This is one case where the mods should definitely fix the post title - this is not airport scanners scrapped everywhere in the UK, just Manchester, and they're going to be replaced with a different type anyway.

They deployed scanners in Glasgow and Edinburgh airports just a few weeks ago, and as objclxt points out: you can't opt-out of them. In theory you should only be scanned if you set off the metal detector or are 'randomly' selected, but I've heard at least one report of everyone going through Glasgow airport being scanned.

I assume these are the 'privacy friendly' scanners, which 'don't emit radiation' according to the airports. I think they mean they're millimetre wave instead of backscatter X-Ray, but they're still intrusive. They show up anything they find on a 'cartoon' image.

The BBC report on the scanners being fitted in Glasgow and Edinburgh is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-19...

The ones at Heathrow T1 were obviously mothballed when I went through on Wednesday evening. Not just Manchester, it appears.

It has a few words in common with the actual article title which is "Manchester Airport's body scanners scrapped".

Well, it looks like they changed the post title, but left the "scrapped" in. Oh well, 1/2.

What the article doesn't mention, but is very important to note, is that unlike in the US passengers can not opt out. If you don't want to go through the body scanner you simply aren't going to travel. This is one of the issues that the EU has with them.

At AMS[0] you can opt-out, I've done so every time I went through there. They will look at you funny, ask you why, and you will be patted down, but they will allow you to fly.

[0]: Amsterdam Schiphol Airport

I wish I'd known that. I had to go through one in Amstersam last month. That's the first and only time I've ever gone through one, despite flying a dozen of times since they were installed in the US.

They're generally not hard to avoid in the US. Most airports have at least one line where they aren't being used (often the line nearest to the first-class/priority ID-check line). It's not hard to just get in that line after the ID check. The one time I've been told to go through the backscatter scanner (in the US), I told the agent I wanted to opt out, and she just directed me through the metal detector and that was the end.

Really? Less than a year ago the EU adopted new regulations that required member states to allow passengers to opt out:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/1...

(see paragraph 6)

They're certainly telling people that there's no opt-out - I guess most people who turn up to the airport don't have the luxury of refusing the scan, being turned away, and then taking the government (or airport operator) to court.

The current UK government isn't what you'd call EU-friendly, either.

> you can not opt-out

Since when? Why can't I opt out?

In Edinburgh at least, if you are "chosen" (hahaha) for a body scan and refuse, then you can't fly, simple as that.

It's at all UK airports with these, I believe. On the flip-side I've flown several times since the introduction and never been singled out for forced irradiation so it's not certain you'll be made to do it.

Can I ask a really stupid question that has probably been asked before?

Aren't there way more people standing around being delayed in a screening area than on any plane?

Why would a terrorist even have to make it through screening?

I think the TSA officially pretends that things like the the 2011 Moscow bombings don't happen.... at least they don't happen to the U.S... therefore it's not a real concern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domodedovo_International_Airpor...

What? Are you not entertained by security theater?

It's like opera - an acquired taste.

If your goal is just to make a mass murder, there are places more crowded than an airport and with less police walking around.

Getting control of a plane can make significantly more damage.

True, but the likelihood of somebody pulling that off again is, I'd imagine, rather small. That kind of tactic will most likely only work once.

For it to happen again it would probably have to be done by people who don't blend in with the crowd going through security. For instance, an employee. Even then, chances are it would have to be a pilot or someone who can gain access to the cockpit during flight.

True, and also likely back when the airlines were lobbying not to have to strengthen cockpit doors. These days, the odds of getting into the cockpit armed with boxcutters are somewhere between shit and NULL.

Agree, this reminded me of the following quote by Schneier:

> “The only useful airport security measures since 9/11,” he says, “were locking and reinforcing the cockpit doors, so terrorists can’t break in, positive baggage matching”—ensuring that people can’t put luggage on planes, and then not board them —“and teaching the passengers to fight back. The rest is security theater.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/12/tsa-insan...

Besides which the pilots might well crash the plane somewhere harmless in the meantime rather than becoming a flying bomb.

The only additional reason they might want to target a plane is the cost of the plane, which is usually substantial.

My definition of 'scrapped' differs from theirs: they aren't getting rid of the scanners altogether, they're replacing them with an upgraded model. OK, the upgrade gives them privacy features, rather than raw images, but 'scrapped' seems a bit strong.

I should also note that it's only Manchester airport that's affected, not the whole of the UK.

The normal definition of scrapping something is to get rid of it, typically in such a way that it is not reused in its current form.

e.g. If I scrap my car, it means that I am no longer using it, nor have I sold it on to another driver to use it. It will likely be broken up for parts.

Whether I get a new car to replace it has no bearing on whether it has been scrapped.

"a recent survey 100% of passengers were satisfied"

I'd be very suspicious if I saw any survey that indicates 0% or 100% of anything. That just doesn't happen normally.

I've been surveyed three times for these scanners. Don't trust the results: all three times I declined due to "privacy reasons", and all three times they ticked the "health reasons" box, despite my objections.

Maybe they want to imply that anyone who objects to being scanned for privacy reasons, must be mentally ill.

Important to note that 100% of passengers surveyed preferred them to frisking, rather than being happy with them objectively.

Am I the only one who has no problem with being frisked?

I don't think there's any safety concerns with these machines but I'd much rather be frisked than have a digital image captured and potentially used for whatever.

I'm often frisked at Singapore Airport, but they've never once actually pulled something out of my pockets even when there's something obviously in them. They are looking at my reaction.

I dislike being frisked, too, but I find it a better alternative.

I just think of it as a complimentary massage.

I keep smiling at them which makes them uneasy ;)

My thoughts exactly. When they first brought these things into the UK they said the machines weren't even capable of retaining images. Soon afterwards there was a scandal because staff had been saving them, and they shifted the goalposts to say staff weren't supposed to save them - which is an entirely different prospect.

They could have asked one person....

The title is highly misleading; nowhere in the article does it say that these are being scrapped in the whole of the UK. For all we know some trials are continuing at other airports.

Also the way I read the article, they're just replacing them with identical scanners soon anyway, which use different software to preserve privacy (but still hit your junk with harmful x-rays).

Trials are not continuing at other airports; rather, universal roll-out is underway at ALL UK airports carrying international traffic. And there's no opt-out in the UK -- if you're selected and you don't want to be scanned you will be arrested.

It looks like you might not get arrested, but you definitely won't be permitted to fly. The BBC report on two women who refused scans in Manchester says they 'left the airport', with no mention of arrests. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8547416.stm)

It's still not a good situation. I don't travel often, and the installation of scanners at Edinburgh is adding to the stress.

Oh yeah: You are so happy to be beaten with a baseball bat because you prefer it to being raped. 100% satisfaction guaranteed.

Great example of a Spin Doctor in action: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-10-2012/the-...

An article about the UK in which a comment links to a video that you can't watch in the UK. Yay!

Use a proxy to view U.S materials http://www.proxylists.net/

>100% of passengers were satisfied with them and prefer them to frisking.

This is a silly comparison. I'm sure if the survey had asked passengers if they preferred frisking to a cavity search they would have found a lot of people being very ok with getting frisked.

"100% of victims were satisfied with thumbscrews and prefer them to the iron maiden."

- Medieval Torturers Union.

I can't wait for the inevitable EU blog post explaining why it's not Brussel's fault these are being removed - http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/blog/index_en.htm (for those outside the UK, the EU is the political boogeyman, and is frequently blamed unfairly)

> 100% of passengers were satisfied

I'm guessing their sample size was zero.

So do the new machines also use testicle-nuking backscatter x-rays? Who cares whether the image is photorealistic or not. This piece was almost more disinformative than informative.

Superb. Really good to see progress being made on this issue.