Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Opting-out of Advanced Imaging Technology and the Pat-down Doesn’t Fly

TSO in AIT Resolution Room
A recent incident in San Diego where a passenger opted out of Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) and also refused a pat-down has been raising some questions, so I wanted to help clarify a few things with this blog post.

AIT is optional for everybody. However, if you decide to opt-out of AIT screening, you must undergo alternative screening, which will include a pat-down. As I’ve said before, there is nothing punitive about it- it just makes good security sense. Obviously a passenger can’t completely opt out of all screening if they opt out of AIT. That would not make good security sense. AIT is deployed to help us find non-metallic threats, so if you’re selected for AIT and choose to opt-out, we still need to check you for non-metallic threats. That’s why a pat-down is required. If you refuse both, you can’t fly. It is important that all screening procedures are completed.  This ensures that terrorists do not have an opportunity to probe TSA’s procedures by electing not to fly just as TSA’s screening procedures are on the verge of detecting that the passenger is a terrorist. Also, it’s important to remember that TSA screens nearly 2 million passengers daily and that very few passengers are required to receive a pat-down.

Some have asked why we just don’t use the handwand. Good question. Threats can be both metallic and non-metallic. Pat-downs, like AIT, allow us to screen for nonmetallic threats that handwands would not find.

And finally, the $10,000.00 question of the day… Will you receive a $10,000.00 fine if you opt out of screening all together and leave the checkpoint? While TSA has the legal authority to levy a civil penalty of up to $11,000.00 for cases such as this, each case is determined on the individual circumstances of the situation. 

Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team

515 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 515   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Bob, I've heard that the pat downs involve searching private areas of a person's body. While I know you cannot elaborate on specific procedures, is it reasonable to expect that a person not be penalized if they say they do not feel comfortable with such, without specifically opting out altogether?

Anonymous said...

I don't get it, wouldn't accepting the pat-down yield a person with more information on how to defeat said pat-down than avoiding it? Terrorists or whomever you're afraid of can do as many dry runs as they want to glean information.

Also if you are relying on people not knowing your methods as a way to have strong security measures, well, you're doing it wrong. Security through obscurity is not a viable strategy.

I also don't think you'll win much public favor for charging someone $11k for walking past a stanchion and deciding they don't want A) to be seen naked or B) to have their stuff fondled. Just my opinion though.

Anonymous said...

The molesting and groping is not being carried out for security. If it were, the agents would be carrying out this highly risky action in bombproof gear in a place away from the nearby public, who would be in great danger themselves.

So, if you need to feel that nun's breasts and vagina because she might be wearing an explosive device (and we all know how dangerous nuns can be), you need to show us you at least are fearful by wearing a bombproof suit, and enclose the dangerous sister in a bombproof room. Otherwise you're just faking all of this "security".

Finally, with your track record of stopping a long list of zero terrorists using these measures, perhaps some common sense could be brought in.

I know you won't allow this comment because it brings up real points and you'd like to avoid reality (which is that people hate being sexually touched by strangers - ewwwww!) Just stop it!!

Abednego said...

There are allegations of censorship of comments to this blog post. When you inevitably delete this post, please provide the section of your Terms of Service that I have violated by attempting to post it.

If this post does appear on your page, I will offer my apologies for believing rumours.

Thank you.

Horrified American said...

So, now you are threatening people with a $10,000 fine if they refuse to be seen naked or have their private parts groped.

Next stop after this comment will be the web sites of my senators and representatives so that I might contact them and express my absolute disgust with the TSA's behavior.

We are Americans and our rights to privacy and protections from unreasonable search and seizure absolutely trump your ridiculous procedures and inept, undereducated staff's desire to torment and abuse people that simply desire to travel.

Andy said...

So if a person opts out of AIT, and receives the patdown, they must be physically molested before being allowed to leave? Or they face a $10,000 fine for not submitting to proper screening procedure? So either the TSA violates the 4th amendment with imaging, or sexually assaults passengers with their hands.

Anonymous said...

TSA can grab my junk any day.

nash said...

Great so you can fine people up to 11k without well defined rules around what I might do to cause this fine. Seems like that is just used to blackmail people into compliance.

Anonymous said...

Go on Bob, you can’t leave it there, what circumstances? Why the penalty, what will cause a penalty to be sought and what will not? I for one -call it my ignorance if you like - have never heard of this before. Can you provide a link so that we can read up about it?

Anonymous said...

First Post!

Anonymous said...

And you don't think the $10k+ fine isn't coercive, and that none of this is just a bit ludicrous. Do you know what groupthink is?

Without casting against anyone's motivations, or intent in this situation because to do so would be unfair & inaccurate, I still think this is way overboard.

The TSA may not want to assume any risk in travel, but if I have to choose between someone fondling my junk and additional risk of the plane being blown out of the sky, I'll choose a bit more risk of the plane being blown up every single time.

Instead of saying 'if you don't want to be screened don't fly' why not say 'if you're not willing to assume some reasonable risk don't fly'. Since the former ends up being a theatric circus, and the latter ends up being honest reality, well it might be that the flying public is willing to assume some risk based on the realities.

One of the plagues of LEO's and government, and this is also true of the TSA as well, is that frequently there is never enough. There is never enough security, never enough prevention, but hewing to that operational ideal is a bad practice. It's not good because it turns in to there never being another line of privacy, dignity, or rights that it's just ripe to try to take away from someone. All for the best interests of everyone of course, but that's so much crap because the result is a slope where people never gain any new rights for sure, they only ever loose them. All that ever results in the long run is less freedom for people. It's not kept safe when you take peoples rights, you're just engaging in well sounding taking.

Quite simply if you have to touch my nads, you're failing at your job. Your job is to try to keep me and everyone else safe without needing to strip search everyone, or alternately fondle and fine them.

You can run whatever festering odious policies out that you think you can stuff down people's throats, but please, don't try to claim this is not coercive as all hell when you're fining people $10k a pop just to start with. When you make claims like that, you appear to be lying to any otherwise rational observer.

Aaron said...

Wow, really? Zero comments on this controversial post? I have my doubts...

Anonymous said...

I love the TSA and think that having my privates touched is a sure-fire way to prevent terrorism.

Dan said...

Why are people so mad? You guys do a great job, keep it up!!
Dan

Anonymous said...

I wrote a message that said "I love the TSA" but it is not showing up and I don't understand why. It does not fall under the restraints that your website has outlined for commentary? I'm definitely going to keep track of your site to understand why.

Anonymous said...

Why is my CAPTCHA text "anger"? That seems odd.
I love the TSA anyway.

Anonymous said...

Enough is enough. You should not need details of my body anatomy in order to let me fly.

Anonymous said...

Please delete this comment

Anonymous said...

I acknowledge there is some logic to the idea that allowing people to quit screening halfway through might allow extremists to probe for weaknesses in security.

However, there is still a problem. We have heard Administrator Pistole say he wants TSA to move to a more intelligence based system. If someone opts out of both AIT and enhanced pat downs, that provides the perfect oppurtunity to practice good intelligence! You have the person on video. You have the name and ID info they used. You have all the elements needed to investigate this person, or at least alert other airports to be on the look out for him and see if he tries again. If this person (or an associate) tries the same thing, a red flag could go off in a database at HQ. Too easy, and doesn't violate civil rights.

The alternative is that you force the person to go through pat down, and there is what...a 5, 10, or 15% chance the dangerous item is missed anyway? Not great odds. Or, if not a bad guy, you have another PO'd but innocent citizen. Not good PR.

Wake up TSA!

Will said...

While I agree with screening, I don't agree with the rapid deployment of these devices without a full, independent, evaluation of the health risks involved. The concern letter written by the scientists at UCSF has still not been fully addressed and some of the statements by the Secretary of DHS do not jive. A statement was just released by John Hopkins, saying they just measured the radiation levels, others analyzed the results.

We're conducting a mass experiment with millions of lives here and the government has not done its due diligence in allowing the scientific community to assess what health impacts there will be. There needs to be independent study that can stand up to scientific scrutiny, not just because the DHS and TSA "Say So."

I travel through airports 3 to 4 times a week, not once a year so I'm almost in the same boat as pilots but not quite. What's my risk of exposure? I've also had skin cancer, what's my risks of getting more cancer because of these machines? Anyone?
until these are answered I won't go through the machines .

There's also the privacy concerns. Sorry, there are and recently a TSA agent has been charged with assault because of a childish incident. There goes TSA professionalism right out the window. What we have is a bunch of folks, some professional, others not so much and we're expected to just agree that we should have our privacy rights trampled on. Sorry, fix your professionalism issues too. Any TSA officer making fun of found to be violating the rules around this should be fired on the spot.

Anonymous said...

I would like to say as a tsa tso officer ,I hear all these stories on the tv . why doesnt someone fron tsa other then the top 2 come out and get the workers side of the story. as the the shoe bomber and the christmas day bomber all the experts blame tsa for not catching them. well folks for your information those to bombers started thier flight outside the u.s.a. the tsa does not screen folks in other countries, and the a.i.t machines would have caught the xmas day bomber. So all those stories on tv are one-sided and not telling the who;e truth


bob s
tso mht 8 years

Heather said...

I for one will not be flying as long as you are forcing people to do full body scans. I have also never had anyone other than my husband and my OBGYN touch my private areas and I am not about to let the TSA do it in the name of "security." I am not on a terror watch list and am a law abiding citizen and it is wrong to treat people that way.

Anonymous said...

You guys are clowns...just more security theater. Your agency is government welfare for morons that can't get private sector jobs.

Anonymous said...

This is still not clear enough to me. What if you opt out of AIT, consent to a pat down, but DO NOT consent to sexual assault? I.e., you can pat me down, but don't touch me in places that, if I touched a stranger in a bar the same way, would get me beaten up or jailed. It's clearly unreasonable to threaten $10,000+ fines when it is never clearly stated what you are asking passengers to consent to. I am willing to endure a pat down, but not sexual assault, and this needs to be clear to me before I fly. If the policy is clearly stated somewhere I would appreciate a link, as I have yet to find it.

Dead Dog Bounce said...

Can you explain why refusing to be patted down implies liability for a fine of $11k?

And can you explain what the due process for appeal of this kind of fine would be?

Anonymous said...

Look, if you want to waste taxpayer dollars with security theatre, go ahead. But it stops when you force me to choose being viewed naked or being groped by the TSA.

Brian said...

Last time I flew, my daughter and I used one of those machines; the stepped up security was HORRIBLE; now that I heard the story on how John Tyner was treated I am ANGRY about this situation and I feel exactly as he does. 1: Neither myself or my daughter will go anywhere NEAR those cancer causing machines again - and 2: I will not permit anyone to touch my daughter's private parts in any capacity (front or back of hand - un excusable).

This Extreme pat down system needs to be immediately revoked!

Anonymous said...

Hmm, I don't know what you guys call this, but I call this bulls@#@

Anonymous said...

TSA has gone too far. The cancer causing machines and molestation must stop.

Iheartjohnson said...

First Post! I <3 the TSA!

Anonymous said...

I've observed on a recent video that you posted on this site that individuals that pass through the AIT are still undergoing a pat-down after exiting the AIT. If I choose to go through the AIT to avoid having a complete stranger "touching" me in a manner that is offensive to me, it does not then permit the TSA agent the right to pat me down after passing throught the AIT. The TSA has done a very poor job informing the public ahead of time about the manner in how these new types of aggressive pat-downs will be performed, and, therefore, I have great anxiety about traveling this holiday season. Unfortunately, the airlines will not allow me to receive a refund on tickets I purchased months ago, so I may potentially be forced to undergo physical searches that are very invasive and an invasion of personal privacy. This will be the last holiday season that I will travel by airline.

Anonymous said...

The right to travel, to go from place to place as the means of transportation permit,
is a natural right subject to the rights of others and to reasonable regulation under law.
A restraint imposed by the Government of the United States upon this liberty, therefore,
must conform with the provision of the Fifth Amendment that "No person shall be deprived of
liberty without due process of law".

Shactman v.Dulles, US Court of Appeals District of Columbia, June 23, 1955

Anonymous said...

Yet there seems not to be a policy on children regarding all of this...I will be traveling with my 17 month old infant in arms (yes he will be in my arms) and my special needs 3 year old who cannot be let go of (will run off), cannot stand still for 5 sec (if you can figure it out for the AIT I want to know how you did it because it would save my life daily) and cannot be touched. That video making the round of the screaming 3 year old could potentially be harmless compared to my child who becomes violent quickly if she feels out of control. As a parent I work very hard to prepare my children for security to avoid melt downs but I don't know how I could tell my child that a strange person is going to talk to her briskly and then start touching her in inappropriate places. I also don't want to be touched in places that only my husband has ever touched me just because I am traveling with an infant and cannot take the position for the AIT...I also will not put my baby down in order to be searched because the potential of him running off is high...he is only 17 months old. What is the policy for this? Are we all going to be touched inappropriately just to fly to grandma's house for the holiday? Do we need to cancel our plane tickets in order to protect ourselves and our children from a potentially painful, fear inducing situation? Please I have searched everywhere for how this type of situation is going to be solved without getting touched in an embarrassing, demeaning manner to get on a plane with 2 very small children. Right now it seems like my only choice because I have a baby is to get the "enhanced" pat down and that scares me.
-A very concerned Mama

Anonymous said...

Whats a non metallic threat?

Anonymous said...

As happened during the incident in San Diego, people will continue to complain that their rights are being violated. Unfortunately, terrorists have targeted our aviation industry. I'm sure that if another incident were to occur, TSA would be blamed that they're ineffective and not doing enough. Either way, one suggestion... TSA should add large signs before passengers enter the security area that explains that once a passenger enters, they will be screened using methods that include AIT, metal detection, pat downs, etc. If a passenger refuses to proceed with screening, he or she may be prosecuted. Though this blog does a great job informing people of security processes, I have to think a very small percent of passengers are fully aware of their rights and what it means to refuse screening.

Anonymous said...

Can you explain why the "TSA has the legal authority to levy a civil penalty of up to $11,000.00"?

Anonymous said...

Interesting that the TSA agents were unaware of this policy as well. Hopefully they are required to read this in addition to learning how to stack gray trays.

Anonymous said...

Hey, fun fact here:

The TSA has never caught a single "terrorist"

"The GAO uncovered at least 16 individuals later accused of involvement in terrorist plots flew 23 different times through U.S. airports since 2004. Yet none were stopped by TSA behavior detection officers working at those airports. "

"About 3,000 of these officers work at 161 U.S. airports -- costing taxpayers nearly $200 million in 2009. This year, the TSA asked Congress for $20 million more to expand the program. "

Your tax dollars at work...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/19/eveningnews/main6500349.shtml

Anonymous said...

I was hoping to take my children to Disney world in Orlando, Florida.

Is it possible to fly to Orlando, Florida without my children's rights being removed or being sexually molested?

As a foreigner I don't feel alright submitting my children to a process that involves their genitals being inspected by men without any medical interest.

Where I live we respect human rights and this would be considered sexual assault of a minor.

What options are available to those who are not at ease with being raped?

Anonymous said...

so there's the choice of being photographed in the nude, having my penis and scrotum touched by another man, or risking a fine of up to $11,000. i'd rather not fly at all. TSA, you've done a terrible thing here. i am less free then i was before 9/11. you have let the terrorists win. i hope you'll at least read this before you delete my comment.

Anonymous said...

"If you refuse both, you can’t fly. It is important that all screening procedures are completed."

What does this mean? We have to let you do the invasive scans or pat downs no matter what? Whether we choose to fly or not, we have to let you expose us or molest us? Or will you decided for us that we cannot fly even after invading our privacy?

Jake Sherlock said...

Here's a question for you, Blogger Bob:

What kind of background screenings are conducted when hiring TSA employees? My fear is that if one of my kids is selected for screening, which I will opt out of (in my view, it's a strip search, and I don't want my children subject to that), they could potentially be touched by someone with a background in child molestation. As a parent, I hardly relish the idea of my kids being touched by anyone other than their doctor -- and I certainly don't want my kids touched by some sick pervert.

So, Blogger Bob, what does TSA do to ensure it's not hiring child molesters? I look forward to your response.

Anonymous said...

I don't have a problem being patted down if I refuse AIT. I do have a problem being molested.

My girlfriend was sexually assaulted and groped about a year ago. Do you expect her to either submit to her naked body image being transmitted when it's demonstrated that TSA is capable of saving images? Or would you prefer that she were groped (or asked to remove her skirt if it's too tight, per your protocol)?

Guess sexual assault victims just shouldn't fly if they can't handle the false choice between being seen naked or groped WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE.

We have the Constitution for a reason. Nothing about buying a ticket contradicts the Constitution.

Tom said...

When someone views or touches your intimate areas without permission, this is called sexual assault.

Sexual assault should not be a prerequisite for air travel.

This is a horrifying and humiliating practice, and the TSA has displayed a shocking degree of callousness and insensitivity to the traveling public in dismissing these concerns.

This "blog" is nothing more than government propaganda. Its only purpose is to coerce consent to these procedures.

Please don't use any more of my tax dollars to tell my why I shouldn't mind being sexually assaulted at the airport.

Patrick (BOS TSO) said...

Thumbs up, Bob.

Rispekt my authoriti! said...

Nonsense to the point of being a lie. The selection for the kid-porn machine is completely random (at least in the airport I was at. You stand on a mat and a light directs you to the standard screening or the kiddie-porn machine.)

Bob, you are basically saying that a persons threat-level changes because they were told to stand in line a vs line b. Having that person go through line b does NOT change the risk profile.

The TSA is once again either disingenuous or incompetent, doesn't matter which because both should be completely unacceptable.

B. O. said...

If this is the case, then why are there so many anecdotes of passengers being intimidated during the alternative pat-down? If it is an equal and viable option, why is there not better education on this point?

Anonymous said...

So, in other words, I have the choice between being assaulted or being bombarded by radiation, which as a cancer patient my doctor has said could cause me permanent harm? How is this violation of the fourth amendment even allowed?

Andy Greenberg said...

Seems strange...why no comments on this post after hundreds on the prior posts?

Waiel said...

We all agree with airport security measures. What about bomb sniffing dogs? They're probably a lot cheaper than the new intrusive systems being put in place and if the bomb sniffing trained dog gets suspicious, then you'd be subject to the intrusive pat down.

Anonymous said...

what is the legislation that invokes this $10,000 fine. Where can one find more information on it.

Anonymous said...

We all agree with airport security measures. What about bomb sniffing dogs? They're probably a lot cheaper than the new intrusive systems being put in place and if the bomb sniffing trained dog gets suspicious, then you'd be subject to the intrusive pat down.

Anonymous said...

You guys are horrible. Worst company in the United States. Monsato can sleep at peace tonight knowing that you guys are doing an even worse job of helping the United States. This post shouldn't be deleted, as I've read the rules for post deletions...

Anonymous said...

what legislation dictates the $10,000 fine? Where can we, the public find out what laws are being broken when we opt out of screening, and choose to leave the airport?

maxemmanana said...

People, this is such a no brainer.

Want to fly?
Get an anonymous, non-invasive scan.
Sit down in your seat.
Get to destination.

That is all.

BTW, its not as though you are doing this everyday.

Kevin Johnson said...

Hello,

Would it be possible to get a reference for the "legal right" to impose a fine? I have looked and not found such an ability outlined in the laws around the TSA?

Thanks
Kevin

Anonymous said...

Can you make it easier for passengers to know whether or not they'll be subjected to these procedures *before* they get on a plane?

Anonymous said...

I have a very serious question. How many terrorists has the TSA uncovered? You failed to capture Faisal Shahzad (Times Square Bomber), so what good is this agency at other than spending hard earned taxpayer money?

Anonymous said...

Can you link to what exactly the fine is levied for?

Anonymous said...

You seriously have 0 comments?

Anonymous said...

Can you hit 4,000 deleted comments? I'm not sure.

Anonymous said...

Will you please clarify what the statute or rule is that allows the TSA to levy fines in "cases such as this?"

Evidently, the TSA is saying that once you go near the security lines, you are required to enter the highly invasive advanced imaging units, be groped by TSA personnel, or have to pay as much as $11,000. Why do I not have the freedom to leave?

I would like to see you answer this post without removing the descriptions of the imaging units or groping. If you want to take issue with those descriptions, at least please provide a detailed analysis of the front-of-hand, back-of-hand, groin-touching procedure and how that does not amount to groping.

Thanks for your help!

Anonymous said...

Are travelers permitted to make video recordings of their pat-down search? What are the written guideless of what the screener is or is not allowed to touch? Is the TSA planning to post signs outside of security checkpoints stating that once they enter their choices are to have someone look though their clothing, grope them, or possibly be fined up to $11,000? And require airlines to make a similar disclosure before you can purchase tickets?

Anonymous said...

I can see the motivation behind a pat-down over the handwand, but what is the justification for the 'enhanced pat down' which is getting discussed so much. is it true that my daughter will have her genitals touched (through clothes) by a stranger?

what was wrong with the previous back-of-hand pat down?

Anonymous said...

This is about several issues:
1) the technology has not proven safe
2) the images are an invasive search
3) the Pat Down is designed to make you so unhappy that you will ignore points 1 and 2.

The security experience is horrific. People are barking at you, the rules change from airport to airport, the process is humiliating.

So I have to take a tissue out of my pocket, but men can fly wearing neckties? Women can fly with sanitary napkins? Are those less dangerous than a receipt?

I have to fly for work and the way things are now, I'm going to avoid flying AT ALL COSTS. I sure as hell won't let my wife and young son be subjected to this

Tiffani said...

Zero comments says it all, censored. This is the equivalent of a strip search. How TSA continues to spin the stories on safety, public opinion, reports on incidents, etc. is a testament to how this shady organization operates. I refuse to go through an AIT machine and will refuse any invasive "pat-down". This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people and until we put a stop to the erosion of our freedom, they won't stop.

Lampy said...

How does a TerraHertz scanner or enhanced pat down protect against items hidden in a persons body cavities? Seems to me that these procedures miss the very type of people that would do anything to cause harm and fear.

Anonymous said...

The $10,000 fine looks like a loophole allowing the TSA to get away with unlawful imprisonment. You told Mr. Tyner that he was free to go; but that if he left he'd be fined an outrageous sum of money. How are you not detaining people illegally and unconstitutionally? Who approves these decisions?

Anonymous said...

How would a pat down or image scanner have exposed the Christmas Day bomber?

Why don't you check EVERY piece of luggage that is checked?

Why don't you profile people that look like 95% of terrorists you see everyday around the world blowing up people? (Middle eastern young men)

When was the last time a woman or child blew up an american airplane?

If you use the imaging scanner (you know the one that shows us all naked) then why do we still have to take off our shoes, belts, etc.? Can't that see everything?

I'm sure you won't post these questions because they expose you for what you are at best - illogical and stupid. At worst, government thugs stealing our liberty and freedoms.

MC said...

What are the guidelines for enhanced pat down procedures for children? They are not posted on tsa.gov.

Anonymous said...

Do non-metallic items include the armadillo in my trousers?

Anonymous said...

You can fine someone who objects to being touched or x-rayed!? I guess that fellow really WAS threatened with a $10k fine simply for wanting to retain his dignity.

What the hell is wrong with this country? Why the hell would anyone think this is the proper way to treat his fellow Americans?

Anonymous said...

Bob, this isn't clarifying... this is just simple propaganda. We all know your position, it's just that we'd rather not be sexually assaulted by our government.

Anonymous said...

The thing is, Tyner was still open to going through the metal detectors, as he mentioned repeatedly. This is the same process most people were going through. But, he was not given the choice to go through that security device. He was given two options he disagreed with. You make it sound as though he did not want to be screened whatsoever, but that's clearly not the case.

Anonymous said...

What crap this is. You wonder why people don't trust the TSA? In the San Diego incident, the traveler was TOLD by the TSA he would not be flying and would have to leave. Then OTHERS tell him he can be fined if he leaves?

Why don't you just quit with this farce of a blog? TSA is trying to cover their rears at every point. I am watching Pistole in a hearing in DC as I write this. He says that children under 12 don't get the "enhanced pat down". We've seen the videos of three-year-olds getting it! You think we will trust you when you say "those machines don't store, send, or print the naked scans". I'll answer it for you: NO.

And finally, he reports that the radiation exposure is "within acceptable levels", which is double-speak that means "we don't know the long-term effects, especially on children".

This will go down. Just a matter of when.

Anonymous said...

Why are non-commerical flights not included in security measures? Doesn't someone on a private plane with bad intent pose a risk to the public as well? If pilots on commerical flights need to be screened why doesn't everyone on a non-commerical plane need screening just as well?

Anonymous said...

My question is this - with so many people claiming that when they refused to go thru a scanner they were subjected to a groping "pat-down" why can't other less offensive measures be sought? We have drug sniffing dogs, bomb sniffing dogs, there has to be something else to choose from! (Not to mention - dogs have to be cheaper than scanners!!) We are not "fighting terrorism" we are terrorizing ourselves with these types of prevention techniques. Our choices shouldn't be unsecured naked pictures and potential radiation OR assault-like, embarassing searches/pat-downs.

Anonymous said...

Imaging doesn't make good security sense. All it does is create a bottleneck of people, which seems like a better target than any airplane ever was. I would argue that the TSA is not providing any enhanced security. How many terrorists have you caught? Zero. Stop eroding our civil liberties and pretending like you're doing us a favor.

Anonymous said...

I should not have to surrender my dignity to travel by air in our country. Something has gone terribly wrong when we are expected to choose between having our naked body viewed by a federal security employee or submitting to an open-hand pat-down procedure that includes manual contact with breasts and genitalia – nothing less than our old concept of sexual assault.
We lost the war on terror the day that the AIT full body graphic imaging devise began operations, in our very own home town airport. Yes we lost – we gave up the fight and traded our dignity and commitment to not let terror cower us as a people. It is bad enough that terrorism won but even more troubling is the long term effect the DHS and TSA’s invasive procedures will have on our national character. Security concerns mandate that we are no longer the home of the free and the brave but now the home to the fearful and cowered masses. All that is necessary for our security is to trade our dignity and humanity for what is at best only an illusion of security? I know that for some it is worth the trade, but not for me.
Where did my America go? The America I grew up in, the America I served and fought for? It doesn’t sit well with me that we have less lost than given up to terror. I do not like the thought that the DHS and TSA thrive on the tyranny of fear mongering. But most of all, I do not like the thought of being disloyal to the sacrifices of those who have come before and those who will come after by so easily accepting the counsel of our very worst fears.

Steve T said...

So let's assume a casual flier (someone who flies infrequently) arrives at the airport and is selected for AIT screening. She knows a little about the device and doesn't feel comfortable with passing through it and decides to opt out, which means a pat-down is required.

According to the TSA website, "this inspection may include sensitive areas of the body" (http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1049.shtm). After the TSA agent describes the process to the flier, she also objects to having her "sensitive areas" felt by another person. So, she can't pass through security because she objects to the only two screening options provided, and she can't leave security without risking "a civil penalty of up to $11,000."

You state "AIT is optional for everyone," but if the alternative is having a stranger touch you in places that we've been taught from childhood strangers should not touch, it doesn't sound overly optional to me. The fact that you believe it is "good security sense" doesn't make it right.

You also state "if you refuse both, you can't fly," and then casually add a comment about the civil fine at the end of your post. Lay out all of the consequences at once. It should read "if you refuse both, you can't fly and we have the authority to levy a civil penalty of up to $11,000."

No one wants to let a terrorist get on a plane, but at the same time, I would venture to guess that very few people would want their parents or grandparents to have their "sensitive areas" inspected just so they could hop on a plane. That may not be "good security sense," but it is common human decency.

Anonymous said...

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Benjamin Franklin. These words were true more than 200 years ago and are even truer today.

Since 2001, we have gradually given up our dignity, our freedom and our rights in the name of "security". I am all for reasonable security efforts, but not at the price of my rights or dignity.

Enough is enough. Neither I, nor my family will choose to travel by air until this madness stops, and if I must fly, I plan to "opt out" of the TSA's "porno scanners" and go through the aggressive "pat down" (others call it fondling or sexual assault).

If enough Americans do this and opt out, the entire security system will be so snarled and backlogged that the President and Congress will be forced to do something. Hopefully, their first action will be to dismiss Ms. Napolitano.

No Ms. Napolitano, you do not have my cooperation, my patience or commitment to help you and the TSA take away any more of my rights. I "opt out".

John Cheroot said...

this is an invasion of privacy and nothing more than TSA trying to make themselves relevant and prove their worth to the taxpayers that pay their salaries.

Anonymous said...

How is it that in the image of this post you have a man looking at picture of what appears to be a women on the screen? I thought that there is a clear rule that people who are looking at these images have to be of the same gender?

Rock said...

Per the Cub Scout Tiger Cub Handbook,

"It’s your body and you have the right to say no to anyone who tries to touch you in places covered by your swimming suit or to do things that you think are wrong."

Please post what I should say to my child when he throws this in my face, after years of me telling it to him. I just want to know TSA's official position.

ron payne II said...

nothing punitive? I tell my daughter that noone and I mean noone touches her except for her doctor and now anyone who is with the tsa- really? You have crossed the line with these invasive, jack booted searches. I assure you I will no longer fly if at all possible- you are hurting the industry and trampling on freedom and privacy in the name of safety. Truly you people who think you are holier than thou and know better than the majority of american people who oppose this have control issues and lack even a modicum of common sense and decency. you have our best interest in mind only when it gives more control to the government.

Anonymous said...

How is the pat down NOT a violation of the Fourth Amendment? The Police can't frisk you on the street; but TSA can just because you bought an airline ticket?

Anonymous said...

This does not make good security sense at all...that is such a weak argument...patting down my 2 year old or an 80 year old does not keep us safe

Anonymous said...

So TSA gloved hands can tell the difference between real junk and prosthetic junk? Rectal contraband?

Anonymous said...

I'm just wondering why this appraoch is betetr and more secure than the approach used by the Israeli's.

Also to see if this comment makes it on the blog, as it is both relevant, and does not contain profanity.

Anonymous said...

One problem is that as El-Al points out a person can alter a credit card to be at least as sharp as a box cutter. Unfortunately, a box cutter is all it took on 9/11. No current security procedures will be effective against that. El-Al does better and we can too.

Unfortunately even with the new procedures it is not difficult to get "unallowed" items past security. Either with a scanner and/or pat down, it is easy to do so and only requires a little ingenuity. I know people the frequently do.

So checking people at the point of the gates does not provide true safety for passengers or the public with the current procedures. We need to improve and do better, instead of improving TSA efforts to force ineffective procedures on Americans that compromise our liberty and resign to a big Kabuki dance that subjects children to routine assaults and to other passengers being treated like criminals.


In a May 2010 letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Rep. Mica noted that the GAO "discovered that since the program's inception, at least 17 known terrorists ... have flown on 24 different occasions, passing through security at eight SPOT airports." One of those known terrorists was Faisal Shahzad, who made it past SPOT monitors onto a Dubai-bound plane at New York's JFK International Airport not long after trying to set off a car bomb in Times Square. Federal agents nabbed him just before departure.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Amid-airport-anger_-GOP-takes-aim-at-screening-1576602-108259869.html#ixzz15YcFmkHv

Lapsed Pastafarian said...

Interesting, according to the head of TSA, Pistole, choosing not to go through the screening at all is a right and the passenger will not be allowed on the plane. But he also said that fining someone for choosing not to do either screening and leave the airport makes no sense and the investigation against Tyner will not go anywhere. He also said refusing the screening in order to smuggle something on the plane is where the $11000 fine kicks in.

Anonymous said...

Bob,

Your agency comes out looking like bullies by persecuting this man for simply following the directions he was given by TSA's own personnel. You need to wise up to the fact that the portrayal of TSA policy on this blog and what goes on at airports are often two very, very different things.

I'll be opting out of my naked body scan when I fly next week, and will be voice recording my entire interaction with TSA personnel while going through your checkpoints to make sure I don't become the next victim.

Bryan said...

This blog, in all of its arrogance, epitomizes what is direly wrong with TSA! John Tyner was told that once he purchases airline tickets he forfeited his rights. What a crock! So we forfeit our rights because TSA says so? TSA has far exceeded the authority entrusted to it by Congress and the people of this nation need to DEMAND the immediate dismantling of this federal behometh. So, what you are saying "Bob", is that TSA has the statutory authority, to mandate any private citizen to undergo these invasive patdowns or naked body scanning, without cause or warrant, whether they choose to fly or not? So we can no longer simply decide not to fly rather than go through these humiliating procedures? Now - TSA is saying, you will submit or you will pay dearly? Americans are beginning to be outraged TSA and there is power in numbers. You guys have crossed a serious line and I feel confident that Americans will NOT tolerate this.

Anonymous said...

It seems hard to believe you've received 0 comments on this post, or that every single comment violates your TOS.

You call this transparency?

Barry said...

I was flying from Memphis to Phoenix - Saturday November 13th 2:30pm on US Airways Flight 2827.
When going through Security I read the disclaimer sign that if I refused to be subjected to the Backscatter screening, I would be subjected to a full pat down. I did not have a problem going through the Backscatter screening having been through it before, yet after I went through it, I was still subjected to a full body pat down -

WHY?

Anonymous said...

>there is nothing punitive about it

We do not believe you.

gdw said...

"just as TSA’s screening procedures are on the verge of detecting that the passenger is a terrorist."

And just how many "terrorists" has the TSA "detected?"

Philip G. said...

Some have asked why we just don’t use the handwand. Good question. Threats can be both metallic and non-metallic. Pat-downs, like AIT, allow us to screen for nonmetallic threats that handwands would not find.

Yes. And some threats can be taken down into little parts small enough that nobody can detect.

You cannot protect against every threat. It is mathematically impossible.

Anonymous said...

I think our new TSA overlords are doing a great job at protecting Americans from our enemies!

Anonymous said...

Dear TSA blogger. I am a Canadian. I've been planning a trip to visit friends in the US with my family. Until your pat-down and scan policy changes I will not be flying to your country. I will not be spending my tourist dollars in your country. My friends are not spending their tourist dollars in your country. That is our opt out.

Adrian said...

You forgot to point out an important exception. Yesterday, the TSA agreed not to do pat-downs on children 12 and under.

Anonymous said...

Like I said before but got no answer.
Is this not an illegal search?
Under Civil Law...
Unlawful sexual contact
A person is guilty of unlawful sexual contact if the actor intentionally subjects another person to any sexual contact.
Do you adhere to the Law???

Unlawful Viewing
Any person who knowingly observes or takes a photograph of another person's intimate parts without that person's consent
Again do you adhere to the LAW?

Adrian said...

I have yet to see someone submit to the whole-body imager who didn't receive at least a partial pat down in addition. I also have yet to see someone get through with a single scan. I saw one passenger sent back into the machine multiple times for at least 4 scans.

Anonymous said...

"While TSA has the legal authority to levy a civil penalty of up to $11,000.00 for cases such as this, each case is determined on the individual circumstances of the situation."

To be read as: we will make an example of you if you challenge our authority publicly.
Get in line. Obey.

Anonymous said...

"Some have asked why we just don’t use the handwand. Good question. Threats can be both metallic and non-metallic. Pat-downs, like AIT, allow us to screen for nonmetallic threats that handwands would not find."

AIT cannot see through flesh. Making it possible to hide contraband underneath or inside flesh. A committed terrorist has many options to get past these scanners. The scanners provide little added security, cost too much, and invade the privacy of private citizens in a very public setting.

When one weighs the pros versus the cons it seems quite obvious these scanners have no business being part of the security measures at the airport.

Anonymous said...

You make the point that "Pat-downs, like AIT, allow us to screen for nonmetallic threats that handwands would not find." However what I've rarely seen addressed is the comment that AIT is unlikely to detect PETN like used by the underwear bomber and that the pat-down will obviously not detect devices concealed internally. I think it is the obvious flaws of these intrusive measures that offend people.

Anonymous said...

If your idea of being safe means that my wife and children are either seen naked or touched in inappropriate places by your employees, then I don't want to be safe.

Anonymous said...

Shame on you! You "don't intend to change your policies" -- maybe you've forgotten you work for the American people, and under the U.S. Consitution. This is not a gulag, this is not the former Societ union, this is not a third-world country. If you don't want to respect the rights and privacy of Americans, perhaps you need another job -- say, one in Russia or Venezuela? I am in my mid-50's, my HUSBAND doesn't see me naked, my doctor would at least cover what he/she could -- but the GOVERNMENT gets to assign complete strangers to gape at or fondle me? I think not.

Marsha J

Anonymous said...

I do not want to be xrayed. I do not want to be touched. Can I get naked so your screeners can see my body in order to complete security?

RB said...

If these screening meassures TSA uses are truly needed then perhaps it is truly just to dangerous to fly.

Call your airlines and cancel all tickets and be sure to tell them it is apparently to dangerous to fly commercial based on the level of screening conducted by TSA.

Anonymous said...

For what reason are we locking down the precious Blogs now?

Anonymous said...

The TSA is only able to "attempt" to levy a fine when someone interferes with security operations, NOT going through a security checkpoint [and not flying] is NOT interference any more than walking to the airline counter to buy a ticket then changing your mind and leaving is buying a ticket. the TSA has not tried to fine anyone that has not been arrested because they know what will happen in court if they do.

TSA skeptic said...

Has TSA caught a single terrorist yet?

Anonymous said...

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

sharp said...

Do I have this correct?

If you are in the checkpoint, you "opt-out" of having naked x-ray pics taken of you, and you "opt-out" of being sexually assaulted by a government agent, you are liable for up to $11 thousand?

Choosing between a $10,000.00 fine and being assaulted isn't "choice:" It's violent coercion, plain and simple.

thecodemonk said...

You are not LEGALLY able to impose fines.

It's time for the TSA to be shut down. Useless, invasive, and utterly disgusting organization.

Patrick (BOS TSO) said...

Mike E. said...
At what point in the security process does a person pass the point of no return?

Is it when they get to the ID checker?

Is it when they put their things on the xray conveyor belt?

If I'm about to go through the metal detector and I'm told to "please step over here" to go through the scanner, can I opt out of flying and depart the airport at that point?


------

Screening of your property begins when you place items on the x-ray belt.

Screening of you begins when once you step through the AIT or the metal detector.

Robert said...

Bob, can you tell me how many terrorists the TSA has actually caught?
No?
The answer is 0. 0 terrorists, Bob.
The TSA has _no idea_ what makes good security sense, and they continue to prove it through reactive measures (like making people take off their shoes) and invasive measures like this that go so completely above and beyond any screening anywhere.
The TSA has no idea what the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments mean, and they have the gall to tell us it's all for our own good...

Terrorist Support Authority said...

TSA - Fighting yesterdays threats with tomorrows money.

Anonymous said...

Let's add a few facts and a couple of what if's to Bobs' Blog. Based on personal experience as well as reported.

1: As stated there is no choice between using the AIT device or being groped (enhanced pat down).
2: Going through the AIT device does not preclude you from the enhanced pat down. If you keep your wallet due to not wanting let it out of your sight it will show up and then you will be subject to the enhanced pat down (grope) and not just the subject area. This goes for fuzzy groin as well (Dave Berry).
3. Children above the age of 12 are under the same requirements as adults. This after his/her parents have taught them that it is wrong/illegal/perverted/as well as criminal if anyone other than their doctors does this. Apparently it is legal? for TSA. These procedures are considered sexual assault to women under any other circumstances by law (men also).
4. These procedures do not address the most pressing problems with airline security:
Cargo screening which has been stated by experts to be to cost prohibitive to perform without destroying the industry and bringing the global economy to a standstill.
Body cavity use as a transport location for bomb materials (the drug lords have using this for years with great success.
5. Refusal of AIT devices most definitely results in punitive actions by TSA whether they wish to admit it or not. These attitudes/actions are very much in evidence when watching at the airport and among the many reported and posted videos available.
6. TSA appears to be nothing more than security theater designed to create an illusion of safety, and make no mistake all of the actions are nothing more than behavioral modification design to promote compliance by the masses.
7. Just to be clear John Tyner DID NOT refuse the pat down, only that portion (genital touching/groping) that is illegal under the law anywhere else in the country.

I was going to quote Benjamin Franklin and the 4th amendment to constitution but I'm sure everybody but the TSA and our government knows it already.

Anonymous said...

The alleged purpose of the TSA is to keep potential terrorists out of secure areas of the airport and off the plane. If a person gets to the checkpoint and declines, they have effectively left the border of the secured area of the airport and are no longer a potential threat.

The TSA has done its job at that point. They have kept the traveler out of the airport's secure area. They are done. Case closed.

It is not their job to continue to detain them if they walk away. They are no longer a threat to the airport and are out of the TSA's jurisdiction.

Anonymous said...

Nope! Can't opt out. Even when you're three years old!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfmoms/detail?entry_id=77140

Anonymous said...

My biggest concern is upcoming travel with my children. Are TSA agents cleared under Megan's Law? I can't find this answer anywhere.

Will my 12, 14, or 16-year olds be subject to all of this? Can they be taken to a private room without me? What about about my 18-year old? She's technically an adult, but I'd still insist on being in the room with her and a TSA agent.

If I refuse to have my children radiated, filmed nude, or groped, can I just leave? Or would I be opening myself to an $11,000 fine.

The fine is completely unreasonable. If one feels they are being sexually assaulted, they should be able to just leave.

What about someone who has been a victim of sexual abuse? They may feel they can get through the screening okay but then freak out when they're standing there with their legs spread, arms up in the air, being photographed.

My 70-year old mother was patted down while traveling with my brother in law, a navy captain and chaplain. She is obviously not a threat to national security. Sadly, she doesn't have the mental capability to deal with such things and was terribly traumatized.

This is all wrong, but especially to children, the elderly, the mentally handicapped, and sexual abuse survivors.

Anonymous said...

I am fine with going through the metal detector (wtmd), but not the AIT. Why does that suddenly make me suspicious and subject to a pat-down. I thought the AIT was supposed to be for secondary screening - to resolve any alarms from the wtmd. Of course, given that this is the TSA, I am not surprised.

Anonymous said...

So, this is your response to the screaming 3 year old who had to get pat down. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfmoms/detail?entry_id=77140

Do you realize that the legal term for this is assault. You can fine a person 11K but what if 100 people performed a class action suit at 100k a piece. Not smart.

American Security Theater said...

Where is the video this man recorded?

TSA was pretty quick to post the videos when it suited them.

If your so interested in being transparent, why not post Tyner's recording of this incident and let us come to our own conclusions like last week.

Tyner did not refuse a pat down, he merely stated his boundaries. "We can do that out here, but if you touch my junk, I'll have you arested"

The TSA still has not disclosed what the enhanced pat down consists of. There is AFAIK no official line on whether or not genital touching is SOP for an enhanced pat down.

Tyner took the only responsible course of action, giving the lack of data he was working with.

Also, he didn't leave the secure area. He was directed, and escorted from the secure area by TSA agents and LEOs.

American Security Theater said...

Still no comments on the Courthouse AIT Saving post.

So I'll ask again here:

True or False?:

The AIT machine's software is based on Windows XP

Anonymous said...

I am all for the added Security, as a frequent flier, I prefer to feel safe and inconvenienced, versus maintaining my privacy, and ending up dead.

Anonymous said...

TSA- get your act together or you will become irrelevant in the very near future.

You are not running security in some obscure Mexican prison. THIS IS AMERICA.

Anonymous said...

Forget the tech, use human intelligence as the Israeli's do. But hell no, you cannot touch me or scan me. Enough is enough.

This technology does nothing and is intrusive and dangerous. I only get xrays at hospitals and my dentist, no more x rays, backscatter and nonsense. Why do we even have a TSA answerable to nobody. Cities should opt out of this intrusive jobs program created by D.C. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

American Security Theater said...

>Is there a way to find out which airports and terminals have the strip search machine? Because I just won't fly from any terminal where I have to choose between the nude photographs with my arms in the surrender position, or getting felt-up by a complete stranger.

TSA has a list on their site, but it is incomplete. The man that the TSA is contemplating fining tried this tactic. He had checked the website which indicated SAN did not have fully body scanners.

Anonymous said...

I have a metal implant in my spine. Will that show up on the body scanner? If so, would that be cause to pull me out and also do the full pat down?

Anonymous said...

For those people who like to show the CBS poll, I have a few more for you:

http://blogs.reuters.com/ask/2010/11/12/are-new-security-screenings-affecting-your-decision-to-fly/

And how about this one which (as of the time I am writing this)shows that 44% of respondents will stay home because of the hassle.

http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/11/most-americans-ok-with-full-body-scans/131415/1

Way to go TSA, you may have solved the issue of long security lines: 44% less flyers! I bet the airlines will love you for that :)

Anonymous said...

If the issue is catching both metallic and non-metallic objects, why not simply go with a two-phase screening process; the first through a standard metal detector, the second through a puffer? I don't believe either of these technologies is protested and would also avoid the public molestations and porn innocent passengers are now being subjected to.

Anonymous said...

"Good security policy" as defined by who? With all the technology at your disposal why in the world can't you come up with a "OK to fly list". I would be happy to have a complete background check done periodically if I could avoid the lines and ineffective security procedures provided by marginal employees of TSA.

Anonymous said...

Bob, please post the regulation regarding the $11,000 fine. All I have found is a schedule of fines that you get for attempting to get passed security with a gun, prohibited item, etc. Most of those are well below $11K (aggravated or lessened by circumstance). You're $11K fine to the guy in San Diego will never hold up or for anyone who finds your actions too intrusive and decides to opt-out of flying all together. Keep dreaming if you think otherwise.

Anonymous said...

I have no personal objection to the x-rays. Hate to say it folks, but you're going to get a much larger dose (but still small) just riding high. If you're worried about x-rays, live in a cave.

But agreeing to the x-ray, doesn't protect you from the pat down. Dave Barry gave an interview explaining how he got an "full treatment" pat down because his "groin was blurry" in the scanner.

A reasonable person could assess the risks and "opt in" for the x-ray, but then opt out of a subsequent pat down. A former victim of sexual abuse? My grandma? Children? It shouldn't be illegal to say no.

Also, opting out in these circumstances shouldn't put you on "no-fly" or under extra scrutiny as a suspicious person forever in a TSA database somewhere.

It will be interesting to see how the court cases will pan out. This sounds about right:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause."

Anonymous said...

If a person approaches a secure checkpoint with a bomb, opts out of the AIT scan, denies the TSA their attempt to do an enhanced pat-down, and ultimately departs in the face of a hefty fine...

...something tells me somebody dedicated enough to blow up the airplane they're on probably won't be deterred by a fine of few thousand dollars if it means they can try another day.

Similarly to how gun-control laws only limit the rights of law abiding citizens (since criminals wouldn't respect the law anyway), this supposed ability to levy a fine seems like it is there as a threat to streamline the TSA workflow at the expense of our personal liberties more than anything.

jimmer said...

One problem is that as El-Al points out a person can alter a credit card to be at least as sharp as a box cutter.

Unfortunately, a box cutter is all it took on 9/11. No current security procedures will be effective against that. El-Al does better and we can too.
Unfortunately even with the new procedures it is not difficult to get "unallowed" items past security. Either with a scanner and/or pat down, it is easy to do so and only requires a little ingenuity. I know people that frequently do.

So checking people at the point of the gates does not provide true safety for passengers or the public with the current procedures. We need to improve and do better, instead of improving TSA efforts to force ineffective procedures on Americans that compromise our liberty and resign to a big Kabuki dance that subjects children to routine assaults and to other passengers being treated like criminals.

In a May 2010 letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Rep. Mica noted that the GAO "discovered that since the program's inception, at least 17 known terrorists ... have flown on 24 different occasions, passing through security at eight SPOT airports." One of those known terrorists was Faisal Shahzad, who made it past SPOT monitors onto a Dubai-bound plane at New York's JFK International Airport not long after trying to set off a car bomb in Times Square. Federal agents nabbed him just before departure.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Amid-airport-anger_-GOP-takes-aim-at-screening-1576602-108259869.html#ixzz15YcFmkHv

Anonymous said...

It is very unfortunate that we are being asked to choose between basic rights to our bodies and flying. As painful and difficult as it will be I plan not only to opt out of the body scanning, I will opt out of flying from any airport that follows these regulations. I cannot help but wonder what would happen if it was found that someone had smuggled in a dangerous item in their stomach or a body cavity. Would TSA suggest body cavity searches or full body X-rays in the name of "security" as well? I am sincerely wondering what is too much to ask of the paying public in a supposedly free and democratic country.

Anonymous said...

TJ - regarding your questions about the choice a parent has....

Sadly, I think your only choice as a parent for now is to not fly. That's what we've decided.

By even getting in the line, you are subjecting yourself to a $11,000 fine if you don't COMPLETE their unconstitutional porn & fondle routine.

Anonymous said...

"This ensures that terrorists do not have an opportunity to probe TSA’s procedures by electing not to fly just as TSA’s screening procedures are on the verge of detecting that the passenger is a terrorist."

And an $11,000 fine fixes that? That is really stupid. The terrorists would walk out and not pay the fine, either.

Unless you completely go all the way and violate our rights as citizens by conducting unreasonable searches -- and I think touching my wife's and children's private areas is totally unreasonable -- then your terrorist detection does not fully work. Further, slapping a fine on an American citizen does absolutely nothing for your cause.

If the terrorists want to "probe" the security procedures, they can just take a few trips in and out of the security area, each time taking a few pieces of whatever explosive device. One could take a gallon of explosive liquid (whatever that might be... nitro?) in that way... just 3oz x a few bottles in a bag at a time.

As a frequent flier myself, I see all kinds of security holes. Every time I fly, I see bags not scanned, security staff looking the wrong direction, etc. I guarantee that if 5 terrorists started at 5 different airports and went through, at least one would make it. So the other 4 are in jail, but I suspect terrorists do not care, as long as one makes it.

While I appreciate the TSA's effort to try to secure air transportation, I also recognize that it is a futile effort. There are holes and there will always be holes. And if by some miracle you could plug every hole, remember this: terrorists are not interested only in planes. They will target anything.

Personally, I'd appreciate it American citizens born and raised in this country were not treated like criminals every time we get on a plane. Flying is nothing but a hassle now, and I definitely feel no more secure, because I see all of the holes.

So, I really think the TSA needs to reconsider its total approach to air security. Only in the US do I get this kind of nonsense treatment. Europe and Asia do not present people with such futile hassles. (The UK does go a bit far, too, sometimes, I'll admit... but they are generally more friendly, too.)

Anonymous said...

Since 9/11, I fly, only as a last resort. I arrive at my destination so angry, that it takes at least 24 hours to decompress.

This latest diminution of our rights, by those that who claim to be protecting our rights, finally seems to have given everyone some indication as to where we are heading.

Do you think anyone at TSA has ever heard of the quote attributed to Ben Franklin?

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

Robert swain said...

Interesting..TSA is extremely worried about the security of the passenger yet has done NOTHING regarding in-bound flights from foreign countries and the cargo they carry. As I see it the greater risk are those in-bound foreign flights than your average American, especially minors. Additionally what bothers me is that there is no opt out of both invasive procedures and allow the individual to leave the airport there by being a threat to no one. Instead you threaten to seek criminal charges if the person leaves the area. get real...

Driving is getting better and better as an option to travel.

Anonymous said...

To get around this whole "pat down" issue and since the TSA claims these AIT machines are safe; why isn't everyone made to go through the AIT machines and not have an opt out option? This option would no longer require any pat downs. The public doesn't get the option to opt out of the metal detectors, why are we given the option to opt out of the AIT scanners?

Anonymous said...

"This ensures that terrorists do not have an opportunity to probe TSA’s procedures by electing not to fly just as TSA’s screening procedures are on the verge of detecting that the passenger is a terrorist."

And you seriously believe this? The terrorist will walk out and not pay the fine, either.

As a frequent flyer, I can tell you there are tons of holes in security. Any day, I could take a gallon of liquid through security, yet TSA has not discovered this hole. Don't bother, as there are so many holes, I can't write them all down.

While I appreciate the attempt to provide security, recognize that it is futile to make it perfect and go on.

Stop with going so far as to touch my wife's private areas or subjecting her to breast cancer!

Give an American-born citizen a break. We are not the enemy!

Anonymous said...

I am a military spouse and my husband has served our country proudly for 18 years.

We are moving to Hawaii so that he can continue to serve. These changes to the TSA have taken affect since we have received his orders.

I am furious that NOW we to include our child are going to be subjected to a strip search as a result of our military orders!

I would NOT be flying if it weren't for this being the only way can get to Hawaii...

And the idea that I can be assaulted in this manner is a violation of my rights! I am not "choosing" to fly, it is a direct order from the military... I would surely take any other form of transportation if allowed...

Patrick Henry said...

1) The scanners don't work, they don't see low density plastic explosives.

2) The scanners don't see inside body cavities where explosives are easily hidden.

3) Over-policing airports does nothing to secure borders or internal gatherings at stadiums, arenas & theaters. They are completely exposed to 'terror' with no TSA searches, but no 'terror' has happened.

4) Stop with the security theater. The scanners don't work & body cavities are not inspected.

5) Over-policing airports is like guarding the front door of a house, while leaving the other doors & windows (borders, trains, buses, theaters, stadiums, etc) wide-open.

6) The TSA is pushing security theater & intimidation (go thru the nude scanner or get your crotch groped) instead of more effective techniques. The TSA should be immediately dissolved as counter-productive & abusive.

Anonymous said...

http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/corrine.shtm This it the case? lol talk about a case out of context. This did not have to do with body scanners or evasive pat downs, it is a druggy trying to get out of a secondary search. To quote the court "well-tailored to protect personal privacy, escalating in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclosed a reason to conduct a more probing search." this isn't applicable to virtual strip searches at random. Someone beeps going through the metal detector and you find drugs is hardly the same as taking random nude pictures of child and adult passengers.

Lerris said...

Dear Mr.TSA spokesman.

Please justify the existence of your organization in light of the 4th amendment.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Very nice, Bob, very nice.

"She is an insuline depended diabetic who has an isuline pump. She travels regularly in the airport. Today, about 25 minutes ago, she was..the alarm went off she told them she had an insuline pump, they physically groped her, went down her pants, her thighs, and advised her not to wear the insuline pump any more going through security. They advised her to take it off in the future if she didn't want to be groped. She was so upset she called me after she got through security hysterically crying"

http://www.610wiod.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=122821&article=7849918

A lawyer said...

Two questions:

First, if the point of the AIT/pat-down is to ensure no contraband is being smuggled aboard, would the TSA consider it acceptable for a passenger to simply strip naked and run his or her clothing through the X-ray machine as a third alternative? The agent thereby has the ability to see the person's body even better than with the AIT equipment, and the passenger gets to avoid uncomfortable touching by a complete stranger. It seems win-win except for the possibility of being slapped with a public nudity charge. Will the federal government, then, agree to exercise its authority and pre-empt state nudity charges to protect passengers who don't want to be subjected to uncomfortable touching or possibly dangerous amounts of radiation as a prerequisite to boarding a flight for which he or she has paid?

My second question is this: you call the $11,000 a "civil penalty," but on what basis is it levied? What is this "civil penalty" for? In the case of the gentleman from San Diego, it appears that he has been threatened with such a penalty for acquiescing to commands from TSA personnel. Is it the TSA's position that its authority is so broad that it may arbitrarily impose a "civil penalty" on any person who expresses his belief that the TSA's security procedures are invasive and unlawful? You may recall that he never refused to undergo the pat-down; he simply informed the agent that he would file a criminal complaint for such activity. This doesn't even rise to the level of civil disobedience. Does the TSA actually believe it has the authority to quell dissent through the levying of arbitrary penalties?

K Smith said...

We truly live in bizarro world.

If someone had told me 10 years ago law abiding citizens would have to choose either sexual assault or a blast of radiation in order to fly, I would have never believed it.

The ultimate insult to all of this is that Michael Chertoff, the former head of Homeland Security, is raking in the bucks representing the company that manufactures the radiation machines.

Perhaps Janet Napolitano, current head of Homeland Security, will soon be raking in the bucks representing the company that makes the retinal scanning machines she says are in the hopper to replace the radiation machines.

Anonymous said...

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/1117/Are-TSA-pat-downs-and-full-body-scans-unconstitutional

I stopped flying said...

Blogger Bob said "...TSA has the legal authority to levy a civil penalty of up to $11,000.00..."

So who granted this authority to the TSA and where is this documented?

.

Anonymous said...

I get that people don't want to have scans done of their bodies and don't want to be touched in more invasive ways. Regardless of all the ignorant rantings on these blog posts, I think most Americans understand the reason for these new procedures are because of the Christmas bomber (metal detectors would have NEVER stopped that guy!). Here's the thing, though: If you all know you don't want to be scanned and you don't want to be touched (and you're being warned that these are your only options), why shouldn't you be fined $11,000 for starting a process you KNOW you're not going to complete? I want to be safe, I want my babies to be safe, and I get that right now, this is the best process we have. I want to fly and I'm willing to put up with security to do it. If you people come through the line I'm in and cause me to miss my flight because of your silly little "Opt Out/No Pat Down" shenanigans, I hope TSA does fine you....at LEAST for the cost of our tickets...but $10,000 might make you think twice before trying that nonsense a second time!

Dave said...

What about the explosives or whatever that his concealed inside a cavity? When do the cavity searches begin? Why stop at millimeter x-rays?

Lampy said...

So the layers of security are:

1) No Fly List
2) Scanning checked bags
3) Explosive/Drug Sniffing Dogs
4) Magnetometers/Metal Detectors
5) Ex-ray of carry-on bags
6) Advanced Imaging Systems
7) Enhanced Patdowns

If someone were inclined to die for their cause who is to say they wouldn't also be willing to place harmful materials in their body cavity.

So how do all these layers of security detect and prevent this possibility?

I think the TSA has overreached without justifying the effectiveness of these extra security procedures. Taking a picture of my body or touching my privates does nothing to make the flying public safer!

Anonymous said...

Pistole today recommended that travelers go to the TSA web site for more information. Yet, it only takes a few minutes to see how lame the site is. It also has very outdated (and therefore misleading) information. Check out the "Traveling with Children" page:

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/children/index.shtm

It talks about the metal detectors and that's IT. Why don't you add the videos of the three year old screaming about being touched where they shouldn't be?

The TSA has become an Enemy of the State.

Ken said...

TSA: Give me a break! Do you really think these increasingly invasive and ineffective attempts at air travel security (high imaging, pat downs) is making us any much safer in the air? Here's a question: What % of total cargo (yes, that includes baggage) shipped in the same plane as passengers is scanned? Give up? Try 15 - 35%

It's the cargo, dummy!

Ken said...

Hey Blogger Bob:

Tell your TSA handlers to stop wasting money and time with invasive passenger tactics. Spend more time on the vast amount of cargo and baggage that never gets scanned!

Are you kidding me? Do you really thing this pat-down crap makes us any safer when the belly of the plane could be laiden with explosive devices?

Get a clue TSA!

Anonymous said...

So let me ask the obvious question, what's to stop someone from hiding materials in a body cavity, opt-out of the scanner and go through the pat-down? That's the obvious workaround, and I doubt it's an avenue that's lost on anyone truly interested in engaging in terrorism.

Anonymous said...

Enough People, I have read the misunderstood ramblings of the angry enough. To clarify first: The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution reads “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Understand that Aviation remains a target of persons that want to do harmful things, therefore if you choose to travel by air it is “reasonable” to believe you will be searched for weapons. Currently there is advanced technology in airports in the form of the advanced X-ray, if you choose not to use this device you have the option of being searched by being patted down. Remember it is reasonable to search you to prevent weapons from getting on your plane, no one has accused you and you are free to travel by other means you do not have to use commercial aviation, but if you want to use commercial aviation you will be subjected to search.
Secondly I have noticed several comments related to ones “right to fly” and comparing it to ones “right to drive” as related to being employed. I would offer that “driving” and Flying would be conditions of employment, if your job requires you to travel by air that is a condition of your employment in that job. Citizens in the United States do not have the “right” to “drive” every state requires that to operate a motor vehicle you must have a valid operator’s license. You may not drive above the posted speed limit; you are required to use seat belts, etc. Indeed if you choose to violate traffic regulations your privilege of driving may be suspended or revoked.
So if you choose to travel by commercial aviation (it is a great convenience) you will be subjected to a “reasonable” search. You have an option of the method of search used, if you choose none then you are denied the privilege of commercial air travel.

Anonymous said...

“My wife and I traveled last week and went through a line that had a backscatter machine. I did not realize it until we were halfway through and just made up in my mind that we were not going through it. I was outraged to watch as we approached the front of the line that the security people were selecting only women to enter the machine. I even watched his eyes as he chose the people. I may be making a wrong assumption, but the four people that entered the machine before my wife was told to go through were all young attractive women. Take what you want from that. I told the agent that my wife was not going to be going through the machine. He then said I can not decide for her and then she said that she was not going through. I was never asked to go in the machine. After we both passed through the normal metal detector, she was directed to an area where she placed her feet in a wide stance. I wanted to see the whole process so she did not ask for a private screening area as she normally would have done. The female security agent then donned gloves and proceeded to touch my wife’s breasts, vaginal area, between her legs with the front of her hands. This was not a light touch. I could see the tears in my wife’s eyes as this was happening. It was so bad I actually considered returning home and cancelling our trip. I should say that the TSA agent did her job in as professional a manner as possible, realizing that this is completely degrading and disgusting. The sad parti is that the agent did exactly as she probably was instructed to do. I can tell you that after seeing this close up and in person, I will NEVER go through one of these machines and will NEVER be subjected to a pat down like this. It is degrading and disgusting. Take from that what you want, I just won’t do it.”

Anonymous said...

I still don't quite understand how hundreds of people are being ushered through standard METAL DETECTORS; while the random unlucky few were being pulled aside for AIT in SAN during this video bloggers experience...

Why aren't those people subjected to searches for 'non metallic' threats?

Why can't I opt out of the AIT and go through a regular metal detector like I could 2 weeks ago?

Are you people actually this crazy?
Please work on SECURITY; not Security Theater.
Thanks

Anonymous said...

It's interesting how some of these comments made it past the moderator, but the comment I posted about the validity of the CBS poll never made it. According to the CBS poll, 4 out 5 Americans do not have a problem with the body scans. So, polling approx. 1,100 people is somehow proof that the American people are okay with this. This is 2010... people are not uninformed or uneducated as they were 30... 40... 50 years ago. There is nothing objective about CBS or their polls. And to top it off, the column was written by a political analyst. And the article states that democrats as well as republicans are okay with the scans. What does politics have to do with security at airports. If Janet N. was so worried about the safety of Americans she would go back to building the wall along our Mexican border.

Anonymous said...

I will vote with dollars. I vow to never fly again until the TSA has been dismantled.

Anonymous said...

"AIT is optional for everybody. However, if you decide to opt-out of AIT screening, you must undergo alternative screening, which will include a pat-down. As I’ve said before, there is nothing punitive about it- it just makes good security sense. Obviously a passenger can’t completely opt out of all screening if they opt out of AIT. That would not make good security sense."

No, good security sense would be the understanding nothing is completely safe. What is not to say a terrorist could conceal a bomb in there anus? Will you make us go through anal probings as well?

The problem isn't just weather or not you can or cannot reject screening, its the absurd methods you are employing. There are many other methods for detecting non-metallic explosives.

But the best method is human, something that is not only less expensive, but less risky and less invasive. There are hundreds of things a human can detect that no machine could decipher, behavior, speaking patterns, eye-contact, etc.

Anonymous said...

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

-Benjamin Franklin

Sandra said...

Bob, can you or your superiors try to explain away Mr. McGowan's (former director of TSA Security Ops) saying that the pat downs and WBI are violative of the 4th Amendment.

Don't delete this, Bob, as I'm saving screen shots of all my comments.

Anonymous said...

It's like you've never even heard of the 4th Amendment.

Anonymous said...

Can an airline opt out of TSA? That airline would do very well I think :D

Jackson said...

"However, if you decide to opt-out of AIT screening, you must undergo alternative screening, which will include a pat-down."

I can't believe that an agent of our government would tell such a bald-faced lie.

All citizens declining the AIT have the right to simply leave the screening area. The TSA cannot detain or arrest citizens for exercising their constitutional rights.

Daryl said...

"It is important that all screening procedures are completed. This ensures that terrorists do not have an opportunity to probe TSA’s procedures by electing not to fly just as TSA’s screening procedures are on the verge of detecting that the passenger is a terrorist."

The Feds couldn't catch the UndieBomber when he was handed to them on a silver platter. If they can't interdict a criminal after his own parents rat him out, I don't have a lot of faith in them interdicting him at the TSA line. And all you have to do to "probe TSA's procedures" is to take a trip; I've had to fly several times this year on business and, to amuse myself while waiting in line, I've planned an operation at every airport I've visited (it keeps me from actually saying, "Moo!" while being herded like livestock).

Anonymous said...

Do I have a choice of either a man or a woman for the new enhanced check?

Anonymous said...

Does anyone else find it funny how "TSA Bob" is only interested in posting headlines, yet never responds when he's busted lying in these posts?

Bin Laden is laughing his butt off in a cave right now. He won this one.

Anonymous said...

Also, now the pat downs have become more intrusive, the terrorists will find new places to keep their explosives like in their favorite body cavities. What's next for passengers, pre-flight colonoscopy or a digital vaginal exam?

Anonymous said...

I don't see the rules changing until all the new radiation equipment is transferred to TSA so that the agency can pay the vendors for the equipment.
It's just the way government works. The big bosses have to get their fees.

Daniel and Laura said...

Please cite the relevant federal code that gives the TSA authority to levy $11,000 fines for passengers who decide not to go through security. Of course you never will, because the TSA never addresses the real problems with their policies. I cannot believe this blog uses blogger. How ridiculous.

Walt said...

I finally found a group that scares me more than the TSA: the small handful of people leaving comments indicating how happy they are to give up their Constitutional rights in exchange for a misleading sense of security.

Sadly, I fully expect my government to grab as much power and scope as possible. The antics of the TSA are of no surprise to me. I am, though, very troubled that anyone would truly believe these tactics are worth the indiscriminate forfeiture of rights, when so many security experts and industry pros are on record as proclaiming the TSA's methods as ineffective.

Now, I'd be against giving up my rights even IF they were effective. Being secure without rights is worthless. But to give up rights in light of an illusion of safety is UNACCEPTABLE.

Anonymous said...

This CLEARLY violates HUMAN RIGHT 12, THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY. --- "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks" (Human Rights are universal, inalienable and apply to ALL.)

It also interferes with the Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.

We are all for effective profiling and searching of criminals and terrorists, but such invasive
"methods" for honest, law abiding citizens and residents.....??


Then you say we have a "choice" to opt out, yet can expect a 10,000 fine if we do not comply! This sounds more like the beginning some Orwellian nightmare!

How about a little honesty on the true motives of this latest fiasco.

Nick said...

Real patriots question and eventually take down authority. Fake ones just collect a paycheck.

Angie said...

In a few weeks, my 16-year-old son will be flying unescorted to Spain. When we bought the ticket in September, I inquired to Dulles whether I would be permitted to escort my minor child through security and to his gate. They said it all depended on the level of security on that given day. Given the choices and possibilities that my son might now encounter when he flies, I feel I need to educate him about what to expect. However, the TSA refuses to describe an enhanced pat-down with any detail. Since my son will not be traveling with anyone who could serve as a witness and I likely won’t be permitted to accompany him through security, where do I begin in trying to protect him from those who are supposed to be protecting us? How do we know if we are being violated if we don't know what procedure is?

Nick said...

So what you are saying here is if we want to fly on a plane and you want want to look at us naked we can say no but you have to touch your privates or we have to pay a fine of $10,000. Do you think a suicide bomber cares about being fined $10,000? No, only regular citizens that do not deserve harassment from the political agenda of the TSA and its security theater.

Anonymous said...

Well, Blogger Bob, you guys win. I give up!! I am in the midst of canceling my Christmas flight and will not book again.

Anonymous said...

I would like to see the Director of TSA--the one assigned by Whitehouse go on National TV and receive a pat down.

Jacquelyn said...

I really do not understand why people have issues with the new TSA screening. It is a good thing that the government has taken the precautions to keep air security safe, which is necessary to protect ourselves and our country. The person seeing your scan is in an entirely different room, and the security personnel that is with you will not see your body outline. You do have the choice to do a full body pat-down, but I personally think the scan is much easier and quicker.

Anonymous said...

Just wondering how the new scanners and/or the new pat-down rules will effect women wearing feminine protection products. Will those be seen/felt as possible risks? Or how about those dealing with minor incontinence who might wear protection for that issue?

Anonymous said...

If only a percentage of luggage is checked and "screeners"and airport workers are allowed to come and go at airports. The only explanation for the present security pat downs and naked scanners is for "show"and to advance the
control and power of government over
the people.

Anonymous said...

I find the new procedure an invasion of my privacy and unAmerican.

I have boycotted travel for the Thanksgiving and all other holidays for me and my family.

I have written my congressman.

If there is a protect against this, this conservative, patriotic American is all over it.

This is a waste of precious tax dollars and a poor use of our diminishing resources.

Signed
A Very disappointed patriot.

Anonymous said...

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Anonymous said...

So I have plans to take the family out west skiing. I have 8, 6, and 4 year old boys. The chances of me letting a TSA employee run his/her hand up their leg until they encounter resistance (the kind way of saying it) is the same as the chances of me allowing some TSA employee see them naked: zero. If my entire family refuses the naked scan and the new pat down, would that be a $55,000 fine? Is there a volume discount?

Anonymous said...

NO problem, it's simple, we will no longer be flying.
What I am not getting is, I have to have an FBI background check done for, my CHL, my Medical License, my TWIC, and my Passport. Why do you have people running checks for all the above, collecting big fees for processing, and NOT figure out a way to SELL Airport Security Cards (ASC)? Mind boggling!
Instead of spending taxpayer money on all of this equipment, personnel, etc., why not make some dang money on the deal? Geez, it's business 101 guys!

Anonymous said...

So, Bob,

If you refuse both screening methods, and are threatened with a $11,000 fine if you leave.

Are you then a "prisoner" of the TSA? For how long?
What are the procedures to get out of custody? Obviously you're in custody in a technical sense, because, you can't leave without penalty.

Isn't this illegal under the US Constitution?

Does the law enabling the TSA supersede the laws of Habeus Corpus? What happens when the detention exceeds 24 hours? Will the TSA just leave you in limbo, unable to leave, and unwilling to be screened?

Come on Bob, try to give us an answer on these questions...! Before I come to the airport, book a flight, and put it to the test in person!

Marco said...

I am from Europe, I was in a group of 120 passenger for an organized holiday to Las Vegas, we cancelled, going to S. Domingo insetad. Let free market speak for you, don't fly, collapse airilines incomes, they will listen to the sound of money.

Anonymous said...

So do the metal detectors not work? If a person opts out of the scanner, why not let them use the metal detector....if they aren't effective, why are they in use at all?

12 years old and under exempt.....seems reasonable given parents concerns although those concerns should apply to everyone....but really, an exception.....provides the opportunity to do exactly what you claim to be preventing...

Radiation not a problem....what about for extreme frequent flyers....and 50 years ago, noone thought asbestos was a problem.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Bob: Tell me what kind of invasive procedure the TSA believes it is not entitled to perform? It seems like TSA escalates search intensity with zero regulatory oversight. Congress, for example, seemed quite surprised yesterday at the lack of outside advice the TSA had sought before deploying millions of dollars in body scanner technology and fielding a highly offensive new pat down search. Does TSA believe it has the right to impose any level of intrusion it desires? Can it conduct cavity searches? Seize blood for analysis? Collect DNA? Tell me TSA admits to some kind of boundary!

Anonymous said...

When a person buys an airline ticket in the United States the buyer (knowingly or not) is giving IMPLIED CONSENT to have TSA screen their person/property. In other words, when you give implied consent you are giving up that 4th amendment right that so many people keep quoting over and over again. This is why everytime someone tries to sue TSA regarding the screening of their person/property the lawsuit is always dismissed due to implied consent. Point being, the next time you buy an airline ticket remember that you are (knowingly or not) giving up your 4th amendment right through implied consent. And I don't work for TSA. I'm a California Lawyer.

Anonymous said...

How far will the government and TSA go? If it comes to light that people are hiding things in their rectums and a passenger decides to opt out of the scan, will TSA add colonoscopies to the screening procedure?

Anonymous said...

The creators of the "National Opt-Out Day" have given those who mean to do harm to the citizens of this country the perfect opportunity to achieve their mission. Fools. Privacy is valuable. But it seems some citizens think the value of human life is less valuable than their privacy.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 515   Newer› Newest»