Response Paper
Ahmed Mohammed
Dr Agatha Ukata
WRI 102
Response Paper
Summary
The first article by Thomas Frank talks about the introduction of backscatter x-rays, a new threat detection technology that cannot visit the inside of a person’s body, thus reducing vulnerability to irradiation. Tests conducted show that backscatter x-rays are more efficient that traditional scanners and metal detectors.
Joe Sharkey argues that backscatter x-rays will explicit images of travelers. Homeland security justifies the technology by comparing it to metal detectors which have been found to be inefficient. Passengers and interest groups have had a delay in the utilization of the machines due to their concerns, but the security agencies view the car as a necessary counter measure against threats.
Response
Thomas Frank’s article presents a theme that receives a controversial nature. Based on my understanding backscatter x-rays are more honest than normal scenarios and reduce the danger of exposure to radiation. I believe this call made by Frank Cerra is a lawful reason to permit the use of backscatter x-ray machines. On the other hand, the issue of privacy invasion does not convince me as a strong enough reason, why? Because the privacy advocates sound like the great unwashed who are straining to create a problem that is not in that location. The TSA said the images are cart onlike in nature, uses outlines of a person’s body and erases details within highlighted areas. I would prefer a machine that has a one in a thousand chance of discovering a person’s physical structure and can detect threats than metal scanners. It is worth noting that Thomas Frank does not demand as a side; he covers all the opposing views fairly.
Subjectivity and Objectivity
In away both these articles are more subjective in nature because both present different views. Thomas Frank’s article gives different claims and supports with only theoretical backgrounds except for a certain degree where it is
Dr Agatha Ukata
WRI 102
Response Paper
Summary
The first article by Thomas Frank talks about the introduction of backscatter x-rays, a new threat detection technology that cannot visit the inside of a person’s body, thus reducing vulnerability to irradiation. Tests conducted show that backscatter x-rays are more efficient that traditional scanners and metal detectors.
Joe Sharkey argues that backscatter x-rays will explicit images of travelers. Homeland security justifies the technology by comparing it to metal detectors which have been found to be inefficient. Passengers and interest groups have had a delay in the utilization of the machines due to their concerns, but the security agencies view the car as a necessary counter measure against threats.
Response
Thomas Frank’s article presents a theme that receives a controversial nature. Based on my understanding backscatter x-rays are more honest than normal scenarios and reduce the danger of exposure to radiation. I believe this call made by Frank Cerra is a lawful reason to permit the use of backscatter x-ray machines. On the other hand, the issue of privacy invasion does not convince me as a strong enough reason, why? Because the privacy advocates sound like the great unwashed who are straining to create a problem that is not in that location. The TSA said the images are cart onlike in nature, uses outlines of a person’s body and erases details within highlighted areas. I would prefer a machine that has a one in a thousand chance of discovering a person’s physical structure and can detect threats than metal scanners. It is worth noting that Thomas Frank does not demand as a side; he covers all the opposing views fairly.
Subjectivity and Objectivity
In away both these articles are more subjective in nature because both present different views. Thomas Frank’s article gives different claims and supports with only theoretical backgrounds except for a certain degree where it is