As a regular air traveler, both before and after September 11, 2001, one aspect of air travel I particularly appreciated about the post 9/11 security measures that so drastically changed the boarding process was that it seemed to completely eliminate the pervasive petty airport crime. Travelers had to guard against the pickpockets and bag boosters and assorted purse pilferers that seemed to lurk at every turn in airports. I was relieved after the tightened security rendered that sort of crime almost nonexistent. As a result, I felt more secure in an airport on many levels.
As the various permutations of airport security were introduced, implemented and streamlined, the patience and resiliency of travelers seemed to be continually tested. Yet most Americans bore the burden admirably, generally agreeing that any additional layers of protection against catastrophe were preferable over the alternative. We have all suffered some indignity at the hands of an airport employee while passing through security, and with each alteration in the level of vigilance required of the security personnel, most of us have good-naturedly tolerated this indignity taking comfort in the knowledge that we are all in it together.
The latest tool proposed for airline security, the full body scanner that can see through clothing, was met early on with an attitude of reserve, a willingness on the part of most Americans to give the system the benefit of the doubt. I was among that group, withholding judgment until I saw for myself how the system worked. After seeing the body scanner in action on the nightly news, a number of questions came to mind as to what, if anything, this latest measure will accomplish.
The demonstration presented on the news was preceded by a warning: “We realize this is a family hour, and we don’t want to be too graphic here, but we want to show you what the scanners will actually see, ” began the news anchor, ominously. I immediately became concerned. If the scanner was going to reveal an image that was so graphic as to necessitate a “for mature audiences only” warning, I knew we may be in for a bumpy ride.
“As you can see,” said the anchor, pausing meaningfully, as the subject passed through the scanner, “Our subject is obviously male.” He continued, “you can see everything. You can see his genitalia, his hair, his skin.” I was floored. Horrified, too. I wondered if they would have dared show a female model. I doubted it. I doubted the image would have made it past the network censors. Based on that unsettling thought, I knew my air travel days might be coming to an end.
there are so many unanswered questions, all of which went through my mind in a rush. My first thought was, what about children? Will children be subjected to this? The news anchor pointed out that the security agent who would actually be viewing the image would be in a separate room, and we would not know if that person was male or female. There was mention of a separate viewer for each gender, but that seems unlikely. How would we know who was really “behind the glass”? What about pedophiles? A parody of a classified ad sprung to mind:
Job title: TSA airport security
Description: Like to watch? Individuals needed for monitoring new full body scanners. Ideal candidates are voyeurs and pedophiles.
the reporter went on to say that no video would be captured or stored. I find that very difficult to believe. How long will it be before video of nude travelers appears on You Tube? Will the wealthy and privileged be permitted to opt-out? Will celebrities be exempted? Senators? Yes, faces will be blurred, but for how long? Will we be informed when video is captured and stored or faces no longer obscured?
What about people who have pacemakers, colostomy bags, prosthetic limbs? Will we be required to unwrap bandages, remove medical devices such as insulin pumps, hearing aids and gauze packs?
What about women who are pregnant? Could the scanning technology harm the fetus?
Proponents of the system ask, “Well, would you prefer the alternative?” The implication being, of course, would you rather die on a plane at the hands of terrorists? For some people, the answer to that question just might be yes. There are some who would rather die than parade in front of a stranger essentially naked. What about husbands who do not want their wives to be ogled by a stranger? Or, his teen-age daughters? What about persons who refuse on the basis of religious grounds?
For every preventative measure we have dreamed up, the terrorists who would do us harm have discovered an alternative. One might make the argument that history’s most persecuted group, the Israelis, seem to have this process down to a science. Without subjecting their people to humiliation and indignity (beyond the basic indignity that they may be history’s most persecuted group), they have managed to maintain a level of security that is enviable.
Finally, there’s this: What are we going to do after the first time a scanner fails? Or, the human monitor fails? Then what? there are no full body scanners at the airport entrance. What if the evil doers stop just short of security and decide instead to commit their crime in the ticket area?
This surely isn’t an original thought, but it occurs to me that if we follow these incremental safety procedures out to their logical end, we will soon be boarding planes utterly naked, or be required to swap our street clothes for some sort of uniform, like a hospital gown or disposable overalls. Or, will we be required to have an on-site medical examination? We could combine a dermatological examination, a “mole patrol” with the security screening. Why not? With our busy lives this seems to be a great way to multi task.
There has to be a better way.
LL
I agree that the full body scanner opens us up, no pun intended, to all sorts of risks.i also must think that there will be measures in place so that the person watching you will in turn have someone watchingthem so that they perform no unethical practices. I wouls also assume that when subjects of security checks are minor children, the monitoring process on the security operator will be doubled as no agency wants a law suit. There will have to be increase psychological and criminal checks performed otherwise pedophiles or potential pedophiles have just found a paradise that pays.
That’s an awful lot of assumptions, but let’s hope. LL
I totally agree with the concerns you have raised about these body screeners LL. If one even travels quite infrequently, how many times will one be “body scanned” in one lifetime? How much radiation will that be? Who is watching the “watchers?”
And to the people who say, well just don’t fly then, that’s such an knee jerk reaction to sort of the real issue that’s going on here. If people tacitly agree to this now, who’s to say that more invasive “screening” won’t go on in the future and in what form? And who’s going to do what with that info.?
Like you said, it’s incremental and people are willingly doing this for “safety” reasons, not seeing how this can possibly harm them over the long run. Not to mention privacy concerns.
I’m actually kind of surprised there isn’t more of an outcry over this. And to say that these machines don’t keep these images is the biggest load of BS.
Very well said. I agree with your observation that there seems to be very little outcry. The question I often find myself asking is, “Where’s the outrage, America?”
I know Alex Jones (Prison Planet), who I never thought I’d agree with anything on, is saying people should resist these new machines, but other than that, I haven’t seen or heard much questioning from the public. They even have some “polls” that show that most people are in favor of these new machines. Good grief!
[…] a follow-up to a previous post on the subject ( A few questions about the airport full body scanners , I’d like to comment on the current dialogue now getting some air play. Thanks […]