Full body scanner
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.
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.
[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.
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] 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.
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.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.
[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".
[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.
EPIC cited the invasive nature of the devices, the TSA's disregard of public opinion, and the impact on religious freedom.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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[70] 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.
[79][80] 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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[123] 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.
[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.
Modern software based on Artificial Intelligence in full body scanners is designed to minimize human faults and rise the detection effectiveness of this method.
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.
[145] 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] 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.
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.
