Against the Expanded Use of Full-Body Scanner

¶ … 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 tool: Additional screening should be triggered only when an algorithm connects suspicious persons to a specific itinerary during periods of elevated, if vague, threats." (Gizmodo, 2012, p.1) In another report, the question is asked whether TSA scanners are actually protecting passengers "or padding pockets." (Gizmodo, 2012, p.1 ) The report states that "pilots hate them" and passenger avoiding them "get a groping. 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 in Washington, D.C. said the agency was not exempt from laws that require federal agencies to first notify the public and seek comment." (ZD. Net, 2012, p.1) There is reported to be a "surreal Alice-In-Wonderland quality to the whole debate. (ZD.net, 2012, p.1)

D, Reports State Most Don't Mind the Scanner

It is reported that many individuals have not objective to the use of full-body scanner by TSA and specifically that those with medical devices and hip replacement prefer the scanners because they are quicker and actually less invasive. Yet, since the scanners "…produce an image of an unclothed passenger, the court found them more intrusive of personal privacy than magnetometers -- the "wands" agents wave over passengers' clothed bodies -- and thus required different procedure." (Gizmodo, 2012, p.1)