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

May 2, 2010

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.

  • isabel

    I hope Ms. Cummings never tries to fly El Al if she finds the scan invasive! I personally don’t understand this almost Patrician anxiety over having your ‘simulated’ nude body seen vs your safety in the sky and that of every other passenger. I’d also like to know what exactly she feels a ‘common criminal or drug pusher’ looks like, since she feels she obviously doesn’t fit the profile? What an ignorant statement.

  • Cliff Woodrick

    I have two new knees and one new hip so I set off the scanner’s alarms everytime that I go to the airport. My grandchildren love to see me set off the lights when I go through the scanner. The pat down does not bother me and if someone gets a jolly from seeing this 74 year young nude body with this new scanner – I would be overjoyed that I made someone’s day.
    Have a wonderful SAFE day – Cliff CDR, USN (Ret)

  • Hannah

    The first time I went through one I asked what the other options were and figured the scan was easiest. In the future, I’ll try to pick the line with the basic metal detector but maybe this will be a good wake up call to how many crazy people are out there.

  • John

    @Isabel: It’s obvious that you won’t consider your next electronic strip search an invasion of your privacy, so we Patricians won’t bother asking you to help us stop the perpetual erosion of our constitutional rights on this and other privacy issues. Our government is doing a splendid job in making the US-traveling public FEEL safer with the invasive security thrust upon at our airports, but at the cost of an irretrievable loss of our civil rights. The bright red blood of brave Americans was not spilled so you can FEEL better. For those of you who haven’t yet made up your mind about the spreading use of full body scanners, I urge you to stand up and fight for what’s left of your civil rights. They’re not making any more of them by my reckoning.

  • http://travelinggiraffe.blogspot.com Crissy

    From all the anecdotal stories, both good and bad, I get the impression that the number of people refusing is so small that the TSA agents may not really know what to do with these people. There is a human nature response of, if this person isn’t doing it then what are the hiding – whether right or wrong it’s a human reaction. I also suspect that the TSA agents aren’t real keen on searching people – putting your hands on someone isn’t fun for either party and you up your risk of someone making a complaint against you. If you go through a machine no one is going to say you touched my (insert private part), but if you have to touch them you could end up the victim of someone trying to get money out of the government.
    I haven’t been through one of these scanners, but I would think getting a pat down could be more invasive.

  • Justin

    You know… We (Americans) have become an overly paranoid bunch of people. We have SOLD our freedoms for “false security”. How many MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of flights leave and arrive safely each day? There have been a FEW incidences of terrorism in this country. Most of these would have been prevented if the TSA properly did their job to begin with and did not rely upon all this glitz and glamor. Let’s face it, metal detectors and using items that detect for traces of explosives would be all that is necessary in most cases. Sadly, when flying becomes an invasion of our privacy, there is a REAL ISSUE. What is scary is that Americans are WILLING to except this but YELL AND SCREAM about everything else.

    Terrorist incidences in the U.S.

    9/11 – 3000 Died
    Oklahoma City – few hundred Perished by Radical Christian
    World Trade Center Bombing in the 1990s

    Attempts:

    Shoe Bomber
    Detroit Underwear Bomber

    Yet, Here are some examples of REAL PROBLEMS in this country:

    We have 16-22,000 Murders a year in this country. Approximately 60-65 percent of all these include the use of a gun.

    Dare you tell the NRA that we want to regulate guns further and you’ll have 10s upon 10s of thousands out there SCREAMING about gun rights. Yet guns KILL more people in this country THAN TERRORISM ever has!

    Care Accidents – 40,000 deaths related to accidents a year.

    Hey, let’s ban cars off the road. 40,000 Lives WOULD be saved EACH year if not for driving.

    The list goes on……Terrorism in this country should not be ignored. I am not advocating we bury our head in the sand and sing Kumbaya. What I am saying is that WE HAVE issues that cost 100 times more lives in this country a year but we ACCEPT THEM as part of life. If someone tosses Terrorism around, we act as if it happens DAILY and in mass magnitude. IT DOES NOT.

    Come on people. Use your common sense. Security measures are important. Metal Detectors are fine. Checking Luggage is fine. I wouldn’t be against including bomb sniffing dogs or equipment that detects explosives. None of this is overly invasive or “NEW”. Yet, when we are told that we now are “Strip Searched” to fly…. We have gone off the deep end.

  • John

    ElAl is not even that bad, I’ve flown them many times, not nearly that bad.

  • MikeS

    To isabel:

    There was an article about an Israeli security expert mocking the effectiveness of the body scanners so I don’t think El All will ever be using them.

    It’s also not up to you to decide if someone is comfortable or uncomfortable with the simulated nude body. We should get to decide our own comfort level. How would you feel about Naked Airlines where there is no place to hide anything? Some people would be 100% comfortable, most would not. We all should be able to decide.

  • L2Y2

    With terrorism hidden in every corner and our safety in the air at risk, who in the world thinks they should be above safety measures at our airports? Your brief embarrassment is a small price to pay for us to be safe in the air. Get over it…..

  • Justin

    @L2Y2

    “With terrorism hidden in every corner and our safety in the air at risk, who in the world thinks they should be above safety measures at our airports? ”

    What a ridiculous statement. Terrorism at every corner? How many terrorist attacks and lives have been lost on American Soil? Few Thousand in the last 20 years tops?

    2/4 Terrorist type attacks Oklahoma City and Unibomber were Americans.

    World Trade Center were Foreigners.

    Attempts would be Shoe and underwear bomber….

    Yet, for all of these instances, we have had a few thousand die. I am not trivializing these deaths as it is a loss of life. However, we have FAR MORE PEOPLE die a year in car crashes (40,000) and are murdered by Guns, (16-22,000) than from ALL terrorist attacks combined.

    So are you advocating we do away with cars and guns? We’d save 60,000 people a year in “preventable deaths”. Less you forget, our guns make their way to Mexico and have lead to 10s of thousands of deaths there, too….. Hmm… =).

  • Carver

    This is so much to do about nothing. The scans are optional. Go through them if you want, do a pat down if you don’t.

    Personally, I will never understand how a computer picture that only a couple TSA agents see could possibily be more instrusive that being told to spread your legs, turn around, and get groped in public for all the world to see.

    The situation described by Ms. Wise is silly at best. TSA does random screening in which they do a wipe down of the inside and outside of carry on bags. This happens to me ever so often. BFD. The entire secondary screening process takes a couple minutes. Ms Wise believes that the screening was improper because they wiped down areas where there weren’t any electronics. First, how would a TSA worker know where the electronics were beforehand and how does Ms. Wise know the wipe was looking for electronics.

    Equally silly is Ms. Cumming assertion that the additional screening makes you feel as if you have to go through the scanner. Well, yes, you have to be screened somehow. Perhaps Ms. Cummings would feel better is the wordsmiths at TSA has used the term alternative screening instead of additional.

  • Louise

    A “little” radiation? In a lifetime, every X-ray, every CT scan, every other exposure all add up. It’s not once and then it goes away. It’s cumulative. .

  • Christine

    I’ve long said that the terrorists have won. One of their many goals was to alter our way of life. Well, they have mine. Any trip that takes 8 hours or less to drive then I drive. I’ve even given up going on a trip just because I didn’t feel like it was worth the hassle of flying. It’s amazing to me that one person, the “alleged” shoe bomber, could have as much impact on our quality of life as he has had. Just think of the number of people who have changed the pair of shoes they wear to the airport because they have to take their shoes off to go through screening. Absurd!

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

    I find it interesting that there are no hard figures available anywhere on the number of people refusing the body scans. I’ve seen polls saying that around 70% of travelers feel comfortable with them; I’ve read other pieces claiming that a “majority” of business travelers do not feel comfortable going through these machines. Whether or not they do go through is known only to the TSA, and they aren’t sharing that information.

    I believe in refusing to submit to X-raying as a matter of principle. I think a larger portion of the population than we are led to believe feel the same way. Then again, under Nazi rule in Germany, there were no hard statistics on how many people quietly wished for Hitler to be assassinated.

    That’s why it’s particularly important to make a loud, visible show – NOT a quiet, respectful request – of refusing to have yourself or your children irradiated and molested at the airport. Of course the TSA will arch an eyebrow; they want you to think you’re the only one who’s refusing. A quick look at the comments on innumerable blogs shows that a majority of posters feel this is an invasion of their privacy. Yet you never hear any of those people interviewed at the airport; just the ones who don’t mind being sterilized and irradiated and having their children undressed by child molesting fascist sickos, saying “I don’t mind. I got nothing to hide.”

    I have nothing to hide either. That’s why it’s doubly important that I stand up and refuse in the name of personal liberty. If you don’t get that, you’re no better than a slave or a sheep being led to slaughter.

  • Robert

    @Carter…Hear! Hear!..Well said.

    I fully support full body x-ray scans and as a 67 year old, I will gladly show my winky to the world if it means a safe flight, and if I can skip those insufferable long pat-down and wand waving lines. My wife is of the same opinion. All of this bravado and indignity over a proven security method is misguided at best. Want to know what scares me most? The 13 or 14 year old computer whiz who, by using a few key strokes, can put my entire life history, finances, and medical information “out there” for the entire world to see. If I can by-pass a long line and breeze through a body scanner, just point me in the right direction, folks. Personally I think the images look like something out of a science fiction movie.

    But that’s just my opinion and I’m sticking to it.

  • Kauni

    See 9/11missinglinks.com….and see that there is very little Terrorism threat in the U.S. DO THE RESEARCH PEOPLE! I am a high school teacher, activist and full prepared for what the Powers That Be (The Illuminati, CRF, Rothchilds, Bilderbergers) are planning for us. Fight now, say NO to body scanners, to Pat Down…Don’t fly, etc… Don’t give in as this is all about CONTROL. There is no THREAT…it is manufactured by this govt.which is totally paid off. I will not be surprised if this little blog is not run…as no one
    wants truth, just wants to label all as conspiracy. I’ve spent over 6 months researching all these FALSE FLAGS, and all were created by this govt, the CIA, Mossad, all towards One World Govt… GET SMART!! It’s Time!

  • Connie

    And Another thing….it’s not difficult to protect yourself…and to move against this Fascist Govt…as they will incrementally take away your Liberties…until you will look around, and your children ….and see all freedoms gone.
    Buy Gold, silver, food stores, water filter, ‘lead’, live off the grid, in rural areas…think, wake up, look around. Get pre-paid legal (PPL) NOW, as the police and the courts are illegal (not in the U.S. Constitution), and will do anything to take your money, put you away, falsely accuse you….the list goes on and on. Listen to Republic Broadcasting Network for the truth….and look on the net for the truth..it is not on the TV!! Please…wake up, and help your country….don’t go through body scanners and ignore the control that is happening…..

  • William H.

    Everyone has their own personal line that they draw. As an American I am free to travel using the airlines and conform to the TSA’s rules or I’m free to make alternate arrangements. I drew my line back when they started making me take off my shoes (and sometimes socks, depending on the airport). There was something comical about all these barefooted, beltless people trying to hold their pants up while throwing all of their belongings in a tray hoping beyond hope that they don’t set off the alarms. One day I managed to set the alarm off, don’t know how to this day, and was pulled aside for “extra” TLC from the TSA. In the end I lost my belt and a cell phone, as someone decided to take them out of the tray while I was getting my TLC from the TSA. No one claimed responsibility. The subsequent flight was just as bad. I haven’t flown since. It turns out that over the past few years my travel expenses have actually been less by driving rather than flying. I arrive at my destinations on time…never lose my luggage…and my socks remain clean! The best part is that my piece of mind is back. I feel for those of you who have companies that require you to fly or for those needing to endure International flights.

    My fear with this is really that snowball effect. The TSA, airlines, and airports can only respond to issues that arise. Post 9/11 I thought sure I can handle this…just extra lines and random searches/wandings at the gate. Then the shoe thing, the “liquids” thing, and now the virtual image thing. But, if you think about it, these are all in response to something. What’s next? Is some nefarious individual going to stick something up their anal cavity to get it through security? They make very effective plastic weapons in prison that won’t set off a metal detector, and a prisoner’s resources are extremely limited. What if someone decides to stick a vial of some dangerous liquid “up there”? Then what, do we all have to get full cavity searches to fly? A common practice among drug dealers is to make their mules swallow condoms of drugs to smuggle. What if someone swallows a condom of gunpowder? Do I now get the pleasure of getting a full body x-ray everytime I travel? Why not just lay down on the converyor belt with my luggage and shoes? Do I have to arrive 12 hours before my flight and remain in some sort of quarantine so that I have time to “pass” any contriband I may be carrying? Forget it. I don’t see it as an erosion of rights, only because I still have choices. They may not be choices that I like (for example, a transcontinental flight is a lot shorter than a coast to coast road trip), but I still have that choice. I don’t see body scanners preventing future terrorist attacks, but I just see them as another step towards the next security procedure which will just be more evasive. And, I don’t feel any safer because I know that there are people who are intent on causing harm using American planes, and their whole goal is to find a way to do that. Why would I have any confidence in security procedures that are only responses to successful attempts at getting “bad things” onto planes?

  • Liz

    I’m more concerned about how much time this adds to the security process. My understanding is that it will had about 30 seconds per passenger from the current set up – that is hugely significant.

    I haven’t flown in a while (thank god) – can any one here comment on the additional delays at security with the full body scanners?

  • Grant Ritchie

    Wow!
    I see the Palin supporters have been heard from… “irretrievable loss of civil rights”, “bright red blood of brave Americans”, “children being undressed by child molesting fascist sickos”. My goodness! Here’s one 60-year-old Vietnam vet who had NO idea that his “fascist government” was so evil. I thought they were just trying to protect us from crazies. Thanks for setting me straight. :-)

  • Lisa S

    Is the full-body scanner really safe? People were originally told CTs were safe and now data indicate that the level of radiation to which people are exposed by CTs could be quite harmful. Is the government going to pay for the health costs of people–especially people who travel a lot– who develop cancer that might or might not be related to the full-body scans? I don’t think so. Governments try to take as little responsibility as possible–just ask the residents of Crestwood, Ill., whose former mayor and other people lied for 10 years to residents about the contaminated water they were drinking and won’t cover the medical expenses of the high number of residents who are now sick.

  • Bill

    I went through a full body scanner in Toronto a few months ago. It was optional but I figured I might as well give it a try. It took forever to go through it – so it was a good thing that there was lots of time. After that, I was subjected to a couple of quite intense and thorough manual searches and they looked through everything in my computer bag. In conclusion, I don’t think there would have been a punishment for NOT going through the full body scanner as I got that too.

    Anyway, they are going to either have to get a gazillion of these scanners or figure out a way to speed up the process. It is all very very slow!

  • David

    @Kauni….. if this idiot is a HS teacher then we are all in trouble.
    @Elliott…. how do you let this person advertise this website. Basically, its a Jew bashing website. I thought this was a travel forum???

    Come ON!! Very disappointed…….

  • Derek

    The images you see on Google are what the government won’t you to see. Some reporters went through a scanner and afterwards asked to see the images but were flatly refused.
    The very white scan images are from the back ground scatter machines and isn’t that revelling but the black and white images are from the millimetre wave machines
    ARE.
    These scanners take’s a picture of YOU that is so detailed that it shows every detail there body has to offer. It’s a black and white image but it can show how big there labia is and what there breasts look like. The image can also be magnified to show so close up that if you going through your period that they will be able to see the string very clearly.
    The images on the internet are of the same people. Lots and lots of images but always the same people. Funny, after all the people that pass through the machines only a certain type of image has been released to the public to view.
    Did you also know that the person examining the image in great detail was yesterday looking through people’s dirty underwear looking for extra tobacco?
    It has been released by the officials in America that these scanning machines can store and print the images. All they have to do to print or store an image is turn the TRAINING mode on. Contrary to what our government has lead us to believe.
    On peer to peer systems there is already a Best of Body scanning images! Not to mention the scanner operator at an airport in Britain being warned by Police for being a pervert. Most people I have asked about these scanners think the image is like an Ex ray Image.
    The Christmas day attack would still have happened even if he had gone through the scanner.
    Only Doctors should have the backing of government to see people naked with there legs akimbo and not any bloke off the streets that has been given a job as a security guard.

  • Cassivella

    I have a strong suspicion that most of the people who complain about how “intrusive” the scanners are rarely fly (especially the people building bomb shelters in their back yards).

    And the radiation argument is moot. Flying in an aircraft exposes you to radiation. A round-trip cross-country flight is comparable to getting an chest x-ray. Walking through the scanner is statistically irrelevant.

    But, if you are scared of the scanner then you do have a choice – you can choose to not fly. Then, you can take your chances driving to your final destination. You are statistically much more likely to be injured to die in a car accident than you are to have any side effect from airplane travel.

  • Derek

    It has been shown by a high ranking Israeli official that the scanners don’t work.
    The pants bomber would have gotten through the scanners no problem and also they have a massive weak spot. If you contour the plastic explosives to your body they won’t show up on the scan, so our loved one’s are being made to spread there legs raise there hands in the submissive position and expose them selves to strange men to take pictures of them and pass them around to there mates.
    Why should these perverts be allowed to have such power over us?
    If I was to ask my wife to strip spread her legs raise her hands and let me take a very detailed picture of her naked I would have my head in my hands very quickly, but because its some bloke in a security uniform who is under paid and has an over sized self image as being someone important you are ready to bend over and take it up the you know what. My wife has more dignity than that.
    Decency, privacy and self-respect. Do these words mean anything to you.

  • Chicky

    I’ll admit: I find something a little squicky about the images. But I also see the reasoning behind it: lawsuits. When it comes down to the Almighty Dollar, the government will do nearly anything. I know what the TSA is thinking. They figure if they do the full body scans on everyone and someone still manages to bring down a plane, then they’ve covered their butts. “We scanned everyone!” they can say, thereby taking a lot of teeth (and jury awards) out of any potential lawsuits filed by grieving family members. Family members can then go on to sue the manufacturer of said scanners for not doing their jobs.
    When Bush was in office, the fascist Patriot Act was absolutely going to take away all our rights. Now that Obama is in office, his fascist/communist/socialist (take your pick) regime is going to take away our rights. It’s all a deep, dark consipiracy to deprive Americans of their rights to be free. Yawn. I consider myself to be a right-leaning moderate. I vote Republican over half the time. But I’m also a pragmatist and something of a cynic. It all comes down to the dollar. If something is apt to take money out of the government coffers, Congress will act to plug the leak. If it puts money into the bank, they will hang on to it tooth and toenail. Any day the goverment can avoid taking responsibility for anything is a good day, no matter who’s in office. Responsibilty costs money. The full body scanner helps them avoid responsibility.
    Ehh, The Who had it right in “Won’t Get Fooled Again.”
    “And a parting on the left, is now a parting on the right… Meet the new boss. He’s the same as the old boss.”
    I’ve got better things to worry about than some possible perv who might get his jollies by noticing a tampon string. In fact, I’d RATHER him just see it on a scanner than get to pat me down!! LOL.

  • Steve

    “It’s obvious that you won’t consider your next electronic strip search an invasion of your privacy, so we Patricians won’t bother asking you to help us stop the perpetual erosion of our constitutional rights on this and other privacy issues.”

    You don’t have a constitutional right to fly in a commercial airliner. No one does. If you feel so strongly about the body scanners, you are perfectly free to avoid flying on commercial airlines.

  • Adele

    Once upon a time, they thought smoking was safe, too. It will take many years before any hidden risks of this new technology become apparent. Personally, as long as I have a choice, I will elect not to do the full body scan.

  • Roger

    I suspect Ms. Cummings was one of the many who after 9/11 insisted that the government should have done “something” to prevent it from happening.

    Sure, doing “something” to prevent another attack is a great idea, as long there is absolutely no personal inconvenience right?

  • Justin

    @ William H

    Hear Hear!

    As for everyone else posting… Please turn in your Guns and save 60-70 percent of the 16-22,000 Murdered in this country. Couple with with the 10s of thousands killed a year in Mexico……O wait, you don’t want to? NRA yelling and screaming with all their Right Wing Companions? Yet, hell, steal our civil liberties and it’s not a problem

    Gun Deaths are Preventable.

    Better yet… Turn over your Car Keys. 40,000 accidental Deaths are Preventable if you and I don’t get in a car and drive.. Driving should be illegal. We all should have to walk. Lives saved!

    It strikes me a nonsensical that SO MANY PEOPLE here do not have a problem with every day risks that claim FAR MORE LIVES a year. Yet, toss around the world “Terrorism” and people shut off their brains. It’s like it’s the magic word for Politicians. Scream Terrorism and People in this country become too stupid to question and think for themselves.

    Contrary to what the media would like you to believe, Terrorism isn’t an every day occurrence. You have a far better chance of being killed by a Gun (of which are legal) or in a car crash… or probably struck by lightning than EVER dying in a terrorist incident. For all the millions of flights, very few ever have issue.

    Justify that one Nay Sayers.

  • Cliff

    I almost always get pulled aside for a thorough pat down at the checkpoint and I’m not sure why. My name must be on a list or maybe I just look suspicious? I’m so used to it now, I’ll just always decline the scanner and get my usual treatment. I do worry about the effect of all that radiation. I should say though, that the TSA agents are usually very respectful and nice enough. The fellas at SFO can be kind of overly intense.

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

    To the people here who say we have no inherent right to travel on an airliner; and to you mindless slaves who say ‘drive if you don’t like it’: You’re wrong, and here’s why.

    (1). You have an absolute right to travel freely from this country whenever you want.
    (2). Freedom of movement means movement without hindrance.
    (3). You can’t get to Europe by car; you can only get there in a reasonable amount of time by airplane.
    (4). Since freedom of movement (1) can only be obtained without hindrance (2) via air travel (3), it follows that Americans have a right to get on a plane.

    In Kent v. Dulles (1958), Justice William Douglas wrote for the majority:

    “The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that “liberty” is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. . . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.”

    Well, not in the scheme of values of the boot-lickers posting on this website in favor of totalitarian intrusion. When Justice Douglas wrote “our scheme of values,” he was referring to the values of Americans possessing dignity and a modicum of intelligence.

  • Robert

    Profiling is cheaper and more effective. That’s what El Al does.

  • Carver

    @Justin

    The flaw in your argument is the everyday risks generally also present some societal or individual value. Perhaps there are 40,000 preventable car deaths, but cars provide a useful social good. Terrorism, like any other criminal act, has no countervailing good aspects and even a little is must not be tolerated.

    @josh

    The case you cited stands for the proposition that the government can indeed regulate travel, but not to the extent that it violates a separate constitutional right. In that case the right to travel was being abridged by requiring that th e traveler disclosehis membership in the communist party. Hardle analagous

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

    Carver, I believe it’s an excellent analogy. The only reason airport searches are conducted as they are without probable cause comes from the so-called “special needs” doctrine as laid down in Justice Blackmun’s concurring opinion in New Jersey v. T.L.O., where he wrote,

    “…we have recognized limited exceptions to the probable cause requirement “[w]here a careful balancing of governmental and private interests suggests that the public interest is best served” by a lesser standard [than probable cause]…
    we have used such a balancing test, rather than strictly applying the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant and Probable-Cause Clause, only when we were confronted with “a special law enforcement need for greater flexibility…
    Only in those exceptional circumstances in which special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable cause requirement impracticable, is a court entitled to substitute its balancing of interests for that of the Framers.”

    That balance is presumed to hang on Justice Harlan’s opinion in Katz v. US that “there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.”

    Thus, magnetometers, bag searches and even pat-downs have been viewed as reasonable special-needs abrogations of the 4th Amendment right to privacy in view of (a) the public need to protect air travel and (b) society’s recognition of travelers’ personal items as open to scrutiny in an airport environment, which few reasonable people would argue against. The X-ray backscatter devices now being installed, however, aren’t even in the same ballpark as a magnetometer. They are akin to a strip search, and as such impinge on an area (the visible form of the body) which travelers and society do expect to remain private, even in an airport setting where we have relatively few rights.

    So just as the right to travel in 1958 was being abrogated by requiring the traveler to surrender his 5th amendment right, so that right to freedom of movement is being abridged today by requiring the traveler to surrender his 4th to a degree beyond publicly acceptable norms (indeed, undressing children to a degree which in any other setting the Court would find criminal and pornographic). Given that X-ray searches are by no means the only way to protect against public endangerment and exist solely for the sake of police expediency, they are sacrificing one right (privacy) for another (freedom of movement) in a way gratuitously slanted toward law enforcement and away from private expectations, with in fact no balance whatsoever. While the argument was made in Kent v. Dulles that it was in the People’s interest to abridge the 5th amendment right of the traveler, the Court decided that it was not. Today, the Court should similarly find that a gross 4th amendment violation is no different; that the Framers’ notion of freedom of movement which goes all the way back to the Magna Carta can only remain intact if special needs are limited to the minimum search required to ensure public safety, which the current technology goes well beyond.

  • Jennifer

    I’m a fairly frequent traveler to the Caribbean and Latin America, and being from Atlanta, we’re subjected to a second security screen after clearing customs to go back into the main terminals of the airport. I’ve always resented this, since I live here and feel like its pointless to screen me to get back into my own car, and the lines full of tourists and foreigners unfamiliar with American TSA procedures can sometimes keep me in the airport for an additional hour or so after my flight is completed.

    Recently following a quick vacation to Mexico, my husband and I were both stopped during this second screening, AFTER we had completed our entire trip and were headed out to the car to go home. Apparently, I set off the metal detector because I had a wadded up hershey kiss wrapper in my jeans pocket. Not only did I have to go through the body scan (which I found very intrusive), but had to submit to a VERY detailed and thorough pat down (At one point I asked the TSA worker if she was taking me to dinner that night). I did try to explain that I lived in Atlanta, and would not be getting on another flight, offered my license, etc. To make matters worse, my husband had some guava paste in his carry on we had bought at one of the airport shops, and it had sunk to the bottom of his bag, along with our phone and mp3 chargers – apparently, guava paste has the same signature on the x-ray machine as C4 and next to the charging devices with the wires, it showed up as a bomb, which of course nescessitated the dumping out of everything in the 16 pocket backpack and a detailed explaination as to what guava paste is and how its consumed.

    All of this mind you AFTER we had completed our entire trip. I have no idea how we ever were allowed to get on the plane in the first place. I do appreciate those who are attempting to make our skies safer, but at some point, some common sense has to take over

  • Justin

    @ Carver,

    Social good is quite a subjective argument. Please inform me how “Guns” provide a social good. They are responsible for 60-70 percent of all attributed homicides in this country. A matter of fact, around 80-90 percent of all guns traced to Mexico and used in the Drug war, come from the U.S., too. Our guns kill elsewhere. To couplet his problem, our guns are now being found in gangs in Canada. So what social good does our instruments of death have on society? One can say protection, but then again, tens of thousands of innocent people die. They were not “protected”.

    As for cars being a social good, one can also argue the counterpoint. Cars create smog and pollute the air. While cars have made transportation easier, they also have created environmental problems and lead to wars. Our quest for oil has given the middle east the funds to go about their objectives. If not for our role in enriching them, these countries would not have great wealth.

    Hence, terrorism would be far less a problem, if the money weren’t there =).

    Nice try though Carter.

  • Justin

    @ Carver,

    Side note. Terrorism solves no good. However, Terrorism is quite subjective. Were we Terrorists by invading Iraq, a sovereign nation that never harmed us? How about a look back in history. Were the Founding Father’s Terrorists? After all, they went to war to fight for a land they DID NOT own. They stole it from Britain. After all, isn’t the argument of Palestine (Hamas) is they want their own country? Yet, Hamas is a terrorist group. Better yet, we also took America from the Indians, before the British owned them. We slaughtered these people up until the 20th century. Isn’t that an act of terrorism. Of course, history DOES NOT write it this way.

    Terrorism is quite subjective and often written by those who win or serve a dominant factor.

  • http://Overyonderlust.com Shaun

    The scanners don’t really bother me on a privacy level, however, I do find it quite hilarious that the best examples the TSA could give about the success of the scanners was a pocketknife (something I’ve carried ever since being a Boy Scout) and a syringe full of an unnamed liquid.

    This really makes me wonder how far we are willing to go to feel safe in an unsafe world. If there is one thing I’ve learned from years of trying to enforce rules (albeit in a video game environment), most of your job is playing catch-up to those who don’t hold back when breaking them. Any aggressive move to prevent issues usually ends in outrage.

  • Craig

    “Your brief embarrassment is a small price to pay”

    The fact that we have to pay any price at all means we’ve already lost.

    And it’s not your embarrassment to give away. Modesty is a natural human reaction. These machines are intrusive and at the same time a complete waste of money.

    I question how long it will be before going through these devices is mandatory here. It already is in Britain; if you refuse to go through the machine, you can’t fly. It’s a joke.

  • Carver

    @Josh

    You’re an excellent writer, I do not dispute that. However, you attempt to pull an old trick. You begin by citing true law, but then you start to wobble a bit.

    The fourth amendment is about search and seizures. The right to privacy (Roe V. Wade) arises from penumbras and emananation and unlike the 5th amendment rights against self incrimination and the 1st Amendment Right to Assembly, there is no articulated right to privacy in the Constitution.

    But it doesn’t really get good until the 4th paragraph where you begin with a true statement of law, (magnetrons, pat-down, etc.) are a proper limit of Constitutional Law. But then you subtly switch to opinion when talking about backscatter as if your opinion about backscatter technology carried the same weight as settled law, which of course it doesn’t. I happen to have a different opinion.

    Finally, the biggest hole in the argument is the one that isn’t put forth. There is a marked difference between a passport requirement and backscatter requirement. Specifically, as a practical matter, you must have a passport in order to leave the US (there are a few exceptions). And unlike the security checkpoint, a passport and its associated application is in in debt 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

    By converse, there are alternatives to the backscatter machine. You could elect a pat down which you already admitted, no reasonable person would dispute is proper.

    The lack of alternatives to obtaining a passport, combined with the very real likelihood of government persecution makes the passport scenario very different from a scan which everyone goes through and for which passengers can elect alternative arrangements if they do not want to use the backscatter machine.

    The proof is that I am many others have no issue with the backscatter machine. Whereas no one in their right mind would admit to being a commie in the 50s.

  • Derek

    The security guards aren’t aloud to think. No common sense approach.
    That’s how they get the job.
    Give a Dumb ass a job with power and of course they will abuse it.
    With power comes great responsibility.
    They will be showing naked pictures to there mates just to get some social standing.
    Can we trust the red necks with naked pictures of our loved ones?

    Not a chance.
    Refuse to be scanned while you can. In Britain that privilege has been taken away from us. If I want to fly I must come to terms with the fact that some bloke sitting in front of a computer will be looking in detail a picture of my wife’s naked body, AND has a zoom in option. This must be better than internet porn as you can’t zoom in. In fact what’s the difference between a bloke pulling one off to a naked picture on the internet and a him pulling one off to the scanning images? On the internet the woman gets paid for spreading her legs but being scanned the bloke gets paid to view the naked pictures.

  • William H.

    Lively comments here.
    @Josh
    I had a long comment typed out answering each one of your points as to why you’re wrong about your belief there is a right to airline travel that you have gleened from various court rulings. But then I got to thinking about it, and, this is all really pretty simple. Without quoting a ruling, but using common sense: Your travel through this world/”this thing called Life” is physically hindered all of time, be it by stoplights or having to produce a valid ticket to board a train. You have to wait in lines, you can’t go the wrong way down a one way street, you’ll get stopped for popping and weaving in and out of lanes, you have to show a passport to get back into the Country…unless you want to abolish these hindrances to your freedom of movement as well??? When you make a broad argument like the one you made you have to consider all it entails. You consider the TSA’s methods a hindrance to your airline travel experience, while I’m sure those who were turned into human missiles on 9/11 would have welcomed every bit of what you consider a hindrance today so that they have a chance to see their families again. It’s all a matter of perspective. That’s not to say that I think the TSA is the be it end all in security, nor do I believe the airlines themselves as private companies are doing enough to proactively fight this real threat.

    I think the real question for you though is (and I’m really looking forward to your answer): Do you believe that the Justices you quoted and/or the Framers of our Constitution, knowing what we know today, would board a plane that was filled with TSA screened passengers or passengers screened using pre-9/11 techniques?

    @Justin
    I remember back when I was around 15 or 16 and taking driver’s ed class…the teacher (also the basketball coach) somberly walked to the front of the classroom on the first day, faced us, and said, “I’m about to teach you how to do the most dangerous thing most of you will do all of your lives.” He then swallowed hard, and, eyes to the ground, said, “statically, I can expect to be going to 6 of your funerals by the time I retire.” That was a wake up call for all of us excited new drivers. I agree with you that on a Stephen Covey scale of First Things First terrorism is rather low. In the grand scheme of things the number of American fatalities caused by an act of terrorism is low compared to other ways Americans kick the bucket. But I think the argument in the article is whether the TSA goes overboard in its attempt to prevent problems by requiring these full body scans and their reaction to a refusal. I think a lot of the fuss has to do with this sense that the current cure (or any future cure the TSA comes up with) is worse than the disease. So the argument goes that everyone should know post-9/11 that there’s a risk you could be turned into a human missile, why ratchet up the security if that’s a known risk? For years and years people flew with minimal security measures in place with no problem, so we should just go back to those? You want to fly with that risk, fine. If not, then don’t fly. Just like when you get in your car to drive somewhere…you’re putting yourself and everyone around you at risk. If you want to drive, fine. If you don’t, that’s fine too.

  • Mike

    @Justin, save the gun argument for some other forum. Your argument has no merit with law abiding citizens who follow the laws we have in place.

    As for the scanner, I will not subject myself to the scanners and will gladly allow a pat down, making sure my posessions are in my sight the entire time. I am not about to let any agent or passenger make off with my stuff while I get searched. And if the guy wants to pat me down and feel around, then I will tell him thanks for doing what my boyfriend forgot to do that morning. Watch how fast he stops and I get on my way. LOL!

  • Justin

    @William

    That is very true on the car story. Your coach was a wise man. While this story is about “Terrorism”, the argument I have made sticks. It is very low on the social scale. Yet, for every act of “Terrorism” Politicians are very reactionary and make further laws to erode our rights. Yet, we have far more car crashes and gun deaths a year. You do not see politicians taking away guns for every murder in this country, right? You do not see politicians telling us not to drive, for each and every car accident, correct? My point is that LIVING is a risk. If we want “Big Brother” to mitigate our risk, we might as well live in a padded room. I have NO PROBLEMS with basic levels of security at an airport. Metal Detectors are fine. Checking that the ID matches the ticket is Fine. Even using Dogs or machines that can test for trace amounts of explosives / radiation. None of these inherently are “New”. Yet, the second we need to:

    Strip down and take off our shoes
    Walk through a scanner that literally violates our right to privacy
    Can’t take a drink on the plane, but can buy a 2 dollar Airport water

    So forth… It is clear who has won this war of “Terror”

    @ Mike

    My argument for guns is very valid bud. You make NOT like it but it holds truth. The same “Far Right” that has for years been screaming INVADE and WAR and let’s blow the ever living crap out of the Middle East, has no issue with guns. These guns by far pose a GREATER RISK to our society than any Middle Eastern or Terrorist that has set foot on this land. This includes home brews like the IRS guy who flew his plane in to a building. Timothy Mcveigh. The list goes on.

    P.S. If you want to take a further argument, Guns have been used to Commit Work place and School Place shootings. Aren’t those Acts of Terrorism? The individuals going in there have a “Motive” or “Objective” they want to prove. Likewise, similar to a terrorist, their goal is to KILL as many as possible.

    In the scheme of things, guns might not be a problem in law abiding citizens hands. However, that argument falls on deaf ears when MILLIONS of guns are made and many of them end up in to the hands of CRIMINALS, as a result. The round robin takes place as the “NRA” yells for more guns as more criminals have them. It’s like eating candy, getting a cavity, and deciding the cure to cavities is to eat more candy.

  • Craig

    “Your argument has no merit with law abiding citizens who follow the laws we have in place.”

    Actually, isn’t that the point of this argument? That the vast majority of people who fly are in fact law abiding citizens? Yet, we’re treated like criminals every moment we spend in an airport and aboard a plane.

  • Justin

    @ Craig,

    Injecting logic often falls on deaf ears for those who base their conclusions in fallacy. For all the tens of thousands of flights or however many that leave a day, very few see a problem. Statistically speaking, you will make it to your destination without issue. Of course, no one argues we should do away with absolute security. However, the means needs to justify the end on just how far we go. See above. On a final note, got to love how people will toss out an “argument” they think justifies their side “law abiding” but ultimately sticks a nail in it. I’m law abiding, so why do I get treated like a common criminal?

  • Steve

    “Walk through a scanner that literally violates our right to privacy”

    No, it doesn’t. If the government was coming around to your house and forcing you to go through a scanner and there was no way for you to decline, that would be a violation of your right to privacy. You can choose not to fly commercially if it bothers you so much.

    It amazes me that we’re such a nation of prudes that people are more concerned about the possibility of someone looking at us “naked” (the images produced by the scanner sure don’t seem alluring to me, but to each his own I guess) than they are about the possibility of someone getting explosives on a plane and blowing us to bits.

  • Amy

    Those who are saying these scans are “required in Britain” are only partially correct. These scanners are not in place at all security checkpoints in all British airports. As of a month or so ago, they were only at Manchester and Heathrow, and there weren’t many in use. Also, all passengers are not required to go through them. Passengers are “randomly” selected (one can probably safely assume non-whites are more likely to be selected) for scanner screening. If one of those selected refuses a scan, then yes, that person is not allowed to fly.

    Also, I’ve refused to go through these scanners a few times, as they’re in use at an airport I frequent. My experience hasn’t been that bad — the TSA agents weren’t snarky about it, and I received a cursory pat down from a female agent who used a wand and the back of her hands. These secondary screenings were way less uncomfortable than the gross pat downs I got when I was pregnant. I have to imagine that everyone’s refusal experience is as individual as the TSA agents they have to deal with.

Previous post:

Next post: