Blog About
I know that things have been going on over the month of February and in the last 10 days or so since our(my) last post. However, it's been difficult to think of something to blog about. So, I think I'd like to take a moment to be mildly political. I do not wish for any of my dear friends and family to blog-jack this post and make all kinds of crazy rants in the comments section. No offense, just get your own blog. :D
Now that that is over (phew), let's talk about full body security checks at airports. The Wall Street Journal had an article last week about these newly minted machines that was quite informative (see article here). Now, the Wall Street Journal is not necessarily the best newspaper out there. It's full of right-wing, wishy-washy, and/or uninformative non-opinions at times. But at other times, I'm glad my work keeps the break room stocked with the daily rag.
This was one of those times. I had vaguely heard of full body scanners being implemented, but I really didn't have a notion of how that would work exactly. I think I liked it better when I didn't know. According to the article, the scanners take full body images of an individual that could potentially see doctor's-office-quality imaging (I'm talking all your private bits and love handles people); however, before the image is produced, a "privacy algorithm" modifies the image to a Gumby-like character and indicates if there is a potentially harmful item on said individual. Let's not be idiots, friends. If a computer hacker with enough knowledge wanted to undo the "privacy algorithm" and change the machine to record the anatomically correct images, don't you think they'd find a way? But wait, you say. These images/machines should not be networked. Well, the article states, "..seen by a remote operator who cannot see the actual passenger." This would presumably be the case for (1) security of the machine operator, (2) privacy of the passenger, and (3) diminishing of possible profiling. But it also means that the machine is networked. That's not comforting.
Also unsettling is the prevailing theme that this is the "final stop" with airport security. Far from the final stop, this is a dead end. Furthermore, I cannot even imagine the cost associated with production and maintenance on these scanners. Reliance on these measures will not curtail terrorism. Perhaps one would-be criminal will decide to attack a train rather than a plane. The only measures that will stop terrorism are pro-active ones, not reactive ones. For example, the US government maintains lists with the names of individuals who could or might be persuaded to consort with the country's enemies. When the x-mas day bomber made his failed attempt, the government had been forewarned by this man's own father who had told a Nigerian official about him. A decent proactive measure would have been to make sure to check out the father's claims and place his son on the no-fly list for at least a probationary amount of time. But that did not happen. One excuse is to say there are too many of such lists/databases. And some feel it is too great a cost to cross-reference and/or consolidate them. Would it be more costly than replacing every airport's current metal detectors with full body scanners? Probably not. In fact, the government could outsource the task to Google, a home-grown company. One would think they could come up with a comprehensive database that is easily search-able and user friendly for security personnel.
With all that said, I am willing to keep an open mind about the scanners, but right now I'm not a happy traveler. Mildly political post
