Full-body scanners have the capability to view hidden explosives, guns and other objects that could be concealed under clothing and used for a terrorist attack. These scanners also have the capability to virtually strip down a person. The individual operating the machine, looking at the monitor, is able to see the passenger’s naked body.

During the past few months, across the United States and across the world, airports have installed full-body scanners. The installations are mainly due to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempted plane bombing on Christmas Day. The explosives were hidden in his underwear — undetectable to the typical X-ray screening. The incident led the Transportation Security Administration and other countries’ security agencies to seek a better method of finding hidden explosives. Their conclusion was to implement full-body scanners.

Those in favor of body scanners believe that security is worth more than privacy. Whatever the TSA recommends, these individuals will comply in the hope of increased safety. First, we had to take our laptops out of our bags. Then, we had to take off our shoes and belts. Then, we had to limit ourselves to an arbitrary 3 ounces of liquids or gels. Now, certain individuals will have to subject themselves to a virtual strip search (Congress has outlawed the use of body scanners as a primary screening device). It seems to be an unending list of inconveniences. While we give up a fair amount of privacy, it is unclear how much actual security we get back in return.

Last week at London’s Heathrow Airport, a male employee made lewd comments to a female coworker after seeing her body-scan images. She had ‘strayed’ into the machine, according to Reuters News Service. The specific comments that were made are not available. The female employee claims that she was traumatized by the incident. This is the first reported incident where full-body scanners have been abused. The female employee’s privacy violation and the inappropriate comments from the male employee highlight the inherent problems with these devices.

To provide greater security, some want to resort to Israeli-style security procedures, whereby passengers are asked questions by interrogators about the purpose of their travel. Still, more want to racially screen Middle Eastern individuals. This is incorrectly based on the idea that all terrorists are Middle Eastern. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols (the Oklahoma City bombers,), the Weathermen and Ku Klux Klan do not factor into this ‘rule.’ Racial screening and interrogation are not only misguided, but they go against U.S. values of freedom and privacy. Racial screening can easily lead to segregation and racism.

Full-body scanners have some other downsides to be considered. While the machines can see the nude body, they can fail to detect some items hidden in folds of skin and within body cavities. Terrorists can easily adapt to the new restrictions.

There are less invasive procedures that exist. One alternative to detect explosives is a noninvasive ‘puffer’ machine, which requires that the passenger walk into a box-like machine. The machine then shoots jets of air at the passenger. The air is then sucked back into the machine for analysis to find explosive particles.

It is surprising how much privacy people are willing to give up. It’s uncertain where the limit is to how much we value our privacy and how much we value our security. The fact that, more than ever, Americans are willing to give up their privacy shows that the terrorists’ goals to change our values might just be working.

Harmen Rockler is an undeclared freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. His column appears bi-weekly, and he can be reached at horockle@syr.edu.

Published on March 29, 2010 at 12:00 pm