Return to CreateDebate.comnocompromise • Join this debate community

8th grade Amendment debates


Debate Info

47
61
Yes they should be allowed No, they should not
Debate Score:108
Arguments:80
Total Votes:131
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes they should be allowed (40)
 
 No, they should not (39)

Debate Creator

Chaddwick(126) pic



8e: 4th Amendment Unlawful Search and Seizures

4th Amendment-Unlawful Searches & Seizures:

       Question:  “Should the TSA be permitted to use ‘advanced imaging technology’ to peer under passengers’ clothing in search of dangerous items?”

Yes they should be allowed

Side Score: 47
VS.

No, they should not

Side Score: 61
1 point

Our first statement is that full-body imaging machines that see through clothes have significantly improved security in airports where they are deployed, and have revealed more than 60 "artfully concealed" illegal or prohibited items in the past year; creating a safer environment for everyone.

Meserve, Jeanne. "Full-body Scanners Improve Security, TSA Says." CNN. Cable News Network, 02 Apr. 2010. Web. 30 May 2015.

Side: Yes they should be allowed
zein(8) Disputed
4 points

Using full body scanner program saying that it is "unlawful, invasive, and ineffective."

The federal agency has violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Fourth Amendmen. "the TSA has acted outside of its regulatory authority and with profound disregard for the statutory and constitutional rights of air travelers." The new passenger screening program was unlawful, invasive, and ineffective

Side: No, they should not
Mare(15) Disputed
1 point

To contradict your statement about privacy violation, what would you prefer? To submit to a backscatter X-ray or a pat-down, or to be vaporised by a bomb at 36,000 feet? The Shoe Bomber and the Flaming Underwear incidents serve as proof that as terrorists’ tactics change and evolve, so should we. (Jeff Courson, Lakewood)

Side: Yes they should be allowed
keelyperkin(14) Disputed
0 points

I understand that these machine assure us of being much safer, yet why are americans dying from because of the amount of radiation that these machines are giving off? Are these machines really safe then?

Side: No, they should not
alia1(17) Disputed
2 points

Actually a passenger would have to pass through a backscatter scanner 1000–2000 times to equal the dose from a medical chest X-ray (Mahesh, 2010). Advanced imaging technology is safe and meets national health and safety standards. In fact, the energy emitted by millimeter wave technology is 1000 times less than the international limits and guidelines. However, Homeland Security officials say that the x-ray imaging technology is safe and estimated that the radiation dosage individuals receives from the advanced-imaging machines is less than the level that passengers get while flying on an airplane or from naturally occurring background radiation levels.

http://iacis.org/iis/2013/170iis2013_47-53.pdf

Side: Yes they should be allowed
Gulsen(13) Disputed
1 point

In this medical report, a group of physics experts have found that they deliver less radiation than you would absorb if you were sitting in a park. So radiation is not something to worry about.

Even the title of the document is "Airport Body Scanner Radiation Barely A Thing To Worry About:

Supporting Evidence: Airport Body Scanner Radiation Barely A Thing To Worry About (www.medicaldaily.com)
Side: Yes they should be allowed
Gulsen(13) Disputed
1 point

Can you show me evidence that americans are dying from the radiation they get from body scanners? How can anyone be sure that they are from the body scanners? There are a million ways people can die from radiation, and it must be in extreme amounts to make a difference.

Side: Yes they should be allowed
1 point

To argue our 2nd statement; before the TSA scanners were implied, on December 25th, 2009, a man smuggled a bomb in his underwear aboard a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam towards Detroit, planning to set off the bomb in the plane. The bomber, AbdulMutallab, had sewn plastic explosives to his underwear, knowing that airport security would not find it. If it weren’t for the coincidence of AbdulMutallab plan failing, he would have bombed the Northwest Airlines flight. With incident as such, TSA scanning machines are an asset to ensure passengers safety and to make sure that such incidents are prevented.

Ariosto, David, and Deborah Feyerick. "Christmas Day Bomber Sentenced to Life in Prison - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, 17 Feb. 2012. Web. 25 May 2015.

Side: Yes they should be allowed
keelyperkin(14) Disputed
1 point

Alright, but that doesn't mean that we have to use these harmful machines to find a bomb.

Even a machine that could see our body but not our actual body parts could do the trick. Why do these images have to be so graphic??

Side: No, they should not
zein(8) Disputed
1 point

These machines are currently located in 65 airports and the TSA is planning to push the total numbers of machines to 1000. These scanners are in most airports in the USA but still planes get bombed and people smuggle illegal items into planes daily which proves than you are violating our privacy, harming us and starting disputes between TSA and the people for nothing

Side: No, they should not
zein(8) Disputed
0 points

NOV 18, 2010 @ 6:30 AM

The scanners send X-ray beams to the subject which barely penetrate the clothing and show any hidden items on the passenger. The background of the images are usually black so if you are hiding a gun or a small knife on you but it is attached to the side of the body it most likely will not be found. Basically you are invading our privacy and reflecting dangerous and cancerous X-ray beams on us to find weapons or illegal items that can very easily not be found. Not only are these machines a danger to our bodies but they are also an invasion of privacy. The TSA even admitted that these pictures can be stored, printed, recorded and exported but they say that it is only used for testing, training and evaluation.

Side: No, they should not
1 point

Would you rather risk being blown up on a plane with children, women and men or would you allow a person of the same sex to professionally scan your body. They are not only doing it to you, they are doing it to everyone else. The reason it was created it because it is much more thorough and efficient than other scanners. When does your privacy become more important than your safety?

Side: Yes they should be allowed
zein(8) Disputed
3 points

If they were not the government this would be counted as sexual abuse. On the US law it sates that sexual abuse is “Touching or grabbing of a sexual nature” which is what TSA is doing during a pat down and the scanners is a violation of privacy“The right of individuals to be protected against unwarranted invasion of their privacy resulting from the collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of personal information” which means that you are not allowed to collect any personal information from a person without them being aware which exactly what the TSA is doing it is collecting personal pictures of you though the scanners.

Side: No, they should not
1 point

On another point, how are you willing to allow a same-sex security worker to pat you up and down and feel you up, but not to to stand in front of an x-ray and let it take a picture of you, then instantly delete it.

Side: Yes they should be allowed
keelyperkin(14) Disputed
2 points

Hmm. Okay well, these images are not being deleted we have no physical proof that these images are being deleted. My source states that Florida actually admitted to storing these photos of us body naked. How nice. Also, you are able to choose which gender of a person can pat you down and feel you up. These X-rays are in fact harmful maybe not to those who only fly a bit, but do you even think about the pilots and cabin crew who are always flying? The amount of radiation doses that the crew adds up and in fact makes these machines harmful.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a6353/the-truth-about-tsa-airport-scanning/

Side: No, they should not
Louis-Friend(4) Disputed
1 point

That is actually in fact, a false statement about "instantly deleting the pictures."

I have an article which has the federals admitting that they have kept over tens of thousands of the pictures. There are also pictures of citizens who have been robbed of their rights and lied to as evidence.

- http://www.cnet.com/news/feds-admit-storing-checkpoint-body-scan- images/

Side: No, they should not
1 point

Our third statement is TSA scanning has fixed many privacy issues that passengers have been concerned about. For example a generic outline of the human body (same for both males and females) appears on the computer screen. Radiation is also not a big concern either because X-rays used for medical imaging penetrate through the body whereas X-rays used in airport full body scanners have minimal interaction at the surface of the skin (Mehta & Smith-Bindman, 2011). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687850714000168

Even so if you are very worried about going through the full body scanners you do have the option to have a pat down.

http://www.tsa.gov/ait-frequently-asked-questions

Side: Yes they should be allowed
keelyperkin(14) Disputed
1 point

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) promised to make an effort to try and make these images less graphic, unfortunately nothing has changed and these images remain to show very graphic images of our bodies. So why would they not even try to make these less graphic? I mean, if they made these images not so graphic they would still be able to recognise the weapons that are hidden throughout our bodies. The amount of body parts that are visible is just inappropriate. Again, why do these images have to be so graphic?

Side: No, they should not
Mare(15) Disputed
1 point

Again, in response to the claim that full body scanners violate privacy; most airport full body scanners have the necessary privacy protection to keep a violation from happening. Besides the fact that passengers faces are obscured, if, in any circumstances, the scanners do happen to violate someone's privacy in any way, compared to human lives, privacy should not be the main priority. Besides, a passenger does have the right to opt out of the use of a full body scanner, however, that passenger will have a pat-down done instead.

Both scanning technologies penetrate through clothes to detect hidden weapons, tools, liquids, narcotics, bombs, currency, and other contraband. Both systems are mainly been implied to defeat the efforts of some knife-wielding would-be hijackers of bomb-laden terrorists, therefore to prevent events such as the Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771 from happening. Ask yourself, does the fact that people are 'able' to see under your clothing value more than the fact that these scans prevent bombers and/or terrorists from coming onto your next flight?

"Why Is Airport Full Body Scanners So Necessary?" Why Is Airport Full Body Scanners So Necessary. Eastimage, 9 May 2014. Web. 30 May 2015.

Side: Yes they should be allowed
1 point

Our fourth point states that experts say full-body scanners are much more effective than the metal detectors commonly in use at airports, which have no capacity to detect explosives. And they say a lot of the privacy issues have been solved.The scan itself takes less than 10 seconds and produces an image that looks similar to a charcoal outline.The system is configured with privacy software that blurs the passenger's face. At airports where similar scanners are in use, the people who view the images are in a separate room, away from the passengers, so they don't know who they're looking at.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122289282

Side: Yes they should be allowed
1 point

Events as such support why TSA scans should be implied:

1) In 2004, when they had no body scans; 2 suicide terrorists boarded planes containing bombs in their underclothes. There were approximately 134 people killed between the 2 terrorist attacks. To prevent terrorism attacks or any other form of bombing, the TSA has implied scans, merely to prevent incidents as such for happening again.

2) Again, before the TSA scanners were implied, on December 25th, 2009, a man smuggled a bomb in his underwear aboard a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam towards Detroit, planning to set off the bomb in the plane. The bomber, AbdulMutallab, had sewn plastic explosives to his underwear, knowing that airport security would not find it. If it weren’t for the coincidence of AbdulMutallab plan failing, he would have bombed the Northwest Airlines flight. With incident as such, TSA scanning machines are an asset to ensure passengers safety and to make sure that such incidents are prevented.

If you'd like to find more reasons to support this argument or to prove yourself wrong:

- Ariosto, David, and Deborah Feyerick. "Christmas Day Bomber Sentenced to Life in Prison - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, 17 Feb. 2012. Web. 25 May 2015.

Side: Yes they should be allowed
1 point

I understand that there are risks on airplanes. Yet why do these images have to be so graphic? Why would the security need to see genitals in order to make sure that there are no weapons? I mean, breasts don't exactly need to be so graphic either. Simply a different color shows where a metal is being hidden.. Anyways why not make a different machine or a item that is able to show metals without doing so much harm to the human body..? This, I don't understand and doesn't make sense to me.

Side: Yes they should be allowed
1 point

Our 6th statement is on the morning of September 11, 2001, nearly three-thousand people were killed in a series of coordinated terrorist attacks in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The attacks left a profound effect upon our country and set in motion a chain of events that resulted in the creation of a new federal agency designed to prevent similar attacks in the future. Driven by a desire to help our nation, tens of thousands of people joined this new agency and committed themselves to strengthening our transportation systems while ensuring the freedom of movement for people and commerce. The government shifted its attention to whole-body scanners after a Christmas Day 2009 terrorism incident in which a Nigerian man flying into Detroit allegedly tried to detonate an explosive device hidden in his underwear. So would you rather be safe or sorry? Because with these full body scanners we have not had any further successful terrorist attacks since 9/11, I think we can say that it has been an excellent deterrent to terrorists.

http://iacis.org/iis/2013/170iis2013_47-53.pdf

http://www.tsa.gov/about-tsa/history

Side: Yes they should be allowed
1 point

In conclusion, TSA airport full body scanners are an asset to ensure human safety and to protect human lives, as well as to prevent terrorist deeds from happening. With its technology, the airport whole body scanners do not violate the privacy of passengers as it is proven to blur the passengers faces and private areas, effectively. The scans do very little harm to our body, and therefore, having the TSA perform full body scans on passengers is rather an asset than nuisance, and is implied to protect the lives of many rather than to create a controversy.

Side: Yes they should be allowed
0 points

Imagine you are going on a family vacation that your family has been saving up for, for 5-10 years. You finally get to go and you are on the airplane relaxed and excited for your trip, when a bomb is set off and everything is destroyed. This is what american citizens are dealing with today and in response the TSA makes these kind of situations more likely not to happen with its advanced scanning to ensure your security. Today we are having a debate over the 4th amendment on security privacy. The TSA should be permitted to use ‘advanced imaging technology’ to peer under passengers’ clothing in search of dangerous items, despite it being a slight inconvenience for certain passengers, it ensures the safety and security of us all. We stand for TSA advanced scanning as it is safe and protects passenger privacy while ensuring maximum security for everyone.

Side: Yes they should be allowed
1 point

I've said this too many times. I understand that these machines help us stay safe, yet WHY do these machines have to be so graphic. This is a huge privacy invasion...

You said that this advanced scanning is safe??? Because having your body being exposed to unhealthy machine radiation is so healthy. ITS NOT!

Side: Yes they should be allowed
2 points

NOV 18, 2010 @ 6:30 AM

The scanners send X-ray beams to the subject which barely penetrate the clothing and show any hidden items on the passenger. The background of the images are usually black so if you are hiding a gun or a small knife on you but it is attached to the side of the body it most likely will not be found. Basically you are invading our privacy and reflecting dangerous and cancerous X-ray beams on us to find weapons or illegal items that can very easily not be found. Not only are these machines a danger to our bodies but they are also an invasion of privacy. The TSA even admitted that these pictures can be stored, printed, recorded and exported but they say that it is only used for testing, training and evaluation.

Side: No, they should not
alia1(17) Disputed
2 points

Beginning in 2007, full-body scanners were installed at the nation's airports to address concerns that terrorists could smuggle explosives hidden in their clothing — or, in one infamous case, their underwear — that wouldn't be picked up by standard metal detectors.

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/25/138676874/ with-modesty-in-mind-tsa-rolls-out-new-body-scans

Side: Yes they should be allowed
keelyperkin(14) Disputed
1 point

I understand this completely, but why can't the government think of something that wouldn't be so harmful to passengers? Yet at the same time it would be able to detect all types of metals. Big or small.

Side: No, they should not
Gulsen(13) Disputed
1 point

In this medical report, a group of physics experts have found that they deliver less radiation than you would absorb if you were sitting in a park. So radiation is not something to worry about.

Supporting Evidence: Medical Journal on TSA Full Body Scanners (Medical Daily) (www.medicaldaily.com)
Side: Yes they should be allowed
Louis-Friend(4) Disputed
2 points

Yes the radiation going through the machines might be minimal, but imagine the amount of radiation going through the people who travel all the time, like the crew of the airplane. Its simple logic really. If you receive radiation at a constant rate, you are more prone to health risks.

Side: No, they should not
keelyperkin(14) Disputed
2 points

Radiation is in fact something to worry about.

Because of the frequency, some pilots are concerned that the extra radiation exposure will put them at greater risk of health issues. Each and every time that they go through this machine, their bodies are being exposed to the chance of getting cancer. There is no denying that this technology exposes to small doses of radiation, which can cause cancer when the doses add up. Captain Dan Bates, president of the Allied Pilots Association (APA), wrote: "We already experience significantly higher radiation exposure than most other occupations, and there is mounting evidence of higher-than-average cancer rates as a consequence." If this is only one pilot who says this, imagine how many other pilots there are out there?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a6353/the-truth-about-tsa-airport-scanning/

Hasler, Joe P. "The Truth About TSA Airport Scanning." Popular Mechanics. N.p., 18 Oct. 2010. Web. 20 May 2015.

Side: No, they should not
keelyperkin(14) Disputed
2 points

My dad is a pilot and here is what only one pilot has to say.

“I am now on the A380 so I fly about 7 times a month, this means that I have to go through security 14 times because these flights are overnights. Although, when I was on the A330-A340 I flew about 13-16 times a months but most of these flights were turnarounds so I only had to go through security 13-16 times. But that’s 13-16 more times of being exposed to radiation. I always have hated going though those machines, I hate the thought of the security seeing graphic images of my body and my chance of getting cancer increases every time I fly, because of high radiation. I love my job and flying is almost like a hobby to me, yet going through those machines can cause cancer. Just by going through these machine, makes my job life threatening.” My dad has been to the hospital, and doctors many time for cancer check ups and he is able to see that the amount of radiation that his body is being exposed to in fact, does increase.

-Grant Perkin, age 47. Has been flying since he was 17.

Side: No, they should not
2 points

Our third point expresses how this TSA machine is culturally insensitive. It does not take into account the sensitivities certain cultures have towards modesty. In fact there is a big percentage of american citizens who are more orthodox. In certain religions and cultures such as Islam, and the more orthodox versions of Judaism and Christianity modesty is central. To allow strangers to look through clothing at bare bodies is a slap on the face of any modesty preached by any religion.

It also gives unhealthy amounts of power to the law enforcers in the airport who can be racist and use this as a way of humiliating people. Some sources that we used as support for this argument are listed below:

- https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/05/thetroublewit.html

- http://gadling.com/2010/02/13/paranoid-tsa-checkpoint-agents-arrest-man-over-harmless-arabic-f/

- http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/04/29/sam-harris-we-should-profile-muslims-at- the-airport/

Side: No, they should not
Mare(15) Disputed
2 points

An alternative for those who want neither a full body scan nor a pat-down- charter a private jet, take a boat or a train, walk or don’t reppel the security that is being performed to ensure your safety, because in this era, people are trying to board planes with explosives in their underwear and shoes; regardless of certain religions. Again, the whole reason behind TSA scanning is not to offend religions, nor to peer through passengers clothing but to protect the safety of all. In response to the claim that full body scanners violate privacy; most airport full body scanners have the necessary privacy protection to keep a violation from happening. Besides the fact that passengers faces are obscured, if, in any circumstances, the scanners do happen to violate someone's privacy in any way, compared to human lives, privacy should not be the main priority.

Side: Yes they should be allowed
Louis-Friend(4) Disputed
0 points

A train and a boat would actually be a better alternative for people who wish ill. However what you have not taken into consideration is that the average citizen does not have the financial capability to charter a private jet. But my main concern about your counter argument is that you just stated that privacy is NOT the main priority. We just wish to ask then what is? Our last counter argument for this comment is that the pat downs are not just pat downs. Many American citizens have been stopped and searched in the most uncomfortable ways. I have an article I have used as a source for that below. I also have personal experience of being searched uncomfortably. Keep in mind that I was 9 years old and I was asked to strip down, because of my name and race.

- https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20130213133819-332179-why-it-s-time-to-break-the-code-of-silence-at-the-airport

Side: No, they should not
2 points

Josh Tyner was in San Francisco airport where he refused to go through the body scanners so he had to go through a standardized pat-down where he felt uncomfortable because the security was getting to close to him and touching him everywhere which is where he said “If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested”. If this was not the government this would be counted as sexual abuse because the US law states that “Touching or grabbing of a sexual nature” and “Repeatedly standing too close to or brushing up against a person” is counted as sexual abuse which is exactly what the TSA did. Also the “advanced imaging technology” machines is a violation of privacy because the US law also states that “The right of individuals to be protected against unwarranted invasion of their privacy resulting from the collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of personal information” which means that you are not allowed to collect any personal information from a person without them being aware which exactly what the TSA is doing it is collecting personal pictures of you though the scanners.

Side: No, they should not
Gulsen(13) Disputed
1 point

You are saying that being patted down is a inefficient way of security. If he had gone through the body scan, it would have been faster and he would have felt more comfortable. You are supporting the wrong side my friend.

Side: Yes they should be allowed
2 points

He would feel comfortable? How comfortable is really knowing that they are saving our images of us standing there naked. At least for me, I don't agree with having my naked body images being saved and in fact don't find this comfortable at all.

Side: Yes they should be allowed
zein(8) Disputed
2 points

The government are braking it's own law of privacy by going thought scanners

Side: No, they should not
1 point

Salutations fellow esteemed peers

The controversial topic under debate today, is whether or not the TSA should be able to adopt advanced imagery to observe the items underneath passenger’s clothes.

This is just another example of how the US government has been violating our constitutional rights that were ratified more than a century ago.

Throughout this debate, we will be arguing that these airport machines are highly dangerous as they can cause health risks,how they are an invasion of privacy, and how they are religiously and culturally disrespectful.

Based on the first thoughts that have come into your head, it is obvious that the topic of discussion is very controversial.

Side: No, they should not
1 point

Our first argument states that these machines are very dangerous and are a huge health risk. The airport security tells us that these machines are being used to assure us that we are safe, and no one is questioning that. But, if it safe for our bodies? They assure us that it’s safe, but I’m questioning that big time. Because of these machines, 6 to 100 americans are getting cancer every year. People first started realising that these machines could be a risk to our health in 1998. Radiation experts were warning against these machines by saying that using X ray scanners to look under people clothing to search for threats.

Whitehead, John W. "Cancer-Causing Airport Scanners? Enough Is Enough." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 17 Nov. 2011. Web. 30 May 2015.

Side: No, they should not
alia1(17) Disputed
3 points

The agency has previously said that the new technology is safe and protects passenger privacy."Strict privacy safeguards are built into the foundation of TSA's use of advanced imaging technology to protect passenger privacy and ensure anonymity," the agency says in a statement on its website. Images from the scans cannot be saved or printed, according to the agency. Facial features are blurred. And agents who directly interact with passengers do not see the scans.

http://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/current-events/airport-scanners-fourth-amendment/

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/15/california.airport.security/index.html CNN

Side: Yes they should be allowed
keelyperkin(14) Disputed
2 points

Really? Thats so strange because this source

http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a6353/the-truth-about-tsa-airport-scanning/

states that Florida is keeping our photos saved.. but for what exact purpose? And how many other states are keeping our photos?

Side: No, they should not
zein(8) Disputed
1 point

CDRH, NIST, Rapiscan's Third-Party Radiation Testing group, Office of Law Enforcement Standards and Johns Hopkins University Independent Assessment conducted a study concluding that ionizing radiation emitted from backscatter scanning devices extends to organs deeper than the skin

Side: No, they should not
Gulsen(13) Disputed
1 point

Can you please show me your source? ( I need more characters so....................................................)

Side: Yes they should be allowed
Mare(15) Disputed
1 point

To oppose the claim that full body scanners do harm to the human body; it is proven that the harm is nearly undetectable. According to Eastimage, the scans do less harm than the atmospheric pollution or harmful rays, or even the car tail gas. It is said that it will make against human body when the times reach 1000, which is impossible.

Side: Yes they should be allowed
keelyperkin(14) Disputed
2 points

TSA officials stress that the body scanners are incapable of data storage and that once an inspection ends and the image is cleared, it disappears forever.At the same time, U.S. marshals at a courthouse in Florida allegedly stored tens of thousands of these images. TSA itself has publicly admitted that scanning machines do in fact possess the capability to "store, print, record and export" the images it creates, but contends that this ability is only used for "testing, training and evaluation." This source clearly says that although they say that they are not keeping these images, they are. If Florida is keeping these images, it makes me wonder how many other states are keeping our naked body images.

Side: No, they should not
1 point

The limits of radiation were set with the understanding that the general public includes individuals who may be more susceptible to radiation-induced health effects, such as pregnant women, children, and persons receiving radiation treatment for medical conditions.

Fact Sheet: Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) Health & Safety. Oregon: U.S Department of Homeland Security, n.d. PDF.

Side: Yes they should be allowed
1 point

Yes and millimeter wave imaging technology uses harmless electromagnetic waves to detect potential threats, which are highlighted on a generic outline of a person appearing on a monitor attached to the unit. If no anomalies are detected, an “OK” appears on the screen with no outline.

http://www.tsa.gov/ait-frequently-asked-questions

Side: Yes they should be allowed
alia1(17) Disputed
1 point

Maurine Fanguy, of the TSA's Office of Security Technology has said it would require "thousands and thousands" of advanced imaging technology (AIT) inspections to equal "one chest X-ray" Advanced imaging technology is safe and meets national health and safety standards. In fact, the energy emitted by millimeter wave technology is 1000 times less than the international limits and guidelines. So if this is the cause for people getting cancer it would be very rare and people get more radiation from flying in a plane then going through these scanners.

http://www.tsa.gov/ait-frequently-asked-questions

http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a6353/the-truth-about-tsa-airport-scanning/

http://iacis.org/iis/2013/170iis2013_47-53.pdf

Side: Yes they should be allowed
1 point

"I will not allow my 8 year old son to be treated in this fashion and he will therefore, for the first time in his life, not spend the holidays with his grandparents. I will not allow my government to molest or take naked photos of my child."

Gregory C.

Seems like he has a point.. What parent wants the government to keep naked photos of their children and not delete them?

Side: No, they should not
1 point

"I asked to be pat down instead of going through the body scanner as I am pregnant. The TSA agents repeated again for me to just go through the scanner and it would be done in 5 seconds. No matter how much I pushed for a hand pat down, they pushed me harder for the machine. I feel like when i specifically ask for something that is an option for me, I should be able to get it. I will literally never fly through the Chicago Airport again because of this incident"

-Molly A.

She is trying to keep her baby safe yet when she tries so hard, she is being pushed harder to put her baby in danger.

Side: No, they should not
1 point

I agree that people should have the option to not go through the scanner if they have special circumstances such as pregnancy. However, this is not a fault in the scanner, but a fault in security. Chicago Airport should resolve this with their staff and policies, but this is not TSA's Full Body Scanners fault.

Side: No, they should not
Mare(15) Disputed
0 points

Please state the origin of this quote, because according to the U.S Department of Homeland Security, the limits of radiation were set with the understanding that the general public includes individuals who may be more susceptible to radiation-induced health effects, such as pregnant women, children, and persons receiving radiation treatment for medical conditions.

Side: Yes they should be allowed
1 point

Bringing an end to this debate, we shall restate our points again for extra clarity. The TSA should not be permitted to adopt advanced imagery to peer under the passengers' clothes. We believe it is harmful to the health of the citizens going through the machines, culturally insensitive, and last but not least, a fundamental breach of not just a citizen's but a human's right to privacy.

Side: No, they should not