Print 119 comment(s) - last by Schrag4.. on Dec 2 at 1:30 PM

Airport passengers are disturbed by the TSA's "nude" scans of adults and children alike. But they're even more repulsed by the idea of being groped by TSA agents under the stricter "enhanced" search procedures.  (Source: Corbis)

Terrorists' new tact of smuggling IEDs in their anal cavity may force the TSA to adopt even more intense search "enhancements".  (Source: World Net Daily)
The public is not happy about increasingly invasive "enhanced" searches and scans

Imagine if you saw this job posting on Craigslist: 
Wanted: A person with good attention to detail and willingness to work long hours.  Your daily tasks will consist of viewing people naked all day, including children.  You will also be asked to pat down the private regions of men, women, and children on a regular basis.
It sounds ludicrous, but that's essentially the job duties of the average Transportation Safety Administration worker at an airport these days.  And it's exactly why the public is outraged and planning an unprecedented, if poorly organized protest for the Thanksgiving holiday.

Prepare to be Searched

In response to the ever imaginative attempts of terrorists, the Obama administration is rolling out mass deployment of the scanners, which show nude images of passengers.  And those who refuse scans undergo much more invasive searches. 

Some passengers are reporting that TSA officers reached into their undergarments, groping their private parts.  Reports one woman, "The woman who checked me reached her hands inside my underwear and felt her way around.  It was basically worse than going to the gynecologist. It was embarrassing. It was demeaning. It was inappropriate."

While there's supposed "protocols" protecting against such gross violations of privacy, there's little in the way of oversight it appears.

Similarly body scanners supposedly can't store or transmit images -- but that might not line up with reality.  However, the U.S. Federal Marshalls recently admitted in a court case that they secretly stored tens of thousands of nude scans of passengers, including, likely, children.  The TSA continues to claim that it's impossible to store images.

The public is not happy about these developments.

Poorly Organized Protests

Growing public outraged has fueled some to propose "National Opt-Out Day".  Some people are proposing going to the airport dressed in protest T-shirts and kilts even.  Rather than agreeing to body scans, they plan on demanding that TSA officers perform "enhanced" pat downs in a bid to delay flight times and press the point.

Robert Shofkom, a 43-year-old Georgetown, Texas native is among those planning on wearing a kilt in protest.  An IT specialist by profession, Mr. Shofkom remarks, "If you give them an inch, they won't just take in inch. Pretty soon you're getting scanned to get into a football game."

Some people have even passed out fliers or brought protest signs to the airport.  The fliers carry messages like, "You have the right to say, 'No radiation strip search! No groping of genitals!' Say, 'I opt out.'"

If enough people are convinced, it could just work.  A scan takes only about 10 seconds.  But a pat down can take four minutes or more.  If a significant portion of passengers opt for pat downs it could seriously delay flight times.

The protesters join America's largest pilot unions, which have boycotted the full-body scanners, which they say pose a small, but substantial cancer risk.

At present, the efforts seem rather poorly organized and ineffectual -- flights have remained on schedule and wait times have been remarkably low at around 10 minutes at many major airports.

Still the protests are clearly catching the public's attention, as evidenced by the "Don't Touch My Junk!" video which went viral.  In that video an Oceanside, Calif., man named John Tyner told a San Diego airport TSA official, "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested."

TSA Tells Public Not to Resist

The TSA has admonished the protest efforts.  Transportation Security Administration chief John Pistole, speaking on ABC's Good Morning America said that protesters are hurting the public, stating, "I just feel bad for the traveling public that's just trying to get home for the holiday.  [The TSA screeners] just want to get you through."

The agency has increased its staff count, bracing for potential protests.  And it's urging the public to comply with its nude scans and pat downs.

What's Next?

With increasing privacy violations at the airport, the hot topic on many people's minds is -- where will the TSA stop?

There's been growing speculation about terrorists trying to smuggle explosives by inserting them in their rectum.  A Saudi suicide bomber already smuggled a bomb in his anal cavity.  A terrorist, in theory could smuggle a bomb onto a plane in their anal cavity and then remove it and detonate it.

Current generation scanners are likely not capable of detecting low-density explosives inside the anal cavity.

If such an attack is attempted, the TSA may have to opt for even greater "enhancements" to its already intimate screening protocol.

And in reality there's probably plenty of vulnerabilities that haven't been thought of.  What is clear is that the public likely faces a choice between continuing to give up their freedoms or drawing a hard line now and resisting the current protocols.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By chmilz on 11/24/2010 1:33:25 PM , Rating: 5
I'm a Canadian who flies quite a bit, and have many times landed or connected in the US. I no longer do so. Over the past couple years I've ensured that all my flights have connected elsewhere in Canada, Mexico, or are direct to Europe. I've also decided against any more vacations in the US. I was looking forward to more trips to Vegas, seeing California, visiting relatives in Texas, and checking out Hawaii. Not a chance now.

Thanks TSA for helping me narrow down my vacation choices greatly.

RE: Thanks
By MrBlastman on 11/24/2010 2:12:23 PM , Rating: 5
I'm an American and I'm now boycotting flying completely. I will not give up my civil liberties and let the terrorists win (they already have, apparently). This is sickening that we, good citizens, are being treated like common criminals.

RE: Thanks
By ClownPuncher on 11/24/2010 2:16:14 PM , Rating: 5
Yea, I'm going by train or car as much as I can now. I honestly have no fear of terrorists. I fear populist hysteria much much more.

RE: Thanks
By mdogs444 on 11/24/2010 2:19:04 PM , Rating: 5
Better think again....Big Sis (Racoon) Napolitano says these will start popping up on trains, boats, and metros...

RE: Thanks
By ClownPuncher on 11/24/2010 2:23:04 PM , Rating: 2
Will horse and carriage work?

RE: Thanks
By priusone on 11/24/2010 8:46:13 PM , Rating: 2
No. Horses are not environmentally friendly as they release to much methane into the environment.

RE: Thanks
By mmntech on 11/24/2010 3:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
Obama really needs to fire her. Second month on the job and she manages to piss off Canada, America's closest ally, by saying the 9/11 hijackers entered the US through that country.

One plus for Canada's electoral system. Cabinet members have to be elected to parliament. Meaning the public can kick them out when they start pulling BS stunts like this.

RE: Thanks
By arazok on 11/25/2010 7:12:34 PM , Rating: 1
I think thats a minus. It makes it much harder to fill cabinet positions with qualified people.

RE: Thanks
By Galcobar on 11/25/10, Rating: 0
RE: Thanks
By chmilz on 11/24/2010 2:19:47 PM , Rating: 5
It's actually pretty sad how your own government will bail out the very people that caused a recession, then chokes private enterprise with government high-handedness, kills tourism, and taxes the balls off you to pay morons to stroke your wang.

Genius at work, your administration is.

RE: Thanks
By room200 on 11/24/2010 4:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
If they bailed out the people who caused the recession, and they are a private enterprise, would they then be bailing out the entity they're choling with governemnt high-handedness?

RE: Thanks
By RivuxGamma on 11/24/2010 5:47:14 PM , Rating: 3
I think we just need that chick from Teeth to go through and those TSA bastards will have to think twice about a nice, firm grope.

RE: Thanks
By MrBlastman on 11/24/2010 2:24:14 PM , Rating: 5
Seriously, instead of showing those videos of how to use a seat as a floatation device on a plane, they should instead show videos on how to get up and subdue any threatening parties on a plane.

Americans need to stop living in fear!

RE: Thanks
By ClownPuncher on 11/24/2010 2:28:19 PM , Rating: 5
I absolutely agree. Someone might get hurt, but could also save hundreds or thousands of lives.

RE: Thanks
By kerpwnt on 11/24/2010 5:41:31 PM , Rating: 4
My mom always kept a knife in her purse before 9/11. Now she can't. Who will defend her from a nutjob on a plane? Better yet, why shouldn't she be allowed to better defend herself?

Criminals will always have an advantage in combat when there are laws in place to keep people disarmed.

RE: Thanks
By tng on 11/24/2010 6:44:09 PM , Rating: 4
why shouldn't she be allowed to better defend herself?
It's worse than that even. Here in California, the police don't want you to defend yourself. Heaven help you if you pull a gun on someone who attacks you or breaks into your house.

In Texas police look at cases where a mugger, assault, or robbery suspect was shot by the victim as a case solved. Here in CA they will arrest you for it and you will probably serve more time than the guy that assaulted you, and that is if the gun was registered.

RE: Thanks
By Lerianis on 11/29/2010 4:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
I seriously doubt that. The federal laws have it in them that NO ONE at the state or federal level can be arrested for defending themselves with a weapon in their own home or out in public.

The problem comes when you PURSUE someone who is retreating and shoot them in the back.

RE: Thanks
By Schrag4 on 12/2/2010 1:30:26 PM , Rating: 2
Laws vary WILDLY from state to state (county or city even). Obviously, if it's illegal for you to even own a gun (which it is in some cities except under strict circumstances) then you will be charged if you end up defending yourself in your own home, even if it was obviously justified. "Those" types of regions tend to have DA's who aren't too keen on you using a weapon to defend yourself, so they'll be unlikely to show leniency to the poor guy who was just defending his family.

Recently, though, those laws have started to be overturned by the Supreme court, since they so obviously violate the 2nd Ammendment. Instead, those cities are simply cracking down on everything else that goes along with firearms ownership. Sure, you can have a gun, but you can't transport it, or practice with it, or buy it in the city. Or you can own a gun but it has to be completely disabled (taken apart, and with ammo in a different location). While the police wouldn't go looking in peoples' houses for fully assembled weapons, they could assume it was assembled and ready to go if you were to use it to stop an intruder.

At any rate, my point is that when you can and can't use a firearm in self defense (even in your own home!) varies quite a bit from place to place as well. Anyone considering gun ownership should spend a lot of time researching the laws in their area to avoid some serious fines or jail time.

RE: Thanks
By BadAcid on 11/24/2010 2:18:42 PM , Rating: 2
Don't worry, in a few years your money will still go to the airlines when they bankrupt again. Bailouts for everyone!

RE: Thanks
By NanoTube1 on 11/25/2010 1:33:10 PM , Rating: 3
Our security system profiles muslims and arabs but lets most of the other people go through the normal screening without much hassle. It works very well. The muslims on the other hand go through a full body check, verbal interrogation and even cavity search if deemed necessary by the security officials. From time to time, if the security services suspect someone that is not muslim they may check him/her out as well, but this is pretty rare. Why should all the people suffer when the muslims are the reason for all of this in the first place?

Check it out:

RE: Thanks
By sfi2k7 on 11/26/2010 2:32:09 AM , Rating: 1
In real world an american(me and you) should not be allowed to enter or land any airport of the world. Should not be given a visa to any country. Because, where ever they (me and you) have went(int last 20+ Years) with the slogan of plan to make things better they (me and you) have destroyed and created mayhem on that land. Have killed hundred of thousand women, kids and innocent men and still doing it in the name of FREEDOM, JUSTUS and SECURITY. What has happen to us HUMANS? Why we are so powerless in front of these thugs like Clinton, Bush and Obama? and their BOSSES? Wake up my brother and sisters and get your selves out of this slavery. They do not give a S___ about you or your lives. IT IS A FACT. So stop letting them put a finger up yours when they tell you it for your own security. F__IT..

RE: Thanks
By dananski on 11/26/2010 7:38:42 AM , Rating: 2
I can see your point, but dislike the idea for the same reason that I dislike NanoTube1's: by specifically targeting all of one demographic (be it Muslims, Americans, or shifty-looking stereotypical Arabs) you're oppressing the majority of that demographic, and also allowing an easy way past the security measures - use someone from a different race or background (it would be easy enough to convince an American-born nut-job to blow up a plane for the hell of it and it would be likewise easy for a concerned non-muslim to go to Israel to do something drastic in aid of Palestine).

I can see that it's extra suspicious for Muslims to go to Israel as many Muslim states won't allow them back in afterwards, so they must have a pretty serious reason for going. But every generalisation leaves holes in both security and equality, as well as promoting prejudice.

RE: Thanks
By magneticfield on 11/26/2010 3:27:53 AM , Rating: 2
Have you seen Adam Savage's talk about how he flew with some 12" steel blades in his jacket?

RE: Thanks
By sfi2k7 on 11/26/2010 7:38:33 PM , Rating: 2
And have you seen that missile approaching toward your home that was dropped from an unmanned drone.. While you are sitting with your kids.. eating food and getting ready to sleep..after a long day work...??!! Thanks God you have not and neither have I.. We need more info, just like when a new gadget comes out and we take it apart and some of us cant wait to "grind" it...We should have same kind of transparency when we arrest a terror suspect.. People who are handling these issues are professional liars. Look at the Time square "bomb" attempt.. USA says Taliban did it.. Taliban said No we did not...USA says yes you are right you did not...Then Pakistan says they did... Taliban said.. Nay..and USA start saying YA ha... For 15 days it was back and forth... They make billion by proving it was Taliban (I am not saying they did or did not). SAD FACT.

RE: Thanks
By NanoTube1 on 11/26/2010 4:18:30 AM , Rating: 4
I apologize, in "Our security system" I meant the Israeli security system. I am not an American. I think that the TSA should model itself after the Israeli system.

By the way, Happy Thanksgiving guys!! :)

RE: Thanks
By MCKENZIE1130 on 11/29/2010 8:05:07 PM , Rating: 2
In order to meet Christmas, Some commodities have been, discount .In addition Buy $ 300 and receive a free glasses or a wallet, as a Christmas gift . welcome all friends to order. Reputation, quality, absolute guarantee. please log in: . so what, move your mouse .

Far too invasive...
By Amiga500 on 11/24/2010 1:53:17 PM , Rating: 5
To provide what is effectively a facade of safety to the more gullible members of the general public.

Anyone half competent could blow up a plane. Don't be under any illusions otherwise.

Thus, the scanners and searches are a waste of time, money and people's liberty.

As Benjamin Franklin said; "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

RE: Far too invasive...
By DigitalFreak on 11/24/2010 2:22:42 PM , Rating: 2
They still serve first class meals with real silverware and glasses made of glass. It would be easy enough for a terrorist to use those to hijack a plane, and they wouldn't even need to sneak them on-board.

RE: Far too invasive...
By GreenEnvt on 11/24/2010 2:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think in the post 9/11 world a guy with a knife (or guys with knives) if going to be able to hijack a plane. Passengers will beat the %R$#@$#@!! out of the guy.

The biggest threat is explosives or something else that could cause flight systems to fail (E.M.P.?). I'm fine with limits on fluids, but I think most of the other passenger screening procedures do basically nothing to prevent terrorism. The cargo however is another story..

RE: Far too invasive...
By fic2 on 11/24/2010 4:40:14 PM , Rating: 2
From what I have heard no airport ground personal have to go through a daily security check. So, basically anyone from baggage handler, cleaning crew, gas pumper, etc could bring anything into a plane and drop it off for a scanned "safe" passenger to use.

RE: Far too invasive...
By arazok on 11/25/2010 7:14:22 PM , Rating: 3
I don't think in the post 9/11 world a guy with a knife (or guys with knives) if going to be able to hijack a plane. Passengers will beat the %R$#@$#@!! out of the guy.

I think all they needed to do after 9/11 was lock the cockpit doors. Problem solved. The rest is BS.

RE: Far too invasive...
By dananski on 11/26/2010 7:47:47 AM , Rating: 2
There was me thinking I was the only one thinking they should do that. If they aren't doing it, there must be a good reason, because it's a great idea as far as I can see.

Of course you still need to check people for bombs before they get on the plane, because even if you can stop terrorists taking control of a plane and flying it into a building, you still don't want them to blow up a plane, say, over a crowded city.

RE: Far too invasive...
By Lerianis on 11/29/2010 4:45:34 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand why that didn't happen on 9/11. If someone tried to take over the plane I was on, I would DAMNED WELL kill the SOB or find some other way to subdue him.

It was 120 against 4.... WHY THE HELL were they able to take over those planes? Americans too milquetoast all of a sudden?

RE: Far too invasive...
By Pirks on 11/24/2010 5:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
Glass and silverware won't let terrorist in the locked up pilot's cabin, so who cares really? Explosives are the real threat these days, not stupid silverware that's not gonna work now after 9/11, no wonder they gonna start searching rectums for explosives.

RE: Far too invasive...
By priusone on 11/24/2010 9:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
Ever heard of Lidia Alvarado?

Sure, you'd have to replace the metal with something else, but the real point is, is people are will to try anything.

RE: Far too invasive...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/24/2010 5:16:06 PM , Rating: 3
Anyone half competent could blow up a plane. Don't be under any illusions otherwise.

Thankfully, so far, they always haven't been half competent. The underwear bomber DID get on the plane, and he WAS able to ignite his weapon. Any more "competent" than that, and we would have had hundreds more dead possibly. Or at the very least, a much more serious situation.

The problem is that we've decided to be reactive instead of proactive. Oh no one guy tried an underwear bomb that didn't even work, let's spend billions on new scanners for EVERYONE!!

I would rather they not make it to the airport at all. Instead of talking about what they did once they got on the plane.

RE: Far too invasive...
By RivuxGamma on 11/24/2010 5:50:21 PM , Rating: 2
I understand that there needs to be a term for it, but, dear Jesus, do I hate the term "proactive." I hear it used way to much. Sort of like when "paradigm" became huge in business lingo.

RE: Far too invasive...
By MojoMan on 11/25/2010 3:16:57 AM , Rating: 2
The underwear bomber was NOT competent because he WAS put on the plane by the state department. They pull this crap to get us to be scared and give up our rights.

Kurt Hascall is a lawyer that lives here in MI. He watched events unfold and knew the government had their hands all over this.

You have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist. Please, America, stop being so cowardly. It's embarrassing.

RE: Far too invasive...
By sfi2k7 on 11/26/2010 2:57:53 AM , Rating: 2
They spend millions to make billions by making Americans afraid. You know almost every minutes One(or more) woman is raped in america and i do not know of a single law or effort by our government to stop that Heinous crime (in pre-crime stages, i.e before the crime is commuted). I do not mean that they should arrest the person before he commits his crime but look and change the consequence or the environment that make the crime possible(or probable). You could spend more time in prison for smoking a joint (specially if you are black) then raping a woman. Something wrong with this picture (read; out justice system).

RE: Far too invasive...
By AlexWade on 11/24/2010 5:47:23 PM , Rating: 5
My complaint with these scanners is twofold.

First, they were put in for safety. Yet, the TSA admitted a long time ago that these would not have stopped the recent terrorist strikes. Sorry, it has been a while so I don't have a link. Why should I surrender my dignity for something that has a 0% chance of detecting the methods terrorists are going to use?

Second, USA Today had an article about the company that makes these machines, L-3 Communications. Basically, the only reason they are at the airports are because L-3 has well-connected lobbyists. To me, these scanners represent everything that is wrong with politics.

It's a Joke....
By AEvangel on 11/24/2010 1:45:50 PM , Rating: 5
This is a private industry and they should be made to provide their own security. This is just an attempt by the Govt and Elites to further control us and hinder our movements.

What also cracks me up is that almost every person out there feels that the Govt is incompetent, yet people feel like they should be in charge of security of our airlines.

RE: It's a Joke....
By theArchMichael on 11/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: It's a Joke....
By MojoMan on 11/25/10, Rating: -1
RE: It's a Joke....
By tng on 11/24/2010 6:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
Where have you been?

Before 9/11 most of the security was provided by outside contractors that were paid for by the fees gathered by the airport from airlines and look where that got us.....

In October of 2000, I remember going to Albuquerque NM to decommission a piece of equipment for a customer. In my briefcase I had a plastic bag with some tools, tie downs and box cutters (razor blade type). I passed through security no problem even though they had to see the box cutters on the X-ray scan. Less than a year later the nutjobs that caused 9/11 did the exact same thing.

By priusone on 11/24/2010 8:43:42 PM , Rating: 5
In actuality, the TSA doesn't have to post job openings. If they want people with prior experience, just hire a former Catholic priest. If they want an applicant who will enjoy their new job, all they have to do is contact Dateline NBC's "To catch a predator"

The last time I flew anywhere was on a military transport plane. I have buddies who drive truck, so I just catch rides with them if I need to go somewhere. Sure, this is not the normal, but I refuse to have someone grope me because 1 in 10 Billion airline patrons are trying to carry out a vendetta. We lose way, WAY more citizens to distracted drivers and gang shootings that we do to people who hide small amounts of explosives behind their nads. Personally, I can't wait to see what other liberties the TSA will take with your bodies in the name of "security". Happy frisking.

Reach around
By yanque on 11/24/2010 2:12:46 PM , Rating: 4
Current generation scanners are likely not capable of detecting low-density explosives inside the anal cavity.

Sir, please bend over and spread your legs. This won't take long at all and you'll be on your way to your connection.

Also, we've run out of lube so this may hurt a little...

Remove it from the Anal Cavity?
By PhatoseAlpha on 11/24/2010 3:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
A terrorist, in theory could smuggle a bomb onto a plane in their anal cavity and then remove it and detonate it.

If the bomb is large enough to do anything even remotely approaching damage to a jet airliner, is taking it out of your ass before you blow it up actually required?

RE: Remove it from the Anal Cavity?
By goku on 11/25/2010 3:41:20 AM , Rating: 2
What about a land mine? Jump on top of a land mine and it will protect people in the nearby vicinity at the expense of others. It's obvious, the next bomb is going to be one that is either orally obtained or anally inserted. The cavity searches will start, people will oblige to them and we'll be no safer than we were previously. I'm certain you can stuff a large enough bomb into a person via surgery and will most certainly get past security. The TSA will definitely be willing to do cavity searches but as for actually X-raying people? I fail to see how they could spin that sort of thing and say that it's NOT dangerous. I dunno, maybe they will, I mean look at where we are today.

Only way to fix this crap...
By muhahaaha on 11/24/2010 8:37:50 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, after losing civil liberties, it's extremely hard to get them back.

I think I'm going to start my own country. Anyone want to help? Problem is, I'll have to kick someone out off the land I claim as mine, which means going to war and removing the civil rights of someone else. Geronimo!

RE: Only way to fix this crap...
By Skywalker123 on 11/25/2010 10:10:16 PM , Rating: 1
The Jews did it, so what's the problem.

RE: Only way to fix this crap...
By sfi2k7 on 11/26/2010 3:06:06 AM , Rating: 1
I swear we did not. Here look a dollar. I am putting my hand on it and going to swear again. Look now you believe me, right?


If my agent...
By amanojaku on 11/24/2010 1:28:49 PM , Rating: 3
Looked like her I'd DEMAND to be searched. Thoroughly.

By roykahn on 11/27/2010 7:31:14 AM , Rating: 3
When I read the text "smuggling IEDs in their anal cavity may force the TSA to adopt even more intense search enhancements" I instantly thought of Mr Slave eagerly going through this process. Jesus...jesus christ.

By muhahaaha on 11/24/2010 8:48:16 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, I canceled my plans to visit my parents this Christmas (Besides the ridiculous price of an airline ticket, I didn't want to deal with the TSA nonsense). Haven't seen them in nearly two years (I'm in AZ, they spend the winters in FL). I'm just fed up.

I'm remembering what I learned in elementary school about this great country, and all of our freedoms, but I look around and wonder where they're all going.

Government continues to subvert the people, which are supposed to be who run the government (by the people, for the people?).

Nobody's going to be able to change anything when they can't even put the slice of pizza down and get off the damn couch.

I have tip !!!
By eljoantonyn on 11/24/2010 11:43:45 PM , Rating: 2
If so many of you are against it, do somethin about it.

A hunger strike !!
It works in my country anyway, gets you a lot of airtime and frontpage columns.
Not to mention you becoming a new 'hero of privacy'

By sfi2k7 on 11/26/2010 2:11:53 AM , Rating: 2
If anybody thinks that all these changes are being made to protect us, or are response to any real or precieved threat of terrorism then i pity you and hope that rock is not heavy that your brain is barried under. We are slaves any they are slave owners. Our chains are extended does not mean we are free. Try to run away and you will feel the sqeeze around your ancles. You feel free because they always gives you example of their other slaves who have shorter lengh chains. Just undrstaning these facts that i mentioned, you free your self. Because these chains are not real. It is just mind control. Open up your mind and then see them run like dog from a stone. Good luck.

By sfi2k7 on 11/26/2010 3:12:56 AM , Rating: 2
I hope this pat down thing is gender segregated because Only my future special one can touch me there... I don't want a airport female pat down(er) to be my first other wise she is going to compare and make me feel embarrassed. But..But...Way da minute..What if my pat down gay is pervert (gay?)...Oh no...I am F....ED....

By symbiosys on 11/26/2010 4:00:41 AM , Rating: 2
I've been following the progress of this new system, it just got rolled out in one of Australia's major airports, Sydney. It's being 'trialled' there at the moment, but it will be a national roll-out in the near future for sure.

I fly maybe once a month and I will refuse to be subject to these new X-Ray machines, even if it means I have to get pat down. I don't like either option but these new X-Ray scanners are pretty scary to be honest. I'm pretty damn sure the scans aren't just 'deleted' straight away.

It seems obvious to me that they would store them. Naked pictures, no thanks.

TSA is not helping
By trisct on 11/29/2010 4:08:00 PM , Rating: 2
They want people to give up their privacy and their 4th amendment right against unreasonable search just because they buy a plane ticket. Last I looked, any contract that requires someone to give up a consitutional right is automatically void. I expect my undies to have a reasonable expectation of privacy, no matter where I'm standing.
The scanners used give (cumulatively) about the same statistical chance of killing you as a random terrorist action. They can't find razor blades with their scanners either, so they aren't helping make us safer. All this is just the next act in the security "theater". Its the TSA song and dance. We'll feel you up to make you feel safer, all the while consciously ignoring cargo planes and shipment depots because that would harm the bottom line. This is a line we should not let the government cross, because it only goes downhill from here. The TSA should be disbanded completely, in my opinion, because it is an enormous waste of money. The airports who are firing them as security are the smart ones. People who will accept anything in the name of security are simply not thinking clearly.

By muhahaaha on 11/24/2010 11:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
Ok Mr. obvious TSA employee, whatever you say.

I personally won't stand for having my civil and constitutional rights stripped from me, nor my clothes (be it a physical disrobing, or a computer generated disrobing, or a groping session). There are kids being put in jail and becoming registered child molesters for "Sexting" their girlfriends, but TSA can now pat down my genitals? WTF?

Not to mention, Rads are not an accurate measurement of accumulated radiation (

And some people are more predisposed to genetic damage and mutation than others, so this argument is inherently flawed (

I could go on and on as to why you are a clueless TSA brainwashed individual, but I'll try and keep my post on topic.

By muhahaaha on 11/24/2010 11:13:29 PM , Rating: 2
sorry, the link is

Parenthesis messed it up. DT, can we get an edit post function pleeeease?

By MojoMan on 11/25/2010 3:22:38 AM , Rating: 1
LOL!!! Yes... Mr. TSA employee... You failed to mention the radiology department at Burkley. They will tell you to stay the heck away from the machines. Also, the machines do not automatically blur out the face, images can be saved, and they are used to get biometrics on you. In fact a court house is in hot water because they've used the machines to save 35,000 images so far.

I bet you think they can't print the images either. Hahahahahahaha!

I don't understand ........
By Jcfili on 11/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: I don't understand ........
By BadAcid on 11/24/2010 2:15:18 PM , Rating: 4
Maybe it's not the same people?

I never get this argument people try to make about "Well you said you wanted this, now you don't like it?"
The U.S. is 300 million people, do you think they all agree on what "we" want?

RE: I don't understand ........
By mdogs444 on 11/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: I don't understand ........
By Jcfili on 11/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: I don't understand ........
By Karma007 on 11/24/2010 2:31:47 PM , Rating: 2
Because HSA knows that before 9/11, America's terrorists were Christian (Unabomber, Oklahoma City Federal, etc).

They haven't gone away. In fact, the level of activity from extremists who would call themselves Christian in the US has gone up since 9/11.

So if you work for a security organization, and you're smart, then you don't just profile the Muslims.

RE: I don't understand ........
By mdogs444 on 11/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: I don't understand ........
By KnickKnack on 11/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: I don't understand ........
By mdogs444 on 11/24/2010 3:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
If I believed in a God I'd pray for less of the moronic fundamentalists on both sides. That may also include people like you too....

Even if you did, he wouldn't be listening to you.

RE: I don't understand ........
By kerpwnt on 11/24/2010 3:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
Even if you did, he wouldn't be listening to you.

Deist elitism?

RE: I don't understand ........
By sh3rules on 11/24/2010 4:39:11 PM , Rating: 1
@mdogs444: I just spoke to God, and he told me that he's indeed listening to everything.

RE: I don't understand ........
By weskurtz0081 on 11/24/2010 4:24:45 PM , Rating: 3
So, you think the religion is responsible for the war, and not the idiot that starts the war? So, it's not possible for an Atheist to start a war?

RE: I don't understand ........
By Believer on 11/25/2010 9:15:53 PM , Rating: 2
Not a religious war, no.

He stated religions are causes for war, not that every war has base in religion.

So I really do find it hard for an atheist to start something like minor jihads or crusades.

RE: I don't understand ........
By Karma007 on 11/24/2010 2:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't realize being a white, mid-west Republican who voted for Bush meant I was a liberal..... wow....

Does that mean I'm a conservative if I voted for Obama?

RE: I don't understand ........
By mdogs444 on 11/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: I don't understand ........
By Anoxanmore on 11/24/2010 3:42:05 PM , Rating: 2
I'm happily a liberal.

Do you need a hug? I give those away for free and don't worry I'll cut you off before you get used to it. :)

RE: I don't understand ........
By room200 on 11/24/2010 4:37:43 PM , Rating: 1
Are you proud you voted for Bush?

RE: I don't understand ........
By Dorkyman on 11/25/2010 12:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
Damn right. Good guy.

RE: I don't understand ........
By room200 on 11/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: I don't understand ........
By room200 on 11/24/2010 4:44:15 PM , Rating: 1
If I was a little boy, I'd raise my hand (don't all priests love little boys to molest?). I mean if we're going to spread ignorant stereotypes, we may as well keep going.

RE: I don't understand ........
By robinthakur on 11/25/10, Rating: -1
RE: I don't understand ........
By Reclaimer77 on 11/24/2010 4:55:47 PM , Rating: 2
Yes but what we have now, of course because this is America, is REVERSE racism on display. The Muslims make a huge fuss over the searches for shaky religious reasons, so they get excluded. So now the TSA turns it's attention to people who, honestly, have no chance in hell of being a terrorist.

It seems like in America, the only way to get your rights recognized is to cause riots or just generally act poorly to other people and cause a big scene. The rest of us non minorities? Well, stand against the wall and spread your legs I guess...

RE: I don't understand ........
By kerpwnt on 11/24/2010 5:20:41 PM , Rating: 1
The first amendment grants Muslims the right to practice their faith in this country. They are also granted all of the other rights that you and I are entitled to. Either we all get liberties, or we all get security theater. Nobody is singling you out.

If you want the exclusion Muslim women get, tell the leader of your faith to make it an issue. Maybe write your congressperson.

RE: I don't understand ........
By Reclaimer77 on 11/24/2010 5:37:12 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry but the first Amendment grants nobody the "right" to be excluded and/or singled out. In any way, whatsoever.

You have Freedom OF religion, yes. But let's say, for example, it's against your religion to pay taxes. Well guess what? You are, and should, face the penalties if you break the law.

Same thing at airports. Sorry but freedom OF religion doesn't give you the right to impose your religious beliefs on others. Or to use them to get out of doing something everyone else has to do.

RE: I don't understand ........
By kerpwnt on 11/24/2010 6:30:26 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry but the first Amendment grants nobody the "right" to be excluded and/or singled out.

I only said that they are entitled to the same treatment we are. I equated their rights to ours, where your language had separated them.
Or to use them to get out of doing something everyone else has to do.

I completely agree. I don't think the TSA should be touching ANYONE without reasonable suspicion. Since Muslim leaders have gotten the TSA to fold, we can too!

This issue makes me curious as to how much power the TSA actually has. They seem to operate separate from the law. Do they actually have any authority? Are Their policies even backed by laws?

RE: I don't understand ........
By Reclaimer77 on 11/24/2010 6:43:07 PM , Rating: 1
I only said that they are entitled to the same treatment we are. I equated their rights to ours, where your language had separated them.

Yes but not better treatment. I could give a damn what their religion has to say about it, their religion is why we're in this mess in the first place anyway.

Unfortunately there is no "right" to not be searched by the TSA. That's all I'm saying.

I completely agree. I don't think the TSA should be touching ANYONE without reasonable suspicion. Since Muslim leaders have gotten the TSA to fold, we can too!

Damn right!! Except we would probably just get arrested lol. We can't get away with the same stuff they can.

This issue makes me curious as to how much power the TSA actually has. They seem to operate separate from the law. Do they actually have any authority? Are Their policies even backed by laws?

Sadly those questions just aren't asked anymore. People think that, well, if the Federal Government did something it's automatically legal. Because people today think the Government is the ultimate authority.

Although, probably, in the strictest sense of the Constitution forming the TSA is certainly legal. On the grounds that they are "defending" the country, which is the mandate of the Federal Government. However the TSA performing searches without due process, well, I think there is probably some grounds for legal debate there.

RE: I don't understand ........
By Reclaimer77 on 11/24/2010 5:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
Timothy was just a nutjob who was pissed off over Waco Texas. Calling him a "Christian Terrorist" is a bit of a stretch. What cell did he belong to? Who were his handlers? What organization funded him? More importantly, after the attack, who claimed responsibility for it and listed their demands? The Pope? I think not.

If you can't tell the difference between people who happen to be Christian and terrorists, and entire Muslim nations supporting Jihad...well you're just politically correct to the point of being blind.

So if you work for a security organization, and you're smart, then you don't just profile the Muslims.

100% of all Islamic terrorists have been Muslims. Sorry, that's a documented proven fact. If you are being "smart", that damn well better factor into your screening process. To refuse to do so is being negligent, plain and simple.

Tell you what, when 80 year old Caucasian grandmothers start blowing planes up, you give me a call.

RE: I don't understand ........
By sviola on 11/25/2010 8:27:41 AM , Rating: 1
100% of all Islamic terrorists have been Muslims. Sorry, that's a documented proven fact.

I would be surprised if an Islamic terrorist was a buddist or a christian. Anyway, it is a proven fact that 100% of all Christian terrorists are christian.

And, by the way, saying only muslims are terrorists is prejudice. First, only a very small minority of muslims are terrorists. Second, there have been plenty of christian terrorists around the world (IRA is an example) and atheist terrorists as well (FARCs come to my mind).

Terrorism has NOTHING to do with religion. Religion has been an excuse for ill intended people to manipulate desperate people to comply with their power dreams. Has been this way for thousands of years and seems it will never change (and it is not only religion that is used to this intent).

RE: I don't understand ........
By Reclaimer77 on 11/25/2010 9:20:36 AM , Rating: 1
Anyway, it is a proven fact that 100% of all Christian terrorists are christian.

And when Christians start hijacking and crashing planes into stuff, then the TSA can deal with them.

Are you forgetting the reason the TSA was formed in the first place? It was a direct response to ISLAMIC terrorism post-911.

And, by the way, saying only muslims are terrorists is prejudice.

Where did I say that? Again, this is an article about the TSA. What prompted it to be formed? Is this logic too simple for you?

There are lots of other kinds of terrorists in the world that have existed long before 911. But none of them have hijacked our planes and used them to murder thousands of civilians before. Do you follow me?

Second, there have been plenty of christian terrorists around the world (IRA is an example)

The IRA's motives and reasons have nothing to do with Christianity. And, again, so what? When the IRA starts hijacking American planes, or any planes, and drives them into buildings or tries to blow them up, THEN the TSA can worry about them. Again, the IRA existed LONG before 911 and there was no TSA being formed specifically to stop them.

Terrorism has NOTHING to do with religion.

Hah, well it does when it comes to THESE terrorists. Only a religious fanatic would become a suicide bomber. Sorry but normal rational people do NOT use suicide bombings just to make points.

RE: I don't understand ........
By Skywalker123 on 11/25/2010 10:15:20 PM , Rating: 2
What "entire Muslim Nation backs Jihad?

By Homerboy on 11/24/2010 2:07:16 PM , Rating: 2
I'm missing how this is a repost of WWN. I see that one picture is (which is a stupid picture may I add). But where are you getting the fact the rest of this is from WWN?

I'm not ripping on your post, I'm genuinely curious.

By Hakuryu on 11/24/2010 2:15:54 PM , Rating: 5
The underwear bomber boarded a plane in Amsterdam, so TSA scanning is irrelevant.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the 911 terrorists got their knives on the plane (ie. they were not carrying them). Again, TSA scanning wouldn't have done anything.

I'm all for security, but these scanners and the ridiculous procedures just seem like heavy-handed attempts by incompetent people to keep everyone in fear, and to get them to give up their rights.

Why not use dogs, which have been shown to work, sniff every passenger, instead of spending billions on controversial technology?

By ClownPuncher on 11/24/2010 2:17:51 PM , Rating: 2
Because dog labor is controlled by the unions.

By mdogs444 on 11/24/2010 2:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
The last poll I saw about this showed 68% of Americans supported the TSA's security measures.

Where do you people come up with this stuff? Did you just make that up? I think you did.

The real statistic (yes, citing a poll helps) is 61% are AGAINST the new body scan/pat down procedure, and that 48% say it will force them to consider alternative forms of transportation. In fact, 53% believe this won't help prevent any form of terrorism.
Is it a perfect system? No, because no system is perfect. Suck it up and get through it...

I am willing to put money down that you were not singing this tune when the Freedom Act was passed and you found out they could monitor your texts, emails, and phone calls without warrant...right?
Anandtech's quality is at an all time low; I didn't know Anandtech had the same quality as a dollar store check out stand.

Coming from somoene who makes up his own statistics which are not even CLOSE to being correct, much less on the same side of the spectrum.

Thats a question for you.

By weskurtz0081 on 11/24/2010 3:29:32 PM , Rating: 1
When was the last time a terrorist blew up a plane with an explosive device? Better yet, how many planes in the history of aviation were blown up due to terrorists with explosive devices?

Just because someone doesn't think THIS amount of airport security is necessary doesn't mean he is a hillbilly, and there's no point in being a dick about it either.

By weskurtz0081 on 11/24/2010 5:09:26 PM , Rating: 2
Fair enough on the hill-billy comment.

On the rest though. Do you HONESTLY think this will prevent terrorists from blowing up a plane if they want to? Honestly, if you were a terrorist and wanted to blow something up, don't you think you would kill more people at a sporting event, concert, or any other number of places? Using the logic that "just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't" shouldn't we put full body scanners in at all of these places?

If a terrorist wants to blow up a plane, they WILL blow it up regardless of full body scanners, they will simply have a rectal based bomb, go to the bathroom, get it out, blow the plane up, these scanners will not stop that from happening.

I for one am not worried about it. My chances of being on plane that was either hijacked or blown up by a terrorist is about the same odds I have of getting struck by lighting or getting melanoma from a full body scanner. I am not living in fear.

By kerpwnt on 11/24/2010 4:56:44 PM , Rating: 2
In which case, I'm pretty glad they're monitoring.

You won't be glad when you say something like "cinnabon are the bomb! I'm gonna go jihadi on some at the mall!" and the FBI busts in your door.

I do realize that it is ridiculously improbable, but people make mistakes. Innocent people have been imprisoned (or worse) by those who normally protect us.

By myhipsi on 11/25/2010 11:21:32 AM , Rating: 3
I don't really trust the American Public to know what is best for the security of their country

So you trust a government bureaucrat instead? LOL

By DigitalFreak on 11/24/2010 2:19:07 PM , Rating: 4
This isn't Anandtech, dumb-ass.

Mick, we all know it can feel demeaning to get a pat down, but how would you feel if the underwear bomb had actually gone off and 200 people were killed last Christmas ?

I'd rather take the chance of being on a plane with a bomber than lose what remaining freedoms we have.

By Karma007 on 11/24/2010 2:32:59 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry. I forget that "Latest from Anandtech" meant something else..........

By mdogs444 on 11/24/2010 2:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
Still, no one has answered the question: if an underwear bomb had gone off in American airspace and 200 citizens were killed, how would you feel about pat downs?

Perhaps your asking the wrong question. Instead of groping our own citizens on our own land...we should be groping citizens of other countries who want to come onto our own land.

Then we wouldnt have to worry about either one, would we?

By Karma007 on 11/24/2010 2:39:54 PM , Rating: 2
No, that is the right question. People's feelings about security in the U.S. changed after 9/11. They would have changed again if an underwear bomb had exploded.

As for your question, that depends on other countries security measures. The U.S. has no direct control over passenger screening on outbound flights to the U.S. Only indirect control.

By mdogs444 on 11/24/2010 2:44:13 PM , Rating: 2
As for your question, that depends on other countries security measures. The U.S. has no direct control over passenger screening on outbound flights to the U.S. Only indirect control.

I disagree. The U.S does not have to allow the flight, much less the people on board, to enter the country at all. So to say that we cannot screen all the fliers of any flight coming INTO the U.S is completely false.

We may not currently do it, but it does not mean that we can't.

By Karma007 on 11/24/2010 2:26:55 PM , Rating: 1
As an add-on:

Of course it would be great to have nothing to slow you down when flying. Grab your bags, give your ticket to the flight attendant, get on the plane, and go.

Is that the world we live in? No.

Will security measures change? Sure.

Deal with it or drive a car.

By mdogs444 on 11/24/2010 2:34:53 PM , Rating: 5
Hey if you want a cheap rub & tug from a non educated bag handler, go ahead and get one. If you want to jump into some radiation contraption go ahead. I don't believe for one minute that its as safe as they say - especially coming from the same nitwit liars that told us the machines were incapable of saving images, do not save images, and have no way of making images available....then they end up on the internet. I don't believe a damn thing they say.

I, for one, believe in the freedom of privacy and am not willing to sacrifice it because YOU think I should. I'm also not willing to be a sheep and going through groping that the person who sets the policy does not have to abide by. Do what YOU want to do, but YOU dont get to tell everyone else how to feel or act

By mdogs444 on 11/24/2010 2:45:47 PM , Rating: 5
^ Liberal Elitism

By ClownPuncher on 11/24/2010 2:51:15 PM , Rating: 2
It's Progressive Elitism. The ol' Liberals don't want their balls scanned either.

By weskurtz0081 on 11/24/2010 3:26:44 PM , Rating: 2 the future...

Then... don't go to the football game, watch it at a bar or at home! Then, don't take the train, drive! Don't go to the baseball game. Don't go to the basketball game. Don't go to the soccer game.

How about just don't live in fear because the odds of you dieing due to terrorism are about the same as being struck by lighting.

By myhipsi on 11/25/2010 11:45:09 AM , Rating: 1
Definitions of Terrorism:

The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce
The the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism

Terrorism is effective because of people who think like you.

By weskurtz0081 on 11/24/2010 2:48:35 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe I don't want to be subject to additional radiation, maybe my children have the potential for melanoma, maybe I don't want a stranger touching my children like that.... maybe my children don't want a stranger touching them like that....

Do you honestly think no one has a valid complaint, your thought on this is the only one that's right, and everyone else should just shut up about it?

By weskurtz0081 on 11/24/2010 2:44:39 PM , Rating: 2
If a terrorist had a shoulder fire rocket and took out an airplane after it took off... if a terrorist blew himself up in a football stadium... if a terrorist had plastic explosives up his butt and blew it up on a plane...

Tell me this, when was the last time a terrorist blew up a plane with explosives?

By fic2 on 11/24/2010 4:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
They don't even have to blow up a plane. Just get in a security line at the airport and blow themselves up when they are in the middle of it. Probably kill a couple of hundred people and shutdown every U.S. airport while the TSA tries to figure out how they can send someone to your house to do a pre-airport grope.

Or pack an 18-wheeler with explosives and detonate it as they crash through the front of the airport.

"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates

Most Popular ArticlesFree Windows 10 offer ends July 29th, 2016: 10 Reasons to Upgrade Immediately
July 22, 2016, 9:19 PM
Top 5 Smart Watches
July 21, 2016, 11:48 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki