The Washington Post writes, "There's nothing to fear from the use of full-body scanners at airports."
That's a little too dismissive. While it's true that TSA has done much to limit the privacy threats, this is a fundamentally invasive technology.
I was particularly struck by this doe-eyed argument: "Officers in [the] remote screening room are prohibited from bringing in cellphones, cameras or any device with a camera."
Here's how I wrote about the fate of that rule in an earlier post:
Rules, of course, were made to be broken, and it’s only a matter of time — federal law or not — before TSA agents without proper supervision find a way to capture images contrary to policy. (Agent in secure area guides Hollywood starlet to strip search machine, sends SMS message to image reviewer, who takes camera-phone snap. TMZ devotes a week to the story, and the ensuing investigation reveals that this has been happening at airports throughout the country to hundreds of women travelers.)
My error was to say it would be SMS. In the Washington Post's account, TSA screeners communicate by wireless headset. (I don't remember how they communicated in the demonstration I saw in Detroit.)
In college, I worked at a bar, and at the door of this bar it was customary to say at appropriate moments, "Did you get those books?" or "Did you get that book?" Everyone knew what these phrases meant and trained their eyes accordingly. I'm sorry if that was crude.
I'm more sorry if nobody on the editorial board at the Post recalls the vigor and ingenuity of youth. There is not "nothing to fear" from the use of full-body scanners.