Speak Outs
Speak Out
When does airport security become a violation of privacy?

Nov. 17, 2010

If you’re flying anywhere this holiday season, you’re bound to notice that airport security is tighter than ever.

You may have to wait in a long line to get to your gate. You’ll probably be asked to show your ID multiple times. And depending on what airport you find yourself in, you may be asked to go through a full-body scanner.

Those scanners have been the target of passengers’ ire since they were first announced last winter. Some travelers, and consumer advocates, feel that the X-rays from the scanners are potentially dangerous, especially for frequent fliers. They also feel the scanners are a violation of passengers’ privacy.

Though your right to privacy is not spelled out in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has generally accepted an implied right based on several amendments. This debate falls under the jurisdiction of the Fourth Amendment, the right against unreasonable search and seizure. But since when does the government have a say over our safety when we travel? Since 1958, when the Federal Aviation Administration was founded as commercial airline travel became more popular across the nation. Then known as the Federal Aviation Agency, it was intended to oversee all aspects of air travel, and security became a major one as skyjackings increased in the ‘70s. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a separate department known as the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was formed, which focuses entirely on security – including decisions on pat-downs, body scanners, and when, why and how you are searched.
It wasn’t always like this.

If you flew on a commercial airliner in the 1960s or ’70s, it was much like riding a train today. You bought your ticket and walked right to the gate without any interruption. You walked down a flight of steps to the tarmac, up a flight of steps to the plane, and you were on your way. By some accounts, it was even a more formal affair – men wore suits, women wore dresses, and in-flight meals were fancier (and more edible).

This changed as soon as midair violence began happening. On an infamous flight on Thanksgiving in 1971, a passenger known as D.B. Cooper, claiming to possess a bomb, held his plane hostage in exchange for $200,000. After receiving the ransom, he allegedly parachuted out the back of the plane and was never heard from again.

Cooper’s skyjacking (as well as several other, less successful attempts) led to big changes. Some involved the plane – making the exit door inoperable in midair – others involved changes to the airport, including metal detectors and passenger searches.  Air travel began to seem less like a nice romantic dinner and more like a chore.

Security was tightened further when a bomb was detonated onboard Pan Am Flight 103 near Christmas in 1988, killing 270 people. Security began inspecting portable computers, radios and the passengers themselves more extensively.

Consumer advocates of the time worried about the safety of scanners (though it was revealed that scanners gave off less radiation than a luminous wristwatch). Consumer advocates of the 21st century share bigger concerns with today’s more advanced full-body scanners.

These are in use at about 20 of the nation’s airports, with more expected to be installed by next year, covering half of the air travel checkpoints across the U.S. Opponents still worry about the potentially hazardous radiation these scanners produce. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has called the level of radiation produced by the scanners “almost immeasurable, it’s so small.” But Helen Worth, a representative for Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, which conducted one of the examinations for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), told CNN that the group did not evaluate the machines for human safety, just for raw data. Rather, they determined radiation levels, and the TSA made the evaluation.

Consumer advocates also worry about violations of passengers’ privacy, since the scanners produce X-ray images of virtually naked bodies. If passengers do not want to go through the scanner, they must consent to a full-body pat-down or be refused entry on the plane.

“TSA is forcing travelers to consent to a virtual strip search or allow an unknown officer to literally place his or her hands in your pants,” said John Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties organization.

For some passengers, this is too much. CNN recently reported on several instances of passengers arguing with, and even attacking, airport security personnel. One passenger, named John Tyner, refused to go through a machine in San Diego. When an officer attempted to conduct a pat-down, Tyner said, “If you touch my junk, I’m going to have you arrested.” He now faces an $11,000 fine.

In an interview with CNN, TSA head John Pistole defended the actions of airport security personnel.

“Those security officers there are there to work with you, to ensure that everybody on that flight has been properly screened,” he said. “Everybody wants that assurance, so just try to be patient, work with our folks. They are there to protect you and your loved ones, and let’s make it a partnership.”

What do you think?

Does airport security violate passengers’ privacy? Are full-body scanners necessary? What about pat-downs? Do the concerns with personal privacy, and health from radiation exposure, outweigh security? Or are they a necessary precaution passengers should cooperate with? If you were head of the TSA, how would you find a balance between these concerns? Join the discussion and let us know what you think!
Join the Discussion
 
 
 
limited to 2000 characters including spaces  



Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs
Comments
11/17/2014
Stroudsburg Pennsylvannia
Parker
Mr. Hanna
Airport security is very tight in the United states. Notbing gets by them anymore because they check EVERYTHING. They will go through your bags, make you walk through detection machines, and many other things. It is now pretty much impossible to get anything by them but there is a point where it gets to personal. If they start to pat you down I think that is where you draw the line. You have personal space and rights and you do not need to be checked or touched without your own approval.

11/17/2014
Murrieta California
Ali
Mr. Jabro Creekside High School
I believe that airport security is definitely not an invasion of passengers' privacy. People want to be safe on an airplane but at the same time they don't want to go through the precautions it takes to be safe. If passengers are not sent through x-rays and patted down than almost anything could be brought onto a plane, anything that could harm innocent people and our country. I flew to St. Louis last summer and when came home i brought arrowhead rocks in my luggage. They saw the rocks in the x-ray and they pulled everything out of my bag to find the potentially dangerous rocks. I didn't complain because they were just trying to keep people safe. everyone should be happy that airports and planes are as protected as they are now. stop complaining, the security is just trying to help us.

11/14/2014
Stroudsburg/PA
Mickenna
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
The air personell only invade your privacy to protect everyone else. They will keep your identity safe from other air passangers, and they probably don't care about your identity so they wont invade your space. I think full body x-rays are necessary so if a person is hiding something in their mouth the personell will be able to find it and not allow that person on a plane. I dont think pat downs are necessary unless he machines are down. That will make the passangers very uncomfortable. I dont think the radiation would harm people as much to stop this type of security search. This search may cause radiation, but they may not harm a lot of people. If a passenger doese get harmed by the radiation they could conduct a special pat down where the person does it them selves .

11/14/2014
Stroudsburg/PA
Mickenna
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
The air personell only invade your privacy to protect everyone else. They will keep your identity safe from other air passangers, and they probably don't care about your identity so they wont invade your space. I think full body x-rays are necessary so if a person is hiding something in their mouth the personell will be able to find it and not allow that person on a plane. I dont think pat downs are necessary unless he machines are down. That will make the passangers very uncomfortable. I dont think the radiation would harm people as much to stop this type of security search. This search may cause radiation, but they may not harm a lot of people. If a passenger doese get harmed by the radiation they could conduct a special pat down where the person does it them selves .

11/14/2014
Stroudsburg Pa
Gabby
Mr. Hanna/sjhs
I think they are just trying to help us. If they need to use full body scanners and pat downs to maybe save a life they should! But there has been times I have read about where security guards were laughing at the people. I don't think that is right. They need to understand if you don't have these things people could die. I think having them chek your stuff will save many lives from people who are planning to do something.

11/14/2014
Stroudsburg, PA
Maddy
Mr. Hanna/ Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that the airport does violate their passengers' privacy. The full body scanner and the X- Ray do not violate their privacy. On the other hand, the pat-down definitely violates privacy. Many people feel very uncomfortable with strangers touching them. If the person goes through the scanner, they do not need the pat-down.

11/14/2014
Stroudsburg Pa
Gabby
Mr.hanna/ SJHS
I think all the stuff the airports are doing is to help us. If they think you did something or have something that can hurt you or someone else they are going to check you. I think full body scanners are good and can find stuff a pay down won't! I have heard stories on the news where these security Gards are laughing at the people because of what they see. I think that is wrong and they need to remember that they are trying to keep people safe not laugh at them.

11/14/2014
Stroudsburg Pa
Gabby
Mr.hanna/ SJHS
I think all the stuff the airports are doing is to help us. If they think you did something or have something that can hurt you or someone else they are going to check you. I think full body scanners are good and can find stuff a pay down won't! I have heard stories on the news where these security Gards are laughing at the people because of what they see. I think that is wrong and they need to remember that they are trying to keep people safe not laugh at them.

11/13/2014
Stroudsburg,PA
Hannah
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that airport security does violate passengers privacy sometimes. I think the full body scanners are necessary but they are very uncomfortable in my opinion. I've heard stories of security laughing/making fun of what shows up on the screen when a passenger does the full body scan. I think the pat down is no longer necessary because of the full body scanners.

9/15/2014
Murrieta CA
Ashley
Mr.Jabro Creekside Highschool
Pat-downs should only be done if a person is acting suspicious and could threaten the people's safety. X-rays are to make sure that a person is not carrying anything harmful onto the plane from inside their body. People swallow drugs and sometimes place explosives into their body. With the dangers that can happen on a plane people are only trying to keep the passengers safe and protected. As long as they have a reason to pat a person down it is not a violation of privacy.

6/12/2014
Stroudsburg, PA
Devon B
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I think airport security does violate passengers privacy. Having your stuff checked and having the X-ray scanner done isn't violating your privacy but a pat-down does. I think the body scanners are okay because they keep people from bring harmful objects onto planes. I think pat-downs aren't necessary if the airport uses the body scanner because the people are already being checked. I don't believe the scanners give people radiation and even if it does people get more radiation from other things.

6/12/2014
Stroudsburg, PA
Kayla H
Mr. Hanna / Stroudsburg JHS
I think airport security does not violate people's privacy. Safety should be the number one concern. Also, at most airports people can opt out of a full body scanner and get a pat down instead. Going through security is just apart of flying.

4/29/2014
Kirkland Washington
John Smith
Kirkland Jr. High
This is an incredible topic when you think about it, especially when someone is able to hijack a plane and take ransom and just disappear.

4/4/2014
fort worth tx
Kimberly
Boswell High school
You got to look on the way of your life depending on that stricter security . yes its less privacy but when you look at it is good because you dont want to be one those planes that crash or gone missing..

3/18/2014
Salem, Oregon
Danysha
Mann
Cassie, i agree with with you..

3/17/2014
Salem, Oregon
Cassie
Walker Middle School
I think its good to search people when going into a airport.. Unless you want to be blown up by a bomb..

3/7/2014
Evanston, Wyoming
Thad
Evanston High School
We must acknowledge the fact that sometimes we must give up some privacy for protection. Just like the TSA, FBI, CIA, Nd other organizations such as these which strive to keep us safe.

2/16/2014
Coachella/California
Elber
Coachella Valley High School
I strongely agree that every person needs their privacy, but with tighter securities , this will prevent any future terrorist attacks. The idea here is that if you want a ride a secured airplane without any conflicts, then you need to give up some of your rights. Ever since the attack on the twin towers, people were asking for more security because they didnt want to ride an airplane with a terrorist sitting next to them. There is always going to be negatives and postives when a solution is made up to prevent any further conflicts like these. We need to learn how to come up with a system that will work for the majority of the people who live in the U.S., not just the U.S. but for other people around the world as well.

1/7/2014
Dallas, Tx.
Felecia
Mr anderson
I'm doing a paper on this topic. The issue to me is ridiculous and stupid. People complain and cry and whine about what could have been done to prevent another issue like 9/11 from happening and what could be a very good preventative method, everyone now wants to complain about. What about if they just stopped and went back to the old ways and another terrorist with another bomb got on another plane and kill many more people, then what? These methods to some may not be 100%, but I would rather take 95% over 5%.!

12/17/2013
cooper city florida
shane
Ms.Rodriguez/bmv
bad, just bad invasion of privacy

10/29/2013
East Providence, RI
James Ricci
East Providence High (Mr. Higg)
I Travel a lot and quite frankly i don't appreciate the need to get to the air port 3, 4, sometimes 5 hours early. This is because of traffic, lines, tickets, and.. security. It takes so much to deal with.. and i side strongly with Benjamin Franklin "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - James (year of 2015)

10/20/2013
great neck New York
Aviva Sham
Ms.Davidson great neck north high school
Ever since 9/11 seciruty has been very strict. Seciruty has been so strict that even if you have your passport in your pocket and walk under the scanning machine it still beeps. Some airports check people naked which in my opinion i think is very extreme and unnecessary once you have the scanner that checks ever inch of your body.

8/26/2013
Smyrna, Tennessee
Lauren
Smyrna High School
We are actually having a debate over this in AP English right now. My side has to come up with evidence why surveillance is a violation of privacy and argue against these stepped up security measures. I personally think no matter how much security we add to things that people are still going to do things they shouldn't and that terrorism will still be an issue no matter what. So why sacrifice our own personal rights in the process? To me it seems to be to much to late. Adding many cameras and scans after all the terrorism attacks took their toll, and now what are they to do? They will find loop holes. I just feel as if the governments takes something away from us when they start to get into what we once considered personal and private business.

5/13/2013
Grainger County/ Tennessee
Stella Rose
Susan Newman/ Grainger Highschool
I've been researching Airport security for a few weeks now, both the cons an pro's.. But they have installed a new x-ray system, that shows people naked? That is a violation of privacy. Not to mention the racial profiling, because of someone's ethnic back ground. So my opinion, yes we need it, but that dont have to be as judgemental over it.

4/19/2013
Frankliton/Louisiana
Victoria Luper
TalenaRogers/Pine High School
Yes, i think airports should have security. It is important, incase of smuggling,bombs or guns, and profile protentail terrorists.

4/17/2013
Tacoma, WA
Gabriel
Oakland High School
Airport security sucks.

1/3/2013
Montgomery, TX
Chelsea E.
Metzger, Montgomery HS
I remember going on trips when I was younger and going through the airport and not thinking any of the precautions were unnecessary or that they took too long. Nowadays, hearing about all of the crazy obstacles you have to go through to just get your plane really makes you stop and think. In my opinion the full body scanners freak me out. No one wants to be seen naked by some stranger, especially me. The other option, the full body pat down, isn't any better. Who knows what kind of person could be touching you inappropriately? That could be some pedophile who got that job specifically for that reason. Not to mention the radiation, they say it causes little damage, but no matter what the amount it's still dangerous to our health, especially for the frequent flyers. I do have to say that I respect that they're just trying to keep us safe from harm but some of their precautions are too much and I think they should find other ways that don't involve invading our privacy, like they do.

1/3/2013
Montgomery TX
Patrick
Mr. Metzger, Montgomery Highschool
Airport security is very neccessary in the worl we live in today. Although not to the extreme the TSA is making it. Our screening methods are great without the X-rayscanners and a midair occurance hasnt happened in a long while because of them.

11/20/2012
Rudyard MT
donovan
Mrs.Campbell, NorthStar
I think that it good to have security at airports because we dont now whats going through our coutrys and that just bad for the US and thats bad part on the president and there could be terres going through the airports and u just not see them.

11/19/2012
Belleville NY
Erin
Colby; Belleville Henderson
I think that the airport security is very neccessary especially in today's world. Considering everything that has happened it's good that we are upgrading security and what not.

11/16/2012
Spokane/Washington
Brittany
Medical Lake High School
i think that airport pat-downs do keep our airports safe, but i believe that the TSA is taking these pat- down regulations to an unnecessary level of inappropriateness. Also i think that children under the age of 16 shouldn't have to go through pat-downs at all, no matter what! It's inappropriate.

10/31/2012
Angleton, TX
Brayden
Homeschooled
I think that the security we go through is necessary, but I do have a complaint about pat downs. Me and my family were going on a vacation, and we each did different types of security measures. That didn't make sense. My mom had to be patted down, and the private room was too far away from the security gate. So she had to do it in the open. The private rooms need to be near the security gate.

10/30/2012
Sidney Montana
Travis
Faulhaber, Sidney High School
Airport security does not violate privacy because after 9/11 we need to make sure that there isnt anymore terrorists getting into this counrty.

10/30/2012
Sidney, MT
Courtney Anderson
Mr. Faulhaber / Sidney High School
I feel that precautions are taken because our country wants to make sure we don't have a terrorist on a plane. And I think the people boarding the plane should feel safe. Some security may be a little too much, but honestly wouldn't you rather go through all the security and make it to your destination, or not go through all the security and have your plane bombed? I would it like to be a little over-secured.

10/24/2012
Watertown, MA
Melanie F.
Watertown High School
After 9/11 of course airport security has increased because they want to make sure that it doesn't happen again. It's not an unreasonable search it's for everyone's safety, so that no innocent lives are lost because someone brought a bomb on a plane. I think it's reasonable for airport security to male sure no one has anything bad with them.

10/19/2012
seattle, wa
tim
na
any search without warrant or due cause does ALWAYS violate the constitution. PERIOD! Maybe it is wise to do scans and pat-downs, however; "expedient" and "legal" are spelled differently for a reason.

5/10/2012
Porterville/ CA
Minerva
Smith/Monache
This question must be rhetorical, because everyone knows when airport security violates your privacy. Security has risen since 9/11, it has risen so much that they strip you or give you a full X-ray. Many people find this ridiculous and out of line because they question why should I be doing this? Other people think this is a good thing because it could reduce the risk of terrorism. I’m caught in both sides because since this policy has been running there haven’t been any acts of terrorism.

4/24/2012
TX
Ana
Nimitz HS
For those that think that is not a violation of passengers' privacy, what if they just want to bomb(or whatever method they use) the area where hundreds of people are waiting to be screened to enter the plane. There many ways "terrorists" can do damage if they really wanted to. These pat downs and full-body scanners cannot stop someone with a mission. Also what if the person patting you down was a pervert and no one knew because they don't have a criminal record? Would you feel violated if you knew who really was patting you down or would you still say it's the price to pay for national security?

3/12/2012
Minnesota
Kayla
Mrs. Sandusky
Airport security is a simple task that can be carried out to keep our nation safe. After 9/11, we started being more cautious and, I think, that change is for the better.

2/23/2012
Hayesville, north Carolina
Tyler Leek
Mrs. Andrews
I think airport security is too invasive because it violates our fourth amendment of unreasonable search.

12/2/2011
Rudyard, MT
ShelbyL.
Mrs. Campbell
If September 11th hadn’t happened, I might have argued that scanning a searching people was not constitutional. But since it did happen and our country was attacked by terrorists taking over our planes, I think it is necessary. People may complain about their personal privacy and that some things are just not the government or anyone else’s business. But I think that in the end everyone would agree that being scanned and spending more time in airport lines is the better option. They are just trying to protect our country and people.

1/17/2011

Sophia C
Bradley/Nimitz, Irving, TX
I was actually scanned by a body scanner without even realizing it beforehand. I wasn't picked out as a possible suspect, no one looked at me with any interest, I just stepped up to the wrong line, oblivious as I usually am. Before I knew it I was walking into this machine-type thing and a lady asked me to put my hands over my head. A couple seconds later, it was over. At the time, I freaked out a lot once I was done. But looking back, I no longer see what the big deal was. It wasn't some scary man looking at the picture of my body, it was a normal lady who complimented my earrings. And while I don't condone the full-body scan, I still feel as it isn't a big deal. I don't think it's necessary, but if it's gotta happen, it's gotta happen.

1/14/2011

Jessica A
Bradley/Nimitz High School, Irving, TX
When it comes to national security, I would rather have by body scanned then having a repeat of September 11th. The images are still fresh in my memory the plane flying into the south tower, people jumping off the towers, the debris. I don't believe airport security is encroaching on our rights if it means protecting us. Sure it would be uncomfortable, knowing someone is either going to pat me down or look at me through an X-ray, but I'll feel safe knowing that everyone has to go through it, meaning that no one could sneak a bomb onto a plane and blow it up. I would only object to it if the body scanner's radiation was harmful because there isn't a point to killing us slowly to protect us from getting killed quickly.

1/13/2011

Monica A.
Bradley/ Nimitz High School, Irving,Tx
Airport security is an important part of maintaining that safety of the people and this nation. Body scanners are a large invasion of privacy due to the fact that someone is putting their body on display to be scrutinized. I believe that body scanners are a means of keeping the peace, but airport security should find a better alternative. It is important to maintain security in our nation, and if there is a reason to believe that there will be danger then pull out the scanners and do it. As far as I am concerned scanners are an invasion of privacy and there should be an a better alternative to investigating a person's belongings.

1/12/2011

Parker H.
Bradley/ Nimitz HS, Irving, TX
I myself have some experience with this topic. On a recent trip on an airline I won't name, I was able to make it through security without undergoing any sort of extra full body test or ID check. In a way, I felt somewhat concerned, as I noticed that very few people were being stopped, even those who had tried to bring a bottle of water or even a pair of nail clippers. I was thoroughly surprised. Because of this, I am all for the extra body scans plus some. I feel like if these scans are necessary in preventing my life, as well as hundreds of others around me, then in no way am I going to be offended if I am seen by an X-ray machine. I am honestly confused as to why people are making such a fuss about it; lives are truly at stake.

1/11/2011

Bethany H.
Bradley/Nimitz, Irving, TX
I can see where the privacy of our bodies is a violation to some people, but we wouldn't have to supply a scan if it weren't for the foreign attacks and things that have gone on that is having us pull tight on security. If we didn't have scanners period, there would be more plans being blown up and human bombs walking on our planes and even sitting next to us. While we're one our way to our vacation getaway, they (without you knowing) are sweating beads because they know themselves and the plane are going to be blown to pieces in seconds. I don't think anybody in their right mind would want to be in that situation. Luckily, with the body scanners, we have more security to make sure the next passenger isn't actually a secret human bomb. For those who feel violated, I would rather be violated with an X-ray than be blown to pieces, wouldn't you?

1/11/2011

Donavon
Nimitz High School, Irving, Tx
I don't think the full body scanners are “too much.” Everyone wants to be safe. After the 9/11 events everyone expected the government to increase security and make sure that there weren't anymore incidents of hi-jacking. We want the security, but we complain about the technology being used to make sure that everyone is safe. I believe the full body scanners are a quick and easy way to make sure everyone is properly checked. As long as the images from the scanner aren't shown to everyone, it isn't invading privacy. I do think, however, that the government needs to make sure that these scanners are safe for frequent fliers to go through weekly.

1/10/2011

Justin S.
Nimitz High School, Irving, Texas
Airport security is a very big deal now. I understand that they are trying to protect us, but when it consists of full body patdowns, or the full body scanner, it can really be a violation of privacy. I know they say that they delete the pictures that the full body scanner takes right away, but how can you know for sure? You have no way of controlling what they do with that photo after you leave.

1/10/2011

Benjamin A
Bradley,Nimitz High School, Irving,TX
Personally I'm not a huge fan of the the scanner or the pat down but with that being said we exist in an era were terrorists are getting smarter and better at hiding weapons and bombs so to stay one step ahead is always wise. The scanner does violate privacy but at the cost of you not ending up dead.It depends on what people think is "important" privacy or life? The radiation output of the scanners should be tested to see if they are harmful in anyway and should be given strict consideration. If i was the head officer i would take people opinions in to consideration, reduce fines on first time uncooperative flyers, and make sure that the viewing screens are properly closed of and out of sight and also the officer who is on the viewing should not have direct communication or contact with the flyer considering the flyer's pride and privacy.

1/10/2011

Uyen V.
Bradley, Nimitz HS, Irving, TX
The body scans, done at airports recently, has gone too far. I don't think that it's really necessary to have full body scans. It's a complete violation of a person's privacy. And when people are forced to do the full body scans, not only are they patted down, one person at a time, they have to go through a walk way with high levels of radiation. Large amounts of radiation could affect the a person's body, like their DNA or cause a rearrangement of body cells. But doing simple pat-downs are okay, just not touching the person a little overboard. And if the TSA just kept it to a minimum of just pat-downs, then going to the airport wouldn't be so bad at all.

1/10/2011

Andres H
Bradley/Nimitz, Dallas, Tx
When I first heard about these scanners, I was quite baffled because well it just seems weird to think of a nude cartoon image of myself being constructed in front of an airport security officer. Hearing the alternative brought even more jokes from my buddies and me, because the news described it as an "intense" pat down and it just had me think why is this necessary. I would never bring a bomb on a plane, and I'm very sure a close 100% of Americans and people in general wouldn't do this insane act, but it has happened. Since I wasn't alive in 1973 when the first plane bombing had occurred, I immediately thought about September 11, 2001, "the dawning of the rest of our lives". I thought about how it was possible for this to happen because that small .1% will blow up that plane and it is important that the TSA do anything to protect us. I'm not saying that if they go even further I'll support TSA no matter what, but I am saying is a little discomfort worth the huge discomfort of possibly dying?

1/10/2011

Benjamin Alexander
Bradley,Nimitz High School, Irving,TX
Personally I'm not a huge fan of the the scanner or the pat down but with that being said we exist in an era were terrorists are getting smarter and better at hiding weapons and bombs so to stay one step ahead is always wise. The scanner does violate privacy but at the cost of you not ending up dead.It depends on what people think is "important" privacy or life? The radiation output of the scanners should be tested to see if they are harmful in anyway and should be given strict consideration. If i was the head officer i would take people opinions in to consideration, reduce fines on first time uncooperative flyers, and make sure that the viewing screens are properly closed of and out of sight and also the officer who is on the viewing should not have direct communication or contact with the flyer considering the flyer's pride and privacy.

1/4/2011

sandy
metzger/montgomery high school, montgomery, tx
TSA is taking this x-ray scanning a little too far! Yes they're simply trying to protect us from terrorist attacking our country. BUT, it's going too far. Even just patting us down, touching us in private places is violating our privacy,now they are getting out of hand and simply taking this to the next level! Not only that but it's a HUGE health risk. What are they going to do next? They already invated our privacy and risking our health...These full-body scanners are ridiculouse and need to be taken out from the airport.

1/4/2011

Josh
Montgomery, Texas
i think that the new full-body scanners are a good idea. they are a way to keep us safe from terrorists. they are finding new ways to get stuff in and this is a way that they can never harm us.as for the fact that it may harm us with the x rays. they need to mske sure that it is fixed before anyone is forced to use it. i mean if im going to get sick by using it then i will start having a proplem with it too. i think this has qbout the same pros and cons. the pros are that it will be eaiser for you to get through security without being felt up. but cons are that they will see you naked and it could get you sick. i believe that this subject is far from over an they will be a fighting this one back and forth for years to come.

1/2/2011

Jordan
Bradley/Nimitz, Irving, Tx
Airport security, like all security, is a preventive measure that should be taken. And, as technology advances, airport security should advance. Moving on to body scanners and x-rays, the airports should be more safe and secure. If a measure can be taken in order to prevent another disaster like 9/11, the measure should be taken. Danger is around every corner, and if getting a quick x-ray or scan before I board a plane can keep me from being killed while I'm on that plane, then I'm all for the body scanner. Why should something that can keep people safe, not be used to do so?

12/21/2010

Dakota
SHS, Sidney MT
Yes I feel that the TSA scanners and pat-downs go way too far. They impose on the rights of citizens and the only reason the TSA get away with this is by exploiting the fears of the American public. It's sad that the US citizens are so willing to give up their civil liberties for "safety."

12/21/2010

Bryan
faulaber, sidney MT
I think it becomes a violation privacy when they use X-ray images i think that is crossing the line. People shouldnt be able to see someone like that its crossing the line. U are basically looking at that person naked and that invades your privacy in a big way.

12/15/2010

funny bunny
eams78, eastin pennsylvannia
First scanners do invade privacy but would you like do die on a plane from terrorist just because you wanted to keep your privacy? I wouldn't, security is suppose to do whatever they can to keep american citizens safe. Also the chances are you will see the same person that scanned you again is unlikley. my point is that would you rather be safe knowing there isn't a terrorist on the plane or would you want to wonder if there is a terrorist on the plane? think about it

12/15/2010

theodore g.
eams 78, easton,PA
I believe that the new airport security measures have gone too far. I understand that terrorists are a huge threat to our country, but that is no reason to treat every individual getting on plane like one. The full body scanners and full-body pat down are a complete breach in our right to privacy. I personally would not like someone touching something that does NOT belong to them nor would I like someone to see my full body exposed. With the technology we have now days you would think they could come up with something with less exposure, but could still get the job done. I know safety is the main priority but to have a little more respect for us as passengers would make a world of a difference. Although they say it causes little radiation damage, those who fly frequently are still at risk over time! The airport security is a major violation of privacy. Above all things I think its awkward. I would never willingly go through a body scan to let myself be exposed. From other people I have heard that it is not very private at all, that it is just out in the open. That would never be okay by me. I don't see how it would NOT be a violation of privacy, as you are being looked at sometimes without consent. I can understand doing it for privacy reasons, but I still feel like doing a full body scan is going to the extreme. I don't see what is wrong with just walking through metal detectors. I don't know, but I would never feel comfortable going through a body scan. That is too personal for me. It sad that our society has come to this, and our security has been so bad up until now that we have to go to extremes to make people basically feel comfortable

12/14/2010

Zurguna Dada
La Place/ Centennial High School, Columbus,Ohio
The scanners violate privacy in so many ways and also they have been proven to be not as affective as originally thought. People have already discovered so many ways to get around them, so really all they do is violate privacy and they do not actually help at all since there are ways around the scanners.

12/12/2010

colton
metzger, montgomery?TX
Sometimes people just need to take a step back and say "who am I to care?" I believe that people think to much of them selves to start with. Were not even portrayed in full color nakedness in the pictures displayed on the screen... honeslty it reminds me of Han Solo in Starwars when they froze him in tht big grey block thing. Its not like there asking us to go jump off a bridge. and as far as "there taking away our privacy" goes, there realy not taking away anything we shouldnt have had in the first place acording to the bible(im agnostic btw). I mean werent Adam and Eve naked in the beginning? To sum it all up, we should all just lighten up and try to enjoy the situation as far as knowing the flight might be a little more safe now that the airport has has all our nudes. So i wouldent get too rebelious towards the airport unless you wanna see your naked, starwars self all over the internet. Strike a pose for the camera.

12/12/2010

Cori
Metzger/Montgomery HS, Montgomery, TX
In my opinion, the airport security is just trying to do their job and protect the people from terrorist attacks. Yes, the x-ray scans and full-body pat-downs do seem like an invasion of privacy, but I would much rather go through that then die in midair because the security at airports weren’t thorough enough. And it’s not like the picture of your nude body is sitting there for everyone to see, it probably shows up on the screen for a split-second and then it’s gone. Security is just trying to protect everyone from possible attacks. People are making this a way bigger deal than it really is.

12/12/2010

Tiffani
Metzger/Montgomery High School, Montgomery tx
Yes, I think that the TSA scans are violating our privacy and they have gone way to far with the x-ray body scanners and if you refuse to be scanned, then they do a full body pat down, which also violates your right to privacy, you already don't want to be seen naked through an x-ray machine then why would u want to be touch/groped by some stranger? Radiation is also a big risk to our health so why would you want to risk that chance for yourself or if you have children, and your at a bigger risk if your a frequent flyer.. They say that Pilots and flight attendants don't have to go through the body scanners or a full body pat down because they should be trusted enough since they work for the airport!! If they don't have to be seen naked or get a pat down then we shouldn't either!! It might make us safer but in the end there violating everyones privacy and they should be concerned with that!

12/10/2010

Katie
Montgomery High School, Montgomery, TX
I think that this whole airport security has gone to far with the full body x-ray scanners, yes it is nice to know our government is trying everything they can to stop terrorisom but its our privacy that is being taken from us. Our world has become very advanced so i do not see why they could not come up with something that did not expose out bodies. If they can take our privacy away then what will be next? And if theres a chance of radiation at all that could affect our health why would they take that chance? Theres much to think about when it comes down to this situation, but before they go even further with this i think they should think of our all the possible outcomes

12/9/2010

Ciara
Bradley/Nimitz HS, Irving, Texas
I think that this is a great idea. I would rather someone see me in the nude than to have his/her hands all over my body in a pat down. Although it is intrusive, it works. A far as it being potentially dangerous, notice the fact that the word "potentially" was put in there. Well, going outside of our own homes every single day is also "potentially dangerous" and yet it doesn't stop us from doing it. Honestly, most people that disagree with this don't look at the other side. What about the terrorists? Let me guess, it's okay if they gave Middle-Eastern-looking people a full body scan, but heaven forbid it be someone else. Exactly. In order to secure our country in the up-most possible way, this is helpful.

12/9/2010

Jennifer
Metzger, Montgomery HS, Montgomery, TX
I believe that the new airport security measures have gone too far. I understand that terrorists are a huge threat to our country, but that is no reason to treat every individual getting on plane like one. The full body scanners and full-body pat down are a complete breach in our right to privacy. I personally would not like someone touching something that does NOT belong to them nor would I like someone to see my full body exposed. With the technology we have now days you would think they could come up with something with less exposure, but could still get the job done. I know safety is the main priority but to have a little more respect for us as passengers would make a world of a difference. Although they say it causes little radiation damage, those who fly frequently are still at risk over time!

12/9/2010

Jennifer
Metzger, Montgomery HS, Montgomery, TX
I believe that the new airport security measures have gone too far. I understand that terrorists are a huge threat to our country, but that is no reason to treat every individual getting on plane like one. The full body scanners and full-body pat down are a complete breach in our right to privacy. I personally would not like someone touching something that does NOT belong to them nor would I like someone to see my full body exposed. With the technology we have now days you would think they could come up with something with less exposure, but could still get the job done. I know safety is the main priority but to have a little more respect for us as passengers would make a world of a difference. Although they say it causes little radiation damage, those who fly frequently are still at risk over time!

12/9/2010

Brenlee
Metzger/Montgomery High School, Montgomery,TX
I do think it's a violation of privacy. At the same time it's making it safer for people to fly and not have to worry about terrorists attacks.The airport security does take things to far with the full body pat downs in my opinion. The body scanners in my belief are a big health risk because of the radiation. I do believe it is a violation of privacy.

12/8/2010

Lauren
Metzger/ Montgomery High School, Montgomery,TX
I think that full body scanners are a complete violation of privacy, and there are other ways to find potential dangers. Even though airport security is trying to keep us safe and protected, they still need to respect our right to privacy. I would rather go through a pat down then go through the scanners, which is still an invasion of privacy. I don't see why they have to invade our privacy, when today we have different types of technology that can be used. Also, the exposure from the radiation of the x-ray is small, but if you are a constant flier, you could be at risk of cell damage.

12/7/2010

Arisbet
Metzger: Montgomery High School, Montgomery,Tx
First of all, I Don't understand how this is NOT invading our privacy.Full body scanners pretty much show you whole body NAKED! Yes, it is for security but they are just taking it too far. It is already enough that we have to take off our jackets, or belta, shoes, jewery. Also, if you refuse you have to go through a pat down??? SERIOUSLY? I would rather go through a scanner than have some stranger touch something theyre not suppost to. That is a BIG violation of privacy. Yes, I understand that the US has to have security especially since 9.11 but this is just taking it way too far!

12/7/2010

Joselyn C.
Ms.Bradley/Nimitz High School, Irving,Tx.
This new airport security definitely violates passengers ' privacy. I mean, I really do understand that all these folks are trying to do is keep us safe, and make sure we get safe to our destination, but a full body scan? Where they can see everything? That's just wrong. I don't think full body scanners are necessary. Look at our technology, why can't we find something that would be able to give us a safe flight,? Instead of violating peoples privacy. Pat-downs are really just wrong too. Who's gonna let a complete stranger touch them like that? It's just not the right thing to do. I do like that the security in airports is getting tighter, but not like that. I understand that they are only trying to do that to protect us, but I completely disagree with the usage of body scanners.

12/6/2010

Marcus
Mrs. Berty, WAshington pa
this is a very good regulation due to the fact of terrorists that have been coming and destroying our nation for decades

12/6/2010

kaitlyn
trinity, pa
the new scanners and pat downs that many have to go through in out nations arports are a violation of privacy. yes we need to make sure that we are taking all the precautions to keep our nation safe, but there's a point when that is taken to far and that point if full body scanners and pat downs that have become way to personal.

12/6/2010

Amber
Montgomery High School , Montgomery, Texas
I think it is a violation of privacy but it will also help with terrorists. It may take longer to go though it but think about it we need to be safe, and if that means violation of privary then so be it because I don't another terrorists attacks to happen again.

12/5/2010

Amber
Ms. Helen Bradley, Nimitz High School, Irving, TX
Feel safe or feel violated – which would you prefer? Our nation has been threatened by numerous possible terrorist attacks. Can we blame authorities for wanting to take every precaution possible in order to ensure the American citizen's life? Yes, it's awkward having people you don't know looking at you in your birthday suit (however, clothes are still on) and yes, it's uncomfortable to have people touching you everywhere, but it's better to be safe than sorry. All a traveler can do is accept it.

12/3/2010

Krissy H
Sidney High Schoo, Sidney,MT
I completely undertand why these security measures are needed, But at the same time they are very personal. I personaly dont want some stranger touching me. The scanners wouldn't be so bad if they could find a way to make them more private.

12/3/2010

Rihana
Sidney High School, Sidney, MT
I think that airport security does not violate a passengers privacy. I think this because if they do a pat down of you, that means they are making sure you aren't bringing anything on the plane. You will not ususally get a pat down unless you have something that makes you look suspicious

12/3/2010

Alex
Sidney High School, Sidney MT
I would rather fly safe than sorry. For me to fly safe ment that i had to wat a few hours then go though a x ray scnner and get a pat down i would do that so i know i will be safe.

12/3/2010

Grant
Sidney High School, Montana
i would rather have tight security then have some place get bombed cuz they missed the dude careing it.

12/3/2010

Patrick H
SHS, Montana
I have one thing to say about this. I do not want another 9/11 to happen, and if that means i have to sacrfice some of my privacys to make sure that it doesnt happen so be it.

12/2/2010

Jannette A.
Ms.Bradley/ Nimitz High School, Irving, TX
Although body scans are a way to prevent the smuggling of weapons, I feel as if there's a better alternative to search people.This is in a way, personal invasion of privacy. Body searches are a bit drastic, but an effective way to search for weapons than the body scans. Also, metal detctors are just as good. Sure, the body scans are a way to prevent anything bad from happening, but all kinds of technology have their gliches and this one is no exception.Waht if something went wrong with one of the machines and no one knew about it? Also, people are just going to come up with ways to get pass the scans and try to cause a terrorist attack. What concerns me is that there's business people or people that travel often, have to go through the scans and they are exposed to little bits of radiation, which could cause some serious health problems. If I were the head of the TSA, I would try to go back to the old methods of security or find a better solution, because really this is just harming the public, not protecting it.

12/1/2010

Quintin
Bradely/Nimitz, Irving/TX
First off, to get any damage for the x-rays, a person would probably have to stand in the machine for months, if not years, straight. With that said, the scans are definitely an invasion of privacy because they can see, well... everything. Even though the “right to privacy” is a loosely interpreted form of the bill of rights, it does exist. But safety has to be assured somehow, and the only other good option is a full body pat down and that is still an invasion of privacy of a much worse kind. And the important question is which is more important: your privacy or everyone's lives? You may say “Well I'm not going to kill anyone!” but I don't think that the people who got the planes that crashed into the towers 9 years ago would have minded losing their privacy and keeping their lives.

11/30/2010

Erika M
Nimitz, Irving, Tx
I feel like the precautions that the airport security has taken are a little too drastic. Full body scans, really? Not only is that dangerous to frequent fliers but also to others like pregnant women. They may be a little too much, but honestly wouldn't you rather go through all the security and make it to your destination, or not go through all the security and have your plane bombed? I'll pick over-secured, thank you.

11/30/2010

Kyle T.
Bradley/Nimitz, Irving, Tx
I do think that airports have taken their security way to far and have began to completely violate personal privacy.A body search, even though is a little drastic at times, is way more secure and private than a full body scan, where everything is exposed for the guards and other potential passengers are able to see everything underneath your clothes. Although it is to protect against terrorism and threats to fliers, these scans are completely unnecessary and don't need to be given to everyone that steps on the plan. I could understand the scan if the passenger was being suspicious or acting out of the ordinary, but even then, a pat down would do just fine.

11/30/2010

Tiffany R.
Nimitz, Irving
Airport security in the past has not been dangerous or a violation of privacy. These scanners are an extreme invasion of privacy. The airport should check everyone, yes I agree with that. At the same time, there has to be another way they can check everyone without totally invaded their privacy and space. Also the scanners have terrible radiation, and if pilots go on flights daily or weekly they are being overly exposed to this radiation. The scanners are harming the pilots and also they are harming the frequent fliers, and that's not fair to them. The airport should think of a safer and healthier way to check people that are going to fly. These scanners are ridiculous and need to be taken out of the airports.

11/30/2010

Lucy V.
Bradley/ Nimitz, Irving/ TX
I think people need to stop complaining and try to make the best out of this whole thing. The reason why the airports are doing the body scanning is because they want to protect us, the passengers of their planes. It's to screen out the perpetrators, who want to do harm, before they can get on the plane. I don't know about other people but I rather walk through a body scanner than having random security people touch me. Just silently put up with it for however long it takes to scan and then it's done. You're on the plane and just a bit safer.

11/30/2010

Jose
Nimitz, Irving, Tx
I don't think it's necessary to have a full body scan on people when they need transportation. I believe it's best to have an old fashion metal detector because it doesn't invade anybody's privacy. I know I wouldn't like it if people touch me to the parts where I wouldn't feel comfortable at all. X-rays are really bad for you too, that's why many peoples health are affected, because x-rays are too strong for your body. I understand what concerns people feel about bombs and things that happen there but I think when the guards does a nice metal detector scan on you, I think that's enough.

11/30/2010

Leticia C.
bradley/nimitz, irving
Airport security has become a violation to a certain point. The body pat down in not necessary in my opinion. It's better to go thru the scanner, rather then have a strange security touching your body in search for weapons. A body scan would affect the passengers health due to the radiation ,but security and safety come first. In the past Airport security was no as strict as it is today,a passenger would just go thru the line without any worries of any violations that could take place.

11/29/2010

Alx D.
Nimitz High School / Helen Bradley, Irving, Texas
I feel like the TSA has just gone a step too far. Really, they're just trying to prevent an attack from the last way that people tried to kill us. When they had the shoe-bomb attack, they made us take off our shoes. I think this new security is a violation of privacy, and has gotten out of hand. Airport violence is rare. Rarely do we have an act of terrorism in the airports. I feel like the traditional metal detector and bag scan was an effective approach of airport security. Full body scanners would be seeing what everyone has, when not everyone is a terrorist. Pat-downs are different. We've had pat-downs for quite sometime now. If you set off the metal-detector before, they would scan you again with a smaller detector to see what set off the big one. Then they could pat you down to see what you had. This is not a violation of privacy, because they're just going through their line of security, and not everyone is being treated like a threat. These new full-body scans, aren't just a violation of privacy, they're a danger to health. These x-ray scans release dangerous radiation. I think they should go back to the methods the used for security prior to this upgrade with full-body scaners.

11/29/2010

Jena
Bradley/Nimitz High School, Irving, TX
Airport security does violate our privacy, but we agree to it whenever we go through their security measures and it is necessary to make sure that we all make it to the next destination safely, so I personally find it alright. But full body scanners are outrageous and unneeded. Many people feel it as an invasion of privacy. I haven't even been to the airport since these were introduced and just the thought of having to step through one is embarrassing, especially knowing that a random stranger is looking at my almost naked body. If I refuse, I must get a full body pat down? Still very embarrassing and awkward. I'd much rather not have someone pat my whole entire body down, not even if that person were a woman. And the body scanners give off radiation? Oh, so the government's trying poison us? If you're going to make a security check like the full body scanners, you should make sure that they won't possibly make us sick. And I say this for our own good so we can still live and so that the government doesn't have to deal with a bunch of lawsuits from people who have been poisoned by radiation from their full body scanners. If I were head of TSA, I would find a different approach at security. An approach that doesn't completely violate our 4th amendment rights. If metal detectors aren't doing enough, and since the public obviously finds the full body scanners to be on the outrageous side, there should be some kind of scanner or detector that they can invent and use in place of both. One that gets the purpose of the full body scanner done, but saves the embarrassment like the metal detector does.

11/29/2010

Mackenzie
Nimitz High School, Irving, TX
The airport security is a major violation of privacy. Above all things I think its awkward. I would never willingly go through a body scan to let myself be exposed. From other people I have heard that it is not very private at all, that it is just out in the open. That would never be okay by me. I don't see how it would NOT be a violation of privacy, as you are being looked at sometimes without consent. I can understand doing it for privacy reasons, but I still feel like doing a full body scan is going to the extreme. I don't see what is wrong with just walking through metal detectors. I don't know, but I would never feel comfortable going through a body scan. That is too personal for me. It sad that our society has come to this, and our security has been so bad up until now that we have to go to extremes to make people basically feel comfortable.

11/29/2010

Duyphuc
Bradley/Nimitz, Irving, TX
There is no invasion of privacy when it comes to airport security. The controversy over the body scans is valid and it can be quite revealing but it doesn't matter. People say that it is violating their rights, violating their privacy, but they don't realize that once they paid for the ticket, they no longer have rights, they no longer have their beloved privacy. Everyone has heard of hidden costs and buying an airplane ticket has many of them. Besides luggage fees and long lines, uncomfortable seating options, lack of food, and of course the airport security are all hidden costs of flying. If people don't want to deal with the body scans, they do have rights but those rights are not to skip the scans. They are either getting patted down liberally or not flying at all. People don't have to fly. They can drive or get to their destination by train. While theoretically the invasion of privacy is there and it technically exists, as airplane passengers, invasion of privacy and privacy itself has been ridden off as part of the conditions with flying. If a person is going to pay for his or her airplane ticket then he or she should expect other costs with it. Privacy can't be invaded if it is not there. People also worry about the health risks of the body scans but the quantity of radiation is so minute that it makes no real difference. Only those people , like pilots and flight attendants, who have to go through the scans sometimes daily can really complain about the body scans and they have given passes to bypass them.

11/29/2010

Giselle
Bradley/Nimitz, Irving, TX
I don't think this is a violation of passengers' privacy, unless you want to take the risk of going on a plane with somebody who is carrying a bomb or weapons just because you don't want to go through a body scanner. Metal detectors aren't always %100 successful with the body scanners it only take a few seconds and security is able to see if a passenger is carrying any weapons. Pat-downs on the other hand are a no to me, I would feel like a criminal being searched by a police officer, not to mention how awkward and disgusting it would feel. Even though the percentage of radiation you are exposed to by going through these machines is small, what happens to those who fly often, or to pilots who have to go through them almost everyday. The amount of radiation accumulates and that won't bring good results. If there is no other choice than the body scanners or the pat down, I think the number of people who will chose to fly is going to decrease just because of this creation. I know that there is another approach to making sure nobody that each plane ride is safe other than being seen naked through a machine or being stripped searched, somebody needs to figure it out first though.

11/29/2010

Jovan G
Bradley/Nimitz High School, Irving/TX
I think that airport security is definitely violating our privacy. I personally would not like to be a part of the full body scan. I don't want someone somewhere looking at me naked. I don't think that's right. Why can't we just keep using the usual metal detectors. That doesn't violate any privacy. In my opinion, even the pat down violates our privacy. They touch you everywhere. I don't think I'm comfortable with someone touching my private parts. It just isn't right that we have to pick one or else we can't fly. That's not right to do. We should always have other options that wont violate our privacy to that extent. I wish they could only do those scans to people they suspect could have something on them or people with criminal records. Not just everyone who wants to use the airport as a way of transportation.

11/29/2010

Destani
Nimitz HS, Irving, TX
Airport security definitely does not violate passengers’ privacy. With all the new technological advancements in bombs and explosive weapons and the constant level of activity that pours through our airports every day, the full body scanners are an appropriate response to our security problems. If people complain about the invasiveness of pat downs, then the hands-free body scanners would be the logical option. If you don’t like either option, don’t fly. I’m just going to say parenthetically that while body scanners could constitute some sort of privacy invasion, let’s look at the practical consequences of using them. For one, let’s consider a prime example that was mentioned briefly in the article, when a bomber detonated his bomb onboard Pan Am Flight 103 near Christmas in 1988. If airport security had had the capacity and the foresight to use body scanners, an additional 270 people could potentially be with us today. If my loved one stood in that number, I would be more than ecstatic about the step-up in security with the addition of body scanners, and that no terrorist or would-be bomber could bring in an explosive unhindered and unchecked. The airport has implemented body scanners into airports to meet the rise in foreign threats. Similarly, metal detectors have been implemented into schools to meet the rise in school shootings and violence. We all must keep up with the changing times. Passengers may worry about the radiation levels emitted by these scanners, but frankly, microscopic levels of radiation are worth lives being saved.

Related News
Related Resources
Share