In a poll conducted by the Canadian Press, four out of five Canadians found it reasonable for airports to install body scanners as a new security measure. Of the Canadians polled, three quarters said that the scanners would decrease the chance of a terrorist attack. An article published in The Globe and Mail, said many Canadians believe that airport security should be as strict as it needs to be, only those polled in B.C. during a trial run rejected the idea. The Harper government has announced that 44 three-dimensional scanners will be placed in airports across the country. The three millimetre wave scanners are to detect for explosives [like those sewn to the underpants of the Nigerian man arrested for an attempted attack on Christmas day.] To the operator/security guards the scanner provides detailed images of whoever steps inside. [The operator performs the check from a separate room to maintain privacy]. Travellers 18 and under will not be required to go through the scanners, but they will be subjected to a mandatory pat down. The poll suggests that the scanner is preferred over the pat down. The other quarter of Canadians polled felt uncomfortable with this new idea. The study reveals that women and people aged 65 and older were apprehensive about the scanners.
Controversy looms, as the ability of the scanners to detect deadly weapons is up for debate between security analysts and civil rights advocates. Senior vice-president of Harris-Decima [research firm] says the opinion is split over whether this decision was an overreaction to the failed attack on Christmas day. Harris-Decima surveyed over 1,000 Canadians by phone. The article in which this was published stated this survey has a margin of error of 3.1 per cent, 19 out of 20 times.
Like Lindsay mentions in her blog, this news is important because it affects travellers across Canada. Technology is beginning to shape the way we live our lives. From waking up to an irritating alarm clock, to determining if you pose a risk when you travel, technology is controlling us, and we’re paying for every minute of it. We pay hundreds for iPods, computers, TVs, and cell phones. And now 11 million in tax payer dollars is going towards scanners, and there isn’t even a 100 per cent success rate.
It would be naive to fully support the new scanners. Sure they worked in the trial, but there is no guarantee that they will catch everything. As Lindsay points out, all safety precautions had been tested and yet the machines still weren’t fully effective.
This means that terrorist attacks are still possible. So why are Canadians giving their full support? If we as taxpayers are going to be shelling out that much money, then there should be a 100 per cent safety guarantee, no ifs, ands or buts about it. With these new scanners in place, does that mean they’re taking out metal detectors? Most likely not. Travel time has just increased, and still nobody cares. If everyone supports the scanner than they don’t have a right to complain when they have to arrive 8 hours before their flight takes off. Security is one thing, but this for the most part, is just too much. What is so mind boggling is why the government is willing to spend millions on something that doesn’t have a full guarantee. This money could be used to build shelters for the homeless across the country, it could be used to better deteriorating infrastructure, it could even be used to buy Stephen Harper’s new boat [if the governments happy, the public is happy.. in theory]. No matter what obstacle is thrown in their way, a determined terrorist is going to find away to accomplish what (s)he set out to do. Wasting all this money only gets us exaggerated safety.
Three quarters of Canadians polled said they supported the scanners. Was this before or after they knew their privacy would no longer be theirs? Is no one concerned about this? The scanners don’t just show the body, they show detailed outlines. Every roll, piercing and crack will be exposed. There is nothing [supposedly] you can’t hide from this machine. And who’s to say that the images projected stay with the operators? There is never a for sure guarantee in life, and it’s foolish for people to think that these machines are going to change anything. [You may say that this is nothing but cynicism, but then explain how a terrorist was able to board a plane, and almost blow it up (if it hadn’t been for the man’s father, we’d be mourning the passengers of that flight)]. The only way to fully protect your country is to put a dome over it that has one entrance doubling as an exit. Extreme? You want safety don’t you? That’s pretty much the only way you’re going to get it. But for what it’s worth, these scanners might intimidate the enemy for awhile, or until they discover how to outsmart them.
The above was written based on the work of Lindsay Craggs
