While security experts say full-body scanning technology, which uses x-rays and radio waves to create a three dimentional image of passenger's body underneath his or her clothing, might have caught "underwear bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, some privacy groups protest that it's equivalent to an invasive "digital strip search." Last June, the House overwhelmingly passed a bill restricting use of the technology in airports, citing concerns about both privacy and effectiveness. Are the benefits of "naked" scans worth the loss of privacy? (Watch an AP report about airport security and privacy fears)
Fine, look at my "naked" body — just keep me safe: I'd take a "strip-search" scan over being blown out of the sky any day, says Froma Harrop in The Seattle Times, and I imagine I'm not alone. Besides, an anonymous "naked" once-over beats the screening alternative: "having someone pat you up and down is a lot more personal than letting an officer in another room who can't see your face take a quick look at a picture."
"The naked truth about whole-body imaging"
The privacy risks are too great: The machines offer no guarantee for stopping determined terrorists, says Lillie Coney of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, as quoted by NPR. So why make the enormous privacy "tradeoff" with a technology "that will literally strip away human dignity"? Also, keep in mind there's nothing to prevent an image of your naked body "from being retained" by government employees, "even when they say" that won't happen.
"New airport screening described as 'intrusive'"
Scan passengers — but be selective: Our focus on "keeping bad things — as opposed to bad people — off of airplanes" highlights a "flawed philosophy," says Robert Poole in Reason. Not every air passenger is equally likely to be a terrorist, and those deemed "higher risk" are the ones who should be made to undergo full-body scans. And now that terrorists are "hiding explosives in their underwear and body cavities, we have no alternative."
"Will we get serious about aviation security?"
The scanners are as necessary as a metal detectors: Some opponents argue scanners are a backward-looking strategy and the terrorists will just "think of something else," says Allahpundit in Hot Air. That might be true — "but how does [it] justify not doing anything about something they’ve already thought of?" Just because "jihadis have already thought of smuggling guns and knives onto planes" doesn't mean we should ditch metal detectors.
"JetBlue announces dopey new TSA regulations"
SEE THE WEEK'S LATEST COVERAGE OF FLIGHT 253:
• Yemen: America's next war?
• Should Obama fire Janet Napolitano?
• Flight 253: Who is to blame?
• Who is Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab?
• World newspapers reaction to attempted Northwest Airlines bombing
THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER
- How the South's ugly racial history is haunting ObamaCare
- What if Leo Strauss was right?
- 43 TV shows to watch in 2014
- How to be the most productive person in your office — and still get home by 5:30 p.m.
- If Democrats abandon immigration reform after Tuesday's likely loss, they will turn 2016 into a debacle
- Stop making fun of philosophy and read some philosophy
- The real story behind Deliver Us From Evil
- 6 things the happiest families all have in common
- Beware of Splenda: The backlash against artificial sugars
- 10 things you need to know today: October 31, 2014
Subscribe to the Week