The bare facts about “Opt-In” Day and a media-fabricated crisis that fizzled

Like most Americans, I was relieved that there were no major disruptions yesterday, which was one of the busiest air travel days of the year.

The day ended with a defiant TSA calling Nov. 24 Opt-In Day — a not-so-subtle dig at the activists who asked air travelers to opt out of the full-body scanners.

“What some protesters threatened as an opt out day has turned into a TSA appreciation day,” the agency said.

The mainstream news media followed in lockstep. “Travelers at area airports Wednesday appeared to be opting out of the much-hyped National Opt-Out protest against the see-all body scanners,” wrote the New York Daily News.

To read the coverage, you would think this was nothing more than a media-fueled nonevent. But a closer look at the facts suggests that’s not necessarily accurate.

A few questions that remain after National Opt-Out Day lead to a different conclusion.

Did TSA change its screening procedures to make things move faster?

Probably. I asked TSA and the Department of Homeland Security repeatedly if it planned to do anything different on Nov. 24. It referred me to TSA Administrator John Pistole’s Congressional testimony, in which he insisted the agency wouldn’t change its screening techniques (a few days later, it changed the rules for pilots and flight attendants). Yesterday, I spoke with a Homeland Security representative, who reiterated: no changes.

But the view from the airport was quite different yesterday. Passengers reported that many full-body scanners had simply been turned off. The TSA denied it had turned off the machines to speed up screening.

Did any air travelers opt-out?

Yes. Even the TSA admits there were opt-outs on Nov. 24, although its self-reported numbers are selective and haven’t been subjected to any independent audit. I profiled one of them yesterday. But TSA had staffed up to sufficient levels and selectively turned off enough full-body scanners that the protests hardly registered.

But seriously, Opt-In Day?

No, that’s hyperbole. In order for it to have been Opt-In Day, you would have had passengers lining up in front of the turned-off scanners and insisting that they walk through or be patted down, in the interests of aviation security. Calling it Opt-In Day is pure spin.

And a few questions about the photograph, while we’re at it. This snapshot appeared on the TSA site.

Who shows up at the airport with a sign like this and asks their kids to hold it and happens to take a picture that happens to find its way to the TSA website? More spin, without a doubt. Yesterday was not TSA Appreciation Day.

What did the TSA miss?

A lot, unfortunately. Remember, this agency’s mission is to “protect the nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.” Less than 10 percent of Americans travel by plane during the Thanksgiving holidays — the rest by car or train. The TSA yesterday had an opportunity to talk about how it protected the rest of the traveling nation, not just air travelers. It could have spoken about how Opt-Out Day was incident-free, and how it had fulfilled its mission by protecting all of us. Instead, it was fixated on protecting full-body scanners and pat-downs. How shortsighted.

Did the media fabricate National Opt-Out Day?

That all depends on how you define “media.” I’ve seen some pretty simplistic coverage of this story in the mainstream media, particularly on TV. (You can always tell they have no clue when they identify the TSA as the “Transportation Safety Administration”). But the outrage over the body scanners and pat-downs heard online, in what the Department of Homeland Security patronizingly calls the “alternative media,” has been largely legitimate. There was a lot of unhappiness. There was, however, no widespread agreement over how best to protest TSA’s practices.

By way of full disclosure, I should note that my own views on opting out have evolved. A year ago, I thought the full-body scanners were a non-story. Last spring, when TSA began aggressively patting down air travelers who refused the scans at select locations, I was willing to give the agency the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it would tweak the policy before rolling it out nationwide, I thought.

Earlier this month, when it became clear that it wouldn’t change, I called for people to refuse the “either/or” choice. But in the last two weeks, it’s become clear that protests don’t work as well as public pressure combined with litigation.

What do the opt-outers have to say for themselves?

They call it a “rousing” success, which is more spin. According to its organizers,

Ultimately, the hype built by the media for National Opt-Out Day turned the event into something that it could never be. They wanted the chaos at the airports, they wanted long lines and beyond-frustrated travelers because it would make a good story.

But the protesters claim to have made their point, and they note the agency has made numerous changes to its policies — while at the same time insisting that it hasn’t made any changes — after Opt-Out Day was announced in early November.

The TSA’s missteps are likely to become a major issue when the next Congress convenes. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the agency curtailed or eliminated entirely by legislators.

Update (11 a.m.): A quick poll of 100 readers suggests no one really won yesterday.

(Photo: T homas Hak/Flickr Creative Commons)

  • Tom

    Of course this was a media fabrication. The media just loves to comment on how difficult it is to fly. Some journalists are still flogging the nine hour tarmac delay that occured 11 years ago in Detroit.

    Millions of people fly every day and do it without a hitch. That said, flying can take some skill and discipline. For some people, it has become too difficult because of their age, infirmity or inflexibility. Fortunately, bus service has improved markedly with the introduction of services like Megabus as well as the resurgence of Amtrak and the upcoming high-speed rail projects. And computer services such as Skype allow people to travel the world from the safety and privacy of their own home.

  • Brandon

    Of course the TSA changed its own rules and procedures. They told their staff to be courteous, kind, and to turn off as many of the Nude-O-Scopes as possible because otherwise, the PR disaster that is the TSA would have continued.

    So those body scanners that are supposed to make us safe and all…many were not actually used on the busiest travel day of the year; and that protects us how, exactly? Oh, yeah, because THEY DON’T HAVE ANY EFFECT on our actual safety so it didn’t really matter.

    It’s all part of the Smoke and Mirrors Security Theater (TM) that they are getting very good at.

    The next time a grandma with a medical problem has an accident at the checkpoint due to TSA, or a child gets stripped and groped, just know that the video cameras in our cell phones will be in the upright locked position.

  • Bill

    I belong to several travel blogs populated by people who travel frequently.
    Almost unanimously they have no problem with the scanners, while a minority do objective to aggressive pat downs.

    This non-issue has been clearly over-blown.

    Those who are in this for the attention and self-promotion need to move on to another issue, including those media-issue driven politicians. Really private screeners? Unionize the TSA agents? Ideas even worse than this opt-out day fiasco.

    Let’s give thanks for those level headed travelers that know how to sort out real issues from the arm waving histrionics.

  • cjr

    I’m as angry with the media and their spin of the situation right now as I am TSA.

    The media wanted a train wreck, and since they didn’t get it, they’re calling Opt-Out Day a failure. Liars. It was all about awareness, and the media gave the initial story to anybody who would listen. It’s not our fault that the media didn’t get want they wanted: a disaster at the airports.

    And TSA? Being able to control the story and the PR is now 100% proven to be more important than national security. Absolutely disgusting.

  • http://www.alaskatravelgram.com Scott McMurren

    Most of the arguments regarding the opt-out day–or TSA in general, plod along well-worn trails: “Remember 9/11.”, “They’re keeping us safe.”, “We have no choice, so let’s roll over and wet on ourselves.”, or “Stand up against big government.” It appears that the TSA is a bloated, misguided bureaucracy of well-meaning folks performing episode after episode of “Security Theater”. This is a big, dumb, expensive play that should never have made it to Broadway. Forget the secret databases. Forget the expensive strip-scopes. Most of all, forget the tens of thousands of TSA screeners that should be doing something else instead of getting in the way of our air travel. Bruce Schneier said it right: the two noteworthy improvements to security since 9/11 are reinforced cockpit doors and increased situational awareness by passengers.

  • barfeld2

    The photo of the two kids is interesting.

    Is it now legal for people to take photos at the TSA checkpoints? The last I remember it was not.

    I wonder if the TSA arrested the photographer. If so, that would explain how they “happened” to get the picture.

  • barfeld2

    I’ve done some further research and, it turns out, the TSA Handbook states (at 2.7):

    A. TSA does not prohibit the public, passengers, or press from photographing, videotaping, or filming screening locations unless the activity interferes with a TSO’s ability to perform his or her duties or prevents the orderly flow of individuals through the screening location.

    However, people who’ve tried to take pictures have been stopped and even detained. See this report: http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/24/want-to-photograph-your-tsa-ordeal-not-so-fast/?boxes=techchanneltopstories

  • http://Dorothy4mkay@msn.com Sasha

    I sometimes think that ‘elliott’ forgets that he is part of the media.

  • Roger

    @ Sasha,

    My thoughts exactly. I only hope that this site can now go back to helping people with problems, that’s what I come here to read about.

    - Roger

  • Joe Farrell

    I dunno – I heard that most [not all] of the AIT machines were shuttered and roped off at many many airports around the nation.

    If there was a 80% reduction in the number of AIT machines in use there would be an 80% reduction in opt outs? Right?

  • John

    It was kind of funny to watch somebody declare they wree opting out, to be told that they didn’t have too, has the TSA was not using the machines.

  • Charles

    The entire idea of an opt-out day was doomed from the beginning as stupid. The goal was to protest technologies and procedures considered to be violations of passenger’s rights. So, they devised a protest that would only victimize the very people they profess to support. And they put it on the day when it had the potential to harm the largest amount of PASSENGERS! The TSA would not have been inconvenienced at all by an opt-out protest. They would have just moved slower. Many would have probably gotten some overtime out of it.

    If you object to scanners and pat-downs, write your representatives in congress. If you want to protest, bring a sign and let your voice be heard. But, don’t plan a protest who’s sole purpose is to inconvenience the very people you claim to be defending.

    I support the scanners. I think it’s a safe and effective technology and the first real advance in passenger screening since 9/11. As of earlier this month 81% of the public agreed. That has dropped some since the mis-information and spin campaigns have been launched in earnest, but it’s still a strong majority. The pat-downs are necessary if we permit opt-outs (and I would not permit them, myself; do we permit opt-outs of the metal detector?). Otherwise, the terrorists will simply opt-out and we accomplish nothing with the scanners at all.

    Here’s the salient number: 39 opt-outs in Atlanta out of 47,000 passengers! Modern media has allowed the loud opinions of small groups to be portrayed as massively larger than they are (witness the Tea Party). It’s the responsibility of the media to put these groups in context; a responsibility they have pretty much abdicated these days.

  • Joe Farrell

    @Charles – what if I do not think that any amount of additional radiation is safe? Neither one of us are scientists – so my opinion is just as valid as yours. You think they are safe- bully for you. So – because I believe they are not safe – how do we deal with my belief? Or just because you think they are safe then I must consent?

    I really don’t care if you want to submit yourself – I do not believe any additional radiation does in the x-ray spectrum is ever ‘safe.’ So – how do we deal with my opinion and my concern??

  • Meredith

    There was Protesters and there were people that Opted Out… There was t-shirts and even a bikini clad traveler.

    Less than 1% according to a TF Green Spokesperson.

    But everyone has to keep one fact in mind.

    We are the Vocal Minority. We only represent a small portion of the actual public traveling.

  • http://www.archivale.com/weblog Marc de Piolenc

    As for the planned opt-out wave inconveniencing the very passengers it was supposed to help – respectfully disagree. Like Socialism, TSA procedures work only to the extent that they are not applied. Proving that was the purpose of opt-out day. Under TSA’s own procedures, everybody has the option of refusing to be irradiated? Okay – what happens when more people than usual exercise that option? Answer: chaos. Turning off the machines was TSA’s tacit acknowledgment of that fact. Still, it was a clever move on TSA’s part, because it made it possible to hide the lameness of their system for a little while longer. “See? – everything’s fine here – no problem!” Right.

  • Brandon

    ” Otherwise, the terrorists will simply opt-out and we accomplish nothing with the scanners at all.”

    The scanners do not and will not protect against terrorism.

    Period.

  • GeekChic

    I’m sort of puzzled by all of the people belly-aching about the stories Chris chooses to write about… last I checked this was his blog, not yours. If you don’t like what he discusses – why are you still here? {Looking at Roger, John, Sasha – to name just a few}….

  • http://www.chanti.de gold schmuck

    I support the scanners. I think it’s a safe and effective technology and the first real advance in passenger screening since 9/11. As of earlier this month 81% of the public agreed. That has dropped some since the mis-information and spin campaigns have been launched in earnest, but it’s still a strong majority.

  • SirWired

    This effort was doomed from the start. There were one of two possible outcomes, neither of which would have been a “win”.:

    A) The Opt-out day is a smashing success, and the vast majority of air travelers that have no problem with the scanners (I’m not going to discuss here if they are correct or not) become hopping mad at the protesters, especially if the protest causes the innocent harried travelers to miss their flight. The anger is transferred to supporting the TSA, even if otherwise they would not care or be slightly opposed.

    B) The Opt-out day is a bust, either through the TSA bending or through insufficient participation. This is read as “not enough people care”, and absolutely nothing changes, other than the fact that the TSA now has absolutely no reason to even give the protesters the time of day, since it has been shown they both have no power, and are not the negotiating type…

    The American public is generally tolerant of protests and strikes… up until the point it crosses the line from annoying those they are striking against to annoying and inconveniencing the public that is the real audience for the strikers/protesters.

    I, personally, don’t approve of the scanners, but I am exasperated at the clowns who “organized” this protest.

  • DaveS

    Right, the protest was a poorly thought out idea, with no real path to a desired outcome. I do think the TSA is ineffective, intrusive and expensive – not to mention rude much of the time. We are spending billions on security theater, aimed at the previous threat, and at the very least that’s drawing available resources away from more effective security activities, and potential flyers to the highways where their statistical chances of tragedy are far higher.

  • Carver

    @Joe Farrell

    @Charles – what if I do not think that any amount of additional radiation is safe? Neither one of us are scientists – so my opinion is just as valid as yours.
    ——————————————

    That’s not a tenable position. You’re using a computer that puts out radiation. You presumably use a cell phone which puts out radiation. You microwave your food. Your dentist x-rays your teeth, your doctor orders MRIs, etc. All of this qualifies as “additional radiation”. You’d have to live like the unabomber to avoid additional radiation.

  • lmf

    Many of the folks traveling on Wednesday will be returning home on Sunday or Monday. Will TSA be turning the machines back on? Will the folks who had already decided to opt out take their opportunity to do so? I am not so sure that this is a completely played out story.

  • Joe Farrell

    @Carver – as a lawyer you must have a decent classical edumaction . . . .cell phones, computers, etc put out radiation in the low energy radiowave spectrum – it does not have enough energy to damage DNA. Whereas millimeter wave is simply microwaves – which can heat cells up and do physical damage to them – whereas xray scanners penetrate the skin top layer – and x rays can easily damage DNA.

    Further, you may have heard the brouhaha that these scanner amount to less than X amount the radiation received on an average airplane flight. So – which amount of radiation will cause YOU cancer? Can you tell?

    Second, the radiation in the scanners is concentrated on top most quickly growing and highest at risk layer of skin whereas the radiation absorbed during a flight is across the spectrum from cosmic, to gamma and x-rays and is across the entire body which reduces the risk since it is not concentrated.

    How would you feel of the entire dose of radiation every time you fly was concentrated in your gonads? Would worry a little bit then? I may not have much use for my ‘nads when I’m 70 but I hope to be using my skin into my 80′s if I get that far . . .

  • Joe Farrell
  • cjr

    “That has dropped some since the mis-information and spin campaigns have been launched in earnest, but it’s still a strong majority.”

    Really? The spin and mis-information has been on the part of TSA.

    Since people have found out what is actually going on, support of these intrusive measures has dropped like a rock.

    I am still unsure when the CBS poll showing 80% support was taken, but as of Tuesday, a Zogby polled showed 61% AGAINST.

    http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1925

    Why are so many people now against it? Because everybody now knows about the scans or has had to experience them. Where as before that, everybody was being polled in ignorance because TSA wasn’t telling everybody what was going on.

    National Opt-Out Day was a huge success.

  • Carver

    @Joe

    Actually, my education is in Applied Physics from the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. It goes by the nickname CALTECH. “Go Beavers”. My clientele are primarily engineers and scientists.

    But that’s besides the point.

    My comment wasn’t about whether the scanners were good, bad, or in between. It was simply in direct opposition to your musing, “what if I do not think that any amount of additional radiation is safe”

    The point remains that by living in the modern world you are subject to radiation. The question is where do we draw the line.

    Incidentally, one of my best friends worked at a company that made the scanner technology. He worked there from 2003-2007. He has a PH.D from CALTECH. He was recently recruited by Google. He tells me that the level of radiation put forth to take a scan is minimal.

  • Carver

    @Joe

    To address your specific points now

    1. You are correct EM radiation in the lower end of the spectrum has less Energy as Energy is proportional to frequency (E=hv). However, in terms of danger, the other issue is Power. We’d have to also take into the power of EM radiation. For example infrared radiation has a much lower frequency, but a raging fire will still burn you to a crisp.

    2. X-rays: You still go to the dentist and get x-rays of your teeth. That’s radiation near your brain.

    3. Cell phones: Cell phones use microwave radiation to communicate with cell towers. But, as stated in #1, its low power (not low energy). Of course, the frequency is lower 1.8 Ghz, than in a millimeter scan.

    So, the sophisticated question that needs to be answered for these machines, (and again, I am not taking a position on whether they are good, bad, or in between) are

    1. What is the frequency range that we are exposed to?
    2. In terms of wattage, how much power are we being exposed to?
    3. How does the body absorb this radiation, with emphasis on the fact that different parts of the body may absolrb different amounts of radiation.

    Remember, sunlight is radiation. No radiation, no plants, no photosynthesis, no life. So radiation shouldn’t automatically be the bogeyman.

  • Larry Langenauer

    There is ONLY ONE type of reaction to all the outcry (legitimate, I believe) about poor airline service, rude employees, cuts in quality, ever-increasingly creative surcharges for the entire travel/hospitality industry, etc., that would have any chance of being really effective; it would be simple, but not easy, because it would require some TEMPORARY inconvenience, but in exchange for postponed but long-term benefits

    That reaction would be simply for millions of travellers to simultaneously NOT TRAVEL for a significant period of time, say, at least 1 month, preferably 2 months. And to also time this abstaining from travel during the traditionally busiest times/seasons for domestic US travel.

    This type of “travel strike” would affect hotels/ motels, etc., airlines, the TSA, car rental companies, and so on.

    It would cause a certain amount of inconvenience for the would-be travellers, but nothing compared to the inconvenience to the companies I just mentioned in terms of lost revenue, which would force them to execute massive employee lay-offs and possibly even fold. Talk about power to the people!

    We, as customers, have a lot more power than we realize or acknowledge, even to ourselves. We have the power to spend our hard-earned dollars, or not, and to spend them when and how we choose.

    We should not allow our tax dollars, amongst other sources, to continue to be used against us! And this in the name of PATRIOTISM?!

    Yes, it would be inconvenient for a relatively short period of time; but we’re ALREADY being inconvenienced, insulted, overcharged (robbed, in plain English), harassed — and we’re paying for this privilege and accepting that to not submit to these treatments constitutes PATRIOTISM?!

    By continuing to submit to all the foregoing we are revealing ourselves to be truly SUBJECTS, not citizens.

    It would take the will of many persons, ( but not necessarily all persons ) simultaneously to refrain from travel (except for maybe by train or auto) to produce the desired result. It would also amount to a “strike” (pun intended) against the numerous unions in this country, who are themselves racketeering organizations, often controlled by the Mafia. But that’s another issue.

    And, by the way, it would also, as a desirable added by-product, decrease the potential of terrorist activities during these periods of decreased travel. And the non-travellers would also save some of their hard-earned and over-taxed dollars! How’s that for a win-all-around result, except for the terrorists and the companies in the abusive travel/hospitality? industries.

    Now we just need someone (or a group) to organize it. It would be a labor of love, (love for oneself and one’s fellow-traveller).

    Anyone out there have the cojones (testicular fortitude to get involved, instead of just complaining, criticizing, mud-slinging, etc.? If so, I’m in!