Chiang 1

Ophelia Chiang
Mrs.Gardner
Honors English 10/Period 4
10 May 2016
For Our Safety
Many people dont mind waiting for the whole afternoon to get concert tickets, nor do
they mind lining up in front of Target hours before the Black Friday sales, but they complain
about standing in line for twenty minutes to undergo airport security procedures that are meant
for protecting everyone. Airport security refers to the measures used to protect passengers and
aircraft from harm (ProQuest Staff). Despite airport security being known as the means of
protecting passengers and ensuring their safety, many passengers still find the security
procedures intrusive and unnecessary. The Transportation Security Admission (TSA), an agency
of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security created in response to the 9/11 terrorist attack (ProQuest
Staff), has quite a few regulations that restrict the types, amounts, and weights of the travelers can

and cannot bring on board. All luggages and passengers are also checked by screening
technology, pat-down screenings, and checked baggage screening (Security Screening).
Airport Security Screenings should be accepted because they are absolutely necessary for
increasing the wellbeing and safety of all travelers. These safety procedures are worth the time
spent, they do not damage your body, and they are definitely not an invasion of privacy.
Many may argue that inspection procedures should be shortened to save time, and
screening technology, such as full-body scanners, should be removed to protect their privacy. For
example, a traveler interviewed by the Washington post once voiced his opinion on body
screenings and stated "It's more than just patting you down, and described them as very
intrusive, insane, and that he would not let anyone touch his daughter in such a manner (qtd.

Chiang 2

in Nowak). Additionally, in an article written in the Los Angeles Times, some passengers claim
that these pat-downs searches violate their Fourth Amendment rights (Shut Up and Be
Scanned). Furthermore, Bruce Schneier, a security expert, proposes that in 2004, the average
waiting time of passengers caused by TSA security procedures was 19.5 minutes. The time spent
would eventually pile up to an economical loss of ten billion dollars in the U.S., which is more
than the TSAs entire budget (Schneier). In summary, opposers of intense airport security believe
that the systems and methods used are very intrusive and violate their rights and privacy.
Certainly, many people feel bothered by being required to wait in line for long periods of time,
and they feel uncomfortable with body screenings; however, security procedures and facilities
should be accepted worldwide because they are harmless, respectful, and necessary.
Initially, passengers may argue that screenings violate their Fourth Amendment Rights;
however, airport security procedures are approved by law and are not an invasion of privacy. The
TSA, in fact, legally circumvents the Fourth Amendment. The 9th Circuit Court of the United
States, ruled on the search of passengers in airports back in 1973, which effectively suspends
limited aspects of the Fourth Amendment while undergoing airport security screening. The TSA
has the power to search passengers essentially any way they choose to (Flyingfish). Particularly,
many travelers worry that Full-Body scanners and Advanced Image Technology (AIT) scanners
take very detailed pictures of the travelers body and further invade their privacy by storing
scanned images. However, the TSA confirmed that the scanner does not generate an individual
image but rather overlays the location of objects on a generic image. The scanners are used only
for identifying objects that may be threatening (Vaughan). To add on, travelers have to right to
choose not to be scanned and in replace, request a pat down conducted by an officer of the same
gender and refuse to remove pieces of clothing (Zaffar). As seen in the evidence, airport security

Chiang 3

systems do not, in any way, violate travelers Fourth Amendment rights, nor are the scanners able
to perform functions other than detecting threatening objects. In summation, these safety
inspections are not designed to be intrusive and they are not a violation of personal space and
privacy at all. None of the facilities are used for other purposes, nor are they trying to
intentionally invade individuals.These are merely precautions that protect everyone and ensure
the safety of a large group.
As proposed by Mahadevappa Mahesh, chief physicist and associate professor of
radiology, in the British Medical Journal, a passenger would have to walk through the scanner up
to 2000 times a day to receive the dose of radiation equivalent to that of a medical chest x-ray,
which is also equal to the dose of 3 to 9 minutes of daily living (Accardo). Airport screening
technology, unlike many assume, do very little to no harm to the human body. Additionally,
before the scanners were introduced to airports worldwide, they were tested and experimented on
by reliable institutions and groups such as the Food and Drug Administration's Center for
Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology's (NIST) Office of Law Enforcement Standards (Accardo). Evidence and test results
show that these facilities, opposite of what the many believe and compared to what we are
exposed to in everyday life, are not harmful to us in the slightest. Therefore, this proves that
airport security technology do not affect our health and our body. Physically, there is no reason
for us to be afraid of and oppose these machines.

Indeed, reducing procedures and lowering intensity may lessen the trouble and save
everyone very significant amounts of time. Nonetheless, when one considers the rate at which
crimes, attacks, and accidents that may increase during both onboard and off if airport security
measures are lowered, it is evident that the risks outweigh the benefits. To demonstrate, the TSA

Chiang 4

disclosed the number of firearms found in carry-on luggages in 2014. Results show that a total of
2,653 firearms were found; a shocking 82.8% of the guns found were loaded. Firearms were also
discovered in the rear pocket of a passenger at the San Antonio International Airport during
advanced imaging technology screening. Similarly, other dangerous items such as a fireworks
making kit, fireworks, black powder pellets, live flash bang grenades, propane, a flare gun, seal
deterrent, M-1000 fireworks, over 700 stun guns and live smoke grenades were also discovered
(Cloherty). As the TSA Administrator Peter V. Neffenger once stated in a National Press Release,
the transport of firearms by commercial air in carry-on bags represents a threat to the safety
and security of air travelers(Ziv). Based on the results of research, there have been many
travelers who attempted to bring various weapons and dangerous items on board in their carry-on
luggages, and in some cases, carried on their body, and an overwhelming percentage of the
weapons were loaded, fully capable of hurting other passengers. On average, security procedures
may take up to 20 minutes (Schneier); however, if screening processes were to be shortened or
even removed solely for the sake of saving time for passengers, these easily accessible weapons
would not have been detected and could have caused grave danger and costed the life of many
travelers. Inspecting all passengers with an extra minute of pat downs and screenings may have
very possibly saved countless lives without us knowing.
Everyone should learn to accept all methods of airport security inspections for they are not
a waste of time, nor harmful to our bodies, nor by any means a violation of privacy. Loosening of
security procedures will allow more people, who originally might not have been able to, harm
other travelers. Extreme, but still appropriate, measures that are taken only for the sake of our
safety should not be opposed and misunderstood as violations, but should be embraced accepted.
It is, of course, ones opinion and choice over whether security procedures are intrusive or not,

Chiang 5

are appropriate or not, but ultimately, everything boils down to what people value moretheir
time, their privacy, or their safety.

Works Cited
Accador, Julie M. "Radiation Exposure and Privacy Concerns Surrounding Full-body Scanners
in Airports." ScienceDirect. N.p., 2014. Web. 09 May 2016.
Cloherty, Jack. "TSA Finds Record Number of Firearms in Carry-On Bags."ABC News. ABC
News Network, 23 Jan.2 015. Web. 03 May 2016.
Flyingfish. "How The TSA Legally Circumvents The Fourth Amendment."Flying With Fish.
N.p., 20 Nov. 2010. Web. 04 May 2016.
Kravitz, Derek. "New Searches Too Personal for Some Air Travelers."Washington Post. The
Washington Post, 13 Nov. 2010. Web. 03 May 2016.

Chiang 6

Nowak, Amber. "Flying High, Staying Safe: Privacy Rights!." University Wire. 29 Apr. 2015:
n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 25 Apr. 2016.
ProQuest Staff. "At Issue: Airport Security." ProQuest LLC. 2016: n.pag. SIRS Issues
Researcher. Web. 25 Apr. 2016.
Schneir, Bruce. "Get Serious About Air Security." Privacy Journal. May 2012: 6-7. SIRS Issues
Researcher. Web. 26 Apr. 2016.
"Security Screening." Transportation Security Administration. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2016.
"Shut Up and Be Scanned." Los Angeles Times. 17 Nov. 2010: A.24. SIRS Issues Researcher.
Web. 26 Apr. 2016.
Vaughan, Jill. TSA Advanced Imaging Technology (2015): 4-5. 18 Dec. 2015. Web. 3 May 2016.
Zaffar, Ehsan. "What Are Your Rights at Airport Screenings and Checkpoints?" Elsevier
Connect. N.p., 11 Sept. 2013. Web. 03 May 2016.
Ziv, Stav. "Guns, Knives, Other Items People Tried to Fly With in 2015."Newsweek. N.p., 22 Jan.
2016. Web. 03 May 2016.