The 7 Creepiest Things About the TSA's "Porno Scanners"

[Hissyspit]

http://www.alternet.org/rights/148897/the_7_creepiest_things_about_the_tsa%27s_%22porno_scanners%22/

The 7 Creepiest Things About the TSA's "Porno Scanners"

The invasive scanners can see your tampons, give you cancer and make your grandmother cry -- and they're not cheap. Why do we keep using them?

November 17, 2010  |    
 
The recent, furious backlash against the TSA's degrading body scanners has drawn attention to the myriad ways the so-called "porno scanners" can violate one's privacy, civil rights and basic sense of dignity.
 
- snip -

3. They could give you cancer. Scientists have warned that there are serious health risks associated with X-ray body scanners. In April, a group of scientists from the University of California, San Francisco sent a letter to the White House about scanner safety concerns, while Dr. Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the Johns Hopkins University school of medicine, has said that "statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays."
 
- snip -

6. They're fueling homophobia in brand new ways. The anti-gay wingnut group Americans for Truth About Homosexuality has called for the TSA to use "common-sense, healthy 'discrimination'" by banning "self-acknowledged homosexuals" from being security agents "so as to avoid being put in sexually compromising situations." Apparently if a straight person feels you up publicly, that's just fine, but a gay person doing so is "sexually compromising."
 
7. They're an obscene waste of money. The House actually voted down the use of body scanners, but the TSA ignored the will of Congress and bought the machines anyway, wasting $25 million in stimulus funds.

MORE

[MineralMan]

1. They can't see tampons. They can't see anything internal.

Just correcting an incorrect statement in the OP.

[myrna minx]

4. Tampons have a string that would be visible. n/t

[elehhhhna]

23. "the fuse" in TSA lingo

[Iris]

66. Not all of them.

just sayin'

:)

[myrna minx]

70. I can only imagine the FOX news crawl after the first DIVA cup is "discovered".

:rofl:

[Iris]

71. hee! hee! n/t

[LibDemAlways]

5. They could certainly see the external tampon

string, which might be enough to get a woman pulled out of line for a groping. Intelligence and common sense are not attributes one can associate with this agency.

[MineralMan]

10. I don't know if the resolution is high enough for the string to

be visible. I doubt it. Besides, if a woman is wearing panties, that string is going to be flat against the body, anyhow, and shouldn't show up at all. I think this is sort of a silly concern.

[LibDemAlways]

14. The most detailed image that can be found with a google search is

male, so obviously the question of the string is unresolved, but I'm pretty sure if this is the resolution that it would be visible:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1108041-ok-why-am-i-supposed-hate-nude-o-scope-serious-question-5.html&usg=__LzHZOpFgZ1Eogm0aOU2wdw910Ec=&h=689&w=496&sz=115&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=52weWD3NSE-NtM:&tbnh=147&tbnw=113&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dairport%2Bnude-o-scopes%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1330%26bih%3D820%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=130&vpy=447&dur=4907&hovh=265&hovw=190&tx=77&ty=164&ei=OFHlTL7MOo-0sAO12IGxCw&oei=OFHlTL7MOo-0sAO12IGxCw&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=31&ved=1t:429,r:15,s:0

[MineralMan]

17. Actually, if that's the best resolution, I don't think they could see

a tampon string, especially if it were held against the body by underwear.

[Xithras]

31. No, they are higher res than that. Here's an example (NSFW)

The TSA has been flogged a few times already for releasing public images that were deliberately fuzzy, or of people whos bodies don't reveal much. In essence, they picked the least offensive images and released them as examples.

Here's a higher res image of a woman. Note that this is scaled down, and the security screener sees a much larger version (so the details are larger and more visible). You'll note that it even picks up the texture of her nipple areolae.

[MineralMan]

35. That's the same resolution as the other one, and it's still not

high enough to see a string pressed against the body. Now, if the woman was not wearing underwear, and a tampon string was hanging, it might be seen. If she's wearing underwear, the string will be against her body, and will not be seen. Note that the string is made of similar materials as underwear. You don't see the underwear, either. Tampon strings are very low density material, and will be transparent, like the underwear you aren't seeing.

[Xithras]

39. So, what you're saying is...

Al-Qaeda simply needs to come up with a low density bomb for their next attack, so the scanners won't pick it up.

Like, say, urea nitrate powder wrapped in a thin nitrocellulose belt? Like the kind that the British government has already determined can pass RIGHT THROUGH these scanners undetected?

I wonder what the TSA will do once AQ tries to set off one of those? Fully nude searches of all passengers? Or maybe they'll bring back the idea of just shackling everyone to their chairs? They'll do whatever it takes, because it's sooo important for us to be SAFE.

[MineralMan]

46. No, I'm not saying that. You're saying that. I say exactly what

I mean to say. You're inferring something that I did not say. I'm not an explosives expert, so I have no idea about what is possible. If you say that is possible, OK. I have no idea.

[Xithras]

52. Sorry, badly placed sarcasm on my part.

You just illustrated a point that I wanted to make anyway. It wasn't really pointed at you.

Reactive security doesn't work, because nothing short of stripping us naked and shackling us to a chair is going to guarantee safety. All of this TSA nonsense is reactive. It's meant to intercept yesterdays threat.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Just one point,

even shackling people to chairs is not truly fool proof.

100% security is impossible.

I am willing to accept more effective proactive security than the reactive crap we've been getting... which now I am not convinced is about security... is it about something else.

Of course it goes without saying... freedom has a certain amount of risk and it is high time we behave like adults.

[uncommon]

44. I had not seen one that clear. This is unacceptable and would keep me from flying.

[TwilightGardener]

55. Yikes. I'm going to go for the grope.

[Gormy Cuss]

28. I take it you aren't aware of current fashions in women's underwear.

In several styles the string swings freely.

[MineralMan]

40. Ah, well, then I suggest a different style of undies if you're flying.

I am aware of more than you may think. I wear a different sort of shoe than I usually wear when I'm flying. I wear slip-on shoes to fly, even though I never wear them any other time. Why? It takes less time to take them on or off. It is an accommodation to the screening. I pack another pair in my checked bag for use during my stay at the destination.

I wear button-fly jeans on a normal day-to-day basis. The metal buttons set off the metal detector once. So, I fly in a different pair of trousers when I fly...a pair that doesn't set off the metal detector. I pack my jeans for use at my destination. I make certain accommodations to make flying more convenient for me and to prevent unnecessary delays in the security screening.

I imagine that most women own a suitable pair of panties that won't allow that string to dangle, don't you?

[Gormy Cuss]

57. Actually, most women own only their favorite style of panties.

It's ridiculous to suggest they buy new underwear or wear a style that isn't comfortable just to avoid the TSA peepers. Besides, the machine also picks up sanitary napkins. Maybe in the interest of security menstruating women should remove all sanitary devices and just bleed out onto the floor of the scanners.

[MineralMan]

58. Thongs are comfortable? Really?

That's not what I hear, and I'm betting almost everyone with the money to fly has some non-thong underwear on hand. Seriously.

Yes, the pads will show up. In fact, it'll be so common that they'll very quickly deal with that and not be feeling around. Always looking for the worst case is not usually the best way to look at things, in my opinion.

[Gormy Cuss]

59. You'd lose that bet, and thongs aren't the only style where there would be this issue.

Deal with it? You do realize that some sanitary napkins are thicker than the average shoe sole and thus more than ample space to hide components for a shoe bomb, and that tampon strings could be attached to something other than a tampon, right? I can't wait for the TSA to come up with a policy on how to handle this issue. If they ignore sanitary devices that pretty much proves that the new focus on genital areas isn't necessary for security.

Always looking for the best case isn't the best way to look at things either.

[MineralMan]

60. You'll have to forgive me. The fine points of ladies scanties is

not one of my areas of expertise. I bow to your superior knowledge.

[Gormy Cuss]

88. How cute. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. I made this point in a far more graphic way

last night and it got deleted...

These machines can and will be fooled. Not me saying it, the GAO.

http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/

but some folks can't connect some dots.

Oh and yes, THEY WILL BE FOOLED... so fast... hope MM is happy for what is next... and hope they use KY

[CreekDog]

83. they check between my pants and body by the way

since you're such an expert and lately instead of just having me fold over my waistband, they've been checking in between that and my body.

but you'll defend it no matter what.

[Iris]

67. That's quite an assumption.

I have a wide array of undies to go with various different types of clothing.

In fact, I have specific bras I wear when flying b/c they have less underwire to set of the scanners.

[MineralMan]

73. Yah. My wife has a bra she rarely wears except on flights.

She also has quite an assortment of undergarments. I'm aware of these because the laundry is my responsibility. Different things for different occasions, I suppose. It passeth my understanding, though.

[Gormy Cuss]

74. You are an n of one.

IOW, that doesn't disprove the assertion that most women wear only one style.

[Iris]

89. Nor does your assertion prove that they do

[Gormy Cuss]

90. True, but most of the research with estimates is proprietary

and thus not public. There is an underwear site that does an annual survey with results that do support my assertion (their survey claims 80% of adults stick to one style) but since they don't publish their methodology I wouldn't cite them as evidence.

(FYI, the site is freshpair.com )

[CreekDog]

82. Holy Crap! The lengths to which you will defend this are unbelievable

You are craven.

You just told her to wear different underwear when she flies. :wtf:

And nevermind the lies about the machines earlier in the thread only to have to back down later, proving that you didn't know what you said you did.

[sabrina 1]

92. Women also wear sanitary napkins as some women fear

infection from tampons. How do you suggest they hide this very private fact from a TSA sexual assault by peeping Toms on their persons? Should they 'accomodate' these vile practices by just bleeding all over the place, or risk an allergic reaction to tampons in order to protect their privacy? And why would any decent American even suggest that getting on a plane should ever involve the discussion of such matters which are totally personal?

As a woman I am totally horrified and actually terrorized by these practices and by any discussion of them pretending to be 'rational'.

To be treated like convicted felons in a 'free' country when you want to take a trip to see your mom for Thanksgiving is simply, NOT, NO WAY acceptable. That you are arguing in favor of these abuses, abuses I am certain will be halted very soon simply because they are so outrageous, makes me want to ask you 'is there ANY line you would draw not to go along with these totalitarians who are currently profiting from the fear they hope Bush et al instilled in the American people?

[nonconformist]

93. Perhaps it's because you're a dude, but I can assure you

That unless the underwear you're wearing is extremely tight (and I mean extremely), the string is not really held flush to the skin even when wearing "normal" underwear.

[uncommon]

42. Which just goes to show how stupid these things are. If it can't see something because it

is right up against the body, then what the fuck good is it?

Also, for a woman who might have to deal with further humiliation if this is visible, it's not a silly concern.

[MineralMan]

48. They can't see a cotton or polyester/cotton string.

I'm not really sure what harm one could do with a string like that.

[krispos42]

76. Yet.

Resolution and sensitivity will increase as the machines are refined.

[CreekDog]

81. so you don't know? then why were you continually saying that you do?

to defend this form of search?

[northernlights]

37. well when they pull it out and get a handful of blood

will they blame the victim? Probably...

[LibDemAlways]

43. Mess with people's private parts and you get what you deserve.

There will inevitably be people who, after standing in line for an hour with a full bladder, aren't going to be able to hold it any longer when the groper presses up against their genitals. That's just a fact of life. Things will get very nasty and ugly out there.

[pipi_k]

50. I think anyone who has that concern might want to

take the external string and just push it a little bit inside before going to the airport. It's still reachable and peace of mind will prevail.

;)

[LynneSin]

11. Sanitary napkins are what they can see and those are NOT internal

:grr:

[MineralMan]

16. I didn't say they couldn't see pads. Of course they can. I'm only

questioning the tampon issue. I'm not sure why you're angry with me. I'm just pointing something out. I'm not making any judgments at all.

[LynneSin]

19. I'm angry at this whole TSA fiasco

and btw part of the tampon does hang outside the body so I would suspect that can be seen.

[MineralMan]

25. I don't think it can be seen. Normally, that string is held tightly

against the body by underwear, and is pretty darned small. I doubt that the scanners can resolve it.

The thing is that women menstruate. It's such a commonplace thing that they'll have to figure out how to deal with that. They're not going to be feeling up every woman who's wearing a pad. There are not enough hours in the day or enough TSA agents to do that. Practical considerations are going to be made with normal things. Right now, nobody really knows what all this means, and how it's going to end up being done on a day-to-day basis. There are limitations of time and personnel with all of this.

There's a lot of panicky speculation going on, since it's new, I think. Watch...you'll see that disappear over time, as the procedures shake themselves out.

[LynneSin]

27. So you're willing to give up your rights to board a plane

that's basically what is happening here.

[MineralMan]

34. No. You're consenting to being searched before boarding a

plane. Further, that plane is operated by a business, not the government. I consent to the search. I fly. If I do not consent to the search, I do not fly. At this level of screening, I consent.

The bottom line is that you do not have a right to board the plane. You can board it, if you meet the requirements to fly. Those include paying for the flight, not being a person on some do not fly list, and consenting to be searched for dangerous items. If you meet those requirements, you can fly. If you fail to meet those requirements, you do not fly.

I'm not saying it's the right way to do things. I'm saying that is how it is.

[LisaL]

65. Is it really "consent" if you are facing negative consequences

as a result of refusal? If you boss calls you into his office and says "Either you let me grope you or you are fired," and you don't want to get fired so you say "go ahead and grope me" did you consent? Furthermore, based on what happened to "don't touch my junk" guy, they now seem to imply that once you get to the search area you can no longer refuse the search, or you will be facing a large fine.

[CreekDog]

86. At least half of MM's posts in this thread are about tampons and women's underwear

he's talking about your rights not his.

[northernlights]

80. Um, no I DO NOT have to figure out a way to deal with some asshole sticking their hand in my crotch

or feeling me up. Nor do I have to deal with porno-film of me.

I'm simply NOT FLYING until the US GOVERNMENT GETS OVER THEIR SICK, PERVERTED NEED to INVADE EVERY FUCKING ASPECT OF OUR PRIVACY AND KEEPS THEIR MOTHER FUCKING HANDS OFF ME AND THEIR MOTHER FUCKING EYES OFF MY NAKED BODY.

[CreekDog]

85. they feel up every person who's in a wheelchair

all your assurances that they won't be so thorough about things that are commonplace is verifiably wrong.

[CreekDog]

87. Okay, this is way past weird

:eyes:

[nonconformist]

97. Again, unless you are wearing underwear that is jammed up your crotch tightly

The string is not generally "held tightly" against the body.

[LisaL]

68. So what are they going to do to someone wearing a pad or an

adult diaper for incontinence issues? Are people going to ask to remove the pads and diapers for inspections by TSA agents?

[LisaL]

69. So what are they going to do to someone wearing a pad or an

adult diaper for incontinence issues? Are people going to be asked to remove the pads and diapers for inspections by TSA agents?

[CreekDog]

84. you are denying making judgements when you just told another to wear different underwear

at least own what you said, don't be dishonest about it.

what's going on here?

[yurbud]

12. what about a toy car in your rectum?

[gkhouston]

20. If this is a reference to some other thread on DU, please *don't* provide a link.

x(

[femrap]

21. Thank you so much

for that :spray:

[yurbud]

61. that was in one of the Jackass movies

they didn't realize at the time it was an act of civil disobedience.

[elehhhhna]

26. nope. nor can is see items stashed under rolls of fat.

truefact

[katandmoon]

79. Kinda defeats the whole purpose of the scanners then.

[sabrina 1]

91. They can see sanitary napkins which believe it or not, some

women do wear.

This is disgusting anyhow, to even be talking about such an invasion of people's dignity, rights and freedoms in the context of it being instituted by our own government. Who are the terrorists again?

It's at the point where I and many others are more afraid of the Government than of the remote chance of dying in a terror attack. This has finally gone way too far and I am very pleased to see that the people are gathering their considerable resources to start ending these abuses.

Is feeling safe from the miniscule risk of dying by terror really worth these abhorrences to some people? It's hard to believe, considering most people are much more in danger of death just by getting into their cars every day.

Goehring was right, instilling irrational fear into the population gives immense power to the state, assuming you have a cowardly enough population to fall for it.

[valerief]

2. They intimidate the populace and keep fear alive. They must do

a number on business, too, since some employees may refuse to be bombarded with the machine's radiation each time they fly. Well, business in the US is a moot point nowadays anyway.

[whathehell]

18. I can't believe the airlines aren't fighting this big time...They're sure to lose money. n/t

[LibDemAlways]

24. They will be losing money. On another thread someone

who works in the aviation industry said that in a newsletter he received this week airlines are already reporting a decline in business. Important that the public keeps up the pressure. Politicians don't listen to ordinary people. They only listen to corporations.

[whathehell]

32. Yes...That seems increasingly true, unfortunately. n/t

[NV Whino]

3. The TSA needs to be defunded immediately

There, I've reduced the deficit.

[LibDemAlways]

9. Not entirely defunded of course, but completely rethought.

An Israeli security guy was on Olbermann last night and he was the voice of common sense and reason. He dismissed our entire "security" apparatus as a joke and called for a well-trained (that in itself would be a huge challenge for tsa) professional organization that would secure the skies without compromising the dignity of the traveling public. My advice would be to start by hiring him and then listening to what he has to say.

[Enthusiast]

13. The Republicans are deathly

afraid that a well-trained 'professional organization' would be a unionized one.

[femrap]

22. Exactly.....what are

the TSA making....in Ohio, I think around $12/hour if that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. FYI TSA is already UNION

[WinkyDink]

94. Other threads say it isn't.

[Xithras]

33. No, completely defunded and shut down.

America survived 88 years of commercial flight without having a federal security agency screening all of our flights. 9/11 merely proved that the federal government needed to set minimum performance guidelines for airport security screening. A lot of Democrats argued against Bush's plans to create de-facto federal internal security forces back when he created the TSA and Homeland Security, and many of us still argue that point today.

Disband the TSA. Let Congress set the standards, with severe punishments for airports that don't meet them, and go back to allowing the local and state governments to run security in their own airports.

[LibDemAlways]

36. I'd be all for it. It's just that once a huge government bureaucracy

gets started and takes hold the likelihood of completely shutting it down is slim. I am holding out (a tiny bit of) hope that the airlines will lose so much money and squeal so loudly that the politicians will have to rethink this monster and eventually we'll again have some sanity at the airports. Exerting economic pressure on the airlines is the only way to get the creeps at tsa to quit applying pressure to the flying public's genitals.

[aquart]

56. And then take down Homeland Security, idiotic boondoggle.

[valerief]

54. If only!

:applause:

[laughingliberal]

77. +1 nt

[Rebubula]

6. Maybe...

...I am just more Zen about shit like this, but I could not care less about these scanners OTHER than the fact that they are a waste of money for the TSA Showcase.

It is false security.

The cancer part is a fallacy as well. You get much more radiation from flying than from a dozen trips into this scanner.

Fear, hysteria and anger - reap the whirlwind.

[bluetrain]

7. Not true.

[hlthe2b]

15. "The cancer part is fallacy as well"... WRONG

While a rare risk, I would grant you, your opinion over the experts at Johns Hopkins? Oh, sure, we'll all take Rebula's opinion on that. :eyes:

[DCKit]

30. OK. I'm sick of hearing "It won't give you cancer".

Exposure to radiation - all radiation - is cumulative.

[laughingliberal]

78. +1

[Bluenorthwest]

8. They are high tech gadgets for the transfer of taxpayer money to

the hands of pirates. Useless, potentially dangerous, insulting, divisive, and of course, wildly expensive.

[CountAllVotes]

29. the TSA are a bunch of awholes

and I do mean that!

FUCK YOU TSA AND THE PERVERTS WHO RUN IT! :mad:

:dem:

[LibDemAlways]

38. I agree wholeheartedly. There are those on this board who

argue that the gropers are only doing the will of their masters. Give me a break. No one forces anyone to work for an organization that sexually assaults the public and those who engage in the assault are the lowest of the low. Total scumbags.

[CountAllVotes]

47. these scumbags are poorly trained idiots

and yes you nailed it alright, following the commands of their Nazi masters!

I swore I'd never fly again after the last time around. It was bad enough having to count my medications in front of them while frothing passengers in line behind me screamed "hurry up would you!".

As for a full body scan with an x-ray machine that causes cancer, ummm ... NO!

SONZABITCHES!

I hope these perverts go broke!

[LibDemAlways]

51. "these scumbags are poorly trained idiots" Yep. A similar

statement by me on here yesterday got me accused of hating all workers. LOL.

No, I only hate poorly trained morons who couldn't spot a real threat if it bit them in the ass. I flew last summer and took every precaution to make sure I wasn't hassled. I emptied my purse of everything except my wallet and hairbrush. Nevertheless a little snot nosed moron grabbed my purse away from me, removed the wallet, and emptied the entire contents into a plastic bin - all my change, credit/debit cards, etc. for no reason whatsoever. Just because she could. Give an otherwise powerless, uneducated creep a little authority and watch them abuse it.

[CountAllVotes]

53. these creeps like the power trip no doubt

They did the same with me. They went so far as to disassemble my laptop's power cord! :wtf: The assholes didn't bother to put it back together and when I arrived at my destination the other half of the cord was missing! :grr: :argh: :mad:

However, I got very lucky. I met up with a man that had several extra power cords with him and he gave me one of them! Seems he has had the same thing happen to him and being he travels a lot he always keeps a few extra adapter cords with him at all times!

Stupid SONZABITCHES yes!

:dem: :kick:

[LibertyLover]

96. I think I may have run into that agent as well

a few years ago I was flying with my not quite 3 year old daughter to attend a family wedding in Florida. Lucky me - I got pulled aside for "enhanced screening". The problem was that the person doing the picking didn't realize that the little Chinese girl next to me was my daughter and not the kid of the Asian family behind me. I was shunted off to the "enhanced security" area and my daughter trailed after me. The look on the guy's face was priceless. Anyway, the woman agent told me to face the wall and assume the position, if you know what I mean. That meant I couldn't keep my eye on my kid who decided, as almost 3 year olds will, that it was a perfect time to practice solo exploring. I kept turning my head and the TSA agent got annoyed. I finally told her that I had to watch my child since none of her agents were willing to make sure she stayed in the area. I was told it wasn't their job. Then I had to go back through the metal detector - which had not gone off the first time I went through it. Bethan happily trotted along side me. The agent got all upset and told me that she didn't want the kid going through. She also opened my purse and diaper bag and dumped their contents out on a table. Such fun I had. Luckily I had packed light and didn't have much in either the purse or the diaper bag. Power trippin' idiot.

[Toucano]

41. How about No. 8

They are ineffective a stopping a determined terrorist smuggle something internally and are, therefore, only for show and inconvenience.

[felix_numinous]

45. Americans have no say in our own security.

Screw the 'polls' that bleat out how we are 'willing to give up some of our civil rights!'

Our lives are becoming miserable by trigger happy police who can bust into our homes anytime, xray our cars, our bodies, demand identification from us in our own country, arrest children in schools, torture us with tazers, monitor our activities and conversations and mail, and treat us all like criminals in airports. We are being intimidated into compliance.

What is next? Because there is always a next. Drive through xray scanners to check for 'suspicious people and materials?' The internal probe is already being used on prisoners. Yeah, bend over and take it.

This is not a healthy society they have in mind. It is fear based paranoid, dominating, and most importantly---not safe. America is our home, and it is incrementally being taken away from us, bit by bit. These policies are not providing enough public safety, instead our quality of life has plummeted.

We are innocent. But we are being treated as if we are the criminals in our own country. When human life begins to lose it's dignity and value, it is time to draw a clear line.

[LibDemAlways]

49. Yep. When you buy an airline ticket you are assumed to be

a criminal and you have no right to privacy or human dignity.

Our elected representatives should hang their heads in shame at the desecration of the Constitution, but they are too busy collecting fat checks from lobbyists to concern themselves with what the public wants.

They will, however, listen to the corporations. People simply must stop all discretionary flying. Bring the airlines to their knees, force the CEOs to squeal loud and long to the politicians. That is the only chance we have of returning some sanity to the airports.

[TK421]

72. Who draws that line? When will enough be enough? I see plenty of

outrage over it, but there are plenty of others who seem alright with these practices

Who gets to decide here? Who makes the ultimate decision to say enough is fucking enough?

Apparently, anyone who buys an airline ticket, thats who

Maybe a message should be sent...loud and clear, but on the other hand an outright boycott of airlines hurts the economy and various other airport employees who don't even have a hand in these activities, as well as those whos jobs depend on flying..

This whole situation with fear mongering in this country has me absolutely disgusted, and other measures clearly have to be taken in place of these intrusive scanners and practices

[sarcasmo]

75. If I am not mistaken Chertoff is getting a bing chunk of that scanner money.

Must find a link.

[spin]

95. Follow the money ...

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security sees a future for scanners everywhere, in sports stadiums, malls and schools.

First they must get flying Americans to accept being scanned and that's the importance of the optional sexual molestation the TSA calls an enhanced pat down. They believe most people will chose to be scanned rather than groped.

There's big money in scanners and high profits for the manufacturers who have been lobbying Congress to ensure a profitable future.

Homeland Security also sees the opportunity to dramatically increase the size of its department and consequently its power. Right now the Dept. of Homeland Security is in third place. Why settle for third place?

With more than 200,000 employees, DHS is the third largest Cabinet department, after the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.<5> Homeland security policy is coordinated at the White House by the Homeland Security Council. Other agencies with significant homeland security responsibilities include the Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy.

The creation of DHS constituted the biggest government reorganization in American history, and the most substantial reorganization of federal agencies since the National Security Act of 1947, which placed the different military departments under a secretary of defense and created the National Security Council and Central Intelligence Agency. DHS also constitutes the most diverse merger of federal functions and responsibilities, incorporating 22 government agencies into a single organization.<6>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security