Now don't you feel cheated? You tell them you want a pat down and a full body scan and you want to see the images. Come on, you have a blog story to write and you paid good money for that ticket.

If you saw someone getting upset over the use of them and they had been operational, you should have immediately began video recording on your phone, charged the situation, and declared loudly "I am with the Internet -- do any of you have any comment?"

80% of the public supports the searches. If you are on a plane and somebody blows a hole in it, are you going to bitch about not being searched as you plummet to the ground?

No drama?
Isn't that exactly what this post is about?
"Porno Scanners" "Violation of my 4th amendment rights!" "felt-up"
I haven't heard anyone being quite so dramatic in a long time.
Please save your indignation for something that is truly ridiculous. People blowing up airplanes is a truly fucked up situation and really I'd rather they just anesthetize anyone who wants to get on a plain as part of the ticket price - but until that day let them try whatever they can.

P.S. Don't be such a pude! "keep me safe but don't look at me naked!"

Do you know if those are the backscatter or millimeter wave machines? The millimeter wave machines don't subject you to ionizing radiation (though the backscatter ones subject you to about a hundredth of what you'll get on that transcontinental flight anyway).

@3 - 80%, huh? That's a lot of people. I guess I'm wrong to disagree then. And yes, the infinitesimal chance my plane will be blown up is worth any irradiation or molestation that may or may not prevent jack shit. Thanks!

And how are searches in public places before engaging in a public activity that could affect quite a few people other than yourself a fourth amendment issue?

Don't fucking fly if you don't like it.

Thank you for the report, as I've been wondering about the scene there. I'm flying Wednesday and would like to think that some smart higher-up/executive type at SeaTac finds a reason why their machines aren't yet ready for use.

If we had a reasonable and comparable alternative to flying (like bullet trains), the 'don't fly if you don't like it' line would make a lot more sense. Flight saves travelers in the US a lot of time over cars or Amtrak, when it comes to long distances. Most people and businesses don't have that extra time. Even if they did, it's not clear the exchange of rights for time is quite fair: "Would you rather have more time to relax on your vacation, or would you like take off your shoes and be searched (and possibly groped or irradiated) in ways you otherwise might never consent to?"

Anyone with the will and resources could blow oneself up in a crowded area, yet we wouldn't accept police randomly pulling any of us aside to pat us down or send us through a body scan, just because we happened to be shopping in a mall, riding a bus, driving in a traffic jam, or the like. What makes flight so special?

@12 flight isn't a public space, it a commercial service provided by (a well regulated) industry.

It isn't your right to get on a plane.

When a plane blows up and we have to shell out for another 10 years of war You whiners will have violated my made up rights not to have to fund wars via federal taxes.

So what happens when an idiot blows up an Amtrak or a bus in this country? Pat downs and scanners to hop on the Amtrak to Portland or the #43 to the Hill?

Here's a little light reading for all of you (but especially the people who think increased security makes us more safe):
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/21/gr…

I just went through security as seatac a few minutes ago. The scanners are on, and everyone has to go through them. Worse, in my case the scanner didn't work and they made me go through a full pat-down anyway.

The gropers hate it too.

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwith…

I had a transatlantic flight, the week of the shoe bomber. Suddenly we all had to take our shoes off. Do you think we were safer from shoe bombs before that week, or is it more likely that this is an expensive and reactionary piece of theater that is easily circumvented by anyone with real malice and a spot of imagination?

@12: Post Mortem wrote, "flight isn't a public space, it a commercial service provided by (a well regulated) industry. It isn't your right to get on a plane."

You couldn't be more incorrect. The navigable airspace is public. Commercial airlines operate as common carriers. Thus, if you pay their fee and follow their general rules, they can't refuse service to you. Airlines haven't been well-regulated since 1978.

The "public right of freedom of transit" by air is guaranteed by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and the TSA is required by Federal law (49 USC § 40101) to consider this right when it issues regulations. Airlines are common carriers. Freedom of movement is required in order for us to exercise our right to assemble, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Freedom of movement is also guaranteed by Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a human rights treaty signed and ratified by the United States.

The above is quoted and paraphrased from The Identity Project's State of New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek" FAQ. I was arrested at ABQ a year ago and will stand trial before a jury in Albuquerque beginning December 7, 2010.

Regarding freedom of transit: Federal law acknowledges our right to travel by air:

Quoting United States Code TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION > SUBTITLE VII—AVIATION PROGRAMS > PART A—AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY > subpart i—general > CHAPTER 401—GENERAL PROVISIONS > § 40101. Policy:

(c) General Safety Considerations. — In carrying out subpart III of this part and those provisions of subpart IV applicable in carrying out subpart III, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall consider the following matters:
(1) the requirements of national defense and commercial and general aviation.
(2) the public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace.

From what I've heard from other recent passengers, the only security checkpoint that is not utilizing the scanners is the one leading to Concourse A. This is at the southern end of the terminal. I haven't heard of any other points that are not using the scanners, though I assume a lot of people simply go through the checkpoint that is closest to their ticketing desk.

The Seatac scanners are backscatter, btw. As far as I know.

@21: See Flyertalk Forums: "Complete List of Airports with Whole Body Imaging/Advanced Imaging Technology Scanner" for details on which security lines at Sea-Tac have the naked body scanners (electronic strip search machines) in use.

If they are going to go through with this grope thing, they really need to open a bar in the pre-security area. If I'm going to be felt up, I want to have a few drinks first.

@23: Thanks! For SEA: "[Concourse] A (South) C/P [checkpoint] (DL) has the NoS, Central/Main C/P [checkpoint] has the NoS, C gate C/P [checkpoint] & D/N gates C/P [checkpoint] has no NoS. All terminals connected airside."

@24 Yes! TSA better be buying,

thank you, Phil M., that's really good to know.

I was scanned in Chicago last week. It took but moments, the people doing the scanning were exceedingly polite, and it was NO BIG FUCKING DEAL.

@28:
It's not that the scanner is unpleasant (though in my case it would have been nice if the scanner actually worked, and I didn't have to go through a full pat-down afterward). The problems are that it's an invasion of privacy and, possibly, a health risk for many people.

How would you feel if the TSA decided that, instead of using a scanner, they would have each passenger go into a small room and strip. A black-and-white camera would take front and back images of their body and transmit them to a control room where a TSA agent either cleared the passenger, or tagged them for further screening.

If you have a problem with that for any reasons beside the inconvenience of having to take off your clothes, you should have a problem with the backscatter machine.

As far as the health risks are concerned, NPR has a pretty good discussion of them: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/11/…

For the people who say "if you don't like it, don't fucking fly!"

I say, this is just the thin edge of the wedge. If we allow this to happen for airtravel, what happens when someone blows up a train and the scanners are put up at train stations? Then it's "if you don't like it, don't fly or use the train!" and on and on.

What happens when someone blows up a bomb in a shopping mall and they start installing them at the entrances to places of commerce? "if you don't like it, don't shop!"

it's a dark and slippery rabbit hole and if we give up our rights now we forfeit them for all the future.

I was patted down on 9-11 this year and didn't remember it until my sister mentioned it to me the other day. The woman was polite, quick, efficient and it was no stress or hassle. What I recall most about that day was the somber mood in deference to those we had lost and the playing of Christmas carols at the Delta terminal in S.F. before the flight home.

Honestly, this just isn't the first thing I'm going to think about the next time I fly. Instead I choose to get on with my life. Don't people have better things to do with their time than stew on this?

@30

Yeah. All of those scenarios could possibly maybe one day hypothetically theoretically happen. That's one hell of an argument against scanners.

Guess what people- the scanners won't make one iota of difference if a terrorist chooses to do this again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8…

Scanners can't penetrate flesh. In the end it's all theater.

Rotten666, I assume you'll be first in line for the soon-to-be anal probe search at Seatac.

@34 You know it!

When you're awakened from a cat nap by horrible screams and look out your window to see an office building a few hundred feet away approaching at 500mph, tell me again how grateful you are that nobody on your aircraft got a pat-down or x-ray. Bon voyage!

Conservatives present a quandary to airport screeners wishing to do an anal cavity search. GOP/TP'ers have four of them: one on their face, one betwixt their buttocks, and at random in at least two other places. Can you say, "conundrum?"

@25: That's slightly dated -- backscatter machines were added to the D/N checkpoint a few weeks ago. I think C checkpoint is the one that's only open part time, too.

When they ask if you want the full pat-down instead of the scanner, just tell them "Yes--in fact I've really been looking forward to it." Keep telling them this up until and during a scan and make sure to tell them "thanks--that was great!!" after it is finished. It will be polite to ask if it was good for them too. Do not however offer them a cigarette, there is of course no smoking in the airport.

That is a better way of getting rid of the pat downs that protesting them.

Actually, the pat down might save me on my massage bill. If the person patting me down does it well.

I went down to Sea-Tac this evening to find out which barricades have the strip search machines in use and ended up with one of their mind readers (behavior detection officers) questioning me, then having the police called in, who followed me all the way back to the train station. Details on Flyertalk, video on Youtube. Airport security is funny. Thousands of people look at that stuff, but if you take some pictures of it, they get all antsy. One guy actually put his hand up in the air and moved it around while I was taking pictures, as if to block the top-secret stuff in public view behind him. Joker. He later told me I couldn't take photos there, but when I asked him if there was any law prohibiting it, he refused to answer.

The view to #4 is obscured, so I couldn't tell if they have or are using the naked body scanners there. They were using them at #3. They were not using them, though had them in place, at #1 and #2 (#1 = southernmost, #4 = northernmost).

@3 you act as if the only thing standing between me and the next terrorist attack is TSA agents (lol), and if we were only being made to take our shoes off before a medal detector that would let every terrorist and their best friend through security with ease. These TSA agents are being trained to touch genitalia and you think that's really going to stop someone who's entire plot is to take over, or explode, airplanes? Where'd your brain go?

Terrorists didn't send a man on a plane with explosive underwear because they thought he could take it over, they did it because they thought they could. Why didn't they try to take over the plane? Oh that's right, the pilots get a gun and a reinforced door, and the public is aware of people who seem off, so interactions involving the take over of the plane, even under the craziest scenario, will always fail with those security features. You live under the impression that when terrorists hear the news about this new piece of technology the government is using to spy on it's citizens that they all thrown down their hats and scream about how they'd totally be killing American's right now if it weren't for the TSA and them touching genitals. Even this would be terrorist set off dozens of red flags and should have never been allowed to board the plane, yet it was clear that he slipped through the cracks. They, at least attempted, to fix the crack, and now they come tell us that it's not enough, that unless we force every amputee and 5 year old through a gauntlet of government agents putting their hands onto our genitals that we're not going to be safe. The way I see it? We need more protection from the TSA than we do these failed terrorists. The terrorists might be trying to kill you, but there's no question when a stranger puts their hands on your genitals that's sexual assault, period. If the only way we can be safe is for every government agent to sexually assault everyone who comes on the plane (even though people like John Boner are exempt), we're never going to be safe. Even if you stop every would be terrorist from boarding planes ever with this, which it doesn't, you still have the problem of government agents putting their hands on stranger's genitals, which is about the most unsafe thing I've ever heard of. You shouldn't fix a problem by breaking the constitution. It was enough with the shoes and the absolute paranoia about people taking pictures, now you don't feel safe until grandma gets felt up? Your gimmick is lame.

Put sky marshals on all the planes. And don't let Republicans cut them from the budget.

@44, all WHAT planes? Half the flights in US airspace every day originate overseas.

@36, CharlesYFarley, you have quickly become my least favorite new Slog commenter, with your nutjob screening website and your jackass comments about crashing into buildings. These screenings wouldn't have prevented 9/11, which anyways couldn't occur today. The situations they are designed to counter aren't takeovers but bombs; for which purpose they are useless. The whole thing is theater.

For this I wore a swimsuit and tear-away shirt and pants?

So it's absolutely necessary that we have these scanners to prevent another person from carrying bomb materials in their underwear, even though that happened a year ago and failed?

If you think this has EVER been necessary you aren't thinking AT ALL.

Of all the risks to public safety that surround transportation, TSA are focused on some of the most minimal. I do not think, as the Department of Homeland Security would have us believe, that there are bogeymen lurking around every corner intent on wreaking havoc on commercial flights.

It would be far easier and far more effective for such mad bombers to take action at any of a number of other places where large numbers of people congregate, yet this is not happening. People know that they can simply refrain from flying and avoid whatever risk is associated with flying. Imagine the terror that would be stricken in the public if they knew that bombs were frequently detonated at parks, restaurants, sporting events, concerts, and crowded street corners. Although it would be easy for a would-be terrorist to commit mass-murder in those places, it isn't happening, and the fact that it's not happening is *not* because we're required to undergo strip searches and frisks before entering those places, or because we're are prevented from carrying nail clippers or water bottles into those places.

If TSA disappeared tomorrow and their airport barricades were left unstaffed, travelers would still be more likely to be injured by a drunk driver on the way to the airport than by hijackers on an airplane.

Almost all of what TSA does qualifies as security theater: security countermeasures designed to make people feel safer, but that provide little to no increase in actual safety.

Following is what I would like to see from TSA:

* No more secret laws.
* No more groping travelers.
* No more suspicionless searches.
* No more secret blacklists or secret "no-fly" orders.
* No more secret surveillance lists.
* No more lying to the public.
* No more identity checkpoints.
* Restoration of the right to assemble and the right to travel.

See The Identity Project's recent blog post, What is to be done about TSA?" for a more detailed version of that list. I completely agree with them on this matter.

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

Sounds pretty clear to me. So, how is it reasonable to search every airline passenger on the infintessimile chance that they might be a terrorist exactly? How is it reasonable to search me going into a court house or federal building on the same pretext.

I'm glad Americans are finally waking up to the extreme violations of our civil rights since 911, if a bit belatedly.

apparently 80% of the public is retarded.