Security scan, or "sexual molestation"?

I am sure many, if not all of you, have heard about, or have experienced the "Full Body Scans" that are taking place in many airports across the states, and in other countries. Over the weekend there was one traveler that decided he did not want to take part in the scan, you can read it HERE

As someone who travels a lot for both work and personal enjoyment I deal with the TSA many times a year, ususally a few times a month. In my opinion, this guy was pretty much just looking fora "fight" for lack of a better word. I know he claims that he was trying to avoid the scan all together, but he still bought, or had his ticket bought for him, knowing he might have to go through it, or be patted down... and STILL showed up to the airport. To me, this is the kind of person that just causes more stress, and time wasted, not only for himself, but for other travelers.

So I ask you, is this full body scan really an invasion of privacy? Is a patdwon "molestation" as he puts it? Are you worried about someone who you will never see (the image viewer) and never run into again, seeing a less than perfect "nude" image of you? Would you not fly because of this?

SCAN SAMPLE :

I can understand both sides of the argument. Like you, I don't have a problem with it. But I suppose they can reassess it to see if it really does improve security. It is an invasion of privacy, but so is searching someone's carry-on or asking them what they packed.

I have no problem with it. I'm comfortable enough with my looks that it doesn't bother me. The solution if someone is really that against it is to just not fly.

Yeah I heard this on radio. I hope he wins his suit. I think it's ridiculous that they feel the need to grope you and I think it's even more ridiculous that they refused to let him leave.

Who cares? Are X-ray scans and CAT scans "sexual molestation"? No. So why would this be any different?

Who cares? Are X-ray scans and CAT scans "sexual molestation"? No. So why would this be any different?

redstorm72

I think it's a step to far really, patting people down and searching them with wands is fine, and I dont mind them going through my bags and such, but looking through people's clothing is to much. I wouldn't mind it because Im comfortable with my body, but I could see how other people would have a problem with this.

"Sexual Molestation"?....no...complete invasion of privacy...yes....can't say I'm thrilled about the idea of my wife going through it.....Omni-Slash

i think they get a female customs officers for females, but regardless, you shouldn't be thrilled

I don't care. It's still not as bad as a shrink grabbing my balls and then telling me to cough everytime I had my yearly physical.

Also, those pictures look too gross for anyone to be fantasizing about. If full body scans will speed up the line, I'm all for it.

I don't care. It's still not as bad as a shrink grabbing my balls and then telling me to cough everytime I had my yearly physical.

jun_aka_pekto

You need a new shrink, a physician is the only one that should be doing that.

"I repeated that I felt what they were doing was a sexual assault, and that if they were anyone but the government, the act would be illegal."

I honestly have to give it to him there. I have a hard time referring to it as sexual assault rather than just a completely inappropriate invasion of privacy, but for the most part I agree with the above statement that he wrote. I feel like it sums it all up.

I'm really conflicted on this sort of thing. On one hand I do think that air travel should be as safe and secure as possible. It could potentially be dangerous or abused if there aren't any safety measures being taken. However, I just have a hard time feeling comfortable with full body scans and such large-scale patdowns. It creeps me out. I mean, yeah, I'm incredibly self-conscious about my body, so on a personal level it makes me uncomfortable, but the entire concept also makes me uncomfortable. I just think it's a bit much. No, I don't have any better alternatives off the top of my head, but I still dislike it.

I suppose what one of the TSA guys said to the author of the blog summed it up as well. He said something about how you sign off your rights when you buy an airline ticket. Sad but true. You just have to know what you're getting into and decide from there if it's something you want to put put up with or not. It's pretty lame that the website wasn't up-to-date in this situation though. I think that's a vital piece of information that's being overlooked. The guy did all of his research and in the end the website was misleading and wasn't updated. That's not the fault of the author of the blog.

I think it is an invasion of privacy somewhat. But what really concerns me is that how can that not have an affect on the body? We've all heard of radiation, and they will probably find it a few years it caused problems for people. I wouldn't be that suprised if years from now they said "oops, our bad"

ive got nothing to hide so i dont have a problem with it

I'd rather the full body scan than other time consuming and less effective measures. Sure, they get to see your naked body, but to them it's just another nameless body, it's not like they care about what they see. I'm just happy to get on a plane knowing that it's not easy to get a bomb or weapon on board. Security is pretty much my only concern when flying so anything to put my mind at ease is good. That's not saying that I worry about security, just that it's the only thing that really crosses my mind as a realistic danger when I fly.cjek

*Shrugs*

I don't worry about that stuff in the first place. If someone wanted to kill the **** out of a whole lot of people, there's no reason for them to even go to the airport in the first place. They could just as easily go to places with NO security, like the city bus, a crowded movie theater, or a packed college lecture hall. By all sound reasoning, I should be more concerned about terrorism in the mall or at the supermarket than on an airplane.

the guy that wrote that blog needs to get over it. "if you touch my junk i'll have you arrested" seriously? they're just making the airports safer.

I honestly want someone to give me a pat-down so I can mess with the person doing it. Girl or guy I would just go with it and act like I was being turned on in a purely non-verbal way.

I don't care. It's still not as bad as a shrink grabbing my balls and then telling me to cough everytime I had my yearly physical.

jun_aka_pekto

The only thing that i wouldn't like about it is the fact that you are being forced to recieve a dose of radiation.

Edit: Meaning the only option besides getting patted down is belted with radiation...not exactly a fun choice there for some people. personally, i would go with the pat down, but only if it was by an attractive female.

Safety takes priorityghoklebutter

Let's get past all this and that and just realize that in our so called "free" country, there's no real freedom.

He knew the security procedure. He was out of line. Noone is forcing him to fly.Hemmaroids

He knew the security procedure. He was out of line. Noone is forcing him to fly.Hemmaroids

mostly-illusory sense of additional safety.xaos

[QUOTE="xaos"]mostly-illusory sense of additional safety.Gen_Warbuff

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Hemmaroids"]He knew the security procedure. He was out of line. Noone is forcing him to fly.Hemmaroids

They are doing their best to make your travel safe. Hemmaroids

At what cost? It's where you draw the line, and I personally believe the line has been drawn too far. I believe most pilots agree as well. There are perfectly efficient ways to make others' travel safe without this kind of indecent system.

For me, I consider the scans to meet the standard of "unreasonable search or seizure", so not to me, no. I am willing to put my life in statistically improbable jeopardy more than I am to permanently damage the fundamental freedoms of our country.xaos

Indeed. I'm a bit amazed at just how far the average person is willing to let Government agencies go in the name of airline safety, particularly to prevent an incident that is far less likely to occur than, say, the average plane crash.

[QUOTE="cjek"]I'd rather the full body scan than other time consuming and less effective measures. Sure, they get to see your naked body, but to them it's just another nameless body, it's not like they care about what they see. I'm just happy to get on a plane knowing that it's not easy to get a bomb or weapon on board. Security is pretty much my only concern when flying so anything to put my mind at ease is good. That's not saying that I worry about security, just that it's the only thing that really crosses my mind as a realistic danger when I fly.MrGeezer

*Shrugs*

I don't worry about that stuff in the first place. If someone wanted to kill the **** out of a whole lot of people, there's no reason for them to even go to the airport in the first place. They could just as easily go to places with NO security, like the city bus, a crowded movie theater, or a packed college lecture hall. By all sound reasoning, I should be more concerned about terrorism in the mall or at the supermarket than on an airplane.

[QUOTE="xaos"]For me, I consider the scans to meet the standard of "unreasonable search or seizure", so not to me, no. I am willing to put my life in statistically improbable jeopardy more than I am to permanently damage the fundamental freedoms of our country.m0zart

Indeed. I'm a bit amazed at just how far the average person is willing to let Government agencies go in the name of airline safety, particularly to prevent an incident that is far less likely to occur than, say, the average plane crash.

I'd be fine with it..

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="cjek"]I'd rather the full body scan than other time consuming and less effective measures. Sure, they get to see your naked body, but to them it's just another nameless body, it's not like they care about what they see. I'm just happy to get on a plane knowing that it's not easy to get a bomb or weapon on board. Security is pretty much my only concern when flying so anything to put my mind at ease is good. That's not saying that I worry about security, just that it's the only thing that really crosses my mind as a realistic danger when I fly.cjek

*Shrugs*

I don't worry about that stuff in the first place. If someone wanted to kill the **** out of a whole lot of people, there's no reason for them to even go to the airport in the first place. They could just as easily go to places with NO security, like the city bus, a crowded movie theater, or a packed college lecture hall. By all sound reasoning, I should be more concerned about terrorism in the mall or at the supermarket than on an airplane.

I disagree. Terrorist attacks on airplanes are confined to airplanes. People think it's a flight-related thing, and therefore feel safe as long as they aren't flying. Movie terrorist attacks away from the airport and into malls and schools would mean that in the mind of the public, they aren't safe ANYWHERE.

This ia a big concern for anybody who flies. Having pics taken of you thru your clothes or having some stange same sex touching of your genitals just to get on a plane is too much. I don't think he overreacted he stood up for what he thought was right. Why should you have nude photos or some stranger feel you up just to get on a plane ??

They don't do it to everybody so why only a few people ?

I've never actually flown, but I've heard that since the Semptember 11 attacks, they've reinforced the cockpit doors so a terrorist can't get into the cockpit. Barring that they can't really use the plane as a weapon, so the only thing they can do is maybe damage the plane with there explosives. Even if the plane goes down and kills everyone, if you're not flying into a building or something then the attack is no more effective than would be a much much easier attack on say a movie theater or any other crowded place. So it's kind of pointless to have these ridiculous extra precautions just for planes, when people could attack anywhere. I suppose in a city airport even if you can't aim where the plane crashes it's gonna hit a bunch of other stuff, but I would think the types of explosives you can get on a plane are small enough that if the plane is going down it's going down slowly, and the pilot would be able to minimize damage if he's still got hits wits about him. I don't know, like I said I've never flown so I don't give a whole lot of thought to these things.