So there are 2 things that are standing out to me in the debate. The first is that people are uncomfortable with the person seeing the scans not being visible to them. I fall into this catagory. I would much rather enter a booth that has the scanner and the screen and the person doing the scanning all in one place. The screen that is being monitored would be visible to me as would the person scanning me. Keeps everyone honest. These rooms would also be gender specific. Just like a mens and womens locker. Men scan men, women scan women. IMO if it was to become mandatory, this would be somewhat acceptable. And this would be a seconday, screening only if there were suspicions raised.

The second big one is that some expect that the government is actually telling us the whole truth about use and storage of information. That is rediculous. I would not beleive for a minute that the images would not stored. Off the top of my head, i would think that if something was found, an image would have to be stored for evidence. Therefore, if the capability exists, it will be used by in-scrupulous individuals. Just a fact of life.

My own thought is that, any chemical can be detected, weather it be by a dog, a puffer or some other sensing method. As far as privacy goes, it is an illusion. Satellites can see you in your living room via thermal imaging or ultra sound. it is what we know about that causes the debates, not the capability.

Just my 2 cents