I have no issue with the scans themselves - privacy is a minor concern when lives can be saved. But I keep hearing people say that the images will not be saved and I have difficulty believing this. I would think that the images would be retained for after-the-fact forensic investation purposes. Let’s say this guy on the Northwest flight had gone through a body scan in Amsterdam and passed the explosives through the scan undetected, wouldn’t security officials want to go back and review the guy’s scan image to see what went wrong or to get data to improve the imaging? It may start out as a “we won’t save the images” policy but I think it will change very quickly.
Peter Clark on
December 31st, 2009 4:00 pm
Scanners at airports. What about the health issues? The people proposing this are not worried as they won’t be going through any scanner. X-Rays are dangerous - much more so if over-used.
I have no issue with the scans themselves - privacy is a minor concern when lives can be saved. But I keep hearing people say that the images will not be saved and I have difficulty believing this. I would think that the images would be retained for after-the-fact forensic investation purposes. Let’s say this guy on the Northwest flight had gone through a body scan in Amsterdam and passed the explosives through the scan undetected, wouldn’t security officials want to go back and review the guy’s scan image to see what went wrong or to get data to improve the imaging? It may start out as a “we won’t save the images” policy but I think it will change very quickly.
Scanners at airports. What about the health issues? The people proposing this are not worried as they won’t be going through any scanner. X-Rays are dangerous - much more so if over-used.