As the body scanners are rolled out in US airports in the coming days, it's worth asking a simple question: will it work?
A simple, yet extremely important and profound question. Similar to racial profiling, the public debate has largely focused on such issues as privacy or cost. But, again like racial profiling, little has been discussed regarding the actual effectiveness of the thing. Other things equal, if we body scanned every single air passenger in the US, would it make us safer? Herein lies the most important issue. Privacy, civil liberties and other related topics are certainly important. But if the technique itself won't even do the job, those topics are irrelevant, and we need not even entertain the possibility of using these machines in the first place.
Other things equal, if we body scanned everyone, it likely would make us a little safer in the short term. Authorities might even catch a few bad guys, and supportive political and business leaders would reap the consequent limelight. But then, things get complicated.
Since US airspace is open to foreigners, we would nonetheless have thousands upon thousands of individuals flying over the country who have not been body scanned. Related to this inconvenient truth, one clever little litmus test we can use is asking if the proposed security measure would have stopped the threat that prompted its proposal. Genius, I know.
Results of this litmus test? Survey says… Nope! If we had body scanners in every American airport on Christmas Day 2009, AND had been body scanning every single air passenger in every single US airport, it would have done positively nothing to stop Umar Farouk Abdulmutalab. This is because (and here is where the genius really shows itself) he never boarded an airplane in the US!
But wait, it gets better. Since we don't live in a hypothetical world where "other things are equal," the exorbitant cost of the machines mean that only a small number of airports are scheduled to receive them. In addition, since American airspace is open to flights originating from other countries, it is at the mercy of the anti-body scanner public opinion in the countries whose airports have access to it.
All this adds up to a partial measure, at best. In other words, just enough to give the terrorists an advantage, just enough to cost the public hundreds of millions of dollars, but not enough to actually accomplish anything. Sounds like the ideal politician's initiative to me.
Terrorists and criminals started with knives and guns. So airports answered with metal detectors. Then they turned to shoe bombs. So airports make everyone take off their shoes. Then they used liquid explosives. So airports don't allow any liquid on the plane. Then they put explosives in their underwear. So, surprise surprise, airports install machines to see under people's clothes. Anyone noticing a pattern here? Anyone think the full-time terrorists will think of some new, ingenious way to bypass security? Anyone think the victims of the successful implanted-chip bomb attack will care about full body scanners? Anyone else think there might be a better way?
We are ultimately met with two options: end international air travel as we know it (and weather the resulting slowdown in global economic activity) or reduce the number of terrorists. No matter how much lobbying we have to endure from security systems manufacturers and airport authorities, this threat will not be neutralized by layering superficial security measures upon superficial security measures.
Only addressing the root causes of the phenomenon will suffice. That requires spending attention and money on economic development, political reform and social and cultural advancement in Muslim and Arab regions. Anything short of that, and we are kidding ourselves if we think we are safer. Until further notice, keep your shirt on.
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/are-you-safer-when-naked-1949724.html
About the Author