Airport Body Scanners - A Case Study by SGW

Is the introduction of body scanners at airports really a security measure to deter terrorist attacks and identify hidden bombs and explosive carried within the human body or is it simply a political stunt to appease public opinion and put travellers' minds at rest and boost the economy, especially at this moment in time, or is it something else?

This is a classic case of bolting the barn door after the horses are gone. Politicians are angry and feel let down by their security services and airport security staff that the "crotch bomber" (who tried to blow up an airplane of Christmas day) got through airport security with his explosives undetected, and as such have demanded that drastic actions and measures are taken by placing full-body scanners in all airports.

INTRODUCTION

In the wake of the failed terrorist attack attempted on Christmas Day on an international flight bound for Detroit, USA, the world has woken up to a new and sophisticated type of terrorism.

It is a fact that terrorism, like crime, is getting more and more sophisticated and that terrorists and their sponsors are using the new technology to defeat attempts to stop them from committing cowardly and unforgivable acts of inhuman suicide; mass killing of innocent and law abiding citizens.

The world is now quickly and hastily looking at ways of preventing (probably not stopping) these type of acts of terrorism on a mass scale. This would have been unthinkable a few years ago, but with the advent of technology, terrorists have chosen the path of sophistications.

Several countries had previously not signalled their intention to use 3-D body scanners because of their prohibitive costs. However, in the wake of the botched Christmas Day attack that saw an alleged Nigerian terrorist attempt to destroy a Detroit-bound U.S. airliner, some world airports have changed their minds or have been forced to rethink their decisions and have gone ahead with the scanners despite the multimillion-dollar price tag.

The idea of using full body scanners is supposed to show any hidden item or object within our body while going through the scanner. Scanners are supposed to be able to see through clothes of air travellers, allowing security personnel to root out potential airline terror threats.

AIRPORTS USING SCANNERS

In a bid to try to tackle what is now called a new terrorist threat, heads of governments have announced some new security measures, that will see new full-body scanners put into operation at several airports. The scanners have caused controversy not only because they can produce naked images of those being scanned but also because the £100,000 devices may not actually help as much as governments are stating that they will.

Other people claim that the new scanners would have not picked up the explosives Umar Abdulmutallab was allegedly carrying in his underpants before he had boarded Flight 253 to Detroit on Christmas Day. It has been stated that the full-body scanners would be able to identify old style bomb vests but were not good at seeing substances such as liquids, low density plastics or powders.

It is important to note that the new scanners will not be one hundred percent effective against terrorists but the new full-body scanners, using the new technology, can trace the residue from explosive devices.

The body scanners have already been tested at certain airports such as Kelowna, B.C. and enable a screening officer to see if someone is carrying explosives or other dangerous items. The machines are considered to be controversial because they produce a three-dimensional outline of a person's naked body and therefore can show too many private parts of the human body.

Additionally, the system was supposed to be used in such a way that officers viewing the images would be in a separate room, so that they never saw the actual air traveller. Individuals would only go through the scanner if they were singled out for extra screening and would have a choice of whether they preferred a pat-down search.

Such scanners are currently used at airports in cities including Amsterdam, Moscow and Phoenix. They are also used in Baghdad's security "green zone" and in some U.S. courthouses and prisons.

Several of the world's major airports have also announced that they will be installing the new scanners as a matter of urgency. These airports include Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Halifax, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton will be among the airports to have the new scanners installed.

NEW TECHNOLOGY

The technology was first introduced and tested about two years ago to make it easier for airport security workers to do body searches without making physical contact with passengers.

While the idea of an electronic strip-search did not bother most passengers, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Privacy Information Center have criticized the scanners as too invasive since they can reveal the shape of a woman's breasts or the outline of a man's genitalia.

Security authorities have worked with privacy advocates and the scanners' manufacturers to develop software that blurs the faces and genital areas of passengers being scanned. This is similar to blurring we see on our screen when some CCTV footage is being shown.

To further protect passenger privacy, security officers viewing the images are in a different part of the airport and are not allowed to take any recording devices into the room with them. The images captured by the scanners cannot be stored, transmitted or printed in any way.

Some travellers, however, argue the scanners and pat-downs are little more than feel-good measures by authorities interested in making it look like they are protecting people.

DANGER OF RADIATION

Full body scanning involves radiation. Full-body scanners, unlike standard archway metal detectors used in airports around the world, use radio waves to generate a picture of the body that can see through a person's clothing and spot hidden weapons or packages.

Officials must naturally defend compulsory passenger X-rays as harmless. But they are signing no guarantees because ionizing radiation in the X-ray spectrum damages and mutates both chromosomal DNA and structural proteins in human cells. If this damage is not repaired, it can lead to cancer. New research shows that even very low doses of X-ray can delay or prevent cellular repair of damaged DNA, raising questions about the safety of routine medical X-rays. Unborn babies can become grotesquely disfigured if their mothers are irradiated during pregnancy. Radiation damage is cumulative and each successive dose builds upon the cellular mutation caused by the last. It can take years for radiation damage to manifest pathology.

Officials have always claimed that body scanners are safer to use than X-ray scanners because they do not emit radiation and do not require passengers' consent. Pregnant women cannot go through X-ray scanners but there are no such health risks with millimetre-wave technology. However, no evidence has surfaced so far that the machines, which currently are used in several airports worldwide, are dangerous.

The X-ray dose of one body scan is negligible. One scan emits less than 10 microrem; the unit used to measure radiation. Comparably, an hour on an airplane at a high altitude exposes a passenger to 300 microrem and the average person is exposed to 1,000 microrem of radiation over the course of a normal day, according to some scientists.

Security Authority says the low-level radio frequency wave emitted by the body scanner meets international health-and-safety standards. However, this has not been confirmed or supported by any health and safety agency publicly or in writing.

BODY SCANNERS MAY NOT WORK

Proponents of this technology argue that it's worth sacrificing privacy for safety, which is a fact most of us see as acceptable and worth adopting. After all it is better to be safe than sorry. However, in their rush to do something as drastic as this without prior development of policies and proper procedures, policymakers may be ignoring five big problems with rolling out this technology:

1. Apparently, according to some manufacturers of body scanners, the technology has not yet been certified as fit for purpose by national governments. Therefore manufacturers are not prepared to invest in mass production until this is fully certified. Until the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the European Union certify the technology, scanner manufactures are apparently not rushing into fast production of body scanners worth over £100,000 each.

2. These machines are not full proof yet and unlikely to detect as many threats as we may expect. According to some body scanner manufacturers, airport body scanners would be "unlikely" to detect many of the explosive devices used by terrorist groups. The current available technology probably wouldn't have detected the Christmas day underwear bomb. The body scanners aren't very useful for detecting liquids and plastics and can only help spotlight irregularities under a person's clothes.

3. The scanners may violate child pornography laws. A trial run of the scanners in Britain was only allowed to proceed after children under 18 were exempt from screening. The decision followed a warning from Terri Dowty, of Action for Rights of Children, that the scanners could breach the Protection of Children Act 1978, under which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a "pseudo-image" of a child [Guardian]. It's not clear if children would continue to be exempt from screening should the scanners become widely used, or where the United States stands on screening children. The images are not supposed to be stored after their creation, but many critics say the security personnel analyzing the images are poorly monitored to ensure the scans are disposed of properly after the screening is completed.

4. Some countries may not use them due to religious belief or other customs and traditions. Obviously this can be negotiated with the countries in question and if they still reluctant then some flights towards European and US cities may have to be completely removed. However, it is believed that after the recent event, there is some indication that most of the governments have recently softened their stances. The fact remains to be seen as the scanners start being introduced worldwide.

5. Full body scanners will not be able to detect items inside a human body. Usually, these machines are used to scan and find out what is underneath the clothes and outside the human skin. They do not have the capability of X-ray machines to see inside a human body, despite the fact that this can be achieved but the radiation level will be too dangerous. Generally, the machines can't find items hidden in a body cavity, so the scanners will not stop at least one common smuggling method used by drug traffickers. As mentioned earlier, terrorists nowadays are becoming more sophisticated and it is not hard to imagine them following in drug smugglers' footsteps. As a live example in September 2009, a 23 year old Al Qaeda suicide bomber hid explosives in his rectum in an attempt to kill a Saudi Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef but because the bomber's flesh absorbed most of the blast, he died and the prince survived.

TRAVELERS EXTRA COSTS AND DELAYS

It is believed that the new machines will lead to long queues at airports and longer waiting times in airport lounges. However, this can easily be overcome by adding more screening machines and investing in security screening staff. This means extra cost, more towards airport expenses, ticket prices will increase and the people travelling by air will shy away due to the price increases and waiting times.

This may not be the case as these scanners will be introduced in planned stages and at essential airports. But also many more air travellers may have to get used to the idea of tight security soon and the new security measures would probably add an extra half-hour to the already time-consuming airplane boarding process.

If such a scanner is brought in, it is likely that passengers will have to pay more for airline tickets because fares may rise to cover the costs of the machine.

Some governments will pay for the scanners as part of border controls, but others will take the view that the industry pays.

Airports will provide the service but the cost will be borne by the travelling public through an increase in security charges added to their ticket price.

Author:

Rachid Zemouri, Senior Consulting Engineer, SGW Security Consulting

+44 7809 091175

rachid@sgw.ae