Are Full Body Scanners Really Necessary? On December 25, 2009, a Nigerian man attempted to set off a bomb on a Northwest Airlines flight. Fortunately, the bomb failed to detonate, and the plane landed safely. Soon after, President Obama and the Transportation Security Administration responded by heightening airport security measures. They implemented a naked body scanner in addition to the pat-downs to prevent similar plots in the future. The legal controversy over the scanners has continued to grow throughout recent years. Many protestors have voiced their concerns on the scanners, some which include: a violation of privacy rights and the harmful exposure to radiation. Despite the negative views towards the body scanners, they should be used at airports because they are not harmful to our health, and they increase our safety, which is top priority. According to CNN NEWS “The Electronic Privacy Information Center argues that the scanners violate passengers Fourth Amendment rights because, the group claimed, the search is more invasive than necessary to detect weapons or explosives.” (Mike Ahlers) TSA officials have said numerous times that they have created and thought out ways to protect people’s privacy. In a fairly recent speech, “Transportation Security Administration chief John Pistole said…the agency is looking at new technology such as body scanners that show passengers as “stick figures” and security methods…to make air travel security as minimally invasive as possible.” (Joseph Weber) The new machines will automatically blur the faces of passengers, and the images will look like skeletons. The TSA has also made sure that two officers are present to work at the same time. The officers are not allowed to bring devices like cell phones or cameras into the room. Some passengers are unaware that they are not even required to be scanned; they have the option to get a pat-down instead. If the procedures are performed properly and carefully, the public’s privacy will be withheld. In addition, many health advocators are concerned about the amount of radiation passengers are being exposed to when they are being scanned, yet passengers receive the same or even more radiation from flying on an airplane itself than stepping through a body scanner for a couple minutes. Robert J. Barish, a radiological and health physicist in New York City, reported to Discovery News that, "You'd get as much radiation in a whole-body scanner as you'd get in two minutes at 30,000 feet." (Emily Sohn) In other words, even if the airport decided to ban the body scanners, passengers would still receive radiation regardless. To push this further, body scanners are similar to an X-ray you would get at a doctor’s office. A recent report from the British Institute of Radiology and the Royal College of Radiologists found, “the dose from an airport scan is 100,000 times lower than the average annual dose of radiation we get from natural background radiation and medical sources.” (Philippa Roxby) We all take “safety precautions” for our health, so what is stopping us from taking them for our safety too?
Some people seem to forget what the purposes of these body machines are for; they have the ability to stop tragedies. Full body scanners make it difficult for a terrorist to conceal weapons or bombs. In the time we live in, we have to be aware of what is happening around us. Our country has many foreign and domestic enemies who are constantly plotting attacks. The authorities are just making sure we are safe by instituting these devices and procedures. Of course, there are many improvements that can be made to the body scanners, but the effort that the government is making to keep the public safe should be recognized instead of criticized.