TSA: "Thorough" Pat Downs for those who fail screening or opt-out of full body scans

[jplain]

I guess this is what we have to look forward to at Thanksgiving and Christmas.

 

I'm not comfortable with the full body scans, because I haven't yet been convinced that they're harmless. So we'll opt-out and submit to a pat-down. I've had them before, and they've been no big deal. However, this new pat-down sounds like it could be pretty humiliating. And from what I've read elsewhere, children are not exempt. :glare:

 

TSA rolling out new pat-down technique at airports

 

TSA to phase in new pat down procedures at airports nationwide

 

Rosemary Fitzpatrick, a CNN employee, said she was subjected to a pat-down at the Orlando, Florida, airport on Wednesday night after her underwire bra set off a magnetometer. She said she was taken to a private area and searched, with transportation screening officers telling her the pat-down was a new procedure.

 

According to Fitzpatrick, a female screener ran her hands around her breasts, over her stomach, buttocks and her inner thighs, and briefly touched her crotch.

 

"I felt helpless, I felt violated, and I felt humiliated," Fitzpatrick said

 

And here's a video link including an example of the new pat-down method: ABC's Rick Seaney. Um, well, I guess I'm glad I'm not a guy!

Edited October 29, 2010 by jplain
To add video link

[MyLittleWonders]

I guess this is what we have to look forward to at Thanksgiving and Christmas.

 

I'm not comfortable with the full body scans, because I haven't yet been convinced that they're harmless. So we'll opt-out and submit to a pat-down. I've had them before, and they've been no big deal. However, this new pat-down sounds like it could be pretty humiliating. And from what I've read elsewhere, children are not exempt. :glare:

 

TSA rolling out new pat-down technique at airports

 

TSA to phase in new pat down procedures at airports nationwide

 

 

 

And here's a video link including an example of the new pat-down method: ABC's Rick Seaney. Um, well, I guess I'm glad I'm not a guy!

That is so not okay with me and adds to my growing reasons of never wanting to fly again.

[Veritaserum]

Do you think this will help the airline industry? :glare:

 

So, what happens if a woman on her period wearing a tampon goes through the scanner? Do they do a cavity search? :001_huh:

 

I think the security procedures do little but inconvenience travelers....

[K&Rs Mom]

So what do we do, other than not fly? I totally agree that this is a problem, but can't think of any possible actions that could help fix it. I don't think voting for different representatives is going to help, because TSA is a nonelected agency. Any ideas?

[HayesW]

REally? You think this is too much? You have an option for a scanner. If you choose not to use it, then they need to be sure you aren't acrrying a weapon. A secutiry guard is trying to assure the safety of thousands of other people. The easiest place to hide a weapon is in your crotch or other plaCE that might cause people to shy away from checking.

[K&Rs Mom]

A lawsuit. Where the heck are the civil liberties people?

 

There's something going on already about a pilot for one of the small airlines who may lose his job for refusing the scan/patdown, but most of what I've seen kind of dismisses him as a nut. It seems like this is the kind of thing the supreme court would deal with, if it ever got that far, but for some reason it isn't.

[K&Rs Mom]

REally? You think this is too much? You have an option for a scanner. If you choose not to use it, then they need to be sure you aren't acrrying a weapon. A secutiry guard is trying to assure the safety of thousands of other people. The easiest place to hide a weapon is in your crotch or other plaCE that might cause people to shy away from checking.

 

Plenty of people have the ability to do great harm with no traditional "weapon." This kind of scan isn't really protecting people.

[Veritaserum]

Plenty of people have the ability to do great harm with no traditional "weapon." This kind of scan isn't really protecting people.

:iagree:

[Annie Laurie]

I feel really bad for the people who work for the TSA and have to do the pat downs, they're the ones who will be right there having to enact the policy and deal with the anger of the customers, and I doubt they like doing it either.

[jujsky]

I think I'll opt for the scanner. I like my private parts to stay private :D And yes, I think these measures do little to protect people, but I'm not sure if there is a better alternative out there.

[K&Rs Mom]

I think I'll opt for the scanner. I like my private parts to stay private :D

 

From what I've read, the new scanners don't leave anything private. I haven't seen one in person, as I'm still dealing with all this by not flying. :tongue_smilie:

[T'smom]

I'm with HayesW. Anything they can do to reduce the chances of an attack, I think they should do. I think a lot of people only consider this as an inconvience to themselves. Yes, it is inconvienent. I fly several times a year and going through security isn't loads of fun, but I'm glad that it's there. Preventing one attack is worth it.It's worth all the inconvience in the world. One lady in the article was patted down because she set off the metal detector. With her underwire. Did it take her by surprise that there was a metal detector at the airport? If the underwire set it off, where exactly did you think you would be patted down? No one is forced to use air travel. If it's that big of a deal to you, you can always drive. If your child or spouse died in an attack, it might change your perspective.

[asta]

What I will never understand is why the USA won't take the IDF up on their offer to train airport security. You don't have to go through all of this crap in Israel. You know why? Because they aren't afraid to profile, that's why. People who are intending to cause harm behave in a certain manner - it has been proven out time and time again. It isn't about how a person LOOKS, it is about how they APPEAR. When was the last time you read about anyone hijacking an El Al plane? Yeah, you haven't.

 

Countries that profile don't need to do stupid body scans.

 

/rant

[Mejane]

I would tend to agree that anything that can be done should be done, but they're not really doing anything pro-active. They're still only responding to what has already been tried. We seem to be always one step behind the people trying to do us harm. They'll find a way around this even while it inconveniences millions of people and further erodes our rights.

[Anne]

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

 

What I will never understand is why the USA won't take the IDF up on their offer to train airport security. You don't have to go through all of this crap in Israel. You know why? Because they aren't afraid to profile, that's why. People who are intending to cause harm behave in a certain manner - it has been proven out time and time again. It isn't about how a person LOOKS, it is about how they APPEAR. When was the last time you read about anyone hijacking an El Al plane? Yeah, you haven't.

 

Countries that profile don't need to do stupid body scans.

 

/rant

[jplain]

You have an option for a scanner. If you choose not to use it, then they need to be sure you aren't carrying a weapon. A security guard is trying to assure the safety of thousands of other people. The easiest place to hide a weapon is in your crotch or other place that might cause people to shy away from checking.

They still have metal detectors, and I don't have any qualms about regular pat downs. The breasts and genitals are scanned in regular pat down, but with the back of the hand, rather than with palms. If a weapon poses a significant threat, then it should be big enough to detect even with the back of a hand.

 

As has been pointed out in this thread already, what's next, body cavity searches? Or much higher dose x-rays to reveal weapons concealed within body cavities?

 

And finally, regarding the scans, not everyone agrees that they've been proven to be safe.

 

New York Times: Are Scanners Worth the Risk?

 

The main concerns are how much radiation the scanners give off (the manufacturers say the amount is very low), whether the scanners might malfunction and emit more radiation than they are supposed to, and what the health effects may be for travelers. Since there is no precedent for routinely screening so many people with X-rays — other than in prisons — there are a lot of unknowns.

 

(snip)

 

Another issue is that the devices haven’t been thoroughly tested. The T.S.A. claims that the machines have been evaluated by the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, the Commerce Department’s National Institute for Standards and Technology and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. But when I called these organizations to ask about their evaluations, I learned that they basically tested only one thing — whether the amount of radiation emitted meets guidelines established by the American National Standards Institute, a membership organization of companies and government agencies.

 

(snip)

 

Other medical experts are worried that the government has not adequately evaluated the health risks of such extensive X-ray screening, particularly for children, pregnant women, cancer patients and people who are sensitive to radiation. One concern is that the data the government is relying on underestimates the amount of radiation absorbed by the skin, potentially raising the risk of skin cancer.

And earlier this year, four faculty at University of California, San Francisco, a prestigious biomedical research university, expressed concerns: Letter of Concern. Edited October 29, 2010 by jplain

[Punchie]

Increasing personal scanning will only do a minimal amount of good for an increased amount of hassle when with some creative placement, you can get some serious contraband items through a scanner in your carry-on.

 

I will feel that they are really making a difference in my safety when they become proactive instead of reactive.

[Aubrey]

From what I've read, the new scanners don't leave anything private. I haven't seen one in person, as I'm still dealing with all this by not flying. :tongue_smilie:

 

:iagree:

 

And while *I* don't have to fly, plenty of people do, for work, etc. And it's really not realistic to say "get another job." And what about going overseas--are we really going to expect people to just return to sailing wherever they want to go??

 

I think the whole thing is *insane.* How can you essentially tell people that being molested is the lesser of two evils. (At least you didn't DIE.) I realize it's not always *that* bad, but from what I understand, it *can* be.

 

False dilemma, logical fallacy, mean, rude, ridiculous. (Ask me how I really feel!) :D

 

And wrt the people doing the searches, I doubt they mind at all. Have you ever met one who was friendly, compassionate, & sympathetic? I haven't traveled much, so maybe there are some nice ones out there, but they don't seem to be the norm.

[Mejane]

What I will never understand is why the USA won't take the IDF up on their offer to train airport security.

 

Because someone always starts screaming racism when they hear the word profiling. You know it isn't, and I know it isn't, but somewhere out there is an ACLU lawyer just waiting...

[HayesW]

I didn't realize you meant the body scanners versus the metal detectors. I agree they may not be safe. I still think a pat down is an acceptable alternative.

[jujsky]

From what I've read, the new scanners don't leave anything private. I haven't seen one in person, as I'm still dealing with all this by not flying. :tongue_smilie:

 

I'd rather have strangers look than touch ;)

[Parrothead]

What I will never understand is why the USA won't take the IDF up on their offer to train airport security. You don't have to go through all of this crap in Israel. You know why? Because they aren't afraid to profile, that's why. People who are intending to cause harm behave in a certain manner - it has been proven out time and time again. It isn't about how a person LOOKS, it is about how they APPEAR. When was the last time you read about anyone hijacking an El Al plane? Yeah, you haven't.

 

Countries that profile don't need to do stupid body scans.

 

/rant

:iagree: I'm with you on this one.

[FaithManor]

Dh says criminals by nature, will always find a way around security procedures, so in the end, the rights of law abiding citizens are infringed for very little positive outcomes. He says that there are substances that weapons can me made from that will look like medical implants on these types of machines. Weapons don't have to look like the traditional gun. Porcelain guns, even with a tiny metal firing pin, are still not adequately detected much less anything that doesn't look like a gun.

 

So, essentially, about the time that American airports have invested huge amounts of money in this technology, the terrorists will have already figured out how to smuggle what they want onto an airplane anyway.

 

Profiling works. We would all be safer and freer if the Israeli's trained our TSA and FBI agents.

 

Faith

[lionfamily1999]

Aren't most American Airlines privately owned? I'm not sure (never flown ;) ).

 

If that's the case, then a massive boycott could work. Forget about lawsuits, use capitalism.

[Sue G in PA]

Being a victim of r*pe, a pat down, done by a male or female (doesn't matter which) would trigger a full-blown panic-attack or worse for me. I would be hysterical. Reading these posts, watching the video and just thinking about having to go through this already has my blood pressure rising and body shaking. Ugh. I guess I just won't fly. :glare:

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

What I will never understand is why the USA won't take the IDF up on their offer to train airport security. You don't have to go through all of this crap in Israel. You know why? Because they aren't afraid to profile, that's why. People who are intending to cause harm behave in a certain manner - it has been proven out time and time again. It isn't about how a person LOOKS, it is about how they APPEAR. When was the last time you read about anyone hijacking an El Al plane? Yeah, you haven't.

 

Countries that profile don't need to do stupid body scans.

 

/rant

 

Yes but appearance seems to be looks IMHO. Who do you single out? Terrorists could look like anyone IMO especially since terrorists have also forced people to commit acts of terrorism. Also, I would think a terrorist would be trying very hard to blend in and not stand out IMHO. I think it is much safer to screen everyone. For those against screening what do you propose to prevent terrorism? If we do not screen then I should think it would be easy to sneak weapons on board:(. I would much rather feel safer on a plane knowing everyone was screened.

[cin]

While I would like some privacy, from what I've heard, flying in and out of Israel is a real bear. I believe London's Heathrow is difficult also. But there are reasons, and if tight security increases my chances of arriving alive, then so be it.

 

One of our basic freedoms include the freedom from fear. In this day, that means increased security.

 

jmho

 

 

Sorry didn't read all the previous posts. We should take lessons from IDF and do some profiling. One has to wonder how an ACLU lawyer would feel if one of the Muslim men he defended ended up being the bomber that killed his family? In addition, I wonder if basic criminal profiling would do any good? Although with racial profiling, I'm betting that Muslim terrorists won't be dressing like Muslims if they're out to down a plane. But their features and name, that would take a little more effort to change.

Edited October 29, 2010 by cin

[lionfamily1999]

cin, regarding "freedom from fear," I could not disagree more.

 

Fear is a part of life. And heaven help us if we try to start legislating to make life free from it. Well, I suppose we already make a lot of laws for just that reason, and I disagree with a great many of them :p

[AHASRADA]

Personally, I am relieved to know there is an option to refuse the scan. My dh's family is overseas, and we typically go to visit every other year or so, we even lived there for a while. I have not flown since the scanners were installed and, since from what I've seen they leave little to the imagination, I was really questioning when, if ever, I would feel comfortable flying again. I was actually appauled that the scanners were approved and installed so quickly, with no major protests whatsoever about the violation of privacy. This is a computerized image. Couldn't they create an image that makes our bodies look more square or fuzzy or something, rather than showing the true shapes, curves, proportions? I never would have realized how invasive they were if I hadn't read articles about two male airport security personnel getting into a fist fight after one commented on the size of the other's anatomy :001_huh:. Oh, sure, these are the people I want looking at my image on a screen. I would feel better if only same-gender security workers were viewing the screen, but it is an image, it could be viewed remotely as well.

 

Yes, a pat-down could be humiliating, and I can see how some would prefer a scan. Personally, I would rather a female security officer touch me briefly, albeit intimately, than to have my naked image produced on a screen, out of my control/possession, to be seen by anyone who so chose.

[Violet Crown]

When we stayed in the U.K. this summer, I'd decided that, if asked to go into a scanner, I'd insist on a pat down. I discussed the issue with dd14, and she decided the same thing.

 

Then on the way out both she and I (and none of the rest of our family) were told to get in the scanner. We were rushing, trying to get the next connection, since naturally our first plane had come in late.

 

So it wasn't just deciding between two invasive procedures; it was deciding if I was going to make our whole family miss the plane across the Atlantic because I hated the idea of being scanned. So it was the scanner for us.

 

By the time we returned to the States, dd14 and I had been scanned, and dh, dd14, dd7, and dd2 had all been patted down (dd2 on a random pat-down in Paris; it was fun trying to explain in my bad French that she was terrified of strangers touching her and was not going to raise her arms no matter how much they tried to make her). The random pat-down right before her was a 9-month-old. His mom told me later that he rather enjoyed it.

Edited October 30, 2010 by Sharon in Austin
incompetence

[Laurie4b]

I'd rather do the scanner than a pat-down that "thorough." yuck. I wouldn't worry about the radiation unless I flew a lot, which I don't.

[msjones]

I'll stick with the pat-down. At least that's another woman. Do men sit and look at the images of the females? I'm sure there are some really hideous men who would do that job for free. Why would I agree to be one of the bodies he ogles?

 

I hope one of you will tell me that the scans are viewed by same-gender TSA folks. Please?

[mommaduck]

I'll stick with the pat-down. At least that's another woman. Do men sit and look at the images of the females? I'm sure there are some really hideous men who would do that job for free. Why would I agree to be one of the bodies he ogles?

 

I hope one of you will tell me that the scans are viewed by same-gender TSA folks. Please?

Yeah right :glare: I doubt people are segregated before walking through the machine. Pretty positive that it's a cattle drive and whomever is at the machine, is at the machine.

 

Glad I no longer fly.

[Gwenhwyfar]

my understanding of the scanners is that the image is viewed in a different room - so the people seeing the scan do not actually see the person - and that it's not identifiable...it's like a computerized x-ray image thing...nobody could identify YOU from your scan image... and that the images are not storable/etc...?

[Anne in CA]

I just came back from Africa and on the flight from Turkey to New York there was some kind of hightened security. We had numberous passport checks, body searches, all sorts of things. One person didn't get on the plane rather than submit, and although she had my sympathy, she was a very overweight muslim woman in very restrictive garments, I was glad that she wasn't allowed to get on the plane if they couldn't check her out.

 

I was very nervous the whole time before the flight because it was obvious something was wrong, but by they time the flight took off I felt fine because everything that could be done had been done. I am not going to give up flying over the scanner issue. I wish that we could profile, but that is not where we are as a country and we are not likely to get there anytime soon.

[FaithManor]

Well, they say you can't be identified by your scan but I don't buy it. Because, if they find something on the scan, they have to be able to alert the TSA agent to stop you and since we aren't numbering off and wearing placards going through that thing, they will have to be able to give enough identifying information to have an officer pull you aside and so that means they have to know what your face looks like.

 

I know that at the airport closest to us, I've been there many, many times when there was not a female TSA agent, Police Officer, or Sheriff's deputy anywhere. So, unless they have them hiding somewhere, I think women in that airport can expect to be groped by men if the body scanners are installed there and they do not want to be scanned.

 

I think I am going to start planning my vacations based on amtrak stations!

 

Faith

[msjones]

my understanding of the scanners is that the image is viewed in a different room - so the people seeing the scan do not actually see the person - and that it's not identifiable...it's like a computerized x-ray image thing...nobody could identify YOU from your scan image... and that the images are not storable/etc...?

 

I think you're correct about all of that. I do think a good attempt is being made to keep this from being too invasive. I try to imagine if I were in charge of security for a big airline -- then the scanners seem to make sense.

 

I still don't like the idea of some man sitting around looking at these images all day, and mine being one of the anonymous images. Blech. Sorry to say it, but I'm willing to bet there are men who would find the images pretty appealing.

 

So, yup, I'd rather have the pat-down from a female. I'm glad that option is available.

[Gwenhwyfar]

Well, they say you can't be identified by your scan but I don't buy it. Because, if they find something on the scan, they have to be able to alert the TSA agent to stop you and since we aren't numbering off and wearing placards going through that thing, they will have to be able to give enough identifying information to have an officer pull you aside and so that means they have to know what your face looks like.

 

I know that at the airport closest to us, I've been there many, many times when there was not a female TSA agent, Police Officer, or Sheriff's deputy anywhere. So, unless they have them hiding somewhere, I think women in that airport can expect to be groped by men if the body scanners are installed there and they do not want to be scanned.

 

I think I am going to start planning my vacations based on amtrak stations!

 

Faith

 

don't people go through the scanners one at a time? so if something shows up on the scan, it's evident as to who is a concern...i would think that person A has to 'clear' before person B is allowed to proceed through...

 

neither the scan nor a pat down would bother me. the security people aren't there to be entertained by us - and if some random security guy gets his rocks off by seeing my scan or touching my chest during a pat down... whatever. dude seriously needs a life, but it's no skin off my nose.

 

[i'm NOT saying everyone should feel that way - just stating my own personal feelings about it.]

[FaithManor]

Gwenhwyfar,

 

I understand what you are saying but in our area, it was advertised that not only would the scans be looked at as you pass through, but reviewed later to see what was missed. Even potentially, they could be used to identify someone who was let through with a weapon but was missed on the first screening as in, we will come to your house to question you. So, they have to link this to identifying information if this is true and I would imagine that means a pretty accurate physical description.

 

I give it at most six months before the terrorists have found a way to beat the scanners.

 

Faith

[Mejane]

Yes but appearance seems to be looks IMHO. Who do you single out? Terrorists could look like anyone IMO especially since terrorists have also forced people to commit acts of terrorism. Also, I would think a terrorist would be trying very hard to blend in and not stand out IMHO.

 

 

I recently read an article (sorry, can't remember where) in which five members of the crew of the plane on which the "underwear bomber" was flying reported feeling suspicious of him because of his behavior. These people were not trained in behavioral profiling, yet they recognized that something was not right about him. I can't help but think a trained profiler could single out someone exhibiting behaviors common to criminals.

[asta]

Yes but appearance seems to be looks IMHO. Who do you single out?

 

I don't know. Apparently the Israelis know.

 

Terrorists could look like anyone IMO especially since terrorists have also forced people to commit acts of terrorism.

 

And people being forced to do things don't act "normal". They look scared.

 

Also, I would think a terrorist would be trying very hard to blend in and not stand out IMHO.

 

"Trying very hard" is a tell. Most people can't pull off an Oscar winning performance, even for the promise of eternal bliss. It's a bit nerve-wracking to know you're about to die; upper management doesn't volunteer for suicide missions, average joes who want their families taken care of do.

 

I think it is much safer to screen everyone. For those against screening what do you propose to prevent terrorism? If we do not screen then I should think it would be easy to sneak weapons on board:(. I would much rather feel safer on a plane knowing everyone was screened.

 

I would strongly recommend anyone who wants to know how an effective screening process works read this blog post about the security system at Israel's Ben Gurion’s airport. The author freely admits that all aspects of it would be impossible to implement in the US simply due to the fact that American sensibilities would be offended; Israelis are accustomed to seeing people walking around with weapons, for instance. But they make the point that full body scanners aren't something they plan on instituting.

 

ETA: you can kill someone with a ball point pen. Really. A slight woman against a big 'ol guy. It isn't the "stuff", it's the people.

 

 

a

[Laura Corin]

What I will never understand is why the USA won't take the IDF up on their offer to train airport security. You don't have to go through all of this crap in Israel. You know why? Because they aren't afraid to profile, that's why.

 

I flew on El Al from London to New York (cheapest ticket at the time) in about 1987. We had to arrive an extra hour in advance and be individually interviewed. My passport was scrutinised and they questioned me in detail about the stamps in it, particularly my year in China. My suitcases were hand searched and, I seem to recall, I had a very full pat-down. I had private reasons to be nervous about this trip and my nervousness came over to the officers. I finally lied in order to create an apparent reason for my nervousness and they let me on the plane.

 

I'd like to see every passenger on every flight go through that - there would be airport chaos. The scans are fine by me.

 

Laura

[VaKim]

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

Benjamin Franklin

[stripe]

So, what happens if a woman on her period wearing a tampon goes through the scanner? Do they do a cavity search? :001_huh:

 

How about a pad? Wouldn't that show up as a "suspicious bulge" in your crotch? Or an adult diaper?

[nono]

And wrt the people doing the searches, I doubt they mind at all. Have you ever met one who was friendly, compassionate, & sympathetic? I haven't traveled much, so maybe there are some nice ones out there, but they don't seem to be the norm.

 

(Response not directed to Aubrey -- using it as a jumping off point)

 

Well, in 2002, I flew over 75,000 actual miles (and also flew at least 2x per week through the end of 2001, as soon as we were allowed to start flying again.) At that time, it was sooo tense. I can say I met MANY friendly, compassionate and sympathetic TSA agents. I even had to be patted down frequently, because I had to hand carry new gear with me all the time. Small electronic gear... Raise your hand -- you're getting a pat down!

 

I remember an old guy in Rochester who made my pat down postively hysterical -- makes me smile to this day. Another time, a guy on duty with a machine gun saw my company's logo on me made a crack about not liking one of the company's products. I jumped out of line to go talk to him. He had a problem I knew how to solve, and told him how to do it. He took me to the "employee only" scanner and told them to put me through because I just took away his biggest headache of the month!

 

The folks have had their jobs for years! Do you (plural you) actually think they had the forethought to anticipate full body scans that they could salivate over? And really, I'm pretty sure that no one would be salivating over my mid-40 body if they saw it in its full glory. :glare: I think insulting an entire group of people who are simply trying to do their jobs is counter-productive if folks are looking to get some changes.

[Annie Laurie]

 

And wrt the people doing the searches, I doubt they mind at all. Have you ever met one who was friendly, compassionate, & sympathetic? I haven't traveled much, so maybe there are some nice ones out there, but they don't seem to be the norm.

 

My dad works for TSA so I know from him how crappy they are treated by management and what a thankless job it is- because the customers are always unhappy with them. They're just doing what they have to do, and yes, many of them do mind.

[Tarreymere]

Trains. I like trains. I took one from California back east and enjoyed the whole trip. I'll never fly again.

 

Who scans or pats down all those minimum wage workers at the terminals who work at all the shops and food stands? If I were a terrorist I would get one of them to help me get a bomb into the terminal to hand off to a passenger. I bet they don't get scanned every day before going to work.

 

I'd like to emigrate, help me pick a country before we end up with a wall around this one like the wall in Germany used to be.

[lionfamily1999]

It isn't the "stuff", it's the people.

 

 

a

:iagree:

The folks have had their jobs for years! Do you (plural you) actually think they had the forethought to anticipate full body scans that they could salivate over? And really, I'm pretty sure that no one would be salivating over my mid-40 body if they saw it in its full glory. :glare: I think insulting an entire group of people who are simply trying to do their jobs is counter-productive if folks are looking to get some changes.

I would love to think that everyone is in their job, because it's what they want to do. I would love to think that I could trust everyone to have only good reasons for working their jobs.

 

That's just not the truth.

 

I would not be surprised in the least to find out that a lot more pervs applied for jobs once those scanners were put in.

[Jenny in Atl]

From what I've read, the new scanners don't leave anything private. I haven't seen one in person, as I'm still dealing with all this by not flying. :tongue_smilie:

 

My daughter (14) was recently sent through the "full body" x-ray scanner at Hartsfield-Jackson in Atl. The TSA guy put his hand over the monitor, so no one could see her. I thought it was a very nice gesture. Not sure what it's like in most cities (Denver didn't have a full body scanner), but it's only a tiny few who go through the full scanner, and they seem to be picked at random. Denver was actually much tougher to get through, compared to Atlanta... Who knows why. They even took my mom's toothpaste tube (less than 3 oz) cause it was almost empty.

 

I might have issues if I flew all the time (exposure risk) but I doubt one times for a vacation will do more harm than most of the exposure one gets from the doctor, dentists, and all other technology that surrounds us daily.

 

It's true flying is no longer fun. All the security, luggage issues, and being packed into a tiny seat equals a headache. :tongue_smilie:

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

:iagree:

 

I would love to think that everyone is in their job, because it's what they want to do. I would love to think that I could trust everyone to have only good reasons for working their jobs.

 

That's just not the truth.

 

I would not be surprised in the least to find out that a lot more pervs applied for jobs once those scanners were put in.

 

I am pretty sure they do background checks for these workers. Also, IMHO I do not think more pervs applied with scanners. With this reasoning one could say that there more pervs who are in health care such as doctors and nurses which is simply not true IMHO. I am pretty sure it is just part of the job for TSA workers and is not a thrill for them.