In a recent article from Security magazine, a story was published about airline pilots who are unwilling to submit to full body scans at airports. These pilots, organized in many cases by large unions, object to the potential safety issues that are involved with radiation and scanning. Given that pilots have to go through airport security multiple times a day and that the long-term safety of these machines has not been established, it is a valid concern. Despite TSA’s reassurances that the scanners pose no potential harm, it is understandable that the pilots are a little unnerved. This situation raises some questions with regard to security and theory behind it. To what extent do we have the right to hinder / inconvenience people with the security we put in place? Further, if security procedures are potentially harmful to innocent users, can we implement them anyway? Can we mandate them for everyone?
According to the government, the answer is “yes.” Perhaps more surprisingly, the American public feels the same way in this particular case. In a recent Gallup poll, 78% of Americans approved of the use of scanners as a part of routine airport security. An equally high percentage said they prefer the body scanners to pat-downs and find them less invasive than a search. On the positive side of the issue, full body scans would lead to the most comprehensive airport security we’ve ever seen. On the negative side, we must consider the “nude” body images it produces with regard to privacy as well as the dose of radiation each user will receive.
Before dismissing the images that full body scanners produce, I encourage you to actually look at one. (Warning: it is a bit graphic).To make matters worse, there have been multiple conflicting reports regarding the safety of the technology for routine use. As aforementioned, people who pass through security multiple times a day would be most at risk. In addition, it is not clear that “vulnerable” users such as pregnant mothers would be safe using the technology. That seems like a lot of concerns with a technology that is being rolled out across 300 of the busiest airports in the nation.
To take this to a broader level, the security industry must give pause to think about what we can ethically do in the name of safety. In my mind, no security is effective if it causes ill effects to those who are innocent and are using it properly. This applies especially to the government, which has the power to mandate usage. In private enterprise, there is at least the option to refuse a security check without legal repercussion (though you may not be allowed in). The one saving grace, at least at this point, is that we still have the ability to opt for a pat down or strip search in lieu of getting scanned when passing through airport security. While this may not be a practical choice for people in a time crunch, it allows those with serious concerns to avoid the scanner – for now.
I know much of the motivation for using technology like body scanners has been the failure of conventional methods. Just last December, an attacker was able to smuggle powder explosives past security in his underwear. However, in the fervor of keeping everyone safe this holiday season, I would like to see convincing evidence that our body images cannot be saved, and that the radiation we receive is at a safe level. Given those prerequisites, I hope the scanners do attain the highest level of security for air travel in the US and abroad.