I understand that you are in favor of getting rid of the intrusive screening altogether. I don't suppose you'd be pleased with anything less and that's not a completely unreasonable position.

I don't think that's likely to happen and Sen. Schumer's proposed law sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I'm surprised it hasn't been put forward before.

Of course a determined criminal can still break any law that we put on the books.

Senator Schumer is, after all, a legislator. That's what he's paid to do -- make laws. It doesn't sound like a "dipshit" law to me.

You're absolutely right about the other bit about children. That really is appalling.

Yes, perhaps I titled this wrong, and it should be Voter Dipshits -- those who elected him.

These McDonald's workers with badges ARE going to take photos home, and no law will stop him. It's just part of getting us more comfortable with having unreasonable searches while having the bonus of sounding like he's doing something meaningful on an emotional issue.

It's very much the old deck chairs on the Titanic thing. Oh, and if somebody gropes me at the airport, I will get their name and file sexual assault charges when I'm done with my trip. I hate to bother the actual police with this, but it's something that needs to be done now. We need to make all the noise we can about this, and not go quietly.

By the way, my boyfriend reports (from the other day) that the pornoscanners are still not manned in the Delta areas, as they weren't when we left for Paris November 24. He had to go back through the metal detector and I was horrified, but he "passed" the second time and was not given the groping.

I'm still feeling violated by mine at the Las Vegas airport from January. If somebody wants to grope me, I'm going to tell them I was a sexual assault victim (which I was, at that airport) and see if they can just let me expose myself to somebody. I'd rather flash some woman my titties than have some stranger touch me. Oh, and let me say that I'm otherwise not a prude. If some friend of mine grabs at my ass, I'll probably laugh. But, the government-ordered grope is another thing entirely.

Hey, just wait till some state legislature dipshit decides that they need to change the conditions for getting a drivers license to include waiving your 4th amendment rights against an unreasonable search of yourself, your passengers, and your vehicle.

I mean, come on. If you haven't done anything, you have nothing to hide.

(firmly tounge in cheek)

Egads! Imagine the relentless humiliation if a scanned image of you was ....gasp!...floated out on the Internet.

True, it would be mostly ignored (in favor of the hard-care porn everywhere) an no one could tell it was you....

Hmmm. Then again, maybe there really is no problem here. Dos anyone really care is some sort of r-rated nudie scan is making the rounds, especially if the identity of the scannee cannot be determined?

On the list of issues worth being riled up about, this must be around #2,136.

Dos anyone really care is some sort of r-rated nudie scan is making the rounds, especially if the identity of the scannee cannot be determined?

Yes. I do.

On the list of issues worth being riled up about, this must be around #2,136.

I can multitask my righteous rage.

[Does] anyone really care is some sort of r-rated nudie scan is making the rounds, especially if the identity of the scannee cannot be determined?

Put yours up and we'll see.

What if identity can be determined? What if the scanner who put it on the Internet identifies the scannee?

You think some barely-above-minimum wage employee isn't beyond putting a public figure's scanner image on the Internet with the public figure clearly identified?

There has already been a parking lot fight between two TSA screeners when using the scanner on each other in training revealed one screener's "shortcomings." That's the level of maturity you're counting on to keep someone's privacy?

http://www.indyposted.com/21256/tsa-screeners-argue-about-manhood-fight-in-parking-lot/

Conan-

I doubt if my image would cause much of a stir. Maybe if we had scanners 30 years ago, there would have been passing interest.

This "issue" of scanners is about as important as a small streak of piss in a Idaho barnyard.

If some celebrity is nudie-scanned and revealed, whoop-de-doodoo. Let me cry myself to sleep.

This "issue" of scanners is about as important as a small streak of piss in a Idaho barnyard.

You can't see the forest for the trees. The scanners aren't the issue. The images aren't the issue. Privacy and limited government are the issues.

The same government that cannot search your house, your car, or your person without a warrant or probable cause can now strip you and grope you at the airport for no reason.

The same government that cannot wiretap your phone or bug your house without a warrant can now photograph you practically nude and maintain the file for as long as it likes.

The same government that cannot keep a private in the army from stealing hundreds of thousands of classified documents and putting them up on the Internet is now telling us that it will keep our private information safe. And safeguarding our privacy will be an employee making almost as much as that PFC.

====================

I doubt if my image would cause much of a stir.

The desirability of your nude image is not the issue. Your ability to have at least some control over when and to whom it is shown is.

If some celebrity is nudie-scanned and revealed, whoop-de-doodoo. Let me cry myself to sleep.

Same for the celebrity.

Conan-

I forget the latest details, but from Cato, the libertarian outift--

"Yaser Esam Hamdi is also in legal limbo. He was raised in Saudi Arabia, captured in Afghanistan, sent to Guantanamo, then transferred to
a Norfolk, Virginia, military brig after the Defense Department learned that he was a U.S. citizen, born in Louisiana. Hamdi is being detained indefinitely, without seeing an attorney, even though he hasn’t been
charged with any crime. Jose´ Padilla, who allegedly plotted to build a radiological ‘‘dirty bomb,’’ is a U.S. citizen too. He was arrested at Chicago’s O’Hare airport after a flight from Pakistan, then transferred
from civilian to military custody in Charleston, South Carolina. Like Hamdi, Padilla is being detained by the military—indefinitely, without
seeing an attorney, even though he hasn’t been charged with any crime."

I forget how these cases turned out; in any event, Americans were put in prison without access to counsel, or even being charged. I understand John McCain has introduced a bill making it even easier to put Americans in prison without counsel, trial, charges or even telling kin etc.

Okay, the above clear violations of civil rights does not make scanners okay. I suggest scanners really don't amount to a hill of beans, but putting an American citizen into prison with counsel, charges or trial is a big hill of beans.

However, the Alkons of the world will continue to bray about scanners, in part because no one feels much sympathy for suspected terrorists. They are not politically correct folk heroes. Mr Junk in his Pants firs the imagination of the Glenn Beck "We Are Idiots" crowd.

If you really are concerned about your civil rights, scanners are the least of your concerns....

I'm not sure how the whole thing works. Don't you only get groped if you refuse to go through the scanner?

If so, I don't know why one wouldn't opt for the scanner. Every time I go to the gym or the sauna people see me naked.

I understand the libertarian argument, but I just can't seem to get worked up about it.

If so, I don't know why one wouldn't opt for the scanner. Every time I go to the gym or the sauna people see me naked.

The difference here is that in order to change into my gym clothes, I need to get naked. I can choose to change in my office before going to the gym, and I can shower at home, thus avoiding the whole nudity thing entirely if I so choose. Even in the sauna, I can wear a towel.

There is absolutely no need for TSA workers to see my girly bits. None. It doesn't make us safer, it's ridiculously expensive (thus making us LESS safe, since that money could be put toward something effective), and it constitutes and unnecessary search on the part of the government.

And there are large numbers of people who can't use the scanners for medical reasons, thus forcing them to be groped by strangers.

On top of all this, I dislike what it does to communities to assume that everyone is a criminal until proven otherwise. When the government starts looking at us all as though we are terrorists, we start looking at each other that way, and the breakdown in community makes us less safe again.

"By the way, the problem isn't that low-paid TSA workers will take home photos, but that we are being scanned at all."

Amen to that. I object to the scanners for any number of reasons, but the very least of my concerns is that some TSA agent might jerk off to them. Schumer's bill misses the point(s) entirely.

The New York City Council seems to have a better grasp on the situation. http://council.nyc.gov/html/releases/11_18_10_greenfield_scanners.shtml

By the way, I thought this was interesting -- air traffic was down by 16% on the Wednesday before this Thanksgiving as compared to last year, according to the TSA. http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/11/thanksgiving-holiday-airport-traffic.html

Sixteen percent seems like a significant decrease to me -- I don't think the economy sucks any more this year than it did last year. I'm hoping that a lot of people felt the way I did -- don't fly unless you must. But in any event, with air traffic down 16% and the scanners turned off in many airports, it is no wonder that travel that day moved so smoothly.

Ha! Never mind that last link I posted. Someone just sent it to me, and I only just noticed it was dated 2008! I must need sleep.

"And there are large numbers of people who can't use the scanners for medical reasons, thus forcing them to be groped by strangers"

I hadn't thought of that. Good point.

"This is the government DEMANDING to see you naked, without probable cause. I have a wee problem with that."

I guess what I wonder is why everyone seems to be up in arms about it now. They've been searching your bags without probable cause for many years. They've been rolling you through a metal detector without probable cause for many years. Perhaps you were stopped at a random traffic sobriety point on your way to the airport without probable cause. You're filmed on the sidewalks of major cities without probable cause. All this has been going on for a long time.

Just because someone gets the same look at my wedding tackle that anybody in the gym locker room gets three times a week, I'm supposed to be going bananas over it?

Some of these other things have stood up to supreme court challenges. I would imagine this would as well.

By the way, I'm not one of these 'safety over freedom' people. I'd much rather die a fiery death in a terrorist attack than erode the Constitution. However, this horse was out of the barn a long, long time ago and I don't really care any more about someone seeing my willie than I do about having them rifle through my bags.

Understood and agreed, Amy.

Since you've been irate about it for years, you're the exception. I hope you see my point that the vast American public has come to the table a little late and only when someone has to see their "dirty bits".

I know you tend to lean conservative, but maybe the ACLU isn't so bad, yeah? I've been a contributing member for years. Although I don't agree with everything they do, they are the only folks out there who are on the side of the Constitution with just this sort of thing. The bad press they get is mostly overblown, Fox News type of half truths.

I've been objecting to this sort of thing for a while, moreso since the NYPD started reserving the right to check people's bags before we get on the subway. I have never been searched. I still resent the holy hell out of it. It hasn't made us safer at all.

On the other hand, it has made my husband jumpy. He carries a bulging backpack full of tools, because tools are useful, and bits of electronics he hacked himself that look like they could be bombs but are invariably battery chargers or something similar.

People get used to this sort of thing. I've never had much of a problem with the metal detectors because 1) they are minimally intrusive 2) I grew up with their presence. I want to see an end to the scanners before the next generation sees them as no big.

Yet another fascinating post. Really happy I registered for updates for your internet site about three weeks ago, and I would recommend that other folks now do the very same. I can tell you now, you won???¨º?¨¨t be disappointed.