In an age of terror, we need to do everything we can to keep our citizens safe, including scans and screening procedures. At least so say the security consultants, who argue that more see-through-your-clothes screenings and extensive pat-downs are a small price to pay to protect the flying public from bad guys with bombs. A vocal group of passengers and activists, however, argues that the risks of the scans—including radiation exposure, psychological trauma, and eroding civil liberties—are worse than the threat of a terrorist attack. How can the same tradeoff be interpreted so differently? Shouldn’t a careful, fact-based risk assessment be able to figure out what’s in our overall best interest?
Read More
0 comments:
Post a Comment