Can't Have it Both Ways

In light of the recent attempts at a terrorist act by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab of Nigeria, there have been increasing numbers of people calling for tighter and more stringent security. The problem is that while on the one hand people are calling for change, the other arguement makes it seem that they aren't willing to pay the price associated with that change. In this case the discussion is over whether or not the use of full-body scanners at airports and if they are to be used then in what capacity. Now since these full-body scanners have been introduced to the public they have never really been free of controversy.

The way the machine works is that it's similar to an x-ray in that it uses various visual lighting methods to virtually 'strip' away the clothes from an individual in order to determine if the individual is carrying any illicit materials similar to how Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab of Nigeria did over Christmas using his underwear as the bomb carrier. The argument currently being made is that had he been required to go through such a scanner it's possible (though we'll probably never know) that he may not have even made it through security let alone board the flight thus preventing any sort of terrorist attack. The problem is that Abdulmutallab boarded his flight in Amsterdam. Even if we implement these machines here in the United States, what do we do about flights coming in from elsewhere?

But that's a completely different part of the argument. The argument over these machines now comes to whether they should or shouldn't be used as primary screening devices and the reasons for it. Representative Tom McClintock (R-CA.) co-sponsored a bill in the House of Representatives last year in which he called for these scanners to be used as a secondary security tool and not a primary one. His main concern being who would undergo this type of scan and whether 'grandmothers and little children' should be made to undergo this type of scan. Now as I mentioned, since these devices were first introduced to the public, there has been controversy over how much is 'stripped' from someone undergoing a scan. Despite examples to the contrary, many still feel that it will basically reveal a naked version of you on a screen and that the image will then be stored someplace for use by devious minded perverts somewhere within the Transportation Security Agency.

For the public to come up with these theories is understandable since they may not know that much about it. But for our Congressional leaders who should know better, it's just disturbing. To me the implication that they seem to be making is that those who are entrusted to run security at our airports, namely the Transportation Security Agency officers, can't be trusted to run security without saving these scanned images for their own purposes. To me then that also implies that the people being hired to run security are of questionable backgrounds so then how could they get those positions in the first place? It sets of a chain of 'if-then' type of thoughts which simply proves that people are inherently trustworthy of authority.

I say this because people seem to want these security measures put in place but only so long as it isn't applied universally. People seem to imply through their statements or actions that the only ones who should have to undergo more thorough inspections are those with questionable names or who fit certain ethnic stereotypes. I think the thing that people need to remember is that if we want to be safe then we need to be willing to make sacrifices. You may know that you aren't a security threat but I don't know that and neither does the guy at the gate. If you want to be safe then you have to undergo some difficulty. I think these full body scanners should be implemented but they shouldn't supplant any additional checks if an officer feels that a more thorough search is required. I'm willing to make that sacrifice of my modesty if it is required.