First of all, there are obviously major privacy concerns. Full-body scanners essentially take a naked image of the body. Pat-downs are, apparently, very invasive (to say the least). The defending premise for these new rules is the safety of Americans. Often cited is the would-be Christmas Day Bomber of last year, who hid an explosive in his underwear.
Problems: The CDB flew in from Amsterdam. They aren't getting full-body scanners. There have been no known terrorist attempts on flights from US airports to US airports. In addition, full-body scanners would only detect hidden weapons or suspicious objects on a person, like the CDB had.
So, from a terrorist point of view, weapons or explosives hidden on the person are out. Let's face it: carry-on items are not the obvious, very open pathway.
Disclaimer: I'm not a terrorist, I don't hate my country, etc. But think about it: taking drastic measures against a very specific threat (bombs in a passenger's underwear) does nothing more than open alternative means of smuggling.
So here's something to think about: why beef up a certain type of security that's almost guaranteed to be useless?
No comments:
Post a Comment