Concern about increased airport security in Australia
Apr 11, 2012, 7:28 pm
#76
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 6
Airport Body Scanners
I have been reading these posts with interest. I, too, am concerned about the introduction of body scanners, especially the no opt out policy. I have written a submission to the House of Reps as well as to the Senate Inquiry. I have also written to my local Federal Member, as well as the Greens Senators and Independents and Warren Truss, the opposition to Anthony Albanese. I received a reply from Warren Truss which was exactly the same as what Himeno received. I also received a reply from Albanese which was a standard letter. I have looked into these scanners in great detail and I am very worried about the safety aspects of them. We are being lied to about the tests done on them. The tests have been conducted by the company who makes them and no independent ones have been done, which is an utter disgrace. Anyone on this forum who is also worried about this needs to write e-mails etc to their local Federal Member and the Greens Senators, Independents, Warren Truss or anyone else in Parliament. You could even write a submission to the senate inquiry. Even though it is closed they might accept late entries. Worth a try as we need all the public opposition we can get. What needs to happen is for at least 2 independents to vote against it so the Bill doesn't pass or at least an opt out clause needs to be added. I am not against screening; obviously no one wants a catastrophe but it is ridiculous to force people into these things when they are not proven to be safe and probably don't work anyway. We will loose tourists as no other country has this mandatory legislation. I know the UK has some airports where it is mandatory (this will change within a year apparently), but they also have airports where there are no scanners so people are going there. There has been a 30% drop in passengers out of the airports in the UK where the scanners are installed. It is optional in the US and Europe. Please people make your concerns known now as it will be too late once they are introduced and we are forced into them. There will be no turning back. The senate inquiry e-mail address is: [email protected]
Apr 12, 2012, 9:57 pm
#77
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,792
I have been reading these posts with interest. I, too, am concerned about the introduction of body scanners, especially the no opt out policy. I have written a submission to the House of Reps as well as to the Senate Inquiry. I have also written to my local Federal Member, as well as the Greens Senators and Independents and Warren Truss, the opposition to Anthony Albanese. I received a reply from Warren Truss which was exactly the same as what Himeno received. I also received a reply from Albanese which was a standard letter. I have looked into these scanners in great detail and I am very worried about the safety aspects of them. We are being lied to about the tests done on them. The tests have been conducted by the company who makes them and no independent ones have been done, which is an utter disgrace. Anyone on this forum who is also worried about this needs to write e-mails etc to their local Federal Member and the Greens Senators, Independents, Warren Truss or anyone else in Parliament. You could even write a submission to the senate inquiry. Even though it is closed they might accept late entries. Worth a try as we need all the public opposition we can get. What needs to happen is for at least 2 independents to vote against it so the Bill doesn't pass or at least an opt out clause needs to be added. I am not against screening; obviously no one wants a catastrophe but it is ridiculous to force people into these things when they are not proven to be safe and probably don't work anyway. We will loose tourists as no other country has this mandatory legislation. I know the UK has some airports where it is mandatory (this will change within a year apparently), but they also have airports where there are no scanners so people are going there. There has been a 30% drop in passengers out of the airports in the UK where the scanners are installed. It is optional in the US and Europe. Please people make your concerns known now as it will be too late once they are introduced and we are forced into them. There will be no turning back. The senate inquiry e-mail address is: [email protected]
I, too, am opposed to the use of these scanners (anywhere) and I'm glad you're writing to your representatives about this. But I am concerned if your focus is on the health aspects. The scanners proposed for Australia are the millimetre-wave (radiowave) version, not the x-ray version. I've looked at the figures for the MMW and they are well within the ARPANSA limits for human exposure. I've also spoken to people at the ACMA and they are not concerned about interference to other radio systems, which confirms my assessment of the emitted power. (I've written about this extensively elsewhere on this forum so I'm not going to do it all again here. And in the case of the x-ray scanners, I agree with you that there has been insufficient testing and the health risks should be considered.)
If we focus our criticism on possible health risks, the gov't can simply get a statement from ARPANSA to say that there's no concern, and the whole argument falls flat. If, on the other hand, we point out that the scanners are ineffective (ala Jon Corbett's video), slow, invasive, and will affect tourism numbers, it's harder for the gov't to dismiss those issues.
Apr 12, 2012, 11:26 pm
#78
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 6
Concern about increased airport security
Yes, I agree that we should not focus on safety issues and I didn't just focus on this in my submissions. I mentioned the fact that the scanners are ineffective and time consuming, as discovered by the Italian and German Governments and that they will have an effect on our tourism industry. They also produce a lot of false positives, resulting in people being re-scanned and/or subject to frisk searches and I also pointed this out. I made the point about the safety concerns though, as an acquaintance of mine actually rang ARPANSA and was told that they could not say if the machines were safe as they were only given the output readings by the manufacturer (and based on the manufacturer's readings, they should be). They, however, were not commissioned nor allowed to test them independently. There have been some studies by scientists who have concerns that the millimetre wave machines might unzip DNA which could lead to genetic change. Given that the energy is focused on the whole body, this is unsettling. Other submissions pointed out the privacy issues for people with transgender change, breast implants, colostomies etc. I feel that the more people who are willing to write an objection the better. It is such an important issue and I do not believe the public is well enough informed on this.
Apr 15, 2012, 9:03 pm
#79
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,792
Yes, I agree that we should not focus on safety issues and I didn't just focus on this in my submissions. I mentioned the fact that the scanners are ineffective and time consuming, as discovered by the Italian and German Governments and that they will have an effect on our tourism industry. They also produce a lot of false positives, resulting in people being re-scanned and/or subject to frisk searches and I also pointed this out. I made the point about the safety concerns though, as an acquaintance of mine actually rang ARPANSA and was told that they could not say if the machines were safe as they were only given the output readings by the manufacturer (and based on the manufacturer's readings, they should be). They, however, were not commissioned nor allowed to test them independently. There have been some studies by scientists who have concerns that the millimetre wave machines might unzip DNA which could lead to genetic change. Given that the energy is focused on the whole body, this is unsettling. Other submissions pointed out the privacy issues for people with transgender change, breast implants, colostomies etc. I feel that the more people who are willing to write an objection the better. It is such an important issue and I do not believe the public is well enough informed on this.
To be exact, there has been one study by one group of scientists (pdf warning)(http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...910.5294v1.pdf ) which was a computer model (not measurements) of energy at a frequency 40 times higher than the MMW scanner (study: 1000 GHz, scanner: 25 GHz) and at higher powers than the MMW scanner, and which suggested that it might affect DNA. Other scientists have since challenged that study, see for example: (pdf warning) (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...012.4153v1.pdf ) The media, quite inaccurately, claimed the study was about MMW airport scanners, despite the significant difference in both frequency and power, and claimed that the study "proved" something that the author of the study never claimed.
But it has become folklore now that "scientists say that MMW scanners damage DNA." It doesn't help our cause to promote this inaccurate reporting.
And in relation to "the energy being focused on the whole body", I know that sounds scary, but it's really pretty ordinary. Unless you live in an extremely remote area (too remote to have internet
), your whole body is exposed every day to energy from television and radio stations, satellite signals, cell phone towers, WiFi and lots of other things you never notice. Safety standards for exposure to electromagnetic energy (as defined by ARPANSA and their counterparts around the world) define the power (Watts or milliwatts or microwatts) per unit area of exposure (square metre=m**2 or square centimetre = cm**2). The ARPANSA standard (pdf warning): http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/rps/rps3.pdf page 9, gives a limit for the general public of 10 W/m**2 (time averaged) or 10,000 W/m**2 (instantaneously). These levels take into account the possibility that the whole body is being exposed (that's why it's in power per unit area), the fact that the antenna is pointed straight at you, the fact that the transmitter is only a short distance away, and everything else. 10 W/m**2 = 10,000 mW/m**2 = 1 mW/cm**2 Papers filed with the FCC (not directly about health issues but to reassure them that the scanners would not cause radio interference to other radio systems*) claim that the maximum transmitted power (taking into account the fact that the energy is focused in one direction) from the MMW scanner is 1 mW. If you are three inches (?) from the transmitting antenna, the power has spread out over a sphere three inches (=~7.5 cm) in radius. The sphere has an area of 4*pi*r**2 = 730 cm**2. So the exposure is 1 mW/730 cm**2, or 0.0014 mW/cm**2, much lower than the ARPANSA standard of 1 mW/cm**2. In practice, you're probably more than 3 inches from the transmitting antenna, so the power on your body is even lower than this.
Again, I believe we should oppose the MMW scanners for a number of really solid reasons, but (a) health concerns of MMW technology are not a solid argument, and (b) there's too many people who have been scanned by MMW now scared that they'll get cancer: the fear itself can be a health risk. And again, for the x-ray scanners, I believe the health risk is real and should be evaluated.
*DHS and TSA may not be concerned about health risks, but I am certain that the FCC is interested in avoiding interference, so I'm confident that this information has been verified.
Apr 17, 2012, 3:22 am
#80
Join Date: Jul 2007
Programs: QFF
Posts: 5,304
Submissions to the senate inquiry have began to be posted. http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_...ubmissions.htm
reading them now...
I think I like this part...
The Counter-Terrorism Unit, Department of Police and Emergency Management finds the lack of an opt out option to be "problematic".
reading them now...
I think I like this part...
The Counter-Terrorism Unit, Department of Police and Emergency Management finds the lack of an opt out option to be "problematic".
Last edited by Himeno; Apr 17, 2012 at 5:12 am
Apr 17, 2012, 8:55 am
#81
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Kansas | Colorado Native
Programs: Amex Gold/Plat, UA *G, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott LT Gold, NEXUS, TSA Disparager Unobtanium
Posts: 21,605
This part is a bit disappointing. Sort of sounds like the US Marshals storing scan/photo info in Florida.
COMMENT: It is essential to designate and list approved equipment! To maximize pre-departure passenger screening, biometric facial recognition technology, used to match arriving international passengers against watch lists, should be integrated into full body scanner units.
May 7, 2012, 1:21 am
#82
Join Date: Jul 2007
Programs: QFF
Posts: 5,304
Both senate and house committee reports are due on Wednesday. No new submissions have appeared on either committee inquiry listing, although a 'Answers to Questions on Notice' (questions by the committee to the government) has appeared on the senate listing: https://senate.aph.gov.au/submission...c-fd65980fbb49
I couldn't find anything in Hansard related to this inquiry on the date the questions were mentioned as being asked, so I have no idea what the committee discussed.
I couldn't find anything in Hansard related to this inquiry on the date the questions were mentioned as being asked, so I have no idea what the committee discussed.
Last edited by Himeno; May 7, 2012 at 1:38 am
May 8, 2012, 10:23 pm
#84
Join Date: Jul 2007
Programs: QFF
Posts: 5,304
The house has spent all morning debating a new bill the government is trying to push through in one day. They are currently in question time (with debate on the other bill interrupted) and still have another 3 items, after they finish with the other bill, on the daily program ahead of the report being tabled.
The senate committee has requested permission to meet during a sitting day and the following is included in the senate daily program
The senate committee has requested permission to meet during a sitting day and the following is included in the senate daily program
Chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee (Senator Sterle), by leave, to move a motion proposing an extension of time for the committee to report (Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012) – to report by 18 May 2012
May 8, 2012, 11:00 pm
#85
Join Date: Mar 2007
Programs: QFF Gold, Flying Blue, Enrich
Posts: 5,366
The house has spent all morning debating a new bill the government is trying to push through in one day. They are currently in question time (with debate on the other bill interrupted) and still have another 3 items, after they finish with the other bill, on the daily program ahead of the report being tabled.
The senate committee has requested permission to meet during a sitting day and the following is included in the senate daily program
The senate committee has requested permission to meet during a sitting day and the following is included in the senate daily program
May 9, 2012, 12:30 am
#86
Join Date: Jul 2007
Programs: QFF
Posts: 5,304
They are now debating "Matter of public importance", the topic of the day being the Budget. They have at least 8 people speak on that before they can return to government business. The 4th just started.
It looks like it is going to be some time before the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, Inquiry into the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012 report gets tabled.
It looks like it is going to be some time before the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, Inquiry into the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012 report gets tabled.
May 9, 2012, 1:53 am
#87
Join Date: Jul 2007
Programs: QFF
Posts: 5,304
House committee is reporting right now. The report itself and the minutes of the committee discussions should be up on the aph site shortly (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_...ion/report.htm).
It isn't good. The House committee is ignoring all submissions and is recommending to go ahead as per DIT's desires. This means that the house is going to go into debate, or even right to a vote, on the bill, likely next week. Looks like we are going to have to spam our reps >_<
Senate committee now reports Friday next week.
It isn't good. The House committee is ignoring all submissions and is recommending to go ahead as per DIT's desires. This means that the house is going to go into debate, or even right to a vote, on the bill, likely next week. Looks like we are going to have to spam our reps >_<
Senate committee now reports Friday next week.
May 9, 2012, 12:34 pm
#88
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 355
These are extraordinary restrictions. I will surly refuse to go through full body scanners with back scatter technology containing unpleasing features. Due to increasing cancer rate the EPIC has conducted a survey abut radiation which demonstrate that the Government failed to check the safety of such devices on airport and the report says that a large number of workers have been attacked by cancer and heart trouble.
May 13, 2012, 7:24 am
#89
Join Date: Jul 2007
Programs: QFF
Posts: 5,304
At the moment we have the house committee having tabled their report recommending that the bill go ahead without changes. >_<
The senate committee is finalising their report for Friday. After the house report and the extension granted to the senate report, I sent an email to the senate committee’s secretary and he called me the next day. I was permitted to make a submission, but there was no guarantee that the committee would be able to take it into consideration due to the timing.
As parliament does not sit next week, the report will be handed to the President of the Senate on the 18th and then tabled the following sitting day (scheduled for May 21).
I’m currently worried that the senate report may be as pointless as the house report and think we should prepare letters/phone calls to the reps and senators. With the way this disgusting Australian government has been acting, they are likely to schedule the bill for a third reading/vote during the next sitting week.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (17:46): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications I present the committee's report entitled Advisory report on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012, together with the minutes of proceedings.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
Mr CHAMPION: by leave—This bill was introduced on 16 February 2012 by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and the unanimous decision of the committee is to recommend that this legislation be passed. I note that the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee is also looking at this legislation via an inquiry.
This bill proposes amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. Specifically, it allows for the introduction of body scanners at Australia's international airports. The aim of this is to enhance Australia's aviation security. This enhancement has been brought about due to the security risk identified by the so-called 'underwear bomber' who attempted to detonate an explosive on a flight between Amsterdam and Detroit in 2009. That device was not metallic and so therefore did not trigger an alarm. It is useful to note that in the last week or so another plot to use a similar device on an American airline has been foiled. The proposal is that body scanners be introduced to deal with this threat. That is the heart of the bill, alongside other security measures. This bill also removes the opt-out provision. Currently, passengers can decide to opt out of a body scan and have an alternative screening, which is a frisk or a pat down. It removes that option and people will no longer have the opportunity to opt out. It is worth noting that there was a seven-week trial of this technology in both Sydney and Melbourne airports and some 23,000 scans were conducted.
The issues identified by this inquiry were the nature of the technology used, any health impacts of such technology, security effectiveness, the removal of the opt-out provisions and the privacy implications. The technology that will be used in Australian airports is active millimetre waves, which are emitted by an L-3 ProVision device. The scan has a two-second duration, which causes less exposure to radiation than the average mobile phone call. Other types of body scanning, including backscatter X-ray technology, will not be used in Australian airports, even though they are used elsewhere in the world. According to expert advice from the Department of Infrastructure and Transport, there is no evidence of any health risk to the public from body scanners, including to those persons with implanted medical devices. Indeed, the committee heard that many people with those devices will opt to use these scanners rather than the metal ones because they do not detect metal hips and the like.
With regard to security effectiveness, there were some submissions that said that this might not be the most effective way of screening passengers. The committee accepted the advice of the department, and the privacy impact assessment, that the only alternative method of detecting these sorts of explosive devices was an enhanced frisk search—and one can imagine that would have to be pretty enhanced to detect devices! These scanners offer the greatest chance of detection because they can detect and pinpoint the location of metallic and non-metallic items within or underneath a person's clothing.
In regard to privacy implications, and these are obviously of concern to the public, it is important for the public to understand these scans are not like a virtual strip-search. They will not generate body-scanned images of individuals; rather, they produce a generic, gender-neutral figure that simply identifies where there might be items that may be explosives. They do not have a dramatic impact on anybody's privacy. Most importantly, images will not be stored, transmitted or printed.
I conclude by saying the committee decided it was not its job to go through the inquiry processes that led to this legislation being introduced to the House. There was a long period of discussion and, as I said, there were trials in Sydney and Melbourne airports. It is not our job to replicate that process. We simply looked at some of the concerns raised and considered them, and have no problem recommending that this bill be passed.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
Mr CHAMPION: by leave—This bill was introduced on 16 February 2012 by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and the unanimous decision of the committee is to recommend that this legislation be passed. I note that the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee is also looking at this legislation via an inquiry.
This bill proposes amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. Specifically, it allows for the introduction of body scanners at Australia's international airports. The aim of this is to enhance Australia's aviation security. This enhancement has been brought about due to the security risk identified by the so-called 'underwear bomber' who attempted to detonate an explosive on a flight between Amsterdam and Detroit in 2009. That device was not metallic and so therefore did not trigger an alarm. It is useful to note that in the last week or so another plot to use a similar device on an American airline has been foiled. The proposal is that body scanners be introduced to deal with this threat. That is the heart of the bill, alongside other security measures. This bill also removes the opt-out provision. Currently, passengers can decide to opt out of a body scan and have an alternative screening, which is a frisk or a pat down. It removes that option and people will no longer have the opportunity to opt out. It is worth noting that there was a seven-week trial of this technology in both Sydney and Melbourne airports and some 23,000 scans were conducted.
The issues identified by this inquiry were the nature of the technology used, any health impacts of such technology, security effectiveness, the removal of the opt-out provisions and the privacy implications. The technology that will be used in Australian airports is active millimetre waves, which are emitted by an L-3 ProVision device. The scan has a two-second duration, which causes less exposure to radiation than the average mobile phone call. Other types of body scanning, including backscatter X-ray technology, will not be used in Australian airports, even though they are used elsewhere in the world. According to expert advice from the Department of Infrastructure and Transport, there is no evidence of any health risk to the public from body scanners, including to those persons with implanted medical devices. Indeed, the committee heard that many people with those devices will opt to use these scanners rather than the metal ones because they do not detect metal hips and the like.
With regard to security effectiveness, there were some submissions that said that this might not be the most effective way of screening passengers. The committee accepted the advice of the department, and the privacy impact assessment, that the only alternative method of detecting these sorts of explosive devices was an enhanced frisk search—and one can imagine that would have to be pretty enhanced to detect devices! These scanners offer the greatest chance of detection because they can detect and pinpoint the location of metallic and non-metallic items within or underneath a person's clothing.
In regard to privacy implications, and these are obviously of concern to the public, it is important for the public to understand these scans are not like a virtual strip-search. They will not generate body-scanned images of individuals; rather, they produce a generic, gender-neutral figure that simply identifies where there might be items that may be explosives. They do not have a dramatic impact on anybody's privacy. Most importantly, images will not be stored, transmitted or printed.
I conclude by saying the committee decided it was not its job to go through the inquiry processes that led to this legislation being introduced to the House. There was a long period of discussion and, as I said, there were trials in Sydney and Melbourne airports. It is not our job to replicate that process. We simply looked at some of the concerns raised and considered them, and have no problem recommending that this bill be passed.
As parliament does not sit next week, the report will be handed to the President of the Senate on the 18th and then tabled the following sitting day (scheduled for May 21).
I’m currently worried that the senate report may be as pointless as the house report and think we should prepare letters/phone calls to the reps and senators. With the way this disgusting Australian government has been acting, they are likely to schedule the bill for a third reading/vote during the next sitting week.
