Body scanners – airport charges on the rise

Canada The Canadians levy a security fee for travellers at the airport. Guess what – it's going up as a result of the body scanners:

Fees now range from $5 to $16, depending on the length of a flight and
its destination.

At least the Canucks are honest enough to single it out and make the excess clear in a separate charge. Here in the UK, they'll just whack it on top of the price of the ticket.

Oh, and in Canada, you can opt for another form of search instead of the scanners – unlike here.

By Alex Deane

Posted by on Feb 26, 2010 in Body Scanners | 10 Comments

10 Comments

  1. mrmovie
    26th February 2010

    i got charged that at an airport in canada. it didnt bother me really. why not, travelling is expensive. besides the airport was fantastic, they had a cool play area with loads of free games consoles, internet access, cosy snugs for relaxing, brilliant, well worth the 5$

    Reply
  2. 1984
    26th February 2010

    With regard to comments like mrmovie’s, it is this sort of aquiescence and complete antipathy to the gradual erosion of ALL civil liberties that most make ‘democratic’ governments all over the world wring their hands with glee, and most right-minded sensible people hackle with anger. It reminds me of Heinrich Himmler deciding that it was only fair and right to charge the families of the jews they gassed the gas bill – after all they were the ones using the ‘gas’ – Disgraceful.

    Reply
  3. mrmovie
    26th February 2010

    yes, i did comply silently when asked to pay $5 canadian dollars when checking in to the canadian airport. why did i do this? well, perhaps its because i didnt feel that any or all of my civil liberties were being erroded.
    my experience was subtly different from being ushered towards a full body scanner and being told ‘give me $12 for stepping into this machine’, that would have been a different story.
    however, for me i still have a choice. “step into that scanner and give me $15″, i can simply say “no. i wont.”. there it is, i still have my liberty. ok, in the uk it might mean that they wont let me board the plane, well boo hoo, i will have to make other arrangements and perhaps not fly via the uk again, its still my choice. no one is putting a gun to your head and making you fly. if you dont like it, dont fly. and dont tell you have no choice, that is total bull

    Reply
  4. 1984
    26th February 2010

    mrmovie,
    If I had a pound for every time I have heard that trite little gem – if you don’t like full body scanners then don’t fly – I would be a rich man.
    Firstly why should I have to stop flying just because I object to being forceably given cancer by these x-ray boxes?
    Second, as an Island nation people in the UK have less options for international travel- driving to Australia is just stupid.
    Third, what makes you think that Governments will stop at just installing scanners at airports. If you travel on the train to Europe you travel on the Euro-tunnel, which has airport style security, and the channel tunnel would make an excellent terrorist target, as would any other train travelling through densely populated urban areas.
    So if the sheepish population just accept body scanners at ALL airports in the UK they WILL also become compulsory in the US and Canada, particularly if the rest of Europe are also stupid enough to just wave them in. Freedoms in democratic countries are often hard won and hard to maintain ( rights for blacks, gays, women etc.. there are many that would like to turn back the clock ), so it is necessary to stop governments wittling away peoples rights – and all this is not bull-shit as you state.

    Reply
  5. Jimbo
    26th February 2010

    Does anyone yet have an authoritative source for the “scanners cause cancer” view?

    Reply
  6. NeverSurrender
    26th February 2010

    Does anyone yet have an authoritative source for the “scanners cause cancer” view?
    I think that that is as yet unproven but, it may be the case. For me I refuse to be strip searched just because I want to fly. That is completely unacceptable.

    Reply
  7. Alex Deane
    26th February 2010

    Jimbo – guidance from the “Inter Agency Committee on Radiation Safety” – as authoritative as it gets, I think:
    http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2010/02/airport-body-scanners-may-be-dangerous-and-our-government-is-ignoring-that.html

    Reply
  8. Jimbo
    10th March 2010

    The Yanks don’t make body scanners compulsory for those wishing to fly either: they are heavily into the technology which is being promoted by the TSA (Thousands Standing Around) who are on a big spending spree to buy scanners; however they say that (for now) passengers preferring not to be scanned will be subjected to the same level of scrutiny by means of pat-down and hand-held detector.

    Reply
  9. Mimirose
    13th December 2011

    The cancer risk for skin has not been fully evaluated. People should have a choice.

    Reply
  10. Tony_de2003
    19th December 2011

    According to the news, the EEC has recently banned these scanners until proved safe. All UK airports have stopped using them with the exception of one, Manchester. The news article stated that Manchester would be allowed to use them for a further year.

    How can this be?? If they are considered dangerous and unfit for use to the extent that the EEC calls time, how can one airport carry on using them? What is the legal reasoning? For me this is discrimination, and an abuse of human rights, as boarding is denied if the scan is refused.

    I am a frequent flyer, and I was nuked again this morning. That made it eight times since April. This is just what the EEC was stating, this is highly dangerous to frequent flyers. I made the statement to them that I was being discriminated against (simply by using Manchester airport who force passengers to use them under duress), and that I would hold the Airport responsible and liable for the medical consequences. I was offered no explanation regarding why Manchester could stand alone and continue to use these dangerous, evil American machines.

    Can anyone shed some light on the matter?

    Reply

Leave a Reply