She objected to it. And we get this week's column: "Government, don't dare scan my body"
It seems like just a few weeks ago that Blumner was saying that the government is the greatest thing about America, bar none.
Apparently the new-fangled scanners provide an exceptionally detailed image of the human body under the clothing--the fulfillment of the X-ray specs often advertised in comic books once upon a time, though assuredly more expensive.
Blumner correctly pointed out that those using the imaging machines might well misuse the image despite precautions built into the system (I'd allow that where there's a will there's a way). Therefore she shouldn't be scanned.
So ... how should security workers use the machines? Blumner doesn't say, but she hints that the scans should be used only on people suspected of being terrorists or smugglers.
Here is the inevitable: You give people with routine jobs the ability to rummage around in other people's intimate lives — innocent people who are not suspected of anything — and bad stuff happens. Privacy goes out the window, boys will be boys, the rules, law and even the Constitution don't stand a chance.But if people are suspected of being smugglers or terrorists already then why bother with the scans? Just search them via normal means.
It seems to me that Blumner's view would make the scanners obsolete before they're even used. The idea is to catch the ones who ordinarily don't raise sufficient suspicion to warrant being searched. It's constitutional if the search is reasonable, and protecting airline passengers in an age of terrorism makes quite a few methods very reasonable indeed. But perhaps the airlines should take over security themselves so that it isn't a constitutional issue.
Most likely Blumner would object to any means of narrowing suspicion that might qualify as profiling. The Constitution, as she views it, is a suicide pact.