I personally don't agree with the use of full-body scanners in airports. I understand the need for as much safety as possible but there are some things that cross the line in terms of privacy - I've gone my whole life without unduly flashing my genitalia at some random guy in a booth... Why would I start now?
There are always going to be ways to bring down a plane if someone so wished - full-body scanners wouldn't really catch out everybody who has the intention of bringing down a plane. Aside from the possibility of catching out a few terrorists, it seems to me, almost all that would happen is some random person in an airport gets to stare at your genitals while you imagine them laughing at the incredibly small size of your p- Please forget what I just said.
Yes. I think it is should be illegal because it violates The Fourth Amendment.
It does not violate the fourth amendment at all. The fourth amendment only protects against unreasonable search and seizure. Firstly, there is nothing unreasonable about stepping through a scanner to verify that you are not carrying any dangerous weapons on an aircraft. Secondly, flying is a personal choice, not a right. The airline companies and the regulating agencies have every right to implement such methods as are legal and deemed necessary to ensure the safety of their customers, employees, and property.
Is it safe if your near or getting scanned from a airport scanner?
there is no standard for how much radiation you are being exposed to by these scanners, even if they are at safe levels it's still possible that the operator could press the button scanning you multiple times each time giving you dose. So it's potently not safe.
Is it private?
It's basically creating full body nude picture of you. At the very least it can be used to do so.
So let me ask everyone this, then, since I've seen a bit of controversy over airport security. Would you rather be subjected to a physical search or the new 3d scanners?
Also, would you rather fly on an airline in which everyone was scanned and/or searched, or where there were no such security measures in place?
It does not violate the fourth amendment at all. The fourth amendment only protects against unreasonable search and seizure. Firstly, there is nothing unreasonable about stepping through a scanner to verify that you are not carrying any dangerous weapons on an aircraft. Secondly, flying is a personal choice, not a right. The airline companies and the regulating agencies have every right to implement such methods as are legal and deemed necessary to ensure the safety of their customers, employees, and property.
Not to mention they have full federal affirmations to be able to search you. Searching's legal!
Also, would you rather fly on an airline in which everyone was scanned and/or searched, or where there were no such security measures in place?
Yes! Wait. I would rather be searched. No amount of searching is worse than no searching and risk having any type of terror being allowed to enter planes without security. And I said any.
Would you rather be subjected to a physical search or the new 3d scanners?
Given the lack of regulations on the potential hazards of these scanners I would go with the physical search.
would you rather fly on an airline in which everyone was scanned and/or searched, or where there were no such security measures in place?
I would rather fly an airline that showed a bit more respect for the people coming through, that strictly adhered to it's policies on conduct and didn't try to set in place laws to make it easy for such misconduct to be covered up or ignored. I would rather less evasive methods used when ever possible and that they be proactive rather then reactive to threats. I would like to see them stop putting on some song and dance, clearly meant to remind us of how at any time a guy could jump out of his seat and blow us all up.
Potential radiation exposure or an intrusive physical search. Not much of a choice if you ask me. If you travel alot I would go with the physical search.
It's not potential, it is radiation exposure. It is however not fully tested on humans for how safe it is. there is also no standard for output. Also the operator could dose you multiple times. So even if you go though one once you could get a number of radiation doses, which is accumulative.
Straight from the Food and Drug Administration. This is a somewhat long letter, so I will bring out the main parts.
Since 1990, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has regulated manufacturers to ensure the radiation safety of full-body x-ray security screening systems.
The 2002 standard required facilities to ensure that no individual scanned received an effective dose in excess of 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) in any 12-month period.
25 mrem is the minimum that will cause very mild radiation poisoning. According to Wikipedia, this mild radiation poisoning has: 5-50% chance of nausea and vomiting for less than 24 hrs, a slight headache, and slight to no risk of fever.
This annual dose limit is based on the National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements2
Lets see who this NCRPM is...
2 NCRP was founded in 1964 by the U.S. Congress to âcooperate with the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the Federal Radiation Council, the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, and other national and international organizations, governmental and private, concerned with radiation quantities, units and measurements and with radiation protection.â
Sounds like they know what they're doing, since they've been doing it for 46 years.
With regard to concerns about the hardware itself, the standard requires that products have safety systems to terminate emission of the primary beam in the event of any system problem that could result in abnormal or unintended radiation emission.
Sounds pretty safe to me.
Now, judging by all this, there seems like little risk of radiation from the scanners, and even then, just a mild headache, and you might hurl once or twice.
Ok let me rephrase that, it's potential hazardous radiation exposure. They probably tested at and came to the conclusion that it's mostly safe. But "mostly" is enough when your talking about radiation. Also if you travel alot who knows what multiple "mild" radiation episodes do to you.
