Word to the wise for our security officers

[Basil]

BBC News - 'No scan, no flight' at Heathrow and Manchester (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8490860.stm)
Some passengers at Heathrow and Manchester airports will have to go through full body scanners before boarding their flights under new rules.
It is now compulsory for people selected for a scan to take part, or they will not be allowed to fly.

BBC News - Female suicide bomber kills dozens in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8490819.stm)
At least 41 people have been killed by a female suicide bomber in north-east Baghdad, an interior ministry spokesman has said.
The woman detonated an explosives vest among a group of pilgrims making the journey to Karbala, 80km from Baghdad.
Twelve months ago, 32 pilgrims were killed by a female suicide bomber near Baghdad.

[MagnusP]

I loved this:
"The image generated by the body scanner cannot be stored or captured"


. . . in the article illustrated with (you guessed it) a captured image. :ugh:

[Checkboard]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47024000/jpg/_47024100_scan_afp226x228.jpg

The image generated by the body scanner cannot be stored or captured

... unless the operator possesses a rare high-tech gadget, such as a camera equipped mobile phone. :hmm:

... and wouldn't be tempted with "near naked" photos of any passing celeb. :hmm:

[Bruce Wayne]

Transport Secretary Lord Adonis said in the immediate future only a small proportion of airline passengers would be selected for scanning.

In a written statement to the House of Commons, he said: "If a passenger is selected for scanning, and declines, they will not be permitted to fly."


So then is this a statute law ? If not, then how could it be enforced ?

If a passenger declines, they are then being subject to financial penalty and restriction of freedom of movement without fair trial and not subject to statue law ?

perhaps one of the Pprune legal specialists could provide input ?

[bugged on the right]

At MAN and LHR, when selected for the new xray see through scans you have to submit or not fly. How can they do this? I will pay for my own positioning from the UK back to Europe rather than risk this and when the holiday comes up in September it will be Eurostar for the first leg to CDG or FRA. If they put the machines at St Pancras I will travel on the ferry and if they put them at the ferry terminal I will hire a rowboat.

[bugged on the right]

Wow that was quick, a good 10 minutes of airplay on my previous post. An hour on Bruce's.
I would have thought this subject would be very important for aircrews to know about. In light of the way UK war on terror operatives single out airline crews for special treatment I wonder how my colleagues will enjoy being put in the box every time they pass through. I don't believe a word uttered by any flavoured politician and when they say that there are no health issues associated with these scans I simply don't believe it.
I have had enough and will actually enjoy getting out of this sad industry when I retire.

[AircraftOperations]

What's the problem? If you have nothing to hide, then why worry?

You talk about the operator taking photos of "celebrities". The operator can't see the passengers, so doesn't know who the images are of. I would also suspect that any operators will be searched before they are allowed to start a session on the screen.

[Skipness One Echo]

What's the problem? If you have nothing to hide, then why worry?

'cos there's a Security bloke staring at my nob on camera?
Bad enough some women ( most of whom aren't terrorists ) are reluctant to show their shoulders in public but now we've got a machine that gets their their tits out for strangers to see at the airport. The fact this new machine wouldn't have stopped Captain Underpants from setting his gentials alight on Christmas day hasn't stopped the "Something Must Be (Seen to) Be Done" brigade getting up to speed.

How long before someone famous has their image sent to the tabloids as they have something medical to hide?

[lexxity]

Like I said in another thread, if they were selecting the "right" passenger then I don't think there will be a problem, but what's the guessing that they won't select based on known profiles, but it'll be yer 80 year old granny, or as Bugged said it'll be the aircrews who get put in the box every time. We already know that at some places aircrews are picked on and made to under go the full procedure EVERY time they pass through security, even if they don't beep they are "selected" for extra checks.

[Bruce Wayne]

What's the problem? If you have nothing to hide, then why worry?

the point is, and hence my prior questions is that it is in effect placing security personel in position of power, which may or may not be mandated within the law, outside judicial review and provides the capacity to place punitive damages on crew and passengers at will and with no recourse.

- "Sorry mate, you've been selected to be scanned"
- "Not again! look that's the the third time this week and i'm in uniform. there's a backlog at the scanner and pushback will be delayed if i wait."
- "Right, you're declining. I'm prohibiting you access to the departure area. You cannot fly"

risk is multi-faceted. chasing the policy du jour for political point scoring does not increase safety...

Heathrow: Flight chaos after IRA threats: Heathrow and Gatwick shut in new alerts - News - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/heathrow-flight-chaos-after-ira-threats-heathrow-and-gatwick-shut-in-new-alerts-1428941.html)

[emjanssen]

Security is a trade of. I don't think that the body-scan is smart trade-off.
It's a waste of money and resources and besides that recent scientific studies question if they are safe for our health.

RARE Online - Terahertz Radiation Increases Genomic Instability in Human Lymphocytes
(http://www.rrjournal.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1667%2FRR0944.1&ct=1)

Technology Review: Blogs: arXiv blog: How Terahertz Waves Tear Apart DNA (http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/)

We are also talking about liberty and basic human rights here. We are doing exactly what the terrorist want us to do. Politicians react without thinking.

A Body-scanner doesn't make us much safer (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/german_tv_on_th.html).

The money could be spent so much better. We are talking big numbers.

Did you know that a software algorithm is analyzing the scan?
Removing human intuition doesn't seem smart to me.
We could open up the present security system.

Grtz
emjanssen

[Donkey497]

Suffering Catfish, not this terahertz rips apart DNA b*ll*cks again!!!

Enough, Already!

How many times will this scaremongering 5h1t be posted?

Give it a rest, will you.

As soon as people start evaporating when they go into these booths, I will concede that there may be a problem with it, but until then can we stay rational?

[ExXB]

And tell me who is being irrational.

Thank you.

I, personally, object to these things because they are very, very expensive and they don't work.

Just like just about every 'tech' solution to the 'terrorist' problem.

[chrisbl]

I would rather risk my DNA being "torn apart" by terrahertz waves than it being torn apart by a bomb at 35,000ft.

[Pax Vobiscum]

But the TeraHertz scanner does not significantly reduce the (extremely remote) possibility of being atomised by a terrorist at 35,000 feet. It wouldn't have detected the 'pants on fire' bomber, even if he'd been one of the minority selected for scanning.

As ExXB points out, it's merely very expensive security theatre. We'd be better off buying the 'dowsing rod' bomb detector (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6997859.ece) that was being flogged to the Iraqis - at least it would be cheaper. Whatever happened to "keep calm and carry on"?

[rmac]

Methinks that someone here is worried about the fact that his kn0b is a little small will become public :E

I am all for any technology that speed things up for chrissake, can they also hurry up and bring on walk through technology that means I will not have to empty my bag, keep my liquids in small bottles in a plastic bag and take off my shoes, watch and belt.......its getting really tedious...

If they promise, passive, unobtrusive and low-hassle technology they can feel free to look up my @rse if they really want to :eek:, ......but that could just be because I don't have any size anxiety issues ...(kn0b, not @rse that is :O)

[Avman]

I predict viagra sales to go up (pardon the pun) :}

[call100]

So much rubbish spouted about the whole thing. Thinking that there will be groups of security personnel surrounding the screen looking at your sad little bits says more about your state of mind than theirs.
How many images a day do you think they will be checking? I bet some of you would get relief in the 4 seconds or so the pic is on the screen. So you think they must!! :}
You put up with someone invading your personal space and rubbing your body, but when it comes to viewing an unrecognisable image of you and speeding your throughput you moan...
I bet none of you have WiFi or mobile phones just in case it disintegrates your body bit by bit!!
I only hope they put them on the Staff entrances to speed the process up.
Yes, the terrorists have won.....so what else are we to do? My solution is to fly as little as possible, after all the whole process is now a chore, not just the security bit, certainly not enjoyable..
Have a good flight...:ok::ouch::uhoh:

[Carrier]

Matt on travel: airport security - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/picturegalleries/7091780/Matt-on-travel-airport-security.html?utm_source=telegraph&utm_medium=TD_travelmatt&utm_campaign=travel0202)

[hotmetal]

What happens if you are not a resident of the UK and refuse to go through the new scanner? Will you be able to stay indefinitely in the UK?

[Der absolute Hammer]

If you are non resident and travelling on a non EU passport, will you perhaps be dpeorted? A painless way to say farewell to England for good?

[Checkboard]

@AircraftOperations : You're blasé attitude makes me suspect you are a 60's hippy throwback on drugs. As such, PM me your address - I want to come to your house, and go through your wife's knicker drawer, looking for drugs.

... after all, if you have nothing to hide, you have no reason to refuse. :rolleyes:


It's a stupid comment. In human society we all have things we wish to keep private, which are personal to ourselves, or protect the sensibilities of family, or are simply embarrassing - but are not the business of the wider community, and hence are legal, but private! :ugh:

[RevMan2]

First they banned liquids, and I did not speak out, because I don't drink;
Then they made me take off my shoes, and I did not speak out, because I go barefoot;
Then they banned books in the last 60 minutes of flight and I did not speak out, because I can't read;
Then they introduced body scanners and I did not speak out, because I'm well endowed
Then they started arbitrarily refusing to allow passengers to fly based on the colour of their socks and I did not speak out because I'm used to putting up with it.
Then they started......

Historical context in the ongoing saga of protecting civil liberties here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...)

[call100]

Surely you were not bothered by the sock colour situation as you went barefoot??:}

[bealine]

So then is this a statute law ? If not, then how could it be enforced ?

If a passenger declines, they are then being subject to financial penalty and restriction of freedom of movement without fair trial and not subject to statue law ?

perhaps one of the PPRuNe legal specialists could provide input ? Sorry, I am not a legal expert, but having asked a similar question before concerning Airport Security's powers, this is basically the response I got:

1. When you purchase an airline ticket, you accept the airline's Terms and Conditions.

2. Part of those Terms and Conditions state that you will co-operate with security measures in place at the airports where the airline operates.

3. Proceeding through the Airport Security Screning area to enter the Restricted Zone is a voluntary process, but once you enter the Security Screening Area, you have, in law, consented to any security screening processes which may be in force and you have no right to refuse or to walk backwards out of the Security Screening Area.

4. The airline has the right to refuse travel to any passenger who refuses to comply with prevailing security procedures.

This does seem reasonable. If you don't want a full body scan, then you can always seek alternative travel arrangements. You can go by ship, train or drive! Flying is not, after all, compulsory!

You may be interested in the full Transec document:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snbt-01246.pdf

[Xeque]

It's all so pathetic isn't it? How soon. I wonder, before page 3 of the Sun has "Jordan going through the scanner at Heathrow"
I don't live in the UK any more and, frankly, it isn't hard to understand why.
I am sick and tired of politicians abrogating their responsibilities and palming it all off onto the long suffering public.
To all politicians:

It is your responsibility to ensure that people who are likely to cause harm to UK Citizens are not allowed to enter the country in the first place.
It is your responsibility to identify anyone already in the country who poses a threat to UK citizens and remove them.

It's not rocket science. If you can get this right (fat chance with the current crop of politically correct, 'elf 'n' safety conscious expense fiddlers) then just maybe we (the real people) can all begin moving through airports again without feeling that we're supposed to be wearing striped suits and dangling chains.
P.S. <Literal quote> If you don't like what's going on then don't travel by air <unquote). Spot on! The moment the traveling public adopts this attitude for real; is the moment the crap stops. Do you really think Wee Willie or MOL are going to stand by and watch empty aircraft leaving the departure gates?

[bealine]

The moment the traveling public adopts this attitude for real; is the moment the crap stops. Do you really think Wee Willie or MOL are going to stand by and watch empty aircraft leaving the departure gates?

It is a dilemna. However, MOL and "Wee Willie" know only too well that all it took to drive PanAm under was the downing of one aeroplane. One BA or one Ryanair aircraft brought down by terrorism would be enough to finish either of us, so from a business perspective we have to go along with the government's security plans.

The fact is, none of these security measures have put people off flying! Our load factors, even through the recession, have been high. Sensible people accept that security measures have to be taken - if you have a proven clean criminal record, why don't you ask BAA security if you can shadow one of their positions for a shift and see how many long knives, martial arts weapons, pepper sprays, laser pens etc passengers try to smuggle through. You would be shocked, I think!

As one previous poster said "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!"

[Xeque]

Sorry. Spheroids! PanAm was already on the skids. Lockerbie had nothing to do with the airline going under. If anything, public sentiment was pro PanAm after the event.
The proof will be if the great British public can drag themselves away from their reality TV screens and actually DO something about the situation. If the public stop traveling by air or if the numbers prepared to submit themselves to the present indignity begin to substantially lessen then watch what happens.

[One Outsider]

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!"
A bogus and offensive argument if there ever was one! Repeating it does not make it any less so.

[bealine]

A bogus and offensive argument if there ever was one! Repeating it does not make it any less so.

Ah! The reason so many of us airline employees can't be bothered with passenger forums.

Why are you unable to discuss anything in a mature and intelligent manner?

Making a statement negating someone else's viewpoint without offering any explanation is the height of offensive behaviour!

Bye!

[Xeque]

Ah! The reason so many of us airline employees can't be bothered with passenger forums.
This is the problem in a nutshell isn't it? The passenger with his views, wishes and expectations no longer counts for anything. Bealine and his like expect to be able to keep their jobs without having to really worry about the SLF (self loading freight), those really annoying people who insist on traveling on the same aircraft as them.

[One Outsider]

Yes bealine, I am a passenger, on occasion. Just as you are too no doubt.
Between those occasions I make my living transporting people in pressurised aluminium tubes. I do apologize if that does not conform to your assumptions.

Had you read the entire thread before wading in you would have notice Checkboard's excellent explanation of why the often trottet out line "If you have nothing to hide...." is offensive and, to use his words, stupid. You have no doubt notice that I am not a great fan of repitition.

I understand from previous posts that you are a great believer in regurgitating the official line on airport security, however, a bit of critical and independant thinking or contemplation if you will, is to be encouraged. Mindless drones we can do without.
*
And before you tell me about your security briefings I would like to inform you, just to be ahead of your assumptions, that my position is such that I get my briefings from people who are involved in security at a national and regulatory level.
*
As a side note, have anybody found it somewhat peculiar that the reaction to the successfull smuggling of a bomb like device through an airport that is equipped with full body scanners, is to rush in the use of full body scanners?

[tigermoth123]

Having read with some interest and some chuckles regarding this issue, I find it all very strange as to the rationale regarding subjects for screening.
The so called experts advise that passenger profiling is accurate,,, well probabaly.
The normal security staff depend on new equipment that was partially designed to make them redundant. Though I will accept the designers probably did consider the safety of airport users when these mahines were in the design stage.
The DfT run constant test programmes for security staff body searching, some good, some bad, some awful.
The results of these tests are made available to the airports security managers and directors.
I do not agree with these new machines but, the onus is on the airports to supply the best and most affordable equipment. So the answer is fly from a small airport which is unable to afford this equipment,transfer into a larger airport and Captain Underpants can blow his, yours and my private bits all over the place, typical Brits, lets rush everything through but only for the airports who can jolly well afford this gear.:=

[call100]

As one previous poster said "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!"
It's really amazing the amount of gullible people . The ignorance of that statement is amazing, yet it is still trotted out by people with little left to argue with.
Wake up and smell the coffee. I can't be bothered to, once again, type the reasons why this ignorance should be banned.
So here is a link that sums it up.....Debunking a myth: If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear (The Privacy, Identity & Consent Blog) (http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html)

[pen-e-h]

I fear having to prove I have nothing to hide.

[hotmetal]

If you have nothing to hide how about this (http://gizmodo.com/5464262/the-tsas-new-genital-visualizer-will-probably-upset-travelers). You know it makes sense. We can't be too careful. Security is top priority. It is for your own safety and security.:)

[swordfling]

So, who's traveling differently because of all this?

I'm considering traveling to the US in March, and have just asked my travel agent to look for flights avoiding Manchester, Heathrow, Birmingham, and Amsterdam (airports I understand have potentially mandatory scans)...

I don't object to a reasonable amount of effective security, but there comes a point when you decide enough is enough. I still object to some of the security measures I'd have to go through (including bag size, liquid, and on-board restrictions), but short of not flying, I guess I must draw a line somewhere, and scanners are it.

You only have to consider the number of flights/passengers worldwide vs. the number of security related injuries/deaths etc to see it's ludicrously disproportionate.

Sadly according to a CAA survey (H1 2009):

Passengers were also asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the statement: “Any inconvenience caused by the security screening was acceptable”. Overall, 89% of passengers strongly agreed or agreed. (source (http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/221513/caasurveyq1q209.pdf)) :ugh:

[Rusland 17]

So here is a link that sums it up.....Debunking a myth: If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear (The Privacy, Identity & Consent Blog) (http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html)This a perfectly valid counter-argument in those (increasingly numerous) situations where our privacy is being summarily invaded and we can do nothing about it - the DNA database, stop-and-search, increased monitoring of communications, the tendency of London police to arrest people merely for photographing public buildings...

But, as has been said earlier in the thread, we do not have to fly. And by choosing to do so we are agreeing to subject ourselves to whatever security procedures may be in place, no matter how illogical, intrusive and ineffective they may be. In my experience, the best way to deal with it is simply to do as they ask without even thinking about it.