This is one of those items where two different parts of my brain have an all out battle for possession of the right answer to such a difficult question. On one hand, my brain (and many, many other peoples brain) screams out that it is an invasion of privacy, and that it is wrong to make people consent to such action in order to fly on an airplane. Additionally, it would be more effective to have profiling, and target primarily suspicious looking people and people that look like they might be Muslim.
Now, the other side of my brain asks the other, one thing at a time.
Invasion of privacy? That sounds as though you're trying to make a claim that we have a "right" to fly. If that is the case, is it invasion of privacy when a guy that flashes his genitalia in front of a picture window, and then is arrested for indecent exposure, even though he was naked in his own home? Is it invasion of privacy for Google Earth to be able to watch from the sky? Is it invasion of privacy STILL if we are only doing it to Middle Eastern looking gentleman? Great points, side of brain one and side of brain two. It looks that this ones a lock.
While profiling would certainly be the most effective way to handle security, can that legally happen? After all, even with the Arizona illegal immigration debate, the assurances made by Republicans were against profiling. They said that they would certainly not be pulling over random Mexicans and asking for ID. So now, are they FOR profiling here? Since national security is at risk, is profiling then ok? And if that is that case, and national security the all or nothing trump card of the deck, then shouldn't it be ok to have EVERYBODY give up that same right for a body scanner and/or a pat down? If your loved one was on an airplane and it crashed because of some guy blowing himself up, would that change your mind?
I understand that many people, particularly women, are concerned with their bodies being viewed by a bunch of perverted security guards, and I think that the first thing that should be done to help remedy that situation is pretty easy and dates back to my experiences in elementary school: a line for boys and a line for girls (transgendered? Whichever ones shorter, I guess...the line, that is). Have women watch the women and the men watch the men. Easy.
I know it seems that every time I write a piece like this, where I give both sides of what I've been thinking, it ends up ticking off somebody because I didn't completely condemn one idea or the other. But screw it. I'm just writing about the little rat in my head that keeps running around and can't seem to find the cheese. So what's the right answer, folks? Body scanners or no scanners. Scanners ok, pat downs not. Or none of the above? This is one of those deals where, like the Patriot Act, one has to measure whether giving up some liberties in order to survive is worth being secure in knowing that the odds are stacked in ones favor for surviving. I don't fly often, but I would happily go through the scanner, personally, and not be worried about my wife or children doing so either. Although I think I'm going to start working out before that next flight...you know, I don't want to take a bad scan.
