We will base our answer regarding the situation as it appears to exist at this time (subject to our basic level of research). Body scans enable security agents to view the exterior of the subject’s body, including the private parts, as if the person were undressed. However, the quality of the image, which is more like a sketch than a photograph, is such that it is difficult to recognize the subject. The way the current system is supposed to work is that one security guard takes the scan at a portal while another agent views is the scan in a closed booth nearby and only informs other agents if he detects something suspicious. Under these circumstances, there is no violation of the halachot of tzniut‎{&&1}‎ for the following reasons.
In a somewhat parallel context, we find the concept of b’avidetei tarid,‎{&&2}‎ the principle that one who is preoccupied with his professional activities will not be affected by seeing that which could otherwise arouse him. A common application of this concept permits doctors to examine all parts of a patient’s body without unusual tzniut precautions.‎{&&3}‎ Similarly, it allows X-ray technicians to look at parts of the body that they should not normally look at.‎{&&4}‎ In general, it is hard to believe that a normal person viewing these not particularly clear images would be aroused by them, especially when he views hundreds of them every tedious day. Thus, this security procedure does not pose tzniut problems for the security agents or, consequently, for the travelers involved.
There are further reasons for leniency. The gemara‎{&&5}‎ says that while a man must not look at certain attractive clothes of a woman even when she is not wearing them, this is only if he knows the clothes’ owner. Some apply the distinction of whether one knows, or at least sees, the person to limit the prohibition of hearing a woman’s singing voice to instances in which the man has seen the singer (at least via a picture).‎{&&6}‎ In our case, in which the guard does not know the subjects of the scans and would not recognize them based on what he saw, there is little cause for concern that he will be aroused.
Let us go further, however, and consider the possibility that some of the security men are the type to be aroused anyway. If such a security agent were to ask us the halachic question, we would forbid him (as well as such a doctor, etc.) to take the job, given his unusual “susceptibility.” However, this is not the unknowing traveler’s concern, nor need it be the concern of the authorities. To illustrate, the gemara‎{&&7}‎ says that it is forbidden for a man to look even at a woman’s finger in order to derive enjoyment. Nevertheless, since this is deviant behavior, women may certainly keep their fingers and other “permitted” parts of their bodies uncovered, even if it is probable that from time to time someone will stare at them improperly. The person who stares has the problem, not the person who dresses and acts appropriately.
If the security agent is a non-Jew, who is not commanded to refrain from improper thoughts, and given that there is no reason to believe that the situation could bring about contact that could cause sin, the matter is even less problematic. Although this leniency would not be of much help in Ben Gurion Airport, we have already seen ample grounds for leniency in general, and we conclude that this system is permitted.
In addition, two other points are relevant. First, the ultimate purpose of these checks is to save lives (although there are disagreements regarding whether it is the most effective system). Second, one of the major alternatives to a body scan is a full body search, which, if performed by a member of the opposite gender, is certainly more problematic.

228 Vayeira 71