The University of Maine student newspaper since 1875
About Us
Contact Us
Staff
home
News
Opinion
Style
Sports
Archives
Print Edition
Last updated: Thursday, Feb. 23, 1:09 a.m.
Opinion

Op-Ed: Full body scans in airports inconvenient, but not worthy of Thanksgiving boycotts

By Amy Brooks
Posted on Nov. 17, 2010, at 11:23 p.m.

Full body scanners in airports have become the subject of growing controversy. This year, many travelers are reluctant to subject themselves to the full body scans that have been implemented in 67 airports. There is even a group of travelers across the United States asking all others to boycott the body scanners on the busiest travel day of the year, the day before Thanksgiving.

Airline commuters have the choice to refuse going through the full body scanners at the security check. The alternative to the scanner is an intrusive pat-down, during which security guards no longer have to use the outsides of their hands. Guards are allowed to use their palms and are required to pat further up the leg in the crotch and buttocks areas.

There are definitely flaws in this system that need to be addressed, but what will this boycott really do? All I foresee it accomplishing is backing up security, putting travelers at risk of missing flights for which they have already paid a significant sum.

The security guards will still put in the same amount of time, so it won’t change their shift or routine and the airlines still get their money because the tickets have already been purchased. The only people who will suffer from this suggested movement are the travelers.

The Transportation Security Administration and U.S. Homeland Security recently reached out and announced they are willing to listen and make adjustments and have an “open ear” as they move forward with these new security procedures.

At least one change has already been made after complaints that young children should not have to be subjected to these invasive pat-downs.

It needs to be taken into consideration that this system is still new and it is not going to be perfect. The full body scanners exist in airports because the old security system wasn’t effective enough, and criminals were still getting past security checks with materials used in explosives.

There was one man who was even able to ignite his explosive, but the connection was imperfect and he was the only one who was injured. The device was placed up and down his leg in such a way that the old pat-down was unable to detect it and a metal detector would not have been able to pick anything up from the device. It’s instruments such as these the scanners are meant to detect.

The idea behind the scanners is to increase security and keep our traveling friends and families safe. It may not be an ideal situation, but it does not require an outlandish demonstration when the people behind it are willing to work with consumers and make necessary changes where need be.

It is time to stop the dramatics and do something productive rather than make a day of travel more difficult for those who are just trying to get to their families for the holiday.

Amy Brooks is a fifth-year early childhood education student. She is the photo editor for The Maine Campus.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 17th, 2010, 11:23 pm. You can follow any responses to this article through the RSS feed.

«
»
  • David Cox

    First-this is not the complete version that is in the printed newspaper.

    It’s unfortunate that the legitimate concerns of some travelers, which weren’t accurately described in this piece, are passed off as mere dramatics. It in not mentioned that the body scanners display the private regions of the person being scanned. Although the printed version of this piece doesn’t either, it does say that the “full body scanners have been described by some as a virtual strip-searchers (sic) because they allow for security to see anything that may be hidden under a passenger’s clothing.” That is only half true. While some people may not care that the outline of their genitals is visible to the security person watching the monitors, I would suspect that many more do care and I am one of them.

    Also, this piece seems to be saying that all the security we should expect while flying is the responsibility of the TSA at the airports. That is also not true. The FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center maintains the “No Fly List” which is used to determine who should not be allowed to fly on commercial aircraft to and from the United States. Now, I am not sure which man who ignited his explosive is being referred to in this piece (I am amazed that no name, date, or location is mentioned), but it sounds like it could be Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who was accused of trying to bomb Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on December 25th, 2009. If that is the case, then yes, perhaps a body scanner would have caught that, but at the same time, the intelligence community failed to heed the warnings concerning this man and his name was never placed on the list. Airline security is also their job.

    Security of this country involves many agencies and has many fronts. Implying that all the airline security should take place at the airports is ignoring the big picture. And putting down the people who are concerned about real privacy issues, not just that it’s “inconvenient” (did the writer even take the time to look into these concerns-a simple search on wikipedia will list them) shows that the person writing this piece doesn’t have the “open ear” that she claims the Department of Homeland Security and TSA have. It sounds like she’s merely ranting while demanding that those of us who have the concern should “do something productive” and not boycott the scanners on November 24th. Like what, complain in a college newspaper?

    Dave Cox
    Orono