Never let it be said that I don’t give credit where credit is due. I applaud Republican Representative Jason Chaffetz for his bill banning full body scans as a primary means of airport security. The bill passed the House yesterday but faces tough opposition from his own party members in the Senate.

For those of you who don’t know, full body scanning technology has been implemented in a hand full of our countries airports as another level of security screening. The technology employs radio waves that pierce through clothing but are stopped by skin just like how x-rays can go through skin, but be stopped by bone. Hidden ceramic weapons (used to thwart metal detectors) are obviously more dense than skin and, therefore, pop up on the imager if present. The problem is, for the 99.9999 percent of us not trying to hijack an airplane when flying, the only image that pops up is a full scan of your naked body.

Some privacy issues have been addressed to try and mitigate this problem, such as making these scans voluntary, blurring the face of the individual, and having the person reviewing the scans in a separate room – but the point still stands: someone is looking at your naked body in the name of homeland security.

What concerns me is not so much the opposition to this bill in the name of security – indeed it is a powerful and effective tool; no, what concerns me is the utter lack of concern people have for being effectively stripped down to get on a plane. Not only do we live in a society where people are forced to give up their right to privacy, but society is happy to do so.

My generation in particular is notoriously unconcerned by these sorts of technologies.  We, as a group, are used to having our lives peered into – Facebook pages, twitter accounts, text messaging, hell, even blog writing, are all part of a generation that is used to divulging information to the world, not knowing or particularly caring who reads about you. More on to the point, we want people to know everything about us. It is only natural then that we are unphased by these sorts of technology – it is just another way to have someone know you are who you say you are, in this case you are not a terrorist.

This is where I become concerned: just because someone willingly gives up a civil liberty does not mean it is not still lost. Furthermore, if history is any guide, it is easy to lose rights, but gaining or regaining rights require long fought battles.  On top of that, let us not forget that government works in waves – one law leads to another, and another, and another.  The cliche of the slippery slope holds true.  If society allows a toe-hole (as I believe it already has through things such as the PATRIOT ACT), lawmakers get the green light to take more and more rights away from you.  Never forget that the largest mines in the world started with a single pick-axe in the side of a mountain.

It can be argued that we do not have a right to fly, therfore we have no or few grounds to complain on.  I direct you to the 13th article of the UN Universal Declaration of Human rights that states:

• Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
• Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

We have the right to move about this country and between countries freely.  You do have other options to travel, but is it any less of a violation of your rights when one option is restricted?

So, in the end, I hope that Chaffetz’s bill passes.  I am concerned about security, but I am more concerned about my rights as a human.