Oh, and there’s that pesky little issue of the Constitution as well that doesn’t seem to register. Perhaps she’s fine with scrapping privacy for security theater that would not have caught the underwear bomber (nor did it detect 2 12″ razor blades, according to Adam Savage) but many Americans do find this disturbing. Outside of the TSA, experts are not convinced the TSA screening policies provide to stop an attack. This is about the worst article in the Post since Steve Pearlstein praised BP’s cleanup effort.
Grow up and accept any intrusion or humiliation because only children complain about rights? Really?
The uproar over the new procedures is overblown and immature. The marginal invasion of privacy is small relative to the potential benefit of averting a terrorist attack. Meanwhile, some of the loudest howls of outrage emanate from those who would be quickest to blame the Obama administration for not doing enough to protect us if a bomber did slip through.
Granted, the images from the souped-up screeners are uncomfortably graphic. But where is the harm if some guy in another room, who doesn’t have a clue who I am and doesn’t see my face (it’s obscured on the machine), gets a look at my flabby middle-aged self? The images are automatically deleted once the screening is completed. It’s the old philosophical riddle: If your butt sags in the forest . . .
By contrast, the pat-down is actually intrusive, no question about it. But you most likely won’t have to endure it unless you balk at the enhanced imaging. If you do, the pat-down will be conducted by a screener of the same gender. If you want, it can be done in a private area.
