Friday, February 26, 2016

TSA Week in Review: February 19 - 25

Discovered 55 firearms

Fifty-five firearms were discovered this week in carry-on bags around the nation. Of the 55 firearms discovered, 50 were loaded and 26 had a round chambered. All of the firearms pictured were discovered last week. See a complete list below.

Discovered a replica grenade tobacco grinder with a small amount of marijuan inside

If an item looks like a real bomb, grenade, mine, etc., it is prohibited. When these items are found at a checkpoint or in checked baggage, they can cause significant delays because our explosives detection professionals must respond to resolve the alarm. Even if they are novelty items, you are prohibited from bringing them on board the aircraft. A replica grenade tobacco grinder with a small amount of marijuana was detected in a carry-on bag at Sacramento (SMF).

Discovered firearm components, realistic replica firearms, bb and pellet guns, airsoft guns, brass knuckles, ammunition, batons, stun guns, small pocketknives and many other prohibited items
Clockwise from the top, these items were discovered in carry-on bags at PDX, SAN, TUS, CHO, LGA, JAN, DHN, CMH and AUS.


In addition to all of the other prohibited items we find weekly in carry-on bags, our officers also regularly find firearm components, realistic replica firearms, bb and pellet guns, airsoft guns, brass knuckles, ammunition, batons, stun guns, small pocketknives and many other prohibited items too numerous to note.

Firearms Discovered in Carry-On Bags chart
You can travel with your firearms in checked baggage, but they must first be declared to the airline.




Firearm possession laws vary by state and locality. Travelers should familiarize themselves with state and local firearm laws for each point of travel prior to departure.

Unfortunately these sorts of occurrences are all too frequent which is why we talk about these finds. Sure, it’s great to share the things that our officers are finding, but at the same time, each time we find a dangerous item, the line is slowed down and a passenger that likely had no ill intent ends up with a citation or in some cases is even arrested. The passenger can face a penalty as high as $11,000. This is a friendly reminder to please leave these items at home. Just because we find a prohibited item on an individual does not mean they had bad intentions; that's for the law enforcement officer to decide. In many cases, people simply forgot they had these items.

*In order to provide a timely weekly update, this data is compiled from a preliminary report. The year-end numbers will vary slightly from what is reported in the weekly updates. However, any monthly, midyear or end-of-year numbers TSA provides on this blog or elsewhere will be actual numbers and not estimates.

Read our 2015 Year in Review post! If you haven’t read them yet, make sure you check out our year in review posts for 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014.

Follow @TSA on Twitter and Instagram!

Bob Burns
TSA Social Media Team
 

55 comments:

Anonymous said...

As always, absolutely nothing you needed your slow, invasive, and ineffective naked body scanners to detect. Meanwhile, how many people suffered physical searches thanks to false alarms on these useless machines?

Why are Curtis Burns and West Cooper unwilling to address, let alone answer, that question?

How many weeks has it been since you last trumpeted something dangerous you found with the naked body scanners?

Anonymous said...

As always, absolutely nothing you needed your slow, invasive, and ineffective naked body scanners to detect. Meanwhile, how many people suffered physical searches thanks to false alarms on these useless machines?

Why are Curtis Burns and West Cooper unwilling to address, let alone answer, that question?

How many weeks has it been since you last trumpeted something dangerous you found with the naked body scanners?

Anonymous said...

Complaints are growing exponentially about long waits and missed flights at many airports. Neffenger's way of trying to extort money out of congress for more screeners?
Certainly creating longer lines only makes for better targets should there be any terrorists who want to attack.

James Elsea said...

What in the world is wrong with people.? Week after week the TSA Blog has a long list of weapons that people try to bring onto the plane. Have they not heard that weapons are no allowed.? We should also make sure that the pilots are not carrying guns. That is just as dangerous and should not be slowed. A Federal air marshal is the only one who should have a gun.

Susan Richart said...

"When these items are found at a checkpoint or in checked baggage, they can cause significant delays because our explosives detection professionals must respond to resolve the alarm."

Do you clear the checkpoints when something that looks like a "real" bomb or grenade appears? If not, why not?

Your "explosive detection professionals" respond to replicas, like the tobacco grinder pictured? What a waste of time and money.

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Anonymous said...

The "Comment Policy" link on the comments page still goes to the wrong page.

You've known about this problem for MONTHS. You still haven't fixed it.

Congratulations on your stunning level of competence and technological prowess, Bobby. You must be proud...

Anonymous said...

Complaints are growing exponentially about long waits and missed flights at many airports. Neffenger's way of trying to extort money out of congress for more screeners?
Certainly creating longer lines only makes for better targets should there be any terrorists who want to attack.

we all saw what happened when TSA was focused on customer service. Their threat detection plummeted. Sure wait times got better but a lot of tests were failed. Sounds like Neffenger is getting back to what TSA should be doing. Finding and preventing potential threat items from getting on planes. If someone misses a flight, he should be upset at those in line ahead of him causing the delays and perhaps show up earlier next time. I have no sympathy for them. Id rather have a safer flight.

Anonymous said...

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-us-airports-allowed-weapons-through-n367851

There was recent revelation that TSA misses almost all weapons being brought into airport (link above). In light of this information, the way I read this post is that you are trying to point out that TSA missed over 1,000 weapons this week. Why not just come out and say that fact instead of masking the problem by only showing the 5% that you got lucky enough to find?

RB said...

http://legacy.wfaa.com/story/news/crime/2016/01/06/marine-accused-killing-unt-student-appear-court/78390108/


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/suspect-virginia-cop-killing-identified-pentagon-staff-sergeant-ronald-hamilton-n527536

TSA in all of its misguided brillance gives TSA PRE-CHECK to all uniformed military military. So I have to wonder, does TSA have no concern for people like the one in the above link or the Marine that is accused of the murder of a college student in the DFW area a couple of months ago.

Yet TSA doesn't see fit to award retired military, who honorably served their country for at least 20 years, with Pre Check.

Pretty clear to me that TSA discriminates against retired military.

Anonymous said...

To the person who keeps putting in the comment about the body scanners--I may be wasting my time, but I thought I'd at least try. In my house I have smoke alarms, CO alarms, fire extinguishers, and a home security system. My house has never caught fire, I've never had a CO issue, and my current house has never been broken into. The one time my house was broken into was several years ago in a different state, and that house didn't have an security alarm. So are my smoke alarms, CO alarms, fire extinguishers and security system as worthless as you make the body scanners out to be? I think not. I think the important word concerning the body scanners is deterrent.

Anonymous said...

The excessive wait times at airports is getting ridiculous. Why is the TSA so slow and inefficient compared to their European counterparts? Hiring more TSA screeners may not help either. I routinely see European checkpoints staffed with far fewer people than an equivalent US checkpoint, yet they are able to screen people faster. Europe has the same or greater threat of terrorism than here in the US and their flights are just as safe as ours.

RB said...

The public comment period on the TSA's electronic strip-search scanners and "pat-downs" closed on June 25, 2013.

We are well into 2016 and TSA has still failed to complete the Administrative Procedures Act compliance as required by law.

How much more foot dragging can TSA get away with before another court has to act?

Seems very clear that TSA has no regard for the laws of this country!

Susan Richart said...

Boldy writes: "we all saw what happened when TSA was focused on customer service. Their threat detection plummeted. Sure wait times got better but a lot of tests were failed. Sounds like Neffenger is getting back to what TSA should be doing. Finding and preventing potential threat items from getting on planes. If someone misses a flight, he should be upset at those in line ahead of him causing the delays and perhaps show up earlier next time. I have no sympathy for them. Id rather have a safer flight."

If that were true, Boldy, then Bob's weekly report should be showing a large increase in "good catches" (and I'm not talking about cans with false bottoms and a bit of MJ).

But we're not seeing that, are we? What does that say?

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Anonymous said...

Bold posting anonymous said ".... Id rather have a safer flight."

It's cute the way you think it is the TSA that is making you safe.

Their own internal testing shows how incapable they are. Simple logic demonstrates how ineffective they are, and over a decade of direct observation proves that the TSA couldn't catch a Terrorist even if they ran in circles screaming I'm a Terrorist.

Liquid rules.... Too dangerous to fly, not dangerous enough to do anything but toss in the rubbish bin.

Nudie scanners that to date have a near 100% false positive rate. And they can't find anything that the less expensive and faster metal detectors found.

You keep cheerleading for the TSA, the rest of us will continue to work to have them shut down.


Anonymous said...

There was recent revelation that TSA misses almost all weapons being brought into airport (link above). In light of this information, the way I read this post is that you are trying to point out that TSA missed over 1,000 weapons this week. Why not just come out and say that fact instead of masking the problem by only showing the 5% that you got lucky enough to find?

these test are so irrelevant. They are not designed to do anything but test the breaking point of known weaknesses and to see if the fixes actually worked. The test were done on a very small sampling of TSA. I think of it in term of testing concrete samples. You take a sample of concrete and let it cure. Then you test the breaking point. If the sample breaks at the proper point, it is not a failed test. The officers them selves are tested multiple times a year for recertification. I believe I read they had over an 80% first time pass rate.

Anonymous said...

To the person who keeps putting in the comment about the body scanners--I may be wasting my time, but I thought I'd at least try. In my house I have smoke alarms, CO alarms, fire extinguishers, and a home security system. My house has never caught fire, I've never had a CO issue, and my current house has never been broken into. The one time my house was broken into was several years ago in a different state, and that house didn't have an security alarm. So are my smoke alarms, CO alarms, fire extinguishers and security system as worthless as you make the body scanners out to be? I think not. I think the important word concerning the body scanners is deterrent.
you really shouldn't use logic here. So few understand it.

Anonymous said...

The excessive wait times at airports is getting ridiculous. Why is the TSA so slow and inefficient compared to their European counterparts? Hiring more TSA screeners may not help either. I routinely see European checkpoints staffed with far fewer people than an equivalent US checkpoint, yet they are able to screen people faster. Europe has the same or greater threat of terrorism than here in the US and their flights are just as safe as ours.

best way to speed up the screening process, follow the rules. If people would divest as they are supposed to, they would breeze right through. don't blame TSA for the inactions of passengers. The rules are well known. As for staffing, TSA is way down on staffing. At my local airport the have 17 lanes for screening. However, due to staffing reductions, they can generally only open about 8 of them. They need to pay better, train more, up the hiring standards and hire more officers.

Anonymous said...

If that were true, Boldy, then Bob's weekly report should be showing a large increase in "good catches" (and I'm not talking about cans with false bottoms and a bit of MJ).

But we're not seeing that, are we? What does that say?

OMG, really?. It doesn't say anything. I bet the battery in your car doesn't even have a positive post. How many helicopters are above your house?

Anonymous said...

"In my house I have smoke alarms, CO alarms, fire extinguishers, and a home security system. My house has never caught fire, I've never had a CO issue, and my current house has never been broken into. The one time my house was broken into was several years ago in a different state, and that house didn't have an security alarm. So are my smoke alarms, CO alarms, fire extinguishers and security system as worthless as you make the body scanners out to be?"

That depends.

Do they constantly alarm when there is neither smoke nor a fire nor a carbon monoxide spike? If that's the case, then, yes - they are exactly as worthless as TSA's naked body scanners.

If, on the other hand, they only alarm when there is smoke or a fire or a carbon monoxide spike, then, no, they are working exactly as they should.

Now, no system will ever be completely free of false or misleading alarms. If you burn dinner and the smoke alarm goes off, you know your house isn't likely to burn down but the alarm can't tell the difference. But smoke is smoke, and in that case better safe than sorry.

But what if your alarms go off constantly? And every single time they do, it's for the wrong reasons? Imagine a smoke alarm that goes off every time someone takes a hot shower. Or a carbon monoxide detector that alarms for no reason several times a day. Or a home security system that calls the police every time you use your key to open the front door.

That's what TSA has given us with its naked body scanners - a slow, invasive, unreliable, and ineffective system that has never detected an actual threat, where every single alarm has been a false one, and that forces thousands of people to be physically searched for no reason every single day.

What's worse is that TSA knew this would happen. Many of us warned TSA that they scanners were too slow, that they would alarm on harmless and private medical devices like ostomy bags and prosthetic breasts and pressure garments, and that they were (and remain!) easily circumvented.

And yet TSA put them in place anyway. And air travel became an even more idiotic and burdensome chore than TSA had already made it with its liquids nonsense and shoe carnival.

Anonymous said...

Anon says "... I think the important word concerning the body scanners is deterrent."

Except they aren't.

It has already been demonstrated how incredibly easy it is to 'fool' the Nudie Scanners.

It has already been demonstrated by the TSA themselves how ineffective the scanners are.

Any 'deterrent' factor of the scanners is long gone. Any 'deterrent' factor of the TSA is equally gone. Eight billion dollars a year and the best they can do is find a shave cream can with some pot inside of it?

Anonymous said...

Pilot and stewardess should be armed idiots think twice before doing something stupid

Anonymous said...

"best way to speed up the screening process, follow the rules. If people would divest as they are supposed to, they would breeze right through. don't blame TSA for the inactions of passengers. The rules are well known."

The rules are nonsensical, and the cause for most of the delays at checkpoints. If TSA didn't insist on using technology that doesn't work, on making people remove shoes (even though no other country on earth requires it), on scientifically indefensible liquids restrictions, on pointless ID checks, etc., passengers could get through screening much more quickly with absolutely no reduction in security.

Don't blame Americans for your stupidity, TSA.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps people complaining that the same questions get asked every week should ask why TSA refuses to address or answer those questions.

Wintermute said...

This statement is simply untrue. These particular tests were performed without any specific knowledge of the TSA's technology or proceedures. They were not testing the breaking point, but real-world conditions. And still they failed 95% of the time. Or do you have insider knowledge that disproves this?

Wintermute said...

Pot, meet kettle.

Wintermute said...

No. The scanners are demonstratobly slower than wtmd. Hence the use of the word "slow." How about applying some of that logic you claim others lack?

Wintermute said...

Thank you for the perfect rebuttal. It's better than my anti-tiger rock. Which, BTW, still has a 100% success rate ;)

Anonymous said...

Now, no system will ever be completely free of false or misleading alarms. If you burn dinner and the smoke alarm goes off, you know your house isn't likely to burn down but the alarm can't tell the difference. But smoke is smoke, and in that case better safe than sorry.

and just like the AIT machines, they alarm on anomalies. They have absolutely no way of knowing if the anomaly is a gun, a knife, a tic tac, a nickel or a bead of sweat. This for the officer to decide, thus the pat down. Your analogy is great and perfect for the AIT machines. Thanks for helping.

Wintermute said...

The point was that if your smoke alarm keeps going off for no apparent reason, then it is useless - just like the AIT machines.

Fix the TSA said...

Boldy (again, what should we call you?)

A machine forced upon millions of innocent people every day whose sole purpose is to detect weapons, incendiaries, and explosives, but instead triggers false positive alarms on hair, scars, cloth folds, jewelry, piercings, bandages, feminine napkins, skirts, scarves, sweat, skin, medical devices, silk screening on clothes, sweat, bra underwires, bras, prosthetic limbs, etc. is a useless piece of garbage.

Forcing hundreds of thousands of innocent people to be subjected to invasive touching by a govt employee without a valid reason is wrong.

Any scanner that gives false positives AND false negatives over 50% of the time like the nudie scanners do should never be relied upon as an excuse for a screener to touch an innocent flyer.

Anonymous said...

Boldy writes: "At my local airport the have 17 lanes for screening. However, due to staffing reductions, they can generally only open about 8 of them."

So Boldy are you claiming that there has been an over 50% reduction in staff at "your" airport? Somehow or another, I don't think that's true.

screen shot

Anonymous said...

"and just like the AIT machines, they alarm on anomalies. They have absolutely no way of knowing if the anomaly is a gun, a knife, a tic tac, a nickel or a bead of sweat."

100% of the naked body scanners' alarms since they have been installed have been on harmless items or things like knives that would have been found by metal detectors. The scanners are absolutely useless, just like a burglar alarm that calls the police every time you use your key to open the front door. Why can't TSA admit this simple fact that they know is true, you know is true, and all of us know is true?

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the perfect rebuttal. It's better than my anti-tiger rock. Which, BTW, still has a 100% success rate ;)

I bet you will be happy to have that rock if you are ever in an area where tigers are known to be a threat.

Anonymous said...

Boldy, would you be happy to live in a home with a burglar alarm that calls the police every time you open your front door?

Wintermute said...

I live in central Ohio. Tigers are more common here than terrorists are on planes. Or were, until i got this rock.

Anonymous said...

Boldy (again, what should we call you?) Any thing you wish.

A machine forced false upon millions of innocent people every day whose sole purpose is to detect weapons, incendiaries, and explosives, false. they are designed to detect anomalies but instead triggers false positive alarms on hair, scars, cloth folds, jewelry, piercings, bandages, feminine napkins, skirts, scarves, sweat, skin, medical devices, silk screening on clothes, sweat, bra underwires, bras, prosthetic limbs, etc. those would be anomalies is a useless piece of garbage.

Forcing false hundreds of thousands of innocent people to be subjected to invasive touching by a govt employee without a valid reason is wrong. agreed. Good thing they have a reason

Any scanner that gives false positives AND false negatives over 50% of the time like the nudie scanners do should never be relied upon as an excuse for a screener to touch an innocent flyer. agreed. Good thing they aren't false results

Anonymous said...

So Boldy are you claiming that there has been an over 50% reduction in staff at "your" airport? Somehow or another, I don't think that's true.

is that what I said? Read what I said and you will know what I meant.

Anonymous said...

Boldy wrote:
they are designed to detect anomalies

To what end? Are "anomalies" a threat to aviation? No. Face it, they are designed to detect weapons and explosives, BY detecting anomalies. And at this job they have failed.

Good thing they have a reason

No, they have an anomaly. All of which, so far, over the many years these machines have been in use, were non-dangerous (or would have been caught via the much cheaper and less invasive metal detectors).

Fix the TSA said...

Bold TSApologist, you say above that you are fine with us calling you anything we wish. In a previous comment on another blog post, you were very upset when you were addressed as TSApologist. Are you okay being called a TSApologist now?

Fix the TSA said...

Bold TSApologist, you emphatically deny above that people are not forced to use the nudiescanners and people are not forced into being groped and touched by TSA screeners.

Wrong again. The TSA's failed technology and intrusive policies and procedures do indeed force people to either be naked scanned or (often AND) groped by a screener.

Simply typing "false", even in bold text, does not refute my assertion and the facts backing them up.

Fix the TSA said...

Bold TSApologist, you sure do love the term "anomalies."

Over 50% error rate on a machine that can only say it "sees something" is a perfect analogy for the DHS and all of the dumb TSA security theater.

It would be hilarious if for one day every time a scanner saw "something", loud bell and light alarms went off and the screening area was evacuated. Then the TSA screener would have to announce on a loud speaker what the "something" was that triggered the alarm.

Just one day of that would show everyone, even you, TSApologist, how pathetic the nudiescanners are and how badly they fail.

Looking for "anomalies" is like looking for a four-leaf clover in an acre field of three-leaf clover. You'll have a lot of false positives and waste everyone's time.

Or a better analogy is this Bold TSApologist: Lynn drives a car to work. Lynn can't be late to work or she'll be fired. Lynn's car fails to start over 50% of the time.

Does Lynn rely on that car to get her to her job?

Anonymous said...

No, they have an anomaly. All of which, so far, over the many years these machines have been in use, were non-dangerous (or would have been caught via the much cheaper and less invasive metal detectors).

how do you know this? Have you seen a list that contains all the items found by AIT? You are making assumptions and telling them as fact. You cannot possibly know this.

Anonymous said...

"how do you know this? Have you seen a list that contains all the items found by AIT?"

Yes.

We have the weekly blotter posts this blog has been running for years. Never have they ever listed a dangerous item that was found 1) with the naked body scanners that 2) would not have been found with a WTMD.

All the naked body scanners are good for is needless, invasive physical searches of untold thousands of passengers. We don't know exactly how many, because Curtis Burns and West Cooper refuse to acknowledge that anyone is asking about these searches. It's almost like answering the question would reveal how ineffective and wasteful the naked body scanners are. Sad.

Fix the TSA said...

Bold TSApologist, most of the items found and posted every week on this blog were in the passenger's checked or carry on baggage. The items found on people's bodies could have been or were found using walk through metal detectors.

AIT is a failed technology.

Anonymous said...

Boldy said ...

how do you know this? Have you seen a list that contains all the items found by AIT?


If it's anything 'dangerous', it's posted here on the blog. The tens of thousands of false alarms... aren't recorded.

Anonymous said...

Bold TSApologist, you say above that you are fine with us calling you anything we wish. In a previous comment on another blog post, you were very upset when you were addressed as TSApologist. Are you okay being called a TSApologist now?

As I said, you can call me what ever makes you happy. My happiness in life is not dependent on what or how you address me. But if yours is, I wouldn't want to slow you down.

Anonymous said...

Bold TSApologist, you emphatically deny above that people are not forced to use the nudiescanners and people are not forced into being groped and touched by TSA screeners.

Wrong again. The TSA's failed technology and intrusive policies and procedures do indeed force people to either be naked scanned or (often AND) groped by a screener.

Simply typing "false", even in bold text, does not refute my assertion and the facts backing them up.

you choice of terminology is based on an opinion. "groped" is an opinion, not a fact. "nudiescaners" is absolutely an opinion, not a fact and nobody is "forced" to do anything. If they CHOSE to fly, they will be screened. So your statement is based on opinions and falsehoods.

Wintermute said...

And... Another of my comments that met policy mysteriously disappeared. West will deny deleting it, or it will suddenly show up after I question it being missing. Either way, the "conversation" is borken because of poor blog policy which needs addressed.

Anonymous said...

"how do you know this? Have you seen a list that contains all the items found by AIT?"

Yes.

We have the weekly blotter posts this blog has been running for years. Never have they ever listed a dangerous item that was found 1) with the naked body scanners that 2) would not have been found with a WTMD.

so based on your opinion, we can assume that with thousands upon thousands of flights each week, millions of passengers, the list found on this blog is an all inclusive, complete list of all items found? I find that pretty hard if not impossible to believe. Maybe that is why you struggle so much to understand. There are more items found than what you see here.

Fix the TSA said...

Oh Bold TSApologist, you can be so funny sometimes!

Do you call torture "enhanced interrogation"? Because it sounds like you call groping by screeners "enhanced patdowns". Look up the word "grope" and you will see that it applies to the actions of the screener.

Should a person attempt to travel by plane in this country, he or she is forced to submit to TSA intrusive policies, invasive procedures, and ineffective technologies. That is a fact.

The term nudiescanners, nudeoscopes, naked pic scanners are not "opinions". Time to get the dictionary, Bold TSApologist! They are descriptive nouns.

You don't have to like the terms I use, but they are not "opinions".

Wintermute said...

If you were to touch someone, even as a LEO, the way TSA does their patdowns, "groped" would be the term used.

Nudiescanner, nude-o-scope, etc, are also apt descriptions. They "see" under your clothing, regardless of whether they display a gumby image or store the raw data or not, so that discription fits.

But don't let facts taint your argument.

Wintermute said...

And you know this as fact how?

Anonymous said...

Oh Bold TSApologist, you can be so funny sometimes! Thanks

Do you call torture "enhanced interrogation"? Because it sounds like you call groping by screeners "enhanced patdowns". Look up the word "grope" and you will see that it applies to the actions of the screener. not in the context that anti TSA folks are using it.

Should a person attempt to travel by plane in this country, he or she is forced to submit to TSA intrusive policies, invasive procedures, and ineffective technologies. That is a fact. thus it is a choice, thank you.

The term nudiescanners, nudeoscopes, naked pic scanners are not "opinions". Time to get the dictionary, Bold TSApologist! They are descriptive nouns. It is your OPINION that "nude" is in any way shape or form part of the AIT operation. It isn't. Thanks for the English lesson. But I guess if we are going to get picky, what would you call your made up words? I couldn't find your "descriptive nouns" in any dictionary.

You don't have to like the terms I use, but they are not "opinions". or even terms for that matter.

Wintermute said...

The machines "see" under clothes, thus the terms are pretty descriptive.

Starting to suspect that your sole purpose here is to argue over terminoligy so that it distracts everone from the bigger picture, which is that the risk of dying from a terrorist attack on an aircraft is less than getting struck by lightning twice, thus the secruity theatre is not worth the price paid, both monetarily and in liberties lost.

Fix the TSA said...

Lol, Bold TSApologist, you are very touchy on the subject of naked scanners. Why do you care so much about how I use descriptive words and portemanteau to describe scanners that look under the clothes of millions of people every day?

Your continued insistence that nudiescanners don't look under clothes and invade our privacy and that travelers aren't forced into nudiescanners as a condition of modern travel is bordering on willful blindness to the intrusive procedures of the TSA.