Historically, privacy advocates were concerned about the use of full body scanning technology because it used to display a detailed image of the surface of the skin under clothing, prosthetics including
breast prostheses, and other medical equipment normally hidden, such as
colostomy bags. These privacy advocates called the images "virtual strip searches". However, in 2013 the U.S. Congress prohibited the display of detailed images and required the display of metal and other objects on a generic body outline instead of the person's actual skin. Such generic body outlines can be made by
Automatic Target Recognition (ATR) software. As of June 1, 2013, all back-scatter full body scanners were removed from use at U.S. airports, because they could not comply with TSA's software requirements. Millimeter-wave full body scanners utilize ATR, and are compliant with TSA software requirements. Proposed remedies for privacy concerns include scanning only people who are independently detected to be carrying
contraband, or developing technology to mask genitals and other private parts. In some locations, travelers have the choice between the body scan or a "
patdown". In Australia, the scans are mandatory; in the UK, however, passengers may opt out of being scanned. In this case, the individual must be screened by an alternative method which includes at least an enhanced hand search in private as set out on the UK government website. In the
United States, the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) claimed to have taken steps to address privacy objections. The TSA claimed that the images captured by the machines were not stored. On the other hand, the
U.S. Marshals Service admitted that it had saved thousands of images captured from a Florida checkpoint. The officer sitting at the machine does not see the image; rather that screen shows only whether the viewing officer has confirmed that the passenger has cleared. Conversely, the officer who views the image does not see the person being scanned by the device. In some locations, updated software has removed the necessity of a separate officer in a remote location. These units now generate a generic image of a person, with specific areas of suspicion highlighted by boxes. If no suspicious items are detected by the machine, a green screen instead appears indicating the passenger is cleared. Concerns remain about alternative ways to capture and disseminate the image. Additionally, the protective steps often do not entirely address the underlying privacy concerns. Subjects may object to
anyone viewing them in a state of effective undress, even if it is not the agent next to the machine or the image is not retrievable. Reports of full-body scanner images being improperly and perhaps illegally saved and disseminated have emerged. == Possible health effects ==