http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/ait_fact_sheet.pdf
The above link directs you to the Transportation Security Administration Website.
Is there a true way to keep airports secure without violating the privacy of people? Would you as a person rather be scanned or be patted down at a security check? Is this more of a safety issue or a privacy issue? Does this article do a good job at convincing you of supporting airport security scans?
The above link directs you to the Transportation Security Administration Website.
Is there a true way to keep airports secure without violating the privacy of people? Would you as a person rather be scanned or be patted down at a security check? Is this more of a safety issue or a privacy issue? Does this article do a good job at convincing you of supporting airport security scans?
In my opinion there is no real way to keep airports secure without in some way violating privacy. I think that in this circumstance when people's lives are at stake, that the public should almost be accepting of the "violation of privacy" as just measures to keep us all safe. Personally I would rather be scanned at the airport, I think even though my privacy may be violated through those machines, the fact that I do not feel physically violated makes it easier in my mind. I think this is mostly safety issue, because the government is just trying to keep us safe, but the public and media has chosen to make it into more of a privacy issue
ReplyDeleteI agree, Natalie, when you say being scanned feels less invasive than an actual pat down. I believe actually feeling and seeing someone touch you is more difficult to ignore than walking through a machine. Even though we know what images are being displayed through the machine, it feels less invasive because we do not actually see or feel it.
DeleteTo keep privacy private when it comes to airport security, it is almost impossible because we all annoyed with the threats of national security. To protect ourselves and the people around us, giving up a bit of privacy for the good of society, is something that I could deal with. According to the information provided, it protects your privacy as well as invades it. On scanners things are blurred out so no one knows who you are. I would be more concerned if the face and other parts of the body are not blurred out, that would take violating privacy to a new level. I feel that the scanner or even the pat downs are something than the government thinks will help to protect us and it seems to be working.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Natalie and Elizabeth. In order to keep important freedoms you have to sacrafice some others. In this case, I feel that the safety of the public trumps the possible violation of privacy. The scans to me seem like a less uncomfortable situation than a pat down. No one is physically touching you or seeing anything honestly inappropriate. Terrorist take extreme measures to hide harmful and deadly weapons so the airports also need to take extreme measures to keep those who plan to harm the public from being successful.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Melanie about the terrorists taking extreme measures. Terrorists have one motive. That is to create terror. Which often leads someone to think that they would do it in any way possible. The scan may help prevent future mishaps.
DeletePersonally I do not believe there is a way to keep airports secure without violating people’s privacy. Airports need some kind of assurance that people are not carrying around weapons, and that is x-rays. I would rather be scanned than patted down. I think being patted down is more invasive compare to a scan. I understand that being scan means that someone saw your body, but being patted means someone has touch you. Therefore I rather be scanned. In order to ensure everyone’s security there needs to be some invading privacy. In my opinion I think it is more of a safety issue, because people want to be physically safe and not privacy safe. The article was not persuasive at all. The article was more informative than persuasive. There was a lot of information about the different kinds of scans and their risk. There was no arguments about having the scan or not, instead it is just suggested.
ReplyDeleteIn an agreement with Melanie a little farther down and disagreement with Chen here, I feel this was very persuasive. First off, its meant to be persuasive, this isn't just a straight information sheet coming from someone with knowledge of radioactivity; its from a website with the URL of "tsa.gov". This information is coming straight from Transportation Security Administration. They're posting information we as passengers want to hear and what will make us more at ease. Knowing that these machines give off very little harmful rays makes us feel safe with what the TSA is doing to protect passengers. Also note that since they came out with new regulations (pat-down), the public eye has given them a critical and stern look. So by them showing off passenger friendly information it gets the public "off their back" a little bit as well.
DeleteI don't think that there is a way to keep airports, anything for that matter, secure without the violation of privacy. I would rather be scanned. If the groping stories are true, I would rather not put myself in that risk of getting groped. Just scan me! I think that this article is more of a safety issue. Even though both sides of the argument are displayed, the article mainly focuses on the radiation. I don't think that the article was persuasive. It was just informational rather than a persuasive work.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Chen in that no matter what there is always going to be a trade off between privacy and security. While I agree that people want to be physically safe I think the main motive is for the people to feel safe. Every one who has traveled on a plane before has seen these monster machines they have to go through at a security check point. I feel these complex machines are large in stature to intimidate people and thats what this informational piece was trying to show. The average person doesn't know what all the functions of of these machines are but it gives us a sense that they are doing something to protect us and i feel thats all we want. So I don't care want procedure I have to do as long as I feel safe.
ReplyDeleteGreg, do you think that these machines are unnecessarily large and intimidating? Do you think that their size is strictly for intimidation purposes? Or do you think the size serves a function? I agree completely with what you are saying, I'm just clarifying.
DeleteI like Greg's reply as to his idea of using scare tactics. Do you think they are made to look scary? Is the thought of going through one intimidating enough to actually stop terrorists from even trying to smuggle things into planes?
ReplyDeleteI don't think the scanners are purposefully made to look scary but more designed to just get the job done the most efficient way possible. The idea of walking through it just happens to be extremely intimidating. But, terrorists are extremists who will do anything/everything to make their point. These security checks greatly reduces the chances of a terrorist trying to smuggle something onto the plane, but theres always someone who will find a way if they really want to.
DeleteI do not think there is a way to make airports secure without violating people’s privacy. I do not think that our privacy is being violated nearly as much as a lot of people make it out to be. I would rather be scanned because it is faster and my goal is to get through security the fastest way possible. This is definitely a safety issue because the government is more concerned with our safety more than our privacy. This article has made me feel more positive about airport security. I have always supported airport security because I would rather have my privacy violated than not feeling safe flying.
ReplyDeleteThere does not seem to be a way to keep airports safe without violating the privacy of passengers, or at least no way that would seem effective. I would rather be scanned than patted down at a security check. I am in agreement with Natalie when she says that even if your privacy is invaded in the machines, not feeling physically violated is easier on the mind than being patted down is. I don't think we can separate this into a safety issue or a privacy issue because they are so closely related. We do whatever we can to keep ourselves safe, and if that means sacrificing some of our privacy to ensure our safety, everyone should be willing do it. I did not find the article persuasive per say, but it did help my opinion of the security scanners. Knowing how the machines function will help ease my mind the next time I fly.
ReplyDeleteI understand why Emily says she didn't really find the article persuasive but at the same time all the information it provided on the subject allows me to feel more comfortable with the situation. In the end, I think they got their point across and it had the desired effect on my opinion so in a way it was persuasive.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately ever since 9/11 I believe there is no other way to have security checks other than the thorough, privacy-invading ways we have today. Airports cannot take the risk of being light on security because there are people out there who would take advantage of the system and do some stupid stuff like killing people. I personally do not care whether or not I was patted down or scanned. Whatever airport security needs to do to keep me safe when on an airplane is fine by me. This article definitely helped me stick with my opinion that aiport security can do whatever they need to do to protect my safety and the safety of others.
ReplyDeleteLike everyone else, I also don't think that airports can be truly secure without invading some type of privacy. I would rather be scanned than patted down, but if I needed to be patted down for some reason, I wouldn't abject because I know it's for the safety of everybody. I think that even though airport security is beefed up to a new level, but I also think that it's in the best interest of everyone who flies to cooperate. This article backed up my previous belief that our airports are secure because it's for our safety.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really don't think that these scanning machines are an invasion of privacy. Aren't governments and societies put into place to protect their people? And how does a government go about doing that? By "invading" our bit of freedom. The more safe you wanna be than the more freedom you have to give up. If you want to fly then you should have to give up some freedom. Don't fly on a plane if you want some more freedom. Another thing, the random scans are a stupid idea. Don't single people out. If you're going to do a more intensive scan to a small group of people then why not do it to the rest of the group?
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Thomas, he makes great points. A few years ago everyone was complaining that our airport security wasn't good enough. Now that the airports and our government has amped up the security people are complaining that their privacy is being invaded. In order for public saftey, their must be some privacy given up. I believe it would be nearly impossible for airports to be secure enough with out "invading" our personal privacy. We must sacrifice some privacy to protect ourselves and the rest of the public.
ReplyDeleteNick, you and Thomas have both hit the nail on the head. In order to provide for the greater good, some sort of a personal sacrifice must be made. (I’m not sure who said that, but I know I’m not the first.) I believe the scanners are a good alternative for people who do not want to be physically touched, however, the fact still remains that you are being searched. While I am not sure the government has been completely honest about the health risks, at least we aren’t being searched at gun point any more. Anyone remember what airports were like after 9/11?
DeleteWhile this web page discusses the pros of airport security, I can’t help but feel they may have down played the cons. Through the language used, and the source of the information provided, it seems very unlikely that they are being completely honest. It has been my experience that when the US Government is trying to reassure any one about the policies and procedures they have in place, they constantly down play the “bad things.” Whether it is through the use of “expert analysis” or celebrity endorsements, or simply not telling you the whole story, they always have put some sort of a spin on the subject. While I absolutely believe this is a necessary invasion of personal privacy, I am not entirely convinced the Department of Homeland Security has made all of the information public knowledge. It is absolutely impossible for them to have concluded these types of devices are safe for the “health conscious” individual. There is no way they have been able to test what long term use of these devices will do to the human body. They can theorize all they want, but the technology has not been around long enough. Even if it will not have any kind of effect on your average traveler, it could have some sort of adverse effect on the personnel who are responsible for running the machines.
ReplyDelete