Ask questions via twitter! Message any question to @answers on twitter. We'll publish the question and send you a reply each time there's a new answer.
Next Question

Answered Question

 
M$4 April 02, 2009 09:09 AM

Is it a violation of privacy for airports to use the new full-body x-ray scanners?

The ACLU thinks so, because the new machines can reveal medical conditions such as mastectomies and colostomies. Of course, there's also the issue that total strangers (security personnel) are basically seeing you naked!
Interesting Question?  Yes (1)   No (0)   

Interesting: cinimod

RSS
 
 

Best Answer  Chosen by Asker

 
April 02, 2009 02:31 PM
To directly answer your question, no I don't think this is a violation of privacy. TSA has put in place a number of controls to limit how much privacy a person loses.

First of all, you are in an airport boarding a plane. You have to give up a certain amount of privacy for this. We agree to show ID, to have our bags x-rayed or searched, walk through a metal detector, answer questions, etc. There is no way law enforcement can do this on the street without probable cause, but we understand that we must waive certain rights in order to board a plane. It's for the safety of everybody.

Second, unless you have a weapon on your person, this scan cannot be traced back to you. It's different from the x-ray machine that scans your bags. The TSA agent is sitting right there looking at that scan. But with this whole body scan, the person running the machine is in a different room with no windows. It is set up like that on purpose. They do it this way because they want to ensure that the person seeing your body on this scan cannot see you as a person. This ensures your privacy.

Third, the machine automatically blurs out faces, so even if the person looking at the screen were somehow able to print out the picture, leave the room, and go looking for you, there's no way to tell that the scan is you.

So basically, when you walk into the scanner, somebody in a windowless room away from the machine hits a button and sees a faceless image on his screen. If there's no weapon, the image is deleted after you leave the scanner, and there's no way to trace it back to you.

Personally, I'm happy this machine exists. It's far more effective than a metal detector at detecting weapons. As a frequent flier, I am glad to know there are no weapons on board.
Asker's Rating:
• Thanks for filling us in on aspects of this technology we might have otherwise missed.


Helpful Answer?  (0)   (0)    Tip dcanswerer for this answer
Permalink | Report
   Reply  
 
 

Other Answers (9)

Sort By
 
April 02, 2009 09:34 AM
Yes. However, you give up some of your privacy rights when you go through airport screening; that's why they can scan and search your luggage and scan your person for metal objects.

The real question is: Is this an undue violation of privacy.

Given that there have been no 9/11 events since 9/11; this seems a bit much.

Helpful Answer?  (0)   (0)    Tip ensorceled for this answer
Permalink | Report
   Reply  
 
 
 
April 02, 2009 09:44 AM
give the current laws and politics (Patriot Act and 9/11), and even still i think that it would be allowed seeing as how your bags are xray when you go through security, and a closed bag has the same right of privacy that you as a person has.

Helpful Answer?  (0)   (0)    Tip jv88011 for this answer
Permalink | Report
   Reply  
 
 
 
April 02, 2009 09:48 AM
Short answer no. Long answer, they do not require you to go through the system first of all. Second you can even see anything at all on the scanner that would deem inappropriate. Third if you have nothing to hide then you should have no problem. The people that have issues with this are either hiding something or are prudes that think that the outline of nudity no actual nudity is bad. The others are just people that like to cause problems and complain about everything. Which is what the ACLU is all about. Again though I state it is completely voluntary if you choose to not go through extra screening with someone touching you, you can opt to use the machine.

I have personally been through this machine twice and have no problems with it and have had up to 5 different tsa agents look at it at once. I work for an airline here in PHX sky harbor airport where they tested this machine.

I just think that people need to worry less about their privacy from strangers they will never see again that are there to help protect our skies and our family during flight and just enjoy their trip and remember that if you don't want to do it then request not to and they will do the old fashion pat down which too me is more invasive and private.

Source(s):
http://ohmygov.com/blogs/general_news/archive/2008/05/22/security-watch-tsa...

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2008-06-05-bodyscan_N.htm


Helpful Answer?  (3)   (0)   

Helpful: robbrown, albanian, jenny

Tip cinimod for this answer
Permalink | Report
   Reply  
 
 
 
April 02, 2009 01:07 PM
I think it is unnecessary. 9/11 happened not because hijackers were not properly scanned, but because the hijackers did not bring illegal weapons (small knives and boxcutters were allowed), and people didn't try to defend themselves because they didn't conceive that the hijackers were going to die with them.

People today would be less likely to cooperate now that the possibility of a suicide hijacking has entered public consciousness. In my opinion, encouraging everyone to carry a boxcutter for protection would prevent another 9/11 better than full-body scans. You'll notice that massacres tend to happen in places where honest people are unarmed (airplanes, schools, churches). As hated as the police are, I don't hear of armed men going in and taking out hundreds of police, because police are armed.

We cannot guard against a criminal finding a way to sneak in a weapon, but they will be less successful if honest people can defend themselves and eventually less likely to try when it often fails. No one wants a fair fight. If they odds aren't for them, they won't try.

Helpful Answer?  (0)   (0)    Tip srgothard for this answer
Permalink | Report
   Reply  
 
 
 
April 02, 2009 01:13 PM
Considering that the food service workers, baggage handlers, TSA workers. and more don't go through the same security checks that everyone else has, a hijacker or terrorist won't be a passenger on the next attack, so this sort of check is meaningless, a waste of money, and a violation of your privacy.

Do you know the water you buy in the food court past security doesn't get checked at all? But your water bottle might be deadly, so leave it here please.
Source(s):
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/08/tsa_follies.html

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/12/tsa_aiding_lugg.html

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/09/tsa_employees_b.html


Helpful Answer?  (0)   (0)    Tip timw077 for this answer
Permalink | Report
   Reply  
 
 
 
April 02, 2009 01:14 PM
I don't know, but it could certainly reveal a lot of piercings. LOL

Helpful Answer?  (0)   (0)    Tip drscott15 for this answer
Permalink | Report
   Reply  
 
 
 
April 02, 2009 02:29 PM
Yes, it's an invasion of privacy, defined as the "intrusion into into the personal life of another, without just cause." There is no need for this scan. I have not been patted down routinely in an airport up to this time, so this takes the place of nothing. I would opt for being patted down in the event that I failed the appearance/behavior screening, but would rather avoid travel through any airport that considers these procedures necessary.
I don't like being x-rayed, even with low doses. I especially don't like the idea of being x-rayed by a machine that is in a public place used by technicians with unknown training and whose maintenance records I'm not allowed to verify.There is no additional level of threat this device would stop, so it offers only the illusion of security.
We're also paying for this intrusion as part of the overall cost of airline transportation. Ultimately, I'm tired of being considered guilty until proven innocent and tired of financing every crackpot idea that comes along in the name of security.
Source(s):
http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/invasion-of-privacy/


Helpful Answer?  (0)   (0)    Tip bbrookin for this answer
Permalink | Report
   Reply  
 
 
 
April 02, 2009 03:30 PM
No it does not violate your privacy. If it were a mobile device that the police were carrying around to scan the public, that would be a completely different issue. But, when one voluntarily goes somewhere and a warning is posted about a search then one is subject to that search. This particular type of scanning seems a very efficient and non-invasive type of search.

There have been no drastic attacks on US airlines because security was increased. But it is surely an ongoing war of technologies like so many others. Right now there is no way to detect non-metal weapons, even guns. Fortunately those seem to be rare and experimental. But the sooner better scanners are in place the better.

It will, of course, have to be decided in the courts here in the US. In Europe the parliament and European Commission are arguing about it.

Helpful Answer?  (0)   (1)   

Unhelpful: bobbyedwards

Tip albanian for this answer
Permalink | Report
   Reply  
 
 
 
April 02, 2009 08:45 PM
May be, but we need to pay the price for our safety.
Think, if the security personnel is your friend or a relative!
It is OK as long as they’re not saving it and putting it on the Internet!


Helpful Answer?  (0)   (0)    Tip sunpat for this answer
Permalink | Report
   Reply  
 
 

Answer this Question

How tips and payments work

This question has already been resolved. You may add an answer to it but you will not be eligible to win best answer or any associated tips.

Ask a Question


140 characters left
Top of Page
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal

Top Members

This Week All Time
  • buddawiggi
    buddawiggi
    2nd Degree Black Belt
    27808 Points
    M$799.16 Earned
  • opher
    opher
    Purple Belt
    4473 Points
    M$196.22 Earned
  • annelisle
    annelisle
    Purple Belt
    3110 Points
    M$95.22 Earned
   See All
 

Most Popular Tags

mahalo(1626)
iphone(466)
music(462)
google(358)
food(321)
online(297)
beer(279)
money(263)
movies(260)
apple(251)
aotd(235)
health(220)
video(208)
free(206)
dog(205)
   See All
 

Categories

Welcome New Members


 
 
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.

Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.

Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More

 
 

Please log in to use this function.