I can see you

For the last few days, I've debated aloud or in my head this issue of the 'naked scanners'. Truth be told, I don't have a firm side upon which I stand on the issue.

I by no means want to be exploded. As I flew home this weekend, I actually wondered to myself whether you'd be dead immediately if the plane were to explode or if you'd have to live through the fear of falling to the earth knowing there was nearly certain death. Thankfully, PC happened to read an article in one of his 'boy magazines' about how to survive when falling out of a plane.

(Quick tip? Bring goggles. Apparently, your eyes will dry out without them and pretty much all the next steps to surviving the fall will be useless to you if you can't see).

Yes, I know. Uplifting thoughts while flying. As if it wasn't bad enough I'm already scared of mechanical or pilot errors causing us to plummet to our deaths.

I also don't have any serious issue with the whole being naked thing per se. I change openly in locker rooms. I'm not ashamed of my appearance and I don't think people are exactly going out of their way to catch a glimpse of my grainy black and white hoo-ha images.

I think my hang up is, is this truly the only option? Was there no less invasive means to accomplish this level of safety? And, would this method, had it been in place, really have prevented someone getting past security? And I further wonder, if perhaps TSA was better about enforcing lower level security measures whether this one would be needed. Or, on the other hand, if they ultimately enforce this level of security the way they do the lower levels, won't it be a useless, expensive invasion of privacy that statistically is unlikely to pick up the one person in a million that walks through with the equivalent of an underwear bomb?

I think about how only 1 in 10 times does a TSA person notice I have a random lip gloss of less than .5 oz in my purse that I genuinely forgot about and then insists I throw it away because it's not in their m*f*ing pint sized bag. I get the bag is a rule. I also get that it's aimed at being consistent and limiting the amount of liquid we can bring on. But it's not consistently enforced and my lip gloss is clearly no less of a risk because of the super powers of a zip lock bag.

I also wonder about this 'naked scanner', what about the women/teenage girls walking through with sanitary pads? I imagine that looks a lot like a underwear bomb. Are the women going to be asked to remove their underwear to show they're not planning a bombing? Or, will TSA agents guess that the woman is not likely a risk based on some profile...and let her go. Or, how about those wearing adult diapers? Could you imagine the embarrassment of having to tell TSAs that yes, you have an incontinence issue? Do they believe you or do you have to show them your diaper? Will this scanner and the enforcement of it become as inconsistent and useless as the pint bag rule?

I also then begin wondering why it is that there's so much focus on air travel. For one, I get on a metro every day wherein at any given stop, there are as many if not more potential victims than would be on a given aircraft...and yet there's no security measures beyond telling riders to watch for suspicious packages.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating to add metal detectors and naked scanners to my daily commute, but I wonder 'why air?' Hasn't there been as many attempts on other modes of transportation as there has been with air? And why mandate it on the one means of public transportation that you can't avoid? I mean, I can't reasonably choose not to fly from here on out. Driving to California or Greece or the islands just isn't reasonable and/or possible. Conversely, if enforced say on a metro and I didn't want to comply I could choose to walk, bike, drive to work. 

I think another thing that irks me about it is that the government has implemented and has decided we will just have to accept it because it is best for us. It feels parental. And you know, I do appreciate the government looking out for my best interests, and I get that they have more information about the risks than I do, but we're adults. And I think we deserve a discussion and I think we deserve to be told that this is the best they can do right now and that they are looking for less invasive means (and I think that they should be).

And I think that it's going to be unfair that pilots and/or aircrew are trying to opt out. Why are they any less likely to be undercover than me? I mean, seriously, I so badly want that aircraft to stay in the air that I spend most flights lifting up on the arm rests and not going to the bathroom so as not to jostle the plane in any way. In fact, I bet I want it to stay up more than they do sometimes with the way they just wander up and down the aisles and take sharp turns into landing paths to runways.

I find it annoying that the people that are accepting of the scanners are trying to minimize the concerns of those that are questioning the scanners down to 'it's not like TSA is getting off on seeing you naked'. I concur. It's not porn. But do they have the right? Do I not have the right to say no (realizing I cannot not fly to Florida, in which case saying no isn't REALLY an option)? I also find it annoying the self-righteous people that say they will accept any level of invasion that results in them being safe. First, the basic premise here is assuming I like the idea of being exploded. False. And second, that this is the sure fire safety measure that will remove all risk to flying. False.

Because let me let you in on a working theory of mine. I bet you, you have a greater chance of death, statistically speaking, from someone's freaking luggage that they stuffed in the overhead to save the $20 plus dollars on fees falling on your head than someone getting through our security and exploding the plane. So if someone out there wants to make my flight safer - how about we outlaw the damn luggage fees? Side benefit: I bet you wait time through security will drop drastically.