Do the TSA’s new body scanners solve our screening problems?

The TSA is at it again. Earlier this week, it announced that in an effort to “enhance security while strengthening privacy protection” it had begun testing new scanning technology that doesn’t show screeners naked images of passengers.

But that is not why I’m writing about the beleaguered federal agency again. I promised you, dear reader, that I would pace myself with these TSA posts, and I am trying. It’s been five days since my last one.

It seems we’re at it, too. Just as the government made a big splash with its new scanning technology announcement (and we had the usual cast of critics and apologists trading insults, which was disappointing) so, too, have passengers and their advocates made some important — yet largely unreported — progress.

Before we get to that, a few words about the “new” scanners, which are actually just a software upgrade. The application is being used in existing scanners at Las Vegas McCarran International Airport and will be loaded into machines at Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta International and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in “the very near future,” according to the agency.

In a blog post accompanying the announcement, the TSA claims that only a “small percentage of travelers have had privacy concerns” with the screening process, and that this fix “eliminates” them.

That’s an interesting perspective. I wonder what the tens of thousands of passengers who are subjected to a physical pat-down would have to say about that. What’s more, I wonder how that flies with the passengers who are worried about radiation from those scanners?

(If you can’t wait to answer the question, please scroll down and take today’s poll.)

Regardless, I think the agency is a little oblivious to the big picture. Passengers are resisting the TSA’s scanning fetish — and they’re winning. Since the pat-down brouhaha last October, I’ve spoken with many air travelers who say they’ve simply stopped flying because of the agency’s invasive new search techniques.

Today I have an update on one of them. In November I reported that Sommer Gentry had asked for, and was promised, a refund on an AirTran ticket. It turns out that what AirTran said and what it meant were two different things.

The airline would only offer her a voucher for a future flight, which didn’t really help. She refuses to fly until the TSA stops invading her privacy. She had an almost-identical dispute with Southwest Airlines.

“I demanded a refund in writing, on the phone, and in person at the check-in desk at the airport on the day of my scheduled flight,” she says. “Every time I was refused, even though in my reading of their contract of carriage, the airline will refuse to transport me and should give me a refund when I refuse security screening.”

Gentry wrote to the Transportation Department and disputed the tickets on her credit card.

“I got my refund,” she says.

And here’s another small but important victory for passengers. Last week, the TSA announced it had frozen its Screening Partnership Program, which allowed airports to privatize their security. Privately-run airport security is thought to be more customer-friendly and less intrusive.

My colleague Steven Frischling correctly pointed out that the move could violate the law. Well, now one Missouri senator is making sure of it.

Sen. Roy Blunt has introduced a measure that would require the TSA to use private security screeners if local airport officials don’t want government employees staffing the metal detectors and patting down people.

It’s clear that many air travelers want the TSA to stop touching and scanning them. They won’t be happy until the agency unplugs every advanced imaging machine and sends it to the junkyard. I can certainly understand that point of view.

What do you think? Does the new software “eliminate” your privacy concerns?

Survey says … no.

  • Leslie

    One problem with the poll – it didn’t ask if I even had privacy concerns. and I don’t. and neither do a lot of other people quite frankly.

    Ultimately, my concern is safety – doing the best to ensure that anyone with bad motives and the ability to do it, does not get on that airplane. I have far less concerns about the machines.

  • Christopher Elliott

    @Leslie – thanks. Added that as an option.

  • Monica

    While I still don’t like the idea of the screeners, I think seeing a “Gumby” shaped image is better than seeing the details. The screeners don’t need to know that I am a D-cup, just that there’s nothing hiding under them.

    Two weeks until my first flight since this craziness started. I’ve been driving everywhere recently. I still haven’t decided which screening I will do. You mentioned DCA is one of the ones getting the new software, which is where I fly out of. Maybe I’ll try it.

  • K

    This does nothing to address concerns about repeated exposure to whatever they are using to scan. If you are a frequent flyer, what are the long-term ramifications of being scanned multiple times a week/month/year? What is the effect on growth/development for children? It’s still not a good choice regardless of whether you are anonymous through the process.

  • http://www.cogitamusblog.com/ Lisa Simeone

    I still refuse to fly. Taking a 10-1/2-hour train ride tomorrow, in fact, for a business trip, rather than submit to being stripsearched or groped. Yes, major inconvenience. But silly me, my rights are more important than convenience.

    Telling tidbit from the NYT this morning re Egypt:

    “. . . governments built on the idea that people would surrender their rights for the prospect of security and stability.”

    Egypt? Egypt?? Sounds like the U.S. to me.

  • barbie45

    I am not particularly thrilled with the TSA. However this update of scanners is ok with me.

  • Sommer Gentry

    I voted no, that this software update definitely does not address my privacy concerns, because the TSA is still claiming it has the right to force me to accept unwanted sexual contact with strangers. I don’t know that person in the blue shirt, and I certainly don’t want her putting her hands inside my clothes, rubbing my vagina back and forth four times, handling my breasts, running her fingers through my hair, or any of the other sexually humiliating tactics du jour.

    The TSA should have no right to lay hands on an innocent person. Not one person who has passed through a TSA checkpoint was a terrorist. Not one. Every single person that they physically abused was a human being, a customer of an airline, and did nothing to deserve being treated like a criminal.

    These scanners don’t detect explosives, they detect anomalous shapes. This is why they’re easily defeated by dangerous items in biologically plausible shapes. No software is perfect, so the scanners will inevitably flag people as having anomalous shapes, even if those people aren’t carrying anything. Those improperly flagged people will then endure unconscionable physical, psychological, and sexual abuse. I will fight with everything I have until this campaign of dehumanization and subjugation ends.

  • Michelle B.

    It’s a nice PR move, but my concern is still the radiation. Too few studies done on this type of radiation, especially if there is a machine malfunction. About a month ago I opted out of the full body scanner and had the pat-down, which actually wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be. My big gripe about the process is that for the 5 minutes I waited for a female TSA person to come over to pat me down, I couldn’t see my bags and purse that had already gone thru the xray machine.

    I asked several times if I could be escorted over to the other side to wait, or have my bags brought bag to the pre-security side where they made me wait. The answer was No repeatedly. So when the female TSA person showed up and escorted me to the other side what were the first words out of her mouth? “Please keep an eye on your bags.” 5 minutes out of my sight and NOW they tell me to watch my bags?

  • Cynthia

    I also voted no . . . as the change does not address the other of my two primary concerns – radiation exposure. The TSA clearly does not understand that the regular and ongoing use of ionizing radiation to examine passengers for security purposes is dangerous. Many small exposures add up over time and raise our lifetime risk of developing cancer.

  • Mike L

    Sommer has it right. False positives on these machines will still result in the unnecessary gropings, which is what the majority of people find most objectionable. And who knows, with the ambiguity of the new images, these machines may even result in more false positives.

  • cjr

    “I think the agency is a little oblivious to the big picture.”

    That much is obvious. K and Sommer are spot on. We know NOTHING about these supposed ‘upgrades’ because TSA doesn’t want to have to tell us anything.

    After all, did TSA ever tell us how they would modify the groping procedures for children? No, they didn’t.

    We have no proof whatsoever that it won’t be the same ol’ same ol’. That while we supposedly see Gumby on one screen, that a TSA still isn’t seeing another image somewhere else (one still being stored, no less).

    We still have no proof that these machines won’t be treating us for cancer we do not have, and giving us cancer in the process.

    Not to mention, they still won’t stop actual terrorists, yet TSA is determined to treat EVERYBODY as a terrorist. In the end, this is nothing but typical TSA propaganda.

  • George

    “That’s an interesting perspective. I wonder what the tens of thousands of passengers who are subjected to a physical pat-down would have to say about that.”
    =======================================

    Where are you getting this number from? Even if it was right, it’s still a tiny fraction of the total number of passengers flying daily. An even smaller fraction of them will have a problem with it.

    “What’s more, I wonder how that flies with the passengers who are worried about radiation from those scanners?”
    ======================================

    Airline passengers receive a higher dose of radiation sitting on the plane than they do passing through the scanners, so you can put this concern to rest.

  • Christy

    What I don’t understand is why so many of these machines are standing unused at airports.

    I flew from Grand Rapids, MI to Denver a couple of weeks ago. Grand Rapids had a scanner machine but was not using it and Denver was only using their machines on some screening lines and you could choose which line you got in. So I didn’t even have to opt out (which was nice, no patdown!).

    But if TSA keeps insisting that this technology is necessary to keep us safe, why are they not screening all passengers through them? And why are we paying for expensive machines that are sitting unused?

  • Aaron

    Ditto what Sommer said. A major concern of mine was that I have to let a stranger see my wife and kids naked in order to fly. I am glad that’s no longer a concern; it’s a step in the right direction. However, I still am concerned about the repeated radiation exposure of these machines. I still don’t want to step into one, which means I still may have to submit to sexual harassment in order to fly.

    Not that any of this matters, as I just flew LAX-MIA-LAX and the nude-o-scopes were turned off for both flights, as they were on my previous airline trip. I think TSA is keeping the number of opt-outs low by not turning the machines on.

    Regardless, if it was really a “small percentage” I doubt they would have made the change. Hopefully we are one step closer to getting a TSA that can really protect us without violating our rights or the law.

  • Aaron

    >Airline passengers receive a higher dose of radiation sitting on the plane than they do passing through the scanners, so you can put this concern to rest.

    That’s the TSA’s position, George. Other experts say it ain’t necessarily so (http://www.scribd.com/doc/35498347/UCSF-letter-to-Holdren-concerning-health-risks-of-full-body-scanner-TSA-screenings-4-6-2010) Sorry, George, but the TSA doesn’t have much credibility with me.

  • Aaron

    >Airline passengers receive a higher dose of radiation sitting on the plane than they do passing through the scanners, so you can put this concern to rest.

    That’s the TSA’s position, George. Other experts say it ain’t necessarily so. The TSA doesn’t have much credibility with me.

  • K

    @George, I would appreciate it if you could link to your source about radiation levels from the flight vs. radiation from the scanner. Let’s keep in mind the scanner is additional radiation that could be avoided. Is the rationale that “I am already going to be radiated, a little more won’t hurt?” really a good reason to choose more radiation? AKA, I already smoke a pack a day, what’s one more cigarette? I already ate the whole bag chips, what’s a few more?

  • Cynthia

    @George . . . “Airline passengers receive a higher dose of radiation sitting on the plane than they do passing through the scanners, so you can put this concern to rest.”
    ***

    That may be so, but the issue is lifetime risk from increased exposure. The scanners ADD exposure that we would otherwise not have had.

  • http://www.cogitamusblog.com/ Lisa Simeone

    The contention that “you get more radiation from flying than from the scanners” is TSA propaganda. It amazes me that people keep repeating it, ad nauseam.

    As Chris and others have linked on this website, numerous times, many scientists are saying the two types of exposure aren’t comparable. First, x-ray machines have to be properly calibrated; the NYT has been full of stories for the past two years about how many machines are improperly calibrated even in hospitals, by people with medical training, resulting in thousands of injuries. And you’re going to trust some TSA functionary to properly calibrate airport scanners??

    Second, the type of radiation emitted by the stripsearch scanners is concentrated on the skin, not dispersed the way medical x-rays are.

    Third, passengers waiting for a pat-down just outside the scanners, as I have done, and TSA agents themselves, are constantly being exposed to radiation that is leaking from these machines. Wait a few years and see what happens. We’ll be seeing news reports about all the injuries caused by these scanners. Then the sheeple will throw up their hands — “we didn’t know these things were potentially dangerous!”

    Finally, I don’t care if the scanners show my breasts, my butt, or an amorphous blog. It’s not about that. It’s about power. It’s about control. It’s about submitting to pointless, invasive procedures that violate our bodies and our rights. Every time we acquiesce, to every new procedure that comes down the pike, it just makes it easier for the TSA to implement another, and another, and another, secure in the knowledge that the sheeple will go along with it because we’ve been conditioned to go along.

    The TSA hasn’t thwarted one single terrorist attack. Not one. Only passengers have. These scanners are making a few corporations very, very rich, and that’s the only reason, other than subjugation, that they’re being forced upon us.

  • Bunnee

    I thought this might be a step in the right direction until I realized that it only applies to one type of scanner and the scanners in use at Sea-Tac are different. So, maybe some time in the future they will be altered as well or not – it’s not clear. And the radiation issue continues to be a concern. I don’t fly enough to be extremely worried about that, but I think it needs addressing.

    Bottom line: I have done nothing to warrant this kind of suspicion, I’m not convinced these scanners are effective at identifying problems, and I really resent Joseph Pistole’s “I know better than anyone” attitude. If he did, he would have incontrovertible evidence, not just throw out his “years” of experience when challenged.

  • http://www.thetravelinggiraffe.com Crissy

    I voted no, though I do believe that this does address many of the PRIVACY concerns from these machines. I saw this technology on TV a few weeks ago and I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t have used it from the start, or at least at the start of the complaints.

    I do wonder if using this technology still allows the regular scanned images they have been using to be created and if they are, can anyone see them, are they being saved (even if by accident?)

    As for the radiation, the vast majority of the flying public does not fly enough that the radiation would have a long term impact. Though I can understand the concern from people who are going through security a couple times a week, but that’s a seperate issue from privacy but should be addressed in a different way.

  • Lianne

    I voted no. Flyers still only have the choice of radiation or sexual harassment.

  • Abhi

    I voted no. I am not a prude but I insist on the fact that no one else but I should have the right to decide what, when and how much of my body under my clothes should be seen by others. If it means I won’t be flying, so be it. It’s like walking through southside Chicago around midnight with lots of money. If you don’t want to get robbed, don’t be there at that time. If you don’t want to be groped, don’t be at the airport, EVER. That’s what I think of TSA now a days anyways.

  • Mike Z

    I also voted no. People still shouldn’t be subjected to the pat down because they may have left a wallet in their pocket. if the image shows an object, remove the object and walk back through. I still have an issue however with the additional radiation. The TSA says it isn’t much, but until i hear indepecdent testing results and the fail safe systems in place so that the radiation doesn’t exceed that level, I’ll be against the the scanners.

    I do approve of the updated software. However, they said there are two manufacturers of the scanners and that this only addresses half of them. the bigger question then has to be “Why the hell couldn’t someone think of this improved version before?” Instead it now costs us $17 million to fix half the machines?????????

    WASTE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS!!!!

  • Brooklyn

    1. Who do they think they’re kidding? It’s just a change in the software, so images of the naked bodies of passengers are still in the system and can be viewed with a couple of keystrokes!
    2. Why should we believe ANYTHING the government says about our health? These are the guys who told New Yorkers they wouldn’t get sick from prolonged exposure to Ground Zero when the Twin Towers came down.
    3. As others have said, groping passengers should not be an option,no matter what.

    Get it, G-men? If people in Egypt and Tunisia can risk their lives fighting for civil liberties, what’s wrong with us that we’ve allowed all our freedoms to be taken away by the TSA?

  • Janet

    My dermatologist recommends strongly that I do not go through these machines. They concentrate xrays on the skin per the article listed here and are a risk especially for anyone who is at risk for skin cancer. That’s a very big portion of the population. And if the machine malfunctions and give out a bigger dose, it is a big risk. I was given 2 ct scans that were later determined to be not safe in a hospital, what care is going to given to these machines in airports?

  • Lisa S

    I voted no. I agree with Lisa Simeone and others above: the scanners violate my civil rights and pose a potential health risk. We have seen in the past that the government has permitted materials and objects to be used that years later were proven to cause harm. There is not enough evidence to prove yet that the radiation exposure is harmless. Additionally, the sexual assualt of the pat down is inexcusable. Finally, there is also no evidence that these scanners make flying safer. Smoke and mirros, people. They are just smoke and mirrors, or security theater as others would say.

  • Bill

    Why do so many people on this thread keep beating the same tired drums?
    Here was the question:
    “Does the new software “eliminate” your privacy concerns?”

    Where did it ask about Radiation?
    What does this question have to do with pat downs?

    And I do hope that Summer never gets sexually assaulted so she would understand how offensive her comments are to those who have been.

  • MeanMeosh

    I’ve never had a problem with the scanners, per se. What I’ve had a problem with is the TSA’s constant lies and doublespeak about the operation of the scanners. This is the same agency that promised scanner images could never be stored or transmitted – until it was proven that they COULD store and transmit images based on the TSA’s own ordering specifications. Even if they claim they won’t use those features, do you REALLY trust a government agency – especially the TSA, who uses “national security” as an excuse to refuse answering questions anytime they’re caught in one of their lies – to keep their word? So no, this upgrade doesn’t address my privacy concerns.

    And this still does nothing to address the forced gropings, which I DO have a real problem with.

  • LeeAnne

    @Bill – having the choice as to whether or not to get dosed with radiation IS a privacy concern. Changing the image to a stick figure does not eliminate my concern over maintaining my privacy over my own body. I still have to either 1) get dosed with radiation, or 2) get sexually assaulted by strangers. And, if the nudeoscope “detects” something, then I may very well get BOTH! That is violating my privacy, any way you look at it.

    As for your comments about sexual assault – I HAVE been sexually assaulted. And it is for that very reason that I insist that I, and ONLY I, get to choose who touches my genitals. Have YOU been sexually assaulted? If not, how dare you attempt to speak for those of us who have?

  • http://www.santafetravelers.com santafetraveler

    Thanks for your continuing coverage of this. I two really upsetting experiences at the Albuquerque Sunport and I’m doing minimal air travel until security again becomes a radiation-free, kinder, gentler place.

  • Sommer Gentry

    @Bill,
    I was walking down the street when a stranger ran up behind me and shoved his hands up under my skirt to fondle me in between my legs. I screamed bloody murder and fought him off and escaped. The only difference between that experience and what these TSA thugs are doing to people is that the police came to take a crime report when it happened on the street. No one told me I should just stand there and let this stranger grab me, that it was for my own good, that I was asking for it by my own actions; instead, the police got a description of the guy in case they could apprehend him and charge him.

    You seem to be telling me that I should let another perfect stranger put hands inside my clothes and fondle my genitals, but this time I don’t get to press charges or scream for help and fight the attacker off like I did on the street. In the airport, it’s my fault (for “choosing to fly”), and I’m wrong to be upset (because “it’s for my own good”), and I have to shut up and take it. Anyone who says that a person with power forcing you to submit to unwanted sexual contact isn’t sexually assaulting you needs a serious education in the dynamics of sexual abuse.

  • LeeAnne

    @Sommer – THANK YOU for expressing the “sexual assault” issue so articulately. My mother has been assaulted several times by TSO’s. And there can be no denying it was sexual assault, given the parts of her body they touched. In her case, it was also battery. Having just had breast cancer surgery, she flew out to visit me, and had her surgical wound on her breast painfully rubbed to the point that it brought her to tears – both directions. If a stranger walked up to her and did that, he/she would be arrested. But because the person is wearing a blue smurf suit, and Mom was holding an airplane ticket, it’s legal and she had no choice but to stand there and let them do it.
    One of the worst parts of being a victim of sexual assault is the loss of control over your own sexual parts. To then have to allow strangers to, yet again, have control over your sexual parts just so we can supposedly feel “safer” on an airplane is just victimizing us all over again. I don’t feel safer – I feel raped, humiliated, and abused.

    I love it when MEN try to tell WOMEN how we should feel about sexual assault.

    I’m going in for major back surgery next week, and will have metal parts put in. Then, in March, I’m flying to see my son graduate from an Army training program. This surgery will add me to the list of travelers who, like my mother, are forced to be sexually groped every time we fly, because our metal body parts set off the metal detectors. I will be recently post-op, still in some pain, and I will be expected to allow a stranger to not only touch my genitals, but my recent surgical wound on my back. For WHAT?

  • Joey

    From reading these comments it’s clear that nothing short of ending all security measures would “eliminate” privacy concerns. (And then we’d be taking a poll on our “security concerns.”)

    I generally dislike the TSA (and their recent announcement they won’t let anybody but themselves handle airport security was a typically heavy-handed move on their part) but these comments do show what a “can’t win” situation they face. Scanners? Too invasive and unknown risks from the radiation. Okay, then those people can be physically searched, right? Nope, that’s “sexual assault” and we won’t put up with that either.

    I guess there’s always the very successul interview process you see in Israel, but there’s no way some of these commenters would ever willingly answer the sorts of questions they ask.

  • LeeAnne

    @Joey – your opinion might hold some water if the TSA hadn’t already taken their heavy-handedness so far beyond what is acceptable that it is now outrageous.

    I’m not a young woman – I’ve been flying pretty regularly for decades. NEVER BEFORE have I ever complained about security procedures to fly. Not until my mother was assaulted, publicly humiliated, and forced to urinate on herself, in my presence, while I was forcibly held back from going to help or even comfort her. That was my tipping point.

    I willingly allowed myself to be metal-detected, wanded, bag-searched, questioned, and generally treated like a suspected criminal in order to fly. I’ve relinquished my eyelash curler to TSA agents TWICE, and I’ve answered detailed questions about my scuba gear in my carry-on so it wouldn’t be confiscated.

    But there IS a line. And I’m sorry, but touching the genitals of innocent travelers, and causing physical pain to elderly disabled cancer patients, is simply, unequivocally, beyond it. If the TSA would simply step back onto the acceptable side of the line, the furor would end. Or, at least, drop down to a muffled roar.

  • cjr

    “but there’s no way some of these commenters would ever willingly answer the sorts of questions they ask.”

    I see this always being brought up, but what I don’t see is the kinds of questions that Israeli security is supposedly asking.

    The thing is, Israeli security isn’t just about asking a few questions. It’s about multiple layers of effective security, all of which we generally ignore here in favor of porno-scanners and sexual assault.

    Here, we do it as wrong as possible… as long as a select few companies are making a healthy profit. And we have the gall to call it security.

  • Joel

    I still can’t believe people are still whining about this stuff, and I must say I agree with Joey. The people who complain about the scanners are the same people who, back in the day, would have complained about not being able to take a pocket knife on board the plane to cut their apple.

    And LeeAnne, while it’s regrettable that your mother had bad experiences, your assertion that it’s only men that are telling women that they shouldn’t be worried is sexist in itself. There’s a way not to be “groped”: it’s called the scanner. You experience far greater radiation just flying in the plane at altitude than the scanner exposes you too — and potentially more dangerous radiation at that. Stop whining, just use the scanners, and everyone (including the TSA agents) will have a better travel experience.

  • LeeAnne

    Joel: please cite your sources, and your expertise in radiation exposure.

    Sorry, but there is a significant amount of information available (and not from some anonymous blog commenter) indicating that the radiation emitted by these machines is far greater, and for more dangerous, than the TSA is letting on. So I will listen to them before I listen to you.

    As for caring about whether the TSA agents have a “better travel experience” – yeah but, no. They work for me. My taxes pay their (minimal) hourly wage. I don’t give a hoot what their experience is. I DO care what MY experience is – and it will not involve either dosing myself with potentially harmful amounts of radiation, or allowing strangers to touch my genitals.

    But you just carry on being a sheeple. The TSA loves you.

  • notworried

    Join the Army 35 years ago and you would be lined up with 200 other young men, all standing in (nothing but) your boxers in a line. Thats one extreme.

    35 years later, after a long career in Law Enforcement including Family and Child advocy and sexual crimes, I don’t see similarities between body searches and the crime of sexual abuse. I see it the same as lined up in our boxers.

    It seem that no matter what some one does, another person will find it to offensive. I don’t see the TSA searches and sexual crimes being the same. Just like in any business, you have to pay the price if you want the product. In this case, you want to fly, you get screened and/or searched. If you don’t like it, don’t fly.

    I don’t like the machines because I don’t trust our government to tell me the truth. The searches are nothing.

    Today we cry because someone is checking us for contraban. Some posters need to get a life. All your crying about sexual abuse is not going to change a thing and lessens the impact of a real abuse. I can see it now, somewhere in a counseling session: the multiple rape and battery victim sitting next to the airline passenger who was searched.

    It doesn’t compare. And before someone climbs on that high horse, yes, I was a victim once but never again. The airport screening is nothing like it.

  • LondonSOF

    Lomg time luker; first time poster.

    Oh boy! You Americans! And, I thought us Brits were a load of whingers and complainers. For weeks I’ve been reading the comments of people like LeeAnne and Sommer.

    Please, take two aspirins and have good lie down. Your comments may be based on fact but they come across as hysterical and completely irrational.

    It’s the bleeding hearts, politially correct, types that will bring us all down – and very quickly; nose first into the ground.

  • http://juliekinnear.com Julie Kinnear

    I think the changes came a bit later. If they had implemented them from the beginning they could have prevented so many cases of humiliation that the security people caused to innocent people. And what is also funny is the fact that they present the changes as their own efforts to improve the technology used at the airports but in fact it was the public pressure that forced them to do so.

  • cjr

    “It’s the bleeding hearts, politially correct, types that will bring us all down – and very quickly; nose first into the ground.”

    It’s comments like this, made by people who don’t have the first clue as to what they’re talking about, that are the real threat. After all, ignorance and complacency in a population is what both the government and the terrorists want.

  • Ames

    @not worried You lined up in your boxers, but no one was touching you – that is a significant difference. I would be happy to go through the scanner if I were sure that would prevent someone touching me.

    As to whether the TSA groping is in itself a sexual assault, that may be a matter of opinion, but for anyone who has already been sexually assaulted, it is a reliving of the powerlessness of the situation and brings back the original feelings. Have you heard of flashbacks or PTSD? It is real. There may certainly be other situations which will also trigger flashbacks, but this one mimics the original attack in too many ways to be tolerable for many people. It will be very interesting to see what happens if someone “freaks out” during an “inspection” because PTSD kicks in. And it may not be a woman, men are also assaulted. Or how about a former POW?

    Has the TSA noticed the Moscow airport bombing? No where near inspectors and the same weak link exists in every airport. The concentration on passengers, not freight, not anyone else at the airport is the biggest head in the sand issue. Blowing up a plane, or a building is tragic, but I don’t believe that is where the terrorists will bother to aim. There are so many easier targets.