Airport body scanner 'compulsory'

Alice McKeegan

February 01, 2010

| Submit Comments | Comments (78) | Previous | Next

Any passenger at Manchester Airport could be forced to go through controversial body scanners from noon today.

The airport, which has been trialling the controversial technology in Terminal Two since October, is one of two directed by the Government to install the scanners permanently from today.

Additional scanners are also planned for Terminals One and Three by the end of this month. The new rules are being introduced at Manchester and London Heathrow to improve security in the wake of a failed attempt to blow up a transatlantic jet on Christmas Day.

As part of the changes, it will be compulsory for passengers, including those under 18s, who are selected for a scan to participate. Anyone who refuses will not be allowed to travel.

One of the £80,000 Rapiscan devices has been on trial at the airport since November, but the machine, which creates an outline image of the body, prompted outcry from human rights and child protection experts.

They argue the technology, which even show up false limbs and breast implants, could compromise passengers' privacy. Airport bosses say body scanning will be in addition to the normal security procedure. They revealed that any passenger could be selected for scanning.

Passengers will be selected if they alert the suspicion of security officers following a hand search or unsolved metal detection alarm. Passengers will also go through the device if explosive or vapour trace detection equipment causes an alarm to sound or if they request a private search prior to or after passing through the walk-through metal detection equipment.

The airport's head of customer experience, Sarah Barrett, said: “We understand that compulsory body scanning is a big change for customers who are selected under the new rules.

Privacy concerns

“We know privacy concerns have been on our customers’ minds which is why we have put strict procedures to reassure them that their privacy will be protected.

“We’ve been at the forefront in the development of imaging technology for UK airports and feel we are well placed to introduce this relatively simple, safe and straightforward security process. It will enhance security for everyone, which can only be a good thing, without compromising people’s privacy. The image generated by the body scanner cannot be stored or captured nor can security officers viewing the images recognise people. Contrary to reports, the equipment does not allow security staff to see passengers naked.”

Previously, under 18s were not allowed to participate in the trial at Manchester Airport. However, the Government has confirmed as part of the new rules that this exemption no longer applies.

You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.

460

275

GirKmyKkewc

false

| Submit Comments | Comments (78) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All

Higgs Boson, Greater Manchester (01/02/2010 at 11:36)

photo looks like the Turin Shroud

Hurry O'Caine - the Irish Whirlind, Typhoon Tipperary (01/02/2010 at 11:49)

Oh hell more delays - and I'll have to remove Prince Albert before I go on holiday.

Audenshaw Bob (01/02/2010 at 11:53)

I have no problem with this whatsoever and welcome it.

However if we are serious about preventing planes from being bombed can we please exercise profiling and enesure that we check those more likely to be a threat rather than my 80 year old Grandad. I know anybody couldb ecapable but there are those 'more likely'.

If you were betting on the Premier League title you would bet on a team 'more likely' to win it, not Portsmouth. Same applies here.

Stop pussyfooting around.

If I matched the profile I woudl accept it as the way it has to be in order to help everybody be safer.

Ignoramus, Manchester (01/02/2010 at 11:57)

"If I matched the profile I woudl accept it as the way it has to be in order to help everybody be safer."

Im assuming you dont though, which makes it an easy thing to claim.

Red Army (01/02/2010 at 11:58)

This is absoultely pathetic!!!! Passenger profiling has to be the way forward. I am not racist by any stretch of the imagination but it is only one religion that is proving a threat when it comes to air travel. I really can't see the point of checking and double checking a white 60 year old couple on there way for a fornight in Spain. This is politic correctness gone too far, I am a frequent flyer both short and long haul and I see longer security queues at British airports than any where else in the world.

Hurry O'Caine - the Irish Whirlind, Typhoon Tipperary (01/02/2010 at 12:00)

Audenshaw Bob: everybody knows that you suggest is correct but it won't happen. It is fraught with legal dangers. No, we'll all have to get to the airport earlier, have less time for a shop and a drink and spend more time queueing - and all because a handful of suicidal idiots want to attract attention to themselves. Pathetic. We should have put a stop to all this caper years ago when it first started.

tiggerluc, somewhere in shaw (01/02/2010 at 12:05)

Red Army - passenger profiling...mmm so you have the description of the average terrorist. Please divulge and share with the authorities so that we, the average Joe public can get through the Airport quicker.

Oh hang on wernt the 7/7 (or least the majority of ) werent even on the watch lists etc.

When in Rome (01/02/2010 at 12:06)

Yet another censored post, what's the point in inviting comments when most of mine are censored ?

Belrock, England (01/02/2010 at 12:12)

Audenshaw Bob, .
1/02/2010 at 11:53
Spot on need to stop all this PC nonsense lives are in danger.
The security level has been increased recently as an attack maybe about to happen. Perhaps the bombers are trying to kill and maim before the scanners are put in place. I understand a female suicide bomber has killed a number of innocent worshipers in Baghdad this morning. With the style of clothing worn in that country it is easy to hide a bomb on one's person.
We need to be alert to this in our country also.

Hurry O'Caine - the Irish Whirlind, Typhoon Tipperary (01/02/2010 at 12:12)

When in Rome: You'll get the idea eventually.

Black Flag (01/02/2010 at 12:13)

Audenshaw Bob: "I know anybody couldb ecapable but there are those 'more likely'."

And as soon as you define one group as 'more likely,' that group will become less likely as the strategy changes to accommodate the circumstances. That's why the football analogy is such a poor one.

Black Flag (01/02/2010 at 12:16)

Belrock: "The security level has been increased recently as an attack maybe about to happen."

Stop being so gullible.

It's been increased for no other reason than because it is to the state's advantage to increase it.

Rammylad (01/02/2010 at 12:17)

If up take to a stupid and flawed idea is slow, do a labour and make it a law. How very consideate of them. Surely it goes against your human rights to be filmed naked having commited no crime. Also how safe are these things? What is the dose? What are we being exposed to? Are we allowed to know?

RT, UK (01/02/2010 at 12:21)

This is totally over the top. Intelligence Services of the US and UK have let us down in every Terrorist Attack that has ever taken place so far. They are protected by their Political Masters, who are found wanting themselves.

Of course there is a basic profile of someone who is liable to be involved in Terrorism. The vast majority who travel do not fit this from the distance of the Moon to the Earth. Also remember whatever new toys they have to play with, we are paying for them.

Ignoramus, Manchester (01/02/2010 at 12:22)

Why not just close all the airports and the ports? Then the terrorists cant come and eat our children and illegal immigrants wont be able to come here.

davefb, bolton (01/02/2010 at 12:23)

So we're going to stop and search all catholics? Strikes me that's the one that manchester needs to have looked for.
Also amusing that this device will be used after the previous checks have triggered something. Did the detroit bomber actually fire off any alerts, would he have been stopped by this, in which case are we only giving a laugh to the security staff and money to the makers of the device?
And if it doesn't allow you to see people naked, then what are the photo's that keep being shown about, whilst they're not naked, they show far more than I really want to be showing to anyone. Is sarah barrett willing to have pictures of what she looks like bandied around all the media outlets like that poor bloke has had?

Mark,Radcliffe. (01/02/2010 at 12:25)

You will do it..that's democracy for you.

Martin Boyle (01/02/2010 at 12:26)

Between the late 1980's and mid 1990's, I frequently travelled between Manchester and Belfast. As a young male, travelling alone, I was normally stopped, questioned and often subjected to additional searches. Although at the time it was inconvenient, these measures were a form of profiling and meant that the majority of passengers who were not considered a threat passed unhindered. It did make me wonder if it was because I had long hair and wasn't wearing a suit, that I was the only guy on the plane stopped and questioned. As if the paramilitaries never wore suits. Just take a look in Stormont today, don't see too many of them wearing jeans.

Audenshaw Bob (01/02/2010 at 12:29)

Black Flag, excellent point. I dodn't think of it in that way.

I see now, so if muslims from countries such as Afghanistan, Sudan, Yemen etc are 'more likely' and we target them, they will then become 'less likely' and others, say Belgian Christians or Atheist Portugese will take up the cause on their behalf. Good point.

Mike, Manchester (01/02/2010 at 12:32)

The bad guys have already won this battle now. They don't even have to test the system anymore. They've turned us into whining, frightnened, queueing sheep.

Audenshaw Bob (01/02/2010 at 12:37)

Ignoramous, it depends what the profile is.

If I was watching Crimewatch and a criminal was wanted who matched by description and in my area then I would expect to be questioned. What's the big deal? If I match a profile then I match the profile and as long as I can prove my innocence (as everybody who is going through a scanner is doing in effect) then no worries.

My grandad was profiled during World War 2 because he was British, had a British Army uniform and was on a D-Day landing craft. The Germans profiled him as the enemy.

If the police said that they are looking for a female, aged about 32, with long ginger hair, blue eyes and a Liverpudlian accent, is that offensive to all other women who fit that description.

To be honest this country is soft as. That is why we have become a breeding ground for terrorists and teh UN and the USA hold us up as a harbour for terrorists and for encouraging radicalisation but rather than tackle the issue on the doorstep we kill people up in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Hurry O'Caine - the Irish Whirlind, Typhoon Tipperary (01/02/2010 at 12:37)

Black Flag says "It's been increased for no other reason than because it is to the state's advantage to increase it."

In what way is it in the state's interest?

GaelGivet, Didsbury (01/02/2010 at 12:42)

We ought to be looking into behavioural profiling rather than profiling according to ethnicity, etc, etc. As for Rammylad's comments, apparently the dose of radiation is equivalent to 1/20,000 of a normal x-ray (or at least that's according to John Leech's blog: http://johnleechmp.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/full-body-scanners-at-manchester-airport/)

Black Flag (01/02/2010 at 12:45)

Audenshaw Bob, that's quite a skill you've got. I'm aware of nobody else on the planet who can determine anybody's religious beliefs just by glancing at them. Your ability to sniff out atheists would have made you very valuable to the Spanish Inquisition.

Black Flag (01/02/2010 at 13:00)

Hurry O'Caine: "In what way is it in the state's interest?"

The state's primary objective is power - getting it, retaining it and expanding it, in order that it can continue to exist as a parasite on the productive. Anything which makes a section of the public afraid at the point that the state is trying to entrench its power will generally make its job easier. Fundamentally, the state is a protection racket and it operates using much the same methods as any other.

Creating a heightened sense of fear during the Chilcot enquiry probably doesn't do them any harm either.

()

Report

News