Airport security has been an issue for many years. Officials ponder every day about how to ensure people’s safety when flying from one destination to another without going too far as to invade their privacy. Officials have come up with an idea that could speed up the screening process while preventing prohibited items from getting passed security without having to physically search the passengers. They have been testing “millimeter wave whole body imaging” machines, which are elevator-sized screening devices that reveal, within seconds, what’s underneath travelers’ clothes. The machines work by projecting electromagnetic waves over a person’s body to produce a 3-D image within two seconds. The faces on the images are blurred and the files are deleted after being reviewed. Andrea McCauley, a spokeswoman for the airport security said, “Our first responsibility is to preserve privacy and the protection of passengers.” She also said that the millimeter wave images would be “hands-free and user-friendly.” These machines can see what the magnetometers that passengers walk through now can’t detect because they can see both metal and non-metal items that may cause harm to others.
Although these machines are speeding up the security process and eliminating more harmful materials, they are also causing an outcry from privacy advocates who say the images are too revealing. Barry Steinhardt, director of the Technology and Liberty Project for the American Civil Liberties Union, said about these new machines: “These are virtual strip-searches. American passengers should not have to parade around naked in front of security screeners in order to board the plane.” Even though this process is optional the officials do not express passenger’s rights clearly. They make it seem mandatory. A Salt Lake resident, Darren Johnson, stated that he didn’t realize he was using some new technology until officials asked him to step into the body-imaging machine. Passengers say that this new invention is very intrusive and a violation of their privacy. They also exclaim that these “3-D image” searches are completely unnecessary.
What is your opinion on this new security invention? Are these new security measures reasonable and necessary to ensure the safety of mankind or are these machines intrusive and violating our privacy? What kind of safety measures should be taken in order to protect our people and not act in a violating way?
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/061308dnbustsascans.fcd920.html
I am in full support of the new full body scans. I have seen pictures online of how creative criminals are at creating deadly weapons out of common, normally non-lethal items. You never know what kind of weapon someone will craft mid-flight and with all of the recent terror attacks, we can never be too safe. I would much rather someone take a picture of me or give me a pat down and know I will be safe on the flight. If this imaging was around back on 9/11, we may have avoided a tragedy (and a war that has sunk the country into debt). The media is making a big deal about this new security feature. Airplane is not the only way to travel. Anyone who wants to have the convenience of fast travel should be willing to be either scanned or patted down. To anyone not willing to go through with the procedure, there are other ways to travel. Trains, boats, and automobiles also exist. This procedure is only required for a convenience, it is not like people are required to be scanned for necessities like buying groceries.
ReplyDeleteI have heard about this new security, and I am on the fence about how I feel about it. Yes, the safety of the passengars on the planes is the most important aspect of traveling, but going through security check seems to be very uncomfortable. I have seen people on the news getting "felt up" during security which is uncomfortable for both the passengars and the security workers. Also, I am sure many people feel violated during thesse searches, and I am surprised that such a procedure is necessary in the U.S. Due to past incidents though, such as 9/11 it seems that these searches are a call for desperates measures, because the safety of people on planes has been jeapordized before.
ReplyDeleteWhat i did not know is that people can deny to have the 3D picture taken of them. It is not surprising that the security does not make it clear to passengars that they can deny this, because they probably want everyone to have it done because it makes the security process go faster as opposed to a strip search. Although I am glad new techniques are being used to ensure our safety, I am not looking forward to the next plane ride I go on!
This is insane! People need to get over the fact that this is what happens when u need to board a plane from now on. All this so called "invasion of privacy" would not neet to happen if we didnt have people trying to break the system and commit terrorist aattacks, but we do. It's a reality we have to face, in order to ensure everyone's safety we are going to need to take more and more drastice measures. Honestly, this 3D scanned isn't even that drastic compared to what still is in stores for us in the future.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this issue is very controversial in regards towards an individual's privacy when TSA officers are forcing passengers to go through the new scanners installed at airports across the United States such as Boston's Logan as well as doing pat-downs if one refuses the screening. We are all aware that the new screening instrument creates images of each passenger that are what's the word, delicate. It basically screens each passenger to the point in which the images have them with very little if so no clothes on. And the pat-downs are deemed by some "an invasion of privacy" and on the borderline of groping. However in my opinion, I believe that these new instruments are essential for the protection and safety of the passengers and flight crew when boarding on any commercial aircraft in the United States and the world beyond. Sure these devices are very intrusive and come about due to the government's and the nation's transport administration's paranoia as a result of the September 11th tragedy and the attempted bombing of a flight from London to Chicago O'Hare airport. However we all is said and done, we must ask ourselves one question. Which is more important? The safety of the passengers or the criticism of the new screenings and devices at the nation's airports. In my opinion, I don't care what the TSA does or what devices/screening methods they implement as long as the airport lines through security is going at a decent/fast/steady speed and that they are doing everything that they possibly can to ensure the safety of every flight. So yes, the criticism of these invasive devices/screening is childish at best when we need to consider the bigger picture and what is on the line here.
ReplyDeleteRefering to the pat-downs in airport security, "I'd rather be felt up than blown up" is a simple statement about this issue. Any measures should be taken in order to ensure the safety of airplane passengers. An airport may want to have the "whole body imaging" method to be super-safe. Although an airport may lose customers who stubbornly disagree with the security, it will lose more customers for having a reputation for not being safe if something tragic were to happen. Airports should be able to do anything for security because they need to keep a safe reputation for business, and people shouldn't get mad about it if they aren't hiding anything.
ReplyDeleteI think the 3D body scans are a great idea. I have not experience one yet but I do support the design. I do not believe that invades a person’s privacy. Those who hide weapons have improved their methods and are beginning to use weapons that are non-metallic so that they will not appear on a metal detector. If this new 3D scan can detect the non-metallic weapons, great! It is only for our benefit so for those who protest the 3D scan, I say “suck it up and deal with it” (for lack of a better expression of course). I’m sure the scans just barely resemble the person being scanned, and from what I’ve read here, the scan blurs the persons face in addition to be deleted there afterward if no alert appears. I’m also sure that only one person is going to see the scans for the few seconds they are on the screen before being deleted. How likely is it that you’re even going to see the scan employee again or that the employee even cares?
ReplyDeleteSomething that I would like to add is that the scan is not mandatory but some sort of screening is. If you choose not to participate in the 3D scan, you may opt out, but in order to board the plane, you still have to be screened. The alternative it a full pat down that is much more intrusive than a regular pat down and I would consider to invade one’s privacy more than a 3D scan that you can’t even feel. If you decided to also opt out of the pat down, you cannot board the plane.
So my question after this is why wouldn’t you want to participate in the new 3D scan?
I think that the intentions of this new security device are good, but the means of it are not okay. People shouldn't have to expose their bodies to this new machine to be able to travel on a plane. I think this is very revealing and cuts too far into someone's privacy. I think the money that is being put into making these new devices should be used to research new ideas for other security devices that are less invasive.
ReplyDeleteIt is all about technology and how far a human being is willing to go with this system. The security issue is very understandable the will to protect the citizens but it seems like through protecting the citezens all their rights of baring privacy at an airport are being invaded. This security device is not only stoping people from traveling by airplanes, but it also violating people's rights. It is good that it is making security better but it will be even better if it is not necessarly to completely expose the human body inorder to reveal what is beneath.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of a 3-d body image is a great idea. It will make the security lines go faster and is way better and more effective than being felt up. They are completely anonymous and can help prevent people from bringing weapons and explosives on planes. I'd much rather be anonymously exposed than be in danger of potentially dying. People seem to be getting more creative about hiding weapons when boarding planes, so seeing virtually every inch of their bodies is the only way to detect them. What is more important passengers' safety or privacy? I'd rather live.
ReplyDeleteI support the new security measures one hundred percent. That I think many don't know is that these scans are totally optional. It's not like the photos will be posted all over the internet; the scans are handled by trained professionals who will lose their jobs if they are caught misusing the equipment. With an increase of carbonfiber weapons that are untracable by metal detectors, this is the best way to ensure the safety of passengers and crew. I'm sure this form of security will only be temporary, as new forms of technology will be developed to make flight security less intrusive.
ReplyDeleteI see no problem with this 3D scanning system. Whether or not it is considered an invasion of privacy is far less important than he security if the passengers on the plane. Like the post said, the face of the person inside the machine is blurred and their file is deleted once they have passed through. A record of their body image is not kept; therefore no invasion of privacy occurs except for the moment when their scan is analyzed. Even then, all the scan employees are looking for are objects which could potentially be used to harm someone on the plane. They don’t care about the body they are looking at they are only thinking of the safety of everyone on the plane. They way people reacted to this new technology make it seem as if they are forced to strip in the middle of the airport with all eyes on them. Not even close to the truth. Those who have spoken out against this new technology as invasive and unnecessary are over reacting. This method is much safer and more accurate than normal metal detectors and should be used in order to safeguard the welfare of all who use airplanes for transportation.
ReplyDeleteI support the TSAs attempt to make airline passengers more secure. However, there have been several issues brought up with the new screening process. Until I had, actually did some research about the full body scans I believed, based on the way people were reacting, that the images were showing people without their clothes, which in my opinon would be too far. however, If you see the images, they look similar to an x-ray but show tissue as well. Another problem people have brought up has been radiation. Throughout your day, you are likely to be exposed to higher levels of radiation. I also have been hearing a lot about the pat downs. This seams a lot more invasive than the scans.
ReplyDeleteIt is important to remember that none of this is required. If you feel that, the scan is, to invasive then go ahead and get a pat down. Still if you chose not to meet these requirements, do not fly. There are plenty of other options to travel by. Flying is not something that people should see as a right, it is a privilege that we are allowed. These scans are meant to keep all Americans safer.
I support these new body-scanning devices; they seem like a fast and effective way to ensure that passengers are safe. EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) says that the 3D scanning system is "unlawful, invasive, and ineffective” and even filed a petition hoping the use of the devices would stop (http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/). However, I do not see them as ineffective if they are capable of detecting anything harmful. After all the terrorist attacks, I think something like this is definitely needed. Although I can see why people think these new machines are somewhat an invasion of privacy, I am for them because I believe safety comes first. They are not too invasive because, as the author says, the “faces on the images are blurred and the files are deleted after being reviewed.” I find it very surprising that the majority of Americans are not in support of the body scanners; a poll by Zogby International revealed that “61% of Americans polled between Nov. 19 and Nov. 22 oppose the use of full body scans and TSA pat downs” (http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/). It does not make sense to me why someone would rather risk their life than undergo a short body scan.
ReplyDeleteI believe that these full body scanners are very useful in preventing any sort of attack or crime on the plane. However, in previous comments, many people have expressed the sentiment, "whatever it takes to protect people." I feel that at some point this maxim should no longer be held as true. Where do we draw the line? What about TSA staff searching the cavities of our bodies before flights? How about installing cameras on every street, or even in our homes? I understand that this sounds ridiculous, but this is the path that these machines are heading us towards. I believe that these machines also pose privacy problems. Supposedly, these images are being discarded as soon as they are viewed by the security guard. However, 35,000 images were already leaked onto the internet. How would you feel if you were one of those people? I also understand that people can turn down the full body scans. But, there are many horror stories over people being sexually violated during these encounters. One woman who had a prosthetic breast after receiving a mastectomy opted to not go through the scanner because of a radiation risk. During the body search, the woman felt her breasts and told her that she must remove her prosthetic breast and show her chest to prove she was telling the truth. The machines place us in a predicament where we are now being extraordinarily invaded by strangers and our naked images are being placed into a computer. I understand and also believe the position that these machines are protecting our country, I also feel that their extreme invasion of privacy makes them not worth it.
ReplyDeleteI am in full support of these new machines. Terrorists are continuing to adapt to the new technology we have, so we have to keep the upper hand. People may complain that it is an inconvenience or an invasion of their privacy, but it's sole purpose is to insure the safety of all the passengers on the flight. People would not be complaining if a bomb or weapon was detected before it was put on their plane. The September 11th terrorist attacks were a tragety. They happened ten years ago and we cannot afford to forget them. Last Christmas a Yemin citizen tried to detonate a bomb on a plane. Even though this was prevented it could happen at any moment. If we get complacent there is a good chance we will be paying for it. As much as I believe in people's rights, I think security is more important. These are real threats we have to deal with. The images may be revealing but they are destroyed and the faces are blurred so it is not personal. It is also a good point that you can opt out of the
ReplyDelete3-D scan. There are other ways to be screened. However, I cannot see how a pet down is less intrusive than a scan. Overall, I do not think anyone would complain if it saved their life. This is how we should be looking at this new machine.
I agree with a majority of respondents when I say that these new devices are a contraversial invasion of passenger privacy,however, I know that my life and the life of other passengers is much more important than my own privacy. I find it very selfish of passengers to demand that these highly effective security machines be ommitted from airport security when they could one day possibly save thousands of lives. These machines are closing loopholes in air port secuirty that have one too many times failed us. Perhaps if these machines had been here prior to 9/11 those terrorist attacks could have been avoided and thousands of innocent lives saved.
ReplyDeleteThose opposed to the 3D imaging machines due to privacy should think about how they would feel if those 3D images were not allowed and a person was able to get a weapon past the outdated metal dectectors and hijack a plane that one of their loved ones was on. I know it is a bit dramatic and morbid to think of something like that, but it is true that we think most rationally when we are forced to experience the situation ourselves.
I know that I would much rather have some creepy Security guy looking at the outline of my breast, than having to deal with losing one of my family members in a hijaked plane crash.
I fully support the use of the new security scanners. It is a way of making me and the rest of this country safe and I am all for that. I do not care at all that its invading my privacy. When I travel by plane I am already a nervous wreck as it is just because of the flight never mind the risk of terrorists, so a little invasion of privacy is no big deal. People really need to think about the full picture and relax when it comes to these scanners. These people are just protecting us with the use of these, they are not looking to see what you look like under your clothes, they are looking for threats. In my opinion when people make scenes over going through a scanner that makes me think they have something to hide. When people see other people that they are flying with go through the scanners they feel a sense of safety. So really get over it and make you and the people around you feel safe and secure.
ReplyDeleteI am in favor of the new airport security technology. Flying seems daunting after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and this new 3-D body imaging scan is a step in the right direction to ensure every passenger's safety. It is not an invasion of privacy because the passengers are not really being seen naked. It is simply a faster and more efficient way of checking passengers. I would much rather go through the body scan machine than to be felt up by airport security because it takes less time and is much less awkward. People should be in favor of this new technology because it is done to ensure their safety.
ReplyDeleteI am in full support of the full body scanning technique. It's not like the images are being saved and posted all over the internet. The images are immediately deleted and your face is blurred so what's the problem? Would you rather put your life in jeopardy and run the risk of having someone bring a weapon on the plane that could harm you? I believe that this is a great new idea and it will make the airport security check much more efficient and less of a hassel. I agree with Fiona and I too would definatly have my life rather than my privacy.
ReplyDeleteIt is a tough decision when asked my opinion on this new security invention. I understand that airport security is trying to protect the safety of all passengers, but I think this may be taking it to an extreme. But then again, if we had these new scanning techniques before 9/11 would the attacks still have occurred? I want what is best for the passengers and I want to feel safe on the planes, so if that means a full body scans, I think I am in favor. Yes, it is a lot for an airport security to see and that's why the topic is so controversial, but I think it is for our own safety.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the new airport security measures are a necessity for the safety of all passengers. Despite the invasiveness of this new technology it has many beneficial qualities such as, increased passenger safety, security, and greater peace of mind. These new technologies have been put into place with the safety of our country and its citizens as their soul purpose. These machines are not intended to invade personal privacy and it’s a shame that so many Americans have such a problem with this increased safety. These machines were also made to speed up the security process at airports so instead of taking 5 to 10 minutes to do a full body search and pat down, these machines complete the job in just 2 to 3 minutes time and are as effective as a full body search, minus the awkwardness of having a stranger pat you down.
ReplyDeleteI believe that these new machines are less intrusive and more efficient than previous methods so I do not have any issues with they’re operation. Any stories of invasive pictures from these machines being put on line are all just people looking for attention, and the fact that they are bring up these stories makes me wonder if they are actually the people with something to hide.
My overall consensus is that these new machines are for the better safety of the country, so that we do not run into another devastating terrorist attack like the one that occurred on 9/11/2001. I will support their usage until it is ruled unconstitutional which I doubt will ever occur.
I think it does evade your privacy, but this is worth it because it is more unlikely for someone to set an explosive off on a plane, which this saves many lives. I don't mind it because I would rather they do this then be blown up. This privacy breach i don't mind but if the government went out of the airport and tried to get more information on our privacy i would say no.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the use of 3D imaging machines. I would rather board a plane feeling completely safe and got through that, instead of have someone get on the plane with a weapon. I think that whatever measures that we need to take to be safer are completely valid and understandable.
ReplyDeleteAs soon as I am done with finals week. My first fresman year, winter break experience, will be getting on a plane. I have every intention on going through the body scanner. 1. It does not show my face. 2. The TSA employees viewing the image are in a different room (so they cant connect you to your screen image) 3. If you are willing to go through the scanner there is no need for a full body pat down. 4. It is a matter of national security. People seriously need to relax. These people complaining about it obviously have nothing better to do with their lives. When you think about it it's kind of like an x-ray so get over it. Unless you have something to hide there shouldn't be any protest to the scanners. It's fast and it's effective. If it were a less evasive method but took lonmger, people would be complaining about the amount of time it took. If it weren't effective then people would be up in arms. But thats just how it is. People are always going to have something to complain about.
ReplyDelete