Common Ground
Ashley Peterson
Ms. Gibson
English 151
May 15, 2012
Backscatter Technology: The Debate Revealed On June 24, 2010, senators Amy Klobuchar and Bob Bennett introduced a bill to the Senate called the “Securing Aircraft From Explosives Responsibility: Advanced Imaging Recognition Act,” also known as “SAFER AIR Act of 2010” (Taylor 3). The bill aimed to mandate the use of full-body scanners in airports as the primary method of screening by 2013 (Taylor 3). The passing of this bill threw fuel on an already firey debate as to whether full-body scanners should be the main method of scanning in the United States. In 2010 and 2011, when Michael Madison Taylor wrote “Bending Broken Rules: The Fourth Amendment Implications Of Full-Body Scanners In Preflight Screening” and William Bradshaw wrote “Borderline: Why The Federal Government May Use Backscatter Technology To Search Vehicles and Containers At International Borders, But The Fourth Amendment May Block Its Use On Persons,” this debate about full-body scanners was beginning to surface in the public. Bradshaw, an attorney with multiple degrees including a Juris Doctor, argues that screening with no suspicion or warrant does not violate Fourth Amendment rights, as long as the search is routine. However, Taylor, a lawyer with the same credentials, disagrees. He believes that the use of full-body scanners should only be used for secondary screening after probable cause is identified. Although these two authors’ positions on the debate appear to be wholly opposed, common ground exists, because they share the idea that full-body scans using backscatter technology should be permitted, but only in a way that uses suspicion as a motive to screen a person. Both authors share a common concern as to whether the new backscatter scanning technology protects the nation without breaking the citizens’ constitutional right to privacy. Bradshaw argues that in most cases, using backscatter technology does not violate Fourth Amendment
Ms. Gibson
English 151
May 15, 2012
Backscatter Technology: The Debate Revealed On June 24, 2010, senators Amy Klobuchar and Bob Bennett introduced a bill to the Senate called the “Securing Aircraft From Explosives Responsibility: Advanced Imaging Recognition Act,” also known as “SAFER AIR Act of 2010” (Taylor 3). The bill aimed to mandate the use of full-body scanners in airports as the primary method of screening by 2013 (Taylor 3). The passing of this bill threw fuel on an already firey debate as to whether full-body scanners should be the main method of scanning in the United States. In 2010 and 2011, when Michael Madison Taylor wrote “Bending Broken Rules: The Fourth Amendment Implications Of Full-Body Scanners In Preflight Screening” and William Bradshaw wrote “Borderline: Why The Federal Government May Use Backscatter Technology To Search Vehicles and Containers At International Borders, But The Fourth Amendment May Block Its Use On Persons,” this debate about full-body scanners was beginning to surface in the public. Bradshaw, an attorney with multiple degrees including a Juris Doctor, argues that screening with no suspicion or warrant does not violate Fourth Amendment rights, as long as the search is routine. However, Taylor, a lawyer with the same credentials, disagrees. He believes that the use of full-body scanners should only be used for secondary screening after probable cause is identified. Although these two authors’ positions on the debate appear to be wholly opposed, common ground exists, because they share the idea that full-body scans using backscatter technology should be permitted, but only in a way that uses suspicion as a motive to screen a person. Both authors share a common concern as to whether the new backscatter scanning technology protects the nation without breaking the citizens’ constitutional right to privacy. Bradshaw argues that in most cases, using backscatter technology does not violate Fourth Amendment
Cited: “About the BSA.” Boy Scouts of America. 2012. Web. 2 Jun 2012. “About Us.” The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. Web. 2 Jun 2012. Bradshaw, William M. “BORDERLINE: WHY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY USE BACKSCATTER TECHNOLOGY TO SEARCH VEHICLES AND CONTAINERS AT INTERNATIONAL BORDERS, BUT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT MAY BLOCK ITS USE ON PERSONS.” Creighton Law Review Vol. 44. 2011. Web. 24 Apr 2012. “Fourth Amendment.” Legal Information Institute: Open Access To Law Since 1992. Cornell University Law School. Web.16 May 2012. <<http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment>>. Taylor, M. Madison. “BENDING BROKEN RULES: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS OF FULL-BODY SCANNERS IN PREFLIGHT SCREENIGNG.” Richmond Journal of Law and Technology Vol. XVII, Issue 1. 2010. Web. 24 Apr 2012.