Charles Allen
Mrs. Hawthorne
English 1010
28 September 2010 Full Body Scanners are Safe Ever since 9/11 all airports have upped their security in order to prevent terrorist attacks from happening again, and some have proposed to use full-body scanners which will give a more thorough search of which some commend, and some criticize. The people who are for it say that it will give airports a more thorough search of passengers. Critics claim that this is an attack on privacy. Privacy is a natural right to all Americans, but safety is an asset for all living beings. Scanners should be allowed in airports due to their efficiency and protection they offer, and the statements that claim they are a threat to privacy are over-exaggerated. These new security machines will now offer a higher-class of protection, stopping terrorist plane hijacking. CNN's Jessica Ravitz reports that this new technology ''will detect both metallic and nonmetallic'' threat items to keep passengers safe (Ravitz). The most apprehensive situation that could be on a plane isn’t snakes or monsters, its hijackers with weapons and since the introduction of metal detectors terrorists have found ways to get around unnoticed. This will hopefully put a stop to it all. Moreover, the machines can ''reveal objects that metal detectors can miss, such as plastic firearms, ceramic knives, and, yes, possibly explosives hidden in a person’s underwear'', says the USA Today (USA Today). Full-body scanners are superior because unlike a standard detectors, these locate more well-hidden threats. This will make passengers more comfortable, knowing that even the best trained terrorists are no match for American security. There should be no debate about how much safer full body scanners are than standard metal detectors. Furthermore, this procedure surpasses the old by far, and gives passengers a more comfortable inspection. In fact, in an interview Ravitz finds that ''a body scan takes between 15-30 seconds, while a full pat-down can take from two to four minutes'' (Ravitz). As one can see this is much more efficient than a regular pat-down. This will smooth things out more, not only safety-wise, but airport line length wise as well. Also for those who refuse to be scanned, ''they can receive an equivalent screening, a full pat-down'' writes Schwartz (Schwartz). The full body scanner is the new firewall for airports, and should be everywhere. This new technology stops terrorists where the old system didn’t. As one can see, the full body scanner is not only safer, but also more efficient than standard procedures.
Finally, any claims that state these machines are an invasion of privacy are based only on over-exaggerated paranoid thoughts. For instance, Schwartz says that ''many are concerned about the idea of an agency taking pictures of millions of American air-travelers suspected of no wrong-doing'' (Schwarts). These people have good reason to be concerned about their privacy, but they should be more concerned about their safety. After all, the images that are being taken of an individual are very blurry when it comes to flesh. In addition, the person who is reviewing the images must be in a separate room and cannot see who is entering the scanner. The machines have been modified to make it ''impossible to share the images'' Schwartz discovers (Schwartz). This means privacy is not affected in the least. If someone can’t even really see what’s underneath your clothes, nor know who you are, then why should you be concerned about privacy? Unless you are concerned about your naked, unknown, blurry image, then this is not much of a privacy offense.
In short, 9/11 was almost a decade ago, and since then terrorists have greatly increased their technology and have tactics on how to harm Americans. It should only be common sense that we do the same in defense. If that means having passengers going through a 15-30 second process instead of a four minute procedure, and producing blurry, unidentifiable pictures of passengers remotely instead of a up-close and personal pat-down done by strangers, then surely most Americans would rather go through the body-scanners, especially when the alternative leaves the risk of being trapped airborne with a terrorist.