US authorities are rapidly multiplying the full-body scanners they’ve already placed in key airports, Britain has just announced that scanners will be introduced there as well, and the Netherlands will now require all US-bound passengers to pass through full-body screenings before boarding flights.
Here in Canada, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) has recommended the machines be deployed and the Privacy Commissioner has already given the thumbs up. Still, controversy rages on, and mainly because of privacy concerns.
Those against them have so far claimed that the 3-D image is “intrusive”, “a threat to human dignity”, and “tantamount to virtual strip searching”. In Britain, privacy campaigners have gone as far as to claim that full-body scanners would breach child protection laws and could unintentionally create indecent images of children.
While every measure undertaken should certainly attempt to balance security and privacy issues, the outcry simply does not correspond to reality. It is imperative that apprehensions regarding privacy do not trump security concerns.
These are the real facts: full-body scanners do produce a three-dimensional outline of a person’s naked body, but the quality is more that of a negative of a photograph; not an actual picture of someone’s naked body. Hardly a pornographic image!
Additionally, those operating the devices are unable to see the people being scanned and the images are immediately deleted. Only people singled out for extra screening would be scanned, and they would have the option of getting a physical pat-down instead. However, it should be noted that in studies conducted by the US Transport Security Agency, more than 99 percent of passengers opted to use the body scanner instead of the pat-down, because, they felt the most uncomfortable part of security was being patted down.
In fact, the only real concern should be whether or not body scanners are a health menace. Even though the dose of radiation used in scanners is negligent, everyone would readily agree that no radiation is better than low radiation. While concerns could (and should) be raised about the cumulative harmful effects on frequent flyers, airline crews and pregnant passengers, one would counter-argue: what are the harmful medical effects of being blown up by a bomb?
No one wishes added unnecessary and ineffective security measures, but if full-body scanners can increase security and can prevent or deter one more crazed bomber from boarding a place and destroying lives in the name of religious fanaticism, then scan away!
Yes We Scan!
Yes We Scan!
- Published on January 6th, 2010
- Published on Febuary 6th, 2010
-
Toula Foscolos
Security concerns should trump privacy issues
Since a Nigerian man was charged with attempting to blow up a US-bound jet on Christmas day, there’s been renewed talk of installing full-body scanners in airports to enhance security and possibly foil any further terrorist attempts.
- Number of views : 1157
- Rate
- Top of the page
Comments
-
- Aggie
- - February 17th, 2010 at 14:18:13
If you want to be scanned and speed up your cancer disease that's fine, but please don't inflict it onto others who are not so willing to get sick. I want to have an option if I dont want to be scanned thank you very much. It is my right to object to something which exposes me to a health risk. The idea that choosing the least of two evils ( scan vs bomb) is the way to go is as ludicrous as you post.
-
- Toula Foscolos
- - February 17th, 2010 at 14:18:11
I appreciate your comment (and concerns) Aggie, but which part of "you would have the option of getting a physical pat-down instead" do you not understand?
-
- JW Salthouse
- - February 17th, 2010 at 14:18:05
Obviously this author is very passionate about giving up freedom for some imagined sense of safety. We know the next step is shock bracelets that all passengers will be forced to wear in exchange for air travel. Why is it that the "Terrorists" always manages to bypass the security measures like the underwear bomber and the 911 hijackers did? Terrorism continues yet out freedoms die left and right. How is this NOT an utter victory for the terrorists? If they "hate us for our Freedoms" as Bush claimed, how is it that giving up our freedoms is the proper and sensible response? Like always, these things start out as voluntary and then become mandatory. Yes you can chose the more demeaning strip search by some rent-a-cop/TSA goon or you can opt for the machine performed goon viewed strip search. These images will be recordable and will later be found on the web for viewing. Just like people sell private, supposedly confidential celebrity information already. A person would have to be pretty naive to believe otherwise. Why can't we have security without becoming a Stazi State?
-
- Aggie
- - February 10th, 2010 at 12:55:40
If you want to be scanned and speed up your cancer disease that's fine, but please don't inflict it onto others who are not so willing to get sick. I want to have an option if I dont want to be scanned thank you very much. It is my right to object to something which exposes me to a health risk. The idea that choosing the least of two evils ( scan vs bomb) is the way to go is as ludicrous as you post.
-
- Toula Foscolos
- - February 10th, 2010 at 12:55:39
I appreciate your comment (and concerns) Aggie, but which part of "you would have the option of getting a physical pat-down instead" do you not understand?
-
- JW Salthouse
- - February 10th, 2010 at 12:55:34
Obviously this author is very passionate about giving up freedom for some imagined sense of safety. We know the next step is shock bracelets that all passengers will be forced to wear in exchange for air travel. Why is it that the "Terrorists" always manages to bypass the security measures like the underwear bomber and the 911 hijackers did? Terrorism continues yet out freedoms die left and right. How is this NOT an utter victory for the terrorists? If they "hate us for our Freedoms" as Bush claimed, how is it that giving up our freedoms is the proper and sensible response? Like always, these things start out as voluntary and then become mandatory. Yes you can chose the more demeaning strip search by some rent-a-cop/TSA goon or you can opt for the machine performed goon viewed strip search. These images will be recordable and will later be found on the web for viewing. Just like people sell private, supposedly confidential celebrity information already. A person would have to be pretty naive to believe otherwise. Why can't we have security without becoming a Stazi State?
