Safety Vs Privacy Research Paper

Safety vs. Privacy? Why the change? Before the attack of the twin towers on September 11, 2001 the security in airports wasn’t as strict. Now, in airports all throughout the world have been installing new scanners to vamp up the security procedures. These scanners are similar to x-ray machines; they just go through the clothes to show what is underneath someone’s clothes. Jeffery Rosen and Connie Shultz both present decent arguments on the full body scanner issue in their articles by using the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) regulations, privacy issues, security and the way they present their articles. Jeffery Rosen, a professor at George Washington University Law School, comments regularly on legal affairs and has a few books on issues such as privacy and the courts. In his article, “Nude Awakening,” Rosen wants to inform everyone that does travel through the United States of the issues that go hand in hand with these new scanners. He completely disagrees with the decision to use this specific type of scanner. In his opinion the machine are wastes of money, and does not
believe a false sense of security is more important than the privacy of United States citizens and everyone else whom chooses to fly within the United States.
Connie Shultz is a credible source seeing as she has won the Pulitzer Prize in 2005, as well as being the author to a number of columns.
In her article, “New Airport Policy: Grin and Bare It,” she criticizes the people who don’t agree, but her main purpose is to persuade the travelers that there is nothing wrong with the scanners. Unlike Rosen, Shultz is completely for the use of these scanners in airports. She sees no reason why the United States citizens should have an issue with these scanners, being that these specific scanners are the governments choice, when the citizens trust the government with so much else; such as licenses, seat belts, traffic laws, and assuming other drivers on the road passed the same drivers test by the government. Shultz believes that everyone that says they don’t trust the government needs to either suck it up, or just don’t use the
scanners. Shultz, who is all for the use of the machines, goes on to explain that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has regulations for the airports to follow while using these full body scanners. The most important regulations she provides is that the machines do not show anyone’s face. The faces are blurred out, and the rest of the image is “cartoonish,” so that no one could be tempted to use these pictures once the people have passed through the scanners (233). Not only are the faces blurred and the pictures like a cartoon, these pictures are supposed to be deleted as soon as someone is cleared. However Rosen states that “[b]ecause no regulations prohibit the TSA from storing images, the House (but not the Senate) voted last year to ban the use of body scanning machines for primary screening and to prohibit images from being stored” (229). This vote apparently didn’t work seeing as only the House of Representatives voted. No one really knows if the TSA is telling the truth when they told vendors that the scanners only save when in ‘test’ mode, or when telling CNN that ‘test’ mode cannot be activated while the scanner is in use at the airports. The saving of these pictures leads us into the TSA’s most important regulation of all: no electronics allowed in the room where the pictures are being screened for illegal or dangerous products. “. . . the person scanning the picture is not allowed to bring a cell phone or camera into the room” (Shultz 233). This is a very important TSA regulation because it does prohibit the person screening the images from taking a picture of someone they think is attractive, or perhaps something they find funny and would like to share. If somehow one of the screeners managed to get a phone or camera into the screening room, it could potentially because a privacy issue. Privacy concerns are the biggest issue with the full body scanners, in Rosen’s opinion. He explains that while the TSA only burrs the face of the people being scanned, their dignity is in jeopardy. For example, there are fourteen countries that forbid men from even just glancing at a person of the opposite sex, unless they are only showing their eyes. These men will be forced to do what is considered wrong in their country all because the world wants to vamp up security procedures. Rosen also goes on to say that “ . . . a year after the Supreme Court declared, 8-1, that strip searches in schools are unreasonable without some suspicion of danger or wrong doing, virtual strip searches will soon be routine for many randomly selected travelers at airports, rather than reserved for secondary screening of suspicious individuals” (Rosen 229). With this, Rosen is expressing his opinion that the strip searches and the virtual strip search are essentially the same thing. He feels that if strip searches areto be reserved for those who are suspicious, then virtual strip searches should also be reserved for the suspicious. When everyone is being virtually strip searched, their privacy is being invaded. Not only is their privacy being invaded, but there is a risk with the security regarding the full body scanners.
The main security issue, in regards to the use of these scanners, is the possibility of the pictures being screend getting leaked. When it comes to celebrities traveling through airports that use these specific scanners, the person in the screening room may be tempted to take a picture of the celebrity and sell it, or show it off to other people. Shultz counters saying that there are no cameras or cell phones allowed in the screening room, but Rosen’s thought that there are no TSA officials to enforce the rules wins in this specific area of the scanner issue. There is no proof that TSA officials are at airports enforcing the rules at all times. Shultz uses the Christmas day bombing attempt as her main argument. “More importantly, on Christmas Day we allegedly came close to a would-be-terrorist named Umar Karouk Abdulmatallab using plastic explosives sewn into his underwear to blow up a commercial flight headed for America. As I wrote last summer, anyone wearing this accessory probably would not make it through a full-body scanner” (233). With this being her main argument, she should have made better choice in words. In a main argument to persuade someone to believe as you do, ‘probably’ is not a word that will make the reader completely agree with the argument. Rosen refers to a security expert’s, Bruce Schneir, opinion. Schneir says that the full-body scanners would not have stopped Abdulmatallab: “Despite the over-hyped claims to the contrary, they simply can’t detect low-density materials hidden under clothing, such as liquid, powder, or thin plastics” (228). With this being said, Rosen is trying to convince his audience that if the full-body scanners can’t pick up on things like that under clothing, that there is no point in having them at all; they’re a waste of money. Shultz and Rosen both make good arguments, but it all comes down to the way they convey their argument. Shultz only has one main argument, the Christmas Day bombing attempt, but she isn’t really convincing anyone to believer her side of the argument with poor word choice and using words like ‘probably’ in the main quote of the argument. The rest of her article is talking about the opposing side with a humorous tone, for example: her conclusion. In the conclusion she is making fun of the people who say that the citizens of the United States cannot trust the government, but these citizens trust the government themselves when it comes to driving. This would be better at the beginning of her article to catch the audience’s attention. Rosen presents a good argument, talking about his side and the opposing side. He uses an anecdote in the beginning to catch his audience’s attention, which is very effective. However, he gives an example on page 230 about Erroll Southers not being fit for head of the TSA, even though he was never accepted as the head of the association. In the end of his article he provides an extremely strong conclusion, talking about Obamas choice between blob machines or naked machines. All in all, Rosen and Shultz both offer good articles, arguing their sides using TSA regulations, privacy issues, security and the that they present their side of the full body scanner issue. That being said, even though they both offer good arguments, both authers do have downfalls in their articles. For Shultz, it’s her humor and main argument. For Rosen, it’s the useless fact about Erroll Southers just thrown in there. I do believe that both authors feel strongly about their beliefs on this issue, but I personally don’t agree with either of them. Shultz didn’t convince me enough to agree with her side, and Rosen’s article is useless. Everything nowadays is in the open; there is no privacy. Even if we think something we have is private, it’s not. Works Cited
Atwan, Robert, ed. American Now: Short Readings from Recent Periodicals 9th ed. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s, 2011. Print.
Rosen, Jeffery. “Nude Awakening.” Atwan 227-231.
Shultz, Connie. “New Airport Policey: Grin and Bare it.” Atwan 323-235.