TSA mess and the police

[LuvOrlando]

I'm not supporting the changes, I'm disputing the outrage, fear, etc, expressed by people based on what they've heard or read on the Internet. This is the same Internet that created a need for Snopes, that gave us the Nigerian Prince and other scams, that really allows anyone to create a website saying anything or a blog, or use Facebook to promote an agenda, or complain on a message board...

ccgirl's husband just got screened and she reported his experience. Technically I suppose I shouldn't believe her because this is a second-hand report, but I'm sure if we asked, she'd get him to confirm her report of his experience. eliza61 just flew twice last week and reported her first-person experience. When posters who are against the changes fly and post their own experiences, that's credible. Someone in the back seat of a car 'reporting' what he claims was his parents' horrifying experience ever so calmly, not so much. Conservative radio talk show hosts to whom I don't listen regularly? Ditto.

Now I think I get you. IF by agenda you mean that I want to get to Aruba and WDW next year without getting touched or exposed to radiation needlessly, then yes I have an agenda. If you are trying to hint that I am a part of some broader conspiracy then no, I do not have an agenda.

Seriously, the whole idea that anyone who voices a concern is part of some grand scheme has devolved, there is no edge in it anymore. I'm just me saying what I think and feel. Other people on here are just like me. I have never noticed great bands of roving posters who make it a point to move an agenda, what I do see is a bunch of people who have different ideas about things. But that's just the way the world is. I always say I think the world would be such a giant bore if we were all the same and I mean it.

Talk is good, from every angle talk is good. What isn't good is the continued attempt to marginalize other people. Why am I so threatening? Why do you perceive people who aren't falling in line about the recent changes so threatening? Truth is I'm just a ticked off Mom who won't go on vacation so how & why exactly does that effect you?

I can tell you what I find threatening and it's the new procedures, not people. You are not my adversary. You can keep attacking day and night but I can promise you 2 things. First, I'm never going to feel threatened by you and second, that your particular approach will not change my mind. I don't exactly know what your goal is but if it is either of the last 2 things I mentioned, this is not working.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Now I think I get you. IF by agenda you mean that I want to get to Aruba and WDW next year without getting touched or exposed to radiation needlessly, then yes I have an agenda. If you are trying to hint that I am a part of some broader conspiracy then no, I do not have an agenda.

Nope, I don't think you're part of any type of conspiracy or any breadth . Until I experience the new procedure for myself (about a month from now!), I'm going to believe eliza61's experience and ccgirl's husband's experience over those floating around the Internet - including, yes, what's on YouTube and in third-hand 'news' reports. There could be vast differences in perception about what the pat-down entails.

I've been patted down before - both sitting in a wheelchair (although I could have stood) and standing. Now, granted, it's always been with the back of the TSO's hand, but they've always told me exactly where they're going before they touch. I've been wanded, again both in and out of the wheelchair. I've gone through the metal detectors, but because I limp and have metal in me, I generally set something off - hence the additional screening.

I don't think you (or the posters with similar positions) are threatening in any way. I just genuinely think you're panicking without having all the facts, basing your opinions on "extreme" sources. I could change my mind about the entire process by the time I get back - but that would be based on personal experience, not the Internet.

C.Ann brought up the hypothetical 85 year old woman with the recent surgical procedure. In that case, I'd just TELL the agent I had padding in place. More 'women of a certain age' than you think use similar products for a different reason, on a daily basis.

 

[JLTraveling]

C.Ann brought up the hypothetical 85 year old woman with the recent surgical procedure. In that case, I'd just TELL the agent I had padding in place. More 'women of a certain age' than you think use similar products for a different reason, on a daily basis.

Okay, let me get this straight. The TSA agent is searching the hypothetical 85 year old woman because she "could be a threat." But if she tells the agent that she's using a feminine product, then the TSA agent will let her go without examining the alleged product? Then what exactly was the point of the search in the first place?

And that goes directly to the point that none of the pro-pat down people have yet answered, despite several of us asking: What happens next? Approximately half the population is female. Of those, how many happen to be experiencing their monthly cycles on any given day? How many people use products for incontinence? How many have colostomy bags? How does the TSA know that there aren't explosives hidden in one of those products? Are they going to make people strip down and display those items? Then what? If the appropriate bodily fluids are present, then the traveler is free to go? Couldn't the product be used for its designated function and ALSO contain explosives?

If they're not doing a detailed analysis of bodily fluid-containing products, then they're theoretically leaving a gaping hole in security. And if that's the case, then the whole argument for invasive pat downs breaks down altogether.

In other news, this story came out today on CNet:

Biochemist says "naked" X-ray scanner may be unsafe
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20022541-281.html?tag=mncol;posts

A University of California at San Francisco professor of biochemistry told CNET today that the Obama administration's claim that full-body scanners pose no health risks to air travelers is in "error."

The administration's defense of the controversial machines, which use X-rays to perform what critics have dubbed naked strip searches, has "many misconceptions, and we will write a careful answer pointing out their errors," said John Sedat, a UCSF professor of biochemistry and biophysics and member of the National Academy of Sciences.

This image of an adult man was taken using a Rapiscan Secure 1000 backscatter X-ray scanner
(Credit: John Wild (johnwild.info))

"Because four people are working on this, it will not be done in one day," Sedat said.

Earlier this week, the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy posted a statement saying the X-ray scans are safe because "the issue had been studied extensively for many years" by federal agencies.

That post was a response to a letter (PDF) that Sedat and three other UCSF faculty members sent to White House science advisor John Holdren in April.

Their letter to Holdren said "it appears that real independent safety data do not exist." In addition, the authors say: "There has not been sufficient review of the intermediate and long-term effects of radiation exposure associated with airport scanners. There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations."

Air travelers over 65 years old are especially susceptible to the "mutagenic effects of the X-rays," they say, as are HIV and cancer patients, children and adolescents, pregnant women, and men (because the X-rays can penetrate skin and put the testicles "at risk for sperm mutagenesis"). Eyes could also be at risk because X-rays can penetrate the cornea.

For its part, the administration rejects any health concerns. A letter last month from the FDA and the Transportation Security Administration responding to the UCSF researchers' concerns says "the potential health risks from a full-body screening with a general-use x-ray security system are miniscule."

Although the X-ray scanners have been used for years, the federal stimulus legislation paid for the deployment of hundreds of the scanners in U.S. airports: they were turned on yesterday in the Orlando airport and have appeared at Dulles airport this week as well. Approximately 68 airports have a total of 373 scanners, the TSA says.

If X-ray scanners were presented to the public as one of many options, the concerns would be muted. But they're being used the primary screening technique.

And anyone hoping to opt-out in favor of a manual pat-down may not like what happens. The TSA quietly changed its procedures a few weeks ago to what it delicately calls "enhanced pat-downs," which involve screeners using their fingers--instead of the backs of their hands--to feel the outlines of male or female genitalia.

So we now have an expert weighing in on the potential dangers of the new scanners. Is it still just hysteria, or is it within the realm of possibility that the radiation exposure could, in fact, be harmful?

 

[skater]

So, if the machines potentially expose us to harmful radiation in addition to a view of our bodies most of us would rather not give... And if I refuse this machine, I'll be subjected to a full pat down ... How is this not an "unreasonabale search?" Maybe someone with a better understanding of constitutional law can explain this to me?

 

[NHdisneylover]

So, if the machines potentially expose us to harmful radiation in addition to a view of our bodies most of us would rather not give... And if I refuse this machine, I'll be subjected to a full pat down ... How is this not an "unreasonabale search?" Maybe someone with a better understanding of constitutional law can explain this to me?

Because you are not required to submit to it. You will be allowed to leave without submitting to the search--you are not going to be held at airport security if you say you'd rather opt out all together and go home. What you will NOT be able to do is go into the airport and take a flight.

 

[AKL_Megs]

Because you are not required to submit to it. You will be allowed to leave without submitting to the search--you are not going to be held at airport security if you say you'd rather opt out all together and go home. What you will NOT be able to do is go into the airport and take a flight.

Exactly. And since travel by air is still not a right, it in no way goes against anything in the constitution.

You have choices.

Submit to "harmful radiation", "molestation", or go home, get in your car and drive there, on the roads, where more people DIE a year from drunks and reckless drivers than radiation.

Seriously.

 

[mhsjax]

I for one, really doubt that the little bit of radiation you get from a scanner is dangerous, but I have no proof. Than again, I also don't believe that the sun is causing all the skin cancer, I believe it is something else, again no proof just my opinion.

 

[bicker]

Most of the objections to this scanner are founded solely on people wanting to impose their own personal preferences over the standards and principles of our society, because they are over-entitled.

 

[Magpie]

Nope, I don't think you're part of any type of conspiracy or any breadth . Until I experience the new procedure for myself (about a month from now!), I'm going to believe eliza61's experience and ccgirl's husband's experience over those floating around the Internet - including, yes, what's on YouTube and in third-hand 'news' reports. There could be vast differences in perception about what the pat-down entails.

I've been patted down before - both sitting in a wheelchair (although I could have stood) and standing. Now, granted, it's always been with the back of the TSO's hand, but they've always told me exactly where they're going before they touch. I've been wanded, again both in and out of the wheelchair. I've gone through the metal detectors, but because I limp and have metal in me, I generally set something off - hence the additional screening.

I don't think you (or the posters with similar positions) are threatening in any way. I just genuinely think you're panicking without having all the facts, basing your opinions on "extreme" sources. I could change my mind about the entire process by the time I get back - but that would be based on personal experience, not the Internet.

C.Ann brought up the hypothetical 85 year old woman with the recent surgical procedure. In that case, I'd just TELL the agent I had padding in place. More 'women of a certain age' than you think use similar products for a different reason, on a daily basis.

And I'll be able to decide for myself, too, in exactly a month. I'll have to include it in my trip report!

 

[LuvOrlando]

Most of the objections to this scanner are founded solely on people wanting to impose their own personal preferences over the standards and principles of our society, because they are over-entitled.

Maybe these are the standards and principles of Society in the world YOU live in, but in the world I live in, nothing could be further from the truth.

The world I live in, which I hold in high esteem, does not permit law abiding citizens to be treated like criminals without cause. The land I live in is governed by the Constitution and the Constitution does not permit this.

The following isn't directed at you Bicker, it's just that you brought up a jumping off point for me so I'm going to go with it. My thread isn't about the big picture really. It's about me not liking what's happening here and now. But since so many of you are dragging the big picture into it as a justification how about we look at it head on?

Those of you who say this is fine because we can opt out of the situation. Lets bring that way of thinking out a little further. Why stop at the airports? There is nothing special about airports other than the fact they are the arbitrary starting point. What if the same restrictions occur before we are allowed to go into a tunnel, plainly another vulnerable point? Then there are sports facilities, you can plainly argue concern there is justified because thousands of people gather at a place such as, say The Superbowl, aren't their lives just as valuable? What about an Amusement park on the 4th of July, surely one could argue that the lives of tens of thousands of families justify the same steps. ALL of these examples are optional so if what's going on at the Airports is ok because it's optional than that precedent could be used to transfer the practice to other places.

But who is to say it would stop there. Surely driving is optional too. I guess the police could argue that because we choose to opt into driving on public roads we should be subject to the same searches there.

Logically, once a precedent is set the parameters created can be broadened further and further in the courts until the practice permeates everything. That's how our legal system works, our lives are built on precedents defined by the Judiciary.

Look at the great things that came of Brown v Board of Education. If you don't think equally negative things can come from precedents I suggest you think again. THIS is the principle upon which the ACLU stands, THIS is why they do what they do and THIS is why I'm grateful they do it. I don't always agree with the outcome but I totally understand the reasons why that think tank needs to be around.

 

[bicker]

Maybe these are the standards and principles of Society in the world YOU live in, but in the world I live in, nothing could be further from the truth.

If what you claim here is correct, then there wouldn't be a "mess" because the scanners would never have been put in place. I'm sorry but I know a lot of people would prefer our society's standards and principles were different from what they are, but no one is entitled to impose their own preferences in that manner. Our society's standards and principles are what they are, and you can see them very clearly reflected in what our society does, even if you personally don't like it or would want it to be different.

The world I live in, which I hold in high esteem, does not permit law abiding citizens to be treated like criminals without cause.

You are distorting the facts by claiming that people are being treated like criminals (and therefore they point you're trying to make doesn't hold water). Criminals are incarcerated. They can't vote. Criminals are also allowed to watch television; by your faulty logic, allowing you access to television is "treating you like a criminal".

The land I live in is governed by the Constitution and the Constitution does not permit this.

Again, you don't personally get to dictate that. We have a process for addressing such claims such as yours and until the Supreme Court of the United States agrees with you the US Constitution may indeed permit "this", and even as concerns and such are going through the judicial system, it is at least an open issue.

The distinction is important: Things like "this" are put in place because other people disagree with you, and their beliefs and values are as valid as yours, and may indeed legitimately prevail over your preferences, until the matter is settled at the very highest level. And there is no reason to believe that (1) it will ever get that far, (2) that the decision would be for your preference, and (3) that even anywhere along the way your preference will be in force. And all along the process, what actually is happening is legitimate even if you don't like it. We live in a society of laws and due process.

Those of you who say this is fine because we can opt out of the situation. Lets bring that way of thinking out a little further. Why stop at the airports?

There is no reason to stop or start anywhere except where experts determine that the objectives of our society, overall, are best served by doing so. The US Constitution itself exists, and changes over time, and is in its current form, because of that. We all have the right to have the best interests of society, overall, respected. Very often that explicitly means personal freedom. Sometimes it explicitly means personal responsibility to comply with limitations and restrictions. Personal fiat over everything (i.e., anarchy) is not a viable system for society.

But who is to say it would stop there. Surely driving is optional too. ... Logically, once a precedent is set ...

Not that driving laws set the initial precedent in this regard, but there are already very well-established restrictions and limitations that apply to the driving of vehicles, that a person cannot just wish away because they don't like how it cramps their style. There is a long-standing precedent for government balancing personal freedom and society's interests. Personal freedom is not absolute; it never has been, nor should it ever be. And indeed the only way for it to ever get to that point would require 2/3 of the state legislatures agreeing to essentially let every citizen do whatever they felt was right. I don't think you're going to win people over advocating that.

Look at the great things that came of Brown v Board of Education.

Which itself is an example of government imposing what is best for society, overall, over the personal freedom of those who wanted segregated schools.

 

[goofy4tink]

I have to be honest, I find the supporters to be perplexing mostly because very few are being clear over what it is, exactly, that they are supporting.

They are tearing away at complaints but they really aren't saying what the advantages are to the changes.

I don't think this issue is about whether or not security needed to be changed after 9/11 so debating that doesn't make sense. For discussions sake lets just agree that what was going on up through the summer was, more or less, tolerable. For me it was, for most people things were fine. I didn't mind the long lines and the rules about fitting stuff into my quart size baggie. I was OK with taking 6 months to get my passport. I was even ok with knowing that IF I made a mistake and sounded an alarm I would be pulled aside and searched. In the name of safety I was ok with all of that. Now lets move beyond that point to the current situation. The issue on the table is the most recent step, in particular, the fact that anyone of any age must be willing to subject themselves to either a radioactive test or a invasive bodily search. This is the point here on this thread.

The people who are taking an opposing view must feel that the new changes are, in fact, warranted and I'd really, genuinely like to know why they feel that way. I'm even willing to put aside the issue of the legality of the measures because I can't help but think there must be a reason. Do you know something I do not? Have there been threats the rest of us don't know about which justify the changes? What is it about your experience that says that the recent changes are necessary? Remember I am not at all saying we should go back to a pre 9/11 state, what I am asking is why should we be where we are in November 2010? No-one is really addressing this. There is a lot of back and forth over how come people like me are wrong and why the scanners are safe and how the touching doesn't bother you but what you're not doing is telling me why you are right. Tell me because maybe I am missing something. Maybe lots of us are missing something.

Truly, what you are missing is that not everyone is going to get hysterical over this issue. Does it bother most of us? Sure it does. But most of us refuse to go into the 'the sky is falling, the sky is falling' mentality. The vast majority of people have not reported invasive body searches. As I have said before, in multiple threads about this (and there are way too many in my opinion)....the US is way too reactive vs proactive. We react to various terrorist attempts rather than try to think ahead and out of the box. Do these 'security' measures make us safer?? Who knows. Probably not a whole lot safer. As I said before, cargo needs to be checked better..not passengers.
And I truly think that these more 'invasive' security measures will change. Do I think that the new scanners will go away? No, probably not. But I believe we will find that the radiation from them is negligible..it isn't anything that we are going to have to worry about.
There is way too much hysterical and sensationalized posting going on lately. It serves only to rile people up and make those who have no idea as to what is really going on more nervous about flying. And that is just not fair.

And you know what bothers me, as well?

I've seen people pulled aside several times (before enhanced pat downs - my last flight was October 26th). The people are visibly annoyed, however more compliant than when a police officer pulls someone over ("Mind telling me what I did? What did you pull me over? I was not speeding!")

It's disturbing.

Why are they less upset at airport screenings?? Simpy because they know that if they give the TSA any grief, they can possibly miss their flight..plain and simple.

I remember watching a show (like Dateline or 20/20-ish) a long, long time ago, about airline security, and they interviewed the head of the "TSA" in Isreal - whatever it's called there.

He laughed at us. And this could have been before no liquids, or no shoes, but for sure it was before the Naked Scanners or the "buy me a drink" pat-down.

They don't do any of that, there. They had highly trained individuals, profiling and WATCHING people. Watching like no one watches. They had dogs. Dogs that could sniff a bomb over in the McDonalds down the road, from where they stood.

This is America. Don't we have a better technique than to pull a grandmother or a child out of a security line, and frisk them?

I don't blame him for laughing.

Have to agree. My mother flew to Isreal and said it was eye opening. She couldn't believe the armed presence. And those with the arms were really cognizent of what was going on around them...profiling. There is a reason no one tries to bring down an El-Al plane.
But here in the good old USofA we have our civil liberties..and heaven help the person who tries to trod on them. Every single time anyone mentions profiling at airports those civil liberties proponants come out of the woodwork, screaming about liberties being violated. Everyone wants to feel safe, both on the ground and in the air, but they don't want any 'liberties' to go away in order to achieve this.
You want bomb sniffing dogs??? You want security without pat downs or radiation? Then you are going to pay for it. That kind of security comes at a cost. And with people wanting those $90 flights, that just isn't going to happen. Bomb sniffing dogs are a wonderful thing...and it would be nice to have one at every single security point..that would surely solve the problem..but who is going to pay for that?

Do I like these new security measures? No, not really. Will I 'put up' with them when I fly? Yep. I will do so, with a smile on my face and a happy attitude. Do any of you seriously think that the vast majority of TSA people like this new proceedure?? Doubt it. They look pretty uncomfortable to me. And yes, I"m sure there are some in there who think it's a 'hoot' but certainly not the vast majority.
But this hysterical, sky is falling type discussion serves no purpose. It is inflammatory to say the least.

 

[goofy4tink]

If what you claim here is correct, then there wouldn't be a "mess" because the scanners would never have been put in place. I'm sorry but I know a lot of people would prefer our society's standards and principles were different from what they are, but no one is entitled to impose their own preferences in that manner. Our society's standards and principles are what they are, and you can see them very clearly reflected in what our society does, even if you personally don't like it or would want it to be different.

You are distorting the facts by claiming that people are being treated like criminals (and therefore they point you're trying to make doesn't hold water). Criminals are incarcerated. They can't vote. Criminals are also allowed to watch television; by your faulty logic, allowing you access to television is "treating you like a criminal".

Again, you don't personally get to dictate that. We have a process for addressing such claims such as yours and until the Supreme Court of the United States agrees with you the US Constitution may indeed permit "this", and even as concerns and such are going through the judicial system, it is at least an open issue.

The distinction is important: Things like "this" are put in place because other people disagree with you, and their beliefs and values are as valid as yours, and may indeed legitimately prevail over your preferences, until the matter is settled at the very highest level. And there is no reason to believe that (1) it will ever get that far, (2) that the decision would be for your preference, and (3) that even anywhere along the way your preference will be in force. And all along the process, what actually is happening is legitimate even if you don't like it. We live in a society of laws and due process.

There is no reason to stop or start anywhere except where experts determine that the objectives of our society, overall, are best served by doing so. The US Constitution itself exists, and changes over time, and is in its current form, because of that. We all have the right to have the best interests of society, overall, respected. Very often that explicitly means personal freedom. Sometimes it explicitly means personal responsibility to comply with limitations and restrictions. Personal fiat over everything (i.e., anarchy) is not a viable system for society.

Not that driving laws set the initial precedent in this regard, but there are already very well-established restrictions and limitations that apply to the driving of vehicles, that a person cannot just wish away because they don't like how it cramps their style. There is a long-standing precedent for government balancing personal freedom and society's interests. Personal freedom is not absolute; it never has been, nor should it ever be. And indeed the only way for it to ever get to that point would require 2/3 of the state legislatures agreeing to essentially let every citizen do whatever they felt was right. I don't think you're going to win people over advocating that.

Which itself is an example of government imposing what is best for society, overall, over the personal freedom of those who wanted segregated schools.

You know what is personally disturbing to me at this point??? That bicker and I actually are agreeing on something......

 

[jodifla]

As someone who has actually been through the scanners, I see now that they are a bigger deal than I thought before actually going through them, though. I don't actually have much of a problem with the picture itself. I do wonder about its safety, in spite of what the government says. And I found firsthand that the machines are very SLOW and small children and others likely won't be able them to stand still for them., pushing them into the patdowns.

The patdowns people are describing all over the internet in the past week -- both on blogs AND in newspaper articles -- are extremely disturbing.

I would have a real problem with them myself, and I think they could be horrific and traumatic for some people, as the psychologist earlier described. I'm astonished parents would stand by to watch their teenage daughters breasts groped, lifted, twisted, their genitals cupped and groped, TSA hands down their childrens' pants, their children's pants pulled away from their body to see down them, all in a tense busy airport setting, and think that's just A-OK.

The public outcry across the country is picking up now. All of us who are concerned should be calling our representatives in Washington.

 

[Tricia1972]

Truly, what you are missing is that not everyone is going to get hysterical over this issue. Does it bother most of us? Sure it does. But most of us refuse to go into the 'the sky is falling, the sky is falling' mentality. The vast majority of people have not reported invasive body searches. As I have said before, in multiple threads about this (and there are way too many in my opinion)....the US is way too reactive vs proactive. We react to various terrorist attempts rather than try to think ahead and out of the box. Do these 'security' measures make us safer?? Who knows. Probably not a whole lot safer. As I said before, cargo needs to be checked better..not passengers.
And I truly think that these more 'invasive' security measures will change. Do I think that the new scanners will go away? No, probably not. But I believe we will find that the radiation from them is negligible..it isn't anything that we are going to have to worry about.
There is way too much hysterical and sensationalized posting going on lately. It serves only to rile people up and make those who have no idea as to what is really going on more nervous about flying. And that is just not fair.


Why are they less upset at airport screenings?? Simpy because they know that if they give the TSA any grief, they can possibly miss their flight..plain and simple.


Have to agree. My mother flew to Isreal and said it was eye opening. She couldn't believe the armed presence. And those with the arms were really cognizent of what was going on around them...profiling. There is a reason no one tries to bring down an El-Al plane.
But here in the good old USofA we have our civil liberties..and heaven help the person who tries to trod on them. Every single time anyone mentions profiling at airports those civil liberties proponants come out of the woodwork, screaming about liberties being violated. Everyone wants to feel safe, both on the ground and in the air, but they don't want any 'liberties' to go away in order to achieve this.
You want bomb sniffing dogs??? You want security without pat downs or radiation? Then you are going to pay for it. That kind of security comes at a cost. And with people wanting those $90 flights, that just isn't going to happen. Bomb sniffing dogs are a wonderful thing...and it would be nice to have one at every single security point..that would surely solve the problem..but who is going to pay for that?

Do I like these new security measures? No, not really. Will I 'put up' with them when I fly? Yep. I will do so, with a smile on my face and a happy attitude. Do any of you seriously think that the vast majority of TSA people like this new proceedure?? Doubt it. They look pretty uncomfortable to me. And yes, I"m sure there are some in there who think it's a 'hoot' but certainly not the vast majority.
But this hysterical, sky is falling type discussion serves no purpose. It is inflammatory to say the least.

Very well put. Thank you for putting my thoughts into words so well.

You know what is personally disturbing to me at this point??? That bicker and I actually are agreeing on something......

I know - me too!

 

[ccgirl]

Consider it time well spent.. A public service, so to speak.. I think for many who are being complacent it's a matter of not looking beyond the intial pat down and what happens next - if something doesn't "feel" right..

I also think that some people have the notion that as long as they don't refuse to go through the scanner, there's no chance that they (or their children) will be randomly chosen for the pat down..

It's obviously not as cut-and-dried as many seem to think it is..

Anyhow - thanks for the links.. I appreciate your efforts..

I am okay with the new security measures and I am not complacent at all. I did my own research and experienced it myself. I also realize, and have witnessed, that even when you go through the backscatter you will get the pat down. As for what happens "next". I guess the answer is the same as what happened before the new pat down technique. What happened before when TSA "thought" they felt or saw something during the screening.

I'm not supporting the changes, I'm disputing the outrage, fear, etc, expressed by people based on what they've heard or read on the Internet. This is the same Internet that created a need for Snopes, that gave us the Nigerian Prince and other scams, that really allows anyone to create a website saying anything or a blog, or use Facebook to promote an agenda, or complain on a message board...

ccgirl's husband just got screened and she reported his experience. Technically I suppose I shouldn't believe her because this is a second-hand report, but I'm sure if we asked, she'd get him to confirm her report of his experience. eliza61 just flew twice last week and reported her first-person experience. When posters who are against the changes fly and post their own experiences, that's credible. Someone in the back seat of a car 'reporting' what he claims was his parents' horrifying experience ever so calmly, not so much. Conservative radio talk show hosts to whom I don't listen regularly? Ditto.

And that is how I went into it. I am not one to hop on the bandwagon of mass hysteria. I waited to experience it myself before I made my informed decision.

AH HA! The naked scanners ARE capable of storing you and your loved ones nude images! Awesome!

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html

While they are capable, the article goes on to say that they were stored on a courthouse x-ray machine - not at the airport.

Nope, I don't think you're part of any type of conspiracy or any breadth . Until I experience the new procedure for myself (about a month from now!), I'm going to believe eliza61's experience and ccgirl's husband's experience over those floating around the Internet - including, yes, what's on YouTube and in third-hand 'news' reports. There could be vast differences in perception about what the pat-down entails.

I've been patted down before - both sitting in a wheelchair (although I could have stood) and standing. Now, granted, it's always been with the back of the TSO's hand, but they've always told me exactly where they're going before they touch. I've been wanded, again both in and out of the wheelchair. I've gone through the metal detectors, but because I limp and have metal in me, I generally set something off - hence the additional screening.

I don't think you (or the posters with similar positions) are threatening in any way. I just genuinely think you're panicking without having all the facts, basing your opinions on "extreme" sources. I could change my mind about the entire process by the time I get back - but that would be based on personal experience, not the Internet.

C.Ann brought up the hypothetical 85 year old woman with the recent surgical procedure. In that case, I'd just TELL the agent I had padding in place. More 'women of a certain age' than you think use similar products for a different reason, on a daily basis.

That is my point. A lot of people's perception on "invasive" varies. I watched as my DH got the pat down and neither of us found it invasive at all. His genitals were not pushed, pulled, prodded, twisted etc.

Okay, let me get this straight. The TSA agent is searching the hypothetical 85 year old woman because she "could be a threat." But if she tells the agent that she's using a feminine product, then the TSA agent will let her go without examining the alleged product? Then what exactly was the point of the search in the first place?

And that goes directly to the point that none of the pro-pat down people have yet answered, despite several of us asking: What happens next? Approximately half the population is female. Of those, how many happen to be experiencing their monthly cycles on any given day? How many people use products for incontinence? How many have colostomy bags? How does the TSA know that there aren't explosives hidden in one of those products? Are they going to make people strip down and display those items? Then what? If the appropriate bodily fluids are present, then the traveler is free to go? Couldn't the product be used for its designated function and ALSO contain explosives?

If they're not doing a detailed analysis of bodily fluid-containing products, then they're theoretically leaving a gaping hole in security. And if that's the case, then the whole argument for invasive pat downs breaks down altogether.

In other news, this story came out today on CNet:

Biochemist says "naked" X-ray scanner may be unsafe
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20022541-281.html?tag=mncol;posts


So we now have an expert weighing in on the potential dangers of the new scanners. Is it still just hysteria, or is it within the realm of possibility that the radiation exposure could, in fact, be harmful?

As I said before, what happens "next" after they think they feel something is just what happened "next" during the old version of the pat down. As for the story...I'm not sure of the date posted but I have found many other instances where the backscatter is safe. Just by the definition of the backscatter - the radiation bounces off the body rather than penetrates it. In addition, it has been said all over the place that the backscatter is equal to 2 minutes of flying cross country. So, if you don't want radiation maybe you shouldn't fly?? I think people hear the word radiation and become hysterical without doing thorough research.

I am a parent and I realize my children will be subject to this. My DS2 will probably need the pat down as I don't see him standing there long enough at the backscatter. The airport we are flying out of, BOS, has them in place. Anyway, I will prepare my children for what may happen. I am very calm when I prepare them. I do not want to make them nervous or scared as I truly feel there is nothing to be nervous or scared about. The TSA agents are not "feeling up" my children to get their jollies. They are quickly checking to see if anything is hidden. They do this out in the open. They are not taking my child to some deserted room by themself. Having experienced the backscatter already and my DH experiencing (and me viewing) the "new" pat down procedure I am just not concerned about it.

What a great country where we can all make our own choices though.

 

[pilotwife_02]

As someone who has actually been through the scanners, I see now that they are a bigger deal than I thought before actually going through them, though. I don't actually have much of a problem with the picture itself. I do wonder about its safety, in spite of what the government says. And I found firsthand that the machines are very SLOW and small children and others likely won't be able them to stand still for them., pushing them into the patdowns.

The patdowns people are describing all over the internet in the past week -- both on blogs AND in newspaper articles -- are extremely disturbing.

I would have a real problem with them myself, and I think they could be horrific and traumatic for some people, as the psychologist earlier described. I'm astonished parents would stand by to watch their teenage daughters breasts groped, lifted, twisted, their genitals cupped and groped, TSA hands down their childrens' pants, their children's pants pulled away from their body to see down them, all in a tense busy airport setting, and think that's just A-OK.

The public outcry across the country is picking up now. All of us who are concerned should be calling our representatives in Washington.

And you want to know what's sad? As a wife of a pilot, I told DH we will NOT be flying with the children until I can be sure they won't put their hands down my children's pants (they MAY search the waste band of pants), grope my child's groin and I can be assured they won't open my infant's diaper to look inside. I truly believe this is going to be BAD for the airlines and they have no control over what is happening which is why they are mad and the unions are telling the pilots and FA to refuse the body scans. They are trying to take a stand. The airlines are going to lose money because people don't want to fly. And being married to a pilot I honestly never thought I'd see the day that I didn't want EVERY precaution necessary in place to protect my DH when he's on the job, but I can't in good conscious let my infant, 3 and 4 be subjected to these types of inspections. And no, even IF I agreed that it was ok for them to stand in the AIT's, I don't think they would. I KNOW my children would be scared and not stand still, heck my infant won't even be able to physically do it, so there is no option for them but to get a pat down.

And they are experienced travelers (as much as a 3 and 4 year old can be experienced travelers), they travel by plane dozens of times a year and know as soon as we hit the security line to take their jackets off, shoes off, put their bags on the belt. Heck, our family can rival the experienced business travel in terms of how fast we can get through security (we usually shock the TSA with how fast we are and how good the kids are about going through the WTMD). But I know standing in an AIT won't work for them.

 

[skater]

As someone who has actually been through the scanners, I see now that they are a bigger deal than I thought before actually going through them, though. I don't actually have much of a problem with the picture itself. I do wonder about its safety, in spite of what the government says. And I found firsthand that the machines are very SLOW and small children and others likely won't be able them to stand still for them., pushing them into the patdowns.

The patdowns people are describing all over the internet in the past week -- both on blogs AND in newspaper articles -- are extremely disturbing.

I would have a real problem with them myself, and I think they could be horrific and traumatic for some people, as the psychologist earlier described. I'm astonished parents would stand by to watch their teenage daughters breasts groped, lifted, twisted, their genitals cupped and groped, TSA hands down their childrens' pants, their children's pants pulled away from their body to see down them, all in a tense busy airport setting, and think that's just A-OK.

The public outcry across the country is picking up now. All of us who are concerned should be calling our representatives in Washington.

I agree with all of this and I've spent some time trying to prepare my 16 year old DD for what might happen. If I had thought it through earlier, maybe I would have taken her somewhere local for our Mom/Daughter trip. I will be calling my representative - maybe they'll be listening to their constituents a little better now that they've been reminded they can be voted out. (I say that for both sides - they all need that reminder now and then).

 

[OceanAnnie]

I think there are several issues in play.

1.) Are there cases where TSA agents have gone too far?

There has been a lot of press about TSA agents crossing the line. Is it true? Court of opinion is playing out quicker than perhaps reality (and/or legalities). The allegations could possibly be true. Some cases, may be difficult to prove. I stated before that no job is immune to the spectrum of human behaviors. I do believe the complaints should be investigated.

2.) There is controversy surrounding scans and pat downs in general. If you think the scans and pat downs are too invasive to begin with, then cases that cross the line will magnify your position. Also, the mindset of "crossing the line", is already there before the scan and/or the pat down has begun. It's a sticky wicket with many variables coming into play.

3.) Are the scans and pat downs making us safer? That's the million dollar question. We have some huge holes in security (with packages and terminal security). I don't know what the answer is, but I do know those gaping holes should be addressed.

I don't care for the scans and pat downs for a number of reasons. I understand the reasons for having the measures. But, I don't have to like it.

 

[JLTraveling]

As I said before, what happens "next" after they think they feel something is just what happened "next" during the old version of the pat down. As for the story...I'm not sure of the date posted but I have found many other instances where the backscatter is safe. Just by the definition of the backscatter - the radiation bounces off the body rather than penetrates it. In addition, it has been said all over the place that the backscatter is equal to 2 minutes of flying cross country. So, if you don't want radiation maybe you shouldn't fly?? I think people hear the word radiation and become hysterical without doing thorough research.

There's a good bit of newer research coming out that demonstrates that the scanners may not be as safe as they were portrayed. The "2 minutes of flying" argument is the official TSA line...yes, it's been quoted all over the place, but that doesn't make it any more definitive. Wouldn't the TSA have a vested interested in assuring the public that the scanner is safe? I don't think it's fair to paint everyone who expresses concern as "hysterical." Does that include biochemists and radiation experts? What about the pilot and flight attendant unions that are urging members to opt out? Are they hysterical too? Not sure I'd want to fly at all with a "hysterical" pilot and flight crew

What a great country where we can all make our own choices though.

I will absolutely defend your personal right to be groped or naked scanned all you like. With trepidation, I will even defend your right to choose the same for your own children. But as a US citizen, I have a 4th amendment right NOT to submit to unreasonable search and seizure...and the simple act of flying does not constitute reasonable cause. This WAS a great country where we could all make our own choices, and I'd like to see it become so again. But arbitrary restrictions on the movement of a free people across their own country do NOT constitute freedom of choice.