Full Body Scanners In Airport Security
Should the Government implement the use of Full Body Scanners in airport security to mitigate terrorist threats?
During the past decade, America has been confronted with a number of terrorist actions that have threatened the security of this country. September 11 2001, was one of the first major tragic events that our country has witnessed. In a series of coordinated terrorist attacks, several members of al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial airliners. Two of the airlines were forced to crash into the World Trade Center in New York City. The third airline was crashed into the Pentagon in Washington DC. The fourth airline crashed in a field in Pennsylvania after some of the passengers and crews attempted to retain control of the plane. There …show more content…
were no survivors on any of the flights and nearly 3000 people died altogether (“September 11 attacks”). Approximately 3 months after the terrorist attacks, Richard Reid, another al-Qaeda member attempted to detonate explosives hidden in his sneakers on an American Airlines flight from Paris, France, to Miami, Florida (“Shoe Bomber”). Fortunately, passengers on board the flight obstructed Reid’s plan, and the plane landed safety in Boston. In August 2006, another terrorist attempt to destroy multiple airliners was uncovered. In this case, a terrorist plot was discovered to detonate liquid explosives carried on board at least 10 airlines travelling from United Kingdom to the United States (U.S.) and Canada (“Airlines”). However, British police intercepted the plan before it could be carried out and, therefore, prevented a fatal disaster. More recently, in December 25 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, attempted to detonate plastic explosives hidden in his underwear while on board a Northwest airlines flight from Amsterdam, Holland to Detroit, Michigan (Shane). Fortunately, his attempt to explode the plane was unsuccessful because crew members and passengers subdued him and extinguish the flames.
The September 11, 2001 attacks were the beginning of heightened airport security and led to the creation of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to handle passengers screening in U.S.
airports (“What is TSA”). These terrorist actions have resulted in unprecedented security measures in airports in the United States and around the world. For example, sharp object such as nail clippers, scissors, and box cutters are now prohibited on board the airliner. Additionally, the shoe bomber attempted attack resulted in the new requirement of all airline passengers having to remove their shoes for inspection before boarding a flight. Furthermore, the liquid bomb explosives attempt led to the banning to all liquids and gels and the adoption of 3-1-1 rule (“Make Your Trip Better Using 3-1-1”). This rule limits carry-on liquids on board the aircraft to be contained in bottles 3.4 ounces or less, stored in a 1 quart-sized bag, and 1 bag per passenger. Finally, the recent underwear bomber attempt has served as the catalyst for the use of the full-body scanners in U.S. airports and around the world. A full-body scanner is a device that creates an image of a person 's nude body through their clothing to look for hidden objects without physically removing their clothes or making physical contact (“Full body scanner”). The widespread implementation of these scanners has evoked a public controversy between the right to privacy, and the need to enforce security to combat terrorist …show more content…
acts. I believe, as do many others, that the security benefits outweigh the invasion of privacy. Therefore, I fully embrace the deployment of full-body scanners in airports.
Opponents of the technology claim that these scanners are being used to perform virtual strip searches that are illegal and violate basic human rights. Privacy groups are enraged because they feel that the use of the scanners would result in the acquisition of “naked photographs” of millions of American air travelers including young children who have done nothing wrong. They also argue that the devices raise serious concerns regarding constitutional protection against unreasonable searches without probable cause. These critics also fear that images of naked passengers may fall into the wrong hands and be distributed over the internet. These fears were realized earlier this year when claims were made that naked body scanner images of Indian film star Shahrukh Khan were printed out and circulated by airport staff at Heathrow in London (“Shah Rukh Khan”). Detractors of the scanners have also objected to the technology on religious grounds. Earlier this year a Muslim woman was barred from a flight from Manchester, England to Pakistan when she refused, based on religious reasons, to go through the full-body scanner at Manchester Airport (“Muslim woman”). Islamic groups worry that use of the scanners is a clear violation of Islamic teachings of modesty that men and women should not be seen naked by other men and women (Sacirbey). Some Jewish and fundamentalist Christian groups have also expressed similar concerns that the scanners violate human dignity and modesty (Sacirbey). Even Pope Benedict XVI has entered the body scan debate, stating that “the primary asset to be safeguarded and treasured is the person, in his or her integrity” (Hooper). He also warned that “it is essential never to lose sight of respect for the primacy of the person” (Hooper). Critics of the scanners have also expressed their worry about radiation produced by the equipment. Despite assurances by government officials that the technology is safe, numerous articles in the press have served to heighten concerns of frequent travelers, airline pilots, and flight crew members who worry about the health risk caused by repeated exposure to radiation (“Airport body scanners”, “Airport Full-Body Scanners Safe”). Some people are fearful that the machines could malfunction and boost the radiation dosage, thereby increasing the risk of cancer (“Airport Full-Body Scanners Safe”). Others believe that more research should be done to determine how the device may affect specific groups of people who could be more sensitive to radiation (“Airport body scanners”).
Despite the uproar over the deployment of full-body scanners, I strongly support their use in safeguarding air travel, even if the machines compromise privacy. And I am not alone. According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, “nearly two-thirds of Americans support the new full-body security-screening machines at the country 's airports, as most say they put higher priority on combating terrorism than protecting personal privacy” (Cohen). Similar polls by USA Today (Frank) and CBS News (“Poll”) have found that a majority of Americans approve of the use of the scanners. Over the past 10 years, airport security has evolved based on our government’s reactions to real terrorist threats. The prohibition of sharp objects, the removal of shoes, and the restriction of liquids are all security measures that have been implemented in response to actual terrorist attempts. Consequently, the implementation of full-body scanners is clearly the next logical counterterrorism step as terrorists get more creative in concealing explosives. A virtual strip search seems a small price to pay for the safety of thousands of lives. People who refuse to go through the scanners due to health risk fears, religious reasons, or privacy protection concerns are subjected to a pat-down procedure that has proven to be even more controversial than the full body-scanner themselves. Not only is the pat-down more time-consuming than a full-body scan, it is more invasive (Hanks), being viewed by many passengers as “groping”, “molestation”, legalized “sexual assault”, and “humiliating” (Barnett). Some airline travelers have expressed outrage at being touched at sensitive areas of the body such as the breasts, genitals, and between the thighs. Given the choice between a 3- to 5-minute pat-down that would significantly increase security lines at the airport and subject passengers to serious humiliation, and a 10-second minimally invasive full-body scan, it would seem that the latter alternative offers a reasonable compromise that provides greater safety to passengers without causing gridlock to the air travel system.
The government has begun to take steps to address concerns of detractors who object to the use of the full-body scanner because they believe it is unsafe and violates passenger privacy.
In particular, the government has published information on the internet to assure the public that the radiation dose from a scanner is so low that it presents an extremely small risk to any individual. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA): (a) in 42 minutes of ordinary living, a person receives more radiation from naturally occurring radioactive sources in the environment than from one full-body scan; (b) a person receives less radiation from one full-body scan than from 2 minutes of airline flight; (c) it would take more than 1000 scans in one year to exceed the annual radiation dose limit for people screening established by the governing radiation safety organizations (“Products for Security”). Furthermore, in response to a letter from several prominent University of California, San Francisco scientists who have expressed concerns about the potential serious health risk of full-body scanners (Sedat), the FDA described in great detail the thorough investigation of the technology performed by several groups of experts in radiation safety issues (McCrohan). The conclusion of this investigation was that “the potential health risks from a full-body screening with a general-use x-ray security system are miniscule” (McCrohan). To address the concerns of travelers and privacy groups
who object to the “naked” images generated by the scanners, the government has requested the manufactures of the machines to deliver software upgrades to show a generic avatar figure instead of the actual image of a passenger’s body (Huges). Regions of the person’s body that need to be checked would be highlighted on the avatar. Moreover, in response to fears that revealing images of passengers’ bodies could be distributed publicly, the TSA requires scanner manufactures to disable the image-saving features of all machines deployed at airports. Specifically, the images are deleted after they are examined and cleared by the security officer (Norman, Rossides). Despite such assurances, critics remain skeptical as a result of recent reports that 100 images of full-body scans taken in a Florida courthouse by U.S. Marshalls were leaked publicly (Johnson). In response to these reports, the TSA has reaffirmed that scanners installed at airports do not save images, although those deployed by some police agencies, such as the U.S. Marshalls may, in fact, do so (Norman). Government officials in London have faced similar skepticism after the Shahrukh Khan alleged incident at Heathrow (“Shah Rukh Khan”). The British Airport Authority (BAA) has strongly denied Khan’s claim that his naked image was printed and circulated by security personnel (Jamieson). According to the BAA, images captured by their equipment could not be stored or distributed in any form.
As long as terrorists continue to threaten the security of our nation and become more innovative in their concealment and design of explosives, there will always be a need for the government to embrace technologies such as full-body scanners. The evolution of airport security is strongly influenced by the novel and creative methods that terrorists have either used or attempted, to destroy airplanes. Failure by the government to adequately address a known method of explosive concealment will certainly have catastrophic consequences. As such, I firmly believe that the security benefits achieved by use of full-body screenings far outweigh the invasion of privacy. Given the choice of boarding an airplane with no passenger screenings, compared to boarding one where all passengers have been screened with a full-body scanner, which one would you board?
Works Cited
“Airlines terror plot disrupted.” BBC News. 10 Aug. 2006. Web. 5 Nov. 2010.
“Airport body scanners ‘could give you cancer’, warns expert.” Daily Mail. 30 June 2010. Web. 11 Nov. 2010.
“Airport Full-Body Scanners Safe, Government Says.” AolHealth. 19 Nov. 2010. Web. 1 Dec. 2010.
Barnett, Jim. “TSA to phase in new pat-down procedures at airports nationwide.” CNN. 28 Oct. 2010. Web. 4 Dec. 2010.
Cohen, Jon and Ashley Halsey III. “Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners at airports.” The Washington Post. 23 Nov. 2010. Web. 1 Dec. 2010.
Frank, Thomas. “Most OK with TSA full-body scanners.” USA Today. 11 Jan. 2010. Web. 1 Dec. 2010.
“Full body scanner.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 2 Nov. 2010. Web. 9 Nov. 2010.
Hanks, Douglas and Rick Stone, Rick. “Full-body scan or full pat-down? For some travelers, the choice is to protest.” The Miami Herald. 24 Nov. 2010. Web. 4 Dec. 2010.
Hooper, John. “Pope enters airport body scanners row,” Guardian. 21 Feb. 2010. Web. 11 Nov. 2010.
Huges, John. “Airport ‘Naked Image’ Scanners May Get Privacy Upgrades.” Bloomberg. 7 Sep. 2010. Web. 6 Dec. 2010.
Jamieson, Alastair. “Airport denies body scanner photo claim by Bollywood star Shahrukh Khan.” The Telegraph. 10 Feb. 2010. Web. 7 Dec. 2010.
Johnson, Joel. “One Hundred Naked Citizens: One Hundred Leaked Body Scans.” Gizmodo. 16 Nov. 2010. Web. 6 Dec. 2010.
“Make Your Trip Better Using 3-1-1.” Transportation Security Administration. n.d. Web, 9 Nov. 2010.
McCrohan, John and Karen Shelton Waters. Letter to Dr. John Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. 12 Oct. 2010. The White House. Web. 6 Dec. 2010.
“Muslim woman refuses body scan at airport.” The Times. 3 Mar. 2010. Web. 9 Nov. 2010.
Norman, Joshua. “Naked Body Scan Images Never Saved, TSA Says.” CBS News. 16 Nov. 2010. Web. 6 Dec. 2010.
“Poll: 3 in 4 Support Airport Body Scans.” CBS News. 11 Jan. 2010. Web. 1 Dec. 2010.
“Products for Security Screening of People.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 24 Nov. 2010. Web. 6 Dec. 2010.
Rossides, Gale. Letter to Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security. 24 Feb. 2010. Electronic Privacy Information Center. Web. 6 Dec. 2010.
Sacirbey, Omar. “Jews, Muslims worry body scanners violate religious laws.” Religion News Service. 3 Mar. 2010, Web. 11 Nov. 2010.
Sedat, John, David Agard, Marc Shuman, and Robert Stroud. Letter to Dr. John Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. 6 Apr. 2010. The White House. Web. 6 Dec. 2010.
“September 11 attacks.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 2 Nov. 2010. Web. 5 Nov. 2010.
“Shah Rukh Khan Claims Naked Body Scanner Images Of Him Were Printed, Circulated By Airport Staff.” The Huffington Post. 12 Apr. 2010. Web. 9 Nov. 2010.
Shane, Scott and Eric Lipton. “Passengers’ Quick Action Halted Attack.” The New York Times. 26 Dec. 2009. Web. 6 Nov. 2010.
“Shoe bomber: Tale of another failed terrorist attack.” CNN. 25 Dec. 2009. Web. 5 Nov. 2010. “What is TSA.” Transportation Security Adminsitration. n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2010.
During the past decade, America has been confronted with a number of terrorist actions that have threatened the security of this country. September 11 2001, was one of the first major tragic events that our country has witnessed. In a series of coordinated terrorist attacks, several members of al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial airliners. Two of the airlines were forced to crash into the World Trade Center in New York City. The third airline was crashed into the Pentagon in Washington DC. The fourth airline crashed in a field in Pennsylvania after some of the passengers and crews attempted to retain control of the plane. There …show more content…
were no survivors on any of the flights and nearly 3000 people died altogether (“September 11 attacks”). Approximately 3 months after the terrorist attacks, Richard Reid, another al-Qaeda member attempted to detonate explosives hidden in his sneakers on an American Airlines flight from Paris, France, to Miami, Florida (“Shoe Bomber”). Fortunately, passengers on board the flight obstructed Reid’s plan, and the plane landed safety in Boston. In August 2006, another terrorist attempt to destroy multiple airliners was uncovered. In this case, a terrorist plot was discovered to detonate liquid explosives carried on board at least 10 airlines travelling from United Kingdom to the United States (U.S.) and Canada (“Airlines”). However, British police intercepted the plan before it could be carried out and, therefore, prevented a fatal disaster. More recently, in December 25 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, attempted to detonate plastic explosives hidden in his underwear while on board a Northwest airlines flight from Amsterdam, Holland to Detroit, Michigan (Shane). Fortunately, his attempt to explode the plane was unsuccessful because crew members and passengers subdued him and extinguish the flames.
The September 11, 2001 attacks were the beginning of heightened airport security and led to the creation of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to handle passengers screening in U.S.
airports (“What is TSA”). These terrorist actions have resulted in unprecedented security measures in airports in the United States and around the world. For example, sharp object such as nail clippers, scissors, and box cutters are now prohibited on board the airliner. Additionally, the shoe bomber attempted attack resulted in the new requirement of all airline passengers having to remove their shoes for inspection before boarding a flight. Furthermore, the liquid bomb explosives attempt led to the banning to all liquids and gels and the adoption of 3-1-1 rule (“Make Your Trip Better Using 3-1-1”). This rule limits carry-on liquids on board the aircraft to be contained in bottles 3.4 ounces or less, stored in a 1 quart-sized bag, and 1 bag per passenger. Finally, the recent underwear bomber attempt has served as the catalyst for the use of the full-body scanners in U.S. airports and around the world. A full-body scanner is a device that creates an image of a person 's nude body through their clothing to look for hidden objects without physically removing their clothes or making physical contact (“Full body scanner”). The widespread implementation of these scanners has evoked a public controversy between the right to privacy, and the need to enforce security to combat terrorist …show more content…
acts. I believe, as do many others, that the security benefits outweigh the invasion of privacy. Therefore, I fully embrace the deployment of full-body scanners in airports.
Opponents of the technology claim that these scanners are being used to perform virtual strip searches that are illegal and violate basic human rights. Privacy groups are enraged because they feel that the use of the scanners would result in the acquisition of “naked photographs” of millions of American air travelers including young children who have done nothing wrong. They also argue that the devices raise serious concerns regarding constitutional protection against unreasonable searches without probable cause. These critics also fear that images of naked passengers may fall into the wrong hands and be distributed over the internet. These fears were realized earlier this year when claims were made that naked body scanner images of Indian film star Shahrukh Khan were printed out and circulated by airport staff at Heathrow in London (“Shah Rukh Khan”). Detractors of the scanners have also objected to the technology on religious grounds. Earlier this year a Muslim woman was barred from a flight from Manchester, England to Pakistan when she refused, based on religious reasons, to go through the full-body scanner at Manchester Airport (“Muslim woman”). Islamic groups worry that use of the scanners is a clear violation of Islamic teachings of modesty that men and women should not be seen naked by other men and women (Sacirbey). Some Jewish and fundamentalist Christian groups have also expressed similar concerns that the scanners violate human dignity and modesty (Sacirbey). Even Pope Benedict XVI has entered the body scan debate, stating that “the primary asset to be safeguarded and treasured is the person, in his or her integrity” (Hooper). He also warned that “it is essential never to lose sight of respect for the primacy of the person” (Hooper). Critics of the scanners have also expressed their worry about radiation produced by the equipment. Despite assurances by government officials that the technology is safe, numerous articles in the press have served to heighten concerns of frequent travelers, airline pilots, and flight crew members who worry about the health risk caused by repeated exposure to radiation (“Airport body scanners”, “Airport Full-Body Scanners Safe”). Some people are fearful that the machines could malfunction and boost the radiation dosage, thereby increasing the risk of cancer (“Airport Full-Body Scanners Safe”). Others believe that more research should be done to determine how the device may affect specific groups of people who could be more sensitive to radiation (“Airport body scanners”).
Despite the uproar over the deployment of full-body scanners, I strongly support their use in safeguarding air travel, even if the machines compromise privacy. And I am not alone. According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, “nearly two-thirds of Americans support the new full-body security-screening machines at the country 's airports, as most say they put higher priority on combating terrorism than protecting personal privacy” (Cohen). Similar polls by USA Today (Frank) and CBS News (“Poll”) have found that a majority of Americans approve of the use of the scanners. Over the past 10 years, airport security has evolved based on our government’s reactions to real terrorist threats. The prohibition of sharp objects, the removal of shoes, and the restriction of liquids are all security measures that have been implemented in response to actual terrorist attempts. Consequently, the implementation of full-body scanners is clearly the next logical counterterrorism step as terrorists get more creative in concealing explosives. A virtual strip search seems a small price to pay for the safety of thousands of lives. People who refuse to go through the scanners due to health risk fears, religious reasons, or privacy protection concerns are subjected to a pat-down procedure that has proven to be even more controversial than the full body-scanner themselves. Not only is the pat-down more time-consuming than a full-body scan, it is more invasive (Hanks), being viewed by many passengers as “groping”, “molestation”, legalized “sexual assault”, and “humiliating” (Barnett). Some airline travelers have expressed outrage at being touched at sensitive areas of the body such as the breasts, genitals, and between the thighs. Given the choice between a 3- to 5-minute pat-down that would significantly increase security lines at the airport and subject passengers to serious humiliation, and a 10-second minimally invasive full-body scan, it would seem that the latter alternative offers a reasonable compromise that provides greater safety to passengers without causing gridlock to the air travel system.
The government has begun to take steps to address concerns of detractors who object to the use of the full-body scanner because they believe it is unsafe and violates passenger privacy.
In particular, the government has published information on the internet to assure the public that the radiation dose from a scanner is so low that it presents an extremely small risk to any individual. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA): (a) in 42 minutes of ordinary living, a person receives more radiation from naturally occurring radioactive sources in the environment than from one full-body scan; (b) a person receives less radiation from one full-body scan than from 2 minutes of airline flight; (c) it would take more than 1000 scans in one year to exceed the annual radiation dose limit for people screening established by the governing radiation safety organizations (“Products for Security”). Furthermore, in response to a letter from several prominent University of California, San Francisco scientists who have expressed concerns about the potential serious health risk of full-body scanners (Sedat), the FDA described in great detail the thorough investigation of the technology performed by several groups of experts in radiation safety issues (McCrohan). The conclusion of this investigation was that “the potential health risks from a full-body screening with a general-use x-ray security system are miniscule” (McCrohan). To address the concerns of travelers and privacy groups
who object to the “naked” images generated by the scanners, the government has requested the manufactures of the machines to deliver software upgrades to show a generic avatar figure instead of the actual image of a passenger’s body (Huges). Regions of the person’s body that need to be checked would be highlighted on the avatar. Moreover, in response to fears that revealing images of passengers’ bodies could be distributed publicly, the TSA requires scanner manufactures to disable the image-saving features of all machines deployed at airports. Specifically, the images are deleted after they are examined and cleared by the security officer (Norman, Rossides). Despite such assurances, critics remain skeptical as a result of recent reports that 100 images of full-body scans taken in a Florida courthouse by U.S. Marshalls were leaked publicly (Johnson). In response to these reports, the TSA has reaffirmed that scanners installed at airports do not save images, although those deployed by some police agencies, such as the U.S. Marshalls may, in fact, do so (Norman). Government officials in London have faced similar skepticism after the Shahrukh Khan alleged incident at Heathrow (“Shah Rukh Khan”). The British Airport Authority (BAA) has strongly denied Khan’s claim that his naked image was printed and circulated by security personnel (Jamieson). According to the BAA, images captured by their equipment could not be stored or distributed in any form.
As long as terrorists continue to threaten the security of our nation and become more innovative in their concealment and design of explosives, there will always be a need for the government to embrace technologies such as full-body scanners. The evolution of airport security is strongly influenced by the novel and creative methods that terrorists have either used or attempted, to destroy airplanes. Failure by the government to adequately address a known method of explosive concealment will certainly have catastrophic consequences. As such, I firmly believe that the security benefits achieved by use of full-body screenings far outweigh the invasion of privacy. Given the choice of boarding an airplane with no passenger screenings, compared to boarding one where all passengers have been screened with a full-body scanner, which one would you board?
Works Cited
“Airlines terror plot disrupted.” BBC News. 10 Aug. 2006. Web. 5 Nov. 2010.
“Airport body scanners ‘could give you cancer’, warns expert.” Daily Mail. 30 June 2010. Web. 11 Nov. 2010.
“Airport Full-Body Scanners Safe, Government Says.” AolHealth. 19 Nov. 2010. Web. 1 Dec. 2010.
Barnett, Jim. “TSA to phase in new pat-down procedures at airports nationwide.” CNN. 28 Oct. 2010. Web. 4 Dec. 2010.
Cohen, Jon and Ashley Halsey III. “Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners at airports.” The Washington Post. 23 Nov. 2010. Web. 1 Dec. 2010.
Frank, Thomas. “Most OK with TSA full-body scanners.” USA Today. 11 Jan. 2010. Web. 1 Dec. 2010.
“Full body scanner.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 2 Nov. 2010. Web. 9 Nov. 2010.
Hanks, Douglas and Rick Stone, Rick. “Full-body scan or full pat-down? For some travelers, the choice is to protest.” The Miami Herald. 24 Nov. 2010. Web. 4 Dec. 2010.
Hooper, John. “Pope enters airport body scanners row,” Guardian. 21 Feb. 2010. Web. 11 Nov. 2010.
Huges, John. “Airport ‘Naked Image’ Scanners May Get Privacy Upgrades.” Bloomberg. 7 Sep. 2010. Web. 6 Dec. 2010.
Jamieson, Alastair. “Airport denies body scanner photo claim by Bollywood star Shahrukh Khan.” The Telegraph. 10 Feb. 2010. Web. 7 Dec. 2010.
Johnson, Joel. “One Hundred Naked Citizens: One Hundred Leaked Body Scans.” Gizmodo. 16 Nov. 2010. Web. 6 Dec. 2010.
“Make Your Trip Better Using 3-1-1.” Transportation Security Administration. n.d. Web, 9 Nov. 2010.
McCrohan, John and Karen Shelton Waters. Letter to Dr. John Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. 12 Oct. 2010. The White House. Web. 6 Dec. 2010.
“Muslim woman refuses body scan at airport.” The Times. 3 Mar. 2010. Web. 9 Nov. 2010.
Norman, Joshua. “Naked Body Scan Images Never Saved, TSA Says.” CBS News. 16 Nov. 2010. Web. 6 Dec. 2010.
“Poll: 3 in 4 Support Airport Body Scans.” CBS News. 11 Jan. 2010. Web. 1 Dec. 2010.
“Products for Security Screening of People.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 24 Nov. 2010. Web. 6 Dec. 2010.
Rossides, Gale. Letter to Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security. 24 Feb. 2010. Electronic Privacy Information Center. Web. 6 Dec. 2010.
Sacirbey, Omar. “Jews, Muslims worry body scanners violate religious laws.” Religion News Service. 3 Mar. 2010, Web. 11 Nov. 2010.
Sedat, John, David Agard, Marc Shuman, and Robert Stroud. Letter to Dr. John Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. 6 Apr. 2010. The White House. Web. 6 Dec. 2010.
“September 11 attacks.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 2 Nov. 2010. Web. 5 Nov. 2010.
“Shah Rukh Khan Claims Naked Body Scanner Images Of Him Were Printed, Circulated By Airport Staff.” The Huffington Post. 12 Apr. 2010. Web. 9 Nov. 2010.
Shane, Scott and Eric Lipton. “Passengers’ Quick Action Halted Attack.” The New York Times. 26 Dec. 2009. Web. 6 Nov. 2010.
“Shoe bomber: Tale of another failed terrorist attack.” CNN. 25 Dec. 2009. Web. 5 Nov. 2010. “What is TSA.” Transportation Security Adminsitration. n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2010.