¶ … Against the Expanded Use of Full-Body Scanner in Airports Argument

The use of full body scanners in airports is a method that is too invasive because it actually produces pictures of the individual's body and as well the method is time consuming and expensive and as well there are viable alternatives available.

Support/Evidence

Cost, Risk, Passenger Inconvenience, and Privacy Concerns

Jim Arkedis a reporter for 'The Hill' relates that body scanner in 2011 cost approximately $700 million. In addition Arkedis is reports that a viable alternative is that of 'smart-screening' or construction of a security net that screens passengers for those which are potentially dangerous which would assist in "balancing risk, passenger inconvenience and privacy concerns." (2010) According to Arkedis, smart screening would further save money. Arkedis reports, "it is time to let the selectee list think for itself.

B. Alternatives Exist to Combat Terrorist Acts

With technological innovation, the list could be transformed into a "smart" anti-terrorism...

TSA is reported to cope with criticism by first "denying that a problem exists and upon it becoming obvious in its existence TSA "insist it's not big deal. They eventually stop answering questions, because shut up and that's why." (Gizmodo, 2012, p.1)
C. Temporarily Against the Law

Federal law ruled that the U.S. Transportation Security Agency violated federal law when it installed full-body scanners in American airports because it "failed to follow proper procedures, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday. But it's not the controversial scanners themselves that fell on the wrong side of the law -- rather, it was the TSA's installation of them. The Circuit Court of Appeals…