Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.

Privacy or protection? Scan me in, please


Full-body scanners are the newest, most inclusive and most controversial form of security device currently being administered.

Fortunately for those of us who value our safety enough to willingly pass through a quick and anonymous scan to show that our genitals are explosive-free, critics opposing the use of full-body scanners in situations involving national security do not have any firm ground to stand on.

The American Civil Liberties Union argues that full-body scanners are an invasion of privacy, and the Transportation Security Administration has not met the requirements government agencies must meet if they are going to impair a fundamental right guaranteed to American citizens.

This is simply not the case.

If the government wants to regulate a fundamental right, it must meet the requirements of strict scrutiny, a standard of judicial review. To do this, it must pass the compelling state interest test, as well as the least restrictive means test.

The government first must show its interest is vital to the country. Since it is apparent that the detonation of explosive devices on commercial aircrafts will cause tremendous carnage and disruption of our economy, it is clear that the safety of commercial air travel is vital to all of us. As long as full-body scanners are only being implemented in places where national security can be jeopardized (airports, for example), TSA meets the demands of the test.

The government must then prove that the use of full-body scanners is the least restrictive way of effectively advancing its compelling interest. The equivalent of an electronic strip search, a full-body scan will quickly expose anything attached to the body. This type of scan is far less intrusive than requiring passengers to actually disrobe before security personnel.

If the real objection is some passengers could claim embarrassment at being viewed naked electronically, perhaps a few more sit-ups would reduce that concern.

People looking to threaten national security are diabolically concealing weapons, and it is imperative we raise our security measures to a degree where many of these people will be identified before they can cause significant damage.

It is not enough to rely on the National Security Agency and other government institutions to protect us from potential threats. Many people have managed to slip through the cracks, and our last line of defense, metal detectors, are outdated and unreliable. When people can evade our most widely used security device by duct taping explosives to their hindquarters, it is probably time to make a change.

Full-body scanners must be implemented because no current viable alternative is sufficient in meeting the interest of national security.

The ACLU also argues against using full-body scanners by asserting that people will be able to elude the scanners in various other ways.

This argument falls on its face right out of the gate. If this is being presented as a valid argument, then why take any security precautions? People can get around metal detectors and duck under the radar of government agencies, but surely no serious person would suggest that we should just stop trying.

Full-body scanners are the best assets we have with respect to our security devices, and using them in situations involving national security is both just and necessary.

Reach Austin at acyost@asu.edu


Continue supporting student journalism and donate to The State Press today.

Subscribe to Pressing Matters



×

Notice

This website uses cookies to make your experience better and easier. By using this website you consent to our use of cookies. For more information, please see our Cookie Policy.