EU Approves Unified Full Body Scanner Regulations

OverTheGeicoE writes "The European Union has adopted a proposal to regulate airport body scanners at Member State airports. No Member State or airport is obligated to use scanners, but if they do, the scanners must conform to new European Union standards. Here's a partial list: Scanners must not store, retain, copy, print, or retrieve passenger images; the image viewer must be in a remote location; passengers must be informed how the scanners are being controlled; and can opt out if they choose. Perhaps most importantly: X-ray scanners are banned 'in order not to risk jeopardizing citizens' health and safety.'"

Comments

EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[CmdrPony]

Not only is EU not requiring their use, they are actually putting several limitations on how they're used and saying citizens can opt-out. Good job, EU!

Now, if someone would just kick UK out of EU. It's almost as bad as US.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Xest]

Gordon Brown gave up part of the rebate a few years ago, we still put far more in than we get out even with the rebate and always have. Europe does not by any measure pay for the UK, France's farming subsidies are the elephant in the room in this respect if anything.

The UK very much makes a loss in terms of pure money pumped into the EU vs. money returned via EU initiatives by a longshot, the benefit we get out (as is the case for others that put in more than they get out, like Germany) is easier access to the European markets so it comes back and pays for itself in terms of improved trade and better bargaining terms with the rest of the world as the EU can speak as one entity on many topics.

Personally I think it's worth it, but if EU nations want rid of us then have fun trying to fill the funding shortfall that's used to help the poorer Eurozone economies improve like Romania, Slovenia, Hungary, Lithuania etc. I'm sure Germany will be more than happy to spend even more money financing the rest of Europe and France will enjoy being forced to give up it's farming subsidies.

No really, the UK is a backbone economy for the EU, like both France and Germany are. The EU would be massively weaker and poorer without it.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Xest]

Yeah, it's horrendous, how dare the UK be one of the few countries in the EU capable of balancing it's books making it one of perhaps 2 or 3 economies in Europe whose AAA rating is perfectly safe.

The UK for all it's faults at very least hasn't got anything as bad as France's HADOPI yet, hasn't had anywhere near as bad web blocking orders as in Ireland or the Netherlands, and doesn't at least have as close to the amount of censorship as Germany. Oh, and Sweden is basically a wholly owned subsidiary of the RIAA now. We don't have laws against headscarfs and stuff either which is something. Even outside Europe now that Harper is in in Canada I think the UK is doing fairly well, we're certainly in a much better place than we were under Brown's authoritarian rule 2 years ago.

I suppose you can still hold a grudge over the UK for Iraq, but we haven't been there for a few years now, we're still in Afghanistan, like the rest of Europe. I suppose you can complain about our big brother state but really the reason we have a reputation in that respect is precisely because our population actually stands up and shouts about how unhappy we are with it, which is surely better than most other European states where it's at least as bad but just blindly accepted without much dissent. It's thanks to the fact we do have organisations like Liberty that these things are exposed for what they are attempts at but most the worst stuff our last government proposed that generated all said stories is dead now, the ID card database is gone, many CCTV programmes have been cut/scaled back, libel laws are being reformed. There's still a long way to go of course, but then, find me a country where there isn't.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[mitashki]

Disclaimer: I am European and I do think the perfect government is a balance between Communism and Capitalism.

Actually I do believe the BEST government would use the good ideas from both and refuse to follow the ideologies and propaganda from both. For the record I am an European too (whatever it might mean these days).

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[johnjaydk]

Yeah, it's horrendous, how dare the UK be one of the few countries in the EU capable of balancing it's books making it one of perhaps 2 or 3 economies in Europe whose AAA rating is perfectly safe.

+5 funny

The UK actually have the second highest total-debt-to-gdp ratios in the world. Only slightly below Japan who is wide seen as a bug in search of a windshield.

Total Debt to GDP ratios

Sorry to burst Your bubble but the bond market will discover this fact eventually.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[peppepz]

According to the site of the european parliament, in the 2010 balance of the European Union, the "net contributors" to the EU are:
1) Germany (19.6 %)
2) France (18%)
3) Italy (13.9 %)
4) United Kingdom (10.4%)
5) Spain (9.6%)

Of course these numbers aren't too meaningful, because they don't track the indirect benefits that a member country enjoys for being in the EU. For example, the import fees paid by a country that is importing goods for China, appear as paid by that country in the balance, but they will actually be paid by the final customers of those goods in reality.

But you can read that the image of France being a burden for other member states because of its agriculture subsidies is wrong: they pay to the EU more than what they actually receive, and in particular they pay almost twice as much as the UK.

The problem with the UK in the EU is not economic, it's their political dissent every time that an EU treaty is to be made. Which stems from the fact that probably, most of the UK population is against the EU. I think the UK shoud solve this problem by clearly asking their citizens if they really want to be inside the EU. If the answer is negative, then the UK should withdraw from the union and leave it to the states who are actually interested in its construction.

I'd rather take an EU that is 10% poorer but that works, instead of one that never acts because every decision is shot down by the crossed vetoes of the member states.

The "two-speeds" union that is starting to delineate, with the members of the Euro zone having special government structures, might be a good step in this direction; but it's still too soon to tell.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[petermgreen]

The UK actually have the second highest total-debt-to-gdp ratios in the world. Only slightly below Japan

The "total debt to GDP ratio" may be only slightly below japan but the government debt is a MUCH smaller proportion of the total debt than with japan.

But more important than the amount of debt is what that debt is denominated in. If a government has debts denominated in their own currency they can order their central bank (in practice they probably won't even need to make the order) to offer them unlimited loans at a fixed interest rate so the only way they will default is if they chose to do so.

OTOH if a government has large debts denominated in a currency under outside control they are at the mercy of the countries that control those currencies. That is why greece and italy are in so much trouble, they sacrificed their financial sovereignty by joining the Euro.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Xest]

It took a while to find the figures you cite, but I found them here. You've mistakenly, or dishonestly misrepresented them, they are not net contribution figures:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/en/headlines/content/20080605FCS31027/5/html/What-about-the-Net-Contributors%E2%80%9D

Whilst the article is about net contribution it actually avoids the question and those specific figures merely state the amount paid in, not the net amount once returns are received. Once this is taken into account France's contribution drops drastically. Whilst France has improved it's net contribution in recent years you can see the disparity here from back in 2007 under net contribution:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm#start

Or the cold hard historical figures for every year between 1999 - 2007 here if you prefer:

http://www.eu-oplysningen.dk/euo_en/spsv/all/79/

"The problem with the UK in the EU is not economic, it's their political dissent every time that an EU treaty is to be made. Which stems from the fact that probably, most of the UK population is against the EU."

I'm not sure what you mean here, most countries in the EU have a degree of euroscepticism, but the UK ratified the Lisbon treaty with far less hassle than many other countries that outright voted against it in it's original form. Do you not remember Ireland having to run the referendum on it twice because they said no the first time?

Whilst recent polls have shown 49% support leaving the EU and only 40% definitely staying in I don't think come a referendum we would leave, because these polls were commissioned against a background of Euroscepticism - UKIP and far right wing Tories stoking things up against the background of the Euro appearing on the verge of collapse. I think the fact they could still only muster 49% to leave in self interest commissioned polls against that background is quite telling. That's ignoring the fact any referendum would be backed by a campaign pointing out all the Tory/UKIP FUD and how it's actually about bringing back things like employment law so the average Joe can be forced to work more than 48hours in a week benefiting corporations and not the average citizen. Really, less than half against the background of potential Euro collapse and a massive one sided FUD offensive that's been led up to by a year or two long FUD offensive? that's pretty weak.

"I'd rather take an EU that is 10% poorer but that works, instead of one that never acts because every decision is shot down by the crossed vetoes of the member states."

And you think the UK is a stalling point here? really? You only have to look at the painfully slow inaction over the Euro to see the UK is far from Europe's worst offender in acting with haste, and Eastern European and Mediterranean nations bickering over past rivalries be it Cyprus blocking Turkey's entry, or the ex-Yugoslav nations blocking each other.

If I've learnt anything over the years it's that alternating opinions blocking legislation is almost always a good thing. When legislation is rammed through without care for minority opinions it's rarely good legislation, and when it's passed because everyone agrees it's generally good.

I'd like to see decreases euro-scepticism in our country and I think it'll come with time, but I think the UK being in the EU is far better for both the UK and the EU. It's mutually beneficial for everyone.

Sometimes they get it right

[captainpanic]

In between ceizing all the power from the individual member states, and destroying all our economies by pumping the money into the bottomless pits of high interest, sometimes they do something right. Thanks EU :-)

Shall we also allow everyone to bring a bottle of water onto the airplane? There's a lot of money to be saved by reducing the silly safety measures.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[Ihmhi]

Nearly every time I read about the EU doing something that doesn't outright fuck over its citizens, I think to myself, "Man, they must have heard about how we're all about freedom and citizens rights and just ran with it." Is it a bad thing when a foreign entity better represents your home country's ideals than your actual home country does? I think that may be the case here.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[captainpanic]

Nearly every time I read about the EU doing something that doesn't outright fuck over its citizens, I think to myself, "Man, they must have heard about how we're all about freedom and citizens rights and just ran with it." Is it a bad thing when a foreign entity better represents your home country's ideals than your actual home country does? I think that may be the case here.

Are you American? And are you claiming that freedom and citizens rights are an American invention? Because I am European, and we had such Freedom when you were just a couple of tiny villages we like to call colonies, and when the majority of the native Americans were still alive and thriving.

I'll give an example: the Dutch fight for freedom in the 16th/17th century. Already in the 15th century, the Dutch were free. Amsterdam was rules by citizens, not by a nobleman or clergyman. Citizens. And America hadn't even been discovered. And this idea spread throughout the entire country, which rebelled against the religious oppressive Spanish and became free.

Or how about the French revolution? English parliament? You do know that democracy was already in use in the ancient Greek times, do you?

If you're not American, then all the above is still true, but I should have used a different tone.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[Luckyo]

Technically your "home country ideals" are actually french. US constitution borrows from ideals of French Revolution extremely heavily.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically your "home country ideals" are actually french. US constitution borrows from ideals of French Revolution extremely heavily.

Hé, les américains! disparaissez de ma pelouse!

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[nickco3]

It may shock you to learn this, but your home country's stated ideals are all European in origin.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[nickco3]

Eh? It's the other way round I'm afraid. The french were heavily influenced by what happened in America. Check the dates!

The US Bill of Rights was not adopted until August 21, 1789. These are all amendments, remember, for some reason they didn't make it into the original document.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh, you haven't heard of the American Eminent Domain laws have you? That is used to grab property and gun control laws are rife in most states. 'Live Free or Die' only applies to Wisconsin. The 'underground railway' has indeed been running for centuries From the USA To Canada, not the other way around.

The Statue of Libertas in New York, was a present from a Frenchman (G. Eiffel) and was probably meant as a joke...

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[rolfwind]

where (in theory) the government can't expropriate your property for public interest

Eminent domain.
Kelo v. City of New London decision.
Asset forfeiture (especially coupled with drug excuse).

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[Goth Biker Babe]

I have one thing to say about who's representing who's ideals?

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

Remember that the Pilgrim Fathers left England because they wanted less religious freedom. They wanted everyone to follow their brand.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[realityimpaired]

And FYI, the French revolution came long after the American one. You'd have done better to talk about the French enlightenment, and better still to learn history before lecturing on it.

You do realize that the American revolution was actually a French revolution, right? Bought and paid for by the French, won by virtue of the fact that the British were too busy beating up the French, and led by military leaders who were trained by a French general (an openly gay one, at that). The Germans had a hand in providing some of the funding and training as well (which is why the language of commerce in the US was very nearly German, not English), but basically, if it weren't for the French providing a distraction for the English back in Europe, the American revolution never would have succeeded. Don't believe me? Look up the campaign from 1812-1814, when Madison decided to annex Canada. The story about why the White House is painted white came from that war....

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[nickco3]

The EU has done more to spread freedom and democracy than any other organisation on Earth. It projects soft power with a single carrot, the offer of membership.

The first success was rehabilitating Germany after the War. Spain, Portugal and Greece all used to be military dictatorships. Now happy, prosperous, modern democratic states. Admittedly there's been some unrest recently in Greece, but there is zero possibility of another military coup, it will stay free and democratic no matter what. That's because of the larger structure it belongs to.

Then it rehabilitated central and eastern Europe. All the countries that were offered membership are free and democratic. Every one of them. Doesn't that strike you as odd? All the non-EU candidates (Ukraine, Russia) are not. Coincidence?

Turkey is far nicer place than it used be. The army stays out of politcs. The Kurds and other minorities are being treated reasonably. All thanks to EU negotiators banging on about human rights during 30 years of talks.

What other organisation can boast such an effective record at democratisation?

I wish more people....

[surfdaddy]

....would opt out. I'm not an easily paranoid type, but I resent getting x-rayed for non-medical reasons. It's apparent that the correct research has not been done on the safety, and even if the chances of risk are slim, why take the chance? It's reactive security anyway. Opting out is my own little method of civil disobedience. If everybody went for the pat-down the whole system would collapse and they would have to abandon those damn xray scanners.

Re:I wish more people....

[gulikoza]

I opted out at the JFK flying to Paris last month. The TSA agents were very professional, the pat-down wasn't as bad as advertised here sometimes (TBH, I've gotten more invasive pat-downs at some concerts or other public events...not related to airports at all!). They even took and carried all my carry-ons from the x-ray machine to the table so I had plenty of time to put everything together (laptop...) after the pat-down. I hate it when you have to rush, putting on the shoes and belt, storing laptop.... while people are waiting behind you at the carry-on x-ray.

Re:I wish more people....

[clickety6]

I wish more people would opt out

I did. I just opted out of flying to the US altogether.

Re:I wish more people....

[Anonymous Coward]

Modded funny - but I bet there are a lot more people, like myself, who are avoiding visiting the US for all the security idiocy. Whenever I need to fly (I live in Canada), I always opt for itineraries that do not go via some American airport. I'm not even sure if a transfer flight in the US means having to go through security, but frankly I don't care, nor will I take the chance if I can avoid it.

Re:I wish more people....

[Moskit]

They made opting out opressive.

When you opt out, first you are told that you will have to wait. How long? Agent does not know. 15minutes? 1 hour? Agent cannot answer you that question.

You then stand aside from the queue, behind a barrier, watching as 10, 20, 50 people give up their dignity (hande hoch! raus!) in the machine. They all look at you as if you were the one giving up dignity, or were "put in a corner" like a bad child who did something wrong.

Just before you were put aside, agent tells you that once you opt-out, you cannot go through the machine if you change your mind. You have to wait, for unspecified amount of time.

While you wait, agent will ask you why you don't want to cooperate for security of all people. Whatever you say (privacy, radiation, health), he will tell you that you should do more research on the subject, because what you say is not true (privacy is assured, radiation is non-existent, there is no health concerns, you are just troublemaker).

Some time later, say 10 minutes, another agent decides to come around and takes you for the manual search. Just before that he fills out a survey why you you opted out. You may notice how few people decided to do it based on how many are in survey before you.

You can now opt for a privacy room, or let them do the pat in screening area behind the machine. Whole proces takes another 15 minutes or longer, as the agent gathers your belongings from the scanner, changes his/her gloves etc.

Search itself is not much different than what you undergo at European airports if you are selected for secondary screening. They just pat you, paying extra attention to waistband and other thicker areas of clothes (hems, collar, sewing lines etc).

I would say that at every step during opt-out you are being persuaded to just give up and go through the machine, and threatened by vague mentions implying you might miss your plane. It probably depends on the agent, but voice used during the procedure reminds of what a police officer who-knows-better would use on an interrogated person.

Easy to see why sheeple just go hands-up into the naked machine.

Travel to/from USofA those days reminds me strongly of travel to Soviet Russia in the past. All in the name of security, of course.

Ah the supreme irony....

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it ironic that the country that epouses individuality above all and has and endemic "fear" of government is the one being fucked over security, while the europeans show a little bit of rational thought on this whole issue ?
And for the note, we had had over the last 4 decades terrorism in europe, and we have coped to live with it. What did you say ? Our societies didn't collpase and we sure as hell didn't transform in some kind of paranoid security state.
That 1997 Escape from New York was prophetic to a level you yankees can't even seem to fathom anymore.
Enjoy your prison guys.

Re:Ah the supreme irony....

[ledow]

It's partly because, of course, the Europeans are a number of otherwise independent states so it's like a democracy on an international scale - chances are that SOMEONE will kick up a fuss about something that they disagree with and concessions will have to be made (e.g. the UK still isn't in the Euro for various reasons, Germany doesn't want to be involved in more Greek bailouts etc.).

When you have internal opposition on the scale of national governments, it's a bit more even and controlled than when you have only internal opposition that consists of singular people (who, history has shown, can be corrupt, swayed or just chosen so that they are all of a certain age / mindset).

That said, I've never seen a country less free than America. The only sad fact is that they don't notice it. At least the Chinese KNOW where they are (whether they care or not is another matter) but the US just don't seem to understand what they are doing to themselves and what they are letting slip under their noses. So long as they have their guns and their god, they seem perfectly happy to let a multitude of sins pass through with their approval. Hell, they were close to getting national healthcare and they managed to balls that up too.

And the Americans I've spoken to in person just don't get this... they don't understand that, actually, the stereotype of an American that doesn't know or cares what happens beyond its borders is a little more than just a stereotype. They don't care that, even today, their government imprisons and (still probably) tortures people who haven't gone on trial by doing it on foreign soil. That's "freedom" to them, because it's applied to a different type of person - non-Americans. Try to move on a guy from sitting on Wall Street, though, and it makes the news for days on end. When they show the Olympics you only see Americans winning and *NOTHING* else.

America has many problems, like just about every other country in the world, but it's like those countries that call themselves The Democratic Republic Of, or the People's Republic Of, etc. They are anything but. Land of the Free? Yeah, Land of the Free so long as you stay within our borders, have enough money for healthcare, and never ask for anything we don't want to give you.

Re:Ah the supreme irony....

[ledow]

I have a mental checklist of things I notice about people when I meet them.

Almost without fail, those who openly and spontaneously profess a love for their country are those who don't actually realise (or won't admit) it's failings and are part of the cause of those failings. "America is the best country in the world" is a typical example that I often hear.

But those who openly and spontaneously put their own country down actually care about it enough to do so and "love" their country more.

Personally, I detest some of the things that my country has done (not least, following America into a fake "war") - I think they are abhorrent and reckless and thoughtless - but I detest them because I'm *disappointed* that it was my country that did them.

Literally, my country should be better than that. We aren't, because we did them, but we should be. And it's because I care about what my country does to its own people, people in other countries, its reputation, etc. that I am more likely to tell people the things we did wrong rather than the things we do right (How many Brits know about the Singapore pull-out in WW2? How many Americans realise how the UK treated the Ghurka despite what they've done for us?)

The UK isn't "free" (because I don't think there can be such a thing) but we are certainly "freer" than a lot of other places and yet I still point out all the stupid restrictions we have at every opportunity because I want my country to be *better*. It seems to me that a lot of the Americans I meet think their country is already "the best" and "free" and so they don't strive to better their country and its image in other countries. Everybody should just love them because they are the best (and if you watch the movie Love Actually, you'll see a very contrived but incredibly accurate depiction of how the US treats the UK politically and what our response SHOULD be).

It's like the difference between "We did what we thought was best" and "We should never have done that". Both statements may even refer to the same incident, but one attitude is superior, the other a lesson to learn from, and either tells you a hell of a lot about the people who say them.

Re:Passenger can opt out...

[Shimbo]

Hopefully this means they will not be allowed onto the plane.

No.

'In addition, passengers are given the right to opt out from a control with scanners and be subject to an alternative method of screening.'

Re:Passenger can opt out...

[GauteL]

I do agree that we've taken it too far with airport security. Most of the regulations are utterly pointless and often ignored. As an example, think of the clear plastic bags to store your toiletries in. It isn't enough to just leave your toothpaste visible on top of your suitcase, it has to be visible INSIDE a clear plastic bag.

Having got used to this nonsense in the UK, I once went through security at a central European airport when heading back to Heathrow. Having lost my plastic bag on my trip, I asked the security guard if they had any plastic bags I could use. He pointed to his colleague and told me to ask him. This colleague was placed AFTER the security scanners. This airport had the exact same Airport regulation rules as in the UK, and all the security posters told me to use the bags, but they were obviously less anal about it. I just smiled, thanked the guy and didn't bother.

Re:Passenger can opt out...

[Neil Boekend]

Terrorism is a way of warfare through fear. The US has already lost this war (TSA, PATRIOT and the general reduction in civil rights). The EU just makes sure we don't lose it as well.
Correct me if and where I am wrong, for this is not my field of study.

Re:Britain's violent crime record is worse than an

[Xest]

For some arbitrary definition of violent crime yes. We have a lower murder rate, lower levels of rape and so forth however which is arguably what matters more in terms of violent crime. I'd much rather put up with a slightly higher chance of being punched at the pub on a Friday night by a drunk if it means a drastically lower chance of just outright being shot dead next time I do my weekly shopping on a Saturday afternoon. Of course, avoiding both would be nice and I can't say either have affected me yet, but it illustrates the point.

I covered debt to GDP elsewhere, it's meaningless by itself, and the riots? are you kidding me? Britain has one set of riots over a few days for the first time in god knows how many decades and that's something that stands out? Countries like Spain, Greece, France and so forth have riots of that scale on a seemingly annual basis. France for example:

2005: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4413964.stm

2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2009_French_riots

2010: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322441/France-riots-Demonstrations-pension-reforms-continue-ninth-day.html

Yeah, I don't think Britain's riot situation is too much to worry about right now to be honest, if Britain can be criticised for having some kind of problem, it's sure as hell not riots.

Britain has a lot of faults, but fundamentally my point was simply that compared to other nations, there's certainly not any more, and in many cases an awful lot less to worry about here. Pulling random faults out the hat proves what exactly? That Britain is a somehow worse country in general than many others? No, it doesn't.