EDITORIAL - Let us not rush this Peeping Tom thing

Mactan Cebu International Airport general manager Adelberto Yap is reportedly looking at the possibility of acquiring a piece of scanning equipment that is so penetrating the outlines of body parts, including genitalia, will be seen by the person manning the apparatus.

The only drawback to the interest of Yap in the machine is its cost. According to the report, this piece of equipment, aptly nicknamed "Peeping Tom" because its invasive technology allows it to see that which is not normally exposed, costs $1.2 million.

As expected, the report drew mixed reactions. What is interesting is that most of those who oppose the plan do so on constitutional grounds. The oppositors say such invasive technology intrudes into their privacy and violates their human rights.

There is no oppositor so far who has opposed the plan on the basis of its cost. So let us bring in the cost factor to at least close the issue. At its going rate of $1.2 million, plus the cost of shipping and handling, the equipment should come close to P100 million.

So the issue is this. The main reason for wanting such a piece of equipment is to ensure both the safety of airline travel against terrorists and the prevention of its use in the transport of drugs, bombs and other illegal items.

Perhaps there should be no argument on the validity of this reason. Nobody would want a plane to blow up in the sky or be used as a projectile in furtherance of some twisted terrorist cause. Neither would it help anyone but the criminals if planes were used as criminal transport.

But the big question lies in the trade-off. Would anyone be willing to pay the price, not just in the cost of the equipment but in, as the oppositors fear, the intrusion into their privacy or the violation of their rights?

Our guess is that the absence of any mention of the cost indicates that it is privacy and constitutional rights that are more important to people than the amount of expense required to obtain such a vital piece of equipment.

It is also our guess that, eventually, opposition based on this argument will become so heated and so noisy that the cause of the argument, this so-called Peeping Tom scanner, may not be worth all the trouble procuring.

For we do not think airline safety hinges exclusively on the Peeping Tom scanner. Given the great strides in technology, we are pretty sure there will be other, less invasive, pieces of equipment that might be available soon that will work better minus the controversy.