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

[N965VJ]

You do realize they perform background checks on the TSA agents; correct?

Background checks are not a predictor of future actions.

I fail to see why how much they make, or how they heard about the job should reflect treating them with respect and common courtesy.

Not requiring a high school diploma and advertising on pizza boxes is indicative of a high employee turnover rate, which has serious consequences.


Homeland Security Today:

Indications of screeners’ distraction, focus, and frustration have begun to be seen, and is in stark contrast to what HSToday.us and other federal investigators have found at the nearly dozen major metropolitan airports where screeners were observed three years ago. Then, screeners were courteous, polite, respectful, and appeared to be well trained. HSToday.us encountered few screeners taking shortcuts to speed up the processing of air travelers.

Since then, however, more and more screeners’ attitudes observed at airports across the country have shown marked chinks in their professionalism – from the way passengers are treated to screening mechanics. This isn’t to disparage the entirety of the TSA workforce, which by and large is comprised of patriotic, hard-working men and women, but rather to say that problems like those found by DHS’s IG do indeed appear to be causing enough stress that it is affecting conduct and focus on security.

Late last year, investigators for Congress’ investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), disclosed that they repeatedly were able to smuggle through dozens of airport screening checkpoints liquid bomb and other explosives components that, once on board a plane, could be assembled in as little as ten minutes. If successfully detonated, these explosives could potentially cause a “catastrophic” explosion.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Hey Sam

I think "pat down" is too benign and not properly descriptive. You think "grope" is inflammatory.

What about "manual body search?"

 

[sam_gordon]

Just wondering . . . what terrorist, or suspected terrorist, has been caught by the TSA during an ID check at the entrance to the secure area? I've read reports of bogus IDs, but what terrorist, suspected or otherwise?

What terrorist, or suspected terrorist, has been caught by the TSA during a WTMD or baggage X-ray check? I don't think you can use a "negative" as "proof" (ex: Since no one has been caught, it doesn't work).

The background checks of TSAers are no indication of future behavior . . . if they were, we wouldn't have all the arrests of TSAers for eiither on duty or off duty criminal acts.

I agree. But doctor's going through all the schooling are no indication of future behavior either. How many doctors have been arrested for abusing patients?

And speaking of degrees... do all police departments require "higher education" for their recruits? I haven't heard anyone complain about police officers only having HS educations.

Not requiring a high school diploma and advertising on pizza boxes is indicative of a high employee turnover rate, which has serious consequences.


Homeland Security Today:

Indications of screeners’ distraction, focus, and frustration have begun to be seen, and is in stark contrast to what HSToday.us and other federal investigators have found at the nearly dozen major metropolitan airports where screeners were observed three years ago. Then, screeners were courteous, polite, respectful, and appeared to be well trained. HSToday.us encountered few screeners taking shortcuts to speed up the processing of air travelers.

Since then, however, more and more screeners’ attitudes observed at airports across the country have shown marked chinks in their professionalism – from the way passengers are treated to screening mechanics. This isn’t to disparage the entirety of the TSA workforce, which by and large is comprised of patriotic, hard-working men and women, but rather to say that problems like those found by DHS’s IG do indeed appear to be causing enough stress that it is affecting conduct and focus on security.

Late last year, investigators for Congress’ investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), disclosed that they repeatedly were able to smuggle through dozens of airport screening checkpoints liquid bomb and other explosives components that, once on board a plane, could be assembled in as little as ten minutes. If successfully detonated, these explosives could potentially cause a “catastrophic” explosion.

I wonder how much of the TSA employee turnover, and the "poor attitude" (for lack of a better term) is also brought on by travelers not treating them with respect? The high turnover rate started WAY before the new scanners/enhanced "manual body search" started.

Hey Sam

I think "pat down" is too benign and not properly descriptive. You think "grope" is inflammatory.

What about "manual body search?"

I like it, but I think we need to differentiate. A "manual body search" (the way I read it) can apply to a "basic" pat down, a "enhanced"(?) search, and the ??? search (including "cupping")

 

[ccgirl]

Just wondering . . . what terrorist, or suspected terrorist, has been caught by the TSA during an ID check at the entrance to the secure area? I've read reports of bogus IDs, but what terrorist, suspected or otherwise?



The background checks of TSAers are no indication of future behavior . . . if they were, we wouldn't have all the arrests of TSAers for eiither on duty or off duty criminal acts.




Did you get both the WBI and the body search?

Nor is it indicative for any other occupation that requires a background check; lawyers, law enforcement, teachers, coaches etc. I really don't see the correlation here. People of all occupations and walks of life commit crimes.

Background checks are not a predictor of future actions.




Not requiring a high school diploma and advertising on pizza boxes is indicative of a high employee turnover rate, which has serious consequences.


Homeland Security Today:

Indications of screeners’ distraction, focus, and frustration have begun to be seen, and is in stark contrast to what HSToday.us and other federal investigators have found at the nearly dozen major metropolitan airports where screeners were observed three years ago. Then, screeners were courteous, polite, respectful, and appeared to be well trained. HSToday.us encountered few screeners taking shortcuts to speed up the processing of air travelers.

Since then, however, more and more screeners’ attitudes observed at airports across the country have shown marked chinks in their professionalism – from the way passengers are treated to screening mechanics. This isn’t to disparage the entirety of the TSA workforce, which by and large is comprised of patriotic, hard-working men and women, but rather to say that problems like those found by DHS’s IG do indeed appear to be causing enough stress that it is affecting conduct and focus on security.

Late last year, investigators for Congress’ investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), disclosed that they repeatedly were able to smuggle through dozens of airport screening checkpoints liquid bomb and other explosives components that, once on board a plane, could be assembled in as little as ten minutes. If successfully detonated, these explosives could potentially cause a “catastrophic” explosion.

Rude people that the TSA agents encounter could also lead to a high turnover rate. I know I wouldn't want to be exposed to some of the rude people I have heard on here. People that are purposely setting themselves up just to be confrontational.

 

[GraceLuvsWDW]

Late last year, investigators for Congress’ investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), disclosed that they repeatedly were able to smuggle through dozens of airport screening checkpoints liquid bomb and other explosives components that, once on board a plane, could be assembled in as little as ten minutes. If successfully detonated, these explosives could potentially cause a “catastrophic” explosion. [/URL][/I]

I would be willing to bet that these liquid explosives weren't in their underwear, but instead inside their carryons that were xray'd. This Body Scan doesn't mediate this issue.

The problem with situations like this is that your liberties are being taken away slowly so that today you might say ok to this but what will be next? This doesn't solve the problem 100% and quite frankly, the benefit does not outweigh the intrusion to our privacy. Someone explain to me any instance where this full body scan would have detected something that could not have been detected by the xray and metal detector. Just ONE instance?

What price are you willing to pay for safety?

You are 13 times more likely to die in a railway accident than from a terrorist attack
You are 12,571 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack
You are six times more likely to die from hot weather than from a terrorist attack
You are eight times more likely to die from accidental electrocution than from a terrorist attack
You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane
You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack
You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack
You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack
You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack
You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack
You are nine times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack
You are eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist

These ratios were compiled using data from National Safety Council (NSC) Estimates, a report based on data from The National Center for Health Statistics, the U.S. Census Bureau, and mortality data from the Center for Disease Control (CDC).

 

[sam_gordon]

I would be willing to bet that these liquid explosives weren't in their underwear, but instead inside their carryons that were xray'd. This Body Scan doesn't mediate this issue.

OK, you're betting which means you don't know. What about the "underwear bomber"? Where were his explosives?

The problem with situations like this is that your liberties are being taken away slowly so that today you might say ok to this but what will be next? This doesn't solve the problem 100% and quite frankly, the benefit does not outweigh the intrusion to our privacy. Someone explain to me any instance where this full body scan would have detected something that could not have been detected by the xray and metal detector. Just ONE instance?

How about plastic explosives duct taped to someone's skin? A metal detector wouldn't find it. The human doesn't go through an xray, so how does it get found? Likewise, plastic knives and guns.

Also, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me which civil liberty is being violated.

You are 13 times more likely to die in a railway accident than from a terrorist attack
You are 12,571 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack
You are six times more likely to die from hot weather than from a terrorist attack
You are eight times more likely to die from accidental electrocution than from a terrorist attack
You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane
You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack
You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack
You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack
You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack
You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack
You are nine times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack
You are eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist

And your point is? Or, since a terrorist attack is so remote, we shouldn't do any screening at all (actually advocated on another message board I frequent)?

 

[CPT Tripss]

If, as some now say, "Nor is it indicative for any other occupation that requires a background check; lawyers, law enforcement, teachers, coaches etc. I really don't see the correlation here. People of all occupations and walks of life commit crimes," why did you bring up that TSA employees get background checks in the first place.

As far as catching terrorists goes, neither ID checks nor screenings have caught any. Yet some posters (Super27) seem to think they have. I was merely asking for evidence. There is no downside to eliminating the ID check by TSA, if they continue other screenings.

As for comparing police training with TSA screener training . . . there is no comparison. Police training is much more thorough and rigorous than the 40 hours of classroom and 60 hours OJT that TSA screeners get. Heck, you can almost substitute weeks for hours to see how much more rigorous.

 

[sam_gordon]

I think the ID check is there (at least "officially") to make sure no one on the "no fly" list tries to fly. Without the ID check, "John Smith", who shouldn't be flying according to the government, could get a ticket for "James Smith" and be allowed to fly.

Whether the no fly list is effective, I don't know. That would also be hard to prove.

I'm not comparing TSA training with police training (you may have been responding to someone else). I *DID* compare the TSA REQUIREMENT for simply a HS diploma w/PD requirements. I will agree Police get more training and are more skilled or trained.

 

[GraceLuvsWDW]

Also, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me which civil liberty is being violated.

The Fourth Amendment of the Unisted States Constitution states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The Fourth Amendment specifies that any warrant must be judicially sanctioned for a search or an arrest, in order for such a warrant to be considered reasonable. Warrants must be supported by probable cause and be limited in scope according to specific information supplied by a person (usually a law enforcement officer) who has sworn by it and is therefore accountable to the issuing court.

The Fourth Amendment applies to governmental searches and seizures, but not those done by private citizens or organizations who are not acting on behalf of a government.[14] The Bill of Rights originally only restricted the power of the federal government. However, in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to state governments by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, all state constitutions contain an analogous provision.[15]

The jurisdiction of the federal government in the realm of criminal law was narrow, until the late 19th century when the Interstate Commerce Act and Sherman Antitrust Act were passed. As criminal jurisdiction of the federal government expanded to include other areas such as narcotics, more questions about the Fourth Amendment came to the Supreme Court.[16]

The Supreme Court ruled that some searches and seizures may violate the reasonableness requirement under the Fourth Amendment, even if a warrant is supported by probable cause and is limited in scope.[17] Conversely, the Court has approved routine warrantless seizures, for example "where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed."[18] Thus, the reasonableness requirement and the warrant requirement are somewhat different.

The reasonableness requirement applies not just to a search in combination with a seizure, but also to a search without a seizure, as well as to a seizure without a search.[19] Hence, the amendment is not limited to protecting elements of privacy or personal autonomy, but rather applies pervasively to virtually all aspects of criminal law. Nevertheless, the amendment does not replace other constitutional provisions, such as replacing the Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual" punishment with a more sweeping ban on "unreasonable" punishment.

 

[GraceLuvsWDW]

And your point is? Or, since a terrorist attack is so remote, we shouldn't do any screening at all (actually advocated on another message board I frequent)?

The issue is not ALL or NOTHING, it is the unreasonable nature of someone touching your genitals. The Xray and Metal Detectors are not being protested.

You would effectively save A LOT more people by doing a breathalyzer on every person exiting a bar to get into their car. That would never, ever be done. Why? Because we have laws that protect us from unreasonable search and seizure.

We take risks in our lives. We cannot protect everyone all of the time. Are we prepared to undergo these types of searches in order to get on the freeway or enter any public place? At what point does all of this become ridiculously invasive and restrictive to us to the pleasure of the terrorists who have effectively terrorized us by our own fears and subsequent restrictions in our daily lives?

 

[ccgirl]

The issue is not ALL or NOTHING, it is the unreasonable nature of someone touching your genitals. The Xray and Metal Detectors are not being protested.

You would effectively save A LOT more people by doing a breathalyzer on every person exiting a bar to get into their car. That would never, ever be done. Why? Because we have laws that protect us from unreasonable search and seizure.

We take risks in our lives. We cannot protect everyone all of the time. Are we prepared to undergo these types of searches in order to get on the freeway or enter any public place? At what point does all of this become ridiculously invasive and restrictive to us to the pleasure of the terrorists who have effectively terrorized us by our own fears and subsequent restrictions in our daily lives?

Actually, the xray is being very much protested on this thread, and others. People are very much against it and feel it is a violation of their privacy as well. Just curious, have you experienced the pat down? My DH has and insists his genitals were not groped. I am going to believe him over what I read.

 

[sam_gordon]

The Fourth Amendment of the Unisted States Constitution states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Thank you. I can see two loopholes in using the Fourth Amendment though... 1) The scans are an attempt TO keep "the people secure".
2) The scans aren't (at least in some minds, including mine) "unreasonable". You think different. That's fine. I'm waiting for someone to take the searches to court AND to have a court strike them down as "unconstitutional". I don't think that's going to happen. I could be wrong.

 

[ZeroMyHero]

As I mentioned several pages back, an attack was made in 2009 on a Saudi prince by a man with a bomb physically inside his body. No amount of body scanning would have detected it. So if the TSA says that full body cavity searches are now necessary to board a plane, are we going to be okay with it?

Furthermore, backscatter technology has not been tested enough to be proven to be safe and a group of expert faculty members at the University of California say it's dangerous. Yes, the dose of radiation is the same as you'd get flying on an airplane, but the airplane dose is distributed throughout the entire body. The dose delivered in a backscatter scanner is concentrated on the skin and underlying tissue only, making the dose to the skin dangerously high. Amazingly, millions of compliant Americans-turned-guinea-pigs are subjecting themselves to this untested equipment every day, believing it is keeping them safe.

There are better ways to fight terrorism that don't endanger, degrade, or criminalize the general public. The TSA is just too lazy to figure them out.

 

[GraceLuvsWDW]

Actually, the xray is being very much protested on this thread, and others. People are very much against it and feel it is a violation of their privacy as well. Just curious, have you experienced the pat down? My DH has and insists his genitals were not groped. I am going to believe him over what I read.

By Xray I think you mean the Full Body Scan-I do not. I mean the Xrays that were in use prior to the full body scan.

 

[sam_gordon]

The issue is not ALL or NOTHING, it is the unreasonable nature of someone touching your genitals. The Xray and Metal Detectors are not being protested.

You (presumably) let your doctor (or an ER doc/nurse who you presumably don't know) touch your genitals to do their job. I'm sorry, I don't see a difference.

You would effectively save A LOT more people by doing a breathalyzer on every person exiting a bar to get into their car. That would never, ever be done. Why? Because we have laws that protect us from unreasonable search and seizure.

I think it's more a logistical issue than legal. What if there was a free breathalyzer outside a bar (ignore the health risks from shared "straws" for a moment). Are you saying those would be illegal?

We take risks in our lives. We cannot protect everyone all of the time. Are we prepared to undergo these types of searches in order to get on the freeway or enter any public place?

Again, I don't understand why some security DOESN'T violate "civil liberties" but others do.

At what point does all of this become ridiculously invasive and restrictive to us to the pleasure of the terrorists who have effectively terrorized us by our own fears and subsequent restrictions in our daily lives?

Good point! I don't have an answer for you, except to say this isn't it (in my mind).

 

[ccgirl]

As I mentioned several pages back, an attack was made in 2009 on a Saudi prince by a man with a bomb physically inside his body. No amount of body scanning would have detected it. So if the TSA says that full body cavity searches are now necessary to board a plane, are we going to be okay with it?

Furthermore, backscatter technology has not been tested enough to be proven to be safe and a group of expert faculty members at the University of California say it's dangerous. Yes, the dose of radiation is the same as you'd get flying on an airplane, but the airplane dose is distributed throughout the entire body. The dose delivered in a backscatter scanner is concentrated on the skin and underlying tissue only, making the dose to the skin dangerously high. Amazingly, millions of compliant Americans-turned-guinea-pigs are subjecting themselves to this untested equipment every day, believing it is keeping them safe.

There are better ways to fight terrorism that don't endanger, degrade, or criminalize the general public. The TSA is just too lazy to figure them out.

The backscatter's are not new and have been tested. The faculty members did not say they were dangerous. They said they would like more testing. I am not a "compliant" American. I make my own choices. Just because our choice is different does not make me any more or less compliant than you. I did the research before I made my decision. Just because 4 faculty members from the Univ of California say more testing is needed does not mean I am going to ignore all of the testing that has already been done.

 

[GraceLuvsWDW]

Thank you. I can see two loopholes in using the Fourth Amendment though... 1) The scans are an attempt TO keep "the people secure".
2) The scans aren't (at least in some minds, including mine) "unreasonable". You think different. That's fine. I'm waiting for someone to take the searches to court AND to have a court strike them down as "unconstitutional". I don't think that's going to happen. I could be wrong.

Until they can PROVE that the scans create a protection not deliverable by other non invasive methods I don't think they will be able to state that it is "the only way to keep the people secure" and if there is a less invasive option then it is not a reasonable infringement on our freedom.

The scans are a digital method of strip search and strip searching is illegal without probable cause. Any "strip search" is unreasonable in my opinion.

Do you have a teenaged daughter? Would you be ok with your teenaged daughter being in the machine and effectively being viewed, digitally naked, by an anonymous person? And what if your teenaged daughter had a problem with it? What if she were "creeped out" by it? Would you tell her it was for her "own good?"

And if she still protested would you stand and watch as a TSA agent patted her down and made repeated passes up and down her thigh, buttocks and "groin" area? Are you willing to subject your daughter to that in order to fly?

What about a woman who has been raped and has PTSD?
What about a child who has a mental handicap?
What about......
a whole myriad of other situations?

Is that a reasonable subjection in order to partially mediate a statistically insignificant risk?

 

[GraceLuvsWDW]

You (presumably) let your doctor (or an ER doc/nurse who you presumably don't know) touch your genitals to do their job. I'm sorry, I don't see a difference.

Only if I am dying, have a significant injury, or need a test to discern whether I have a disease. Barring any other situation, no I don't let any stranger grope me.

I most definitely will not submit to being groped for an insignificant "being chosen at random" reason.

 

[CJsMom]

Did you get both the WBI and the body search?

I posted a few pages back - basically I left my cell phone in my pocket by mistake (stupid!) - so I got pulled aside to go through the scanner. I had on cargo pants with a few pockets and I guess they still thought I had something in a pocket, because they patted down my left leg. Only my leg was patted down, so I didn't get the full body seach that others are referring to.

 

[sam_gordon]

Until they can PROVE that the scans create a protection not deliverable by other non invasive methods I don't think they will be able to state that it is "the only way to keep the people secure" and if there is a less invasive option then it is not a reasonable infringement on our freedom.

How do you prove a negative?

The scans are a digital method of strip search and strip searching is illegal without probable cause. Any "strip search" is unreasonable in my opinion.

That's your opinion. MY opinion is the images are NOT equal to a "strip search" (even virtually), because the images I have seen so far are not detailed enough. If someone wants to see naked bodies, the internet is generally not that far away... nor is the local convenience store to pick up the latest Hustler or Playboy/girl.

Do you have a teenaged daughter? Would you be ok with your teenaged daughter being in the machine and effectively being viewed, digitally naked, by an anonymous person? And what if your teenaged daughter had a problem with it? What if she were "creeped out" by it? Would you tell her it was for her "own good?"

When we fly to WDW next year, I will have a preteen daughter on the way there and a teen daughter on the way back. I will explain what the scanners do and what they are there for. I have no problems with either DD, DW, DS, or myself going through the scanner.

And if she still protested would you stand and watch as a TSA agent patted her down and made repeated passes up and down her thigh, buttocks and "groin" area? Are you willing to subject your daughter to that in order to fly?

Yes. As long as I am allowed to monitor and make sure the search stays "professional".

What about a woman who has been raped and has PTSD?
What about a child who has a mental handicap?
What about......
a whole myriad of other situations?

Is that a reasonable subjection in order to partially mediate a statistically insignificant risk?

All I can say is anyone who thinks they might have a problem being subjected to the new screenings (both machine and "manual") should choose another mode of transportation.

If someone is scared to fly, should they? They need to make the decision that's best for them.

All of the screening steps (ID check, x-ray check of baggage, WTMD, "new" machines/searhes) only partially mediate a statistically insignificant risk. So why have any if that's your argument?