It's important to note that there are a couple different kinds of body scanners. Most fall into the category of a millimeter wave scanner, which is basically a radar map of the body, or a backscatter x-ray scanner, which is a rather odd kind of low-intensity x-ray where the scanner picks up the reflected radiation. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses, depending on how they're calibrated.
It's also important to note that, just because someone stands to make money on something, doesn't mean that their motivation is entirely profit-based. It's easy to say "Well, this guy used to be in the government, and now he's lobbying for these machines, and his firm stands to make money from this lobbying, so the machines are obviously just a scam to bilk the taxpayer out of a few million dollars", but that's not necessarily true. It's just as easy to say that "this guy used to be in the government, saw marked deficiencies in our security measures, and after he got out decided to try and lobby to fix them".
Anyhoo.
It's a messy situation. Like I said, the technology is far from perfect. But it does work on at least some level, and does provide at least some increased security. Is it worth the price tag associated with it? It's hard to say. If a single passenger plane is saved as a result, then yes, it probably would be worth the cost. Passengers aside, the average jet is in the $150-200 million dollar range. The social issue is another question entirely, and it's one that is considerably harder to answer, since it's a question of personal preference, not statistical analysis.
For example, would I mind being scanned? Not particularly. Would I mind being patted down? Yeah, most likely. I don't particularly care who sees a blurry image of my genitalia, but I'm not fond of being touched, in any capacity, by strangers. Or by most of my friends, for that matter. But Raes' recent trust issues aside, I imagine you see my point. What bothers me, may not be what bothers someone else, and vice versa.
Taking an absolute position on a matter like this is just silly.
You can look at it this way: If the current security measures had been in place on 9/11/2001, what would have happened then?
The answer, by the way, is "I don't know."
It's impossible to know. Obviously the tactics used by the 9/11 terrorists could have been thwarted, but what other tactics could they have come up with? That's the question here.
Security measures like this are almost always "fighting the last war". They're typically measures implemented to close some loophole in the existing procedures that someone figured out and attempted to exploit. In the case of the body scanners, it's the Underwear Bomber. In the case of shoe scans, it was the Shoe Bomber. And so on. And every time it happens, things get a little less convenient for the populace at large, but arguably we get a little safer, because that particular weakness will be much harder to exploit next time around.
oh wait, you wont be able to, you'll be dead. People complain up and down when someone manages to sneak something onto a flight, yet cry foul when they are getting patted down? It's a give and take situation here folks. A balance must be struck in this case, but how?
