Los Angeles, California (CNN, Nov 16, 2010) -- In response to a video of a California man's dispute with airport security officials, the Transportation Security Administration said Monday it tries to be sensitive to individuals, but everyone getting on a flight must be screened.
The video, in which software engineer John Tyner refuses an X-ray scan at the San Diego, California, airport, has sparked a debate over screening procedures.
Tyner told CNN on Sunday that he was surprised to see so many people take an interest in his refusal and the dispute with airport screeners that followed it. But he said he hoped the video will focus attention on what he calls a government invasion of privacy.
"Obviously, everybody has their own perspective about their personal screening," TSA administrator John Pistole told CNN. "The question is, how do we best address those issues ... while providing the best possible security?"
Tyner, 31, said his hunting trip to South Dakota was cut short before it even started Saturday morning -- when TSA agents asked him to go through an X-ray machine.
"I don't think that the government has any business seeing me naked as a condition of traveling about the country," Tyner said.
Pistole said the agency is "trying to be sensitive to individuals issues and concerns," but added, "the bottom line is, everybody who gets on that flight has been properly screened."
The cell phone video Tyner recorded of his arguments with security screeners over the scan and pat-down they proposed had garnered than 200,000 hits on YouTube by Monday afternoon.
Tyner said that after he declined the body scan, a TSA agent told him he could have a pat-down instead. Once the procedure was described, Tyner said he responded, "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested."
The dispute that followed, Tyner said, included police escorting him from the screening area and a supervisor saying he could face a civil lawsuit for leaving the airport before security had finished screening him.
In fact, Tyner could face a civil penalty as high as $11,000, according to Michael Aguilar, the TSA's federal security director in San Diego, who defended the behavior of his officers during the confrontation.
"He's violated federal law and federal regulations, which states once you enter and start the process you have to complete it," he said.
Tyner called the whole incident ridiculous and said he will not fly "until these machines go away."
"Advanced imaging technology screening is optional for all passengers," the TSA said in a statement released Monday. "Passengers who opt out of [advanced imaging] screening will receive alternative screening, including a physical pat-down."
But anyone who refuses to complete the screening process will be denied access to airport secure areas and could be subject to civil penalties, the administration said, citing a federal appeals court ruling in support of the rule.
The ruling, from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, says that "requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world. Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by 'electing not to fly' on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found."
The TSA's advanced imaging technology machines use two separate means of creating images of passengers -- backscatter X-ray technology and millimeter-wave technology.
At the end of October, 189 backscatter units and 152 millimeter-wave machines were in use in more than 65 airports. The total number of imaging machines is expected to be near 1,000 by the end of 2011, according to the TSA.
The agency has previously said that the new technology is safe and protects passenger privacy.
"Strict privacy safeguards are built into the foundation of TSA's use of advanced imaging technology to protect passenger privacy and ensure anonymity," the agency says in a statement on its website.
Images from the scans cannot be saved or printed, according to the agency. Facial features are blurred. And agents who directly interact with passengers do not see the scans.
But Tyner isn't the only one with concerns about the new security procedures.
Grass-roots groups are urging travelers either not to fly or to protest by opting out of the full-body scanners and undergoing time-consuming pat-downs instead.
Industry leaders are worried about the backlash. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano met with leaders of travel industry groups to discuss the concerns.
"We certainly understand the challenges that DHS confronts, but the question remains, where do we draw the line? Our country desperately needs a long-term vision for aviation security screening, rather than an endless reaction to yesterday's threat," the U.S. Travel Association said in a statement after the meeting. "At the same time, fundamental American values must be protected."
During a press conference in which Napolitano announced the expansion of a security awareness campaign, she also reiterated the need for hand searches should a passenger decline electronic screening.
"If you refuse the [Advanced Imaging Technology] altogether, then you can go to a separate area for a same-gender pat down," she told reporters on Monday. "If there are adjustments we need to make as we move forward, we have an open ear," she said. "We will listen."
QUESTIONS to consider (some/all/none; #3 might be most important):
1. Do we need this security, or more?
2. Can we do with less security?
3. Where would YOU draw the line between what is necessary/appropriate?
4. Are you worried about flying?
5. Who should make these security decisions?
This security is needed at all airports. My family are frequent flyers and therefore I have experienced all types of security procedures. I have been through the normal metal detector, which is perfectly fine and will just beep if there is any metal on you. Nothing "inappropriate" or anything. Then I have experienced the "Sniffer", which personally I dislike the most. The "Sniffer" is somewhat like a dog. You step into a pod like machine, and then the machine shoots out rapid-fire blows of air. It doesn't hurt, but the sound and touch of the firing blows of the air to me is somewhat unsettling. I would choose any other way of scanning than this way. This type of machine is sniffing for bombs, and other chemicals, I think. It does something along those lines. I have also experienced the newest type of scanning on my trip back from the Cayman Islands. The newest scanning is what the article is all about. When I used this, my family was told about how the whole machine works and what the TSA agents will be seeing and asked us if we were okay with the new way of this scanning. We said it was fine, because a ton of people come through the airport during the day, and the TSA agents are not creepers that are all about sex and stuff. They are just seeing if you are hiding anything beneath your clothing. Everyone who goes through the scanners is looked at the same way, so it's not like they just decided to pull only one person aside to scan with the new machine. I even think they have the same gender look at the monitor when you go through. The new monitor is also just as easy as the oldest design, the metal beeping one. It makes a beep to say your are okay to leave the machine, but that is about it. I would much rather be scanned by this than the "Sniffer" any day. This man in the article, I think for a 31 he is pretty immature. I can understand if he doesn't want to be looked at by the newest scanner, but the TSA agency offers multiple ways of scanning. This is simply to make sure you are not a terrorist, and I am sure there might be a suspicion of why you don't want to be scanned. Besides, even with the pat down, I don't think they are going to be touching any inappropriate places too intimately! I think this an needs to buck-up! He is just being a baby, because I am pretty sure that if I can be comfortable with the new scanning system, so can he! I think it is good that the TSA agents didn't let Tyner through. I think that if they had, just as the article says, it would have caused an uproar in the community about special treatment and such. If you let one person do something, you have to let everyone else do it too. It's like when you were in second grade and you brought candy in for a friend, if you weren't going to share with everyone, you couldn't share at all!
ReplyDeleteThis guy just doesn't understand that this needs to be done in order for protection of our country. I mean, if we had had this technology at airports before, maybe 9/11 would have never happened. Would you rather be scanned or have another terroist attack? And if you're not hiding anything, then you have absolutely nothing to worry about once you step through the scanner. It's not like they are doing this to only some people. It is sad that we have to look that far in the first place because some people go so far as to hide explosives in their underpants (Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab). But in this world today, you never know what's going to happen, and this is definently a case of 'better safe than sorry'. We can not do with less security. Sercurity is fine the way it is. It could be a little bit stricter, but in terms of how, I don't know. I am quite worried everytime I go onto a plane, which has only been 10 times, but everything has been fine, thank goodness, but you know why? Because of this wonderful security! I don't understand why this guy is complaining: to have the technology to have such good security is a blessing. Without this security, who knows where we would stand today?
ReplyDeleteOver 700 million people go through airport security every year. Of those, hundreds, thousands, even tens of thousands are or can become potential terrorists. But then why have there only been a handful of terrorist attacks on planes in the past years? Because of airport security.
ReplyDeleteNo, it doesn’t catch every terrorist plot. It can’t. Do you think that’s even possible? Of course not – so then why do we need it? Because a large part of the security of our airplanes depends on the appearance of invulnerability which we must create in airport security. If every extremist or such other terrorist had the strength to act upon their beliefs, hundreds more planes would be hijacked and so forth, no matter how tight the security. But if from the very beginning, they do not believe that their plan will work – that they will be caught by the TSA – that they will spend the rest of their life in prison – as now – then they will not even begin.
For this specific incident, I think that Tyner needs to grow up. He can only see what affects him, and that is why every decision and law should be made – to suit him. So what if terrorists can easily get on planes and blow them up? It doesn’t matter, as long as his “constitutional rights” aren’t violated (that was sarcasm). Honestly, does he think he knows more about terrorism and law enforcement than the GOVERNMENT!?
I don’t think there’s anywhere you can really draw a line, as it is and should be the government’s decision and generally they work in the interests of the citizens. If anything, the only problem I could potentially see that would be crossing the line would be if the TSA used racial profiling to determine which people to search more thoroughly.
I’m not worried about flying – this is one of those things that I always assume will happen to “somebody else” – which in this case is probably right. The chance of something actually happening to a flight I am on is so small, I might as well not worry about it.
Myself, I can see this guys point of view, but I can also see that he is disobeying the law. I can understand that a guy might not want people to see him naked. That is an understandable thing. Pat downs, however, are completely ok, and for a guy to refuse that because you are "touching his junk," well, that guy has some real privacy issues. I feel that this security is quite necessary for flying. As Arron said, so many people have flown, and there have only been a hand full of terrorist who have made it onto planes. That is because of this type of security.Taking this security away, and letting people through without X rays would enlarge the chances of another terrorist getting onto a plane. Who knows, maybe someone is hiding a weapon or something in a place that pat downs don't cover (none of those places will be named at the current time). When it comes to me flying, I never worry about a terrorist getting onto my plane, since the chances are so low. I flew to Austria for a concert tour during the summer, and nothing happened to me. I felt completely safe, and sure enough, nothing happened. I feel completely comfortable with flying. Since the chances are so low, I don't worry about things like that
ReplyDeleteIn the society in which we live, with incredible technology and transportation, terrorists are bound to take advantage of the privilege. In order to avoid their attacks, security must be strict. Part of the responsibility of flying on a plane, which is a privilege, is having the inconvenience of being searched. It is as simple as that.
ReplyDeleteRecently, there has been the Cargo bomb case, when a terrorist sent some bombs from Yemen on a plane heading to Chicago. Luckily, the bomb was intercepted in Britain. The fact that terrorists are beginning to resort to cargo planes instead of passenger planes shows that the new security is having a deterrent effect.
In this specific case, Tyner does not seem to understand that flying on planes is a privilege, not a right. Sometimes sacrifices, such as the inconvenience of being scanned, must be made for the privilege. It strikes me that the type of person who would complain about privacy is also the type of person that would be the first to complain if security slipped and let in a terrorist. When Tyner goes to the doctor, he faces a much larger violation of his 'constitutional privacy,' yet thankfully doctors are still treated with respect, since people realize they are doing what they need to do.
As long as security is trained and TSA is doing as much as it can to ensure that people are given privacy, I think both the pat-downs and body scans are fine. The government must do as much as it can to ensure its citizens security, and frankly, I don't understand what people are complaining about. The government should make these decisions. I am not scared of flying on planes, since the chances of terrorists on my plane are very slim, thanks to security. In some ways, I prefer security since although I have to be checked, it makes me feel safer to see that everyone who is coming on the plane with me is being checked too. We are lucky to have the technology on our side.
It is easy to see this guys point of view, but this guy also is not seeing the bigger picture. The man clearly has some privacy issues and the consequence for his refusal was them checking him naked. I personally don't really understand the big issue with having pockets and bags checked at the airport. It is for our own safety. The only issue I see with that is if someone has to be checked a lot more than someone else because of there appearance.
ReplyDeleteI remember a few years ago when I was at the airport with my family and our bags and pockets and things were checked. There was a Muslim family about two spots behind us who was checked multiple times for quite a bit of time. This is where problems come in.
If everyone is checked for roughly the same amount of time then it is fair. The only time it is unfair is when people are treating differently due to there appearances, you can't judge a book by its cover!
Overall, I think that it is most definitely important for people to be checked especially if they refuse the first time. If we were to get rid of a system as important as this we could have more traumatizing events such as nine eleven.
I think that this type of security is necessary at all airports. If what the TSA says is true, and the images from the body scanners are deleted immediately, and the faces obscured I see nothing wrong with them. The people that see even the obscured pictures don’t know the identities of the people in the images they are seeing. No officials that come in contact with the fliers ever see the pictures. While I could possibly see why someone would object to a body scan, I cannot find any reason someone could object to a pat down.
ReplyDeleteWhen I fly with my dad, he and I are usually subject to extra screening or a search of one of our bags probably because our race isn’t very obvious. I have thus been through pretty much all of the new security machines and I find none of them intrusive. I tend to trust government agencies and I think that objections to airport security are childish, putting the greater public at risk because of self consciousness.
I believe that this security is necessary for all airports in all countries. Even though someone is going to see you without any clothes on, it isn't like they are going to get any pleasure out of it. It is their job to make sure that no one is carrying illegal objects onto the plane. They will be the only one that will see it as well, it isn't like these photos will be posted onto the internet. The other thing is that if you don't want to get a picture taken, you can always get a pat down. Even though these are not optimal procedures, they are necessary in the type of world that we live in. If there was another way then I would be very open to that idea. While I can see why Tyner freaked out on the airport, what if a terrorist freaked out like Tyner and they let him in, just because he threw a fit? that would not be very good at all.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this security is fine. Its not like everyone else gets away with not doing it, everyone does it. This guy is not understanding that this security is for protection while on planes - that nobody has a bomb or other dangerous weapons to harm anyone. This security may be a little over the top but it is beneficial for having no worries while flying with other people you do not know. Even though this security may seem "too strict" or a little too much checking, at the end of the article it states that Napolitano said that you can go to a separate area for the scanning. It would be to go a separate area where you are with the same gender for pat-downs. I do not think that there should be less security but we could do less because of what other people are saying. People do feel uncomfortable getting scanned all around their bodies so maybe reduce parts of the scanning. I personally worry about flying with all the thoughts in my mind of what could happen. I do not fly often so I am not use to it. While I am on a plane, I worry about the possible things that could happen such as, a person with a bomb (who snuck it on somehow), possible storms that could occur, and the engine just failing. From what I just said, I believe that there should be a strict security system (like the scanning) to make sure the plane ride will be completely safe and nothing will harm anyone in any way. As mentioned above, (what Alex said) the chances are rare because people fly every day and nothing happens every single day. This means that the security systems are doing well, making sure everything is "ship shape".
ReplyDeleteI believe that post 9-11, that the security should be boosted up on a higher level. The fact is for me is that I don’t want another terrorist attack on the USA. It was scary enough the first time. I think that this security that we have now should be mandatory, with the scanners, because I want to feel safe and comfortable with the people that are around me, not in like- hey those are my friends- way, but know that this plane won’t be hijacked and we will all die. I used to be afraid of flying because of 9-11. I have conquered the fear but while in the air, I am thinking about am I going to die? Are there terrorists on this flight? I don’t know if that might seem like I conquered my fear, but thinking about those ware minor compared to what I used to think about. This might seem extreme, but this is how I feel about airplanes and airports. I do not think that post 9-11, that airport security should decrease. If anything to do with airplanes and airports, the security should increase more than it already is. Where I would draw the line between what is necessary and appropriate is that it would be mandatory/necessary to be screened rather being just patted down. I think that every airport should also have a mandatory pat down along with the screening over the age of 15. This might sound crazy, but I take my flying very seriously, since the flights that I take are usually longer flights. I am worried about flying ever since 9-11. It scares me, but not so much now as how flying did when I was younger. I don’t really know WHO should make these decisions, but I think it should be a collective decision, from various age groups and business people as well.
ReplyDeleteAirport security has to be top notch these days, if we don’t want another terrorist attack.
The airport security currently is fine because these are the measures that need to be taken to protect the citizens of America. The fact that the pat downs are the same gender is enough to show that the airports are doing all they can to protect the people using the airports and to make the people using the airports feel like they are not being exploited which is one of the big issues that these new scanners are posing. I personally feel that the security right now is enough and should not be any less. These scanners could be the only thing between another 9/11 and foiled plane hijacking attempt. Right now the things the airport are doing to make the scanners non-exploitive are fine with me because i would rather go through a scanner than be on a plane that is hijacked and crashed. Now that these new scanners have taken their place inside of airports I know that I will be safer when I fly. Whoever is making the decisions about airport security should still be making the decisions about airport security and should try to get as many of these scanners as possible to the airports in America.
ReplyDeleteI believe that we need a certain amount of security, seeing as we live in a post 9/11 world and we can never know who is or is not a terrorist or a bomber. The Advanced Imaging Technology seems to be a bit too invasive because it is and X-ray or your body and other people, whom you do not know, can see it. I think we need a different form of security or a less invasive form because then both travelers and the TSA will feel comfortable knowing that the airplane/ airport is safe. The line between what is necessary is fuzzy for me, seeing as I’ve never felt threatened about flying. Obviously because I was alive during 9/11 I sometimes worry about flying when the security does not seem as well maintained and followed, and I do see the relevance in these imaging machines, but I’m not sure when is too much. I think that the TSA should make decisions when it comes to safety in the air, but I also think that the TSA should take input from Americans, because then the TSA will know what people think of the airport rules.
ReplyDeleteWe all have heard or maybe remember the whole 9-11 disaster. Even though I agree that security should be increased, I don't really believe that the security measures being taken are in the right direction. During my last trip through airport security, I had to go through the advanced screening, and I was not given a choice. I suppose I probably would have chosen the screening over the pat-down, but I did feel uncomfortable with the level of privacy invasion taking place. I feel that many of the security procedures now are crossing the line. I'm not saying I want another 9-11, but it's not ok to make an innocent American, such as myself, essentially strip for another person. I understand that these people are professionals, but that doesn't make me more comfortable in front of them. I want my flying and travel experience to be enjoyable, and comfortable and it can't be when you are forced int these situations.
ReplyDeleteClearly Tyner is being self centered. He seemingly doesn't care about the country's national security. He cares more about feeling violated? It really does not make sense. Ever since 9/11 the entire country has had a realization that terrorists do exist and they will try to get to us. We need to do whatever we can to prevent this. Anyone can be dangerous, no matter who they are or what they look like, you never know what is underneath. The security is not a violation of anyone. I travel a lot and I have been through the full body X ray and I didn't feel that it was inappropriate. Everyone has their own opinions but really it doesn't even matter when it comes to an issue like protecting your country, your family, your friends. This is where we live and the place that supports us and we need to do whatever we can to keep the US and really the entire WORLD as safe as possible ! Thank you and goodnight.
ReplyDeleteI definitely see the point in airport security measures. I have seen a couple similar articles with people complaining about extreme measures. I still personally believe that the x-ray machine makes sense. It is much more efficient than having to do a pat-down for every single purpose. A lot of people, I imagine, disagree with screening not because they think it is a violation of their privacy, but because it takes a lot of time. No one wants to be held up because their screening is taking a longer time than it has to. They are more likely to not want to be held up because the person in front of them is making a fuss. Humans love blaming other people for their problems. There definitely will be a point where airport security goes too far, but x-ray machines don’t reach that point. It’s not personal. They blur your face, and have other privacy policies. It is just more efficient. People make a fuss about there being too many security measures now, but if someone with a bomb did get through, then it would be the other way round. Everyone would complain that security measures are too lax. We just love complaining, don’t we?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is absolutely outrageous, this man has no legitimate reason to not accept a simple scan through the machine. If i said 4-5 Americans accept the use of scanning machinery, many would say that only 80% is not enough, but i would say that 20% of people that doesn't consent probably doesn't fly a whole lot. Having occasional pat-downs for people that are nervous is fine, but to be having entire groups of people wanting to ban this use of the electronic scanners all together is just crazy. I think that we defiantly need to continue to use the same amount of security if not more due to all of the things that the machines have potential to miss. I believe that less security poses a threat to society because of the few people that would hurt another person or people on a commercial airline. I would draw the line at a point were there are required pat downs for those older than 18, i would draw the line at all bags are hand checked by airport security. At that point a line needs to be drawn were the security becomes excessively unnecessary. All current security is completely reasonable and i am a very happy flyer. The primary overseeing officials and input of the general public should have the authority to make those decisions of weather we need more or less security at our airports.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this man is over reacting. It is necessary for security to know whether or not you have any explosives. A while ago, terrorist went on a plane and almost blew it up using an explosive that was hidden in his underwear. Some people will go to extreme measures simply to hurt others, and the consequence for safety is that everyone must be checked. If you think about it, would you rather be dead and have less security, or keep the same amount of security and not die. There does not need to be more security because at the current level you are on the line. If you go any farther than it is turning into paranoia. I understand that people are worried about terrorist, but there's no need to tighten security. I have no problem with security the way that it is becuase it allows people who are uncomfortable in some situations to choose others, why should we take that option away? Also, for people who want to loosen the security, how would that be done while still maintaining a high level of security? There are some people who simply look for problems, but they never think of how to fix the "problems."
ReplyDeleteI think the security we currently have is necessary. Of course as they can come up with more high-tech ways of scanning, but some sort of body scan is essential to prevent terrorist attacks. I have to admit that I am sort of a nervous flyer, and I always think of the "what ifs." Having less security would defiantly increase my nerves, and for people who are much more nervous flyers than I am, might stop flying all together. Although, I do know that the chance of being involved in a car accident is much greater than being involved in a plane crash, so if the level of security went down, the death rate could increase because of more people using their cars to travel. These decisions about too much or too little are ultimately up to the TSA and the government. I think this is good because the TSA are experts on plane safety, unlike Tyner and the average person.
ReplyDeleteHello All,
ReplyDeleteI feel these security precautions are definitely necessary. The TSA has implemented these "pat-downs" to keep the public safe of harmful/violent people. I was actually watching CNN this morning and I heard a woman say "she felt uncomfortable with security touching her entire body, up and down her legs." And to be completely honest, I felt safer. Since 9/11, security has been so advanced, decreasing terrorist attacks and threats. I would rather be "touched in uncomfortable places" (for purely safety precautions) than seeing hundreds of Americans being blown to pieces. I think Johny Tyner is immature and silly to not complete the "pat-down". Thanks to TSA's spanking new improvements, there has not been even a few significant terrorist attacks in America. Nine years after 9/11, America is a much safer in terms of flying. I feel so much safer after reading this article. I feel so much safer to here that TSA is taking these precautions to the limit of touching one all over their body.
I feel like we need this new technology of security, and we should improve it as the years go on. Terrorists are probably going to find new ways to sneak in with their weapons and etc. After so many years, we can't let our guard down and stop researching and testing new ideas because 9-11 hasn't happened in 8 years. There is no need to lessen our security because of "privacy." Millions of people fly all the time, and the majority of them don't complain at all. Tyner was acting like a baby and being immature about the security. Clearly, if he doesn't want them to search him thoroughly, this is a sign for the airport security that he is hiding something (a.k.a. terrorist). He could be hiding a bomb, or other harmful devices that could kill many people. I'm still not worried about flying, but I feel safer about it. One thing is that I hardly fly at all, and the other is that the increase in security is for the better. There is nothing worrying about that, and I feel like all of us still have privacy. The country, state, and airport should make all of these decisions together. Individual choices shouldn't be made, for then each airport will have different rules, causing trouble.
ReplyDeletePersonally I feel that this security is absolutely fine. Our world is a dangerous place and there are some crazy people out there. I would much rather go through an X-ray system then be pulled into danger, especially in a plane high up in the air. I think that some people are a little immature about what is happening. Tyner especially is being quite childish. Has he never been in an X-ray? Believe me, its not that bad. These security systems are being made for our safety, nothing more. One alternative to heavy security could go in the direction of profiling. Profiling is very discriminative and racially biased. This comes back to the other post with the car tracker. If there isn’t heavy security, people may start to profile and take the time to focus on one person and not the other. I don’t think there is a line to draw between what is necessary and appropriate. Anything that ensures a person’s safety is definitely necessary and appropriate. When I lived in Europe it was very easy to travel to different countries because they were very close to each other. I have never been worried to fly except when there is a lot of turbulence but that doesn’t come in to the security issue. Having more security will make me feel even more comfortable than I feel now. Safety first!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have gone through airport security dozens of times and I have never had to do anything more than walking through a metal detector. Although others are correct that Tyner did overreact, there shouldn't be a law forcing the person to go through a security check if they decide not to fly at all. It is understandable that Tyner does not want to be fondled by random airport strangers, but being screened with x-rays isn't much of a deal (except for slight radiation poisoning). A man of his age should understand that this is for the safety of everyone else, and sometimes individuals must make "sacrifices" for the safety of the majority. In his case, his sacrifice is barely anything at all.
ReplyDeleteTerrorists are constantly thinking up ways to attack this country, and therefore we must take measures against terrorism. I'm not president Bush, but airplane security really is beneficial for our society. Check-in procedures are fine as long as the privacy of the consumer is acknowledged (i.e. Fiona's "Sniffer") and it does not become a burden. It is also beneficial for us, as citizens, to accept these procedures and allow society to function smoothly. Flying isn't the same as riding the T; it may be a method for transport, but it can also be the catalyst for pandemonium. We have learned this countless times, including the attack on 9/11.
(My last post didn't have a space between paragraphs!)
Airport security, as many of us have experienced, is not at all invasive if there is nothing suspicious going on. I personally have not gone through an X-ray or a pat-down, but that is because I never carry anything onto an airplane that causes enough wariness to evoke such an event. Although I have not encountered incidents concerning the two scans, I fully support the reason TSA executes them.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main reasons why an X-ray or pat-down must take place is the fear of another terrorist attack. It may seem as if people are overreacting to 9/11 (as it has been mentioned quite often lately), but in reality that attack was a dramatic influence on our country’s security. Having experienced it once, the US does not want to undergo another attack again.
In August 2006, three Muslims planned to blow up a transatlantic plane with 1,500 passengers heading from London to the US. To disguise their explosives, they replaced the liquid in Lucozade or Oasis bottles with homemade liquid based on hydrogen peroxide. They then dyed the liquid to change the color so it looked like the original drink. The bottles were resealed and appeared unopened when going through airport security. They were only caught thanks to a surveillance device planted in the east London flat, where the terrorists prepared the mechanisms. Terrorists are trying to hurt the US from every corner, and the attacks they launch are becoming harder and harder to detect.
For the protection of the country, I would expect citizens to comply with a little X-ray or pat-down. Tyner’s expression of concern is understandable, however, the way he states his concern does not get him much empathy. He says, "I don't think that the government has any business seeing me naked as a condition of traveling about the country." He, unfortunately, is not able to see is that no one cares about his nakedness. What the TSA is looking at are his clothes, and examining them to see if he is hiding any explosives. Of course, he will feel uncomfortable, but there is a reason why he was picked out from the crowd of passengers to get scanned. There must have been something about him that made the TSA suspicious of him. Their main goal was to ensure the safety of all the passengers in the airport, and if they see a potential threat, they must guarantee that he or she means no harm. Without this security, the US would have already had multiple 9/11 incidents, and citizens, like ourselves, would live in reoccurring fear of being bombed each day. The system of X-rays and pat-downs has proved to be effective enough to prevent attacks on the US, as there has not been a successful attack for some time. If this system continues to sustain its performance, then this security is essential for the safety of US citizens.
"If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested." I mean COME ON. How does he expect anyone to take him seriously if he says that? The people working at the airport are trained to protect America, and have better things to do! I understand that he has his constitutional rights, but airport security is not designed to violate his privacy, it is made to protect America. If a terrorist said the same thing and was let through security without being screened, BAD things could happen. Considering that there are people overseas fighting in a war and risking their lives to protect America, could he just suck it up and go through a process he finds uncomfortable in order to (possibly) save lives? The whole time, he acted suspicious, as if he might actually be a terrorist, which was not helping his case at all. If he felt uncomfortable, he could have said so calmly and dealt with it like an adult instead of a preschooler.
ReplyDeleteThere is new conflict between a person’s privacy and national security in our country. It is understandable that John Tyner doesn’t want to be seen naked in a scanner and he has every constitutional right to preserve his privacy. I think that he has to acknowledge that this process is happening only for security reasons to protect the whole country. 9/11 was a traumatic event for the US and we don’t want to go through something like that again. Besides, the security officials of Transportation Security Administration are not perverted freaks that look forward to this. They are merely people of America that are devoted to protecting their country. However, I can come to a conclusion that the scans are going from necessary to inappropriate. How do you define “unreasonable searches” in the Fourth Amendment? Either you go through unflattering scanners that expose all, or get a pat down where strangers get all hands-y. Metal detectors weren’t invasive and provided the country with much security. I think the American public isn’t ready for the new technology even if it is more beneficial than it is harmful.
ReplyDelete