Saying “no” to TSA’s full body scan may come at a price

Having second thoughts about those new full-body scanners being used at airports by the Transportation Security Administration? The federal agency charged with protecting the nation’s transportation systems may want to take a second look — at you.

It apparently did when Karen Cummings refused to submit to a scan, which uses high-frequency radio waves to see through your clothes. Cummings, who works for a software company in Boston, described what subsequently happened to her at Logan Airport as “unnecessary” and “unpleasant.”

“The pat-down was completely thorough, as though I was a common criminal or a drug pusher,” she said. “The only place I was not touched was in my crotch — and isn’t that the one place they should be checking, after the underwear bomber?”

Cummings is part of a small but growing group of air travelers who say that they’re troubled by the TSA’s use of advanced imaging technology.

Last fall, the agency began installing 150 new scanners (including at Reagan National and BWI Marshall), and it plans to deploy an additional 450 this year. Some passengers are worried about the intrusive nature of the electronic searches, while others have voiced concerns about possible exposure to harmful radiation. (Experts say radiation levels are very low.)

Screening by a full-body scanner is optional for all passengers, according to the TSA. “Those who opt out may request alternative screening at the checkpoint, to include a pat-down,” said Greg Soule, an agency spokesman. Although he declined to offer details on the agency’s screening techniques, he added that checkpoint requirements for passengers departing from the United States haven’t changed since the underwear bomber incident last December. In other words, the TSA claims it isn’t pushing travelers into the scanners and punishing those who decline a scan.

But Cummings and others say they don’t feel as if they have a real choice.

“The additional screening makes you want to go through the scanner, as it is so much more impersonal in the long run,” she told me.

And her experience is hardly an isolated one. Houston-based Web developer Cheryl Wise had a similar confrontation when she refused to be scanned in Denver earlier this year. A TSA screener, who she says was upset by her decision, ordered a “level two” search of her luggage.

“Every compartment of my computer bag was opened and every pocket emptied,” she recalled. “Every compartment or pocket of my computer bag that held an electronic device was wiped separately with an explosives detector, as were my shoes and the inside of my purse that held no electronics at all.” Wise published the entire account on her blog, by-expression.com, under the headline, “TSA screening insanity.”

The TSA has its own blog, of course, which it uses to counter any claims that it has gotten carried away with its tech toys. In a recent post, it praised the full-body scanners, pointing out that since last year, agents had found such items as a pocket knife hidden on someone’s back and a syringe full of liquid concealed in a passenger’s underwear. “These finds demonstrate that imaging technology is very effective at detecting anomalies and can help TSA detect evolving threats to keep our skies safe,” the agency said.

My first instinct was to dismiss the traveler complaints as cases of a few TSA officers being overly vigilant at a time when security has been heightened and when the agency is trying to prove the value of the scanners, which cost $130,000 to $170,000 per unit. But security guru Bruce Schneier told me that he’d heard “lots of anecdotes” about extra screening, too.

And then I went through one of the machines myself, a few weeks ago in Salt Lake City. After I passed through a magnetometer, I was ushered into a large device that looks a little like the teleporter from the Jeff Goldblum version of “The Fly,” asked to empty my pockets and hold my hands above my head.

I admit, the scan felt somewhat invasive, with me holding my hands in the air as if I were an apprehended fugitive. The widely circulated pictures of scanned people — every contour of their bodies visible and their faces electronically airbrushed away — didn’t make me feel any better. Were the hidden pocket knives and syringes filled with liquid worth all this? And what was in that syringe that the TSA confiscated, anyway?

I asked other travelers about their experiences with refusing to use the devices, but I could find no hard evidence that screening dissidents were being penalized in a systematic way.

“I respectfully decline to go through the body scan,” reader Phil Kipnis said he told a TSA officer in San Francisco recently. The officer appeared “startled,” according to Kipnis. Then he pointed Kipnis, a Santa Clara, Calif., business owner, to the secondary screening area.

“A male TSA employee shook his head and ran the wand over my torso and told me to collect my things and turned back to watch the other passengers,” he said.

I believe the TSA when it says that it has no formal policy of punishing passengers who don’t want to go through the full-body scanners. But it doesn’t need one. Just a few stories of overly watchful officers giving people a thorough once-over if they refuse may be enough to persuade reluctant air travelers to submit to a virtual strip-search. And all it needs to reinforce those fears is an occasional shake of the head.

  • Justin

    @ Steve

    And it strikes me this country will RALLY BEHIND gun Rights, even though they are responsible for killing 1000x more people a year than Terrorism ever has in this country. Better yet, we’ll invade countries on no merit and spend TRILLIONS doing it….but when it comes to our civil liberties, the same people responsible for the above have no problems handing them over….

    Chances of dying in a Terrorist Attack… next to nill

    Chances of dying in a Homocide 1 in 16-22,000. Chances it’ll be by a gun 60 percent.

    Chances of dying by a car crash 1 in 40,000.

    Yet, hell.. Patriot Act… Remove your Shows… Strip down Naked… What’s next? Full cavity searches when some Jerkoff stuffs a bomb up his ass? There’s a point where you will NEVER be fully safe and Unless:

    A) You no longer want to drive
    B) Wish to hand me over all your guns
    C) Live in a padded room

    You like the rest of us will have to accept there will ALWAYS be inherent risk and no matter what our IDIOT reactionary politicians tell us, we simply have to accept it. We could trade every NATURAL BORN right away, and we’d still have danger…. Did 9/11 prevent the Nutjob in Dallas from flying his plane in to the IRS Building? Does it stop people from going postal with their guns (school and work). Are Car accidents suddenly not a problem? Life is a risk.. DEAL WITH IT.

  • KF

    I fly fairly frequently and will be one of those people opting out of the WBI for several reasons: one is the source of radiation and amount (and I’ve worked with radioactive and potentially radioactive sources and we had careful monitoring in place); second is that the new imagers aren’t fool-proof (along with the fact that someone monitoring is off in a room somewhere, if they were out in public and the images were public, I might object less). There are things they miss, either in body cavities or folds of skin/fat, but I think the real problem is they may lull people and the TSA into a false sense of security. More effective security is scrutinizing passengers – where they flew from, what their plans are, and their body languages, which is a whole lot harder to do than simply stare at a screen.

  • Carver

    @Mike

    ROTFLMAO.

    @Justin

    What social good do guns serve? A good question, if a bit of a red herring. Given the second amendment, its a moot point until either to Constitution is amended of the Supremes make different rulings.. But I’ll tell you what good guns serve.

    When the KKK was attacking my famiily in North Carolina. Guns were particulary useful that day. When an old girlfriend was sexually attacked, I wish she had a gun that day. When my cousin was jumped by 4 guys last August and died, I wish he had had a gun.

    Re:Terrorism. Its not a warm and fuzzy term, nor is it merely determined by the Victors.. There are rules of war. Additionally, the counties whose culture flow from one or more of the Abrahamic lines generally subscribe to Just War theory. Just War Theory delineate the right to go to War as well as the conduct within the war. Sidestepping the debate about perceived injustices. The terrorists that we face today are obviously terrorist because 1) they have no right to go to war. That is a right of Statehood. Second, conduct in was must be against the military might of the opponent. It is well settled that attacks of hospitals, airports, and other civilian areas is outside of the pale.

    Simple, eh?

  • Kimberly

    I was a little disappointed that I didn’t get chosen to step into one of these scanners. They’re really Star Trekkie. I hope my hubby gets a picture of me in it. I think they should just make it do the chunngg hummm noise when you walk in and Trekkies all over would PAY to be scanned.

  • barbie45

    Carver, simple but so well stated.

  • barbie45

    Considering the indignities we endure when flying as compared to twenty or thirty years ago the body- scanner is nothing. Banning of liquids,shoe removal, mini-terrorists aggravating passengers, this procedure is a piece of cake.

  • http://www.joshstrike.com Josh Strike

    @ William, while you’re absolutely correct in pointing out that there are a million hindrances to our freedom of movement through “this thing called life,” (I like that phrase), impediments like stop lights and boarding lines don’t require you to sacrifice a second, separate right in order to proceed. If the government required to violate your own right to privacy at certain stop lights by taking off your clothes, or if it required you to violate your own right against self-incrimination by asking you to disclose your political affiliations before you could proceed, wouldn’t that drastically shift the balance away from the private interest? Are those two invasions of privacy really all that different from one another?

    Moreover, these machines may actually be harmful to one’s health. X-ray machines at hospitals have been known to go out of alignment and give people semi-lethal doses. Suppose it’s no more dangerous than smoking a cigarette; would it not be yet another violation, that of your right to life, if you were forced to sit in a smoke-filled box before getting on a plane?

    That’s the core of my argument against backscatter being used as a primary or mandatory screening procedure. As a secondary or optional procedure, I have no problem with it. But while it’s not required right now, it seems reasonable to believe given the way these technologies have been deployed historically that it will, at some near point, become required as it already is in Britain.

    And no, I don’t think the Framers would be willing to have themselves or their wives strip-searched, virtually or otherwise, in the name of security. Modesty being what it was in the 18th Century, I think that would have been pretty abhorrent to them. I personally don’t feel any safer now than before these new security measures, and I don’t hear a lot of other people claiming to feel safer either. Putting four air marshals on every flight and having no screening at all would be safer and cheaper than the current system and much less intrusive, for instance.

    Now specifically @Carver, you say: “a passport and its associated application is [an in depth] probe into your affairs. Thus, making you disclose your affiliations would be to preserve this information in some government data for all time and posterity”. The question is, could there be anything more private or more personal, or anything you have more of an expectation to hold from public or official view, than a naked image of your body? Maybe nudists have no expectation “to be secure in their PERSONS” from public display, but certainly those of us who wear clothes to hide our bodies from view are not all doing so because we have something malicious to hide…and certainly we constitute the vast majority of society, who hold non-nudity as a baseline expectation of privacy, perhaps the ultimate and most basic one of all. Surely if the penumbras created by the 4th, 5th and 9th cover abortions and birth control techniques from investigation, they cover our naked bodies as well.

    And again, to require the dismantling of such a basic right in exchange for the freedom of movement has been shown by the Court to be beyond the scope of government power. So I stand by my argument…

  • Justin

    @ Carver

    Unfortunately, your argument is still lost in translation. You point out the few exceptions to the general rule. Sure, guns do protect in some instances. I am sure Terrorists inadvertently kill bad people with the good. The point here is that in the OVERALL scheme of things 16-22,000 people (Americans alone) die by the hands of murders of which 60-70 percent involve a gun. Then again, our guns flow to Mexico to fuel their Cartel wars. This results in 10s of thousands of more deaths. Our guns go to Canada now, which are causing serious issues there. So your FEW EXCEPTIONS to the general rule are not really with merit. You can always champion those. Yet, as a whole, guns serve VERY LITTLE social justice. A matter of fact, to bolster my claim, European countries that have tough gun laws suffer FAR LESS CRIME and homicides =). On a final note, the constitution says WELL REGULATED Militia. It never once states Individual Gun owning citizen. The courts have extracted that meaning from it. It was not the founding fathers.

    As per the terrorists not being a military. Actually, the Taliban were the ruling party in Afghanistan. That would give them a formal flag in which they are rebelling under. If you oust a leader, their rebellion is still legitimate. Don’t get me wrong, the Taliban are a BUNCH OF MORONS. Yet, I am just countering your statement. The same being true for the Iraqi Resistance. WE INVADED them. Not the other way around. Rules of war? Which one was it that told us to go to a Sovereign Nation known as Iraq and topple their leader? I doubt the Rules of War really dictated us in the 1950s to invade North Korea or to Hit Vietnam on our “Quest” to stop Communism. On an aside note, those same rules you point out, do not seem be the same we’re following. Remember the document known as the Geneva Convention that STRICTLY forbids torture. I guess the Bush Administration never got that memo…..So these rules… only apply to those who wish to cite them but fail to follow. It’s a two way street you know.

    As for Terrorism, it’s a very subjective argument. Founding Fathers rose against Britain to TAKE land that wasn’t theirs. We killed off 100s of thousands of Indians to take their land. They were NOT a formal ruling class. This occurred only about a hundred years ago. The list goes on.

  • Steve

    Justin…so your argument is “life is a risk…deal with it” when it comes to screening passengers to attempt to keep terrorists off planes, yet you’re so disturbed by homicides and traffic accidents that you continually inject them into a discussion that has nothing to do with them? Makes no sense to me.

  • Carver

    @Justin

    Again, your arguments are ad hominems and misdirections. While neatly articulated, they are all sound and fury. In order

    1. You asked about a social good of guns. I merely pointed out some from my own life. As far as being without merit, tell that to my old girl friend who was raped when she was 16 and my friend who was raped in his own home. Your argument implies that if we didn’t have guns those deaths wouldn’t have occured. That’s not a valid argument.

    2. Your statement that terrorists inadvertently kill bad people with the good is where you show your lack of understanding. Terrorists try is to kill people indiscriminately. All they care about is a high body count. When the 9-11 hijackers hit the WTC, they were going for as many dead people as they could get. They didn’t care who was in the building. Women, children, young, old.

    When the Christmas day bomber tried to blow up a plane, he didn’t know who was on the place. He just wanted a body count.

    That’s the simple and fundamental distinction betwen terrorism.

    3. Regarding the Taliban. No one is accusing the Taliban of being terrorists. They were accused of harboring terrorists, to wit. Al Qaeda. Get the facts straight. That’s an important distinction. Also, you missed the second point. Just War Theory has numberous elements, all of which must be met for a war to qualify as just. Having a sovereigh state is just one element. Purposely targetting civilian targets is verbotem. That’s why certain states are/have been considered terrorist sponsoring states such as Libya.

    4 Geneva Convention

    True, the Geneva Convention prohibts torture of a protected person. However not all people are protected under the Geneva Convention. A strong argument is made that terrorists are not given that lack of a traditional war or even armed conflict.

    5. Terrorism. No, the term is fairly well defined. One can make an academic argument, but to quote Potter Stewart, “I know it when I see it” (ok he was talking about porn, but the point remain, its trivial to identify) What we did to the Indians was awful. No doubt about it. However, that has no bearing on this issue. As to the founding fathers, they observed the rules of law as they existed at the time.

    6. Numbers: Ultimately, the biggest flaw (and that says something) in your argument is that because the 9-11 “only” got away with killing 3,000 people, its not a big deal. However, that’s a matter of opportunity. I would remind you that at the same time, they tried to attack the Pentagon, as well as Los Angeles. If Al Qaeda could, they’d put a bomb on every jumbo jet in the sky. We’ve been very fortunate that we’ve been able to hold back these wicked people.

    Also, loss of life is not the terrorists only objective. They hate our very way of life and that’s what is being attacked. That’s why they attack the symbols of America. Those items which define who were are.

  • http://www.joshstrike.com Josh Strike

    [Elliott, I don't know if this went through the first time.]

    @ William, while you’re absolutely correct in pointing out that there are a million hindrances to our freedom of movement through “this thing called life,” (I like that phrase), impediments like stop lights and boarding lines don’t require you to sacrifice a second, separate right in order to proceed. If the government required to violate your own right to privacy at certain stop lights by taking off your clothes, or if it required you to violate your own right against self-incrimination by asking you to disclose your political affiliations before you could proceed, wouldn’t that drastically shift the balance away from the private interest? Are those two invasions of privacy really all that different from one another?

    Moreover, these machines may actually be harmful to one’s health. X-ray machines at hospitals have been known to go out of alignment and give people semi-lethal doses. Suppose it’s no more dangerous than smoking a cigarette; would it not be yet another violation, that of your right to life, if you were forced to sit in a smoke-filled box before getting on a plane?

    That’s the core of my argument against backscatter being used as a primary or mandatory screening procedure. As a secondary or optional procedure, I have no problem with it. But while it’s not required right now, it seems reasonable to believe given the way these technologies have been deployed historically that it will, at some near point, become required as it already is in Britain.

    And no, I don’t think the Framers would be willing to have themselves or their wives strip-searched, virtually or otherwise, in the name of security. Modesty being what it was in the 18th Century, I think that would have been pretty abhorrent to them. I personally don’t feel any safer now than before these new security measures, and I don’t hear a lot of other people claiming to feel safer either. Putting four air marshals on every flight and having no screening at all would be safer and cheaper than the current system and much less intrusive, for instance.

    Now specifically @Carver, you say: “a passport and its associated application is [an in depth] probe into your affairs. Thus, making you disclose your affiliations would be to preserve this information in some government data for all time and posterity”. The question is, could there be anything more private or more personal, or anything you have more of an expectation to hold from public or official view, than a naked image of your body? Maybe nudists have no expectation “to be secure in their PERSONS” from public display, but certainly those of us who wear clothes to hide our bodies from view are not all doing so because we have something malicious to hide…and certainly we constitute the vast majority of society, who hold non-nudity as a baseline expectation of privacy, perhaps the ultimate and most basic one of all. Surely if the penumbras created by the 4th, 5th and 9th cover abortions and birth control techniques from investigation, they cover our naked bodies as well.

    And again, to require the dismantling of such a basic right in exchange for the freedom of movement has been shown by the Court to be beyond the scope of government power. So I stand by my argument…

  • Derek

    I Britain were it is mandatory to go through the scanners with no pat down option.
    The majority of security workers her are Asian. This will mean they wont be selecting people that are of the same colour or religion as the real terrorist, but what they will be doing is letting the women through with the full cover up dress, They will know that in there religion to see there naked flesh is a big insult but to the westerner its no big deal to be seen naked. To me it’s more of an insult to want to see my wife’s naked flesh as I respect my female human beings. These Asians have very little respect for females from there own country let alone a female from another country. Any woman they take a fancy to will be subjected to a digital strip search. They say it will be random but you can imagine a cue of ladies with big boobs and no men. Osama bin laden could be in the queue but a woman with a fit figure will be selected.

  • Carver

    @Justin

    I would agree that having one’s naked body subject to public view would be improper. However, at this time, there is a choice. You can choose alternative screenings. Perhaps in the future that might not be true, but the US legal system generally favors giving people alternatives when the object to something. Whether is public v. private school v. home schooling, DMV v. AAA, or backscatter v. pat down. So I’m not overly worried.

    US law also respects how something is down as well as what is being done. I”m not personally familiar with the rules for these machines, but I expect that a set of privacy protocols will be in place in the reasonable future.

    I would expect that the pictures not be viewable by the general public, and that genital areas be masked. However, we will see.

  • Justin

    1) A personal anecdote does not serve as a justification in the scheme of things. Personal stories are great. However, your story is once again the exception to the rule. As per those deaths occurring, I’d bet most would not. 60-70 percent involve a gun. It’s pretty damn hard to kill someone with a knife or bow and arrow. Guns simplify the process and make it much easier. I’d say a FAIRLY large portion of homicides would not occur if guns were not legal. Europe or even Canada with strict gun laws serve as a poster child for what regulating them can do for crime. So I fully disagree with your argument.

    In addition, you conveniently left off about our guns going to Mexico and fueling the 10s of thousands of murders there in Drug Violence. Mind you, Americans are the largest consumer of drugs, too. Our guns and habits influence the world.

    2) Yet, terrorism is not limited to Middle Easterners. Once again, Timothy Mcveigh was a white Christian Radical. The Unibomber was a white man. The guy who flew his plane in to the IRS building in Dallas was a white man. More so, work place AND school shootings FULLY qualify as terrorist acts. People going in trying to get as much of a body count and prove their point, is what terrorism is all about. Yet, our media FAILS to call these acts by what they are truly. However, get a middle easterner to commit them and it’s terrorism.

    3) See now I got you in to my argument. You concede that the Taliban weren’t terrorists. They are not listed on the state department website as being a blacklisted group. Strangely, nor is Al Qaeda for that matter. So this would mean that the Taliban was a legitimate government. So what we did is went in to their country and ousted their legitimate leadership. Albeit a harsh and repressive one. The same for Iraq. Sovereign and recognized leaders would mean we are the aggressors. Are you trying to say our hands are clean here? Please tell me when Saddam attacked the U.S or the Taliban for that matter? Hence, we would qualify as the terrorists in their eyes. If someone came in to your house and “took it away”, you’d be pissed and fight back, too. Now, I am not justifying their stupidity. I am just being pragmatic here.

    In regards to your nations that sponsor terrorism, their leaders are still recognized world leaders. Of which, we seem to have no problems exploiting to our benefit. Remember Noriega or half the South American Leaders we kept in Power under Reagan so long as they fueled our national interests. We didn’t much care what they did to their people either. If we wanted to stop Saddam on that argument, that would have been back in 1989-1992. Gulf War.

    3) Argument FALLS to pieces here. Sovereign Nation and RECOGNIZED world leader and a formal government. All of which Iraq and Afghanistan possess. Yet, we have locked up these people in Gitmo as terrorists. What you seem to conveniently forget is we invaded their country. They are simply rebelling on our authority there. Prior to our invasion, they had a formal government. This would guarantee the people rights under the Geneva Convention. In general terms, the Geneva Convention pretty much covers all people.

    http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument

    Would love for you to find the clause where individuals who rebel against our invasions are not protected?

    5) Terrorism is is not clearly defined. It is very subjected. Our founding fathers were “terrorists” in Britain’s eyes. They owned our colony. We started an illegal war and fought them for it. We took something from them that they laid original claim to. The same for Native Americans. Systematic Genocide against a people is terrorism at its most fundamental level. Hitler was by far a Terrorist and our actions on the natives clearly fall in to this category. As you said above, terrorists don’t kill who they kill, just how many. Terrorists (foreign) hate America, and want to kill as many Americans. We hated Indians, and wanted to kill as many as we could. I do not see a distinction here =). This is why many native people today are very distrusting of the government.

    6) I am by no means calling 3000 lives lost insignificant. I just take issue with the frequency you claim. Let’s do some arithmetic. 16-22,000 people die a year in Homocides. 9 years since 9/11. 9 x 16 = 144,000 or 9 x 22,000 = 198,000. Please enlighten me where terrorists have claimed this many lives in the U.S. You on these numbers alone, you are 50 to 65 times more likely to die by the hands of a fellow citizen than the victim of a terrorist attack. I am sure in your world, you believe that everyone is out to get us. I on the other hand think that life is not “safe”. Yet, if you are willing to trade every right you have to feel “safe”, then maybe you need to be living in a country with a police state. America is built upon freedoms, and yet we KEEP losing them. Bush and his NSA wiretapping and Spying on Innocent Americans. Patriot Act. You name it. It seems Obama is continuing the trend. He gave immunity for the wiretaps. So as our government wants to sell us on Big Brother and how dangerous the world is, statistics don’t lie. While there are people who wish to do harm. I do not downplay that. The fact stands, guns are legal, and we “tolerate” them with the little social justice that they offer. They are not banned. Yet, few acts of terrorism and this country is ready to hand over EVERY RIGHT and undo what took our founding fathers 200 years to create. Amazing.

  • Justin

    @ Carver for Body scans

    I trust the government with our privacy about as much as I put face value in corporations not to cut their CEO’s 200 million dollar checks still. That would be very little if any. Our government under Bush set a dangerous precedent. Bush literally fired any legal staff who disagreed with his policies, and even got his Right Wing Republicans, to make it so the courts could not rule on the items put in to place. Congress “Authorized” these of court Obama, once again, certainly isn’t changing the status quo. Once giving power, people don’t give it back. That’s why Americans SHOULD BE MAD. We have lost rights, and they are gone for good. Getting things back is far easier than taking them. You trust the courts to intervene, but we have seen that usually is not the case. Our elected officials usually prevent them from doing so, or the courts just side with the government. Mainly, the first occurs. As per the machines themselves, they can store and print images. All the images we see online are what they are willing to offer up. I’ve never seen the machines personally from the other end, and I imagine you haven’t either. We both don’t know what capabilities they possess and who sees what. So long as there is an alternative and people are not unfairly subjected or targeted for refusing, that is fine. Yet, in due course, I will bet you money that changes quick. These will become mandatory. If our government has shown us anything, it really enjoys the Big Brother tactics.

  • MarkieA

    I’d be interested to see if the opinion of all those folks who proclaim, “If you don’t like the new rules, don’t fly” would change their opinion if, for some as-yet-unknown reason, the Government, in the name of security, implements similarly intrusive, invasive, whatever methods for operating an automobile. After all, you don’t have a “right” to own a car, do you?

  • http://www.cepiaclub.com Charles M. Barnard

    With the first skyjacking in 1977, we prohibited weapons and began scanning luggage, carry-ons and people.

    Aircraft continued to be hijacked as if nothing had happened.

    Airlines and the public were told (ordered) to “do what the terrorists tell you and wait for the authorities to deal with it.)

    Without 20+ years of this operating protocol, 9/11 could not have happened.

    The 9/11 weapons were already on the aircraft, thus scanning would have had no effect on that incident.

    But after 9/11, what passenger would permit themselves to b e ordered around because of a threat to kill a crew member? Knowing how likely it would be for everyone to die anyway?

    Despite the fact that neither the existing scans or the new scans were or would have prevented the 9/11 skyjackings, the government response was “more of the same.”

    TSA routinely fails to stop tests of their system, both official and by private citizens. Routinely, people trying to be suspicious succeed in brining weapons, dummy bombs and traveling through the scanners under false names and poorly forged papers.

    TSA exist, they say, for our peace of mind.

    That is a lie.

    TSA exists to train an entire population to passively submit to meaningless and useless searches and delays to their travel.

    An entire generation thinks nothing of having to spend 3 hours at an airport before departing on a 1 hour flight.

    Any terrorist would be best advised to attack the checkpoints, where far more people are gathered than on most planes, and where properly set charges could destroy the check points, kill and injure hundreds, and permit agents to use the event as cover to place bombs on multiple aircraft–and with secondary and tertiary charges, they could take out most of the rescue crews, hospital ER’s and other targets.

    By allowing fear of terrorists, (a particularly unlikely way to die–lightening is many times more likely to kill you!) To react by massively changing your way of life, devastating the rules of constitutional law under which a free people live, is to permit the terrorists to win.

    I’m now (illegally) required to show identification to leave my ‘free’ country.

    I’m required to submit to an unreasonable search of my body and belongings (how can it be reasonable if it can be shown to be ineffective?)

    How many “militant fundamentalists) exist in the world (and all Judaic religions have them, if not all religions?)

    Can they possibly amount to more than a fraction of a percentage of the total populations?

    Are we to permit this tiny fraction of unsane persons to control our society?

    The proper reaction is to address their concerns. People who are willing to suicide to kill others, are generally those with little to lose, and the best defense is to ensure that as few people as possible have nothing to lose!

    We invaded Iraq to eliminate a government that the USA put into power in the first place. We “helped” them write one of the least useful constitutions ever…so long that it is filled with loopholes.

    We said it was “to stop terrorism.”

    Instead, we created more, better trained, more vehement terrorists.

    The “War on Terror” like the “War on Drugs” is a total failure, and is nothing more than a way to impose controls upon a free people, with no way to determine that either w”war” is being won has been won or is lost.

    In both cases, finding more terrorists/drugs means the agency needs more money and resources, and not finding any means the agency needs more money and resources.

    Terrorists exist primarily due to inequities in resource allocation–nothing to lose.

    Drugs as a problem exist because the population WANTS them. You cannot eliminate drug abuse by eliminating suppliers.

    The people who most vehemently want recreational drugs to be heavily controlled are those who manufacture, transport and sell them.

    If recreational drugs are legal, they become cheap commodities, since none are patented. They also become subject to purity laws. And taxation. And people with troubles (not by any means a huge percentage of users–we have a real problem with the difference between “use” and “abuse,”) could get assistance without fear of prison.

    Use of chemistry for pleasure is NOT abuse!

    Abuse is when such use interferes with your ability to function in the world to the point that you cannot do so.

    Terrorists are, at some level, financed by the wealthy, and use the poor as cannon fodder. There has NEVER been a “grassroots” revolution. Revolution always has come from those on the edges of power and has primarily existed to permit them to obtain more power.

    If the TSA and DEA budgets were spent building schools, water plants, highways, improving farms and other improvements, terrorists would have great trouble recruiting suicide volunteers–people with good lives to look forward to seldom throw away their futures.

    “Homeland Security” (and why a new agency? We already had agency charged with protecting the US!) HS is a massive waste of resources which would better be spent on school meal programs, rural improvements, libraries and other things which are GUARANTEED to return for their investment a healthier, happier, more productive population.

    The most effective military operations in Viet Nam were Special Forces teams building schools, digging wells, and other village improvements.

    The least effective were defoliating huge areas of land, driving military units through rice paddies, villages and anything else in their path–and not bothering to even apologize, much less repair the damage.

    Terror is merely the use of fear.

    Isn’t overstating a danger in order to implement social change, a use of terror?

    The biggest, most effective, terrorist group on the planet is the US government.

    ***

    Side note for those Tea Partiests.
    Control government spending by forcing them to use real accounting methods, and outside audits. The FBI (full of accountants and lawyers) should audit the GAO at the very least, and any government agency who’s audits show irregularity. Changing politicians will not change the system. Changing the system will change politicians-and waste.

  • Anon

    Well, just declined getting scanned at a US airport and as a result I had to go through the metal detector AND then get a pat down. An additional 10 minutes in security. I don’t understand how a metal detector can be good enough for some major US airports and some passengers, but not secure enough for others. I believe in privacy, and can’t help scratch my head at the inconsistency of the TSA.

  • http://www.petitiononline.com/ait2010/petition.html Gerald Beuchelt

    Please consider linking to this petition against AIT scanners using X-Ray backscatter technology:

    http://www.petitiononline.com/ait2010/petition.html

    Thanks!

  • Abby McDonald

    I don’t understand it. In order to fly anywhere, I have to subject my small daughters to a choice of either child pornography or sexual assault? How does a mother make that choice?

  • Jasmine

    What about those who have been sexually assaulted in their past? It is very difficult to be naked or even be intimate. I don’t even look at my naked body in the mirror. I cry when I have to take my clothes off at the doctor. My family lives overseas and for me to see them now, I have to be sent through a virtual strip search!? I am so terrified now! If I opt out of the body scanner, someone is going to give me a prison pat down! Not to mention the possible effects of the scanner. I get enough radiation for my tumor scans at hospitals. I understand the “don’t like it, don’t fly,” but how else can I get to China to see my family? Going to the airport is stressful enough. It costs about a thousand dollars (in economy) to fly to China and now we are subject to this. They already dig and go through our stuff, there haven’t been many times that something hasn’t been stolen or broken in my bag. I put my bras and underwear in a little tote in my bag and when I open it later, my bras and underwear are all thrown around my bag or caught in the zipper. I knew someone who worked for TSA and she said a lot of the people there keep confiscated stuff and steal all the time. If we can’t trust them enough to pack our cameras and jewelry in our checked bags, how can we trust them to see our naked bodies? They say the images aren’t saved but I doubt that. They probably want a record so if something slips through the scanner, they can go back and check to see how they could have missed it.

  • http://belleisforbeautiful.blogspot.com/ Mrs. H

    point #1:
    Breast areas, genitalia, and facial areas in the scanned images are blurred.
    point #2:
    TSA’s supposed objective in using these full-body scanners is to catch hidden contraband. Contraband can easily be hidden in genitalia cavities.
    point #3:
    Using these scanners is pointless. People should not be subjected to virtual strip-searches or “enhanced” pat-downs without probable cause.

    Instead, the US government should pay attention to and follow the example of the Israeli security!

  • Layla

    The whole thing is a complete waste of time and money. When’s the last time you heard of El Al getting hijacked or bombed? They have an amazing system – and yet the U.S. refuses to let them train us. Our rights are being systematically stripped. After all the hullabaloo of these scanners dies down, we’ll all be walking thru them like little trained puppies. We’re pathetic – we moan and groan and complain about our rights be trampled, while at the same time we continue to do as the government commands us.

  • Tray

    @ Abbey – if you have been really paying attention, you would know that your daughtere is not subjected to nor has to undergo the scanning process. GROW UP PEOPLE! What is the big deal with the security measure put into place by authorities to protect you, me, everyone? You guys are debating like children … Are you that sensitive, that emotionally insecure, and uptight that you don’t want to be touched, don’t want to be scanned, don’t want to be patted down – good goodness. It’s not assault, robbery, or rape – it’s a safety measure people! … and if it wasn’t in place and something happened in the airport or on the plane as it has in the past, people would still complain that there “is no safety measure in place”.

  • Tray

    @ Jasmine – you need to see a therapist and not air your emotional issues on a public forum

  • gary

    Ok so as a veteran of this great country of ours, I only have this to say to all them that fly the sky’s over our country day in and day out.
    ALL:

    Do you feel wronged or violated by the TSA searches at the airport?

    This is being done because we are (still) being attacked by Muslims.

    My buddy in Iraq had his body violated to the point of death by an IED.

    Him and thousands more.

    Still want to bitch?

    Quit your bitchin’ or go see a recruiter.

    Questions?

    Regards,

    Paul M. Williams

  • Mike Grigs

    I fixed it for you.

    Saying “yes” to TSA’s full body scan may come at a bigger price

  • Mike Grigs

    Ooooppps, I have to leave one more comment.

    Gary, I too am a vet. 20 years in and three more to go. I look at this differently. I as you(and your buddy) took an oath, to support and defend the constitution of the United States. This subject, my friend, is a direct violation of what we swore to defend. For someone who had the honor of serving our great country, I would think we (vets) would be the last to suggest that a fellow American should shush.

    As you pointed out in your post, we are still being attacked by Muslims. If you truly believe that, then why is the TSA scanning 6 year old children, patting down Christian women, Jewish men. All in the name of political correctness.

    I would say to you that instead of telling other Americans who believe that they are protected by the constitution to shush and go see a recruiter. You should stand proud of our constitution and write a blog, write a senator, write a congressman, make a bumper sticker….. do anything other than tell others to shhhhhhhhhhh……

    There are many ways to serve our great country other than putting on a uniform and going into harms way.

  • JP

    1) it’s a human body, and your face is hidden. Who cares. They can put mine on a billboard as long as it doesn’t have my name on it.

    2) are we so moralistic and shy that we have to refer to our genitalia as ‘junk’ for fear of saying the word ‘penis’?

  • http://n/a A

    I read your “Opt Out” article via my iPhone, so I thought this app would be appropriate to share. Thought you might find this app humorous. It actually allows you to “opt out” via your iPhone.

    If you want to look at it search “Opt Out Body Scan” on itunes or the app store.

  • infidel for life

    I recently received a full pat down after requesting an ‘opt-out’ as mentioned on a sign entering the scan area.
    ‘OPT-OUT, OPT-OUT, MALE OPT OUT !!!!!’ were the words shouted after the request, obviously an embarrasment technique but, having been through the most invasive search techiniques in Africa, Europe and the Middle East I laughed while being searched and offered my sorrow to the agent for having such a rediculous job to perform at such a low pay scale (he wasn’t happy, although I explained my reaction as being a direct response to his demeanor– totally lost him there– ); well they have their job to do but my refusal was and is solely based on the safety aspect of full scans as I travel much in and out of the country.
    I am also in the Trusted Traveller Program requiring no customs forms or Immigration waits upon entry to the US.

  • Antixngrope

    @Isabel…..Really? You? Calling someone ignorant?
    Ignorance is accepting a security system which fails everyday. Ignorance is believing these scanners actually keep us safe.
    Ignorance is not doing the research to find out for yourself that these scanners are not safe for anyone.
    I guess you’ve never seen a criminal or drug pusher patted down, frisked, felt up, treated like the criminals they are.
    Who allowed you to post?, It appears the TSA let another one get by.
    Let me guess, you are a smoker? No wonder you aren’t the least bit concerned about cancer. What was that about an ignorant statement? Hmmmm, looks like your ignorance prevails. Happy scanning.

  • http://www.clarkecomputer.com Charles Clarke

    When they implement full body X-rays, I’d like the option of associating an email address with my ID in the TSA database so they can email the images to me and I can forward them on to a doctor. Save me $100 a shot or so. :-)

  • Outraged

    On this, International Women’s Day, we should take a stand against such a violation. Females are asked to strip down layers of clothing, spread their legs, arch thier back and stick out their chest. Intimidated and embarrassed and assulted if they opt out.

    Refuse to fly and tell your congress rep why. All people are being violated by this – this is not a matter of pride or vanity.

  • LizardLips

    Buying an airline ticket to travel in the continental US does not mandate forfeiture of 4th Amendment rights to illegal search and seizure nor does refusing to submit and consequently deciding not to fly and leaving the SIDA constitute a crime. The TSA is a regulatory agency with broad jurisdiction but lacks enforcement and arrest powers. For that they rely on local constabulary who, in many cases, either don’t know the law or submit to intimidation by the TSA. Airport terminals are not federal property but owned and operated by states, counties or cities. Obviously, one must choose how to respond to orders to ‘strip’ just to board an airplane but look at it this way; your constitutional rights are NEVER forfeit unless you commit a crime. Saying ‘no’ is not a crime. You may not get on the airplane but you’ll have the satisfaction of seeing blanks looks on TSO faces when you assert your rights.

  • http://www.rockyflatsgear.com Jeff

    The real price is your health, dignity and your liberty. The scanners are nothing more than a huge radiation experiment. Learn more about radiation protection and privacy:

    http://www.rockyflatsgear.com/Airport-scanner-medical-experiment-without-consent.html

  • http://www.facebook.com/karen.renee.crutcher Karen Renee Crutcher

    On May 1, 2012, i went through security at Phoenix and felt as if I was subjected to sexual molestation.  I “opted out” of the full body scanner screening, and apparently the TSA at Phoenix do not have many that opt out because it took TSA ALMOST AN HOUR to get a woman to pat me down.  Once she gave me the verbal procedure, and told me she would be using the back of her hand to pat down sensitive areas, such as my breasts, I notified her that IF there was any further assaults to my person, such as squeezing my breasts, I would call the police and have her arrested for molestation, she flipped out and told me she did not want to pat me down and she would have her supervisor pat me down.  Although there was only a MALE supervisor, so the original woman TSA agent proceeded to pat me down with the MALE supervisor standing within one foot of my person and overseeing the humiliating experience.  I almost started crying because I felt as if I was a prisoner and I was subjected to having this MALE supervisor stare at my body while being touched all over my body in PUBLIC!  (by the time the TSA ever started the pat down, I did not have time to request a private groping–I would have missed my flight!

    The male supervisor asked me IF I had a problem with TSA….YES!!!  I stated that it was not right that an American citizen had to be subjected to sexual molestation IF they made the choice to not go through the dangerous full body scanners!  It is of NO USE trying to explain why you chose to not go through the full body scanners BECAUSE the TSA employees are NOT told just how dangerous the scanners are!  Scientests have reported that the full body scanners cause breast cancer and mutate sperm. 

    I have been molested by female TSA agents in the past—two of them actually took ahold of my breast and squeezed it!!!!   I am sick of being molested by the TSA! 

  • Pingback: Is the TSA punishing us? by Christopher Elliott (TSANewsBlog.com) | Americans for Travel Freedom

  • Pingback: Are TSA Agents Punishing Us? | Delaware Reason

  • Pingback: Hitting the Junk: TSA Criminals Engage in Testicle Torture | Watching the TSA