Login Register

ESSEX: Body scanners invade privacy says internet campaigner

By This is Essex  |  Posted: February 18, 2010

Comments (0)

ONE man's internet campaign to stop the roll-out of controversial full body scanners at airports worldwide has attracted more than 10,000 members.

Adam Woodward, 38, from Chelmsford, believes the new scanners are one prying step too far into people's privacy as they can see beneath people's clothing, and also pose a health risk to both passengers and operators.

The controversial body scanners hit the headlines earlier this month when they became compulsory at Heathrow and Manchester airports with civil liberty campaigners outraged.

The Department for Transport say that the intention is to roll the scanners out nationwide, including Stansted Airport.

Air passengers who refuse a body scan at will be barred from taking their flights.

Adam's Facebook group already has more than 10,000 members and he is calling Chronicle readers to join the campaign.

Read the full story in this week's Chronicle.

What do you think? Are body scanners an invasion or privacy or all part of the war on terror? Have your say below.

Read more from Essex Chronicle

Do you have something to say? Leave your comment here...

max 4000 characters
  • Profile image for This is Essex
    Gary, Maldon  |  March 04 2010, 6:34PM

    Samuel, Chelmsford - I know what i'd prefer, your 2nd scenario. The amount of radioactive material in scanners is small, so even if it got blown up, the consequences are still going to be a lot less deaths than a succsessful detonation on an airborne plane.

  • Profile image for This is Essex
    Samuel, Chelmsford  |  February 24 2010, 11:40AM

    Rebecca. I don't want anybody harmed by a bomb on a plane. What I do want is for the security services to do their job. The Christmas day underpants bomber was able to board a plane while on a CIA watch list and just days after his own father had reported his son's intentions to the CIA offices in Lagos, Nigeria. My question for you is what would YOU prefer? A suicide bomber exploding himself on a plane, or the same bomber exploding himself while being scanned and effectively converting the radioactive material inside the backscatter scanners into a dirty bomb which could have far more destructive consequences?

  • Profile image for This is Essex
    chipolata, essex  |  February 22 2010, 11:44AM

    I'm looking forward to this rolling out across the uk, it will give me the opportunity to show of my chicken pants..

  • Profile image for This is Essex
    Claire, Shenfield  |  February 21 2010, 9:12AM

    Security at airports is actually a joke and there purely to give the IMAGE of security for the masses. My son works at the airport and yes, it may prevent the odd nutter, thinking he will fast track to paradise, but any determind terrorist will find a way to bypass the entry gates going for a plane . Sad really .

  • Profile image for This is Essex
    Rebecca, Chelmsford  |  February 20 2010, 5:29PM

    Which one you prefer - an 'indecent image', as you call it, or being blown to smithereens? You can see far 'worse' , if you like, in any newsagent! And the radiation risk, which is minimal, is also present in medical procedures that you or your family may need in the future - will you refuse them too?

  • Profile image for This is Essex
    Gary 'nearly given up', Maldon-under-sea (to be).  |  February 20 2010, 9:57AM

    Samuel, Chelmsford, what do suggest, do nothing & have the same children, grandmothers, wives & women who wear mastectomy prosthesis that your so concerned about blown out of the sky? if you don't like the security measures, don't fly, nobody's forced.

  • Profile image for This is Essex
    Samuel, Chelmsford  |  February 19 2010, 11:03PM

    After 11/9/2001, the sensitivity of airport metal detectors were increased and we all had to take off our belts. After Richard Reid the so-called shoe bomber, they wanted to x-ray our shoes. Now we've had the underpants bomber they want to see inside our underwear. You may be fine with that, but what about the children, grandmothers, wives, what about women who wear mastectomy prosthesis (airport security not trained to differentiate between this and a bomb) or people with other anomalies? More to the point, what about when another nut goes to the airport with an explosive and evades the scanners by sticking it where the sun don't shine. What further security measures will we accept then?

  • Profile image for This is Essex
    Samuel Edi, Chelmsford  |  February 19 2010, 10:52PM

    Jack. Look at the broader picture. Look where we have come since 11th Sept 01. Following those attacks the sensitivity of the airport metal detectors was increased and we had to take off our belts to pass security. After Richard Reid - the so-called shoe bomber - they wanted to x-ray our shoes. Now after the underpants bomber, they want to see what we, our wives, our grandmothers, our children and everyone else has inside their underwear. Well, ask yourself this: What's next? What if another nut hides a bomb where the sun doesn't shine? What will we be willing to accept in the name of "security" then?

  • Profile image for This is Essex
    Lorraine, Fambridge  |  February 19 2010, 9:47AM

    Brenda, sounds like you have something to hide!!!

  • Profile image for This is Essex
    Loraine, Fambridge  |  February 19 2010, 9:44AM

    Brenda, sounds like you have something to hide!!!