P. 1
Ethical issues arising from Full Body Scanners at airports

Ethical issues arising from Full Body Scanners at airports

|Views: 1,150|Likes:
Published by muhammad
This document represents the issues arising form full body scanners or metal detectors at airports and conclusion is given in the document.
This document represents the issues arising form full body scanners or metal detectors at airports and conclusion is given in the document.

More info:

Published by: muhammad on Feb 24, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/28/2014

pdf

text

original

Final Term Assignment of

Business Ethics
Program:

BS Aviation Management
6th Semester

Course Instructor:

Miss Farzeen

Submitted by:

Mohsin Azhar Shah (GL) BAM-9205 Saqib Mehmood Saad Shoaib Arslan Aslam BAM-9207 BAM-9210 BAM -9234

Topic to be discussed.....

Ethical Consideration about Aviation Security Systems (full-Body Scanners) in the World
Unethical practices of aviation security systems (airport security scanners), their presence in world society and concluding the problems

The aim of this document is to identify unethical practices of aviation security systems at airports; entire body scanners. Its aim is to keep aware responsible authorities on the ethical issues like privacy and damaging human health etc. and conclude to arising problems.

Airports are busy places like bee hives because the era after the World War II has increased the trend to air travel. The aviation industry was on boom in that era. Personal and business aviation grew much. In that era, security concern was very low because more attention was given to improve navigational facilitation and manage safety within the organization or with in the airport premises. As all we know aviation industry is increasing day by day and people are becoming quality conscious and they demand an efficient source or conveyance to travel so they choose airplane (airline) because air travel is not only important for a common man but it is source of earning money through many business meeting at far places for a business man because business men believe that time is money. Security of passengers and fleet is very important when we take it as a serious issue.

After the devastating bombing of Pan Am Flight 103on December 21, 1988 and September 11, 2001(9, 11 attack) the terrorist attack in USA, aviation security has become area of focus in the world. FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) took necessary security measures by conducting research on advanced security technologies to enhance security at airports world wide. Wells and Young ( 2004 ) mentioned that the most significant issues facing by the airports in the 21th century is airport security, airport security concerns all areas and all users of airports, not limited to travellers , airport police force etc.
Aviation security equipment and procedures include the following: bulk explosives-detection equipment, trace explosives-detection equipment, HULDs, computer-assisted passenger screening (CAPS), and positive-passenger bag matching (PPBM), biometrics (analyzing eye retinas and finger prints) and full body scanners.. These equipments and procedures were installed or calibrated at different location at airports (some adopted by airlines) according to the threat assessed there to improve aviation security including security of airport staff, passengers and fleet. Actually protecting civil aviation against terrorist threats is a complex systems problem that has no perfect solution.

Full-Body Scanners at Airports
In recent years, some airports have begun to use whole body scanners as a way to detect objects hidden by clothing. These scanners are different from the metal detectors most people are familiar with them. You may have noticed a lot of recent news stories about citizens angered by increased airport security, particularly in the United States. Although strict search and seizure policies, have been standard practice in countries throughout the world. Airports around the world are installing full body scanners for added security. There are 317 scanners at 65 U.S. airports and 950 scanners are planned by the end of 2011. Scanners are being used in airports in several other countries, including Canada, the U.K., Finland, the Netherlands, France, Italy, and Russia. Unlike traditional airport metal detectors, full body scanners detect objects made from a range of materials concealed underneath travelers¶ clothes, including liquid and plastic explosives. They scan entire person for concealed weapons, bomb-making material, and, as a bonus, for stuff like baggies of marijuana stuffed into trousers. They use various technologies, and as a front-line defense they'll be extremely useful. But, if you think about it, they'll have to be human-operated, and they effectively let the operator see you--or your wife, or your teen-age daughter--naked. The images created by airport security scanners are shown below in the following figure. All metallic weapons and other explosive devices can be seen by this technology. It is good from only security point of view.

Full-body scanners use different systems, but there are two main competing technologies: Backscatter x-ray and millimeter-wave. Both of these use radiation that penetrates clothing. In a baggage x-ray system, the device works pretty much like a medical x-ray, with rays penetrating through your bag to a sensor that's then connected to a screen--they use strong radiation, which is why they're plastered with those scary orange signs. Backscatter body scanners as seen in the figure, subject you to a far gentler burst of x-rays, and then detects those ones that are bounced back (scientifically: "backscattered") from your body, or objects on your person towards the machine. Concealed packets containing liquid bombs, drugs, or ceramic knives that would have passed through metal detectors undetected, those are detected through these full body scanners.

A lady standing in a scanner to be scanned

Millimeter wave technology uses a similar system, with rays transmitted out to you and bounced back. But in this case technology borrowed from military radar designs allows for detailed "radar" images of your body to be created in a computer, and there's no use of the scary-sounding "x-ray" science. Detection of foreign, concealed objects on a body works the same. As such, both systems are absolutely ideal for defeating the efforts of some knife-wielding would-be hijackers or bomb-laden terrorists. These technologies, which include passive and active millimeterwave imaging and active x-ray imaging, all require human operators to view and interpret the images. Because the images are somewhat

Backscatter security scanner during process of scanning

revealing of the human anatomy, passengers are likely to object to the images being displayed to an operator. Furthermore, active imaging techniques require radiation, which raises some health concerns. Because of these concerns about privacy and health, imaging technologies will probably not be deployed for passenger screening at the current threat level. The image of Millimeter-wave technology is shown in the figure in which left sided is the view of a lady and right side, a man.

Images using Millimetres-wave scanners

Airport Security Scanners Crossing an Ethical Line
Privacy issue It has been pointed out that body scanners present an ethical concern in both the United States and the United Kingdom, where the right to privacy is listed amongst human rights inherent to all citizens. Opponents of full-body scanners argue that strip searches without probable cause violate basic human rights. Governments do not have the right to make strip searches routine and mandatory, regardless of whether the strip search is done by physically removing clothes or by using technological means to remove the clothes. While these things do certainly reveal your weapons...they also reveal your body. They¶re going to have to be human-operated (with some computer assistance) like the baggage machines, that means you're effectively going to be taking your clothes off for a TSA guy/gal as shown in the figure. That¶s a stranger, a government employee and one who's almost certainly empowered to arrange for you to be thrown in jail if you object or are, in these stupidly super-sensitive times, deemed as being "uncooperative." Full-body scanning technology allows screeners to see the nude surface of the skin under clothing, prosthetics including breast prostheses and prosthetic testicles, which may require a potentially embarrassing, hands-on physical inspection once detected. The scanners also can detect other medical equipment normally hidden, such as colostomy bags and catheters. Other privacy concerns come from transgendered community, who may feel that the routine full-body scans are embarrassing and could potentially lead to harassment. Airport employees in Lagos have been caught using full body scanner images as a type of porn. At the Dallas Ft. Worth International Airport, TSA (Transportation security administration) complaints have been reported to disproportionally stem from women who felt that they were singled out for screening to entertain male security officers. 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 described as "probing and pushing ... in my genital area." Another traveler in the United States complained 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." In November, 2010, a female traveler who opted out of a full body scan at Fort Lauderdale International Airport claims that TSA agents handcuffed her to a chair and ripped up her plane ticket when she asked them questions about the new type of invasive pat down she was about to receive. 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.
Opponents in the US argue that full body scanners and the new TSA pat downs are unconstitutional and unethical. A comprehensive student note, and possibly one of the first on the topic, *"Full-Body Scanners: Full Protection from Terrorist Attacks or Full-On Violation of the Constitution?" came out in the Fall 2010 issue of the internationally distributed University of Denver Transportation Law Journal that argued that the full-body scanners are unconstitutional in the United States because they are too invasive and not effective enough because the process is too inefficient 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. 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 claims that the full-body scanners violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because they subject citizens to virtual strip searches without any evidence of wrongdoing.

In some locations people are allowed to refuse this scan and opt for a traditional pat-down. In other locations, use of the full-body scanners is mandatory and refusing to submit to a scan at the airport will bar the person from taking the flight. It is claimed that the head is excluded from the scan and the images are instantly erased, though in one case, images had been stored and 100 of them were later leaked online. The analyst is in a different room and is not supposed to be able to see the person being scanned, but is in contact with other officials who can halt the scanned person if anything suspicious shows up on the scan. The American Civil Liberties Union has 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." In the UK, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has argued that full-body scanners are a risk to human rights and may be breaking the law. The National Human Rights Commission of Korea opposes the use of full-body scanners and has recommended that they are not deployed at airports. Actually it is a complete violation of human rights as described above, it is a violation to privacy of every passenger intending to air travel. In the United States, the TSA requires that their full-body scanners "allow exporting of image data in real time" and cases of the government's storing of images have been confirmed. There are concerns about personal privacy, since the scans, in addition to showing the naked body, expose other intimate details, including medical implants and adult diapers. Furthermore, there are questions about whether the images can be stored and misused. In August 2010, it was reported that United States Marshals Service saved thousands of images from a millimeter wave scanner. TSA ² part of the Department of Homeland Security ² 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. 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. Opponents have also expressed skepticism that if there were a successful terror attack that the machines would not have the capability to 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. The TSA¶s chief medical officer reviews those risks to travelers and airport personnel. A recent New York Times article said that the scanners have not been adequately tested for safety. Ethical issues about privacy and misuse of personal information have been raised An article on full body scanners in its most recent newsletter, written by Ross White of The Hastings Center, said the possibilities of harm and violation of privacy exist even if the scanned images are not stored. ³The potential for individuals to be harmed or to take offense at what others see about their bodies was revealed a few months ago when an employee of the U.S. Transportation Security Agency (TSA) beat a coworker with a baton after the coworker saw a scan of his body and ridiculed him about the size of his genitalia,´ the article says. The article also points out that full body scans are at odds with some religious and other philosophical beliefs about people viewing other people¶s bodies. Airports in Dubai have banned the scanners because they violate Islamic ethical principles. And in the U.S., some may consider the scanners a violation of their Constitutional protection against ³unreasonable searches and seizures.´ Travelers in the U.S. can opt out of full body scans and have a physical pat-down instead. That option has been proved difficult for some people. Last month a pregnant woman was denied her request at O¶Hare International Airport in Chicago. This week, a reporter for the New York Times recounted his intimidating experience, also at O¶Hare, when he asked to opt out: ³I was required to stand still while I received a rough pat-down by a man whose resume, I suspected, included experience at a state prison. µHold your pants up!¶ he ordered me. What did I do to deserve this?´ People opinion

Cindy Cuthbert son says;
What are we turning into a bunch of SHEEP! First they take away are dignity and are rights to privacy. What is next? Do we really think terrorist are all stupid! If we know that the airports are using full body scanner then I surely think they do to! Do you really think a terrorist will strap on a bomb to there leg or any other body part? Of course not. They will have to take it to the next

step. In their body. Next scan we will be taking will be "bend over and spread your cheeks!" and ladies spread those legs!

Richard says;
Jim, I have a 16-year-old daughter, 10-year-old son and 7-year-old daughter. Do you think for one minute I want some perverted sex offender I don't care if he's a government agent or whatever looking at naked images of my kids! This is an invasion of privacy and goes against our constitution. I have no problem going through myself but for my wife and kids I don't think so. It's different for a man because most of us really don't care much who sees what but with women and children it¶s a different story. I'm sorry but I will attest to the scanners and I have no problem getting a pat down but the methods these TSA agents are using is disgusting! I could not see some grimy pervert feeling up my wife and kids! Think about that before you support this non-sense... What's next? Keep giving the government all the power they want and before you know it we'll be walking robots!

Ilene Wells says;
Wear Your Bathing Suit Through Security The Next Time You Fly. I was sexually assaulted when I was 18. I fought the guy off, who had a gun. He shot me in the head, but luckily all I got was a bad burn (the gun didn't fire properly or it was a starter pistol). Anyway, I didn't fight this guy off just be subjected to flashing my naked body to strangers in order to get on a plane. I refuse to consent to letting a stranger put their hands all over my body either. So, I will wear my one-piece bathing suit - a racing suit which fits me like a glove - and will respectfully ask to be allowed through without being scanned or patted down. They will be able to see everything a scanner or a pat-down would detect - without subjecting me to being touched by a stranger or flashing my boobs. I may be flying through Chicago in a few weeks so if you hear about some woman who stripped down to her bathing suit and refused to go through the scanner - that's me. Care to join me? An unknown person posted by this email address clevine@uhfnyc.org, says; in the past week I have been screened at three airports. Because I have hip replacements, I always set off the monitor. After explaining why this is happening, I usually go through a quick wending with a little pat-down. Now, however, the TSA has dispensed with wands and requires not a pat-down but a vigorous and highly offensive procedure involving groping the passenger¶s breasts, buttocks, inner (and I do mean inner) thighs, hair, and every other body part. And then the screener¶s gloves are checked for signs of explosives. Another woman with a walker was subjected to the same process, even though she was clearly disabled. At one airport I looked gratefully at the much-loathed full-body scanner. ³I¶ll do that,´ I said, but no, that piece of machinery wasn¶t working. Has security been improved in any way? I doubt it. Perhaps now the orthopedists¶ consent forms should warn that inserting metal into your knees or hips will subject you to invasions of bodily privacy. Here are the images (both male and female) below that display unethical practices of full body scanners and these are the examples of leaking scanned images online. The view of their sexual organs are blurred but their shape and size can be imagine that is totally unethical and against the human rights. It is also against the religion ISLAM.

Health issue
Backscatter X-ray scanners

Proponents of backscatter x-ray scanners say that a single scan using backscatter technology produces exposure equivalent to two minutes of flying on an airplane. Opponents say that the radiation doses are much higher than claimed due to the way the radiation is measured. 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. X-rays are hazardous because their photons have enough energy to ionize atoms and break chemical bonds. That can cause damage to DNA that subsequently leads to cancer. The machines are deemed safe because the total dose that someone receives during a scan is tiny. However, earlier this year, a group of scientists at the University of California, San Francisco, raised a number of concerns over X-ray scanners. They said the X-rays they use are low energy to ensure they bounce only off skin rather than passing through the body, to produce an image focused on objects concealed beneath clothes. This means that the entire dose that the person being scanned receives is concentrated on the skin rather than spread throughout their body. That could mean the skin receives a dose that is one or two orders of magnitude more than expected. 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 (Co-author of Eco Solutions). The opening paragraph of their letter of concern reads: "We, a member of University of California, San Francisco faculty, are writing²to 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. (UCSF April 6, 2010 John W. Sedat, PhD Professor Emeritus, Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics) Opponents 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. 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. And there are possible health risks from the radiation exposure, particularly to children, pregnant women, and other vulnerable travelers. Despite the low levels of radiation, an internal report of the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety, a consortium of several international agencies, suggested that children and pregnant women should not be subject to scanning, according to Bloomberg News, which saw the report. Bloomberg says regulators from the European Union are studying health and privacy issues raised by the scanning and expect to complete their assessment. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) spokesperson Sarah Horowitz says the scans are safe, but passengers will have the option of being patted down instead. Reiss says the public seems more worried that a screener will see their bodies through their clothing than about radiation. That¶s why the company opted for the outline, replacing the grayscale image it had used previously. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) says the radiation from such a scan is about the same amount a person gets from cosmic rays when flying for 2 minutes in an airplane at 30,000 feet. A person would need to get more than 1,000 backscatter scans in a year to reach the same dose they'd get from a standard chest x-ray, according to the American College of Radiology (ACR). The majority of energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high. The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmic ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, this comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest X- rays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high. In addition, it appears that real independent safety data do not exist. A search, ultimately finding top FDA radiation physics staff, suggests that the relevant radiation quantity, the Flux [photons per unit area and time (because this is a scanning device)] has not been characterized. Instead an indirect test was made that emphasized the whole body exposure value, and thus it appears that the danger is low when compared to cosmic rays during airplane travel and a chest X-ray dose. Dr. Steve Smith, inventor of the body scanner in 1991, and president of Tek84, one of the companies that that produces the machines, has stated that the concerns of Dr. Brenner and

UCSF Scientists regarding the skin dose of backscatter scanners is 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 XRays 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. 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. This raises further questions about comparisons to background radiation. The FDA report states: The dose from one screening with a general-use x-ray security screening system is so low that it presents an extremely small risk to any individual. To put the radiation dose received into perspective: y Naturally occurring ionizing radiation is all around us. We are continuously exposed to this background radiation during ordinary living. In 42 minutes of ordinary living, a person receives more radiation from naturally occurring sources than from screening with any general-use x-ray security system. The national radiation safety standard (see below) sets a dose per screening limit for the general-use category. To meet the requirements of the general-use category a full-body xray security system must deliver less than the dose a person receives during 4 minutes of airline flight. TSA has set their dose limit to ensure a person receives less radiation from one scan with a TSA general-use x-ray security system than from 2 minutes of airline flight.

y

The U.S. TSA has also made public various independent safety assessments of the Secure 1000 Backscatter X-ray Scanner. Dr. David Brenner, head of Columbia University's center for radiological research, said although the danger posed to the individual passenger is "very low"; he is urging researchers to carry out more tests on the device to look at the way it affects specific groups who could be more sensitive to radiation. He says children and passengers with gene mutations ² around one in 20 of the populations² are more at risk as they are less able to repair X-ray damage to their DNA. 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: "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," said Dr. Andrew J. Einstein, director of cardiac CT research at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City. "Another way to look at this is that if you were scanned with a backscatter scanner every day of your life, you would still only receive a tenth of the dose of a typical CT scan," he said. By comparison, the amount of radiation from a backscatter scanner is equivalent to about 10 minutes of natural background radiation in the United States, Einstein said. "I believe that the general public has nothing to worry about in terms of the radiation from airline scanning," he added. For moms-to-be, no evidence supports an increased risk of miscarriage or fetal abnormalities from these scanners, Einstein added. "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," he said. 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, stating that: the summation of trivial average risks over very large populations or time periods into a single value produces a distorted image of risk, completely out of perspective with risks accepted every day, both voluntarily and involuntarily. However, 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'". Opponents have also argued 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. Moreover, there are a number of 'red flags' related to the hardware itself. Because this device can scan a human in a few seconds, the X-ray beam is very intense. Any glitch in power at any point in the hardware (or more importantly in software) that stops the device could cause an intense radiation dose to a single spot on the skin. Who will oversee problems with overall dose after repair or software problems? The TSA is already complaining about resolution limitations; who will keep the manufacturers and/or TSA from just raising the dose, an easy way to improve signal-to-noise and get higher resolution? Lastly, given the recent incident (on December 25th), how do we know whether the manufacturer or TSA, seeking higher resolution, will scan the groin area more slowly leading to a much higher total dose? 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 "failsafe" 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. There are cases where types of medical scanning machines, operated by trained medical personnel, have malfunctioned, causing serious injury to patients that were scanned. Opponents of full-body scanners cite these incidents as examples of how radiation-based scanning machines can overdose people with radiation despite all safety precautions. 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. 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... "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," said Peter Kant, executive vice president of Rapiscan Systems. 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." Humans are exposed to background radiation every day, anywhere on earth, 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 too much higher levels of radiation than on earth due to altitude. Proponents say that backscatter Xray scan is equivalent to the radiation received during two minutes of flying. But background radiation compares to backscatter X-ray scanners as diffuse light compares to focused light, and the same amount of radiation experienced in four minutes of background exposure (the TSA limit) is delivered in 10 seconds with a body scan²a 2400% increase in energy concentration. As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency explains the importance of focus and energy concentration in underscoring the difference between diffuse light (example: light bulb) and focused light (example: laser): "Laser light travels in a very narrow, highly focused beam which does not spread out as light from a bulb does. Because it is very concentrated ... laser light that can be harmful." 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". 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 effect on the human body" are available. 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. The European Commission also recommended that alternate screening methods should be "used on pregnant women, babies, children and people with disabilities". 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." The TSA has completed this review.
Millimeter wave scanners

These are the scanners with low energy with millimeter wavelengths. Millimeter or GHz scanners are often wrongly cited as emitting terahertz radiation. Currently adopted scanners operate in the millimeter or sub terahertz band. The use of terahertz radiation (between 1 and 10 THz) shows promise but is currently not commercially available for body scanning. Passive millimeter wave screening have been claimed to be safe by marketers, though safety studies on terahertz scanners have produced mixed results. Researchers at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico have used simulations to show a way that terahertz radiation may affect DNA. Alexandrov and co. have created a model to investigate how THz fields interact with doublestranded DNA and what they've found is remarkable. They say that although the forces generated are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. The work was not experimentally verified. The work has subsequently been confirmed, with some caveats".Thomas S. Tenforde, president of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, said that more research needs to be done into the safety of millimeter wave scanners.

Millimeter photons do not have enough energy to break chemical bonds. Last year, however, researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico suggested that these low energy photons could damage DNA in an entirely novel way. They say that while these photons cannot break DNA, they can shake it. This shaking may be so strong that it unzips the two strands in DNA, interfering with the genetic machinery that keeps cells working and healthy. The FDA report states millimetres wave security systems which comply with the limits set in the applicable national non-ionizing radiation safety standard cause no known adverse health effects. The, whose photons are slightly more energetic than those of millimeter waves. Their results are probabilistic rather than deterministic, they say. This explains why some experiments show that terahertz waves can damage DNA while other, practically identical studies show nothing. While terahertz full-body scanners are not yet widely used, the work does show that the effects of electromagnetic waves on DNA are not fully understood.

jen says;
Ionizing radiation is high-frequency radiation that has enough energy to remove an electron from (ionize) an atom or molecule. Ionizing radiation has enough energy to damage the DNA in cells, which in turn may lead to cancer. Gamma rays, x-rays, some high-energy UV rays, and some sub-atomic particles such as alpha particles and protons are forms of ionizing radiation.
Child scanning

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

Europe Bans Airport Body Scanners for "Health and Safety" Concerns

The European Union issued a ruling that bans X-ray body scanners in all European airports. According to the European Commission, the agency charged with enforcing the ruling across the EU¶s 27 member nations, the prohibition is necessary ³in order not to risk jeopardizing citizens¶ health and safety.´X-ray body scanners, which use ³backscatter´ ionized radiation technology, emit enough radiation to theoretically damage DNA and cause cancer. While the level of radiation is extremely low, some studies have found that over time a small number of cancer cases could result from scanning millions of people a year. Statistically the incidence is minuscule, but it¶s a possibility nonetheless. Instead of X-ray scanners, European airports will use millimeter-wave scanners that utilize low-energy radio waves. So far, no credible studies have linked radio wave exposure to cancer. In the U.S., the TSA uses both types of scanners: 250 X-ray scanners and 264 millimeter wave scanners. Controversy surrounding use of the scanners has focused mainly on privacy concerns, and it would seem that the potential health risks of the technology have been largely downplayed in the interest of security.

In response to the EU ruling, the TSA offered a different flavor of statistics showing that since January 2010; more than 300 dangerous or illegal items have been found on passengers as a direct result of using X-ray body scanners. Earlier this month, a PBS Newshour/ProPublica report accused various agencies within the U.S. government of glossing over cancer risks when the scanners were rolled out. The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) took issue with the ProPublica report and responded last week with a letter claiming that the cancer risk from X-ray scanners is roughly 1 in 400 million, in stark contrast to ProPublica¶s assertion that research suggests anywhere from six to 100 Americans a year could develop cancer from use of the machines. The TSA plans to deploy 1,275 backscatter and millimeter-wave scanners covering more than half its security lanes by the end of 2012 and 1,800 covering nearly all the lanes by 2014. Unions for airline pilots working for American Airlines and US Airways have urged pilots to avoid the full body scanners. 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. 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 that full-body scans are unsafe. I don't think the right questions have been asked. We don't have enough information to make a decision on whether there's going to be a biological effect or not...Richard Morin, a medical physicist at the Mayo Clinic has said that he is not concerned about health effects from backscatter x-ray scanners:[68]"From a radiation standpoint there has been no evidence that there is really any untoward effect from the use of this device [backscatter scanner], so I would not be concerned about it from a radiation dose standpoint ² the issues of personal privacy are a different thing," he said. The health effects of the more common millimeter wave scanner are largely unknown, and at least one expert believes a safety study is warranted. "I am very interested in performing a National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements study on the use of millimeterwave security screening systems," said Thomas S. Tenforde, council president. However, no long-term studies have been done on the health effects of millimeter wave scanners.
Treatment of minorities

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. 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. According to a manufacturer of the machines, the next generation of backscatter scanners is able to screen these types of clothing. The next generation of scanners can equalize the screening process for all persons so that religious minorities can travel through the AIT process as easily as other passengers. Ineffectiveness of full-body scanners Opponents of full-body scanners claim that the technology is ineffective because terrorists have already evolved their tactics with the use of surgically implanted bombs or bombs hidden in body cavities. In one test of the full-body scanners, the machines failed to detect bomb parts

hidden around a person's body. In another test in 2011, an undercover TSA agent was able to carry a handgun through full body scanners multiple times without the weapon being detected.
Rafi Sela, an Israeli airport security expert 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."

Despite the scanners, the TSA has been unable to stop weapons like box cutters and pistols from being carried onto airplanes, raising questions about whether the agency needs more oversight in general. 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. Others have argued that passenger profiling, as done by Israeli airport security, should replace full body scanners and pat downs

Transportation Security Administration¶s role and opinion
The Transportation Security Administration, which is in charge of purchasing and deploying the scanners, asserts that they are safe for all passengers ³including children, pregnant women, and individuals with medical implants´ and that privacy is protected. ³The image cannot be stored, transmitted or printed, and is deleted immediately once viewed. Additionally, there is a privacy algorithm applied to blur the image on its Web site. Fear of terrorism is reasonable. Fear of the technology and the authorities in place to protect us from terrorism is not. There should be balancing public security with personal privacy and dignity. Proposed operating procedures on the use of scanners should be made public and open to public comment. Travelers must have the choice of an alternative security screening. When body parts are outlined and visible to security agents who are monitor the scanners, it violates an individual¶s right to privacy. Or at least that is the argument presented by angry air travelers subjected to such scans. Of course, getting felt up by security may seem like more of a violation to the average person, who is why most people submit to the scan, but it certainly hasn¶t stopped people from complaining and even walking out of airports to avoid the whole debacle. Unfortunately, world governments have good cause to implement these undeniably offensive tactics; it¶s for the good of all. Certainly nobody wants to see another terrorist attack that takes place on an airplane, least of all the government. No country wants to be responsible for letting a terrorist on a plane (or the resulting backlash of international outrage that would follow). Remember Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian who boarded a plane in Amsterdam heading for Detroit on December 25th, 2009 and tried to detonate a bomb hidden in his underwear (only succeeding in setting his pants on fire before he was taken down by other passengers)? Although he had ties to Al-Qaida, he was not on a no-fly list, meaning he received no additional screening at the airport. It is incidents like this one that have led previously lax countries to beef up security. But does this strategy denote actual concern for the citizenry, an attempt to avoid liability, or a violation of human rights? A government that fails to protect its people will not last very long. While safety of the constituency is at the top of every governing body¶s list, self-preservation is likely of equal importance. And while body scans and pat-downs may make some people cry

foul, the truth is that we currently have almost unparalleled access to safe transportation (a claim not every country can make). Because some people choose to abuse that privilege, we must all suffer tighter restrictions. Although some people might not like it, they can¶t deny that the ability to feel secure while utilizing public transportation may be worth the unethical implications inherent to search procedures. If not, they are lucky enough to enjoy the freedom to choose an alternative form of travel.

Conclusion
Full body scanners at airports are creating problems of privacy, human health, and violation of human right Act but TSA claims that images seen by operator on screen will be blurred from places where sexual organs are present and its radiations are not safe to human health. The question arises that why did we use such technology in which blurring is implemented and not blurring is creating a privacy issue?  These scanners should be banned because this scanning, in which whole naked body can be seen, is totally against privacy and true Islamic teachings. It is a complete violation of human rights. It is an unethical practice. As we know, security is important but we cannot lose our values by going into dark. No one wants that his daughter and wife can be seen naked by the operator. Suppose these scanners are useful, then why many scandal cases are arising? The answer is that it is totally based on unethical practices. TSA claims that images cannot be stored and are deleted on the spot but some cases has come in front in which images are leaked, misused (for pornography). There is a contradiction between opinions of TSA spokesperson and other people about saving of images.  There is also a contradiction about the effects of radiations emitted from backscatter scanners on human health. It is found that the intensity of ionized radiations is much higher than claimed and high dose is harmful to human health.  It creates bad human effects on children and pregnant women so it should not be used.  Strict pat downing is also unethical because security personnel touch almost at every place on human body even pushing and probing genital area or touching sexual organs even disable persons also bear it. It should be prevented because there is amorality in such pat downs in which one feels embarrassment. It is true that terrorists can hide things with the help of sexual organs but why will they do so? While he knows that full body scanners can detect any explosive. Just thinking as a criminal mind, he will look for another way that let the threat to enter in the environment.  These machines are not efficient or reliable because people still are found with knife or pistol; sometimes it does not detect explosive. Any defect in software or hardware of these machines leads to higher dose of radiations on specific area may cause cancer so they should not be used at airports and railways stations.

We know very well that airport security is much focused area in this era and there is a need of full body scanners at airports but these are creating many problems like privacy issue, health issue, and violation of human rights. They are not reliable and efficient, it would be better for every one to remove them from airports and focus on other security methods or checks like strict passengers¶ profiling etc.

Americans claim that they are super powers and great supporters of human rights but they are breaking laws of privacy and human rights themselves; they are losing their values, dignity and respect, they are becoming to valueless; they are going into dark. They are doing unethical activity. Using airport security scanners are creating ethical issues and they should not be used unless it is ensured that its radiations (both technologies) will not affect on human health and other ethical issues (privacy) are solved. The research should be conducted on the effects of full body scanners on human health to analyze the effects fully. These full body scanners are good metal detectors for security if these don¶t create ethical issues like privacy and health issues.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->