiphol in the Netherlands was the first airport in the world to implement SafeView's millimeter-wave body scanner on a large scale after a test with flight personnel the previous year. On May 15, 2007, two of 17 purchased security scans were installed.

The Italian government had planned to install full-body scanners at all airport and train stations throughout the country, but announced in September 2010 plans to remove the scanners from airports, calling them "slow and ineffective".[14]

The European Union currently allows member states to decide whether to implement full body scanners in their countries:[15]

It is for each member state to decide to authorise the use of scanners in national airports. That will not change ... But where this scanning technology is used it should be covered by EU-wide standards on detection capability as well as common safeguards to ensure compliance with EU health and fundamental rights provisions.

— EU Transport Commissioner Siim Kallas

Australia edit

In Australia the government has decided a no opt-out policy will be enforced in relation to screening at airports. Persons with medical or physical conditions that prevent them from undertaking a body scan will be offered alternative screening methods suitable to their circumstances. Infants and young children under 140 cm will not be selected to undergo a body scan.[16] Body-scanners are being used at eight of Australia's international airports – Adelaide, Brisbane, Cairns, Darwin, Gold Coast, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney.[17] So far only passengers exiting via international flights are affected.[18] Domestic and international passengers departing Newcastle Port Stephens airport have been subject to body scanning since October 2019.[19] Passengers who refuse a scan may be banned from flying.[20] The scanners proposed to be used in Australia have shown a high rate of error in testing.[21] Public outrage over the nude images created by the body scanners being collected by policy resulted in a lawsuit in 2010 to stop body scanning.[22][23]

Canada edit

In Canada, 24 airports currently have these scanners in use, using millimeter-wave technology. Transport Canada notes that "Passengers selected for a secondary search can choose between the full body scanner or a physical search."[24][25]

United States edit

In the U.S. full-body scanners have been installed at train stations, subways, penitentiaries and airports.[26][27]

After having previously used X-ray-based scanners the TSA currently uses Millimeter Wave AIT scanners exclusively, which show no identifying characteristics of the person being scanned. Instead, a generic outline of a person is used.[28] As of December 2015, "While passengers may generally decline AIT screening in favor of physical screening, TSA may direct mandatory AIT screening for some passengers as warranted by security considerations in order to safeguard transportation security."[29]

Regarding privacy concerns the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has stated in 2010 that they "[have] not, will not and the machines cannot store images of passengers at airports".[30] However the TSA later disclosed, in a response to the house chair on homeland security, that its procurement of airport scanners requires manufacturers to include image storage and transmission features but that these features should be disabled before being placed in an airport. The TSA shows 45 individuals have the ability to turn these machines into 'test mode' which enables recording images, but states that they would never do this on a production system.[31] The US Marshal Service did operate a backscatter machine in a courthouse that records images. However, in a statement, they noted that only individuals involved in a test were recorded. A sample of these images was received and disseminated by Gizmodo in 2010, using a Freedom Of Information Request.[32] It is not clear if the US Marshal service has put these new scanning machines, that have recording capabilities, into production. The analyst is in a different room and is not supposed to be able to see the person being scanned by the Backscatter X-ray AIT, but is in contact with other officials who can halt the scanned person if anything suspicious shows up on the scan.

US Penitentiary is also constantly purchasing[33] X-ray full-body scanners for contraband and weapons detection purposes. The scanners are generally Transmission X-ray scanners since these are the only devices capable of detecting metallic and non-metallic contraband hidden underneath clothing as well as contraband hidden inside body cavities.[34]

United Kingdom edit

Civil rights groups in Britain in 2010 argued that the body scanning of children contravened the law relating to child pornography.[35]

Passive infra-red scanners have been developed for use in public spaces to collect and analyze natural heat radiation given off by the human body to detect both metallic and non-metallic "threat objects". No external radiation source is used and privacy is preserved as no body details are revealed. Police are conducting a trial of the equipment at London rail stations.[36][37]

Asia Pacific edit

During the forecast period of 2020–2025, the Asia–Pacific region is projected to grow at the highest market CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate). The growth of this region is possibly due to the high airport investments and improvements in prison systems. China and India are heavily investing in greenfield airport construction. In January 2020, the Indian government decided to equip 84 airports with full-body scanners, which has led the Indian market to grow at a higher rate.[38]

Controversies edit

Privacy edit

Some argue that using a full-body scanner is equivalent to a strip search, and if used without probable cause violates basic human rights.[39][40][41]

Full-body scanning allows screeners to see the surface of the skin under clothing.[42] Prosthetics including breast prostheses and prosthetic testicles may require a potentially embarrassing physical inspection once detected. The scanners can also detect other medical equipment normally hidden, such as colostomy bags and catheters.[43] The transgender community also has privacy concerns[44] that body scanners could lead to their harassment.

In the UK, in 2010, the Equality and Human Rights Commission argued that full-body scanners were a risk to human rights and might be breaking the law.[45][46]

In 2010 the National Human Rights Commission of Korea opposed the use of full-body scanners and recommended that they not be deployed at airports.[47]

Opponents in the US argue that full body scanners and the new TSA patdowns are unconstitutional.[48] A comprehensive student note came out in the Fall 2010 issue of the University of Denver Transportation Law Journal arguing that full-body scanners are unconstitutional in the United States because they are (1) too invasive and (2) not effective enough because the process is too inefficient.[49]

On July 2, 2010, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a lawsuit to suspend the deployment of full-body scanners at airports in the United States:[50]

EPIC argued that the federal agency has violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Fourth Amendment. EPIC cited the invasive nature of the devices, the TSA's disregard of public opinion, and the impact on religious freedom.

— epic.org

EPIC claimed at that time that full-body scanners violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because they subject citizens to a virtual strip search without any evidence of wrongdoing.[51] In July 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the use of full body scanners at airport security does not violate the Fourth Amendment.[52]

The American Civil Liberties Union, in 2006, called the machines an invasion of privacy: "This doesn't only concern genitals but body size, body shape and other things like evidence of mastectomies, colostomy appliances or catheter tubes. These are very personal things that people have every right to keep private and personal, aside from the modesty consideration of not wanting to be naked."[53]

In the United States, in 2010 the TSA required that their full-body scanners "allow exporting of image data in real time",[54] and cases of the government's storing of images have been confirmed.[55]

Travelers at U.S. airports have complained that when they opted not to be scanned, they were subjected to a new type of invasive pat-down that one traveler in 2010 described as "probing and pushing ... in my genital area."[56][57] Another traveler in the United States complained in 2010 that the TSA employee "inserted four fingers of both hands inside my trousers and ran his fingers all the way around my waist, his fingers extending at least 2–3 inches below my waistline."[58]

In August 2010, it was reported that the United States Marshals Service saved thousands of images from a millimeter wave scanner.[59][60] TSA – part of the Department of Homeland Security – reiterated that its own scanners do not save images and that the scanners do not have the capability to save images when they are installed in airports.[61] However, these statements contradict the TSA's own Procurement Specs which specifically require that the machines have the ability to record and transmit images, even if those features might be initially turned off on delivery.[54] Opponents have also expressed skepticism that if there were a successful terror attack that the machines could not save images for later inspection to find out what went wrong with the scans. On November 16, 2010, 100 of the stored 35,000 body scan images were leaked online and posted by Gizmodo.[32]

In November 2010, a female traveler who opted out of a full body scan at Fort Lauderdale International Airport claimed that TSA agents handcuffed her to a chair and ripped up her plane ticket when she asked questions about the new type of invasive pat down she was about to receive.[62] In response, the TSA posted parts of the security camera footage on their blog, though there is no sound in the video and the passenger is not directly in the camera during most of the incident.[63]

In Idaho a bill was introduced in 2011 to prevent the use of full-body scanners as a primary screening method and allow people to request an alternative.[64]

Wholebody imaging technology may not be used as the sole or primary method of screening persons, nor may it be used to screen any person unless another method of screening, such as metal detection, demonstrates cause for preventing such person from boarding an aircraft or entering a public facility or government building.

— Idaho House Bill no. 573

In February 2012 airport employees in Lagos were allegedly discovered wandering away from a cubicle located in a hidden corner on the right side of the screening area to where the 3D full-body scanner monitors are located.[65] At the Dallas Ft. Worth International Airport, TSA complaints have been reported to disproportionally stem from women who felt that they were singled out for repeated screening for the entertainment of male security officers.[66][67][68]

A ruling of the European Council in 2013 required that persons analyzing the image shall be in a separate location and the image shall not be linked to the screened person.[69]

As of December 15, 2015 the TSA published a new policy which required AIT to be "mandatory" for "some" passengers for "security reasons".[29] However, most individuals in the US can still opt out of the scanner and choose a pat-down if they are uncomfortable going through the scanner. Individuals also have the right to be patted down in a private room and have it witnessed by a person of the individual's choice.[70]

 
Passive millimeter wave image and subject being screened

Treatment of minorities edit

Current backscatter and millimeter wave scanners installed by the TSA are unable to screen adequately for security threats inside turbans, hijab, burqas, casts, prosthetics and loose clothing.[71][72] This technology limitation of current scanners often requires these persons to undergo additional screening by hand or other methods and can cause additional delay or feelings of harassment.[73]

According to a manufacturer of the machines, the next generation of backscatter scanners will be able to screen all types of clothing.[74] These improved scanners have been designed to equalize the screening process for religious minorities.[75]

Treatment of transgender people edit

Current machines installed by the TSA require agents in the US to designate each passenger as either male or female, after which the software compares the passenger's body against a normative body of that sex.[76] Transgender passengers have reported that full body scanners at several U.S. airports have falsely raised alarms based on their anatomy.[77]

Health concerns edit

Health concerns relating to the use of full-body scanning technology are present, especially pertaining to the use of X-ray scanners. The issue is mainly regulated by ANSI 43.17.2009, which limits the dose on a per-person basis. However this 2010-era document is intended to apply primarily in the context of standard civilian-airport security. It is generally not considered applicable to unusual terrorism-threat detection concerns in high-security environments (prisons, special-purpose airports) or military institutions. Nor is ANSI 43.17.2009 considered to be the appropriate standard for highly concealed threats such liquid bombs inside body cavities or swallowed drugs. Due to fundamental physical limitations of how each type of detection technology functions, these highly covert types of threats are impossible to detect by any means other than transmission X-rays.

From the perspective of annual dosage, the ANSI 43.17.2009 standard stipulates that a transmission X-ray dosage of 0.25 μSv per scan, in conjunction with an annual total limit at 250 μSv, equates to a per-person maximum of such 1000 scans per year for a civilian-aviation passenger. However, counting all medical X-ray procedures (as a typical person might undergo in an average year), and if the total annual dose of 250 μSv is taken to include all medical-related doses, then the number of flights/scans permitted for that person could be greatly reduced, assuming that transmission-type X-ray technology is used at each security screening that the civil-aviation passenger undergoes. But because the medical X-ray dosages vary tremendously (over several orders of magnitude) depending on the diagnostic procedures that the patient is subjected to, the proportional contribution of airport-security X-raying to the person's total annual dosage cannot be calculated unless an accounting of the medical X-ray dosages is also present.[78]

Millimeter wave scanners edit

Main article: Millimeter wave scanner

Currently adopted millimeter wave scanners operate in the millimeter or sub-terahertz band, using non-ionizing radiation, and have no proven adverse health effects, though no long-term studies have been done.[79] Thomas S. Tenforde, president of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, said in 2010 that millimeter wave scanners are probably within bounds [of standards for safe operation], but there should be an effort to verify that they are safe for frequent use.[79][80]

Backscatter X-ray scanners edit

In the United States, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 required that all full-body scanners operated in airports by the Transportation Security Administration use "Automated Target Recognition" software, which replaces the picture of a nude body with the cartoon-like representation.[81] As a result of this law, all backscatter X-ray machines formerly in use by the Transportation Security Administration were removed from airports by May 2013, since the agency said the vendor (Rapiscan) did not meet their contractual deadline to implement the software.[82]

 
Some backscatter technology produces an image that resembles a chalk etching, though other configurations produce much more detailed images, and there is still a possibility that the lower quality images can be easily switched to a higher resolution.[83]

Several radiation safety authorities including the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, The Health Physics Society, and the American College of Radiology, have stated that they are "not aware of any evidence"[84] that full-body scans are unsafe.[85] However, other radiation authorities, including the International Atomic Energy Agency and Nuclear Energy Agency recommend against using ionizing radiation on certain populations like pregnant women and children,[86] and opponents of the devices say that no long-term studies have been done on the health effects of either backscatter X-ray or millimeter wave scanners:[87]

Richard Morin, a medical physicist at the Mayo Clinic has said that he is not concerned about health effects from backscatter X-ray scanners:[79]

Perhaps the most notable and debated professional opinion in regard to the safety of scanners is the so-called "Holdren Letter" from a number of world-renowned biochemists and biophysics researchers from the University of California to the Assistant to the US President for Science and Technology, Dr. John P. Holdren. The opening paragraph of their letter of concern reads: "We, a number of University of California, San Francisco faculty, are writing—see attached memo—to call your attention to our concerns about the potential serious health risks of the recently adopted whole body back scatter X-ray airport security scanners. This is an urgent situation as these X-ray scanners are rapidly being implemented as a primary screening step for all air travel passengers."[88]

Critics of backscatter X-ray scanners, including the head of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University, say that the radiation emitted by some full-body scanners is as much as 20 times stronger than officially reported and is not safe to use on large numbers of persons because of an increased risk of cancer to children and at-risk populations.[89][90][91] Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) have argued that the amount of radiation is higher than claimed by the TSA and body scanner manufacturers because the doses were calculated as if distributed throughout the whole body, but the radiation from backscatter X-ray scanners is focused on just the skin and surrounding tissues:[92][93][94]

However other professors in the UCSF radiology department disagree, saying that the radiation dose is low.[95] "The conclusions are wrong", Ronald Arenson, professor of radiology, tells SF Weekly of his own institution's letter. "People who are totally unrelated to radiation wrote it. ... It was senior faculty at UCSF. They're smart people and well-intended, but their conclusions, I think, were off-base. They don't understand how radiation translates to an actual dose in the human body".

Dr. Steve Smith, inventor of the body scanner in 1991, and president of Tek84, one of the companies that produces the machines, has stated that the concerns of Dr. Brenner and UCSF Scientists regarding the skin dose of backscatter scanners are incorrect. He states the values used for X-ray penetration were incorrectly based on the description of the imaging depth which describes what the instrument sees and is a few mm into the skin and the dosage depth which is deeper. He describes experimental proof that the X-rays have the same properties as any other X-rays and the penetration is correct to be averaged over the whole body. Dr. Smith has provided measured data from an operating body scanner to explain his position.[96]

In October 2010, The TSA responded to the concerns of UCSF researchers via the White House science advisor.[97][98]

Scanners also concentrate the dose in time, because they deliver a high dose-rate at the moment of exposure. High dose-rate exposure has been shown to cause greater damage than the same radiation dose delivered at lower rates.[99] This raises further questions about comparisons to background radiation.

The U.S. TSA has also made public various independent safety assessments of the Secure 1000 Backscatter X-ray Scanner.[100][101][102]

Dr. Andrew J. Einstein, director of cardiac CT research at Columbia University, has made the following statements in support of the safety of body scanners:[79] "A passenger would need to be scanned using a backscatter scanner, from both the front and the back, about 200,000 times to receive the amount of radiation equal to one typical CT scan ... 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 the dose of a typical CT scan ... By comparison, the amount of radiation from a backscatter scanner is equivalent to about 10 minutes of natural background radiation in the United States ... I believe that the general public has nothing to worry about in terms of the radiation from airline scanning ... For moms-to-be, no evidence supports an increased risk of miscarriage or fetal abnormalities from these scanners ... A pregnant woman will receive much more radiation from cosmic rays she is exposed to while flying than from passing through a scanner in the airport".

In May 2010 the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements issued a press release in response to the health risk claims from UCSF and Columbia University (claims of excessive skin dose and risks to large populations vs. individuals). The NCRP claims that cancer risks cited by opponents are completely inaccurate.[103]

All the same the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety which includes the International Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Agency and the World Health Organization, reported that, "Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, even though the radiation dose from body scanners is 'extremely small'".[104]

It has also been suggested that defects in the machines, damage from normal wear-and-tear, or software errors could focus an intense dose of radiation on just one spot of the body.[92]

Proponents of backscatter X-ray scanners argue that the ANSI N43.17 standard addresses safety requirements and engineering design of the systems to prevent the occurrence of accidental high radiation due to defects and errors in hardware and software. Safety requirements include "fail-safe" controls, multiple overlapping interlocks and engineering design to ensure that failure of any systems result in safe or non-operation of the system to reduce the chance of accidental exposures. Furthermore, TSA requires that certification to the ANSI N43.17 standard is performed by a third party and not by the manufacturer themselves.[105][106] But there are cases where types of medical scanning machines, operated by trained medical personnel, have malfunctioned, causing serious injury to patients that were scanned.[107] Critics of full-body scanners cite these incidents as examples of how radiation-based scanning machines can overdose people with radiation despite all safety precautions.[108]

In March 2011, it was found that some of the full body scanners in the US were emitting 10 times the normal level of radiation:[109][110][111] Contractors charged with routinely examining the scanners submitted reports containing discrepancies, including mathematical miscalculations showing that some of the devices emitted radiation levels 10 times higher than normal:Peter Kant, executive vice president of Rapiscan Systems, said that "In our review of the surveys we found instances where a technician incorrectly did his math and came up with results that showed the radiation readings were off by a factor of 10".

The X-rays from backscatter scanners "are a form of ionizing radiation, that is, radiation powerful enough to strip molecules in the body of their electrons, creating charged particles that cause cell damage and are thought to be the mechanism through which radiation causes cancer."[112] Humans are exposed to background radiation every day, anywhere on earth,[113] and proponents of backscatter X-ray scanners say that the devices expose subjects to levels of radiation equivalent to background radiation. Furthermore, when traveling on an airplane, passengers are exposed to much higher levels of radiation than on earth due to altitude. Proponents say that a backscatter X-ray scan is equivalent to the radiation received during two minutes of flying.[114]

The UK Health Protection Agency has also issued a statement that the radiation dose from backscatter scanners is very low and "about the same as one hour of background radiation".[115]

The European Commission issued a report stating that backscatter X-ray scanners pose no known health risk, but suggested that backscatter X-ray scanners, which expose people to ionizing radiation, should not be used when millimeter-wave scanners that "have less effects on the human body" are available.[116]

Assuming all other conditions equal, there is no reason to adopt X‐ray backscatters, which expose the subject to an additional – although negligible – source of ionizing radiations. Other WBI (Whole Body Imaging) technologies should be preferred for standard use. However, the European Commission's report provides no data substantiating the claim that "all other conditions are equal". One area where backscatter X-ray scanners can provide better performance than millimeter wave scanners, for example, is in the inspection of the shoes, groin and armpit regions of the body.[117] The European Commission also recommended that alternate screening methods should be "used on pregnant women, babies, children and people with disabilities".[118]

In the United States, Senator Susan Collins, Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee sent a letter on August 6, 2010, to the Secretary of Homeland Security and Administrator of the TSA, requesting that the TSA "have the Department's Chief Medical Officer, working with independent experts, conduct a review of the health effects of their use for travelers, TSA employees, and airport and airline personnel."[119] The TSA has completed this review.[120][full citation needed]

The U.S. government is also supplying higher-radiation through-body X-ray machines to at least two African countries "for the purposes of airport security – the kind that can see through flesh, and which deliver real doses of radiation. The U.S.-supplied scanners have apparently been deployed at one airport in Ghana and four in Nigeria".[121] This has caused some to question how far the U.S. government intends to go with the technology.[122]

Unions for airline pilots working for American Airlines and US Airways have urged pilots to avoid the full body scanners.[123]

Child scanning edit

There is controversy over full-body scanners in some countries because the machines create images of virtual strip searches on persons under the age of 18 which may violate child pornography laws. In the UK, the scanners may be breaking the Protection of Children Act of 1978 by creating images or pseudo-images of nude children.[124][125]

Parents have complained that their young children are being virtually strip searched, sometimes without their parents present.[126]

Ineffectiveness edit

Backscatter and millimeter edit

Some critics suggest that full-body scanner technology is ineffective for multiple reasons, including that they can easily be bypassed and a study published in the November 2010 edition of the Journal of Transportation Security suggested terrorists might fool the Rapiscan machines and others like it employing the X-ray "backscatter" technique. A terrorist, the report found, could tape a thin film of explosives of about 15–20 centimeters in diameter to the stomach and walk through the machine undetected.[127]

Terrorists have already evolved their tactics with the use of surgically implanted bombs or bombs hidden in body cavities.[128][129]

In March 2012, scientist and blogger Jonathan Corbett demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the machines by publishing a viral video showing how he was able to get a metal box through backscatter X-ray and millimeter wave scanners in two US airports.[130][131] In April 2012, Corbett released a second video interviewing a TSA screener, who described firearms and simulated explosives passing through the scanners during internal testing and training.[132] In another test of the full-body scanners, the machines failed to detect bomb parts hidden around a person's body.[133] And in a different test in 2011, an undercover TSA agent was able to carry a handgun through full body scanners multiple times without the weapon being detected. However, in this case, the TSA agent who was in charge of viewing the scanned images was simply not paying attention.[134]

Furthermore, an Israeli airport security expert, Rafi Sela, who helped design security at Ben Gurion International Airport, has said: "I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747... That's why we haven't put them in our airport."[135]

Again, despite the scanners, the TSA has been unable to stop weapons like box cutters and pistols from being carried onto airplanes.[136]

The Australia government has been challenged over the effectiveness and cost of full body scanners by public media to which Australian Transport Minister Anthony Albanese has said he "makes no apologies" for mandating the installation of full body scanners at Australian airports.[137]

Two alternatives that have been argued for by experts, such as Prof Chris Mayhew from Birmingham University, are chemical-based scanners and bomb-sniffing dogs.[138] Others have argued that passenger profiling, as done by Israeli airport security, should replace full body scanners and patdowns.[139]

Transmission (penetrating) edit

 
Artificial Intelligence software detecting objects on the human body X-ray image in transmission (penetrating) body scanner

Unlike the above, transmission technology allows to detect objects swallowed or hidden inside the objects. This is the main reason it is commonly used in prisons and jails. However the current technology does not allow the dual-energy body scanning (and detecting the object by its atomic number like it is used in baggage or vehicle X-ray scanners) which could give the image the same detection effectiveness as regular black and white X-ray. This leads to the idea that human-held detection (finding threats by looking at the image and finding non-common to the human body items) is the most effective way to find a contraband. However counting a human factor (fatigue, decreased attention) threats still could be missed. Modern software based on Artificial Intelligence in full body scanners is designed to minimize human faults and rise the detection effectiveness of this method.

US public opinion edit

A Gallup poll given just after the 2009 Christmas Day bombing attempt suggested that 78% of American airline travelers approved of body scanners while 20% disapproved. 51% indicated that they would have some level of discomfort with full-body scans, while 48% said they would not be uncomfortable with the idea.[140] The poll was given in the context of the 2009 Christmas Day bombing attempt, and some opponents of full body scanners say that the explosives used in that bombing attempt would not have been detected by full-body scanners.[141]

An ABC/Washington Post poll conducted by Langer Associates and released November 22, 2010, found that 64 percent of Americans favored the full-body X-ray scanners, but that 50 percent think the "enhanced" pat-downs go too far; 37 percent felt so strongly. In addition the poll states opposition is lowest amongst those who fly less than once a year.[142]

As of 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 scans.[143] Additionally, as of November 23, 2010, a poll of MSNBC 8,500 online readers indicated 84.1% believe the new procedures would not increase travel safety.[144] According to a CBS telephone poll of 1,137 people published in November 2010, 81% (+/- 5%) percent of those polled approved TSA's use of full-body scans.[145]

Full-body scanner lobbyists edit

Former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has been criticized for heavily promoting full-body scanners while not always fully disclosing that he is a lobbyist for one of the companies that makes the machines.[146][147] Other full-body scanner lobbyists with government connections include:[148]

  • former TSA deputy administrator Tom Blank
  • former assistant administrator for policy at the TSA, Chad Wolf
  • Kevin Patrick Kelly, "a former top staffer to Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who sits on the Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee"
  • Former Senator Al D'Amato

TSA's expansion of scanning program edit

Forbes magazine reported, in March 2011, that:[149][150]

Newly uncovered documents show that as early as 2008, the Department of Homeland Security has been planning pilot programs to deploy mobile scanning units that can be set up at public events and in train stations, along with mobile x-ray vans capable of scanning pedestrians on city streets.

and that the TSA had research proposals to:

bring full-body scanners to train stations, mass transit, and public events. Contracts included in the EPIC release showed plans to develop long-range scans that could assess what a subject carried from 30 feet away, along with studies that involved systems for x-ray scanners mounted in vans and "covert" scans of pedestrians.

"No nudity" full-body scanner edit

Millimeter-wave scanner software transitioned to featureless male or female 'cartoons' in 2011, in response to widescale privacy concerns.[151]

Currently, the millimeter-wave scanner monitor shows a generic cookie-cutter-like outline of a person and highlights potential threats. It is the same image no matter the individual's gender, height, or body type. The scanner software recognizes metallic and non-metallic items hiding under clothing. The machine then processes an image using yellow boxes to point out any areas that may need additional screening.[152]

TSA Administrator John Pistole stated that "Our top priority is the safety of the traveling public, and TSA constantly strives to explore and implement new technologies that enhance security and strengthen privacy protections for the traveling public ... This software upgrade enables us to continue providing a high level of security through advanced imaging technology screening, while improving the passenger experience at checkpoints."[153]

See also edit

References edit

  1. ^ Harwood, Matthew (March 5, 2010). . Security Management. Archived from the original on October 6, 2014.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  2. ^ . Moscow Domodedovo Airport. October 2, 2006. Archived from the original on March 3, 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  3. ^ a b Health, Center for Devices and Radiological (June 20, 2019). "Products for Security Screening of People". FDA.
  4. ^ Pickler, Nedra (March 10, 2011). "Group says body scanners an 'unreasonable search'". The Washington Post.
  5. ^ . Tek84.com. Archived from the original on September 8, 2010. Retrieved August 16, 2010.
  6. ^ Hamilton, John (January 14, 2010) New Airport Body Scans Don't Detect All Weapons. National Public Radio
  7. ^ J. L. McCrohan and K. R. Shelton Waters. Response to UCSF regarding their letter of concern [40], Oct. 2010. http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/ RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/ SecuritySystems/ucm231857.htm.
  8. ^ Newpoff, Laura (August 2, 2004). "Battelle fund puts money in security system maker".
  9. ^ "SafeView". March 2006.
  10. ^ "L3 Communications buys SafeView". March 21, 2006.
  11. ^ . March 29, 2006. Archived from the original on August 13, 2022. Retrieved June 4, 2022.
  12. ^ "Leidos completes acquisition of L3Harris Technologies' Security Detection and Automation Businesses creating a comprehensive, global security and detection portfolio". May 4, 2020.
  13. ^ "Brijot Acquires Rights to Lockheed Martin-Developed Technology for Design and Development of Concealed Weapons Detection Camera, Supporting Counter-Terrorism and Homeland Security Efforts". Business Wire. Orlando. August 20, 2002.[dead link]
  14. ^ "Italy to abandon airport body scanners". The Sydney Morning Herald. September 24, 2010.
  15. ^ Member States must decide on airport body scanners: EC – EU business news. EUbusiness.com (June 16, 2010). Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  16. ^ . Australian Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
  17. ^ . jetstar.com
  18. ^ Ryan, Rosanna (February 6, 2012). "No opt-out rule for airport body scanners – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)". ABC News. Abc.net.au. Retrieved December 19, 2016.
  19. ^ . www.newcastleairport.com.au. Archived from the original on December 24, 2019. Retrieved December 24, 2019.
  20. ^ Puhanic, Andrew. . theglobalistreport.com
  21. ^ "Airport body scanner testing in Australia shows high error rate". news.com.au. October 26, 2011.
  22. ^ Schneider, Kate (August 11, 2010). "Outrage as 'naked scans' stored by police". The Australian.
  23. ^ . CBS News. Archived from the original on August 25, 2012.
  24. ^ "INTERACTIVE MAP: Canadian airports with full body scanners – CityNews". Citynews.ca. January 14, 2015. Retrieved December 19, 2016.
  25. ^ "Full body scanners at major Canadian airports". Transport Canada. March 24, 2017. Retrieved November 20, 2021.
  26. ^ . Sify. November 26, 2010. Archived from the original on April 1, 2011.
  27. ^ . tsa.gov
  28. ^ . U.S. Transportation Security Administration
  29. ^ a b Vaughan, Jill (December 18, 2015) Privacy Impact Assessment: Update for TSA Advanced Imaging Technology. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
  30. ^ "The TSA Blog: TSA Response to "Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images"". Blog.tsa.gov. August 6, 2010. Retrieved December 19, 2016.
  31. ^ Rossides, Gale D. (February 24, 2010) Letter to Bennie G. Thompson.
  32. ^ a b Rothman, Wilson (November 16, 2010). "Leaked U.S. Marshal body scan images revealed". NBC News.
  33. ^ "Increasing Number of Jails, Prisons Using Full-body Digital Scanners | Prison Legal News". www.prisonlegalnews.org. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  34. ^ [1]. U.S. Transportation Security Administration
  35. ^ "Airport scanners 'could break child porn laws'". The Australian. January 5, 2010.
  36. ^ "Scanners to screen London commuters for weapons". BBC News. September 16, 2019. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
  37. ^ "New generation security body scanner unveiled by ThruVision Systems". www.ralspace.stfc.ac.uk. Science and Technology Facilities Council. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
  38. ^ "Full-body scanners market in Asia Pacific is projected to grow at the highest CAGR from 2020 to 2025". M2PressWIRE. Retrieved October 11, 2020.
  39. ^ "ACLU Backgrounder on Body Scanners and 'Virtual Strip Searches'", American Civil Liberties Union. Aclu.org (January 8, 2010). Retrieved on November 1, 2011.
  40. ^ Whole Body Imaging Technology and Body Scanners ("Backscatter" X-ray and Millimeter Wave Screening). EPIC. Retrieved on November 1, 2011.
  41. ^ Savage, David G. (January 13, 2010). "The fight against full-body scanners at airports". Los Angeles Times.
  42. ^ "Pregnancy intimate piercings genitals – What can the naked scanner really see" August 19, 2010, at the Wayback Machine, Bild (December 31, 2009). Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  43. ^ "Privacy Impact Assessment for TSA Whole Body Imaging" (PDF). Retrieved October 19, 2009.
  44. ^ We Do NOT Have All the Same Body Parts and Body Scanners Violates Your Privacy | Airline Reporter | An airline blog on the airline industry. Airline Reporter (August 19, 2010). Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  45. ^ EHRC – Commission issues warning over counter-terrorism measures August 9, 2010, at the Wayback Machine. Equalityhumanrights.com (February 16, 2010). Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  46. ^ Body scanners 'human rights risk' January 19, 2010, at the Wayback Machine. Thisislondon.co.uk (January 17, 2010). Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  47. ^ . The Independent. London. July 1, 2010. Archived from the original on July 3, 2010.
  48. ^ "Why the TSA pat-downs and body scans are unconstitutional". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 30, 2010.
  49. ^ Welch, Andrew (2010). "Full-Body Scanners: Full Protection from Terrorist Attacks or Full-On Violation of the Constitution?" (PDF). Transportation Law Journal. 37: 167–198.
  50. ^ v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program) March 2, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. EPIC. Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  51. ^ "Lawsuit challenges airport full-body scanners", The Boston Globe (August 4, 2010). Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  52. ^ Laing, Keith (July 16, 2011). "Court: TSA's full-body scanners do not violate the Constitution". The Hill.
  53. ^ "Airport X-ray labelled strip search"', The Sydney Morning Herald (December 5, 2006). Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  54. ^ a b Procurement specification for whole body imager devices for checkpoint operations, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
  55. ^ McCullagh, Declan. (August 4, 2010) Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images. News.cnet.com. Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  56. ^ TSA's Frisky New Pat-Downs. Mother Jones (August 24, 2010). Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  57. ^ Passengers shocked by new touchy-feely TSA screening. BostonHerald.com (August 24, 2010). Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  58. ^ Whitehead, John W. (October 25, 2010). . The Rutherford Institute. Archived from the original on October 29, 2010. Retrieved November 30, 2010.
  59. ^ Lundin, Leigh (August 15, 2010). "You show me yours and ..." Florida News. Orlando: Criminal Brief. Remember Homeland Security told the public the scanners aren't capable of storing images? Someone forgot to tell the scanner at the federal courthouse in Orlando ...
  60. ^ 'Peep Show Database of American Travelers' – Video – FoxNews.com October 9, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. Video.foxnews.com. Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  61. ^ The TSA Blog: TSA Response to "Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images". Blog.tsa.gov (June 8, 2010). Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  62. ^ Munzenrieder, Kyle (November 10, 2010). "Meg McLain Tells of Horrifying Body Scanner Incident at Ft. Lauderdale Airport". Miami News. Retrieved November 30, 2010.
  63. ^ The TSA Blog: Response to "Female radio host cuffed to chair, ticket ripped up...". Blog.tsa.gov (November 11, 2010). Retrieved on November 1, 2011.
  64. ^ Legislature of the State of Idaho, House Bill No. 573 June 20, 2010, at the Wayback Machine. (PDF) . Retrieved on November 1, 2011.
  65. ^ Eze, Chinedu (September 21, 2010). "Now Showing at MMIA: Nude Images of Passengers". AllAfrica.com. Lagos. Retrieved November 30, 2010.
  66. ^ Zetter, Kim (February 14, 2012). "Female Passengers Say They Were Targeted for TSA Body Scanners". Wired.
  67. ^ Allen, Ginger (February 3, 2012). "Female Passengers Say They're Targeted By TSA « CBS Dallas / Fort Worth". Dfw.cbslocal.com. Retrieved December 19, 2016.
  68. ^ Security body scans 'cute' mum three times in Dallas airport. NewsComAu (February 15, 2012)
  69. ^ "EU Sets Rules for Full Body Scanners." Air Transport World 49.1 (2012): 18.
  70. ^ Greenberg, Peter. "The Facts About TSA Body Scanners". AARP. Retrieved October 21, 2012.
  71. ^ Orovic, Joseph. . Queens Tribune. Archived from the original on April 2, 2011.
  72. ^ "Sikh outrage at US airport security". Al Jazeera. August 26, 2007.
  73. ^ TRAVEL ADVISORY: Know Your Rights if Asked to Undergo New TSA 'Enhanced Pat-Downs' December 7, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. CAIR-Chicago. Retrieved on November 1, 2011.
  74. ^ Tek84 December 8, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. Tek84 (March 17, 2010). Retrieved on November 1, 2011.
  75. ^ Dillon, Thoman (June 2015). "Airport body scanning: will the American public finally accept?". Journal of Transportation Security. 8 (1–2): 1–16. doi:10.1007/s12198-014-0151-5. S2CID 167530656. ProQuest 1679026667.
  76. ^ "Transgender Passengers". Transportation Security Administration. November 23, 2015. Retrieved October 10, 2016.
  77. ^ Rogers, Katie (September 22, 2015). "T.S.A. Defends Treatment of Transgender Air Traveler". The New York Times. Retrieved October 10, 2016.
  78. ^ "Radiation Dose to Adults From Common Imaging Examinations" (PDF). American College of Radiology. Retrieved November 20, 2021.
  79. ^ a b c d Airport Full Body Scanners Pose No Health Threat: Experts November 20, 2010, at the Wayback Machine . BusinessWeek (January 8, 2010). Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  80. ^ Hayes, John C. (January 8, 2010). "Whole-body airport scanners are basically safe—or are they?". Diagnosticimaging.com. Retrieved December 19, 2016.
  81. ^ Kravets, David (January 18, 2013). "TSA Pulls Plug on Airport Nude Body Scanners".
  82. ^ Rapiscan backscatter contract (World wide Web log), TSA, January 2013.
  83. ^ TSA: How it Works December 3, 2010, at the Wayback Machine. Tsa.gov. Retrieved on November 1, 2011.
  84. ^ ACR Statement on Airport Full-body Scanners and Radiation. Acr.org. Retrieved on November 1, 2011. June 28, 2010, at the Wayback Machine
  85. ^ The TSA Blog: Advanced Imaging Technology: "Radiation Risk Tiny". Blog.tsa.gov. Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  86. ^ Tirone, Jonathan. (February 5, 2010) Airport Body Scanning Raises Radiation Exposure, Committee Says. Bloomberg. Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  87. ^ Experts call for more study into body scanners. The Globe and Mail (January 7, 2010). Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  88. ^ Letter from John W. Sedat et al. on the Dangers of TSA Backscatter Scanners. April 6, 2010
  89. ^ Bloxham, Andy (June 29, 2010). "Airport body scanners 'could give you cancer'". London: The Telegraph.
  90. ^ Tam, Pauline (January 22, 2010). . Canwest News Service. Archived from the original on November 15, 2010.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  91. ^ Lindner, Bill (May 23, 2010). "Radiation from airport scanners may increase cancer risk". Digital Journal.
  92. ^ a b UCSF letter to Holdren concerning health risks of full body scanner TSA screenings 4-6-2010 July 22, 2014, at the Wayback Machine. Scribd.com. Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  93. ^ Carmichael, Scott. (May 18, 2010) Scientists question safety of airport full body scanners. Gadling.com. Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  94. ^ The risk of 'low dose radiation is controversial'. Radiology.ucsf.edu (February 14, 2010). Retrieved on November 1, 2011.
  95. ^ Smiley, Lauren (November 2010). "TSA Scanners: U.C. San Francisco Radiologists Debunk Radiation Fears". SFWeekly.
  96. ^ re: Misinformation on airport body scanner radiation safety July 16, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. A letter to Rush Holt. Tek84. December 2, 2010
  97. ^ Response to University of California – San Francisco Regarding Their Letter of Concern, October 12, 2010. Fda.gov. Retrieved on November 1, 2011.
  98. ^ Backscatter Back-Story | The White House. Whitehouse.gov (November 8, 2010). Retrieved on November 1, 2011.
  99. ^ Gordonsteel, G; Down, J; Peacock, J; Stephens, T (1986). "Dose-rate effects and the repair of radiation damage". Radiotherapy and Oncology. 5 (4): 321–31. doi:10.1016/S0167-8140(86)80181-5. PMID 3726169.
  100. ^ Memo December 15, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. (PDF) . tsa.gov.
  101. ^ Johns Hopkins Lab Full Report version 1 February 5, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. (PDF) . Retrieved on November 1, 2011.
  102. ^ Johns Hopkins Lab Full Report version 2 April 19, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. (PDF) . Retrieved on November 1, 2011.
  103. ^ Structural Shielding Design and Evaluation for Megavoltage Radiotherapy Facilities. (PDF) . Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  104. ^ Tirone, Jonathan (February 5, 2010). "Airport Body Scanning Raises Radiation Exposure, Committee Says". Bloomberg.
  105. ^ ANSI N43.17 (2009) section 7.2.1 and 7.2.2
  106. ^ ANSI N43.17 (2009) section 8.2.2 and 8.2.7
  107. ^ Bogdanich, Walt (July 31, 2010). "After Stroke Scans, Patients Face Serious Health Risks". New York Times.
  108. ^ Jay Stanley: Full Body Scanners: From Airports to the Streets?. Huffingtonpost.com (August 25, 2010). Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  109. ^ Marroquin, Art (March 14, 2011). . LA Daily News. Archived from the original on March 16, 2011. Retrieved March 21, 2011.
  110. ^ Wilson, Simone (March 2011). . LA Weekly. Archived from the original on March 21, 2011. Retrieved March 21, 2011.
  111. ^ . abc4. Archived from the original on April 3, 2011. Retrieved March 21, 2011.
  112. ^ Wald, Matthew L. (January 9, 2010). "Cancer Risks Debated for Type of X-ray Scan". The New York Times.
  113. ^ Calculate Your Radiation Dose | Radiation Protection. US EPA (June 28, 2006). Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  114. ^ TSA: Safety July 9, 2010, at the Wayback Machine. Tsa.gov. Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  115. ^ Body scanning at airports November 24, 2010, at the Wayback Machine. HPA. Retrieved on November 1, 2011.
  116. ^ Microsoft Word – Ethics Of Body Scanner Policy Report August 21, 2010, at the Wayback Machine. (PDF) Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  117. ^ Tek84 May 6, 2014, at the Wayback Machine. Tek84 (March 17, 2010). Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  118. ^ Stoller, Gary. (July 13, 2010) Backlash grows against full-body scanners in airports. Travel.usatoday.com. Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  119. ^ United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs : Press. Hsgac.senate.gov (August 6, 2010). Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  120. ^ "Minority Media | Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee | Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee". www.hsgac.senate.gov. Retrieved October 10, 2020.
  121. ^ Chunovic, Louis (April 6, 2010). . GSN. Archived from the original on July 15, 2010. Retrieved August 10, 2010.
  122. ^ Stanley, Jay (April 8, 2010) "Is the U.S. Encouraging the Use of Radiation on Africans?". Aclu.org. Retrieved on November 1, 2011.
  123. ^ Martín, Hugo (November 11, 2010). "Unions urge pilots to avoid body scanners at airports". Los Angeles Times.
  124. ^ New scanners break child porn laws | Politics. The Guardian. Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  125. ^ Body Scanners Might Violate U.K. Child-Protection Laws | Threat Level. Wired.com. Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  126. ^ "Airport body scanners reveal all, but what about when it's your kid?" August 8, 2010, at the Wayback Machine, St. Petersburg Times. Tampabay.com. Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  127. ^ Kravets, David (March 8, 2011). "Airport 'Nude' Body Scanners: Are They Effective?". Wired. Wired.com. Retrieved December 19, 2016.
  128. ^ Heasley, Andrew (February 1, 2010). "Body scanners no match for latest terror ploy: surgically implanted bombs". Melbourne: The Age.
  129. ^ Al Qaeda Bombers Learn from Drug Smugglers. CBS News (September 28, 2009). Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  130. ^ "$1B of TSA Nude Body Scanners Made Worthless By Blog – How Anyone Can Get Anything Past The Scanners". Tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com. March 6, 2012. Retrieved December 19, 2016.
  131. ^ Moscaritolo, Angela (March 7, 2012). "Blogger Says TSA's Full-Body Scanners Can be Easily Duped". Pcmag.com. Retrieved December 19, 2016.
  132. ^ "TSA Admits $1B Nude Body Scanner Fleet Worthless!". Tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com. April 10, 2012. Retrieved December 19, 2016.
  133. ^ Schneier on Security: German TV on the Failure of Full-Body Scanners. Schneier.com. Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  134. ^ Stinchfield, Grant (February 21, 2011). "TSA Source: Armed Agent Slips Past DFW Body Scanner". NBC.
  135. ^ Levi Julian, Hana (April 25, 2010) Israeli Security Expert to Canada: 'Full Body Scanners Useless'. israelnationalnews.com
  136. ^ Wilkening, David (March 10, 2011). . TravelMole. Archived from the original on March 13, 2011. Retrieved March 10, 2011.
  137. ^ "Security a safe market". The Sydney Morning Herald.
  138. ^ Full-body scanners spark concerns | News February 29, 2012, at the Wayback Machine. The Engineer (January 5, 2010). Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  139. ^ Uliasz, Erik (November 26, 2010). . Philly2Philly. Archived from the original on December 7, 2010. Retrieved November 27, 2010.
  140. ^ In U.S., Air Travelers Take Body Scans in Stride. Gallup.com. Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  141. ^ Are planned airport scanners just a scam? – Home News, UK. The Independent (January 3, 2010). Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  142. ^ Silver, Nate (November 22, 2010) New Poll Suggests Shift in Public Views on T.S.A. Procedures. New York Times.
  143. ^ "You Might be in serious trouble for refusing to be screened". Consumerist.com. November 15, 2010. Retrieved November 22, 2010.
  144. ^ . MSNBC.com. Archived from the original on October 6, 2017. Retrieved November 22, 2010.
  145. ^ "CBS News Poll: 11/15/10". CBS News. November 15, 2010.
  146. ^ Ex-Homeland Security chief head said to abuse public trust by touting body scanners. washingtonpost.com (December 31, 2009). Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  147. ^ Ridgeway, James (January 2010). "The Airport Scanner Scam". Mother Jones.
  148. ^ The TSA and the full-body-scanner lobby. Washington Examiner (December 29, 2009). Retrieved on September 26, 2010.
  149. ^ Greenberg, Andy (March 2, 2011). "Documents Reveal TSA Research Proposal To Body-Scan Pedestrians, Train Passengers". Forbes.
  150. ^ Greenberg, Andy (March 9, 2011). "TSA Never Tested Full-Body Scans For Mass Transit, Except When It Did". Forbes.
  151. ^ Halsey, Ashley. "New airport software to end naked scanner images". Seattletimes.com. Retrieved December 19, 2016.
  152. ^ DiNuzzo, Emily (July 20, 2021). "Here's What Airport Body Scanners Really See".
  153. ^ Hachman, Mark. "No more 'naked' full body airport scans after TSA upgrade". PCMAG. Retrieved April 14, 2012.

External links edit

  • Challenge to Airport Body Scanners
  • Alternate ways to screen airport passengers without the need of full body scan
  • National Outcry Over TSA Body Scanners and Invasive Pat-Downs – video report by Democracy Now!
  • Details about body scanners
  • How does an X-ray Baggage Scanner Work?

January 01, 1970
full, body, scanner, this, article, about, body, scanners, security, purposes, other, body, scanning, technologies, body, scanning, this, article, multiple, issues, please, help, improve, discuss, these, issues, talk, page, learn, when, remove, these, template. This article is about body scanners for security purposes For other body scanning technologies see 3D body scanning This article has multiple issues Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page Learn how and when to remove these template messages The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject You may improve this article discuss the issue on the talk page or create a new article as appropriate May 2012 Learn how and when to remove this message This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia s quality standards The specific problem is Incoherently organized and redundant information in some sections Please help improve this article if you can June 2023 Learn how and when to remove this message Learn how and when to remove this message A full body scanner is a device that detects objects on or inside a person s body for security screening purposes without physically removing clothes or making physical contact Unlike metal detectors full body scanners can detect non metal objects which became an increasing concern after various airliner bombing attempts in the 2000s Some scanners can also detect swallowed items or items hidden in the body cavities of a person Starting in 2007 full body scanners started supplementing metal detectors at airports and train stations in many countries Full body scanner in millimeter wave scanners technique at Cologne Bonn Airport Image from an active millimeter wave body scanner Three distinct technologies have been used in practice Millimeter wave scanners use non ionizing electromagnetic radiation similar to that used by wireless data transmitters in the extremely high frequency EHF radio band which is a lower frequency than visible light The health risks posed by these machines are still being studied and the evidence is mixed though millimeter wave scanners do not generate ionizing radiation 1 X ray based scanners Backscatter X ray scanners use low dose radiation for detecting suspicious metallic and non metallic objects hidden under clothing or in shoes and in the cavities of the human body The dosage of radiation received is usually between 0 05 and 0 1 mSv 2 Considerable debate regarding the safety of this method sparked investigations ultimately leading multiple countries to ban the usage of them Transmission X ray scanners use higher dosage penetrating radiation which passes through the human body and then is captured by a detector or array of detectors This type of full body scanners allows to detect objects hidden not only under the clothes but also inside the human body for example drugs carried by drug couriers in the stomach or in natural cavities The dosage received is usually not higher than 0 25 mSv and is mainly regulated by the American radiation safety standard for personal search systems using gamma or X ray radiation 3 Infra red thermal conductivity scanners do not use electromagnetic radiation to penetrate the body or clothing but instead use slight temperature differences on the surface of clothing to detect the presence of foreign objects Thermal conductivity relies on the ability of contraband hidden under clothing to heat or cool the surface of the clothing faster than the skin surface Warm air is used to heat up the surface of the clothing How fast the clothing cools is dependent in part on what is beneath it Items that cool the clothing faster or slower than the surface of the skin will be identified by a thermal image of the clothing These scanners are less often used compared to X ray based and mmWave based scanners Passengers and advocates have objected to images of their naked bodies being displayed to screening agents or recorded by the government Critics have called the imaging virtual strip searches without probable cause and have suggested they are illegal and violate basic human rights 4 However current technology is less intrusive and because of privacy issues most people are allowed to refuse this scan and opt for a traditional pat down Depending on the technology used the operator may see an alternate wavelength image of the person s naked body merely a cartoon like representation of the person with an indicator showing where any suspicious items were detected or full X ray image of the person For privacy and security reasons the display is generally not visible to other passengers and in some cases is located in a separate room where the operator cannot see the face of the person being screened Transmission X ray scanners claim to be more privacy neutral as there is almost no way to distinguish a person but they also have a software able to hide privacy issues Contents 1 History 2 Usage 2 1 Australia 2 2 Canada 2 3 United States 2 4 United Kingdom 2 5 Asia Pacific 3 Controversies 3 1 Privacy 3 2 Treatment of minorities 3 3 Treatment of transgender people 3 4 Health concerns 3 4 1 Millimeter wave scanners 3 4 2 Backscatter X ray scanners 3 5 Child scanning 3 6 Ineffectiveness 3 6 1 Backscatter and millimeter 3 6 2 Transmission penetrating 3 7 US public opinion 3 8 Full body scanner lobbyists 3 9 TSA s expansion of scanning program 3 10 No nudity full body scanner 4 See also 5 References 6 External linksHistory editThe first ultra low dose backscatter X ray full body security scanner was developed by Dr Steven W Smith 5 6 who developed the Secure 1000 whole body scanner in 1992 He subsequently sold the device and associated patents to Rapiscan Systems who now manufacture and distribute the device Safety aspects of the Secure 1000 have been assessed in the US by the Food and Drug Administration the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and other independent sources since the early 1990s 7 In 2000 3 Dr Vladimir Linev patented a system for scanning a person based on transmission penetrating X ray technology focused on the search for unwanted objects and contraband which was later the base for CONPASS body scanner The first millimeter wave full body scanner was developed at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PNNL in Richland Washington The operation is one of the four national laboratories Battelle manages for the U S Department of Energy In the 1990s they patented their 3 D holographic imagery technology with research and development support provided by the TSA and the Federal Aviation Administration FAA 8 In 2002 Silicon Valley startup SafeView Inc obtained an exclusive license to PNNL s background intellectual property to commercialize their technology 9 From 2002 to 2006 SafeView developed a production ready millimeter body scanner system and software which included scanner control algorithms for threat detection and object recognition as well as techniques to conceal raw images in order to resolve privacy concerns During this time SafeView developed foreground IP through several patent applications By 2006 SafeView s body scanning portals had been installed and trialed at various locations around the globe They were installed at border crossings in Israel international airports such as Mexico City and Amsterdam s Schiphol ferry landings in Singapore railway stations in the UK government buildings like The Hague and commercial buildings in Tokyo They were also employed to secure soldiers and workers in Iraq s Green Zone In 2006 SafeView was acquired by L 3 Communications 10 11 From 2006 and 2020 L 3 Communications later L3Harris continued to make incremental enhancements to their scanner systems while deploying thousands of units worldwide In 2020 Leidos acquired L3Harris which included their body scanner business unit 12 The first passive non radiating full body screening camera device was developed by Lockheed Martin through a sponsorship by the National Institute of Justice NIJ s Office of Science and Technology and the United States Air Force Research Laboratory Proof of concept was conducted in 1995 through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency DARPA Rights to this technology were subsequently acquired by Brijot Imaging Systems who further matured a commercial grade product line and now manufacture market and support the passive millimeter wave camera devices 13 Usage editThis section needs to be updated Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information June 2013 source source source source source source source Video from the TSA explaining the procedure Schiphol in the Netherlands was the first airport in the world to implement SafeView s millimeter wave body scanner on a large scale after a test with flight personnel the previous year On May 15 2007 two of 17 purchased security scans were installed The Italian government had planned to install full body scanners at all airport and train stations throughout the country but announced in September 2010 plans to remove the scanners from airports calling them slow and ineffective 14 The European Union currently allows member states to decide whether to implement full body scanners in their countries 15 It is for each member state to decide to authorise the use of scanners in national airports That will not change But where this scanning technology is used it should be covered by EU wide standards on detection capability as well as common safeguards to ensure compliance with EU health and fundamental rights provisions EU Transport Commissioner Siim Kallas Australia edit In Australia the government has decided a no opt out policy will be enforced in relation to screening at airports Persons with medical or physical conditions that prevent them from undertaking a body scan will be offered alternative screening methods suitable to their circumstances Infants and young children under 140 cm will not be selected to undergo a body scan 16 Body scanners are being used at eight of Australia s international airports Adelaide Brisbane Cairns Darwin Gold Coast Melbourne Perth and Sydney 17 So far only passengers exiting via international flights are affected 18 Domestic and international passengers departing Newcastle Port Stephens airport have been subject to body scanning since October 2019 19 Passengers who refuse a scan may be banned from flying 20 The scanners proposed to be used in Australia have shown a high rate of error in testing 21 Public outrage over the nude images created by the body scanners being collected by policy resulted in a lawsuit in 2010 to stop body scanning 22 23 Canada edit In Canada 24 airports currently have these scanners in use using millimeter wave technology Transport Canada notes that Passengers selected for a secondary search can choose between the full body scanner or a physical search 24 25 United States edit In the U S full body scanners have been installed at train stations subways penitentiaries and airports 26 27 After having previously used X ray based scanners the TSA currently uses Millimeter Wave AIT scanners exclusively which show no identifying characteristics of the person being scanned Instead a generic outline of a person is used 28 As of December 2015 While passengers may generally decline AIT screening in favor of physical screening TSA may direct mandatory AIT screening for some passengers as warranted by security considerations in order to safeguard transportation security 29 Regarding privacy concerns the Transportation Security Administration TSA has stated in 2010 that they have not will not and the machines cannot store images of passengers at airports 30 However the TSA later disclosed in a response to the house chair on homeland security that its procurement of airport scanners requires manufacturers to include image storage and transmission features but that these features should be disabled before being placed in an airport The TSA shows 45 individuals have the ability to turn these machines into test mode which enables recording images but states that they would never do this on a production system 31 The US Marshal Service did operate a backscatter machine in a courthouse that records images However in a statement they noted that only individuals involved in a test were recorded A sample of these images was received and disseminated by Gizmodo in 2010 using a Freedom Of Information Request 32 It is not clear if the US Marshal service has put these new scanning machines that have recording capabilities into production The analyst is in a different room and is not supposed to be able to see the person being scanned by the Backscatter X ray AIT but is in contact with other officials who can halt the scanned person if anything suspicious shows up on the scan US Penitentiary is also constantly purchasing 33 X ray full body scanners for contraband and weapons detection purposes The scanners are generally Transmission X ray scanners since these are the only devices capable of detecting metallic and non metallic contraband hidden underneath clothing as well as contraband hidden inside body cavities 34 United Kingdom edit Civil rights groups in Britain in 2010 argued that the body scanning of children contravened the law relating to child pornography 35 Passive infra red scanners have been developed for use in public spaces to collect and analyze natural heat radiation given off by the human body to detect both metallic and non metallic threat objects No external radiation source is used and privacy is preserved as no body details are revealed Police are conducting a trial of the equipment at London rail stations 36 37 Asia Pacific edit During the forecast period of 2020 2025 the Asia Pacific region is projected to grow at the highest market CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate The growth of this region is possibly due to the high airport investments and improvements in prison systems China and India are heavily investing in greenfield airport construction In January 2020 the Indian government decided to equip 84 airports with full body scanners which has led the Indian market to grow at a higher rate 38 Controversies editThis article s criticism or controversy section may compromise the article s neutrality Please help rewrite or integrate negative information to other sections through discussion on the talk page February 2015 Privacy edit Some argue that using a full body scanner is equivalent to a strip search and if used without probable cause violates basic human rights 39 40 41 Full body scanning allows screeners to see the surface of the skin under clothing 42 Prosthetics including breast prostheses and prosthetic testicles may require a potentially embarrassing physical inspection once detected The scanners can also detect other medical equipment normally hidden such as colostomy bags and catheters 43 The transgender community also has privacy concerns 44 that body scanners could lead to their harassment In the UK in 2010 the Equality and Human Rights Commission argued that full body scanners were a risk to human rights and might be breaking the law 45 46 In 2010 the National Human Rights Commission of Korea opposed the use of full body scanners and recommended that they not be deployed at airports 47 Opponents in the US argue that full body scanners and the new TSA patdowns are unconstitutional 48 A comprehensive student note came out in the Fall 2010 issue of the University of Denver Transportation Law Journal arguing that full body scanners are unconstitutional in the United States because they are 1 too invasive and 2 not effective enough because the process is too inefficient 49 On July 2 2010 the Electronic Privacy Information Center EPIC filed a lawsuit to suspend the deployment of full body scanners at airports in the United States 50 EPIC argued that the federal agency has violated the Administrative Procedures Act the Privacy Act the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Fourth Amendment EPIC cited the invasive nature of the devices the TSA s disregard of public opinion and the impact on religious freedom epic org EPIC claimed at that time that full body scanners violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because they subject citizens to a virtual strip search without any evidence of wrongdoing 51 In July 2011 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the use of full body scanners at airport security does not violate the Fourth Amendment 52 The American Civil Liberties Union in 2006 called the machines an invasion of privacy This doesn t only concern genitals but body size body shape and other things like evidence of mastectomies colostomy appliances or catheter tubes These are very personal things that people have every right to keep private and personal aside from the modesty consideration of not wanting to be naked 53 In the United States in 2010 the TSA required that their full body scanners allow exporting of image data in real time 54 and cases of the government s storing of images have been confirmed 55 Travelers at U S airports have complained that when they opted not to be scanned they were subjected to a new type of invasive pat down that one traveler in 2010 described as probing and pushing in my genital area 56 57 Another traveler in the United States complained in 2010 that the TSA employee inserted four fingers of both hands inside my trousers and ran his fingers all the way around my waist his fingers extending at least 2 3 inches below my waistline 58 In August 2010 it was reported that the United States Marshals Service saved thousands of images from a millimeter wave scanner 59 60 TSA part of the Department of Homeland Security reiterated that its own scanners do not save images and that the scanners do not have the capability to save images when they are installed in airports 61 However these statements contradict the TSA s own Procurement Specs which specifically require that the machines have the ability to record and transmit images even if those features might be initially turned off on delivery 54 Opponents have also expressed skepticism that if there were a successful terror attack that the machines could not save images for later inspection to find out what went wrong with the scans On November 16 2010 100 of the stored 35 000 body scan images were leaked online and posted by Gizmodo 32 In November 2010 a female traveler who opted out of a full body scan at Fort Lauderdale International Airport claimed that TSA agents handcuffed her to a chair and ripped up her plane ticket when she asked questions about the new type of invasive pat down she was about to receive 62 In response the TSA posted parts of the security camera footage on their blog though there is no sound in the video and the passenger is not directly in the camera during most of the incident 63 In Idaho a bill was introduced in 2011 to prevent the use of full body scanners as a primary screening method and allow people to request an alternative 64 Wholebody imaging technology may not be used as the sole or primary method of screening persons nor may it be used to screen any person unless another method of screening such as metal detection demonstrates cause for preventing such person from boarding an aircraft or entering a public facility or government building Idaho House Bill no 573 In February 2012 airport employees in Lagos were allegedly discovered wandering away from a cubicle located in a hidden corner on the right side of the screening area to where the 3D full body scanner monitors are located 65 At the Dallas Ft Worth International Airport TSA complaints have been reported to disproportionally stem from women who felt that they were singled out for repeated screening for the entertainment of male security officers 66 67 68 A ruling of the European Council in 2013 required that persons analyzing the image shall be in a separate location and the image shall not be linked to the screened person 69 As of December 15 2015 the TSA published a new policy which required AIT to be mandatory for some passengers for security reasons 29 However most individuals in the US can still opt out of the scanner and choose a pat down if they are uncomfortable going through the scanner Individuals also have the right to be patted down in a private room and have it witnessed by a person of the individual s choice 70 nbsp Passive millimeter wave image and subject being screened Treatment of minorities edit This section needs to be updated Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information June 2023 Current backscatter and millimeter wave scanners installed by the TSA are unable to screen adequately for security threats inside turbans hijab burqas casts prosthetics and loose clothing 71 72 This technology limitation of current scanners often requires these persons to undergo additional screening by hand or other methods and can cause additional delay or feelings of harassment 73 According to a manufacturer of the machines the next generation of backscatter scanners will be able to screen all types of clothing 74 These improved scanners have been designed to equalize the screening process for religious minorities 75 Treatment of transgender people edit Current machines installed by the TSA require agents in the US to designate each passenger as either male or female after which the software compares the passenger s body against a normative body of that sex 76 Transgender passengers have reported that full body scanners at several U S airports have falsely raised alarms based on their anatomy 77 Health concerns edit Health concerns relating to the use of full body scanning technology are present especially pertaining to the use of X ray scanners The issue is mainly regulated by ANSI 43 17 2009 which limits the dose on a per person basis However this 2010 era document is intended to apply primarily in the context of standard civilian airport security It is generally not considered applicable to unusual terrorism threat detection concerns in high security environments prisons special purpose airports or military institutions Nor is ANSI 43 17 2009 considered to be the appropriate standard for highly concealed threats such liquid bombs inside body cavities or swallowed drugs Due to fundamental physical limitations of how each type of detection technology functions these highly covert types of threats are impossible to detect by any means other than transmission X rays From the perspective of annual dosage the ANSI 43 17 2009 standard stipulates that a transmission X ray dosage of 0 25 mSv per scan in conjunction with an annual total limit at 250 mSv equates to a per person maximum of such 1000 scans per year for a civilian aviation passenger However counting all medical X ray procedures as a typical person might undergo in an average year and if the total annual dose of 250 mSv is taken to include all medical related doses then the number of flights scans permitted for that person could be greatly reduced assuming that transmission type X ray technology is used at each security screening that the civil aviation passenger undergoes But because the medical X ray dosages vary tremendously over several orders of magnitude depending on the diagnostic procedures that the patient is subjected to the proportional contribution of airport security X raying to the person s total annual dosage cannot be calculated unless an accounting of the medical X ray dosages is also present 78 Millimeter wave scanners edit Main article Millimeter wave scanner Currently adopted millimeter wave scanners operate in the millimeter or sub terahertz band using non ionizing radiation and have no proven adverse health effects though no long term studies have been done 79 Thomas S Tenforde president of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements said in 2010 that millimeter wave scanners are probably within bounds of standards for safe operation but there should be an effort to verify that they are safe for frequent use 79 80 Backscatter X ray scanners edit This section may be too long to read and navigate comfortably Consider splitting content into sub articles condensing it or adding subheadings Please discuss this issue on the article s talk page June 2023 In the United States the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 required that all full body scanners operated in airports by the Transportation Security Administration use Automated Target Recognition software which replaces the picture of a nude body with the cartoon like representation 81 As a result of this law all backscatter X ray machines formerly in use by the Transportation Security Administration were removed from airports by May 2013 since the agency said the vendor Rapiscan did not meet their contractual deadline to implement the software 82 nbsp Some backscatter technology produces an image that resembles a chalk etching though other configurations produce much more detailed images and there is still a possibility that the lower quality images can be easily switched to a higher resolution 83 Several radiation safety authorities including the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements The Health Physics Society and the American College of Radiology have stated that they are not aware of any evidence 84 that full body scans are unsafe 85 However other radiation authorities including the International Atomic Energy Agency and Nuclear Energy Agency recommend against using ionizing radiation on certain populations like pregnant women and children 86 and opponents of the devices say that no long term studies have been done on the health effects of either backscatter X ray or millimeter wave scanners 87 Richard Morin a medical physicist at the Mayo Clinic has said that he is not concerned about health effects from backscatter X ray scanners 79 Perhaps the most notable and debated professional opinion in regard to the safety of scanners is the so called Holdren Letter from a number of world renowned biochemists and biophysics researchers from the University of California to the Assistant to the US President for Science and Technology Dr John P Holdren The opening paragraph of their letter of concern reads We a number of University of California San Francisco faculty are writing see attached memo to call your attention to our concerns about the potential serious health risks of the recently adopted whole body back scatter X ray airport security scanners This is an urgent situation as these X ray scanners are rapidly being implemented as a primary screening step for all air travel passengers 88 Critics of backscatter X ray scanners including the head of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University say that the radiation emitted by some full body scanners is as much as 20 times stronger than officially reported and is not safe to use on large numbers of persons because of an increased risk of cancer to children and at risk populations 89 90 91 Researchers at the University of California San Francisco UCSF have argued that the amount of radiation is higher than claimed by the TSA and body scanner manufacturers because the doses were calculated as if distributed throughout the whole body but the radiation from backscatter X ray scanners is focused on just the skin and surrounding tissues 92 93 94 However other professors in the UCSF radiology department disagree saying that the radiation dose is low 95 The conclusions are wrong Ronald Arenson professor of radiology tells SF Weekly of his own institution s letter People who are totally unrelated to radiation wrote it It was senior faculty at UCSF They re smart people and well intended but their conclusions I think were off base They don t understand how radiation translates to an actual dose in the human body Dr Steve Smith inventor of the body scanner in 1991 and president of Tek84 one of the companies that produces the machines has stated that the concerns of Dr Brenner and UCSF Scientists regarding the skin dose of backscatter scanners are incorrect He states the values used for X ray penetration were incorrectly based on the description of the imaging depth which describes what the instrument sees and is a few mm into the skin and the dosage depth which is deeper He describes experimental proof that the X rays have the same properties as any other X rays and the penetration is correct to be averaged over the whole body Dr Smith has provided measured data from an operating body scanner to explain his position 96 In October 2010 The TSA responded to the concerns of UCSF researchers via the White House science advisor 97 98 Scanners also concentrate the dose in time because they deliver a high dose rate at the moment of exposure High dose rate exposure has been shown to cause greater damage than the same radiation dose delivered at lower rates 99 This raises further questions about comparisons to background radiation The U S TSA has also made public various independent safety assessments of the Secure 1000 Backscatter X ray Scanner 100 101 102 Dr Andrew J Einstein director of cardiac CT research at Columbia University has made the following statements in support of the safety of body scanners 79 A passenger would need to be scanned using a backscatter scanner from both the front and the back about 200 000 times to receive the amount of radiation equal to one typical CT scan 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 the dose of a typical CT scan By comparison the amount of radiation from a backscatter scanner is equivalent to about 10 minutes of natural background radiation in the United States I believe that the general public has nothing to worry about in terms of the radiation from airline scanning For moms to be no evidence supports an increased risk of miscarriage or fetal abnormalities from these scanners A pregnant woman will receive much more radiation from cosmic rays she is exposed to while flying than from passing through a scanner in the airport In May 2010 the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements issued a press release in response to the health risk claims from UCSF and Columbia University claims of excessive skin dose and risks to large populations vs individuals The NCRP claims that cancer risks cited by opponents are completely inaccurate 103 All the same the Inter Agency Committee on Radiation Safety which includes the International Atomic Energy Agency Nuclear Energy Agency and the World Health Organization reported that Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning even though the radiation dose from body scanners is extremely small 104 It has also been suggested that defects in the machines damage from normal wear and tear or software errors could focus an intense dose of radiation on just one spot of the body 92 Proponents of backscatter X ray scanners argue that the ANSI N43 17 standard addresses safety requirements and engineering design of the systems to prevent the occurrence of accidental high radiation due to defects and errors in hardware and software Safety requirements include fail safe controls multiple overlapping interlocks and engineering design to ensure that failure of any systems result in safe or non operation of the system to reduce the chance of accidental exposures Furthermore TSA requires that certification to the ANSI N43 17 standard is performed by a third party and not by the manufacturer themselves 105 106 But there are cases where types of medical scanning machines operated by trained medical personnel have malfunctioned causing serious injury to patients that were scanned 107 Critics of full body scanners cite these incidents as examples of how radiation based scanning machines can overdose people with radiation despite all safety precautions 108 In March 2011 it was found that some of the full body scanners in the US were emitting 10 times the normal level of radiation 109 110 111 Contractors charged with routinely examining the scanners submitted reports containing discrepancies including mathematical miscalculations showing that some of the devices emitted radiation levels 10 times higher than normal Peter Kant executive vice president of Rapiscan Systems said that In our review of the surveys we found instances where a technician incorrectly did his math and came up with results that showed the radiation readings were off by a factor of 10 The X rays from backscatter scanners are a form of ionizing radiation that is radiation powerful enough to strip molecules in the body of their electrons creating charged particles that cause cell damage and are thought to be the mechanism through which radiation causes cancer 112 Humans are exposed to background radiation every day anywhere on earth 113 and proponents of backscatter X ray scanners say that the devices expose subjects to levels of radiation equivalent to background radiation Furthermore when traveling on an airplane passengers are exposed to much higher levels of radiation than on earth due to altitude Proponents say that a backscatter X ray scan is equivalent to the radiation received during two minutes of flying 114 The UK Health Protection Agency has also issued a statement that the radiation dose from backscatter scanners is very low and about the same as one hour of background radiation 115 The European Commission issued a report stating that backscatter X ray scanners pose no known health risk but suggested that backscatter X ray scanners which expose people to ionizing radiation should not be used when millimeter wave scanners that have less effects on the human body are available 116 Assuming all other conditions equal there is no reason to adopt X ray backscatters which expose the subject to an additional although negligible source of ionizing radiations Other WBI Whole Body Imaging technologies should be preferred for standard use However the European Commission s report provides no data substantiating the claim that all other conditions are equal One area where backscatter X ray scanners can provide better performance than millimeter wave scanners for example is in the inspection of the shoes groin and armpit regions of the body 117 The European Commission also recommended that alternate screening methods should be used on pregnant women babies children and people with disabilities 118 In the United States Senator Susan Collins Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee sent a letter on August 6 2010 to the Secretary of Homeland Security and Administrator of the TSA requesting that the TSA have the Department s Chief Medical Officer working with independent experts conduct a review of the health effects of their use for travelers TSA employees and airport and airline personnel 119 The TSA has completed this review 120 full citation needed The U S government is also supplying higher radiation through body X ray machines to at least two African countries for the purposes of airport security the kind that can see through flesh and which deliver real doses of radiation The U S supplied scanners have apparently been deployed at one airport in Ghana and four in Nigeria 121 This has caused some to question how far the U S government intends to go with the technology 122 Unions for airline pilots working for American Airlines and US Airways have urged pilots to avoid the full body scanners 123 Child scanning edit There is controversy over full body scanners in some countries because the machines create images of virtual strip searches on persons under the age of 18 which may violate child pornography laws In the UK the scanners may be breaking the Protection of Children Act of 1978 by creating images or pseudo images of nude children 124 125 Parents have complained that their young children are being virtually strip searched sometimes without their parents present 126 Ineffectiveness edit Backscatter and millimeter edit Some critics suggest that full body scanner technology is ineffective for multiple reasons including that they can easily be bypassed and a study published in the November 2010 edition of the Journal of Transportation Security suggested terrorists might fool the Rapiscan machines and others like it employing the X ray backscatter technique A terrorist the report found could tape a thin film of explosives of about 15 20 centimeters in diameter to the stomach and walk through the machine undetected 127 Terrorists have already evolved their tactics with the use of surgically implanted bombs or bombs hidden in body cavities 128 129 In March 2012 scientist and blogger Jonathan Corbett demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the machines by publishing a viral video showing how he was able to get a metal box through backscatter X ray and millimeter wave scanners in two US airports 130 131 In April 2012 Corbett released a second video interviewing a TSA screener who described firearms and simulated explosives passing through the scanners during internal testing and training 132 In another test of the full body scanners the machines failed to detect bomb parts hidden around a person s body 133 And in a different test in 2011 an undercover TSA agent was able to carry a handgun through full body scanners multiple times without the weapon being detected However in this case the TSA agent who was in charge of viewing the scanned images was simply not paying attention 134 Furthermore an Israeli airport security expert Rafi Sela who helped design security at Ben Gurion International Airport has said I don t know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747 That s why we haven t put them in our airport 135 Again despite the scanners the TSA has been unable to stop weapons like box cutters and pistols from being carried onto airplanes 136 The Australia government has been challenged over the effectiveness and cost of full body scanners by public media to which Australian Transport Minister Anthony Albanese has said he makes no apologies for mandating the installation of full body scanners at Australian airports 137 Two alternatives that have been argued for by experts such as Prof Chris Mayhew from Birmingham University are chemical based scanners and bomb sniffing dogs 138 Others have argued that passenger profiling as done by Israeli airport security should replace full body scanners and patdowns 139 Transmission penetrating edit nbsp Artificial Intelligence software detecting objects on the human body X ray image in transmission penetrating body scanner Unlike the above transmission technology allows to detect objects swallowed or hidden inside the objects This is the main reason it is commonly used in prisons and jails However the current technology does not allow the dual energy body scanning and detecting the object by its atomic number like it is used in baggage or vehicle X ray scanners which could give the image the same detection effectiveness as regular black and white X ray This leads to the idea that human held detection finding threats by looking at the image and finding non common to the human body items is the most effective way to find a contraband However counting a human factor fatigue decreased attention threats still could be missed Modern software based on Artificial Intelligence in full body scanners is designed to minimize human faults and rise the detection effectiveness of this method US public opinion edit A Gallup poll given just after the 2009 Christmas Day bombing attempt suggested that 78 of American airline travelers approved of body scanners while 20 disapproved 51 indicated that they would have some level of discomfort with full body scans while 48 said they would not be uncomfortable with the idea 140 The poll was given in the context of the 2009 Christmas Day bombing attempt and some opponents of full body scanners say that the explosives used in that bombing attempt would not have been detected by full body scanners 141 An ABC Washington Post poll conducted by Langer Associates and released November 22 2010 found that 64 percent of Americans favored the full body X ray scanners but that 50 percent think the enhanced pat downs go too far 37 percent felt so strongly In addition the poll states opposition is lowest amongst those who fly less than once a year 142 As of 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 scans 143 Additionally as of November 23 2010 a poll of MSNBC 8 500 online readers indicated 84 1 believe the new procedures would not increase travel safety 144 According to a CBS telephone poll of 1 137 people published in November 2010 81 5 percent of those polled approved TSA s use of full body scans 145 Full body scanner lobbyists edit Former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has been criticized for heavily promoting full body scanners while not always fully disclosing that he is a lobbyist for one of the companies that makes the machines 146 147 Other full body scanner lobbyists with government connections include 148 former TSA deputy administrator Tom Blank former assistant administrator for policy at the TSA Chad Wolf Kevin Patrick Kelly a former top staffer to Sen Barbara Mikulski D Md who sits on the Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee Former Senator Al D Amato TSA s expansion of scanning program edit Forbes magazine reported in March 2011 that 149 150 Newly uncovered documents show that as early as 2008 the Department of Homeland Security has been planning pilot programs to deploy mobile scanning units that can be set up at public events and in train stations along with mobile x ray vans capable of scanning pedestrians on city streets and that the TSA had research proposals to bring full body scanners to train stations mass transit and public events Contracts included in the EPIC release showed plans to develop long range scans that could assess what a subject carried from 30 feet away along with studies that involved systems for x ray scanners mounted in vans and covert scans of pedestrians No nudity full body scanner edit Millimeter wave scanner software transitioned to featureless male or female cartoons in 2011 in response to widescale privacy concerns 151 Currently the millimeter wave scanner monitor shows a generic cookie cutter like outline of a person and highlights potential threats It is the same image no matter the individual s gender height or body type The scanner software recognizes metallic and non metallic items hiding under clothing The machine then processes an image using yellow boxes to point out any areas that may need additional screening 152 TSA Administrator John Pistole stated that Our top priority is the safety of the traveling public and TSA constantly strives to explore and implement new technologies that enhance security and strengthen privacy protections for the traveling public This software upgrade enables us to continue providing a high level of security through advanced imaging technology screening while improving the passenger experience at checkpoints 153 See also edit3D scanner 3D body scanning Explosives trace detection portal machine puffer machine Full body CT scan in medical imaging References edit Harwood Matthew March 5 2010 Companies Seek Full Body Scans That Ease Health Privacy Concerns Security Management Archived from the original on October 6 2014 a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a CS1 maint bot original URL status unknown link AMAZING RESULTS OF THE SCANNER THAT SEES EVERYTHING Moscow Domodedovo Airport October 2 2006 Archived from the original on March 3 2016 a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a CS1 maint bot original URL status unknown link a b Health Center for Devices and Radiological June 20 2019 Products for Security Screening of People FDA Pickler Nedra March 10 2011 Group says body scanners an unreasonable search The Washington Post Steven W Smith Original Developer of Secure 1000 in 1992 Tek84 com Archived from the original on September 8 2010 Retrieved August 16 2010 Hamilton John January 14 2010 New Airport Body Scans Don t Detect All Weapons National Public Radio J L McCrohan and K R Shelton Waters Response to UCSF regarding their letter of concern 40 Oct 2010 http www fda gov Radiation EmittingProducts RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures SecuritySystems ucm231857 htm Newpoff Laura August 2 2004 Battelle fund puts money in security system maker SafeView March 2006 L3 Communications buys SafeView March 21 2006 L 3 Communications Acquires Two Leaders in Threat Detection for Military and Homeland Security Applications March 29 2006 Archived from the original on August 13 2022 Retrieved June 4 2022 Leidos completes acquisition of L3Harris Technologies Security Detection and Automation Businesses creating a comprehensive global security and detection portfolio May 4 2020 Brijot Acquires Rights to Lockheed Martin Developed Technology for Design and Development of Concealed Weapons Detection Camera Supporting Counter Terrorism and Homeland Security Efforts Business Wire Orlando August 20 2002 dead link Italy to abandon airport body scanners The Sydney Morning Herald September 24 2010 Member States must decide on airport body scanners EC EU business news EUbusiness com June 16 2010 Retrieved on September 26 2010 Airport Body Scanners Frequently Asked Questions Australian Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development Body scanners jetstar com Ryan Rosanna February 6 2012 No opt out rule for airport body scanners ABC News Australian Broadcasting Corporation ABC News Abc net au Retrieved December 19 2016 Security www newcastleairport com au Archived from the original on December 24 2019 Retrieved December 24 2019 Puhanic Andrew Australia Becomes First to Ban Travelers Who Refuse Naked Body Scanners theglobalistreport com Airport body scanner testing in Australia shows high error rate news com au October 26 2011 Schneider Kate August 11 2010 Outrage as naked scans stored by police The Australian Do New Airport Body Scanners Violate Child Porn Laws Brits Balking at US Security Demands CBS News Archived from the original on August 25 2012 INTERACTIVE MAP Canadian airports with full body scanners CityNews Citynews ca January 14 2015 Retrieved December 19 2016 Full body scanners at major Canadian airports Transport Canada March 24 2017 Retrieved November 20 2021 Now body scanners could be deployed at US train stations subways other mass transits Sify November 26 2010 Archived from the original on April 1 2011 Advanced Imaging Technology AIT tsa gov AIT How it Works U S Transportation Security Administration a b Vaughan Jill December 18 2015 Privacy Impact Assessment Update for TSA Advanced Imaging Technology U S Department of Homeland Security The TSA Blog TSA Response to Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images Blog tsa gov August 6 2010 Retrieved December 19 2016 Rossides Gale D February 24 2010 Letter to Bennie G Thompson a b Rothman Wilson November 16 2010 Leaked U S Marshal body scan images revealed NBC News Increasing Number of Jails Prisons Using Full body Digital Scanners Prison Legal News www prisonlegalnews org Retrieved June 18 2020 1 U S Transportation Security Administration Airport scanners could break child porn laws The Australian January 5 2010 Scanners to screen London commuters for weapons BBC News September 16 2019 Retrieved September 17 2019 New generation security body scanner unveiled by ThruVision Systems www ralspace stfc ac uk Science and Technology Facilities Council Retrieved September 17 2019 Full body scanners market in Asia Pacific is projected to grow at the highest CAGR from 2020 to 2025 M2PressWIRE Retrieved October 11 2020 ACLU Backgrounder on Body Scanners and Virtual Strip Searches American Civil Liberties Union Aclu org January 8 2010 Retrieved on November 1 2011 Whole Body Imaging Technology and Body Scanners Backscatter X ray and Millimeter Wave Screening EPIC Retrieved on November 1 2011 Savage David G January 13 2010 The fight against full body scanners at airports Los Angeles Times Pregnancy intimate piercings genitals What can the naked scanner really see Archived August 19 2010 at the Wayback Machine Bild December 31 2009 Retrieved on September 26 2010 Privacy Impact Assessment for TSA Whole Body Imaging PDF Retrieved October 19 2009 We Do NOT Have All the Same Body Parts and Body Scanners Violates Your Privacy Airline Reporter An airline blog on the airline industry Airline Reporter August 19 2010 Retrieved on September 26 2010 EHRC Commission issues warning over counter terrorism measures Archived August 9 2010 at the Wayback Machine Equalityhumanrights com February 16 2010 Retrieved on September 26 2010 Body scanners human rights risk Archived January 19 2010 at the Wayback Machine Thisislondon co uk January 17 2010 Retrieved on September 26 2010 S Korean human rights body opposes airport body scanners The Independent London July 1 2010 Archived from the original on July 3 2010 Why the TSA pat downs and body scans are unconstitutional The Washington Post Retrieved November 30 2010 Welch Andrew 2010 Full Body Scanners Full Protection from Terrorist Attacks or Full On Violation of the Constitution PDF Transportation Law Journal 37 167 198 v DHS Suspension of Body Scanner Program Archived March 2 2013 at the Wayback Machine EPIC Retrieved on September 26 2010 Lawsuit challenges airport full body scanners The Boston Globe August 4 2010 Retrieved on September 26 2010 Laing Keith July 16 2011 Court TSA s full body scanners do not violate the Constitution The Hill Airport X ray labelled strip search The Sydney Morning Herald December 5 2006 Retrieved on September 26 2010 a b Procurement specification for whole body imager devices for checkpoint operations U S Department of Homeland Security McCullagh Declan August 4 2010 Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images News cnet com Retrieved on September 26 2010 TSA s Frisky New Pat Downs Mother Jones August 24 2010 Retrieved on September 26 2010 Passengers shocked by new touchy feely TSA screening BostonHerald com August 24 2010 Retrieved on September 26 2010 Whitehead John W October 25 2010 Michael Roberts One Man Against the Surveillance State The Rutherford Institute Archived from the original on October 29 2010 Retrieved November 30 2010 Lundin Leigh August 15 2010 You show me yours and Florida News Orlando Criminal Brief Remember Homeland Security told the public the scanners aren t capable of storing images Someone forgot to tell the scanner at the federal courthouse in Orlando Peep Show Database of American Travelers Video FoxNews com Archived October 9 2011 at the Wayback Machine Video foxnews com Retrieved on September 26 2010 The TSA Blog TSA Response to Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images Blog tsa gov June 8 2010 Retrieved on September 26 2010 Munzenrieder Kyle November 10 2010 Meg McLain Tells of Horrifying Body Scanner Incident at Ft Lauderdale Airport Miami News Retrieved November 30 2010 The TSA Blog Response to Female radio host cuffed to chair ticket ripped up Blog tsa gov November 11 2010 Retrieved on November 1 2011 Legislature of the State of Idaho House Bill No 573 Archived June 20 2010 at the Wayback Machine PDF Retrieved on November 1 2011 Eze Chinedu September 21 2010 Now Showing at MMIA Nude Images of Passengers AllAfrica com Lagos Retrieved November 30 2010 Zetter Kim February 14 2012 Female Passengers Say They Were Targeted for TSA Body Scanners Wired Allen Ginger February 3 2012 Female Passengers Say They re Targeted By TSA CBS Dallas Fort Worth Dfw cbslocal com Retrieved December 19 2016 Security body scans cute mum three times in Dallas airport NewsComAu February 15 2012 EU Sets Rules for Full Body Scanners Air Transport World 49 1 2012 18 Greenberg Peter The Facts About TSA Body Scanners AARP Retrieved October 21 2012 Orovic Joseph Sikhs Cautioned Over Random Air Searches Queens Tribune Archived from the original on April 2 2011 Sikh outrage at US airport security Al Jazeera August 26 2007 TRAVEL ADVISORY Know Your Rights if Asked to Undergo New TSA Enhanced Pat Downs Archived December 7 2013 at the Wayback Machine CAIR Chicago Retrieved on November 1 2011 Tek84 Archived December 8 2013 at the Wayback Machine Tek84 March 17 2010 Retrieved on November 1 2011 Dillon Thoman June 2015 Airport body scanning will the American public finally accept Journal of Transportation Security 8 1 2 1 16 doi 10 1007 s12198 014 0151 5 S2CID 167530656 ProQuest 1679026667 Transgender Passengers Transportation Security Administration November 23 2015 Retrieved October 10 2016 Rogers Katie September 22 2015 T S A Defends Treatment of Transgender Air Traveler The New York Times Retrieved October 10 2016 Radiation Dose to Adults From Common Imaging Examinations PDF American College of Radiology Retrieved November 20 2021 a b c d Airport Full Body Scanners Pose No Health Threat Experts Archived November 20 2010 at the Wayback Machine BusinessWeek January 8 2010 Retrieved on September 26 2010 Hayes John C January 8 2010 Whole body airport scanners are basically safe or are they Diagnosticimaging com Retrieved December 19 2016 Kravets David January 18 2013 TSA Pulls Plug on Airport Nude Body Scanners Rapiscan backscatter contract World wide Web log TSA January 2013 TSA How it Works Archived December 3 2010 at the Wayback Machine Tsa gov Retrieved on November 1 2011 ACR Statement on Airport Full body Scanners and Radiation Acr org Retrieved on November 1 2011 Archived June 28 2010 at the Wayback Machine The TSA Blog Advanced Imaging Technology Radiation Risk Tiny Blog tsa gov Retrieved on September 26 2010 Tirone Jonathan February 5 2010 Airport Body Scanning Raises Radiation Exposure Committee Says Bloomberg Retrieved on September 26 2010 Experts call for more study into body scanners The Globe and Mail January 7 2010 Retrieved on September 26 2010 Letter from John W Sedat et al on the Dangers of TSA Backscatter Scanners April 6 2010 Bloxham Andy June 29 2010 Airport body scanners could give you cancer London The Telegraph Tam Pauline January 22 2010 Some full body scanners not without cancer risk Experts Canwest News Service Archived from the original on November 15 2010 a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a CS1 maint bot original URL status unknown link Lindner Bill May 23 2010 Radiation from airport scanners may increase cancer risk Digital Journal a b UCSF letter to Holdren concerning health risks of full body scanner TSA screenings 4 6 2010 Archived July 22 2014 at the Wayback Machine Scribd com Retrieved on September 26 2010 Carmichael Scott May 18 2010 Scientists question safety of airport full body scanners Gadling com Retrieved on September 26 2010 The risk of low dose radiation is controversial Radiology ucsf edu February 14 2010 Retrieved on November 1 2011 Smiley Lauren November 2010 TSA Scanners U C San Francisco Radiologists Debunk Radiation Fears SFWeekly re Misinformation on airport body scanner radiation safety Archived July 16 2011 at the Wayback Machine A letter to Rush Holt Tek84 December 2 2010 Response to University of California San Francisco Regarding Their Letter of Concern October 12 2010 Fda gov Retrieved on November 1 2011 Backscatter Back Story The White House Whitehouse gov November 8 2010 Retrieved on November 1 2011 Gordonsteel G Down J Peacock J Stephens T 1986 Dose rate effects and the repair of radiation damage Radiotherapy and Oncology 5 4 321 31 doi 10 1016 S0167 8140 86 80181 5 PMID 3726169 Memo Archived December 15 2011 at the Wayback Machine PDF tsa gov Johns Hopkins Lab Full Report version 1 Archived February 5 2011 at the Wayback Machine PDF Retrieved on November 1 2011 Johns Hopkins Lab Full Report version 2 Archived April 19 2011 at the Wayback Machine PDF Retrieved on November 1 2011 Structural Shielding Design and Evaluation for Megavoltage Radiotherapy Facilities PDF Retrieved on September 26 2010 Tirone Jonathan February 5 2010 Airport Body Scanning Raises Radiation Exposure Committee Says Bloomberg ANSI N43 17 2009 section 7 2 1 and 7 2 2 ANSI N43 17 2009 section 8 2 2 and 8 2 7 Bogdanich Walt July 31 2010 After Stroke Scans Patients Face Serious Health Risks New York Times Jay Stanley Full Body Scanners From Airports to the Streets Huffingtonpost com August 25 2010 Retrieved on September 26 2010 Marroquin Art March 14 2011 Full body scanners to be retested LA Daily News Archived from the original on March 16 2011 Retrieved March 21 2011 Wilson Simone March 2011 Forget Japan s Radiation Cloud Could a TSA Scanner at LAX Give You Cancer LA Weekly Archived from the original on March 21 2011 Retrieved March 21 2011 Body scanners show high radiation levels abc4 Archived from the original on April 3 2011 Retrieved March 21 2011 Wald Matthew L January 9 2010 Cancer Risks Debated for Type of X ray Scan The New York Times Calculate Your Radiation Dose Radiation Protection US EPA June 28 2006 Retrieved on September 26 2010 TSA Safety Archived July 9 2010 at the Wayback Machine Tsa gov Retrieved on September 26 2010 Body scanning at airports Archived November 24 2010 at the Wayback Machine HPA Retrieved on November 1 2011 Microsoft Word Ethics Of Body Scanner Policy Report Archived August 21 2010 at the Wayback Machine PDF Retrieved on September 26 2010 Tek84 Archived May 6 2014 at the Wayback Machine Tek84 March 17 2010 Retrieved on September 26 2010 Stoller Gary July 13 2010 Backlash grows against full body scanners in airports Travel usatoday com Retrieved on September 26 2010 United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs Press Hsgac senate gov August 6 2010 Retrieved on September 26 2010 Minority Media Homeland Security amp Governmental Affairs Committee Homeland Security amp Governmental Affairs Committee www hsgac senate gov Retrieved October 10 2020 Chunovic Louis April 6 2010 Ghana adds Soter through body X ray security scanner GSN Archived from the original on July 15 2010 Retrieved August 10 2010 Stanley Jay April 8 2010 Is the U S Encouraging the Use of Radiation on Africans Aclu org Retrieved on November 1 2011 Martin Hugo November 11 2010 Unions urge pilots to avoid body scanners at airports Los Angeles Times New scanners break child porn laws Politics The Guardian Retrieved on September 26 2010 Body Scanners Might Violate U K Child Protection Laws Threat Level Wired com Retrieved on September 26 2010 Airport body scanners reveal all but what about when it s your kid Archived August 8 2010 at the Wayback Machine St Petersburg Times Tampabay com Retrieved on September 26 2010 Kravets David March 8 2011 Airport Nude Body Scanners Are They Effective Wired Wired com Retrieved December 19 2016 Heasley Andrew February 1 2010 Body scanners no match for latest terror ploy surgically implanted bombs Melbourne The Age Al Qaeda Bombers Learn from Drug Smugglers CBS News September 28 2009 Retrieved on September 26 2010 1B of TSA Nude Body Scanners Made Worthless By Blog How Anyone Can Get Anything Past The Scanners Tsaoutofourpants wordpress com March 6 2012 Retrieved December 19 2016 Moscaritolo Angela March 7 2012 Blogger Says TSA s Full Body Scanners Can be Easily Duped Pcmag com Retrieved December 19 2016 TSA Admits 1B Nude Body Scanner Fleet Worthless Tsaoutofourpants wordpress com April 10 2012 Retrieved December 19 2016 Schneier on Security German TV on the Failure of Full Body Scanners Schneier com Retrieved on September 26 2010 Stinchfield Grant February 21 2011 TSA Source Armed Agent Slips Past DFW Body Scanner NBC Levi Julian Hana April 25 2010 Israeli Security Expert to Canada Full Body Scanners Useless israelnationalnews com Wilkening David March 10 2011 TSA can t even find box cutters TravelMole Archived from the original on March 13 2011 Retrieved March 10 2011 Security a safe market The Sydney Morning Herald Full body scanners spark concerns News Archived February 29 2012 at the Wayback Machine The Engineer January 5 2010 Retrieved on September 26 2010 Uliasz Erik November 26 2010 Airport Full Body Scanners Should Be Abandoned in Favor of Profiling Philly2Philly Archived from the original on December 7 2010 Retrieved November 27 2010 In U S Air Travelers Take Body Scans in Stride Gallup com Retrieved on September 26 2010 Are planned airport scanners just a scam Home News UK The Independent January 3 2010 Retrieved on September 26 2010 Silver Nate November 22 2010 New Poll Suggests Shift in Public Views on T S A Procedures New York Times You Might be in serious trouble for refusing to be screened Consumerist com November 15 2010 Retrieved November 22 2010 Do you support the TSA s Enhanced Security Procedures MSNBC com Archived from the original on October 6 2017 Retrieved November 22 2010 CBS News Poll 11 15 10 CBS News November 15 2010 Ex Homeland Security chief head said to abuse public trust by touting body scanners washingtonpost com December 31 2009 Retrieved on September 26 2010 Ridgeway James January 2010 The Airport Scanner Scam Mother Jones The TSA and the full body scanner lobby Washington Examiner December 29 2009 Retrieved on September 26 2010 Greenberg Andy March 2 2011 Documents Reveal TSA Research Proposal To Body Scan Pedestrians Train Passengers Forbes Greenberg Andy March 9 2011 TSA Never Tested Full Body Scans For Mass Transit Except When It Did Forbes Halsey Ashley New airport software to end naked scanner images Seattletimes com Retrieved December 19 2016 DiNuzzo Emily July 20 2021 Here s What Airport Body Scanners Really See Hachman Mark No more naked full body airport scans after TSA upgrade PCMAG Retrieved April 14 2012 External links editList of American airports that currently will use Full Body Scanners in their passenger searches Challenge to Airport Body Scanners Alternate ways to screen airport passengers without the need of full body scan National Outcry Over TSA Body Scanners and Invasive Pat Downs video report by Democracy Now Details about body scanners How does an X ray Baggage Scanner Work Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Full body scanner amp oldid 1223787627, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.