back to article Airport scanner staff object to vetting

Security staff at Heathrow airport are reportedly furious at the suggestion that any of them would ever use pics taken from the new body scanners for lewd or lascivious purposes. Their reaction was reported last week in Skyport, a newspaper that carries news and features for those working at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Neil 5

      At least he can quote a post properly and manage to not come across as a weasley little turd. Both of which seem to be beyond you.

  1. Cheeky Chappie
    Big Brother

    Back in the late 90's.......

    I worked at Heathrow in airline security, we routinely searched bags taken at random. some of these belonged to young ladies - there is no difference(from a sexual point of view) between rifling through someones underwear and viewing an image on screen, we were looking for dangerous items(to the aircraft) what was in the case wasn't interesting. The same would apply to the image.

    With hindsight, what now worried me is the amount of muslim asians that are employed in this field, please don't mis-understand, the old cliche applies, not all muslims are terrorists but it does appear that all terrorists are or claim to be muslim.

    Also I WAS vetted and received a certificate that was recognized by other security firms and airlines.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Paul 77 X Rays

    What f***ng planet are you on?

    They don't EVER use X rays to scan people passing through airports. (with a caveat about to follow)

    If they suspect dugs have been swallowed, and have a damn good reason to suspect they've been swallowed then they might do an X ray to see what's inside the body.

    X rays most definitely are dangerous, which is why they don't routinely use X rays to scan the human body.

    1. Peter Hewitt-Dutton
      FAIL

      Wrong!

      Let me correct you! I work in Heathrow security, and for 3 years we had the very scanners everyone is worrying about now in Terminal 4. They are also in Manchester.

      They DO use x-rays, with a dose for the cycle of 3 micro-rem. The dose recieved is about the same as background radiation, and far less than you'd recieve on the plane!

      They will not see drugs swallowed, they do not penetrate the skin, the only thing you sometimes see under the skin is the shinbone, because it's right up against quite thin skin.

      However anything strapped to the body can be seen.

      I agree with the person interviewed though, we have NO interest in keeping images of naked passengers, why would we?? We are looking for anything which can bring down the plane.

  3. pixelatedpete

    another reactionary measure

    I've been to an airport. I've seen the people there. manning that scanner would not be a nice task! humanity is, by and large, not the beauties you see in magazines. i'm not and neither are you.

    I don't think it'd be too long before anyone at these scanners would desensitize to seeing naked people - a bit like doctors. my worry then would be, how long before that renders the scanners a useless waste of money as people cease to notice knives and bombs?

    there must be better machines that couldn't care less about what you look like and not rely on the falable human eye, surely? like the "sniffer" scans in the CN tower?

    I just get the impression who ever makes these devices just happens to also have the ear of a minister. twas ever thus.

  4. Remy Redert

    @RotaCyclic

    Think again. Some of the scanners suggested for this kind of work use backscatter X-ray scanning.

    Ionizing radiation is potentially dangerous, just like a car is potentially dangerous. You are exposed to small amounts of ionizing radiation every day, be it from solar radiation, various radioactive sources in the soil or common household items that are mildly radioactive.

    A backscatter X-ray scanner, designed properly, should not pose a health risk.

    For a short list of sources of ionizing radiation, think of concrete walls (emit radon gas), granite (radon gas again), smoke detectors (americium in most cases), gas lights (the sock is radioactive) and even good ol' carbon in all its forms contains radioactive isotopes.

    Now from what I understand, the type of scanners used by the UK gov are terahertz wave systems, of which possible health implications haven't been thoroughly researched yet.

    1. Boring Bob
      Thumb Down

      A common misunderstanding

      "Ionizing radiation is potentially dangerous, just like a car is potentially dangerous."

      Incorrect. Ionizing radiation damages your DNA, the body is not able to repair this damage and it will be copied into new cells. Hence the damage caused by ionizing radiation is accumulative and there is no safe dose (so called "safe" doses were created for purely practical reasons). If you have a trip in a car and survive without injury then this trip will not have any negative impact on your future health. The effect of risk from diving cars, unlike ionising radiation, is not accumulative.

  5. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Coat

    IIRC Senior UK customs officials carry out cavity searches

    One of the new responsabilities on promotion. Naturally they go on a course to learn how.

    Mine would be a hi-vis jacket with a warrant card in.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.