TSA's Naked body scanner and pat-down procedures.

[Nate]

Nnd just think you'll have some security guy/girl whome you dont know from adam looking at you nude pretty much.

I'm perfectly okay with this. In fact, I'd pretty much be honored that anyone would look at me and say "I wanna see that guy naked" instead of thinking "Man that guy is fat and ugly I wouldn't look at him if you paid me." I'd take it as a compliment.

Besides, human imagination is a powerful thing. That's...all I will say about that, because if I say more I'll seem really creepy.

OR you could have a random person you dont know do an intrusive pat down touching you all over!

I was in the military and I have been patted down at prisons I went to with my mom when she was visiting her husband. They're not that intrusive and I don't see what the big deal is. Then again in the military I had to shower in a large open shower area with about ten other guys at a time so maybe I'm just desensitized.

And also, you never know what kinda pervy ppl are looking at you or touching you.

Yeah but the same is true in everyday life. You're walking down the aisles at Wal-Mart, or hanging out in the park. You never know what kind of perverted weirdos are looking at you, mentally undressing you, whatever. If you're going to be paranoid about these scanners (for privacy reasons) I really don't see how you survive unless you stay in your house all the time and never leave because hey, there's some creepy perverted people out there walking the streets, looking at people, sometimes even taking pictures of them secretly.

Trust me, I know about paranoia too. I freak out and start to shake when it gets windy, because I'm paranoid about tornadoes. It definitely isn't fun. I can't imagine being like that over something harmless like a person looking at you.

But still, I dont want some wacked out pervy dude looking at MY picture

Didn't you post your picture here on CAA though?

[Yuki-Anne]

By the way, a big reason I'm opposed to this is I just really don't want complete strangers to look at me naked or touch me in uncomfortable places. Some of you act like that's no big deal, but I think it is. What is so wrong with not wanting people to see me naked?

[Yamamaya]

By the way, a big reason I'm opposed to this is I just really don't want complete strangers to look at me naked or touch me in uncomfortable places. Some of you act like that's no big deal, but I think it is. What is so wrong with not wanting people to see me naked?

*Cartman voice* BECAUSE IT'S WRONGGG.

On a serious note, it seems like the TSA is going overboard with these regulations. I would prefer the scanning to a pat down.

[Nate]

There's nothing wrong with not wanting people to see you naked, but judging from the links Phil and Corrie have given, there's two things to keep in mind.

1. There's no identifiable information. The faces are not there, or blurred out. Thus, nobody really is looking at "you," they're looking at an outline of your body.

2. The pictures are not really "naked" pictures. For example, in the article Corrie linked, you can clearly see underwear lines and stuff on the bodies. It seems like everyone here is thinking that the scanners will produce high-quality black-and-white nude photos like Cindy Crawford's in Playboy. They're not. Even the most amateur webcam pictures of girls you can find on google in two seconds are more detailed than these scanner pictures are.

Put simply, someone mentally undressing you will get a better naked "picture" of you than they could ever get from the scanner. That's why I'm saying it's paranoia, and don't understand it. Unless you wear a fursuit or something that covers your body so much no one can see your face or any body details whatsoever, I don't see why this is so much worse than walking in the grocery store and some guy looking at you and undressing you with his mind. In fact, as I said, he'd get a better "view" of it than these scanner pictures.

As far as the patdown, that's your own problem. Those are done by police and military all the time and if they make you uncomfortable, sorry, that's just how they do things and have done it for ages. Some people are afraid of the color red, should they stop using red in stoplights just because some people freak out about it? That's an extreme and admittedly silly example, but I'm saying that they can't possibly make anything completely 100% totally fine for everyone. Everyone has weird quirks, but you've just gotta learn to live with them. Barring that, if you're so frightened by a police patdown, and I don't mean this in a mean or snide or rude way, but please go seek psychological help. That is seriously very unhealthy to have a fear like that.

EDIT: I myself have a lot of fears too, to be sure. I mean I'm afraid of flying, and definitely afraid of heights, but if I was ever so afraid of heights that I couldn't even go on the second floor of a building, it would be very unhealthy and you can bet I'd seek out help to get over it.

[Cognitive Gear]

I was in the military and I have been patted down at prisons I went to with my mom when she was visiting her husband. They're not that intrusive and I don't see what the big deal is. Then again in the military I had to shower in a large open shower area with about ten other guys at a time so maybe I'm just desensitized.

TSA boss admits that there are new, more invasive patdowns.

The new patdowns apparently contain a "groin check".

I'd rather not deal with it, but honestly I'll deal with that before I will let myself put my health at potential risk. I'd rather avoid both, but unfortunately I will be flying in a couple of months, and I don't think that there are really any viable alternatives. Honestly, if our train system was faster or just generally better I would be pretty keen on that.

[Nate]

Agreed. Our train system in the US kinda sucks. But everyone either flies or drives for the most part so any attempt to revamp the train system to be better would be seen as a "waste" of money I'd be willing to bet.

[Radical Dreamer]

As far as the patdown, that's your own problem. Those are done by police and military all the time and if they make you uncomfortable, sorry, that's just how they do things and have done it for ages. Some people are afraid of the color red, should they stop using red in stoplights just because some people freak out about it? That's an extreme and admittedly silly example, but I'm saying that they can't possibly make anything completely 100% totally fine for everyone. Everyone has weird quirks, but you've just gotta learn to live with them. Barring that, if you're so frightened by a police patdown, and I don't mean this in a mean or snide or rude way, but please go seek psychological help. That is seriously very unhealthy to have a fear like that.

Seriously? XD No. That's hardly a fair comparison to make. Not wanting a complete stranger invasively touching you (as seen in videos and pictures of the new pat-downs) is not an irrational fear, nor is it a weird quirk. It's a perfectly legitimate thing to be uncomfortable with, and isn't even near being compared with a phobia of the color red (which is far rarer than a general uncomfortableness with other people touching sensitive areas). Additionally, bear in mind that the vast majority of women are not flattered when strange men suggest that they want to see them naked. I thought this should be pretty obvious. It's neither a compliment nor is it something we dream of happening ("man I hope that creepy security guard likes looking at my faceless body!" I mean seriously? Just no). At any rate, it's hardly an unhealthy fear for someone to be uncomfortable or even afraid of going through these sorts of security methods.

[Yuki-Anne]

What's more, I'm not at all comfortable with the popo. I've known quite a few people who've been treated badly by the police for no reason at all. They weren't doing anything wrong, they just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, the wrong time being when there was a grouchy, power-tripping police officer. So, no, I don't trust the police, and if they want to pat me down they'd better have a good reason.

Also, where are they examining the pictures? Is it right out there in the open, or in a separate room? Because if it's out in the open, it would not be that hard for them to match up faces with bodies. This isn't even an issue of whether I'm concerned that anyone would like what they saw, which would be pretty gross. The issue is that I don't let anybody see me or touch me. What they imagine doing is not my problem; it's theirs. If they tried to take naked pictures of me or touch me inappropriately without my consent, it'd be sexual harassment. But now the government wants to do that "for public safety" and it's okay? I don't care if they're not doing it for sexual gratification; it makes no difference.

And there are ways of catching terrorists short of this. The TSA's own website talks about how they've used regular bag-scanning to catch would-be terrorists. It also talks about specialized behavioral analysts who can catch a terrorist by analyzing his body language. That is more effective than a body scan. If someone hides bomb parts in his body cavities (which would not be caught by these scanners), you can bet his body language is not going to be normal.

[Nate]

Not wanting a complete stranger invasively touching you (as seen in videos and pictures of the new pat-downs) is not an irrational fear, nor is it a weird quirk. It's a perfectly legitimate thing to be uncomfortable with

I disagree completely and utterly. Though again, I was in the military, so perhaps I'm desensitized.

Besides, you're forgetting one important thing. Who says these security guards want to touch you there? I'd say your assumption that these guards are totally eager to want to touch you in private places is pretty unwarranted. But hey, that's their job. Saying that these guys are lining up so they can touch nubile young women's body parts is on par with saying that guys are lining up at college to get a degree in gynecology because they totally want to look at naked women all day.

I mean, would you want to be the security guard who has to pat down the 400 pound woman with buck teeth and whiskers?

Additionally, bear in mind that the vast majority of women are not flattered when strange men suggest that they want to see them naked.

Yeah, but going through a scanner is hardly the equivalent of "I want to see you naked." Though I realize this was a response to my first comment about how I'd feel honored. This has more to do with my extremely low, almost non-existent self-esteem though, so I didn't mean it as a sort of "You should feel proud that someone finds you attractive!" sort of thing, it was more a self-deprecating remark on my part.

At any rate, it's hardly an unhealthy fear for someone to be uncomfortable or even afraid of going through these sorts of security methods.

Again, I completely and totally disagree. The only way I can see it is if the person has been molested/sexually assaulted in their life. In that case, it's quite understandable that the person would be apprehensive about that. I still think that would be an unhealthy fear that everyone wants to molest them, though. I mean I can't see how thinking "Every person wants to molest me" is healthy in any capacity, but whatever.

[Peanut]

Anyways, as a female, I can say that I'm pretty uncomfortable with both pictures that are that detailed and also the idea of an extreme full-body pat down. XD I'd really rather not have a complete stranger, female or not, touching every last inch of me when they have no reason to. XD

Yeah, seeing the pictures they're definitely being more through with their frisking then when I had it done to me. Still, I wonder how quickly they are moving while doing it since I get the feeling that pictures like these make it look way more uncomfortable then it actually is.

If they pull you aside and frisk you they do have a reason for it. You don't have to like it but let's not pretend that there is no reason for it since safety is somewhat important and, unless they're doing random frisks now (or I'm remembering wrong which is completely possible and probable...), you'd have to look suspicious for them to do it to you. I say this to assure you that no one is going to frisk you unless you leave stuff in your pockets, decide to wear a turban, say something like "bomb" or if I'm completely wrong and they're doing them randomly and you get really unlucky...in which case I feel really sorry for you.

Edit: So I just missed page of information...oh well, I'll just leave this here even though it might be irrelevant right now...

[Yuki-Anne]

Again, I completely and totally disagree. The only way I can see it is if the person has been molested/sexually assaulted in their life. In that case, it's quite understandable that the person would be apprehensive about that. I still think that would be an unhealthy fear that everyone wants to molest them, though. I mean I can't see how thinking "Every person wants to molest me" is healthy in any capacity, but whatever.

And I completely and totally disagree with you. Maybe you don't understand since you're not a woman. I hate to pull the gender card, but I think some guys just don't get how scary it can be to be a woman in a world where a woman can be raped by one police officer than forced by other police officers to state that it was not rape. So not wanting a complete stranger to touch you is perfectly legitimate. I'm not saying that being frisked is the same as rape, but even if they haven't been sexually assaulted it's still a frightening prospect for a lot of women.

And it's really not unhealthy to dislike being touched in awkward places by people you don't know. Why would I like that? Why would I like a complete stranger touching me where NOBODY touches me? Who would be comfortable with that?

[Yamamaya]

What if it was THIS man who was frisking you?



It might be a bit uncomfortable if he was smiling through the WHOLE PAT DOWN.

I do feel sorry for the guards. It must be pretty embarrassing to pat down person after person day in and day out.

[Yuki-Anne]

What if it was THIS man who was frisking you?



It might be a bit uncomfortable if he was smiling through the WHOLE PAT DOWN.

I do feel sorry for the guards. It must be pretty embarrassing to pat down person after person day in and day out.

That would be even worse. At least the guards have the excuse of doing it for your own safety.

EDIT: That is a picture of Joel Osteen, isn't it? Talk about a hellish prospect... *shudders*

[Yamamaya]

That would be even worse. At least the guards have the excuse of doing it for your own safety.

EDIT: That is a picture of Joel Osteen, isn't it? Talk about a hellish prospect... *shudders*

Yes. I can imagine it now.

"We all want to be happy don't we? Well for the TSA to be happy I have to pat you down. So let's be happy, all right?"

[Nate]

What's more, I'm not at all comfortable with the popo. I've known quite a few people who've been treated badly by the police for no reason at all. They weren't doing anything wrong, they just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, the wrong time being when there was a grouchy, power-tripping police officer.

And now we get into the same problem I was talking about in the atheist thread, which is judging a select few individuals and treating all people in that group as the same. To me saying "A few police treated me badly, therefore I am suspicious of all police" is the same as "A black person treated me badly, therefore I am suspicious of all black people." Which is, well, racist.

I've been treated badly by police before too, when I was in California. I got pulled over by a stupid cop for something that was his own fault, and we got questioned in our hotel room by another cop who was being belligerent and throwing his weight around. But I'd be doing the police force a disservice by assuming all cops are like this.

Just like we feel people are doing Christians a disservice by saying we're all like WBC. I hate to bring them up again, I really do, but honestly, I don't see how you can claim to be offended by people comparing all Christians to those people and then turn around and say all cops are like the few who treated you badly. And if you're not saying all cops are like those few, why would you feel uncomfortable around them?

So, no, I don't trust the police, and if they want to pat me down they'd better have a good reason.

How about "You are about to get on an aircraft that is carrying many other passengers, and we are checking to make sure you don't have anything that could harm or kill them or put the plane in danger"? That's a pretty darn good reason, wouldn't you agree?

Also, where are they examining the pictures? Is it right out there in the open, or in a separate room?

From what I understand it's a separate room, or at least an area where others wouldn't be able to see it. I could be wrong, though. Maybe someone else who knows more than me can say.

If they tried to take naked pictures of me or touch me inappropriately without my consent, it'd be sexual harassment. But now the government wants to do that "for public safety" and it's okay?

Except that they're NOT trying to take naked pictures of you or touch you inappropriately. They're trying to scan you for materials and search you for contraband. This is completely different.

I mean that's like saying that when I was in MEPS and the doctor told me to take my pants off and turn my head and cough, he was sexually molesting me! Except no, he was checking for hernias. It's totally different than if some random dude on the street tried to touch me there.

EDIT: Geez this thread is moving fast! I can barely keep up. x.x

Maybe you don't understand since you're not a woman. I hate to pull the gender card, but I think some guys just don't get how scary it can be to be a woman in a world where a woman can be raped by one police officer than forced by other police officers to state that it was not rape.

Okay, if you want to go there, let me go there too. Maybe YOU don't understand since you're not a man. Do you know how it feels, having women think you're always a potential rapist or sexual assaulter? It's pretty demeaning. Did you hear about the guy in Brazil who was arrested and detained for showing affection to his daughter? Will you ever have to deal with a police officer approaching you in an airport because you're with a young girl and people think you're a child rapist kidnapping her? I bet you won't.

I'm starting to get angry here so I'm going to not continue talking about this, because it will get ugly, and fast. I've probably already said too much.

And it's really not unhealthy to dislike being touched in awkward places by people you don't know. Why would I like that? Why would I like a complete stranger touching me where NOBODY touches me? Who would be comfortable with that?

NOBODY likes being patted down, but it's for safety. The person patting down doesn't (usually) get any joy out of it, and neither do the ones being patted. But guess what? It's not just about you, it's about a bunch of other people on a plane where if you were to smuggle something on, could potentially harm or kill all those OTHER people.

I'm not saying it's unhealthy to dislike being touched by people you don't know, I'm saying it's unhealthy to be paranoid about public safety and health procedures.

[Radical Dreamer]

Besides, you're forgetting one important thing. Who says these security guards want to touch you there? I'd say your assumption that these guards are totally eager to want to touch you in private places is pretty unwarranted. But hey, that's their job. Saying that these guys are lining up so they can touch nubile young women's body parts is on par with saying that guys are lining up at college to get a degree in gynecology because they totally want to look at naked women all day.

Actually, I never assumed that, and was discussing earlier (off-site, so I understand how you might be confused) how I would hate to be in the position of the security guards who have to do this, too. It's awkward at best for both camps, and I'd rather them just avoid it altogether instead of forcing the issue on randomized people.

I still think that would be an unhealthy fear that everyone wants to molest them, though. I mean I can't see how thinking "Every person wants to molest me" is healthy in any capacity, but whatever.

I really think it's less about a fear of being intentionally molested and more about a general concern with dignity, respect, and the privacy and rights of one's own body. I highly doubt any of the security guards are patting people down with an inappropriate intent, especially since they divide the passengers and security guards by gender. Granted, I have an admittedly large personal bubble, but that has nothing to do with a fear of being molested and everything to do with my own right to personal space when it comes to people that I don't know well or feel comfortable around.

[Peanut]

The more I read posts in this thread, the more I get the feeling this is being blown out of proportion. There is nothing I have read that says these scans are going to be done on every single person whose flying. The only ration I've been able to hunt down claims they will be used on 2 out of 3 passengers by 2011 which still seems really high to me since I don't think airports are going to want longer security lines and passengers complaining about security taking up even more of their time. Even if it does end up that way that means you still have a 1/3 chance to not be selected and given how many people fly these days, that's going to be a large number of people who aren't going to be scanned. I just don't see the 2 out of 3 passengers bit and am willing to bet that with the backlash combined with the factor I just mentioned, these machines are going to be used in place of the "puffer" machines which means you'll almost never have to deal with them unless you fly a lot.

Still, you could be against them on principle but I don't think that's a particularly strong position since these scanners really aren't all that invasive, aren't mandatory, and, whether you like it or not, there is a good reason for them. If you can think of something better that doesn't come across as being racist, does the same job, and manages to cover the concerns you've mentioned. Again, the entire argument boils down to balancing safety, privacy, and efficiency which blkmage, myself and others were talking about earlier in this thread. It's very difficult to balance every single one of those points and while I would never say TSA does a great job at this, I don't think they've done a bad job with it here as long as they stop these images from being leaked. Now the pat downs are a completely different issue altogether when it comes to this but I've already said what I've needed to say on them so I don't need to repeat myself.

[Cognitive Gear]

I'm not certain how someone could be comfortable having a stranger touch them anywhere near their private parts. I mean, it seems like keeping that area well protected (possibly too well protected) would be very natural, since it is the area that allows for reproduction, which is pretty important to the survival of a species.

Anyways, I think that, at least until the scanners have been properly tested for safety, I'm going to be against both of these policies. I understand that it's for safety, but this just goes too far to invade my privacy and my private property. (as is defined in the Locke/USA sense) Hopefully if there is enough of an uproar, we will get these things changed.

[Nate]

I'm not sure what to think. But, I can support being against this as far as safety concerns (until we can get a clear picture on the health risks) or monetary concerns (as in, they may be too expensive to be feasible). I won't say I'm against them yet since I don't have enough information on those things, but I can't argue with people who are concerned about them for financial or health reasons.

I'm only arguing with the "invasion of privacy and sexual molestation" things because I don't think those are valid criticism.

[Peanut]

I'm not certain how someone could be comfortable having a stranger touch them anywhere near their private parts. I mean, it seems like keeping that area well protected (possibly too well protected) would be very natural, since it is the area that allows for reproduction, which is pretty important to the survival of a species.

I don't think anyone has denied this in this thread yet, though maybe I'm wrong since I've been scanning through posts instead of closely reading them.

Anyways, I think that, at least until the scanners have been properly tested for safety, I'm going to be against both of these policies. I understand that it's for safety, but this just goes too far to invade my privacy and my private property. (as is defined in the Locke/USA sense) Hopefully if there is enough of an uproar, we will get these things changed.

The safety thing is concerning and I haven't read anything yet that goes against it which I would consider reliable. I'm still not sure it's going to far though since I do think this will make it harder to sneak things through security (assuming everyone at security does their jobs of course). I'm willing to give up some privacy for that since I think the advantages outweigh the cons. But again, if anyone can think up a better solution I'd love to hear it and love to see it. Right now I'm not sure there is a better alternative out there, then again I haven't really looked.

[Cognitive Gear]

I'm willing to give up some privacy for that since I think the advantages outweigh the cons. But again, if anyone can think up a better solution I'd love to hear it and love to see it. Right now I'm not sure there is a better alternative out there, then again I haven't really looked.

Well, I think that this is a solution without a problem. Basically, the chances of dying from a terrorist attack are incredibly low, even counting the 9-11 attacks. I am definitely for saving as many lives as possible, but I don't know if these machines are really doing a whole lot of good. I think that we should be spending more money on intelligence and less on intrusive, easily foiled technology.

[Yamamaya]

Well, I think that this is a solution without a problem. Basically, the chances of dying from a terrorist attack are incredibly low, even counting the 9-11 attacks. I am definitely for saving as many lives as possible, but I don't know if these machines are really doing a whole lot of good. I think that we should be spending more money on intelligence and less on intrusive, easily foiled technology.

The threat of Terrorist attacks also seem a bit overrated. The best Al Queda seems to be able to do is radicalize a few Muslims and teach them how to stuff their underpants with explosives.

[Peanut]

Well, I think that this is a solution without a problem. Basically, the chances of dying from a terrorist attack are incredibly low, even counting the 9-11 attacks. I am definitely for saving as many lives as possible, but I don't know if these machines are really doing a whole lot of good. I think that we should be spending more money on intelligence and less on intrusive, easily foiled technology.

Well, I'm not sure that matters. For instance, you could say that the result of another terrorist attack would be more soldiers in the Middle East being killed and instantly justify installing more technology to prevent that. There are plenty of people who would still be affected and threatened by another terrorist attack who wouldn't even be near the attack or directly involved with it to begin with.

Again, I still haven't heard of a good method to tighten security besides things along the lines of what's being done and I don't think more training or money spent on intelligence will help either. Honestly, when your job is to stare at a screen for an extended period of time, I can see how you could miss things. The human element can render more intelligence and even technology like this moot. So, I think there are always going to be mistakes but I do think better technology can cover for them.

[Nate]

The threat of Terrorist attacks also seem a bit overrated. The best Al Queda seems to be able to do is radicalize a few Muslims and teach them how to stuff their underpants with explosives.

So the immediate thought when you think "terrorist" is Al Qaeda and Islam.

I'll try to avoid derailing the thread about that though. Even if it does make me angry.

[Radical Dreamer]

Let's keep away from that line of discussion, please.

[blkmage]

The assumption that you're making is that there's a net increase in security because of those scanners, which has yet to be demonstrated. Yes, they seem like they make things safer. And after that, there's also the assumption that the increase that in safety is worth the cost of implementing them as opposed to some other measure.

The onus should be on the agency to prove that there are no safety risks and that this is cost-effective and brings a net increase in security before implementing new measures, not after.

Security is not and should not be treated as a thing that should be exempt from proper cost analysis. It should not get a free pass because saving lives is worth every dollar for every little bit of security we can get. It's bound by the same rules of cost as everything else. If something isn't proven to be effective (yes, cost analyses can be done, don't tell me this stuff can't be measured), then passengers shouldn't be subjected to it, because that would be unreasonable.

I don't think what I'm saying is crazy or reactionary, but no one has addressed this issue of effectiveness, which is an issue that's raised in those probability calculations.

[Nate]

A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

EDIT: This isn't meant to be an argument to what you said, blkmage. I completely agree with that post. I just was reminded of that scene in Fight Club.

[Peanut]

The assumption that you're making is that there's a net increase in security because of those scanners, which has yet to be demonstrated. Yes, they seem like they make things safer. And after that, there's also the assumption that the increase that in safety is worth the cost of implementing them as opposed to some other measure.

The onus should be on the agency to prove that there are no safety risks and that this is cost-effective and brings a net increase in security before implementing new measures, not after.

Security is not and should not be treated as a thing that should be exempt from proper cost analysis. It should not get a free pass because saving lives is worth every dollar for every little bit of security we can get. It's bound by the same rules of cost as everything else. If something isn't proven to be effective (yes, cost analyses can be done, don't tell me this stuff can't be measured), then passengers shouldn't be subjected to it, because that would be unreasonable.

I don't think what I'm saying is crazy or reactionary, but no one has addressed this issue of effectiveness, which is an issue that's raised in those probability calculations.

I said new technology in my posts meaning any new technology, not just the scanners. I should of clarified a little more but that's what I meant. Though you do bring up a valid point...again...huh, I feel like I'm going in circles in this thread.

[blkmage]

Well, what I said applies to any new technology or security protocol or whatever.

[Mithrandir]

Hi everyone,

We've been a little nervous about this one, but it looks like things went OK. It looks like the discussion has more or less run its course, so we're going to lock it and sink it to reduce it as a potential troll magnet. Thanks for understanding and feel free to take additional discussion to PM.

- The CAA Staff