September 11, 2001 is a day that no American will ever forget. On that day, Islamic terrorist group, al-Qaeda, carried out the largest terrorist attack in United States history. As many may know, the attack consisted of four plane hijackings, with two of them being flown into the World Trade Center, one hitting the Pentagon and another crashing in Pennsylvania (“Should Full-Body Scanners Be Used In U.S. Airports?”, 2010, p. 3). As a result, a total of 3,000 civilians were killed, including over 400 law enforcement personnel. This tragic event has encouraged the United States government to enforce stricter airport security in order to prevent future terrorist attacks. In order to ensure passenger safety, the U.S. government has decided to use
…show more content…
Opponents believe that they are not cost effective because the cost of the machines is very high ($130,000-$140,000) and the scanners are very time consuming as they have to be well managed, calibrated and utilized (Wood, 2010, p. 2) To go along with this, opponents of the use of full-body scanners argue that the Transportation Security Administration does not fully research the machines that they buy, instead they simply purchase the latest and greatest technology on the market, which can backfire on them (Hedgepeth, 2010). Additionally, people against the use of full-body scanners argue that they can harm a person’s body due to the radiation being given off by the machines. These machines may potentially harm an individual because radiation can potentially lead to damage in a person’s DNA and even lead to forms of cancer (“Are Full-Body Airport Scanners Safe?”, 2011, p. 1). Lastly, opponents believe that the scanners are an invasion of a person’s privacy as they are capable of seeing under a person’s clothing and their body as a whole (Hagar, 2010, p. 2). People believe this because they think that people should not need to be seen nude in order to secure an airplane. 40 year old Tashia Peters of Longview, Washington states that “they have all of these metal detectors and drug-sniffing dogs and bomb equipment, so why now do we have to get nude?” (p. 1). Peters is arguing that the TSA has all these other forms of security to keep passengers safe, so why do they decide to use the one that invades one’s privacy the most? Overall, opponents of the use of full-body scanners believe that their use is illogical as there are other forms of security that are as effective as full-body
Opponents believe that they are not cost effective because the cost of the machines is very high ($130,000-$140,000) and the scanners are very time consuming as they have to be well managed, calibrated and utilized (Wood, 2010, p. 2) To go along with this, opponents of the use of full-body scanners argue that the Transportation Security Administration does not fully research the machines that they buy, instead they simply purchase the latest and greatest technology on the market, which can backfire on them (Hedgepeth, 2010). Additionally, people against the use of full-body scanners argue that they can harm a person’s body due to the radiation being given off by the machines. These machines may potentially harm an individual because radiation can potentially lead to damage in a person’s DNA and even lead to forms of cancer (“Are Full-Body Airport Scanners Safe?”, 2011, p. 1). Lastly, opponents believe that the scanners are an invasion of a person’s privacy as they are capable of seeing under a person’s clothing and their body as a whole (Hagar, 2010, p. 2). People believe this because they think that people should not need to be seen nude in order to secure an airplane. 40 year old Tashia Peters of Longview, Washington states that “they have all of these metal detectors and drug-sniffing dogs and bomb equipment, so why now do we have to get nude?” (p. 1). Peters is arguing that the TSA has all these other forms of security to keep passengers safe, so why do they decide to use the one that invades one’s privacy the most? Overall, opponents of the use of full-body scanners believe that their use is illogical as there are other forms of security that are as effective as full-body