Should airports use full-body scanners to screen passengers?
Have you ever gone through full body scanners at airports when you travel overseas? Recently, United States and other countries such as Netherlands and Italy have been tightening up their airports security by screening passengers with the help of full-body scanners. This tightening of security is due to the increasing terrorist attacks occurring all over the world. However, travelers are extremely unhappy to be screened by full-body scanners, claiming that the scanners are an invasion of privacy and an ineffective measure. They would rather use the money spent on the scanners, to be spent on other areas such as gathering intelligence and investigating potential terrorists before they ever reach the airport instead.
Passengers claim that full body scans are an illegally unreasonable search as they feel that their privacy is invaded. The detailed images full-body scanners produce are too revealing and thus, causing the passengers to feel uncomfortable and the security measures are violating basic human rights. A Gallup poll, an investigation on the response of full body scanners, was held just after a terrorist attack in the United States. It suggested that 78% of American airline travellers disapproved of body scanners while 20% approved. Among the American airline travelers who disapproved, 51% indicated that they would have some level of discomfort with full-body scans, while 48% said that they would not be uncomfortable with the idea. The poll was given in the context of the 2009 Christmas Day bombing attempt, and some opponents of full body scanners say that the explosives used in the bombing attempt would not be detected with the help of full-body scanners. From the investigation, I can conclude that most travellers think that full-body scanners are ineffective and useless. Therefore, full body scans are an unreasonable search that invades travellers’ privacy