Formal Sentence Outline

FormalSentence Outline

FormalSentence Outline

Thesis:In a bid to improve airport security, TSA has introduced measuresthat infringe privacy, personal rights and increase health risks, butthe contentions can be addressed through private-public partnershipin order to improve service delivery, technology, and customerinterests.

  1. Global terrorist activities have influenced the implementation of stringent measures in all air travel facilities.

    1. Body scanners have been introduced to ensure that passengers do not carry concealed contrabands.

      1. One of the categories of body scanners include backscatters, which are characterized by radiation-emitting technologies (Accardo &amp Chaudhry, 2014, p. 199).

      2. The other category is referred to as millimeter-wave systems, which are not radioactive.

      3. All travelers have to pass through the scanners before boarding a plane.

    2. TSA is responsible for contracting processes with companies offering screening services in airports.

      1. In European countries, the responsibility of contracting screening activities is under airport authorities.

      2. Congress passed a policy empowering TSA, rather than airports to conduct screening activities, causing confusion and inconsistencies between the two parties.

  2. Body scanners conduct virtual strips on passengers and are associated with privacy breach, data protection contentions, and exposing passengers to harmful radiations.

    1. Some of the popular screening measures include pat downs, body search, Advanced Imaging Technology (ATI), and X-ray imaging (Mironeko, 2001, p. 1).

      1. Pat downs and body searches cause psychological torture and infringe privacy as well as causing embarrassments.

      2. Backscatters expose travelers to harmful radiations, which can cause serious alterations after prolonged exposures.

      3. Passengers are not assured of data protection, especially virtual strips collected during the screening process.

    2. There are legal, ethical, and health issues under international laws and constitution

      1. There is failure by The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a specialized UN agency, to regulate and standardize body-scanning technologies (Mironeko, 2001, p. 1).

      2. Different articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 (UDHR), which emphasizes on human privacy, dignity, and respect for private and family life are continuously breached by the screening processes (Mironeko, 2001, p. 5).

      3. The Fourth Amendment elaborates on rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

  3. Privatization of some security operations has proved to be effective, since its introduction by the Homeland security.

    1. Busch and Givens (2012, p. 3) identify past success operations after private-public partnerships, citing hurricane Katrina and 9/11 terror attacks.

      1. In both cases, resources, personnel and technology was provided by both parties, hence increasing efficiency.

      2. Ybarra and Poole (2013, p. 4) observe that the private sector has proved to be better employers based on their retention rates compared to TSA screening.

    2. Private-public partnership success will require changes to TSA contracting policies to allow airports take care of screening operations.

      1. In Europe and other global regions, airport operators are legally mandated with the responsibility of security, whereas in the US, an independent agency, the TSA, hence creating conflicts of interest in security operations (Ybarra &amp Poole, 2013, p. 2).

    3. Privatization is expected to enhance technology use, increase number of personnel and reduce congestion.

      1. Plans have been underway to eliminate backscatters, and privatizing these operations will enhance service delivery.

      2. Accardo and Chaudhry (2014, p. 199) propose ways of introducing the less-harmful millimeter wave scanners.

    4. Privatization is cost-effective in that it eliminates monopolization of screening measures by encouraging innovation, resource sharing and introduction of better technology.

      1. Stewart and Mueller (2014) argue that the current focus on airport security is exaggerated considering threats, vulnerability and consequences.

      2. However, Ybarra and Poole (2013, p. 4) consider private companies as more efficient, better employees and cost-effective.

  4. Conclusion

    1. Private-public partnership is cost effective through enhanced quality of services through shared technologies, personnel, and infrastructures. This would eliminate excessive exposure rates, backscatters, and other privacy-infringing operations through improved customer care services.

References

Accardo,J., &amp Chaudhry, M. A. (2014). Radiation exposure and privacyconcerns surrounding full-body scanners in airports.&nbspJournalof Radiation Research and Applied Sciences,&nbsp7(2),198-200.

Busch,N. E., &amp Givens, A. D. (2012). Public-Private Partnerships inHomeland Security Opportunities and Challenges.Homeland Security Affairs, 8(18), 1-25.

Mironenko,O. (2011). Body scanners versus privacy and data protection.Computer Law &amp Security Review,&nbsp27(3),232-244.

Stewart,M. G., &amp Mueller, J. (2014). Cost-benefit analysis of airportsecurity: Are airports too safe?&nbspJournalof Air Transport Management,&nbsp35,19-28.

Ybarra,S., &amp Poole Jr, R. W. (2013). Overhauling US Airport SecurityScreening.&nbspReasonFoundation,3, 1-6.

Related Posts

© All Right Reserved