Editorial: Full-body scans costly but strengthen safety

Thankfully Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab’s suspected plan to explode Northwest Flight 253 was… Thankfully Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab’s suspected plan to explode Northwest Flight 253 was foiled — but we must never forget how. It wasn’t the efforts of airport security in Amsterdam, but a misfiring of his on-person explosives that prevented tragedy.

In our post-9/11 world, airport security has grown more stringent. But as shown on that chilling Christmas day, the skies still aren’t safe. Let’s make them safer.

Metal detectors seem an almost archaic tool now as terrorists adopt innovative, non-metal explosives that all too easily slip through security. The answer? Full-cavity strip searches? Well, not yet.

However, full-body scanning technology has excited the Transportation Security Administration’s interest since the Dec. 25 incident. The TSA hopes to instate 150 more full-body scan machines in airports nationwide this year, with an eventual goal of 300 more machines by 2011, according to CNN. Currently, about 40 scanning machines are in use in 19 airports.

The scanners can supposedly detect any object masked by clothing. While foolproof detection can perhaps never be accomplished, human error can enter any scenario — these scanners are more than just expensive new toys for airport security. They’re the most reliable, readily available technology we have right now.

With such revealing scans, privacy issues leave some hesitant to have their more-or-less nude — albeit in the negative — figures searched by airport security.

TSA demonstrations of the scanners position the officer reading the scan in a separate area from the passenger being scanned. It’s also emphasized that passengers’ faces will be blurred out on the screens and that the scans will supposedly not be saved or stored.

They’re costly enough, but these machines are quicker than compulsory pat downs — a measure that’s even been called perfunctory. Security technologist Bruce Schneier told CNN, “Any pat down that you experience that doesn’t embarrass you physically is one that’s not very effective.”

Critics of the scanning machines say money should instead go toward advancing intelligence. But given the red flags and gaffes — warning from the suspect’s father about his extremism, a supposed spot on a terrorist watch list and a then-unrevoked visa — when the Nigerian suspect boarded the plane, our confidence in intelligence alternatives was shaken.

In contrast, the full-body scanners are more concrete terrorism determent devices. Unless the potential terrorist hides an explosive substance in an orifice or fold of skin, the technology appears distinctly accurate.

For as much physical security the machines should provide, their presence would ideally dissuade potential attacks. Americans don’t need a false sense of security — we need both something that should make us feel safer and something that actually does make us safer.