<link>

Suppose they flag you for extra screening. Would you take the pat-down or the scanner?

I'd take the scan. The pat-down is public and invasive. The scan shows your body to one person, temporarily, but that's OK if nobody knows the body is yours. The ACLU's standard of privacy (no nudity) can't be reconciled with security in the age of terrorism, but a different standard of privacy -- no enduring identification of the nude person -- can be met. It's not great, but it's good enough in my book.

Next question: What happens if somebody figures out how to read back the raw scan from the blurred version, like that untwirling of the pedophile's image (<link>)?

Having been flagged for extra screening numerous times (apparently, I trigger some algorithm somewhere), I'd probably still go with the pat-down. The pat-down has never struck me as particularly invasive.

I'd opt for the nude scanner if there were some compelling reason to do so, such a bypassing the regular security line or not having to remove shoes, belts, wallets, coats, etc.

That's an interesting idea we should add to the mix. How many of you would take the scan as a routine matter if it spared you the shoe and belt removal?

It would not be difficult to guarantee that the face could not be reconstructed. If nothing else, just replace it with a black oval.

Saletan:

That's an interesting idea we should add to the mix. How many of you would take the scan as a routine matter if it spared you the shoe and belt removal?

I think a further modification of this question would (should?) be what level of interaction between security, risk, privacy, and inconvenience is acceptable to you, personally? Additionally, do you feel that security should be mandated from on high, or a dialogue between all parties with give and take involved?

I think either one is intrusive, but I'd much sooner go for the pat-down in full view of everyone in line. I really don't care who gets to see me in my altogether, but if I'm to be searched, then I want witnesses.

Why? For a short time every time I flew out of DFW, the same person took me aside for a search. She insisted on the full pat-down and took a little too much time "checking" the underwires on my bra. After about the fourth time, one of the other screeners was giving her odd looks, and I muttered to him that if I had to go through that again, I wanted dinner first.

I never saw her again.

I would take the Pat-down in a heartbeat. At least I'd be aware of of 'abuse' then. I have this vision of a bunch of people in an enclosed room critiquing every 'anonymous' body image that comes through. Thanks but no thanks.

At least with a pat-down I'd be able to defend myself and, I think, abuse (comments, a little too close touching, etc) would be less likely to happen, or happen less often. It's funny how things change when people have to look you in the face.

On how high a percentage of things the screeners missed like weapons and explosives. Meanwhile little old ladies are being forced to throw out their foundation at the screening places in the name of "security" and "safety".

People should just realize that all the security precautions are all just a big dog and pony show that the FAA and gov't are trying to sell us in order to 1) make us increasingly compliant in giving up personal freedoms and 2) give the public a false sense of security. And then everyone acts all shocked when they find out that it doesn't work...

I don't have an alternative, but we should be aware of this when we decide to go along with these policies.

"I have this vision of a bunch of people in an enclosed room critiquing every 'anonymous' body image that comes through."

Man, you have a pretty high opinion of yourself! Do you really think a board, underpaid security guard who has to scan hundereds upon hundereds of body scans really cares about your large thighs?

what's the deal with the x-rays on these things? if i were a frequent flyer, i think i'd take the pat-down. how many scans before you get cancer? however, i'm not a frequent flyer. ever a three-times-a-year flyer at best, now i won't fly at all. i find the out-of-control level of security measures at airports post 9/11 unacceptable. if we have to wait three hours on a line to be scanned, prodded, and interrogated, then the terrorists have won because flying has been eliminated as a viable travel option.

I'm a frequent flier. Most days I'd take the pat-down, but when my schedule is really tight, I'd take the scan. Not having to remove my belt, shoes, jewelry etc. would be fantastic.

So first they make life difficult by making us remove more and more items of clothing, so in the end we are actually happy to let them see us naked as long as we don't have to take anything off? What's next? Since they can already see us naked, they might as well... (fill in the blank with your own vision of the future). The fact is, once they take a step into invading your privacy, there's no going back, or do you think that one day "when this is all over" we'll go back to the way things were?

I am myself a frequent traveller in Europe and wonder why at every airport I go to, there are different security standards - sometimes even in different lines at the same security check at the same airport (the line next to me had to take off their shoes, ours didn't - lucky me). If my watch causes the metal detector to go off at one airport, but not at another, I guess it's because they are using different settings on their machines, but what does that say about the overall security of flying? Are we safer now that the main task of the security staff is to remove our bottles of coke from our hand luggage?

Will we be safer if the security staff can see us naked?