For what reasons could you be requested to go through the full body scanners?

[maxiesmom]

I'm surprised all the focus stays on airplanes. Why not stadiums (the checks are cursory at best) or big office buildings, subways, trains, buses, etc. All those places are likely targets.

My guess is because an airplane can itself be used as a weapon. You can fly it pretty much anywhere you want to if you can get control of it.

 

[DebbieB]

Its only blown out of proportion if it does not bother you. There are a lot of reasons it is a big deal to a lot of people. If it doesn't bother you great keep on flying. If there is a decrease in air travel because of this I guess thats ok too. It couldn't possibly have any effect on the economy could it?

As someone who has gone through the scanner and wasn't too happy about it at the time, I think it's been blown out of proportion. I was shocked when it happened because I didn't expect it. Now I know what to expect. I love to travel and I'm sure as heck am not going to let this stop me. I have nothing to hide.

 

[bytheblood]

Originally Posted by jodifla View Post

I'm surprised all the focus stays on airplanes. Why not stadiums (the checks are cursory at best) or big office buildings, subways, trains, buses, etc. All those places are likely targets.

Because it is about government control - not safety.

 

[ZeroMyHero]

This is my first time venturing into this forum (and it might be the last after what I have to say), but I feel very strongly about this topic and so I'm going to comment.

I have an alternative solution to the current backscatter technology: millimeter wave. It's less invasive (the image received is far less detailed, allowing agents to see if there's a threat without seeing the details of a passenger's naked body) and there is no threat from radiation. Passengers get to keep their modesty and airline workers can rest assured that they're not going to put their health at risk simply by going to work, and everyone's allegedly safer. So why not use millimeter wave instead? Seems like a no-brainer to me. Well, because Rapiscan, the backscatter people, lobbied Congress hard and heavy and bought their way in, that's why.

If you feel that this is just the way it has to be, who says it will stop here? We're in slippery slope territory now. In 2009, a man hid a bomb in a place where the sun doesn't shine in order to try to assassinate a Saudi prince. If something like that happens in our country, should we then offer ourselves up for full body cavity searches at the airport in the name of safety? Why not, if it keeps us safe, right?

And for those of you who say "if you don't like it, don't fly", I'm thinking the terrorists are saying that to themselves, too. We have two huge open borders to our country. They could drive themselves in and blow up who knows what and do a lot more damage than blowing up one aircraft. So why stop with scanners at airports? How about getting scanned every time you want to go to the mall, or to the grocery store, or to worship? After all, terrorists could be anywhere. We need to be safe!

I'm sure there will be many of you who will think I'm some overwrought hysteric, and that's your right. I'm secure in the fact that I'm not one of the sheeple who do anything they're told and never question *if* they should be doing it or not. Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Some old dude named Ben wrote that, but what the hell did he know, right?

 

[SaraJayne]

Thanks for posting those links.. it's all just mind-boggling..

double post

 

[SaraJayne]

Thanks for posting those links.. it's all just mind-boggling..

What's mind boggling to me is some people are just laying down and taking this and saying "eh, no big deal."

 

[SaraJayne]

The TSA tried these very aggressive pat downs in 2004, but backed off when people complained.

The House has already passed a bill saying these machines can't be used as primary screeners. Hopefully, the Senate will follow.

What will actually likely stop them from being used as primary screeners is that they take too long to process people.

I'm surprised all the focus stays on airplanes. Why not stadiums (the checks are cursory at best) or big office buildings, subways, trains, buses, etc. All those places are likely targets.

The subway/trains will be the next target. There is literally NO screening, at least here for Amtrak or the EL sytem in Chicago.

I walked out of my vehicle, into the station and onto the train. In Chicago, at Union Station, I walked out of the taxi, into the station and onto the train.

Not a security check point in sight.

 

[SaraJayne]

This is my first time venturing into this forum (and it might be the last after what I have to say), but I feel very strongly about this topic and so I'm going to comment.

I have an alternative solution to the current backscatter technology: millimeter wave. It's less invasive (the image received is far less detailed, allowing agents to see if there's a threat without seeing the details of a passenger's naked body) and there is no threat from radiation. Passengers get to keep their modesty and airline workers can rest assured that they're not going to put their health at risk simply by going to work, and everyone's allegedly safer. So why not use millimeter wave instead? Seems like a no-brainer to me. Well, because Rapiscan, the backscatter people, lobbied Congress hard and heavy and bought their way in, that's why.

If you feel that this is just the way it has to be, who says it will stop here? We're in slippery slope territory now. In 2009, a man hid a bomb in a place where the sun doesn't shine in order to try to assassinate a Saudi prince. If something like that happens in our country, should we then offer ourselves up for full body cavity searches at the airport in the name of safety? Why not, if it keeps us safe, right?

And for those of you who say "if you don't like it, don't fly", I'm thinking the terrorists are saying that to themselves, too. We have two huge open borders to our country. They could drive themselves in and blow up who knows what and do a lot more damage than blowing up one aircraft. So why stop with scanners at airports? How about getting scanned every time you want to go to the mall, or to the grocery store, or to worship? After all, terrorists could be anywhere. We need to be safe!

I'm sure there will be many of you who will think I'm some overwrought hysteric, and that's your right. I'm secure in the fact that I'm not one of the sheeple who do anything they're told and never question *if* they should be doing it or not. Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Some old dude named Ben wrote that, but what the hell did he know, right?

 

[trubie]

I personally am looking forward to the body scan. I see it as an opportunity to pretend I'm Arnold Schwarzenegger in "Total Recall". I'm going to pretend I'm being trapped on either side of the scanner, then jump through the middle of it.

 

[mdsoccermom]

What's mind boggling to me is some people are just laying down and taking this and saying "eh, no big deal."

As someone who flies all the time, it's not a big deal to me. It really isn't. It is a scanner that will show the outline of my body. I am not under some illusion that the TSA scanners will be sitting there ogling my not so shapely frame. Nor do I believe that the scanners will render me infertile.

Frankly, if people want to start canceling their trips and not fly, have at it. I'd be perfectly happy with fewer people on the plane and less people at the airport.

 

[ccgirl]

As someone who flies all the time, it's not a big deal to me. It really isn't. It is a scanner that will show the outline of my body. I am not under some illusion that the TSA scanners will be sitting there ogling my not so shapely frame. Nor do I believe that the scanners will render me infertile.

Frankly, if people want to start canceling their trips and not fly, have at it. I'd be perfectly happy with fewer people on the plane and less people at the airport.

Exactly how I feel as well. I have done the research as to how much radiation the scanner emits (same as 3 mins on a cross country flight). I see just see nothing sexual about this. I get patted down going thru security at a concert or sporting event as well. My DH has experienced the new patdown and he was not offended at all. Nobody tried to grab his "junk". As someone who has experienced it as well; I just didn't see it as a big deal.

 

[SaraJayne]

As someone who flies all the time, it's not a big deal to me. It really isn't. It is a scanner that will show the outline of my body. I am not under some illusion that the TSA scanners will be sitting there ogling my not so shapely frame. Nor do I believe that the scanners will render me infertile.

Frankly, if people want to start canceling their trips and not fly, have at it. I'd be perfectly happy with fewer people on the plane and less people at the airport.

And if it isn't a big deal for you, that's fine. For others, it is.

 

[ccgirl]

And if it isn't a big deal for you, that's fine. For others, it is.

I think that is the issue here. Obviously, there are two sides to every story. I'm glad people are accepting of the opposite point of view and this thread is a good discussion. I am also glad that those opposed to these methods have a choice to not fly and those that enjoy increased security can do so while feeling safer.

To answer the OP's question. I went thru the AirTran terminal at BOS and they had the backscatters. We could go thru that or opt out. I went thru and all is well. My DH went thru and moved and had to get the pat down. At RSW, neither of us go the pat down nor did they have the backscatter. We just went thru the good ol' walk thru metal detector. So, I think it may depend on what kind of security measures are in place at the particular airport. Hope this helps.

 

[KBoopaloo]

Really? I had to stand on two different sets of footprints. Then wait quite a while for them the to hear on the radio that it was oK, then they had me sit on a chair to check the bottom of my feet, then the waistband of my pants.

It was a horrible way to start the trip.

My mom was chosen to go through in Boston and it took about the same amount of time as the regular metal detector, maybe a minute longer. She didn't get the extra checks afterwards though.

A few years ago, I had the waistband, bottom of the foot check myself when I was chosen for extra screening because I had a one way ticket. Maybe you were chosen for both the scanner and extra screening? I have no idea what the policies are now.

 

[CandyMandy]

This is a direct quote from a post on a well known travel forum:

"We were flying from Nashville to Orlando to go to Disney for my son's birthday. My son is 9 years old. Nashville has installed the new backscatter scanners, aka "naked" scanners. Now I am not a modest person and for me myself I don't care. To be honest, I had not given it much thought.

We were given no option to opt out of the scans that I could see, no signage or instructions. I later found out you can opt out and choose the pat down instead.

Well, we all three went through the machine. Husband and I were fine. They scanned the kid and then informed us they had to pat him down. I asked why, they said he moved. So I am thinking run of the mill pat down, wand over his body and light touch.

He is 9 years old for the love of Pete but that was not the case. Had anyone but a physician doing a necessary medical exam touched my child in the places the TSA agent put his hands, I would have filed charges.

He groped the inside of his legs and touched his genitals. He put his hands around my son's neck in a choking position, felt all the way down his chest area and his buttocks. He placed his hands inside my son's pants waist band and felt around his waist. The agent was loud and intimidating even for me, a 36 year old women. He barked at him to "hold up your pants" and "spread your legs, shoulder width."

All I could think was my son looked like he was being frisked and how humiliating this was for him to be stared at by everyone as they passed by us.

Now, this whole scenario was out in the open, we were not given the option of privacy. My son was scared and humiliated. I am not a momma hen or a wacko and we fly regularly and have never minded the security measures needed but this was a shocking experience. Shocking enough for us to forgo air travel (which we have always loved) until these new security rules change and come closer to something akin to reason."

 

[BlueIrish]

I personally am looking forward to the body scan. I see it as an opportunity to pretend I'm Arnold Schwarzenegger in "Total Recall". I'm going to pretend I'm being trapped on either side of the scanner, then jump through the middle of it.

HAHA yes!

 

[sam_gordon]

This is a direct quote from a post on a well known travel forum:

SNIP

Here's a question... how many "gropings"/"improper touchings" have been reported vs. how many people have had no problem with the same screenings?

Granted, everyone has different levels of "comfortableness", and all screeners are human, therefore there will be variances in how the patdowns are handled.

ETA: We're still down to "if you don't like the security procedures, don't fly." It has been determined (so far) the screenings ARE legal. They do not violate anyone's rights. There is no "right" to air travel (just as there is no "right" to getting a drivers license). Until someone successfully argues differently before a court of law, if you want to fly, you need to go through the screenings. bottom line.

 

[Let'sGoFlyAKite]

Here's what IM doing:
http://shaneisevil.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/letter-of-complaint-to-the-tsa/

 

[CPT Tripss]

I personally am looking forward to the body scan. I see it as an opportunity to pretend I'm Arnold Schwarzenegger in "Total Recall". I'm going to pretend I'm being trapped on either side of the scanner, then jump through the middle of it.

Be careful, one of the gizmos has "doors" that spin around you

Here's a question... how many "gropings"/"improper touchings" have been reported vs. how many people have had no problem with the same screenings?

Granted, everyone has different levels of "comfortableness", and all screeners are human, therefore there will be variances in how the patdowns are handled.

ETA: We're still down to "if you don't like the security procedures, don't fly." It has been determined (so far) the screenings ARE legal. They do not violate anyone's rights. There is no "right" to air travel (just as there is no "right" to getting a drivers license). Until someone successfully argues differently before a court of law, if you want to fly, you need to go through the screenings. bottom line.

I don't believe there is case law on the new, more invasive screenings. EPIC's case is still pending.

How many "gropings" are unreported? How many are acceptable?

 

[sam_gordon]

I don't believe there is case law on the new, more invasive screenings. EPIC's case is still pending.

But until there is case law making the screenings illegal, doesn't that make them legal? I did include a 'so far' in my post.

How many "gropings" are unreported? How many are acceptable?

Ah, but a "grope" to one is not a "grope" to another. Or, more likely, the "gropes" are the same, but the REASON for the "grope" is in question. If a doctor preformed the identical "pat down"/"grope" as part of an exam would anyone be crying "illegal"? I'm guessing not, because it's necessary for the doctor to do the job entrusted to them. Now, are the "enhanced pat downs/gropes" necessary for TSA to do their jobs? I don't know. I error on the side of more security is better than less.

As I pointed out in another post (in this thread or another one), no screening system/device is 100% effective (didn't we have metal detectors before 9/11?). So now you need to use a combination of procedures to get as close to 100% as you can, BUT balance that with the cost/time constraints.