Body Scan/Pat Down Controversy-Your Opinion?

It's quite remarkable what Americans are willing to give up in the name of security...unbelievable really. Torture is okay, warrantless wiretaps are just fine, and getting an unsolicited reach-around at the airport is a pretty sweet deal. I would like to meet the parent who thinks it's a good idea for their 13 year-old daughter to be felt up by a government official when all she wants to do is see Grandma for Christmas. What about the integrity of a senior citizen who may have a medical condition requiring an adult diaper? They're going to get groped and be seriously embarrassed in public every time they fly. This makes a lot of sense...we tackle an extremely limited security risk by implementing the widest possible counter measure, impacting every single American who flies (nearly 800 million passengers annually). As for racial profiling, it's already been proven to be ineffective and illegal...you'll need to do some research. And did the underwear bomber fit typical American notions of what terrorists look like anyway? No. And, why should anyone have to be subjected to such unconstitutional measures as racial profiling anyway? I guess I'm no longer surprised by our lack of leadership and vision. It's 2010, and this is the best we can do? If so, we may as well just throw in the towel and give up.

Perhaps at some point, the "travellling public" will be so annoyed by the new procedures that they'll curtail flights significantly. When the airlines start going out of business, I'm sure the security procedures will change. I'm close to reaching my "annoyance limit" with airline security in some places, so perhaps I'll take the train or drive on my next trip to ETBD? Cheers!

As much as the process annoys me, I'd rather have security than not have it. If there were two planes to choose from, one with TSA doing intrusive security screenings and another without, which plane would you choose to fly on? It's a shame that isn't a possibility, I prefer choices to complaining. I personally would take the one with security screenings. Unfortunately, the world we live in makes it necessary. If it gets me through the line faster, I'm glad for the new technology. I don't really care if someone can virtually see me naked (I'm not good looking enough to stand out and not bad looking enough to be overly embarassed).

Kerry....addressing your question exactly here... The TSA has said both yes and no and at other times evaded the question. This same agency also at first said that the images could not, would not, be saved...then admitted that they could be saved and HAD saved some. My opinion on the entire TSA search agenda....massive waste of time, taxpayer dollars and illegal and will be shown to be exactly that in the future, despite it's present so-called legality. Federal appellate courts do not have authority to set legal precedent reserved for the Supreme Court.

If the passengers on the 9/11 planes could somehow speak to us, I think they'd say, "What the heck are you people complaining about?"

In what way is it illegal?

And if we employed rational profiling, profiling behavior not ethnicity, those guys would not have gotten on the plane. The Israelis, apparently, have been very successful with this approach. Perhaps we could try that in the US, rather than using techniques that are reserved for criminal suspects in any other venue.

I have had both the new scanner and a pat down. I found neither one an issue. I don't know who was behind the scanner and I don't really care. I assume either way regarding the scanner he/she would not be surprised at my bits and bobs. However, the pat down was by a woman, and the request and guidance to the scanner were by women. I, too, am a woman. No biggie. I'd rather have TSA do as much as possible to protect me.

I haven't encountered the body scan or more serious pat-down yet; maybe when I do, I'll have a more pointed opinion. But as of now, I would probably take the pat-down because I'm concerned about the amount of radiation that the body scanners emit. I'm hearing all different things about the amount of radiation and how safe or unsafe it is. I'm really not concerned about whether or not the scanners can save images - the images shown on TV barely look like people - more like fleshy robots.

If it made us safer I'd be ok with it, but from all I've heard it does not. While the TSA is checking each passenger, something like only 10% of baggage is screened. If the TSA really were doing all they could to protect us, they would check everything that went into the cargo hold of the plane as well. But they don't and that's why I think this whole thing is a ridiculous horse and pony show. The Israeli's have it right and that is what we should be doing. THEN I would feel safer.

I would opt out of the computer scan and go for the pat down, I believe there are real health risks from this scanner and I don't like that the images are saved, you can see WAY too much on those things! However I really hope they grab a clue and soon and change this whole process. If TSA really wanted us to be more secure, they would follow the lead of El Al airlines who has done an excellent job for many years, and yes, I've been through the screening process for El Al. TSA keeps saying that kind of training is too expensive, how can it be more expensive than these stupid machines that aren't making us any safer?

My ONLY complaint is that thy can't figure out efficient ways of doing this. We have flights this summer that are 3 legged. I set off security - double hip implant. I don't mind at all the first verification that I am clean. But once I am known to be clean - then why can't they figure out a way to get me from the cabin to the next departure area without having to go through this again and again, possibly with a major time constraint? We carry our full luggage and we are ticketed through, so there is no need for us to go anywhere but the next boarding line.
Perhaps there would be less complaint about the time spent on security if less time were spent re-searching those known to be secure.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40214782/ns/travel-news/ Beyond this video, what is taking place is wholesale violations of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States committed by a Federal Agency of the United States Government itself, an Agency confident in the fact that a case brought to the U.S. Supreme Court will take years and years to hear and rule on...in the meantime.. When you go to the airport to board a flight and enter the security line, you are a suspected criminal, guilty unless you are proven innocent. You say that you're not? Who cares what you say? Now I want you in that room over there and take off all your clothes. Now. If you think this isn't possible, or you can't see that all this is designed to make the travellers themselves feel safer while failing to make travel itself safer, you are a total idiot. If you can find one, ask a Japanese-American who spent WW2 locked up in Manzanar how they felt about that and what their life might have been like had it not been for the fact that they were suspects, locked up with no evidence or proof. My 2nd and final permitted post on this thread..rules are rules...I'm sure the next poster will ignore the original question as usual and attempt the usual halfwitted, disconnected spiel with no foundation in logic or relevance.

My grandparents were at Minidoka (not Manzanar) and I assure you there is no comparison between their experience there, and mine when going through TSA screening before boarding a flight. If you buy a ticket for a flight you are presumed to have consented to the search. No criminal intent inferred whatsoever. And it isn't just flights. If I want to go to my credit union office, which is in the Federal Building in Seattle, I also have to go through security screening. Ditto if I want to attend a trial in federal court. People demand that "the government" keep them safe from terrorists, and then complain that the methods used are too intrusive. So what is the answer?

The only thing that worries me with the new X-ray machines is safety. How much radiation does it emit? Did the government rush to get these new machines out to airports before they new how much of a health risk they pose? We really don't know at this point. Experts on these machines seem to have varied opinions about that. For now, I'm going to the line without the machines, even if the patdown is a little more intense. evan

Kerry, I haven't had any flights to the U.S. recently, so haven't had to endure the "new" security screenings yet. I'm not sure whether the methods used here in Canada are similar, although I suspect they will be for flights to the U.S. (but perhaps not for flights to Europe or within Canada?). In any case, I'd probably opt for the "pat down", for the following reasons. There seems to be a growing controversy regarding the technology used for the "Full Body Scanners". Two different systems are currently being used, Millimetre Wave Technology and Backscatter X-Ray Technology. Based on statements from some very knowledgeable Scientists, it appears that of the two principles the X-Ray version appears to be the safest. Some serious concerns have been raised about the RF version, with some feeling that this technology hasn't been adequately tested in human trials. The X-Ray version apparently uses a very low level of radiation, equivalent to about 10-minutes of the exposure one would receive in a high altitude flight. Unfortunately, when one steps into a Full Body Scanner, it's difficult to tell which type of technology is being used in that particular machine. With the security people rushing to get passengers through the checks as quickly as possible, I'm not sure that people will have the luxury of finding out what technology they're being scanned with. I've also heard some comments that even with the scans and "pat downs", the level of security is not really that much improved. I really feel that officials here should take another look at the Israeli approach and "behavioural profiling". Apparently, they had already tagged the "underwear idiot" and denied him boarding priviledges. Cheers!

Kerry, I've been pondering this very question. I'm unsure of the procedure that would send me to the X-ray machine or the pat down, and looking on the TSA web site it seems they are also. It is my understanding that if you fail the metal detector you have a choice of X-ray or pat down. I would feel more comfortable with X-ray. It is also my understanding that they are looking at a software upgrade that would not show your naked body.

So our choice is either allowing TSA to take virtual naked photos of us or let them pat us down which can include groping of private parts and hands now allowed to go deep down "inside" pants if the TSO feels there might be a problem That's right, they can put their hands down the inside of our pants. Government employees are being allowed to do things while anyone else would have to register as a sexual predator. There is another choice. Congressman John Mica sent a letter to 150 airports today reminding them that they have a right to offer their own security instead of TSA. In the letter he says TSA was meant to be a temporary agency to allow airports to come up to speed and not the large, out of control agency it has become. If airports put in their own security, under guidelines from the government, like they do in Europe, we will see a more professional security operation answerable to both the public and the airport authority. If a screener is a problem, out they go. If the contractors doing the work aren't up to speed, they'll be replaced. Today, it's virtually impossible to get rid of someone working for the TSA because they bully or make up their own rules We would go back to the way things were before 9/11. Wait a minute, you say, that's how the terrorists got on boardit was private security. That security operation was following the rules at that time. The terrorists used box cutters to take control of the airplanes. Prior to 9/11, box cutters were on the FAA's list of items that were allowed to be taken on board.

Ken, some have already started a move to curtail flying. http://wewontfly.com/ One of the problems I have with the subject is the seemingly lack of common sense that some of these TSA employees use when dealing with those who are going through the security lines. Is it because they are in fact lacking in common sense? Or, is it because they are adhering strictly by the rules imposed upon them? Maybe some of them let their authority go to their head and like the feeling of having power over someone. I don't know. Maybe a little of all of those things. Regardless there is much room for improvement in the system and I am inclined to believe that Frank II's privatization idea is something that would work better for the reasons he stated. Ain't gonna happen though. I have not flown since they implemented the body scanner but I would opt for it over the hands thing. I suppose they no longer use the hand held scanner which makes me wonder what they would do in Larry's situation and his hip replacement. Previously, he could tell them that he had a hip replacement and they could scan him with the hand held scanner for proof but if they no longer use those I guess he would now have to go through the pat down procedure. Just guessing on that. Does anyone know how that will work? Wonder if the wires in my chest from open heart surgery will set it off. I know the hand held scanner could detect it so I suppose the new body scanner would also. Don't like the thought of that.... unless its my wife doing the pat down and I don't think the TSA folks would accept that as proof.

Most of the anti-scanner and anti-pat down anger is a bit hysterical and several months late. Plans to do this were publicized months and months ago. Were some people just not paying attention? The first time I was patted down was in an Arabic country more than 10 years ago. Men and woman passengers got the same treatment, from male personnel. No one freaked out. The scans don't bother me and I don't think they're any more of an invasion of privacy than being poked and prodded during a doctor visit. The Israeli model very likely can't be directly transferred to the U.S. Israel has very few airports, which allows them to focus resources on predicting and identifying threatening individuals. The U.S. has hundreds of airports, and thousands and thousands of security personnel. Ensuring that all personnel at all airports are as skillful and experienced as Israeli personnel at only a few airports is a nonstarter. I suggest that those who pretend the TSA's security efforts are all for show should just not fly, thereby making flights that much more comfortable for the rest of us.

I'm all for using a system like the Israeli's use. Concentrate on people most likely to cause a problem. Not every grandma and child.

Patrick Smith is a commercial airline pilot and been writing a column for salon for years. Here is his take story of recent TSA silliness: http://www.salon.com/technology/ask_the_pilot/2010/11/04/belt_removal_at_security_checkpoint/index.html

You asked so here's my opinion: According to the fine print of all those conditions I accept when I purchase a ticket, I agree to a search . If I don't want to go thru the security procedures and a search, I won't fly. I don't believe I have a God-given right to fly on a commecial flight, nor a constitutionally-guaranteed one either. I don't fly often enough to be that concerned about the radiation of a full body scanner. Since we're exposed to a certain amount of radiation every day in normal life, I don't see one or two 30 sec body scans a year being too critical, Props to the Israeli government for doing what they do to keep their citizens safe --- however, their methods would never work here. The Israeli government is pragmatic and does what it needs to do - racial and ethnic profiling. The US government is much too "sensitive" to do that. It's a trade-off.

To simply answer your question, I would prefer the body scan to the patdown. The person running the scanner isn't anywhere that they can see you anyway, so who cares?

There was a story on the news this morning describing some of the problems with the new security measures. The report included a cell phone video of a TSA Security official "groping" a small girl (perhaps three or four years old). The child was screaming and clearly was upset about the whole procedure. Another passenger who objected to being groped was threatened with a $10,000 fine (the conversation on that was also captured on a cell phone video). Apparently the Pilots and other flight crew members are now being checked as well, and the Pilots especially are starting to complain. If they refuse to be checked and there's no one to fly the aircraft, this situation will become a crisis in a big hurry! I definitely agree with other replies in that it's time that cargo was scrutinized to a greater degree, regardless of whether it's "bad for business". A lot of cargo is carried on passenger aircraft, and the recent incident with the toner cartridges has clearly shown there's a dangerous gap in security (a gap which the "evil doers" will exploit if given the chance)! Another deficiency that's been highlighted by some investigative news reports here in Canada, is the fact that some personnel working at airports are not properly screened and have access to many sensitive areas. They also documented a case at one airport where delivery vans were just given a cursory "wave through" by the security guard (usually not armed) and had no problem getting onto the area where planes were parked. I haven't seen any follow-up reports, so perhaps this has been improved? Cheers!

I heard an interesting discussion on the radio last night while I was driving home from work. A security expert, Charles Slepian was being interviewed. He said the new procedures were instituted to find explosives, but that while being highly intrusive they are ineffective for that purpose.

I'm definitely an opt out of the scanner. Backscatter radiation is cumulative, and I fly a lot. What the government is saying is that there is no proof that this exposure to radiation is harmful. But they don't have proof that it is not harmful, either. As a cancer survivor with a family history of cancer, I don't want any unnecessary radiation exposure. So it's the new improved, prison style pat down search for me. I hate the thought of being groped, but it's the only choice we get. Degrading, but that's the situation. Personally, I think this intensive hyper-intimate searching of passengers is ridiculous when cargo gets barely a nod at security. That's where the real threat is, not in the underwear of pre-teens on the way to Omaha.

If you would like to see a letter of concern sent by four University of California professors (specializing in imaging, cancer, and other pertinent expertises) about the possible health consequences of the body scan technology being introduced, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ucsf-jph-letter.pdf This was enough to convince me that I would rather be safe than sorry, and avoid the xrays.

I also do not understand how security measures are so severe when it comes to checking passengers and carry-on's; yet nothing is done to ensure the safety of our checked baggage. Why is checked baggage not considered a threat? Is there any logic to this?

And what happens in the future when a terrorist tries to smuggle some explosive in his rectum? Will we all have to literally bend over for TSA to get a rectal exam? We're already doing it figuratively.

Exactly, Frank! The government violates 800 million passengers annually in some half-baked attempt to thwart would-be bombers in the eleventh hour. The problem is, he's already evaded all of our superior intelligence by the time he's at the airport (a la the underwear bomber who should have been caught long before he got to the airfield according to our own intelligence services) and has planted the bomb in a place that cannot be picked up by the scanner or the pat-down screener. It gives a whole new meaning to having a blowout. How 'bout fixing the intel problem? I can't believe only one poster noted the obvious: Cargo remains the most serious threat for commercial flights, yet shippers only need to provide manifests four hours before a flight ARRIVES in the U.S. That's how the toner cartridge bombs made it through our crappy system. How 'bout fixing the cargo problem? Nobody has a "right" to fly, be it God-given, granted by law, or implied in some way, but we do have constitutional guarantees against rules/laws that violate basic civil rights and civil liberties (like racial profiling). And Israel can stick their system...I wouldn't propose copying anything they do. As James correctly pointed out earlier, they're hardly the model nation. And I'm scared to find myself agreeing with James more often these days (except that I'm not okay with their system). Let's fix the obvious problems before we decide to treat 800 million innocent fliers like criminals and humiliate the living crap out of them every time they fly. Write your elected and non-elected officials. In the meantime, I guess we don't have a choice but to announce that we hope the TSOs enjoy the show and/or the free grope. Is that a bomb in your shorts, or...

As Frank says bluntly, whatever our security system is, the bad guys will try to get past it. As they try new things, new levels of security will be instituted. I don't want to imagine what the new levels of security might be.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

That's why I first mentioned that the TSA screens only 10% of what goes into the cargo hold of the plane. It makes absolutely no sense to search every passenger so invasively when they don't check everything that goes into the belly of the plane!

Kerry, checked baggage is considered a potential threat. That's why it is screened with scanners that are different and stronger than carryon scanners, and, in some locations, with dogs.

A few things happened today: 1) TSA announced that children under the age of 12 will not be groped. 2) The Inspector General's Office for the Department of Homeland Security came out with a report stating that TSA is poorly trained. 3) John Pistole, head of TSA, appeared in front of the Senate. And even though most Senators were upset with the new procedures, he said he wasn't backing down. They stay.

Everything we do is a response to the terrorists. There was a shoe bomber so we take off our shoes. The reason for the body scans is the Christmas bomber. We don't do anything in a proactive way. Since I live in Texas, I wish the government was as concerned about our borders as they are about air travel.

I personally do not mind the body scanners as long as they are operated by mature, intelligent people. I remember a story back when the scanners were first being used, a TSA agent was doing a demo. When the image appeared the TSA agents operating the scanner began making fun of the demo's private areas. I guess this story is my biggest concern with the scanners. Even though they cannot see my face, I still feel it would be embarrassing to have my body scrutinized by an agent who has the mentality of a 15 year old boy going through puberty. Although I do find the scanner as a better option than having my entire body patted down by a person I've never met. I just find it uncomfortable having a person I don't know anything about, feeling inside my bra.

Ladies and gentlemen, the comedy stylings of Paul from LA.

Frank II, imagine a 12 year old girl who is just starting puberty... or a 13 year old boy in the same condition. Then take Paul's comment (and I don't think he was joking). It could be very difficult, even tramatizing for them to be patted down. Yet because terriorsts have used children in other situations, we feel we must subject OUR children to this. Like many others, my biggest concern is the radiation. But your info made me stop and think what we are subjecting children to. Not only radiation (and they will be "exposed" for a longer period of their life- I'm already in my fifties, they are just starting out), but what could be called intrusive touching - by a STRANGER-in a public setting. After the latest problems with the printer/ink cartridge "bombs", I wonder what TSA will come up with for baby carriers, strollers, car seats, canes, medical devices (like my nebulizer), medications, etc.? Thank you for sharing your findings. It has made me think. And I think we ALL need to do alot more thinking.

On all my previous trips the TSA agents were all very polite and courteous, and I accept whatever measures are deemed neccessary for security. I don't fly often enough to be concerned about being over-exposed to radiation, and although the idea of an intrusive pat-down is disturbing, I would most likely handle it with patient acceptance or good humour, as long as I know what to expect. I think I'd go for the pat-down though, because there's no image of me going who knows where to be seen by who knows who. A quick pat-down, then it's over - I can deal with that.

A few points to mention regarding the "radiation" of the Full Body Scanners. As I mentioned previously, there are two types of technology used in current models of Full Body Scanners - Millimetre Wave and Backscatter X-Ray. Of the two types, Backscatter X-Ray seems to be the least harmful from a health standpoint, as passengers will be receiving more radiation after 10-minutes when their flight reaches cruising altitude. Those who are worried about exposure to radiation should perhaps avoid flying where possible. OTOH, some Scientists are concerned that Millimetre Wave Scanners have the potential to "unravel" DNA, and therefore there could be long-term health implications. No tests have been conducted to determine the safety of this type of Scanner over the long term, even though the power levels are very low. As air travellers are not usually aware of which type of Scanner they're being subjected to, I'll probably opt for "groping". On the subject of "privacy", in some cases the travelling public may not be aware of all the facts in terms of how much detail can be displayed by the Scanners. I found THIS website to be interesting reading. Hopefully, someone can develop less intrusive and more effective security measures in the near future!

Ken, if you click on the link in my earlier message to te letter from the scientists expressing concern about the Backscatter technology, it explains why comparing the radiation of the machine to that inherent in air travel is seriously misleading. The Backscatter radiation is concentrated on the skin, so an amount that would be insignificant if distributed throughout the body becomes potentially dangerous if it is limited to skin contact. As a physics professor colleague of mine explained it, arguing that the Backscatter radiation is harmless in totality is like arguing that holding a red-hot penny won't hurt you because its total heat energy is no more than that of the average hot tub. In the case of the penny, its localized concentration is what causes the burn. In the case of the Backscatter radiation, the same principle may well make its impact greater than if the radiation were diffused throughout the body. Anyway, he told me that there was no way he or a family member would go through the machines. That kind of sealed it for me.

JER, I'll have a look at the link. I'm inclined to be a bit nervous with either of the technologies used in Full Body Scanners, but the Backscatter X-Ray seems to be "the lesser of two evils". It's likely that for air travel here, the Scanners will only be used for flights to the U.S. and not for domestic travel, so I may not have to deal with this issue too often. However, given the potential health problems with the Scanners, I suppose I'll have to tolerate the "groping" on occasion.

I want to thank everyone who provided the links with more detailed information. My husband and I discussed this yesterday and we will not be going through the scanners. My husband has experience with imaging through his work and concurs with the USC letter about the differences between what's proven and these scanners is just too great. He'd already gone through a scanner once recently and said he wouldn't have if he'd had all the information. The hard part is that we're also parents. On one hand, there is absolutely no way we would subject our children to the radiation. On the other hand, I don't want my children having to go through such an extensive pat-down. How do you get over the hypocrisy of telling them that it needs to be done for national security, but no one should be able to touch them like that?! You can't have a nonchalent attitude, because that makes it ok to be have someone rub their hands all over their body. (So I guess I tell my daughter it isn't okay, and yet she has no choice if we want to visit her grandparents?) It seems like it's time to let my Representatives know how I feel. Maybe everyone else will join in.

Either one, doesn't matter to me. I would rather be strip searched and have polariods taken, then die in the air. I have also read alot lately about the "TSA agents getting off on groping folks". Do you really think that is true? With the obesity rate in the USA, I find it hard to believe that anyone would "get off" patting down a bunch of sweaty, pizza eating, overweight travellers. And before you ask, yes I am slightly overweight, and yes I do pat down people as a normal course of my job. It ain't fun!

I'm a nudist. I'd as soon go through screening nude, if it got me through quicker. I'm not pretty, but if it speeds me up... But do I feel safer? H--- no. TSA won't commit to searching a woman in traditional moslem garb, who complains. We must be sensitive. But I feel soooo much safer after seeing that little blond kid getting searched. And that old black granny. And the nun. A friend is Egyptian. He flew back several times a year. He's never been searched. My wife, Blonde, gets checked about every 2nd to 3rd trip. Do I think this will change? No. TSA is getting tough and forcing low risk people to be searched. Pushing them around. But sticking their collective heads in the sand with real risks. Slaves to political correctness.

Looks like one airport is opting out of the TSA screening and going with a private screening company. They will still have to go by the TSA guidelines. http://wdbo.com/localnews/2010/11/sanford-airport-to-opt-out-of.html

I agree with Dina. I can make my own decisions as an adult, but I have a real problem with both options for my 12 year old daughters. We are not flying this year. but next year when they are 13 we are, and they will be in full puberty mode by then. Like Dina said, what do I tell them, which option is best?

Just heard a news teaser. A flight attendant who is a breast cancer survivor had a problem with either the scanner or the pat down. They did say " you'll be surprized what they made her remove". Couldn't stay up to watch the whole news... bet they made her remove her prothesis breast ( my mother-in-law uses one and I can see the TSA having problems scanning or patting down someone wearing one). This is really going too far!

What a waste of resources by TSA. As Frank says next time the explosives will be in terrorist body cavity. They are always trying to innovate. Terrorists don't even have to get on the plane. TSA creates enormous lines of people for them. Terrorists can just come to the airport and start shooting. Why TSA have to search pilots is beyond me. To commit a terrorist act pilot of course doesn't need any explosives. Just that fact makes me think that TSA is controlled by idiots. If they only would ask themselves few questions: How many times was an airplane terrorist older than 30 years? How many times it was not a male? How many times it was a non muslim? Information and other technology is already here. What is needed is to use it smartly.

A couple of days ago this topic aired on NPR's "Talk of the Nation", about the new TSA screenings: http://www.npr.org/2010/11/18/131420454/new-tsa-screenings-raise-travelers-hackles The most interesting part is this: Mr. SHACHTMAN: Right. The Israelis are world-renowned for having the tightest, you know, most secure aviation system in the world and they think these body scanner are kind of a joke. And instead, what they do, they use highly professional, highly trained employees to ask a series of questions of potential flyers. And based on those responses, you either question them further or let them go. CONAN: And you do have to report a little earlier for an El Al flight and be ready for that questioning and be ready for all of your luggage to be searched. Mr. SHACHTMAN: Yeah, that's right. And when I go to Israel, they keep asking me when my bar mitzvah was and what my Hebrew name is. But the fact of the matter is their track record on the stuff is a lot better than ours. And while I haven't seen comparative dollar for dollar costs, I've got a guess that they're doing it for pennies on the dollar compared to us, too.

It's true that Israel is a lot smaller than the U.S., but they're also a lot smarter about their security. They do behavioral profiling and by the time you reach the most obvious security point, you've already gone through 4 or 5 other levels of security. It seems that the TSA is spending too much time looking at our bodies and not enough time looking at our behavior as soon as we enter the airport.

These rules were implemented after I purchased tickets. I did not agree to this when I bought the tickets. So where do I go for a refund? Not the airline, they will blame TSA.

Kerry, thank you for posting this and JER thank you so much for the link! Actually, thank you all!

Paul from LA makes an interesting point...what should one do in this situation? Can TSA threaten to fine you? I don't know if anyone has seen Anchorman or The Full Monty lately, but sometimes people simply can't control these things...it's medical. I'm definitely not going to wear my slim jeans the next time I hit the friendly skies just in case.

I knew this post would draw a lot of responses; unfortunately, I think I'm more confused than ever about which option I'll choose come July when I fly next. It becomes even more confusing when it comes to deciding for my kids. I feel like I should give them their options and tell them they can decide; but I bet they'd both be shocked by the options and frankly upset to have to choose one of them. Do I subject them to the possible ill effects of the scanner plus the unsettling idea of some pervert looking at them without clothes on OR do I subject them to the pat down. My son is over 12, so he'd get the full blown version. I have no idea what I'll do when the time comes; I think I'll sleep on it for the next six months or so.

Wow great information and I learned so much from all of you. My personal experience in October flying out of Boston was TSA screaming I meaning screaming at people, telling them they would be searched if they did not use the scanner. I used the scanner not knowing what I know now from people that have posted here. I did see a few people opt out and they did the pat down. Here is what I again experienced. The pat down is done right in front of everyone standing in the line waiting to go through...I felt bad and embarassed for the person getting patted down in front of me. It made me feel uncomfortable, I can only imagine how the person felt with 100's of eye watching it happen. I too, want to be safe, but this is just going to far, there has to be a better way. With all the millions we spend you would think that someone would be able to come up with something other than this. I would have a real problem watching a 12 year old boy or girl be patted down.

As someone who flies fairly regularly (at least 2 times a month), I honestly am not really bothered about this. I've flown twice just this week. While the airport did have the new machine, I did not see a single person pulled aside to go through the machine / pat down. I'm not sure what triggers the pull aside, but in the 30 or so times that I have flown this year, I've only been pulled aside one time for a pat down. Today, they pulled me aside because they couldn't figure out what one of the items in my bag was (I had bought a couple of jars of spices). I was not patted down or asked to go through the machine. They asked me not to touch my bag and then they opened my bag to see what the item was and then swabbed it and ran the item back through the machine to confirm that was what they saw. As has been my experience, TSA was polite and explained what they were doing. I guess I am just not overly concerned. While I think we need more effective procedures and some common sense, I'm just not outraged about this. I do speculate that casual travelers are more likely to get caught up in this as they are usually the ones that appear confused about what goes on the belt, what they have to remove, etc. I think once you set off the metal detector, you pretty much will get a secondary search. Does this necessarily make sense ... no, so they need to improve this. However, I am for whatever gets me through the line fastest and if going through the scan machine does this, I am fine with it. Years ago (pre 9/11) I was regularly pulled aside at Heathrow and wanded or patted down or made to do things like turn on my laptop / cell phone. This certainly took far more of my time than the standard procedure does today.

Couldn't you buy 10 or 20 bomb sniffing dogs for what 1 full-body scanner costs? And since the dog and his handler could work much more efficiently through security lines to check passengers in a comparatively non-intrusive way, wouldn't that type of screening necessarily also be more effective? The only downside is that using dogs means that Michael Chertoff's security consulting firm never would have been able to help secure a $25M government contract for the scanner maker, Rapiscan. Oh, and he was still in charge of Homeland Security when he started pitching the idea in earnest. Is this about security or making money for our corporate friends? Never mind, don't answer that...it's a rhetorical question. Invade Iraq to make money, implement body scanners to make money, etc., etc. BTW, nobody has mentioned this yet here as far as I know.

Earlier this week I (female) experienced both the whole body scanner (don't know what kind) and a pat down. Just to clarify, the new scanner and/or pat down is not only because you don't clear the regular scanner - they just direct random people to the "new" scanner. I had my money belt on, which I always wear through the regular scanner, with no issues. However, it showed up as "something around my waist", so I had to go to the private room for "pat down" - not to see what I had around my waist - I offered to show it to them. I had to take all credit cards, cash, IDs, etc out of the waist pack and put them on a table. They then proceeded to do a full body pat down (not as intrusive as some have experienced) even though they knew the questionable item was around my waist. I asked why they couldn't just check the questionable item and was told it's just their policy and suggested that in the future I put my money belt through the X-ray machine with my luggage - negating the safety of wearing one. At any rate, although it wasn't extremely intrusive, if their scanners are all that good, they should be able to check only the "questionable" item. A friend had to endure the pat down for one nickle left in her pocket - it's a pretty extreme power thing from my perspective - you don't dare complain.

Mr. SHACHTMAN: Right. The Israelis are world-renowned for having the tightest, you know, most secure aviation system in the world and they think these body scanner are kind of a joke. And instead, what they do, they use highly professional, highly trained employees to ask a series of questions of potential flyers. And based on those responses, you either question them further or let them go." This is inaccurate. Nobody gets "let go":) At Ben Gurion, even with the questioning, every passenger still has to go through a metal detector, carry-ons still get x-rayed, and a pat down is a possibility...just like any airport around the world. Behind the scenes checked baggage is scanned/searched, and in addition placed in a compression chamber. Also, all buses, taxis, and cars entering the airport are searched......there's no way the Israeli system is any cheaper.

I am all for the body scan if it makes flying safer. I don't really care if someone can see me virtually naked anymore than the screeners care. After seeing thousands of body images I'm sure they become immune much the same way that doctors do. I would rather be scanned than subjected to a pat down, but either way it isn't a big deal to me. With regard to pilots, I'm not sure they should be required to pass through the body scan on a daily basis. Afterall, if they wanted to blow up the plane couldn't they just fly it into the ground?

Kerry, If you do let your children decide make sure they see a video of what now passes as a "pat down" so that they can see what it is like. I think that term is so mild compared to what it actually entails now. I saw a video last night on the news of what they are doing now and was shocked as it looked more like an R rated film. Very, very over the top IMO. As far as TSA goes, they are a bunch of minimum wage workers who have a little bit of power and some authority to use it and I have seen many who abuse it. This is the price we pay for our Government being too scared to profile and too worried about being "politiaclly correct".

Someone stated "Just that fact makes me think that TSA is controlled by idiots." Of course it is, it's controlled by the federal governemnt. Nuff said. After reading all these comments about going thru the body scanner and "questionable" objects, I guess my plan to stuff my cash and credit cards in my bra, is not the best idea. AH...back to the drawing board!!

Kerry, This subject sure seems to have "touched a nerve" with a lot of people (me included).

I think political correctness should go out the window when it comes to national security. I was talking to my husband about the issue of airport security and he finds both the scan and the pat down disturbing. He agreed with me that profiling based on "valid criteria" should be applied. I said to him "you know you would likely be singled out" and he said "yeah, I know".

Just for the record: The only thing I have seen or heard that suggests that Muslim veiled women would get any special treatment is the musings of a poster on this website. Based on the official policy of the TSA, veiled women would get go through the Backscatter xray machine like anybody else, and if they opt out, they will be given the thorough body search, again like anyone else. Anyone subjected to a body search has the right to ask to be searched in private. In the past, I had no inclination to do that, but as the searches have become more extreme and more sexually explicit, I may start asking for that. I would assume that women of whatever religious persuasion that are uncomfortable with strangers watching them be searched in such an explicit manner will be inclined to ask for a private search.

It could get interesting soon, hearing more and more people saying they will just drop trousers or do a When Harry Met Sally scene if they are groped... I wouldn't mind any of this if it really made us more secure, sadly, they do not test these machines the way they test x-ray systems and they do not check the cargo going on the plane. Any one try to take toner with them lately? I'm surprised the TSA agents aren't having a fit having to work with these systems. I see lawsuits in the future.

JER, On Fox News last night, it was pointed out that Muslim Women wearing a head and neck piece WILL NOT be patted down, but will be allowed to do their OWN pat down! Bet you never saw that bit of news on any of the main-stream networks! D.

Hmmm...any sources for that Fox news item? It isn't on the TSA website. And there aren't any news accounts of this purported policy actually being used. As you pointed out, this isn't on any of the mainstream news sources. Suppose it is because it isn't true? Just a thought...

I'd be less inclined to believe it if it had been on CNN or MSNBC. However, what I read earlier this morning - (I was skimming thru stories and watching ESPN Game Day at the same time SO, I don't remember the exact wording) - started from the link that was posted at the "TSA new lows" thread - that was to a story @MSNBC.com. From that story, I clicked on another link, then linked to several other links from there ( all were TSA -related)

I can't find a legitimate source for the news that muslim women will be exempt. That judicial watch is a right wing organization. All the other references are from neo con publications. Can anyone cite a real source or is this just hysteria? The TSA has found an issue all Rep and Dems can agree upon though. That is really saying something. EDIT: Who says Obama isn't a uniter?! Very funny YouTube video in case you missed it: http://dailybail.com/home/make-this-go-viral-dont-touch-my-junk-the-tsa-hustle-new-son.html

Ok, one more, from last nights SNL: http://www.examiner.com/dupage-county-conservative-in-chicago/snl-s-tsa-advertisement-video

Loved the YouTube video Michael, very good! Thanks!

As for Muslim women doing their own pat downs - CAIR is a group that was pushing for the women to be able to do their own pat downs when their head scarf was the only issue. I was shocked when I then learned that Janet Napolitano was actually considering implementing this. However, I can't find anything saying that it is actually a new policy. Could one of you provide a link to a news story stating this? There is some terrible irony that the solution to my problem with my daughter could be to get her a burqa.

I was the person to bring us search of muslim women... "While Americans are forced to deal with the degrading searches, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is actually considering exempting Muslims as per CAIR's demands. Madame Secretary confirmed this week that there will be "adjustments" and "more to come" on the issue of Muslim women in hijabs undergoing airport security pat-downs." Source: http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/nov/napolitano-may-exempt-muslims-airport-pat-downs I took an extensive 60 seconds to find that. There's a lot more. I just grabbed the 1st one. I watched the response to the question on the news.
Janet Napolitano hymmed and hawwed when directly asked about pat down of muslim women. I know where this is going. Assuming it's a woman under there. Janet Napolitano is trying to keep gels and liquids off the planes. Personally, I'd rather them looking for terrorist, not toothpaste. That may be a novel idea. As I said before we have TSA acting tough wasting valuable resources pushing around low risk people while sticking their collective heads in the sand on high risk. Like a nasty Key Stone Cops.

You have to love SNL. I think I'm actually glad that my travel has slowed down. Maybe this will all shake out before I have to fly again. Pam

Here's another good article from the NY Times: www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/business/16road.html?ref=travel

Michael, Great video (LOL)! In addition to You Tube, the late night talk shows have been having a lot of fun ridiculing these new procedures. As I recall, Leno has had jokes about the new "procedures" for the last week or more (hmm, "procedures" sounds like a medical term - will have to ponder that?). Cheers!

As a parent of 2 young teens, I am horrified by the new security measures. Adults can choose for themselves which form of harrassment they want, but what in the world do I pick for my kids? We are flying for Thanksgiving and I am in a realy quandary about what to do. Thankfully, SeaTac still has lots of metal detector lines, so we'll aim for that for now. After that, this may curtail our world traveller habit. Maybe enough people will opt out to affect the airlines' business and get them to pressure the government for change. Nudie pics or groping of kids is just wrong. There has got to be a better way. (For the record, I don't believe this is safer, and even if I did, I would be willing to risk the old way.)
I have to respond to the "flying is a choice-don't fly if you don't like it" attitude. This is not a true statement. Many people have to fly regularly for their jobs, including my husband. He leads an organization with over 600 jobs in it. Should he just stop flying because he doesn't like his privacy invaded---endangering not only his employment but that of 600 other people? It's irresponsible to make such flip comments about flying. Much of the US economy relies on people who have no choices about flying. Does your company rely on people who have to fly? Think about it.

Well, one thing to do is to write to your senators and representatives and tell them that you object to these new measures. One of my senators, Maria Cantwell, is on the Senate Aviation Safety and Security Subcommittee, which is holding an aviation security hearing this week. I've also sent emails to the airlines that I'm a frequent flyer on. If they think that this craziness is going to cost them business, they'll get their lobbyists busy. If enough people say, enough is enough, I think we could see a rollback on this. It's worth a try if you care about this issue.

Another thought on the" flying is a choice-don't fly if you don't like it" attitude: How many people who are flying today or in the near future bought tickets before these rules were put in place with no advance notice? If we now choose not to fly, we will not be reimbursed for the cost of the tickets. So, where's the choice? I would also like to know how many of the 81 percent of those polled have ever actually flown at any point in their lives, much less since these rules went into effect. How many of them even knew what the fuss was about when they were asked? I also wonder why the TSA waited until after the election to start this. If these gropings had begun in August or September, it would have been such a campaign issue that the Republicans would have picked up another 10 or 15 seats in the House and won the Senate.

My opinion of it is: a.It's a clear 4th Amendment breach. No 'don't choose to fly then' arguments are valid. This type of search and seizure is completely forbidden by the 4th Amendment and is just waiting to go through test cases at this point before it is struck down b.There is a chance that the new scanning can lead to a significant cancer risk increase. I will take the UCSF PhDs and oncologist's opinion over the TSA and manufacturer's opinion until evidence is provided that proves the safety that is claimed c. the enhanced pat downs appear to be in place as a purely punitive and humiliating measure to dissuade people from opting out of the scanning systems d. According to most every expert this system does nothing to increase safety over already existing levels

For a view from the other side, read this: http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/22/airports.holiday.travel/index.html?hpt=Sbin

With minimal effort, you'll find some really funny information about this stuff online...like the TSA referring to the male groin area as the "crotchal" region. They also refer to testicles as the point at which a TSO groper "meets resistance" during their inner thigh security check. In addition to writing your elected and non-elected officials and encouraging everyone you know to do likewise, you can send your own personal account of your grope-down to the ACLU...they're collecting stories that will help formulate a proper course of action. They've sued the TSA before and will again. I wonder if fliers can try and turn the tables in the meantime by using every male and female medical/technical description in the dictionary over and over again during the search to try and embarrass the TSO groper even more than they're embarrassing the passengers. I mean, if you ask politely, "Are you going to check my anus, how about my (p word) what about my wife's (v word), etc. and just keep asking these questions non-stop over and over until they're done...what would happen? I wonder what they would say. It would be hilarious.

I don't feel the TSA officers are to blame (yes, there are a few jerks out there). It is the Agency itself! 1- they spend billions on questionable machines, but pay low salaries to workers who carry searches too far (ie- the guy who squeezed the urine bag of one flyer and made no apology when urine squirted all over his clothes, and the one that made the breast cancer survivor remove her prothesis) 2- they really believe this makes us feel safer OR worse, they really believe it does make us safer 3- they use no common sense.

Since I do not approve of the new security measures that the TSA has installed, I chose not to fly but, rather to drive to my destination (Seattle) instead. However, the local law enforcement folks here (Hawaii) stopped me just as I headed down the boat ramp. Oh well, back to the airport.

WABC (NYC) evening news had a segment on last night, to be continued tonight, about the new airport security procedures. The most interesting point I took from it was that they say the TSA is refusing to allow an independent scientific assessment of the two types of scanners. If I'm not mistaken, the broadcast implied that the scanners could be emitting 10 - 15 times as much harmful radiation as we are being told. If the TSA has nothing to hide, why won't they allow the independent analysis? What happens in 5 - 10 years from now when people form a class action suit against them saying the scanners caused their cancer? You know they will.

Interesting article. http://www.thetravelinsider.info/security/hidingexplosives.htm