"What we want to do now is use (body scanners) as a standard measure for all flights to the United States," Dutch Justice Minister Hirsch Ballin told public television channel NOS (http://www.news24.com/Content/World/News/1073/7e2df3855b6c4039a1388402b50d87e8/30-12-2009-02-37/Body_scanners_for_US_flights). The belief of using body scanners would have detected the PETN that was hidden in Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's underwear. The discussion of using body scanners is heating up and even airports in the United States are getting ahead of the game. The Chicago O'Hare is looking to add full-body scanners in the first half of the year (http://www.suntimes.com/news/1964435,CST-NWS-scanners30.article). No one is making an argument that had a full-body scanner had been used on Abdulmutallab that the PETN would have been detected and prevented him from boarding the plane to Detroit.
The question before American's is how far we allow our personal privacy compromised for the sake of safety. Ed Yohnka the director of communications for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois said, "Because that intelligence was not acted upon, the best we can do is subject thousands and perhaps millions of Americans to a virtual strip search simply to getting on an airline flight? That doesn't make sense to me" in response to the knee-jerk reaction to adding full-body scanners to airports (http://www.suntimes.com/news/1964435,CST-NWS-scanners30.article). While comments were made yesterday on the blog entry "The 'system worked' or did it?" the question of costs/benefit were raised.
What is the cost/benefit of adding full-body scanners to airports? Are we making smart decisions with the money spent? Bruce Scheier, a long time critic of airport security practice and author of "Beyond Fear", warns that "we will waste hundreds of millions of dollars, that could be spent on investigation and intelligence, to force the terrorists to make minor changes in their tactics" (http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2009/12/30/information_not_gadgets_seen_as_security_solution/). Instead adding additional high-tech technology, Andrew Thomas, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Transportation Security at the University of Akron, Ohio, backs up Scheier's assessment because "We need better [alignment of] databases. We need to make the watch list actually mean something." No one is arguing that the system failed but will installing full-body scanners be the end all solution to preventing terrorist plans to blow up airplanes?
My hope is that the TSA and other government agencies take a breath weigh the cost/benefit of any solution implemented. Our media and society is fixated on quick fixes rather than sustainable solutions. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, (R-Utah) said, "The big question to our country is how to balance the need for personal privacy with the safety and security needs of our country." Rep. Chaffetz sponsored a successful House bill that would make full-body scanners a secondary screening method as well as impose punishment upon government employees for sharing or copying images. But as well all know the terrorist will adapt their techniques to find ways to bypass our technology that is put in place. Rep. Chaffetz went on to say, "I don't think anybody needs to see my 8-year-old naked in order to secure that airplane" (www.startribune.com).
While on the surface I agree with Rep. Chaffetz but you just gave the terrorist their next mule to bypass our technology that is in place to keep us "safe". Would the money spent be better on intelligence to prevent the terrorist from reaching the airport, updating databases, educating airport personal on using the database, or to add full-body scanners to airports? The scanners emit low doses of X-ray and I believe there is a reason that lab techs leave the room when one is having a body part x-rayed. What future lawsuits will the TSA be setting themselves up from security workers that are repeatedly exposed to low doses of x-ray?
First of all...just to correct you, the scanner is not an x-ray scanner. It uses high-frequency radio waves which are actually quite harmless to the human body. If you ever get the chance to see the picture of one in use...do it. It is quite impressive as to what it can pick up.
ReplyDeleteHow many security screeners are working at one time during a busy work week at the airport? I don't want to leave people unemployed, but this would drastically reduce the waiting and the searching in the terminals. Besides the security that we have now seems ineffective to me. What we need is a good solid system with good solid technology and well trained people to use it. Is cost a problem? Sure. What else can we do?
I think the benefits would be substantial. Facial recognition technology could be used in conjuction with this as well, which could be obtained from intelligence circles. Now, what I cannot believe is the argument that is being peddled by the politicians...our modesty. Is that really what you are worried about? If we had a girls line and a boys line would that help?I find it ridiculous that this is the worst problem to come out of it. What really are people afraid of? Flying an airplane is a priviledge, not a right.
Actually there are two types of scanners in use - the one you describe and the one that uses x-ray.
ReplyDeleteLooking at flying as a privilege is a new twist to the conversation. Is it really a privilege for those traveling for business? I do struggle with the privacy issue a little too. I do not think we need a seperate girl/guy line because which line would transgender people go in?
ReplyDeleteThe Telegraph had an article that discussed the lapse in information sharing as Britain had Umar on their no fly list and revoked his visa as well. We need better intelligence sharing and give those at the terminal more information. The deal though is that those that are boarder our planes will mainly be coming from outside the United States.
You don't have to travel for work and there are many methods to do so if needed. Especially in the age of video conferencing.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but saying we don't need separate lines because of transgender people is weak. They constitute a tiny fraction of the population.
How exactly is looking at flying as a privilege a new twist? It seems to be an odd comment and question from the Ardent Viper. Does the Ardent Viper view flying, or flying for business a "right"? I hope not as it would be quite disturbing to find out that in the Ardent Viper's mind flying or flying for business is a right but health care for all U.S. Citizens is a privilege. Talk about having your values out of balance.
ReplyDeleteLet's try focusing on the comment from the ACLU rep. It is a vague reference to the strict scrutiny standard which would be used to determine the Constitutionality of this type of "search". Assuming that a plan is put in place to put full body scanners in all airports and there is a lawsuit challenging the Constitutionality of the plan (4th Amendment claim), what are the odds that any court, even the Supreme Court, would stand in the way of the plan being implemented given the potential for future terrorist attacks?
I do not see flying as a privilege or a right. I see flying as a mode of transportation that we have the ability to choose from. The ability to fly or the choice to fly is really not a lot different than once choice to buy health insurance or self-insure themselves.
ReplyDeleteAs for your question on the odds of a court standing in the way of implementation of scanners over the attack on our freedoms, as the ACLU asserts, would depend largely on how far left or right the court is leaning. The core question is does one give up their freedom to fly much like the argument is made for driving a car. I think our current Court would see scanners as a violation of the Constitution and I hope they agree that mandating health care is a violation as well.
Anon..on the regards to transgender being weak, while I agree, I can see the ACLU or the Rainbow group attempting a case based on it.
ReplyDeleteAnd so what if the ACLU does if it is a legitimate argument.
ReplyDeleteI always find it interesting the disdain people have with the ACLU. This is a group whose purpose is defend peoples' constitutional rights. To ensure freedoms are protected. If a case is brought and a judge finds that the law is unconstitutional as applied to transgenders, don't blame the ACLU. In fact, never blame the ACLU if a law is found to violate the constitution They should be applauded for protecting rights. If someone wants a beef, have it with the judge. Better yet, have it with legislators who passed an unconstitutional law. All the ACLU would have done is ensure someone's constitutional rights aren't violated.