Because I am heading to the airport again tonight, I decided to do a little bit of reading on the new body scanners. If you have watched the news at all in the past few weeks, you know that it has sparked numerous controversies.
Karen Cummings refused to walk through the scanner. Instead, she had to receive a pat-down from a TSA officer which she described as “unnecessary” and “unpleasant.”
Cheryl Wise received harsh treatment after denying a scan. In addition to receiving a thorough frisking, every square inch of her luggage (including her shoes and purse) was emptied, searched, and tested for explosives.
Pilot Michael Roberts refused to walk through the scanners because he didn’t want a stranger to see images of his nude body and received just as much trouble. The TSA officer informed him that he would have to submit to a pat-down instead. He resisted this too because he was trying, “to avoid assault.” A TSA officer promptly told him that he would not be allowed to proceed. The kicker is that he was dressed in his official uniform. He missed the flight he was supposed to pilot, and his employment is currently, “on hold.”
Stories aside, lets review the basics of the body scanners. The scanners use high frequency radio waves which reflect off of the body to create an image. This image sees through the individual’s clothing to see if they are hiding any objects or weapons. As of late, the scanners have been popping up in airports across the nation, and are more prevalent than ever before. The scan only takes about 60 seconds and is a physically non-invasive procedure. Each scanner costs about $170,000.
There are two opinions out there—there are those who support the new security measure, and there are others who argue that the process is a violation of basic human rights.
An ABC News poll found that 64% of those surveyed supported the use of the full body scans. A CBS News poll also found that the majority, 81% in this case, support the scans. Still others would be more likely to travel by air.
Kristi Gustafson is a blogger who supports the new body scan procedures. She argues that she would rather go through the scanner than watch more terrorists get through the security line. Kristi knows that the scans are not fool-proof, but argues that merely having the procedures in place acts as a deterrent. If someone faces the possibility of being caught, he will be less likely to test his luck.
The scans also provide extra security. Because the scans can see through clothing, they are able to detect non-metal objects. Metal detectors (which were the old ‘gold standard’ of security) can merely detect metals like knives and razor blades. However, we know that weapons can come in other forms—like liquid based bombs. These advanced scanners can find those liquid bombs in addition to metal objects. Ultimately, fewer bombs and knives on airplanes will increase overall safety.
Blogger Patrick Smith is a pilot who finds the airport security procedures overwhelming. He argues that nobody should have the right to see him naked, regardless of their motives. Instead of physically scanning people at the airport for weapons, Smith thinks that police should be responsible for doing background checks on travelers. If the police can take find higher risk passengers before they even get to the airport, then officers won’t need to bother every single person with walking through a scanner. Rather, TSA officers can use their time to scan those higher risk individuals.
This method would cease to inconvenience the many travelers that have no intentions of bringing bombs and knives onto the plane. Smith also argues that if we aren’t scanning every single person, enough money will be saved to fund this police investigation.
In accordance with Smith, James Fallows also disagrees with the scans because they violate his basic right to privacy. He starts his argument by contrasting the direct and indirect costs of terrorism. The direct costs of terrorism are the lives that would be lost in the event of an attack. However, there are numerous indirect costs of terrorism, which are not usually considered. The indirect effects include the fear that is induced and the money spent on airport security. Fallows explains that by responding to these indirect threats with heightened TSA procedures, Americans (and American culture in general) are losing their freedom. These indirect affects have not only cost the US its flight freedom, but have also cost them millions of dollars (in war spending, new airport procedures, etc.).
Fallows proposes that instead of spending limitless amounts of money to reduce the probability of attacks to zero, it would be more important to learn recovery strategies. Additionally, Fallows discusses the need for a risk break-even analysis. Politicians and airlines need to determine a level of acceptable risk because it would be far too expensive, not to mention inefficient, to reduce risk to zero.
While Smith and Fallows both present valid security alternatives which would remove the need for scanners, I still find them necessary because we need to have a procedure which can detect liquid bombs.
I personally have defied some of the TSA security rules without any trouble. The first time I flew alone, I was at the airport security line reading the posted security signs. One of the signs detailed the rules about carrying liquids through security—all liquids must be in 3 ounce containers and must fit in a quart sized Ziploc bag. Suddenly I remembered that I had forgotten to put my face wash in a Ziploc bag. I quickly took the face wash out of my bag, jammed it into my jeans pockets, and walked through the metal detector without a problem.
It scares me, and should scare you too, that it was that easy to sneak a large liquid through security. In this scenario, it was innocent face wash, but that will not always be the case.
At the end of the day, we really need to analyze this issue through the scope of utilitarianism.
Do the body scanners promote a greater good for society at a minimal cost? In my opinion, the answer to this question is yes. If we can allow a trained professional to view revealing photos of our bodies, then we can save countless of lives from a potential bomber. Utilitarianism argues that this would promote the greater good for the greatest amount of people.
Smith and Fallows on the other hand, would disagree because it violates their basic human rights, and everyone is entitled to their privacy. But, how important is your privacy? Would you be willing to sacrifice your life and the lives of the people around you so that your naked image is not sent to a professional in a room? Only a terrorist would answer yes to that question.
No comments:
Post a Comment