Are airport body scanners an invasion of privacy?

© Japan Today

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

I voted, no, simply because this kind of security is necessary in this messed up age of terrorism.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

The invasion of privacy is to assume every passenger is guilty and needs to prove his/her innocence. A 70 year old former foreign language teacher who has taken students to 14 foreign countries, then served as an ALT in junior high schools, and who does not even have a parking ticket, doesn't need to stand in line with suspicious travelers. The present system is going to collapse under its own process rules because there is going to be an increase in flights not only to and from Japan but other countries. Many people object to profiling and other means to determine who is scanned, but the Israelis have a security system that works at airports. Finally, STOP the business traveler in economy from carrying on a suitcase, a small bag strapped to it, and a laptop bag which all take more than the carry-on baggage limit. No airline enforces the rule of ONE carry-on and ONE extra PERSONAL bag (purse or laptop).

3 ( +8 / -5 )

It is an invasion of personal privacy for some people and is humiliating and an assault. Who knows the images can be misused. So why do you have to give up all your personal privacy to have security. On the other hand if the screeners are looking at the image sitting in a separate room unable to see who they are scanning and the machines improves security by preventing terrorist from blowing up planes I'm not opposed. Personally, I always opt-out of the x-ray scanner because even if the radiation dose is minute, I'm not willing to risk my health by exposing my entire body to any avoidable dose on a regular basis. An interesting point you will want to consider is that in order to use the body scanner, you have to be able to raise your arms above your head and if you can't then they have to send you through the far safer magnetic scanner and they typically do not pat you down.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

No. People baby-cry too damn much.

-13 ( +3 / -16 )

The dose of radiation is what I don't want minimal as it is.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

No, here also, I have no worries at all, no worries about pat downs, I will even strip. if it get me through without repeatedly going back for a rescans, pulling out laptops, getting spoken to rudely because your not up to speed with their process due to continuous change. I really get annoyed with having to redo stuff like I am anti OCD, I have to do it once. So I am all for improving. In Japan I never fly dom, I use the trains because of the simple excess and ease.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Nope, that's fine. No idea why ppl find that "humiliating"?!

As long as we don't have a systematic FULL body cavity search I say bring it on! ;)

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Sorry but having your "privets" being X-rayed, is an invasion of your privacy. The question does not say anything about if it's justified or not, just wether it's an invasion of privacy. The answer is yes, it is.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

The last time I flew, last summer, I just found myself herded through the scanner, then a pat down aftwards( which by the way was quick but extremely uncoonfortable) never had a chance to choose and ended up with both.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

MarkG, if you are really bothered by radiation that much I would advice you not taking the plane at all.

First off all, a scan would expose you to about 0.1μSv per scan, though I agree that would be relative a lot compared to background radiation, comparing that to in-flight radiation e.g. Tokyo -> Paris would be at 6.6μSv per hour, makes it a somewhat redundant number (note: as this flight gets near the arctic the radiation dose might be slightly higher than normally)

Also the average radiation dose you would get just by background radiation in your average day would be ~10μSv a day

Oh, and I just happen to know quite a few things about Amsterdam Airport in the Netherlands, they use "Millimeter wave scanners" and unlike the "Backscatter X-ray scanners" they do not use x-rays so there is no radiation potential (as Backscatter X-ray scans are forbidden in Europe since 2012). But the fun part is, rather than displaying the actual image, it processes the image without human input and highlights suspicious areas over a cartoon image of a person. Obviously we still have to trust them that they don't save the images, but that's a different story. (as they claim not to)

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

What's next? An MRI?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Have you ever seen the screens of these machines? They see right through clothes and hair. In the article I saw, the screen in the background showed the labia of the woman in the chamber.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Yes, but sadly necessary.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Have you ever seen the screens of these machines? They see right through clothes and hair. In the article I saw, the screen in the background showed the labia of the woman in the chamber.

Exactly! People need to study about these machines before judging. All it takes is a quick search on the internet and you can see that basically these machines go right through the clothes and whatever person is working can see everyone's private parts. These are regular joe schmo's looking at what you got going on with your body, not physicians.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

"I voted, no, simply because this kind of security is necessary in this messed up age of terrorism"

Me too.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

People seem to misunderstand the question "Are airport body scanners an invasion of privacy?"

Well, of course they are!! Regardless of the need to prevent terrorists, drug carriers or the insane from boarding a plane it still doesn't change the fact that it is demeaning. The guilty till proven innocent way of things just seems to be the solution to everything these days.

Seriously though, these machines only deter some terrorists of today and just means they need to up their game for tomorrow. My worry is nano devices that can be used to ignite jet fuel remotely. If you can swallow a camera and send remote video, fly drones miles away or create a bluetooth device the size of a penny then you know the tech is out there and very cheaply.

The simplest method using the equipment in use today is as suggested to separate the operator and viewer to a remote location who only has access to the x-ray image which is deleted immediately afterwards. The near future would be AI taking over with human intervention only upon alerts. It should work out to be more efficient and cheaper by having a remote central location dedicated to scanning the images.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Someone in here asked "what's next". Well, it's a chip under your skin, "for your own good". If authorities care about protection from terrorism, they would apply all these terror-controls from the airports, also in bus and train stations, in schools, hospitals.... a chip under your skin. If they really care about terrorism, they should seriously invest in those countries, and provide people with decent jobs, houses, proper education, proper medication, development of all kind. As humanity we have the technology, and yes, we have "the money", to help all people live in peace and prosperity. But the values and the "ethics" are mentioned only for some. Welcome to the "Brave New World".

4 ( +4 / -0 )

To claim it isn't an invasion of your privacy seems like a symptom of Stockholm Syndrome IMO.

The images are stored, not actually deleted. There have been numerous abuses of the systems in USSA.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Of coarse they are. The question should read, "Are body scanners an unwarranted invasion of privacy? "

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Why is there not the same security at Tokyo station ? You could do way more damage to life and property on a train. I have just walk on with large suit case all the way from my place in Ichinoseki to the my destination Osaka. Going through several turnstile at Tokyo station. only having to produce a ticket if asked. If I was to fly I would have to through waiting in baggage lines, arrival counters, then security, having to perform tasks to verify that your not some sort of crazy person wanting take out a plane load of people. Which has happen. So why is not the same level of security? Why do crazy target planes and airports. I assume those who entice these people into doing the crazy act really have shares in Security and guns Firms. Because they have been the only winners from all of this.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Yes, body scanners are an invasion of privacy, BUT are they a NECESSARY invasion of privacy? That's the real question. People who voted "No" are cucks to the system and a bit simple-minded, or just don't mind making their privates public.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Actually, these are a benefit to anyone with metal body parts, like those in a total knee or hip replacement. Prior to the scanners, one was pulled aside for a considerably more invasive physical exam after setting off the basic metal detectors.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I've flown well over a hundred times in my life yet I have to go through the same inane procedures every time I fly. Any decent system would not subject us to the same time wasting procedures again and again....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dogs have chips in the USA. If it is found by someone, the scanner tells the address to the authorities. A chip under the skin is only a problem for guilty or people of thinking a crime are afraid to have. Give me the chip and get the heck out of my way. I have a plane to catch. Guilty until proven innocent is not the American way which dictates what other countries do at airports.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

People need to study about these machines before judging. All it takes is a quick search on the internet and you can see that basically these machines go right through the clothes and whatever person is working can see everyone's private parts.

There's another problem! They swore up and down when they were installing these machines that the images could not be saved, but there they are on the net. So, the machines were not programmed as promised to delete images directly after they were viewed, and the personnel using the machines are unprofessional and have let images (that they said didn't exist) out of the system.

Once hired, caterers and tarmac employees are rarely submitted to repeat background checks after their initial one upon hiring, and they go through NO security to get in to work. They scan their passes and that's it. All the scans and body searches in the world won't help with this gaping hole in security.

Out front 'on stage' grannies and kids have their pants gone through, while literally dozens of people go to work backstage at the airport without even going through a metal detector. This is how a drug smuggling ring, a gun smuggling ring, and countless incidents of theft from passenger luggage occurred in the past couple of years alone. If there is little enough security for airport workers that they can smuggle weapons up and down the East Coast, what's to prevent them from sabotaging an aircraft? Just put a little parcel in the hold with the suitcases?

Scanners mean nothing, they do little to nothing to keep us safe.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites