I think "completely inaccurate" is overstating it. Here's a quote from that source:
In order not to risk jeopardising citizens' health and safety, only security scanners which do not use X-ray technology are added to the list of authorised methods for passenger screening at EU airports.
I edited my comment as you were replying, but still, this writeup totally buries this part of the story (from the opening paragraph of the original source):
This legislation allows airports and Member States that wish to use security scanners for the screening of passengers to do so under strict operational and technical conditions.
People who see the headline are going to think Europe isn't going to be deploying body scanners. But this story is about the opposite: The headline should be, "Europe approves passive-millimeter full-body airport scanners, prepares for rollout."
The headline is technically accurate, but I suspect most people don't know the difference between x-ray scanners and millimeter-wave scanners and assume if a scanner shows underneath your clothes then it is an x-ray.
the list of authorised methods for passenger screening
How about that. The EU has a system limiting government authority to a list of enumerated powers, while the US government runs around doing whatever it damned well pleases.
US Government: please go back to your copy of the Constitution (I assume you still have one) and re-read the 10th Amendment.
I wish it was ProPublica that had got posted instead the Geek.com article is very poorly written. He didn't even bother to take 2 minutes to verify you can still opt-out.
