Depending on the person, one's concern about the new, extensive pat down search may be justified. However, the full body scanners that are featured in the media should not be given such suspicion as they have since they were introduced. One of the claims, that the scanners give too much radiation, has been declared fallacious by multiple agencies. The other, of privacy, is a null point.
Yesterday was also my birthday, which marks the anniversary of a day on which countless nurses would have seen me naked. The same is true for everyone who was born inside of a hospital, or most of the U.S. population. Since then, routine check ups have had the same outcome. A TSA agent, in a separate room that does not have a view of the passengers, is no different from a doctor.
This is true because full body scanners can stop terrorism. The would be "undiebomber" would have been caught at the gate had they been used. Luckily, in this case, the bombing did not materialize because passengers were able to overpower the terrorists. But luck is not a secure platform. Brief nudity is a small price to pay for safety.
1 comment:
I agree that the complaints about the scanner are unwarranted but i also don't really think that such it is really necessary. There are definitely ways around the body scanner and the pat down that a determined terrorist could figure out. So in my opinion, such excessive measures of security should not be taken unless they are truly foolproof because if they aren't they should probably be filed under the civilian harrassment category instead of the security one.
Post a Comment