5 reasons I’m opting out of the TSA’s scanners (and you should, too)

Next week is one of the busiest of the year for air travel. And the last thing you probably want to see at the airport when you fly home for Thanksgiving is a long line — especially one that’s preventable.

But this year is different.

This Thanksgiving, I’m telling the TSA agents who screen me that I won’t walk through their full-body scanners.

And I’m not alone. A group of activists who are concerned about the so-called “advanced” imaging technology are also urging air travelers to just say “no” next week.

Opting out means agents will either give you an “enhanced” pat-down or wave you through the screening area (and when there’s a long line, it’s a safe bet it’ll be the latter). But the peaceful protest will also slow screenings to the point where the agency will have to reconsider the way it checks air travelers, as it did during a successful opt-out action two years ago.

A sustained protest could kill the scanners.

If you’re one of the millions of Americans who fly, and don’t think there’s anything wrong with getting a full-body scan, let me offer a few reasons you should reconsider.

1. They’re not adequately tested and could be dangerous. Unfortunately, the scanners you’ll be asked to walk through haven’t been properly tested. The latest independent evaluations are actually based on data provided by the TSA. The government wants us to trust it, but it won’t give us a reason. That’s unacceptable.

2. They’re easily foiled. It’s not difficult to sneak a weapon through a full-body scanner,  according to several reports. The career criminals who might want to do us harm have figured out how to get around the scanners already.

3. They’re too expensive. At a quarter of a million bucks a pop, the scanners are a huge waste of taxpayer money. To use one, or to allow one to be used on you, is is an endorsement of an iffy technology. It also lines the pockets of undeserving security contractors, say critics.

4. They probably violate your constitutional rights. Beyond the fact that they are nothing more than an overpriced visual deterrent to amateur terrorists, the TSA’s scanners are constitutionally problematic. The Fourth Amendment’s provisions against unreasonable searches are directly at odds with the way these scanners are deployed and used.

5. They haven’t caught a single terrorist. Sure, they’ve netted plenty of contraband, which the TSA likes to show off weekly on its blog. But so far, not a single airborne jihadist has been caught with the scanners. Not a one.

National Opt-Out Week is a good start, and it comes on the heels of the TSA’s humiliating withdrawal of its most controversial full-body scanners from major airports: the risky “backscatter” X-ray machines.

But in order to end the warrantless scans for good, we need to stand up at the same time and say “no” even after Opt-Out Week ends.

We need to do it until the TSA changes the way it screens us.

Are you opting out of the TSA's full-body scanners next week?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Christopher Elliott

Christopher Elliott is an author, journalist and consumer advocate. You can read more about him on his personal website or contact him at chris@elliott.org. Got a question or comment? You can post it on the new forum.

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook - LinkedIn - Google Plus

  • Mozue

    Good luck to everyone one will be opting out. I hope you have plenty of people to get the TSA’s attention. I also hope they do not try to make it difficult for you to make your flight (which they may try to do).

  • David

    That is a great article. Thank you.

  • Kevin Mathews

    You reasons for not using the scanners leave a lot to be desired:
    1) I agree, they need further testing. 1
    2) BS reason. Simply because they are easily foiled isn’t really a reason not to walk through them. 0
    3) “Too Expensive” is also not really a reason to not walk through them. I can understand not wanting to endorse the technology, thereby saying the pricetag is OK. So the price tag on these is maybe a half valid reason. 0.5
    4) It’s not a consititutional right to fly. Therefore, if they lay out the requirements that you must walk through these to get to fly, you either accept it and fly, or don’t and don’t fly. 0
    5) Again, just because they haven’t caught anyone isn’t a reason not to step through them. The gun my father in law owns has never killed anyone or anything, so does that mean he should give it up? 0
    So of the 5 reasons you listed above, MAYBE 1.5 of them are valid reasons for a person not to use the scanners.
    The rest are simply reasons for people to be upset at the government…

  • TiaMa

    I think I need clarification on the full body scanners. I understand that people can opt out and be subjected to the pat down. I was under the impression that both these methods were secondary screenings after going through the more traditional “metal detector” type scanners first. Have I misunderstood and the full body scanners (or the pat down) are now the primary form of screening?

  • john4868

    Chris yet another article in a long line of TSA articles where we disagree. Let’s take each of your reasons
    1. Testing – I don’t think there’s enough testing in the world for you not to say they need more testing. The technology behind the scanners have been independently reviewed more than once and found safe.
    2. Easily foiled – Ah your reasoning is that it won’t catch everything. Sorry it catches far more than a metal detector does. Metal detectors at airports were based on the 60’s threat assessment of guns being the primary threat to aircraft and other threats requiring metal to work. Sorry but that is no longer true.
    3. Expense – So when the next aircraft is blown up (which has been attempted multiple times since 9/11) how much will it cost the US to pay victims after the fact? 9/11 cost us $7 billion in compensation to victims and up until the point the hijackers took over the aircraft they did absolutely nothing wrong. Everything they used that day was allowed through the checkpoint.
    4. Constitution Rights – Nope. This one is case law. An airport checkpoint is an inspection not a search. You have the option to avoid one so it falls into the same legal category of DUI checkpoints, border crossings etc.
    5. Hasn’t caught anyone – Really Chris? I thought a writer of your caliber could come up with a better argument than this one. So, I guess the armed guards the US military & DOE uses to move nukes shouldn’t be used since they haven’t stopped anyone either. My bank should take out the bullet proof airlock they use for entry since no one has attempted to rob them (but has hit every other bank around them) since they installed it. This really is a silly argument. It is entirely probable that their use has kept people from challenging them and that’s why no one has been caught.

    Must have been a slow news day for you to pull out your bash the TSA article early.

  • john4868

    Depending on the airport and the time of day… yes they are the primary form of screening.

  • ctporter

    There are two types of scanners at an airport, the full body and the traditional metal detectors. After your ID and boarding pass have been checked you must go through one or the other at the direction of the TSA. If you choose not to go through the full body scan you get the enhanced pat down as soon as “someone is available”. You do not get to go through the metal detector. If you do go through the full body scanner the machine will get confused if you have ANYTHING (tissue, paper ticket, etc) in your pockets you will also have to get a pat down (sometimes it will be the enhanced, sometimes just a quick pat and feel up) So while the machines are able to understand you are wearing underwear and pants for example, they cannot tell what a tissue in your pocket is.

  • frostysnowman

    I’m opting out by driving to the family Thanksgiving celebration this year (18 hours). I fly as little as possible anymore, thanks to the TSA. I hope the protest is unbelieveably successful!!

  • jebaker

    I would opt out, but I am not traveling next week. As a business traveller, I do not see customers the week of Thanksgiving.

  • Jon

    Sigh. I thought we only had to dealing with anti-TSA paranoia on Sundays.

  • Kathleen Duncan Johnson

    I’m not opting out next week because there is nothing in the world that would get me anywhere near an airport anytime around Thanksgiving. Big crowds plus the possibility of weather cancellations equals no-thanks for me..

  • KarlaKatz

    I always opt out anyway, and will continue to do so next weekend.

  • Pam

    I always opt out, purely on a civil rights issue. I’ve been told that under the Homeland Security Act that the scanners are NOT a violation of my civil rights because I can’t use my civil rights at the airport, it’s some kind of martial law zone since post 9-11. I’m not sure of the facts on that, but I do think holding a plane ticket is hardy an adequate reason for the virtual strip search.
    Also, I play this game at the aiport, it’s called spot the line that doesn’t have a scanner. Then, I try to game it for that line. I’m successful about 95% of the time. That’s pretty good, right?
    Finally, I did not see ONE scanner in Reagan National, the aiport that serves our nation’s capitol. “Oh, local lawmakers HATE those things,” I was told, repeatedly, when I asked why there were no scanners at the DC airport. Yeah, we hate them to and they’re in our airports. Coincidence?

  • john

    Opt out day last year failed due to multiple reasons. TSA can just open the metal detectors to give the appearance of no issues.

  • SoBeSparky

    I’ll go through the TSA pre-check program line and scanner with my belt and shoes on, and with my laptop and personal liquids in my screened carry-on. My personal freedoms are challenged many places, including passenger screening. I must set my own priorities of where I draw the line.

    Frankly, I am tired of every dentist, endodontist, orthopedist, urologist, neurologist, etc. wanting uncoordinated and separate X-rays/CT of my body parts, and then to qualify for surgery I must have chest X-rays for no medical necessity. I never read anything, anywhere, which says all this radiation, by itself, helps you live longer. Of course, it is quite possible it shortens your life considering the cumulative effect.

    Most medical practitioners with their god-complexes act incomprehensibly offended when you object to “just one simple X-ray.”

    When the medical professions must accept individual liability for all of their mandated doses of radiation, then I will avoid the TSA scanners too.

  • john4868

    Well said

  • Nancy Nally

    I always opt out both for civil rights and safety concern reasons. I’m not flying next week (you couldn’t pay me enough to join the Thanksgiving week circus at the airports) but I will be flying in January and will be opting out then like I always have in the past.

  • pauletteb

    Just think of all the additional good Chris could do if he got off this particular soapbox. Despite the claims of some of the frequent posters here (usually same posters, same complaints), for most of us travelers it’s no big deal.

  • laurala

    I’ve opted out since the scanners came into use, so next week will be no different for me.

  • frank windows

    ..and this is exactly the reason the airlines should get involved. How much business are they losing because of this needless and unconstitutional harassment of their customers? And yet they say nothing and make up new fees to cover the shortfall.

  • frank windows

    They are the primary form of screening at most major airports and have been for some time. From what I have seen (75,000 miles this year and counting) the old metal detectors are rarely used.

  • frank windows

    You call it paranoia, I fly a lot and call it reality. I fly several times a month for my job. So my choices areusually to get irradiated, have someone’s hand in my crotch, or pick a new career. all because the TSA had chosen a form of security that is profitable for the contractors but does not keep us safe. Call Chris paranoid if you want, but then I will call you ignorant, because he’s right.

  • Michael Brown

    I have flown into and out of Reagan National twice (two round-trips) over the past 45 days. They have full-body scanners. I was scanned both times for flights departing out of Reagan.

  • michaelm

    I have an artificial hip, so I am screened every time I fly. The scanners are quick, painless and MUCH easier and quicker than a pat down. I love them.

  • MikeB

    Yes, slow things down. That’ll show em! The TSA isn’t the one missing a flight because you were slow.

  • JenniferFinger

    Much as I hate them, I’m not opting out-I just don’t think it’s worth my time to make a fuss.

  • User921394932

    Everyone should opt-out so they have to get rid of the machines.

  • Charles B

    Your point 1: “The technology behind the scanners have been independently reviewed more than once and found safe.” That’s useless if it hasn’t been tested in practice. The implementation of a radiation generating device is NOT safe just because it should be in theory. Test the damn devices. Let the people who stand in front of those things for 8 hours every day wear dosimeters and find out, in fact, how much radiation they are actually receiving. That’s my idea of enough testing.

  • emanon256

    I opt out 100% of the time when I see the back-scatter x-rays, from what I have learned they are actually physically dangerous. I usually opt-out when its the MMW machines. If I am in a hurry or late I just go through the MMW machines, but most of the time I opt-out in protest. From what I have learned, the MMW ones are not dangerous to anything but our civil rights.

  • Guest

    removed (duplicate)

  • Michael__K

    I’m open to more evidence, but the sources Chris links to refute a number of your points.

    The Columbia University Medical Center for Radiological Research
    study estimates that every 1 billion X-ray backscatter scans can be
    expected to cause 100 cases of radiation-induced cancer. And that
    study generously assumes that the actual passenger exposure perfectly
    matches what TSA claims. Other experts claim that the actual exposure
    could be up to 45 times as high if a machine is imperfectly configured.
    And they point out that TSA doesn’t have the kind of rigorous controls
    that are standard in medical facilities to prevent that.

    We could argue whether the small health risks are a worthwhile
    trade-off or not, but it’s clearly not “100% safe.” The European Union
    has banned the backscatter machines so they obviously reached a
    different conclusion than TSA. Does that make you think that flying
    from Europe is less safe?

    As Chris alludes, TSA has recently (and quietly) removed many of the
    backscatter scanners in favor of MMW scanners, which experts believe are probably safer. The problem with the MMW scanners is that they’ve been shown to have a 54% false-positive rate when run (as designed) at
    high-sensitivity mode. So more than half the time, a manual pat-down is
    necessary anyway, even for passengers who don’t opt out.

    Furthermore, the “black on black” problem means that all of these
    scanner machines DO NOT catch some obvious weapons that a metal detector would catch — which makes it unclear that they really even represent a genuine security improvement (unless you propose every passenger goes through BOTH).

  • DavidYoung2

    I’m going to Vegas and will just do what’s quickest and easiest for me and my fellow passengers. Somebody wants to see an outline of my junk, hey, go have a good time. Bring popcorn and brews for all I care.

    I love the part about ‘not catching a single terrorist.’ It’s one of those ‘can’t lose’ lines. If you get caught, they’re not going to let you on the plane, so you can’t commit a terrorist act, so you’re not technically yet a ‘terrorist.’ So everybody they catch with a loaded semi hidden in their waistband isn’t a terrorist (yet) and they can’t PROVE to the satisfaction of the TSA-nutters that the person meant harm. So it’s not possible to show they do work – because if they work, the person is caught before they’re officially a terrorist. Come on Chris, we’re smart enough to see through that one.

  • pradcliffe

    I can buy all five of your points except # 1. How many time has the government, or an “independent source” or a private industry group told us that something is safe—and then…. I will go through wave machines but always opt out of x ray backscatter machines for reason # 1. I’m not paranoid, just sensible.

  • Carrie Charney

    It is because many must refute liability if they missed something, that medical professionals cover their asses by over-testing.

  • SoBeSparky

    And they should pay the liability attendant with overtesting with radiation. The mere fact they never ask about any medical history of X-rays and CTs shows they could care less. Some lawyer might call it reckless disregard. Medical personnel, like the TSA perhaps, should be held strictly liable for profligate use of radiation. Does anyone ever show you the regular test results and calibration of the devices? Do the doctors/nurses/practitioners even care? They just smile and hide behind a lead-lined wall. Why are they smiling?

  • MarkieA

    But don’t you think that if TSA caught someone who could even remotely be tied to terrorist activity, they would crow from the highest rooftop? These folks they catch with handguns and such; if they were truly suspected of terrorist activity – if even the remotest link could be forged – don’t you think TSA would pump out its chest and tell us that they have thwarted a terrorist plot? Yet, nothing.

  • MarkieA

    Point #4 – I’d love to hear your distinction between a search and an inspection. Besides, of course, the definition given by those conducting the “inspection” at the airport. An inspection is usually defined as an organized or formal examination against a criteria. There are documented standards to meet, and the inspection is to determine if those criteria are being met. TSOs aren’t doing this; they are searching you and your luggage against a loosely defined list of dangerous items. These are two completely different activities. But I’m sure TSA has some “better” definitions floating around; certainly designed to get around that pesky 4th Amendment.

  • MarkieA

    My understanding is, that this is what they did last year. I don’t count that as a failure. I think that’s why it’s an Opt Out WEEK this time, not Opt Out DAY.

  • emanon256

    When TSA stopped me in Penn Station and demanded I be searched and patted down before I went to the trains, I feel like that truly was a violation of the 4th amendment. At that time, the train was my way home. They prevented me from going to my home until I went through an unreasonable search. How is that even legal?

  • bodega3

    TSA in OAK caught someone so we will see what the outcome will be.

  • crock

    none of us have any rights, obama is the only one with any rights, so strip naked to get on a plane would be ok, we have no constitution any longer, so cut the whining and bend over.

  • bodega3

    If you are blaming the current administration then you need to check your dates of when the TSA got started.

  • Mark Bennett

    The problem, I think, is that you’re reading Christopher’s five reasons as “reasons not to walk through the scanners” rather than “reasons to engage in peaceful protest with a view to encouraging the government to stop using the scanners.”

    The costs of using the scanners (financial cost (3), privacy cost (4), and possible health cost (1)) are substantial. The benefits are negligible (1), (5) (for the broader picture, see http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2010/11/transportation-economics.html).

    Whether we continue using the scanners should be based on an objective cost-benefit analysis rather than oh-my-god-they’re-trying-to-kill-me-I-know-it-because-my-government-says-it’s-so.

  • Aaron Gold

    No, but if thousands of people miss their flights because of long TSA lines, if the airline schedules are thrown into chaos, if the standby lists swell because no one can make their flights because of the TSA… then maybe people will take notice.

    The reason this issue isn’t getting the attention it needs is, I imagine, that many people only fly on occasion, so they just don’t think about it. Once something affects people, they start to think about it. And once they think about it, they’ll realize that the TSA’s current screening program is ineffective and a true violation of our Constitutional rights.

  • Frank Windows

    “Simply because they are easily foiled isn’t really a reason not to walk through them.”

    Of course it is! Just because I object to the scanners, that doesn’t mean I don’t want to be safe in the air. Those are MY tax dollars and airline fees paying for those useless scanners. I want the TSA to invest MY money in methods and technologies that WORK. Just take a moment to digest this fact: THE TSA IS NOT PROTECTING US FROM TERRORISTS. All they are doing is harassing us and making us late. And that’s on YOUR dime.

    “It’s not a consititutional right to fly.”

    No, but there is a constitutional protection against unreasonable search. My job requires me to fly — I can’t do what I do traveling by car, bus or train. So if I want to do my job, I have to go through TSA screening. The right to move about freely is not outlined in so many words in the Constitution, but it’s a right. And it’s being vilated.

  • Frank Windows

    “For most of us travelers it’s no big deal.”

    75,000 miles this year and counting, and it’s a big deal to me. Cancer seems to run in my family, and I’m already getting a higher dosage by flying in the first place, so the scanners are out. It’s a good thing I’m not homophobic and have no sexually-related traumas, so I don’t mind when the TSA agent’s hand slides up my thigh until it makes contact with my testicles, because that is *exactly* what happens during a pat-down.

    Paulette, if you don’t have a problem with a) the potential risk of cancer from an improperly tested machine is not a problem and b) a woman you don’t know touching your breasts and inner thigh each time you want to fly, then good for you. But please don’t infer that you speak for “most” travelers, I don’t believe you do.

  • Ann Lamoy

    Excellent points Frank. I avoid the pat down whenever I can because I find it extremely invasive. The thought of some strange woman’s hands touching my breasts and getting remotely close to my genitals? Not to mention touching me all over? Is rather upsetting for reasons I am not going to get into. I don’t like the back scatter machines and try and avoid those whenever I can but would rather face that than a pat down. (And getting pulled for the pat down AFTER the scan-is even more upsetting)

    On the other hand, I only travel once or twice a year, so my exposure is much less than people like yourself, who are traveling on business. Or my boss, who spends half the year traveling and probably flies close to 150K miles. I don’t blame you for being concerned about the cancer risk.

  • Ann Lamoy

    If I were flying next week (and you would have to pay me good folding money to do this), I would chose to not opt out. Not because I like the back scatter machines. No, I don’t. I think they are unnecessary as they are, potentially dangerous and need much more testing. And frankly I don’t trust the TSA as far as I could throw the Washington Monument.

    The reason I wouldn’t opt out is because I have personal space/body issues and have real trouble when dealing with a pat down. Even having them running their hands along my arms and legs makes me extremely uncomfortable but when it comes time to get near my breasts or genitals, I get extremely upset. There are personal reasons I am not going to get into behind this but I would rather face the cancer risk from the back scatter than deal with the pat down,

    But good luck to all of you that are doing this. I hope it does work and I hope you can reach your destinations with as little disruptions as possible. And as little actual groping as possible.

  • jim6555

    I will be flying on Wednesday morning out of Tampa International Airport. This airport has always used millimeter wave scanners which do not produce deadly or harmful radiation. I will let them scan me here. My return flight will be a few days later out of LAX. The last time I was there, they were using backscatter machines. If those machines are still in use, I will definitely opt out there.

  • naoma

    I tried to opt out of the scanners (I did not have to remove my boots, however). It is an “age” thing. But they said I must go through scanner. Wanted me to remove a scarf I was wearing but it was attached to my sweater — it is a sweater with attached hood and scarf. On previous trip I had to go through “enhanced” patdown and have my hands rubbed with something and then wait for results.
    I passed. Scanners scare me.

  • naoma

    On a previous trip I had those locks on my luggage that they can open with their special key. BOTH LOCKS WERE STOLEN. Will not buy anymore. I even had a luggage tag removed (my name was on it — hope they can use it). It was a brass tag.

  • Mundane Lustrator

    Actually, the courts have upheld that Americans have a right to fly.

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law :

    Current US Code addresses air travel specifically. In 49 U.S.C. § 40103, “Sovereignty and use of airspace”, the Code specifies that “A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.”

  • Mundane Lustrator

    They caught someone? A terrorist? What did they actually find?

  • Mundane Lustrator

    Despite your attempts to minimize our comments, it IS a big deal for many travelers, and the numbers are growing.

  • Mundane Lustrator

    Maybe if the TSA supervisors properly assigned the necessary number of screeners and demanded they actually work their entire shift, then things won’t slow down and we’ll get a day or two of full value for their paycheck.

  • Mundane Lustrator

    I won’t be opting out next week because I will not allow TSA screeners to sexually assault me. I fully support those who do opt-out and I hope this is a good opportunity to inform other flyers of the issues related to TSA.

  • Mundane Lustrator

    Currently the courts have upheld these searches as legal, but courts change and law changes. I hope I’m still alive when it does.

  • JenniferFinger

    I think this little example of Godwin’s Law is obnoxious. You’re comparing apples and oranges here. Everyone else has the right to opt out, so I’m not infringing on anyone else’s rights.

  • MarkieA

    So, as of 11/17/12, the latest is that this guy was arrested for having a watch that looked like a timing device. No explosives, no nothing else. Whew! That was close. Sure glad we got THAT guy.

  • BMG4ME

    The problem for me is that it doesn’t prevent me from having to do what I really object to – which is taking off my belt.

  • drustrange

    I travel 70k miles per year and ALWAYS opt out, for safety, civil rights, and personal privacy reasons. The patdown used to bother me, but not any more, not after 100 of them. It’s also amusing when you get a TSA person who’s a walking example of the Stanford Prison Experiment – trying to bully you with comments, tone, or even an especially long and invasive patdown. So sorry, dull TSA person, but after you rub your hands all over me, I get to leave, whereas you have to stay here being irradiated for ever, and ever, and ever….

  • frnkbnhm

    I will not be opting out. I am not so uptight that I care if some TSA agent sees what I look like as a fuzzy naked silhouette.
    Despite being a libertarian, I completely disagree with the civil rights arguments. I decided to fly somewhere. From my point of view, the act of purchasing your airline ticket is a tacit acceptance of the search.

  • Bunny Faber

    I worry more about who sets up and runs these machines. This is like putting a medical device in the hands of the ignorant. Maybe they are perfectly harmless when they are operating according to their expected parameters – but what if they are not “idiot proof”?

  • Lost in France

    3 out of the, “5 reasons I’m opting out of the TSA’s scanners (and you should, too)” have nothing to do with why a person should opt out. #2, #3, and #5 provide no information relating to why one should opt out. While I agree with the premise of the article, it is clearly misleading, and appears to be written by an amateur.

  • Daniel

    Yet these procedures started under the Obama administration.

  • bodega3

    You need to do a bit of homework:In 2004:
    the 9/11 Commission recommended that TSA give priority attention to implementing

    technologies and procedures for screening passengers for explosives.

    2 The bombing of two

    Russian airliners in August 2004, shortly after the release of the commission’s report, focused

    considerable attention on this issue. Based on the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation, Congress

    included provisions in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-

    458) directing TSA to improve checkpoint screening technologies capable of detecting

    explosives. TSA initially tested walkthrough portals that analyze samples of air passed over

    individuals for traces of explosives. However, TSA considered these systems to be unreliable in

    the airport environment and has more recently focused on WBI technologies.


    Russian airliners in August 2004, shortly after the release of the commission’s report, focused

    considerable attention on this issue. Based on the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation, Congress

    included provisions in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-

    458) directing TSA to improve checkpoint screening technologies capable of detecting

    explosives. TSA initially tested walkthrough portals that analyze samples of air passed over

    individuals for traces of explosives. However, TSA considered these systems to be unreliable in

    the airport environment and has more recently focused on WBI technologies.



  • New bill of rights

    You are 100% correct. Thank you for making this an issue and not being complacent fools like the rest of these idiots. It’s amazing how many stupid people will argue vehemently against their own interests.

  • Ladue

    Flew out of DCA at Thanksgiving and the full-body scanners were the ONLY option. They were not sending anyone through metal detectors, they were blocked off. I opted for the pat down.

  • Crowther Amanda-Beth

    Kind of dumb question but seriously ain’t no ones hands touching me and I have metal plate in wrist that’s capable of conducting electricity mildly yo really don’t want to know how that was found out how if I had need to fly should I handle that?

  • Fluffy Duffy

    Stop flying for a week. watch airlines go bankrupt. Watch The TSA disappear.