With the ever increasing cost of airline travel, and the debate over privacy at security checkpoints, is the use of full-body scanners in airports reasonable and/or affordable?

With the ever increasing cost of airline travel, and the debate over privacy at security checkpoints, is the use of full-body scanners in airports reasonable and/or affordable?
  • I believe that the use of full-body scanners is a reasonable and cost-effective device to use in airports, when necessary, because it controls the security issues in a timely and less invasive manner.

    The security issue at airports has been debated upon for several years. This has increased significantly, since the events of 9/11. People often dread the intrusive security line at airports, in fear of being singled out and patted down. With full-body scanners, people can walk through and be scanned for any objects they may be possessing. It is quick and less demeaning than being pulled aside. Of course, there should always be a few exceptions when it comes to using this device, as it may cause a health issue for certain people.

    Posted by: ChillyShelton83
  • Yes, the use of full-body scanners in airports is reasonable, in order to prevent terrorism.

    With the terrorism tragedies that the United States has gone through in the past decade, the use of full-body scanners may well have already averted a number of additional tragedies. Therefore, it is worth the trouble, expense, and effort. It is much more expensive to be falling out of a blown-up plane in mid-air, because a gun or bomb was smuggled aboard.

    Posted by: SuccinctDerek96
  • I believe that full-body scans are worth it for the cost-effectiveness and efficiency that they provide.

    Full-body scans are done equally to all people. They do not require invasive pat-downs, and move far more quickly than manual pat-downs. In addition, the equipment makes individuals relatively anonymous within the system, and treats all people equally and fairly. I believe that the use of full-body scans is the more cost-effective and fair choice.

    Posted by: PaleMason
  • The use of full-body scanners is reasonable because safety should be the utmost concern.

    With the increasing cost of airline travel, the use of full-body scanners in airports is completely reasonable and affordable. In fact, it would cost less to use a full-body scanner than to have someone pat each and every person down. Safety should be the primary concern here, and airlines should not use this as an excuse for the increasing costs.

    Posted by: eyeslikethat
  • Despite the cost full-body scanners are necessary.

    Despite what it may cost the TSA and taxpayers, I believe in this case the ends justify the means. We are very lucky here in the states not to have suicide bombers and such, but lets say we did and terrorists were to start wiring up babies or young kids to explode. I would hope that a pass through a body scanner would make a difference and save some lives. The first time it is found to be effective in stopping an event will be the time people stop complaining about the incontinence of it.

    Posted by: WillowsErv
  • Yes, I think it is a good idea for airports to use full-body scanners for screening purposes, because I enjoy the added sense of security.

    I do not have a problem with any current security measure employed by the airlines. The airlines are running a business. It is not a "God-given" right to fly. If people do not like the practice, they are not being forced to fly. I appreciate knowing that the person sitting next to me is not hiding a bomb in his underpants. Since I am not hiding anything myself, the scans and pat-downs are only minor inconveniences if they promote safety.

    Posted by: Qu4ntRaymu
  • I believe the use of full-body scanners is reasonable due to the importance of air security and anti-terrorism abroad.

    We have seen with Richard Reid, the shoe-bomber, and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the underwear bomber, that the need for high-level security countermeasures is of the utmost importance. With a full-body scanner, our odds of finding and extracting threats of this nature are increased. It is very possible that both aforementioned terrorists would have been noticed with such a device. In itself, that subsequently makes the price negligible.

    Posted by: Asher Cummings
  • Yes full-body scanners are reasonable.

    I do believe full-body scanners are reasonable. However, there is a caveat to my opinion - they are reasonable if and only if they can eliminate random searches, and even some TSA jobs. If a full-body scanner can eliminate the usual hordes of TSA agents clogging the security checkpoints and who do nothing - I'm all for it.

    Posted by: MorrAuthentic
  • With the ever-increasing cost of airline travel, and the debate over privacy at security checkpoints, the use of full-body scanners in airports is reasonable and/or affordable.

    Don't be misled. The scans that are done by those machines are much more intrusive than what you showed on the news. I have seen the actual images derived from those machines, and the scan shows EVERYTHING. It is a gross invasion of privacy and depending on the person, can be very very embarrassing. Personally, I'd be much more inclined to allow them to use sniffer dogs and hand scanners, pat downs, or whatever. Whether or not one needs a boob job or a penile enhancement should not be the business of government, not even in the interests of safety.

    Posted by: WeaverAloin
  • The use of scanners is reasonable if it means making travel safer for innocent people.

    Full body scanners are definitely worth the cost! If we had them nine years ago, we may never had experienced the horror we did on September 11, 2001. The death of one person before his time is immeasurable as far as money goes, while the cost of body scan devices and personnel is definitely able to be measured monetarily. Just with this fact alone, there shouldn't even be a debate about this, if it saves even one life.

    Posted by: Z Frye
  • Full-body scanners are ridiculous, expensive, and do little to address safety concerns.

    The Transportation Security Administration is already out of control. Their targeted focus on people with disabilities and elderly people who cannot go through the medical detectors is already embarrassing. Full-body scanners violate privacy and subject people to unnecessary radiation. I would also venture to guess that many of the security measures implemented by the TSA have done little to identify actual terrorists.

    Posted by: ClammyErwin38
  • No, because full-body scanners pose more of a risk to people than just privacy invasion.

    Full-body scanners at airports emit large amounts of radiation, which pierce through the skin, in order to scan the body for banned items during flight. It sounds like a noble cause, but it's a complete invasion of privacy, and in the United States at least, it's against the Constitution. The price paid for accepting the use of these devices are much higher than the cost to implement them.

    Posted by: TawdryAmado76
  • The use of full body scanners does not assist with the security of the flight and just provides an unsupported increase in cost.

    Body scanners are unlikely to increase the effectiveness of airport screening. Despite this ineffectiveness, the scanners will cost taxpayers and consumers millions. Studies show that the scanners work against high-density objects such as guns and knives - but so do traditional magnetometers. The scanners fare poorly against low-density materials such as thin plastics, gels and liquids.

    Posted by: 5c00bySaIm
  • The use of full-body scanners is neither reasonable, affordable, or legal.

    The use of full-body scanners is a disservice to the public. It infringes on their right to privacy, right to travel freely if they refuse the scan, and subjects them to very large doses of radiation which can cause cancer and other health problems. These doses of radiation exceed the radiation of a chest x-ray anywhere from 10 fold to 100 fold.

    Posted by: RayEar
  • No, Body Scanners at airports are not worth it and they are immoral.

    I don't think there is One American who is against the idea of protecting their country. But in doing so, there is a level of human dignity we adhere to as a people. Our country is based on freedom and privacy, and a naked body scanner is downright insulting to a free and moral person. Can you imagine letting your son or daughter being naked body scanned, all in the name of 'security' This is preposterous! Additionally, the money used on these things is a waste because they do not guarantee safety. Nothing can ultimately protect us 100% from terrorism.

    Posted by: D Callahan
  • Full body scans are a violation of the most intimate privacy.

    Full body scans have several down sides. First they violate the most intimate details about a person including children. In an age when children are labeled sex offenders for taking slumber party shots of each other, justifying nude shots by the state will be difficult at best. In addition these scans can be saved and transmitted to the web with out permission from the person being scanned if a dubious employee chooses to do so. Furthermore, it can not pick up the presence of certain items such as thermite when the components are stored separately. If it can't pick up such an explosive item, what else will it miss. Personally, I would drive to Mexico and fly out of it...instead of America.

    Posted by: StormGra

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.