By Lee Cole
In the coming weeks, many Americans will to take to the skies in that mass exodus of weary travelers that occurs every December and inundates our airports with droves of tired, anxious and impatient people. This year, however, travelers will have a very different experience as they proceed through the already stringent airport security. For the first time, some holiday travelers will be selected to either pass through a machine which scans the body using imaging technology and supposedly reveals hidden weapons beneath clothing, or opt-out of that and submit to a pat-down.
The Transportation Security Administration has come under fire lately by those who claim that the new procedures are excessive and possibly dangerous or illegal. The general response from supporters of the security measures is that, though they are uncomfortable, they are necessary to prevent terrorism. We must ask, then, if the cost outweighs the benefit and if these procedures amount to some moral or legal transgression. Does our Fourth Amendment right, protecting us against unreasonable search and seizure, include the right not to be groped by strangers before a flight or have scanners look through our clothing? When it’s put this way, the question answers itself.
The backscatter technology used in the airport scanners can produce incredibly lifelike images of the body, which are viewed by total strangers. What’s more, there is little to prevent a TSA employee from sharing these images with coworkers or disseminating them on the Internet. The pat-down option is no more appealing and a number of travelers, including the now-famous “Don’t touch my junk” guy, John Tyner, feel that the pat-downs may constitute assault in some cases.
The issue at hand, I feel, is really rather simple: People don’t like to be touched or digitally strip-searched by strangers. It’s humiliating and annoying, not to mention that it wastes valuable time. Just ask Thomas Sawyer, a bladder cancer survivor who was left covered in urine after an aggressive pat-down that broke the seal on his urostomy bag, or Cathy Bossi, a breast cancer survivor who was forced to show a TSA official her prosthetic breast. And what of sexual assault survivors? How should they be expected to react to invasive touching? For these people, the newly adopted procedures are more than just embarrassing or inconvenient – they could be emotionally damaging.
Aside from all this, the security measures are probably needless. The likelihood of being subject to an attempted act of terrorism on a flight is much lower than the likelihood of being struck by lightning, yet somehow we’ve convinced ourselves that the $150,000 cost per scanner is necessary. The solution for this whole mess is not more invasive searches for the average citizen, but rather targeted searches for those on watch lists and those whose affiliations would make them more likely to commit an act of violence against America.
The only way to ensure that our Fourth Amendment rights are not infringed upon is to continue to voice disapproval for the new procedures, whether by formal complaint or in casual conversation. And so, this holiday season, as we come together to be with family and friends, let us remember the valiant John Tyner and the Christmas wish shared by so many: that strangers stay away from our collective junk.
