Amazon.com Widgets

Would the use of full-body scanners at airports be respectful of individual rights?

  • Yes, if you have nothing to hide then why wouldn't it respect your rights. It would be better to be scanned than be dead.

    This is technology that seems to work and could protect those flying on airplanes. If you have nothing to hide then what is the problem with this? Yes, it does give a rather revealing look at a person, but if you want to fly then this may be an inconvenience that you will have to put up with. The alternative could be much worse. No one has the "right to fly" so there may be somethings about flying that are a bit of a hassle.

  • Yes, if you have nothing to hide then why wouldn't it respect your rights. It would be better to be scanned than be dead.

    This is technology that seems to work and could protect those flying on airplanes. If you have nothing to hide then what is the problem with this? Yes, it does give a rather revealing look at a person, but if you want to fly then this may be an inconvenience that you will have to put up with. The alternative could be much worse. No one has the "right to fly" so there may be somethings about flying that are a bit of a hassle.

    Posted by: 54IInferno
  • Full-body scanners in airports are respectful of individual rights. Scanners are less intrusive than other security measures and they protect the safety of airline passengers.

    While being scanned may be slightly disconcerting, it is much less intrusive that being patted down would be. The government has an obligation to keep the flying public safe. There have been increased cause to be concerned with who and what gets onto airplanes. These kinds of scanners, if they are turned where only the trained professional can view the screen, are only minimally intrusive and are respectful of the conflicting rights of the passengers, to be protected versus being searched.

    Posted by: 5kyErto
  • Full body scanners are consistent with an individual's right-to stay alive.

    Life ,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are our inalienable rights. How are you going to pursue happiness if a terrorist blows up the plane you're on? If an individual has a problem with being scanned at the airport, they have the right to take the bus. If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear. This individual would rather be safe.

    Posted by: BLeonard
  • Full-body scanners are intrusive, but security at airports is a compelling enough interest to justify them.

    Individual rights are important, and they should be protected, as long as the countervailing interests aren't strong enough to justify encroaching on them. In the case of full-body scanners at airports, the countervailing interests are justified. Most of the incidents of attempted airline terrorism since September 11, 2001 have come from the bodies of the passengers themselves. High-profile examples include the attempted shoe bomber and the Christmas day bomber. Given the high stakes, invasion of privacy is justified to prevent a similar attack from happening in the future.

    Posted by: A Bass
  • Respectful in the terms of that individuals safety.

    I think it is acceptable for body scanners to be used as it increases the security and safety of that person. Even though they can see the general shape of a persons body if they have individual male and female body scans then i think it is acceptable. People should be more concerned on their safety rather than how their body looks in the body scanner.

  • Would You Rather Die?

    Come on people, would you rather die or someone see a blurry picture of you naked. They don't even know who it is. It's not like they save it or post it to the internet. What if someone refused to be scanned and they let them on and then BAM they hijacked. Then your dead!!!

  • Yes It Would

    You cannot put a price on one's life, so to simply spend a couple of privacy rules here and there is worth much more than anything else. They help make terrorist attacks more difficult to plot out and carry-on and help reveal hidden weapons and explosive devices. In addition, many scanners can be modified so that images cannot be stolen or saved.

  • Those who are uncomfortable with full-body scanners can use different methods of travel.

    If people could use the excuse that it makes them uncomfortable to have a full-body scan, it would be easier to commit terrorism or other crimes during flights. Those who want to use the services of airports should realize that the safety of everyone is a top priority.

    Posted by: NineLester37
  • I do believe that full-body scanners are respectful of individual rights, because individuals' lives depend on them.

    I believe that a full-body scan is respectful of individual rights, especially in these times. There have been many measures and levels in airport security, since September 11, 2001. They are mostly an inconvenience, but very necessary to ensure the safety of passengers, and to have a save flight.

    Posted by: AheadYoung
  • Violates my privacy

    I feel very degraded, violated, and on show when I have to use these at the airport. In the future, I will do my best to avoid airports with these scanners in use. I also think there are serious implications in regards to religious views and the rights of minors.

  • "Noting to Hide, Nothing to Fear" is a fallacy.

    Those who push this line are wrongfully employing a "begging the question" argument and are attempting to place the burden of proof onto all the recipients of this argument. The bottom line is that if you are asserting that all passengers are terrorists/criminals, then you need to prove it. It is not on the passengers to disprove this assertion.

  • I disagree, as use of these full body scanners on all passengers counts as unreasonable search.

    The scanners are basically high-tech strip searches, because the security staff watching the monitors are able to see detailed body images. This is unconscionable. If standard strip searches were required, people would be outraged. The technology does not change the fact that security staff are looking at your naked body under your clothing, without just cause, other than you planning to ride on an airplane. Forcing all passengers to pass through them is unreasonable search, and is unconstitutional.

    Posted by: DeadEmanuel
  • The full-body scanners at airports would not be respectful of individual rights.

    I think that the body scanners are very invasive and unfortunately with the way things are these days it might not be long before we see them in all the airports around the globe. I feel that the scanners can see everything and feel that it just strips me naked and takes away a feeling of comfort.

    Posted by: StripperMor
  • I oppose the use of full body scanners in an airport because it is an infringement on individual rights.

    The full body scanners and questionable pat downs now employed by the TSA are excessive and make people uncomfortable. While security is important, the fact that there hasn't been a major attack involving a US airliner since 911 shows that it is less likely a successful attack would be carried out because first, the passengers wouldn't allow it and there would also be a chance that a federal air Marshall would already be on the plane.

    Posted by: Maynard1981
  • Definitely not

    The "if you have nothing to hide" comment is a logical fallacy of placing the burden of proof on the one receiving the claim. I have written an entire blog article discussing this and the naked body scanners. I encourage you to read it. http://theconsumerrant.blogspot.com/2010/11/naked-body-scanners.html

  • Airport security workers seeing a naked image of your body is not respectful in the least.

    It's almost an insult for someone to assume there's no problem with airport full-body scanners. There's two problems here. The first problem is the right of privacy, and seeing you naked is not private at all. The second problem is these scanners emit radiation. The estimates have said some of the full-body scanner machines can emit radiation 50 fold of a chest x-ray. That's dangerous and can cause bodily anomalies and even cancer.

    Posted by: RayEar
  • The use of full-body scanners at airports will be disrespectful of individual rights.

    The whole scanning and security process is already disrespectful of individual rights. But still, people understand the importance and valid reasons for this. If full body scans are approved, it means that scanners will be able to see in people's bodies through screens and violate their integrity. That makes people not very comfortable and also creates the possibility of abuse and misuse of the technology.

    Posted by: l0olllooi
  • Full-body scanners are disrespectful to individual rights and violate personal privacy. Using full body scanners is degrading and can lead to inappropriate uses of airport security technology.

    Full body-scanners are the airport are not respectful of individuals rights because there is no limitation of what the scanner can see. People do not need to know where people have piercings or anything else like that and that would be picked up by the scanners. People cannot limit what the scanners see thus it does not respect individual rights, such as the right to some degree of privacy even in airports.

    Posted by: Sk8rChri
  • Full body scanners violate the right to privacy.

    Full body scanners violate the right to privacy so much that is boggles the mind it hasn't come up yet. If you do not have the right to be seen as clothed when wearing clothes, what rights does one have?

    Posted by: StormGra

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