TSA Defends New Screening Procedures

Some dramas seem tailor-made for the Internet’s ephemeral obsessions, and the kerfuffle over the Transportation Security Administration’s new airport screening procedures is a perfect example. It’s got all the ingredients to feed a media circus: a whiff of government overreach, children prodded to tears, bold push-back, splashy protests, federal employees apparently frisking nuns–an irresistible  recipe seasoned by the immediacy of next week’s Thanksgiving travel crunch. With furor of the full-body scans and invasive pat-downs reaching critical mass, TSA Administrator John Pistole went before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Wednesday morning to explain why the new screening measures are a necessary evil.

Pistole was conciliatory but resolute: If you’re going to get on a plane, you’re either going to be photographed with advanced imaging technology–the “full-body scans” that render all-too-detailed impressions of travelers’ physiques–or endure an uncomfortably thorough pat-down.  “I am very sensitive to and concerned about people’s privacy concerns,” Pistole said. But “the bottom line is we need to provide the best possible security.” Nobody’s happy about these new security measures, in other words, but they’re here to stay.

While you’d never guess it from the hysterical media coverage, most people are…pretty OK with that. The breathless headlines and expert discussion forums provide a distorted picture of public perception. According to a CBS News poll, 81% of Americans approve of the decision to use full-body X-ray machines to weed out terrorist threats. Sometimes the screams of an aggrieved minority drowns out the rest of the public, and this may be one of those cases.

There is a painful repetition to these sorts of hearings. Senators can use them as an opportunity to etch their empathy with the public’s concern into the public record, which means thorough questioning can be crowded out by statements declaring solidarity with the American people. And this time, the message they wanted to convey was almost uniform: we know you’ve got a tough gig — “impossibly difficult,” according to Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia–but the people are mad, and isn’t there anything we can do?

Not really, Pistole explained. The department is doing its best to accommodate concerns about privacy invasion, but “the core mission of TSA is to keep the traveling public safe” in an age of increasingly sophisticated terrorist threats, he explained. Pressed by Sen. Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Pistole flatly stated: “Am I going to change the policies? No.”

(TIME’s Newsfeed blog has a good run-down of commonly asked questions about the procedures.)

The Senators basically accepted this. They were deferential to Pistole, lauded TSA’s vigilance, acknowledged the difficulty of balancing security and privacy–and registered their concerns once again. “We’ve got to do more. The outcry is huge,” said Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, the committee’s ranking Republican. “There has to be a way to improve the airport security screening process to address the legitimate privacy concerns of the traveling public.” George LeMieux, the Republican Senator from Florida, was more strident. “I’m frankly bothered by the level of these patdowns. I wouldn’t want my wife to be touched in the way they’re being touched,” he said. “I think you’ve gone too far afield.”(LeMieux suggested TSA should consider profiling passengers; there was no reason, he argued, for a passenger who had never left the country or been arrested to submit to imaging on a flight from, say, Minneapolis to Fort Lauderdale. Sen. Jim DeMint also briefly bemoaned “political correctness” while thanking Pistole for his service.)

Pistole explained that he, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and other government officials submitted to pat-downs themselves before signing off on the procedure. “It is thorough…it was more invasive than I was used to,” Pistole acknowledged. “I am very sensitive to and concerned about people’s privacy concerns.” Posed the same question over and over, he reiterated this message throughout the hearing. (Pistole has had time to burnish his words; he faced a similar grilling yesterday, during a hearing before a House committee.)

The TSA administrator declined to provide some details about the nature of the pat-downs, citing security concerns. But he tried to allay fears stoked by the media rumor-mill. Children under 12 are exempted from the pat-down process, he said. (A viral tale about a three-year old bursting into tears after being prodded by an officer is, in fact, from two-year-old footage of a three-year old crying after her teddy bear was taken from her at a security checkpoint. And that viral snapshot of the nun-frisking–which the Drudge Report headlined, in typically restrained fashion, “THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON”–is actually at least three years old.) In fact, the pat-downs are rare, and happen either because of passenger preference or because the imaging triggered an alarm. And while no one’s disputing that the images are more revealing than one would like, Pistole stressed their anonymity; the TSA employee viewing the image is in a separate room as the passenger, and the officer performing the screening never sees the image. “We believe we’ve implemented adequate privacy protection.” He said better imaging technology, which would render passengers as as stick figure or “blob”–rather than a lumpy mass with breasts or genitals visible–could be available within months.”

Until then, feel free to bring your “Don’t Touch Our Junk” sign along when traveling over the holidays.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / White House

    Obama’s Persuasive Powers on Gay Marriage Manifest in Maryland

    When President Obama endorsed gay marriage earlier this month, the media grappled with two basic political questions: Was his personal “evolution” a case of  a politician transparently following a national trend toward accepting same-sex unions (accelerated, perhaps, by his chatty number two), and would it hurt his re-election chances by alienating socially conservative voters like black churchgoers? Sure, there was a recognition that it marked a gratifying moment for gay marriage advocates—as well as some grumbling about the President’s view that it remains a state issue, not a federal one. But by and large, there were few suggestions that one man, even the President, would shift public opinion on the issue or affect public policy. Based on a new Public Policy Polling survey out of Maryland, it seems this possibility was underestimated.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Cherokee Zero

    Apparently, Massachusetts voters don’t mind that Elizabeth Warren foolishly identified herself as a Native American early in her academic career–it was, apparently, a case of family pride and wishful thinking about a Cherokee ancestor. That’s good. Warren may be the best public figure when it comes to explaining the depredations of the financial industry and [...]

  • deconstructiva

    Well, at least God bless our Free Market System™. Even before these security updates, someone’s trying to make money off this issue from the consumer’s end (literally) –
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/38329162/TSA_v_Pasties
    .
    company website – http://flyingpasties.com/
    (alas, these won’t resolve patdown issues)

  • akismet-c0da20d76e834e2583f283607b20e313

    TSA protests force Big Sis to huddle with staff in Washington to discuss groping, cavity searches and sharing HOT flier nipple scans. http://bit.ly/9Wlghf

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    And as a necessary tonic to this pap:

    Digby:

    “These routine insults, humiliations and suspensions of human dignity are training us to submit to the police state”

    Greenwald:

    “What has most degraded the American citizenry is convincing them that no value competes with or should be weighed against ‘Security.’ And, of course, these measures rarely provide real security: only security theater.

    Many Americans, to their shame, are typically apathetic to such concerns because privacy and civil liberties infringements are — at least it’s perceived — being directed only at foreigners and Muslims, not ‘real Americans.’

    John Cole:

    “Don’t submit to the police state, and we’ll come after you. This isn’t a punishment for Tyner, it is a message to everyone else”

  • shepherdwong

    884 words and not one on the substantive question of whether it’s a relatively effective security measure or not. What must it be like to live in a world where the only value is political.

  • grape_crush

    While you’d never guess it from the hysterical media coverage, most people are…pretty OK with that.
    .
    Gotta fill those 24 hours up with something, I guess.

  • Alex Vallas

    Every airport security section should display a picture of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s underwear with explosives that did not fully detonate. Most people have the option of going through the body scan or physical search. The body scan hardly looks like a person and no one but the screener can see it with face distorted. So what’s the big deal? I wear a pacer and have to go through the body search. The last time I flew the TSA agent felt my crotch with the back of his hand. I would prefer that to being bombed out of the sky.

  • shepherdwong

    I would prefer that to being bombed out of the sky.
    .
    It’s false choice. If there were no security screening whatsoever, you’d still be more likely to be killed on the freeway on your way to the airport. You’re a victim of the ginned-up irrational fear that justifies this sort of foolishness.

  • gysgt213

    Please don’t use the what’s the big deal argument. Its the same one used whenever you want to argue that people should just submitt to authority and give up their rights. Its the same thing as saying if you have nothing to hide just let the government read your emails and search your home all without warrants, because you have nothing to hide.
    .
    The big deal is this is the government doing the searching. Not the private airlines.

  • http://www.simonvinkenoog.nl/beeld/Yogi%20-%20Annelies%20Rigter.jpg yogi

    hehe thanks decon, that made my day.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    But giving up our rights will keep us free, right?
    .
    “The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them….To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Dennis Perrin:

    Leave it to a libertarian to test authoritarian limits. For all of their online heckling, most liberals wouldn’t dream of confronting police state mechanisms. They admire state power, especially with a mule president in place….

    Welcome to prisoner nation.

    More and more travelers, pilots among them, are reportedly fed up with tightening airport procedures. Three cheers, but how does this translate into action? Americans are so atomized that our concerns and fears barely reach the level of consumer complaints. The idea of an organized, dare I say it, collective resistance to the widening police state seems more a science fiction/video game narrative than an actual political possibility. So we grumble and shuffle along, obedient, cowed. Personal films play in our heads as we try to avoid as much contact with other people as possible.

  • stuartzechman

    Alex Altman:
    .
    It’s so wonderful of you, a member of the press corps, to help us understand the TSA apparatchik’s rationalization of their program, it really makes things a lot clearer for us confused, fearful folk out here.
    .
    By the way, have you ever heard of the term “Security Theater,” Alex Altman?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater
    .
    Security theater has been defined as ostensible security measures which have little real influence on security whilst being publicly visible and designed to demonstrate to the lesser-informed that countermeasures have been considered. Security theater has been related to and has some similarities with superstition.
    .
    Security theater has real monetary costs but does not necessarily provide tangible security benefits. Security theater typically involves restricting certain aspects of people’s behaviour in very visible ways, that could involve potential restrictions of personal liberty and privacy, ranging from negligible (where bottled water can be purchased) to significant (prolonged screening of individuals to the point of harassment)…

    It’s good to know that “The TSA administrator…tried to allay fears stoked by the media rumor-mill,” because there’s nothing so troubling as ordinary people made unnecessarily anxious by the security state’s manipulation of a sensationalism-seeking press.
    .
    I’m sure that we’re all measurably safer because this bureaucrat wisely declined to reveal “details about the nature of the pat-downs, citing security concerns,” so hats off to you for not looking into that more closely, to see if there were actually any legitimate security concerns, or whether the official is resorting to ritual recitation of what apparently ends all free inquiry now in the United States.
    .
    Thanks again for doing the tough job of journalism, and challenging the state’s purported rationales for costly increases in bureaucratic power, Alex Altman, the nation is better off for it.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    “By the way, have you ever heard of the term ‘Security Theater,’ Alex Altman?”
    .
    I’d hope so, as my Greenwald quote above mentions the term. But, as you and I would readily agree, GG is a civil liberties extremist and as such is to be dismissed.
    .
    I’m sure you saw the Adam Serwer post on the exchange between Dina Temple-Raston & GG, where Jay Rosen made the first/excellent comment?

    Every single thing I know that I cannot tell the public is poisoning my relationship with the public and delivering me into the arms of the state.
    .
    …In theory we send these people out to report back to us. Some of them penetrate the secret worlds of national security and government policy-making on our behalf. But if they keep going into the secret world they can come under the gravitational pull of another planet— the people in power, the secret-makers themselves. They’re still sending back their reports, but have “left” our universe, so to speak. I think this definitely happened with Judith Miller, who is very far gone by now. It may have happened with Woodward too. The mysterious part is you never know exactly when that point is reached.

    For some reason, it won’t let me post the American Prospect link to Serwer.

  • pryanball

    Although I agree with a lot of what you say here, there are individual scenarios where the screenings and pat-downs clearly go too far. Take this as an example: http://bit.ly/9tzwdQ

  • Hawley Roddick

    What are we to make of so many Americans feeling okay about scanning our children – although it may do them irreparable genetic damage?

    Why is it okay to subject kids to genital groping by strangers?

    What are we trying to keep safe if not our children?

  • redraven937

    Would these things have thwarted an actual attack based on the bomb powder material Al-Qaeda seems to be using now? Based on the news reports, even the bomb squad dogs were unable to find them on the first pass even though we actually knew they were on board. What makes anyone thing pat-downs or virtual strip-searches would find something apparently undetectable by bomb dogs?

    And what exactly happens when terrorists start swallowing condoms of C4 or stuffing containers of this powder in their anal cavities? We going to start up an anal probe line for everyone flying from St. Louis to Chicago?

    Terrorists are back to mailing bombs and that seems enough to bring the airline industry to a crashing halt. If the industry can’t legitimately scan all their cargo without bankrupting themselves, all these scans and pat-downs are moot.

  • http://justsaynoday.wordpress.com justsaynoday

    Big brother strikes again.

    Do you really feel safe when your civil liberties are being infringed upon on a daily basis? The government says we need them, when are they going to understand that it is “WE THE PEOPLE” not “WE THE GOVERNMENT”

    The people should not be afraid of their government. The government should be afraid of the people! Question your government every day. To see what’s really happening to your liberties and how to get them back visit

    http://www.justsaynoday.com

  • michaelfury

    “If you’re going to get on a plane, you’re either going to be photographed with advanced imaging technology–the “full-body scans” that render all-too-detailed impressions of travelers’ physiques–or endure an uncomfortably thorough pat-down.”

    Unless of course you are accompanied by a well-connected “well-dressed man”.

    http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/points-of-failure/

  • Alex Altman

    A true feat of condescension, Stuart, even for you. I can honestly say — none of your dripping sarcasm here — I always learn something from the commentariet, but I didn’t expect to find out I’d abetted totalitarianism and ushered in a security state in a few hundred words. At least you’ve got new media criticism to promote on your twitter feed, right?

  • stuartzechman

    Thanks so much for reading and responding to commentary, Alex Altman, it is always –always– greatly appreciated by those of us who comment here.
    .
    I didn’t expect to find out I’d abetted totalitarianism and ushered in a security state in a few hundred words
    .
    You’re right, I guess I was rather oblique in my accusations. Of course I blame you, personally, for all totalitarian impulses, everywhere. You, personally, are Orwell’s nightmares incarnate, bearing total, personal responsibility for all corruption, errors and excesses of that vast apparatus about which Eisenhower played Cassandra.
    .
    J’Accuse.
    .
    I hope you were at least mildly entertained by my criticisms, Alex, sincerely.

  • http://brjnewport.wordpress.com brjnewport

    Instead of opt-out day on November 24th, it might be more fun and make a stronger (and slightly hilarious ) point by declaring it national “smuggle a giant silami through airport security in your pants day.”

    Seriously, these guys at TSA should be ashamed of themselves with these pat-downs. They are way over the line, and I truly want to find a better way to protest these indignities without being branded a criminal by this increasingly overcriminalized society.

  • http://newassignment.net/ Jay Rosen

    I took note of the “calm down, kiddies” tone of this, Alex. It is a striking feature in what you wrote. You really should have a look at some of the literature on security theatre. It might have introduced a note of doubt into your analysis, which in this case would have improved things. Cheers.

  • stuartzechman

    Yes, JC, of course I did see both Serwer’s piece and Prof. Rosen’s excellent commentary.
    .
    Both piece and commentary reminded me of a panel discussion held at The New School in New York City, which I attended with Jay Ackroyd.
    .
    Daniel Ellsberg, Glenn Greenwald, Chris Capozzola of MIT and Times’ journalist David Barstow were the panelists.
    .
    Jay Ackroyd put up a post at our sometime-blog PoliLag about what Ellsberg had to say:
    .

    http://politicallagoon.blogspot.com/2010/02/ellsberg.html
    .
    [Ellsberg] recounted a time in 1969 when he explained to Henry Kissinger what happens when you get the dozen clearances above Top Secret*. What happens first is that you feel like a fool. You’ve published books that you now discover were filled with stuff that was wrong. You have believed you understood how things worked, but you now find out you were completely wrong, that the real world is entirely different from what you have been told your entire life.
    .
    But this stage only lasts a few weeks. After you have been reading this material hitherto unavailable to you for a while, you begin to see everybody else as fools. Only with people with these top level clearances know the truth. People whom you previously regarded as experts become ignoramuses, doubly so because they don’t realize that they actually know nothing.
    .
    Moreover, you have to lie to the fools constantly, because the condition for your getting access to what is really going on is you cannot tell anybody what is really going on. So after a pretty short time period, your conversation with the foolish experts consists of telling them only what you want them to hear.
    .
    This lying is essential to the secrecy. Ellsberg recounted a reporter friend calling him, and asking if there was anything to this Pentagon Papers business (which were in Ellsberg’s office safe and the safes of a dozen or so others), he said “No. Never heard of this.” You end up increasingly living in a bizarre hothouse.

    Access journalism proceeds from such secrecy, it seems.
    .
    Essentially, when we observe that modern US journalism –at least with respect to national security and foreign policy beats– appears to be an appendage of the state, we’re wondering out loud if it makes sense to apply Ellsberg’s critique of fellow bureaucrats to purportedly independent reporters and editors.
    .
    That’s a far cry from accusing individual reporters of aiding totalitarianism at home, of course.
    .
    I did read those, JC, but thanks for the reference, others here should read that fine analysis, too.

  • stuartzechman

    Sorry, that’s “The Times’,” as in “The New York Times’ Barstow, not TIME.”
    .
    (Barstow was asked at the Q & A about criticism of his NYTimes piece on the Tea Party movement’s assertions of “impending tyranny”, by the way. It was interesting.)

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    “the real world is entirely different from what you have been told your entire life”
    .
    Sounds like a line Morpheus would deliver.
    .
    Wasn’t sure if that happened before/after your return from the land of the Kiwi.
    .
    Strange that you post Ellsberg today–I literally just bought a used copy (1973) of Chomsky’s “For Reasons of State.” The first and longest essay is “The Backroom Boys,” his fine analysis of the P-papers. As invaluable today as then, testament to how little changes in this metadiscourse.
    .
    “To those in power, it seems obvious that the population must be cajoled and manipulated, frightened and kept in ignorance, so that ruling elites can operate without hindrance in ‘the national interest,’ as they choose to define it”

  • http://matterblather.wordpress.com bknabe

    By all accounts the Israeli’s manage to protect their airports and planes without queued up lines, full body scanners or pat downs (unless really necessary). Maybe instead of installing poorly tested (if at all) scanners that may not even detect the explosives used by the crotch bomber, won’t detect anything more than 1/16th inch under the skin, and may not detect artificial skin and things under it.

    If you want to take a paranoid conspiracy view, the current TSA system is perfectly designed to guarantee a successful attack. Another successful attack allows more restrictions on U.S. citizens and their travel. A series of such events (9/11, crotch bomber, Times Square Bomber, next?) over long enough time the frog peacefully boils, er, I mean the citizens allow things they would never have allowed if simply presented as “necessary” without the backdrop of disaster and near disaster.

  • draconifer

    “Time Magazine” is so biased. It’s practically

    government propaganda.

    It promotes endless war in Afghanistan and plays

    apologist to violation of privacy rights.

  • draconifer

    The tradition continues by the same magazine that

    named Hitler “man of the year”. “Time Magazine”

    strikes

    again. More like a time bomb than a true magazine.

  • apollyon07

    Honestly if airport security gets much worse I’m going to fly less. Ever since 9/11 it seems like flying substantially gets to be more of a hassle constantly (compounded by ever increasing delays as well!). The part of airport security I can’t stand the most is that it’s so reactionary (like the liquids ban, for example…which I’ve lost many bottles of contact solution and mouthwash to…sigh) .
    .
    Airport security is on par with the DMV when it comes to being unbearable.
    .
    If we’re getting put through all this mess you’d at least want it to be effective. Clearly it’s not, and that’s the worst part. We are seemingly always one step behind the terrorists…while also going the wrong way, if that makes sense. Really annoying and intrusive does not equal safe airplanes.
    .
    It’s good to find an issue that conservatives and liberals can agree on.
    .

  • liberalmeltdown

    Yes, what genius. Let’s be double safe. Send the pilots through the scanner and then do the full body pat down on them. That will make damn sure that those pilots won’t BLOW UP the plane. AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

  • liberalmeltdown

    Let’s be clear. Searching and scanning Americans citizens DOES NOT MAKE YOU SAFER. It does make you stupid.
    .
    Americans are not terrorists that blow up planes. Name one.
    .
    When a search goes out for suspects, it includes a description; who, what, where to look for. To do otherwise is just asinine. Imagine a bank is robbed and the police search everybody in town because they don’t want to profile suspects. Political Correctness is insanity.

  • apollyon07

    Hate to say it but being bombed out of the sky really isn’t much less likelier despite all these incessant security measures.
    .
    But everyone’s made to go through it and be more worried about threats as a result of our government. bin Laden must be laughing his @ss off at us.

  • herby002

    Thanks. I forwarded the link to a Las Vegas blog that might appreciate its “local flavor”.

  • herby002

    liberal,

    I want to get this clear.

    Are you saying that no American should be subjected to security procedures in airports?

    Are you saying that non-Americans should?

    Are you saying that nobody should be subjected to security procedures?

    Are you saying that only people (American or otherwise) should be subjected to security procedures who fit the profile of “who, what, where to look for”?

    Or are you only spouting off because you can?

    Please choose.

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    So when the terrorists invent a rectal bomb, what will you do then? Will you submit yourself to a cavity search? For the one guy in 8 years that got on a plane and FAILED to detonate a bomb?

  • Asharaxx

    “Political Correctness is insanity.”
    .
    It’s always wonderful how you and the others stand by this statement, and then cry when said political incorrect-ness includes you.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Late to the party again, but, first, thanks Stuart for drawing that connection. BTW, I am reading Meg Greenfield’s Washington as Susie Madrak recommended the other day. Greenfield recounted the same story Ellsburg did, except attributed to a senior official with long experience in such matters. My guess is this set of remarks is a Kissinger set-piece–making it no less interesting.
    .
    On security theater, the phrase was coined by Bruce Scheneier. Bruce is a security expert, and cryptographer who has the gift of extraordinary common sense, and the application of it in security settings. His blog is here: http://www.schneier.com/ and he sends out a free monthly eletter that I’ve been getting for over ten years.
    .
    You can hear Bruce talking about security issues, especially wrt to aviation, with James Fallows and myself here:
    .
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/virtuallyspeaking/2010/03/26/virtually-speaking-with-jay-ackroyd-james-fallows-
    .
    Fallows will be back on the 9th of December to talk with Jay Rosen about the media. Both Rosen and Fallows wrote prescient books (What a Journalist is and Breaking the News) at the beginning of the millennium.
    .
    http://virtually-speaking.com

  • np042

    For those wondering, this is what the images produced by the x-ray machines look like: http://www.rupture.co.uk/Terminal%204.html
    (slightly nsfw?)
    .
    My biggest concern, however, is that these machines have not really been fully tested to see what the effects of the radiation emitted by them is. Yes, we have all been told that you are exposed to more radiation during your flight that by these machines. However, there is a growing concern that this is not entirely factual.
    .
    http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/11/fda-sidesteps-safety-concerns-over-tsa-body-scanners.ars
    .

    Unlike a medical X-ray, the TSA X-ray machines are a sci-fi fan’s dream: they are lower-energy beams that can only penetrate clothing and the topmost layers of skin. This provides TSA agents with a view that would expose any explosives concealed by clothing. But according to the UCSF professors, the low-energy rays do a “Compton scatter” off tissue layers just under the skin, possibly exposing some vital areas and leaving the tissues at risk of mutation.
    .
    When an X-ray Compton scatters, it doesn’t shift an electron to a higher energy level; instead, it hits the electron hard enough to dislodge it from its atom. The authors note that this process is “likely breaking bonds,” which could cause mutations in cells and raise the risk of cancer.
    .
    Because the X-rays only make it just under the skin’s surface, the total volume of tissue responsible for absorbing the radiation is fairly small. The professors point out that many body parts that are particularly susceptible to cancer are just under the surface, such as breast tissue and testicles. They are also concerned with those over 65, as well as children, being exposed to the X-rays.
    .
    The professors pointed to a number of other issues, including the possibility that TSA agents may scan certain areas more slowly (for example, the groin, to prevent another “underwear bomber” incident like the one in December 2009), exposing that area to even more radiation. But the letter never explicitly accuses the machines of being dangerous; rather, the professors encourage Dr. Holdren to pursue testing to make sure that the casual use of these X-rays is safe.
    .
    Dr. Holdren passed the letter on to the Food and Drug Administration for review. But, in the FDA’s response, the agency gave the issues little more than a data-driven brush off. They cite five studies in response to the professors’ request for independent verification of the safety of these X-rays; however, three are more than a decade old, and none of them deal specifically with the low-energy X-rays the professors are concerned about. The letter also doesn’t mention the FDA’s own classification of X-rays as carcinogens in 2005.

    .
    The other issue I have is that the head of the company that makes these machines was also a part of the Bush whitehouse. I can’t find the link but it appears for all intents and purposes that he is using his political connections to make money for his company at the expense of this country’s citizens.

  • celador2

    I HATE TSA and find security body checks disgusting. But I know our collective security is ony as strong as our weakest link.

    Giving anyone a free pass opens a door to terror attack.

    Anyone unwilling to undergo security, take a bus or drive. But,
    Please do not put me at risk for all of our short term convenience.

    Cel

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    It’s worth noting Jeffrey Goldberg’s remark about security lines. He points out that they are the most dangerous place in the airport, a heavily concentrated collection of people. Exploding a bomb there would kill hundreds, and would be more likely to shut down air travel than an attack on a plane. He says he always, always tries to find the shortest, fastest moving line, because that is the moment of greatest risk.
    .
    On Colbert, he also remarked that if someone has managed to outsmart interpol, the CIA, Homeland Security and the various local police forces to the degree that he or she in an airport with a bomb, do you really think that those guys deeply concerned about whether or not you have a wetnap are gonna catch them?
    .
    For the authoritarian advocates here, really? Really? You think taking off your shoes makes you safer? Really?
    .
    I’m just disappointed that Goldberg’s colleague James Fallows didn’t wear the kilt for his opt out experience.
    .
    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/on-the-kilt-question-tsa-dept-updated/66549/

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    If you read this Goldberg piece, on the cusp of implementation, I think you’ll agree that the plan was to make the pat down so awful, conceptually, and then, in fact (“I am going to slide my hands up your inner thighs”) that people would just not opt out to avoid the indignity.
    .
    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/are-any-parts-of-your-body-sore-asks-the-man-from-tsa/65482/
    .
    Instead, it has highlighted the idiocy. Which our fearless correspondence lines up with.

  • http://tanniah.wordpress.com tanniah

    I have a lot of legal questions about this, but here is the msot pressing:
    Since this violates sexual harassment policies, can flying still be a required part of anyone’s job? If not, things are going to get VERY interesting.
    http://www.raisingstinker.com/197/the-tsa-will-not-grope-my-child/

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    Since the ultimate goal of terrorism is not necessarily to kill, but to terrorize the living, I’d say Al Qeada has won this war a long time ago. We are nation in fear and it isn’t going to abate anytime soon.

  • frank1569

    The TSA just exempted the Pilots Union from cancer-causing xrays and full-body grope searches.

    That’s the TSA admitting they’re wrong, Time mag. We are right – understand? They are wrong.

    The easy solution is this: a Can Fly List.

    99.99 percent of Americans are not flight risks. Our government knows this – they’ve been spying on us unfettered for at least 10 years.

    Hell, my bank and grocery store know everything about me – so do the feds.

    Sub-contract out the Can Fly List to Google – in .43 secs, we all be cleared for takeoff.

  • boboberg

    Boycotts are ok but the real weapon we have against the TSA is our choice to not fly. You can get anywhere in the USA in 3 days or less by train and bus: What we should do is to refuse to fly. Until the TSA drops its full-body scans and invasive pat-downs I refuse to fly, PERIOD. Mark Montgomery NYC, NY boboberg@nyc.rr.com

  • pythagoris

    Does anyone know if Federal legislators (Senators & Representatives) have to go through the full TSA airport screening like everyone else? Legislators fly into and out of DC constantly, and otherwise fly all over the place, I just cannot imagine those egomaniacs waiting in line, taking their shoes off, having Neanderthals dig through their bags, and now get porno x-rayed and felt up. Anybody know if they are exempt from this treatment?

blog comments powered by Disqus