From what I understand, you are first asked to walk through the body scanner. If you refuse the body scanner, then you're patted down. (I can't afford to fly, so I won't be doing this any time soon.)

So, you have the option for your kids - having adults looking at your nude child or your children being touched by strangers (they say they won't do it to 12 and under, but last I checked 12-18 is still considered minor, too - sticky).

The director of the TSA is 'politely' advising people not to boycott the scanners, as TSA's hope was that the pat-downs would encourage people to use the scanners instead. Considering a courthouse's scanned images were released online just days ago (TSA says they don't store images like the courthouse did, but how do we know?), this is going to be an ugly holiday season at the airports.

One of my friends (who was sexually abused as a child) is so terrified of flying now because of this new policy that she's taking the train from now on.

What I don't understand is that the detection equipment was very sensitive to begin with before these body scanners - why bother to go this extra step? I do remember reading about this new scanner back in 2005 in one of the science magazines, so it has been in development for a while. My only guess is that the contract and money overrode any sense of decency and dignity. Latest polls also show that Americans don't feel any more safer than they did before.

In the end it's passengers and flight crew that end up discovering any bomb plots in flight, and everyone is ready to pummel the would-be terrorist at the drop of a hat (like the Shoe Bomber - had to go to the ER first before jail because everyone on the plane beat the shit out of him). The bloated bureaucracy of the TSA has made it impossible for the public to retain any dignity, and we are essentially told by it's director to "put up or shut up". less

Well, the director is claiming that they don't pat down children but the reports and even a video are suggesting otherwise. There might be other videos but they apparently arrested a man for taking video so people might be a bit afraid of taking them and posting them.

I think that we're opting out of the scanners. I'm not sure which is worse but knowing my son he might just yell about it. Perhaps the right person will hear and if enough incidents like that happen then maybe something will change. And yeah, scanned images potentially being saved is disturbing to say the least. They're also claiming that the high levels of radiation emitted from the machines is safe but the director even said their scientists determined this, meaning the very people that they are paying.

That was another thing that I had wondered about too, how many people are boycotting planes so that they don't have to relive something very traumatic? There aren't many ways to travel overseas so that seems rather unfair to them.

Exactly, that's what I've said about future attempts. Very few people out there will allow something as catastrophic as September 11th to happen again. We saw what happened and no one is going to stand for it. They can take all of these potential weapons away but human strength coupled with adrenaline can be pretty powerful, especially when it's a pure fight or die response. And, honestly, if someone wants to get through badly enough and they're smart enough to cause severe destruction they will find another way. Nothing can ever fully protect us.

I'm more concerned about the multiple mid-flight mechanical problems that have been in the news recently. All of this money is getting spent on these scanners but we aren't replacing the horribly out of date planes that should have been retired years ago. Sure, they're landing safely in the end but what a scary experience! less

From what I understand, you are first asked to walk through the body scanner. If you refuse the body scanner, then you're patted down. (I can't afford to fly, so I won't be doing this any time soon.)

So, you have the option for your kids - having adults looking at your nude child or your children being touched by strangers (they say they won't do it to 12 and under, but last I checked 12-18 is still considered minor, too - sticky).

The director of the TSA is 'politely' advising people not to boycott the scanners, as TSA's hope was that the pat-downs would encourage people to use the scanners instead. Considering a courthouse's scanned images were released online just days ago (TSA says they don't store images like the courthouse did, but how do we know?), this is going to be an ugly holiday season at the airports.

One of my friends (who was sexually abused as a child) is so terrified of flying now because of this new policy that she's taking the train from now on.

What I don't understand is that the detection equipment was very sensitive to begin with before these body scanners - why bother to go this extra step? I do remember reading about this new scanner back in 2005 in one of the science magazines, so it has been in development for a while. My only guess is that the contract and money overrode any sense of decency and dignity. Latest polls also show that Americans don't feel any more safer than they did before.

In the end it's passengers and flight crew that end up discovering any bomb plots in flight, and everyone is ready to pummel the would-be terrorist at the drop of a hat (like the Shoe Bomber - had to go to the ER first before jail because everyone on the plane beat the shit out of him). The bloated bureaucracy of the TSA has made it impossible for the public to retain any dignity, and we are essentially told by it's director to "put up or shut up". less

I really like that celebrities (and hopefully others are following suit) are saying that it isn't just them that they want to fight for, it's freedom in general.

Also, unfortunately, from what I've heard I don't think many are taking this view:

"We're federal employees, we're working for you, you pay us and we want customer satisfaction. It doesn't matter what the law is, we have to make you very happy so your flying experience is a pleasurable one, and most people don't give us this kind of intelligent feedback."

That woman is awesome. less

IMHO The whole thing is being blown out of proportion by tv and people that haven't flown in years.
In the past 11 months, I've flown cross country 10 x's. I've seen "pat downs/searches" happen twice. They weren't particularly agressive or invasive in nature. For someone to refuse to be scanned and then refuse the be touched is assinine. ie. the gentleman who famously said "if you touch my junk" blah, blah, blah.
Well, newsflash genius, let's just say you were trying to smuggle drugs or whatever. Where's the first place your going to hide it? That's right. Right beside your balls, so no one would think anything of a "bulge". Or in your bra if it was a female.
If you don't like it, drive.
Sorry, again, this is merely my opinion and I don't care to go into all the politics of any of it. I don't see the point of protesting on one of the busiest days of the years and disturbing others plans. It's really only going to cause problems, not solve them. less

IMHO The whole thing is being blown out of proportion by tv and people that haven't flown in years.
In the past 11 months, I've flown cross country 10 x's. I've seen "pat downs/searches" happen twice. They weren't particularly agressive or invasive in nature. For someone to refuse to be scanned and then refuse the be touched is assinine. ie. the gentleman who famously said "if you touch my junk" blah, blah, blah.
Well, newsflash genius, let's just say you were trying to smuggle drugs or whatever. Where's the first place your going to hide it? That's right. Right beside your balls, so no one would think anything of a "bulge". Or in your bra if it was a female.
If you don't like it, drive.
Sorry, again, this is merely my opinion and I don't care to go into all the politics of any of it. I don't see the point of protesting on one of the busiest days of the years and disturbing others plans. It's really only going to cause problems, not solve them. less

I profoundly disagree. Like you I travel a ton and I see senior citizens and children set aside for detailed scrutiny - even ditzy teenagers talk about asinine!

I have friends who are FBI agents. Agrnts are required to travel with their firearms - and they still get hassled by the idiots at TSA. Likewise many pilots are armed and officially deputized as federal agents - they get hassled.

Everyone is not an equal risk - everyone does not deserve to be treated like a criminal. By refusing the idiot programs that exist - we're putting them on notice that they need to be more effective - without violating the 4th amendment - which forbids unreasonable searches and seizures.

We don't have to sacrifice our dignity to be safe. less

I'd really like this to be a 4th amendment issue, but I don't think it is.

The reality is, nobody has to fly. When you buy your ticket, you enter into an agreement with the airline that gives consent to participate in these security measures. A search is not illegal if you give consent and your ticket purchase is your consent.

Don't get me wrong, I am not comfortable with the possibility of harmful radiation coming from the machines or being patted down by TSA employees (the naked imaging doesn't really concern me, honestly). I want there to be a legitimate Constitutional argument against it. But since airline travel is not mandatory and you can choose not to fly, I think there's little to be done but endure it and complain. And even then, will consumer pressure will make a big impact since at this point, all airlines are using TSA for security? less

Hahaha, she's one of my neighbors. Too funny. It is interesting that the backscatter machines were a response to last year's Christmas day "underwear bomber" and that they are unable to detect anything in body cavities. So what will the TSA response be when some would-be terrorist gets a bomb by the security checkpoint in his ass? Let's just hope that the TSA won't be able to get away with those screenings... less