What I don't want to see happen is terrorists going on a website and seeing where there is AIT and where there's walk-through metal detectors and using, like on Christmas Day, a non-metallic explosive device through one of those airports that does not have AIT. So that's my concern.And when asked about privacy concerns, the fact that this is illegal, Unconstitutional, immoral, and wrong (take your pick) is not on his radar:
Well, trying to reassure the public that first, it's optional. They don't have to go through it. Of course they will receive a thorough patdown. The person seeing the image never sees the person. We don't retain the image. I think that addresses most of the privacy concerns.Here's the point: This is not about what is best for you, or even what is best for the public. If it were, there would be some more sensitivity and an acknowledgment that there should be transparency on what and where the scanners are.
I am not surprised by this, but I just want to make sure that you understand that his is about power and money for the few in charge over the many who fund this operation against our will. Don't fall for the national security, the terrorists are under every bed, rhetoric. Cui bono?