Anywhere else, this would be sexual assault, plain and simple.

If you support the TSA doing this at the airport, where else do you support the government agent handling your children? The bus station? Train station? In the parking lot of the mall, because you committed the crime of wanting to go shopping, as opposed to boarding an airplane?

Why are you and your children not patted down for traveling on public highways? After all, you could be carrying dangerous explosives in your SUV, and the majority of high-profile targets for terrorists are right there on American highways.

The only way this will stop is if there is an nation-wide effort showing that the TSA is NOT patting down our elected Congressmen and their families.

If FB and Youtube showed daily vids of Congressmen getting letting through w/o patdowns or of them using private planes and avoiding the TSA, I bet us 'little people' can get their attention.

Absolutely disgusting... Here's a reason we never discuss - it's called a non-refundable ticket! The TSA knows that most of us buy tickets that cannot be refunded. So we are essentially hostages of the airlines who already have $1000's of our dollars when we fly the fugly skies. So we put up with this $hit as a quick means to an end to avoid losing our hard earned dollars and to get to our destinations without conflict. Then, when we aren't traveling, it's out of sight out of mind.

We need a lobbying group on the part of the consumer that will take on this predators, masquerading as security, calling themselves TSA agents, or police or congressman, or whomever, to protect our rights. What is the ACLU during all of this? This is illegal search AND when they steal, as a government agency, it should be illegal seizure.

Know what irritates me, is when people say things like 'Hey, I don't support what the TSA does, but personally I've only had positive experiences with them'. That seems a bit like saying, 'hey, I don't support what rapists do, but personally I've never been raped, and have only had positive experiences with the rapists I've met'. It might be true but why even say such a thing?

Civil disobedience. You need an entire airport of people who just push through the damned checkpoints. Peacefully - don't hurt the TSA idiots - just push through and go to your gates. Take lots of pictures as proof that the protest is peaceful.

Even better would be if the airlines went along and flew the people anyway. Even without that, it would be a useful signal.

Lobster, they say those things all the time. All the time. I'm metaphorically hoarse from addressing them.

And Lee Ladisky, yes, they have you over a barrel -- if you fly. If you continue to give the airlines your money. I stopped in 2010, specifically because of the TSA. And I used to travel a lot. It's had a profound impact on my life. But I refuse to risk being assaulted by the TSA.

That's not the only way to resist. There are others. I outlined some of them in this post:

http://tsanewsblog.com/5431/news/de-profundis-clamavi-or-why-we-can-talk-till-were-blue-in-the-face-but-until-we-put-our-money-where-our-mouth-is-we-wont-get-rid-of-the-tsa/

Just flew over Easter - came back with a couple of bottles of wine from the place we visited. We packed way too early and put the bottles in a carry-on instead of checked baggage.

Of course, after sorting this out (checking the carry-on), we go through security and see a shop: where we could buy exactly those same bottles of wine, and carry them onto the plane.

Security theater, also funded by the interests of the airport shops.

I'd advocate lacing items the TSA confiscates with poison.

I've got a question for lawyers of the site here.

The TSA confiscates items on the basis that they may be chemical components of explosives or outright weapons.

But they then turn around and sell some of that stuff to the public.

If a member of the public were to be harmed does the TSA bare any culpability for knowingly selling items deemed to be weapons?

a_random_guy, sign me up.

Not flying isn't really an option for me because I live in Hawaii.

As soon as we get back to the mainland, I plan to do a lot more driving, though.

Lisa, this appears on your site:

"The backscatter scanners dose you with radiation, and they have never been tested, which is why the EU has banned them."

That's completely false, and the line should be removed in the interest of integrity. I have personally linked to valid measurements of the Rapiscan's output right here on this blog, because the exposure is a red herring, BUT the argument is EASILY defeated by anyone who has read the NIST tests. Yes, you get more exposure from the flight itself. NO, the exposure by the scanner has NO MEASURABLE BENEFIT.

I'm a rad worker at Savannah River Site. I wear plastic suits and respirators nowadays to set cameras for inspection of equipment in radiation fields lethal with an hour's exposure.

You need to look at scanners more closely, then shift the argument to the rights of Americans. I suggest that this is a duty of any media presenter whose purpose is to present facts.

Radwaste, sorry, I beg to differ.

As NIST itself has said, it has never tested those scanners.

Excerpt:

In a FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, EPIC has just obtained documents concerning the radiation risks of TSA’s airport body scanner program. The documents include agency emails, radiation studies, memoranda of agreement concerning radiation testing programs, and results of some radiation tests. One document set reveals that even after TSA employees identified cancer clusters possibly linked to radiation exposure, the agency failed to issue employees dosimeters – safety devices that could assess the level of radiation exposure. Another document indicates that the DHS mischaracterized the findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, stating that NIST “affirmed the safety” of full body scanners. The documents obtained by EPIC reveal that NIST disputed that characterization and stated that the Institute did not, in fact, test the devices. Also, a Johns Hopkins University study revealed that radiation zones around body scanners could exceed the “General Public Dose Limit.” For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security – Full Body Scanner Radiation Risks and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program). (Jun. 24, 2011)

Sources here:

http://tsanewsblog.com/10061/news/tsa-finally-holding-long-overdue-public-comment-period-on-scanners/

The backscatter scanners are no longer in use anyway; they were replaced last summer by millimeter wave scanners. More of our tax dollars wasted.

Rad, I will add that I've always thought the argument about scanner safety was a red herring, which is why I've urged from the beginning -- before anybody was even talking about safety -- that we argue based on rights. Because even if scanners came along that were irrefutably 100% safe, I would still be against them. I've said this repeatedly at TSA News.

Scanners are an invasion. They are a complete abnegation of the 4th Amendment.

(They're also ineffective, but that's a whole 'nother story.)

Lisa, I'll go back and find the link, because not only has the Rapiscan been tested...

... it has to be tested in order to leave the assembly line.

Very simply, the power output of the Rapiscan is limited by its construction. Just as you CANNOT (no way, not possible, impossible, forget it, no way around this physical limitation, I hope you get the freakin' idea) turn a knob on your car stereo and make it a thousand times more powerful - yes, that's the number fearmongers insist on - you cannot make a Rapiscan put out millirem instead of microrem.

Okay, here's a report that contains the phrase, "the system tested", and contains a report properly describing the system's performance.

In short, a few seconds surfing, and I find a site which shows the Rapscan 1000 has in fact been tested. Now, if you want to get into conspiracy theories, etc., go right ahead --- but it remains that the statement cited from your Web site is false.

Now, to the millimeter-wave gear. The HowStuffWorks Web site has an article on these, but the key point here is that no, millimeter-wave radars/scanners do NOT emit ionizing radiation at all. No, not, nada, they cannot separate atoms from molecules in your body, which is what ionizing radiation can do.

I hope you realize that the engineering professions have a wealth of data from which to form accurate assessments without relying on a Web site, individual or group which seeks to misrepresent risk. I find reading the EngineeringToolbox.com site to be enlightening, even entertaining.

People really do know how things work. It is how they can build them in the first place.

The only thing I can say from watching that video is "Who in their right fucking minds thinks those kids pose any possible fucking threat?"

Children always pose the threat of annoying other around them if they are tired or whatever. They never really pose a security threat in most first world countries.

I last flew in 2011. That trip sealed it for me when the SEATAC TSA put me through a metal detector, porno-scanner, and grope because I didn't want a 10ML vial of medicine to be x-rayed.

When I was hired/transferred to my new company I told them I refuse to fly anymore because of the TSA. They allowed me to drive to Ontario instead of flying and are willing to pay for it even though it's over the normal mile allowance.

I try to encourage my co-workers with the same attitude. I use this story/pic as the best explanation.

Rad, to clarify: NIST and JH Applied Physics Lab both said that they were given Rapiscan models to test. Models. Models off the assembly line. Not scanners in use at airports.

Same thing happened with the puffer machines. They worked fine in theory. The models worked fine in pristine settings. But in reality, in airports, they were totally fucked. They didn't work properly in a real world setting. Which is why they're all now sitting in a warehouse, to the tune of millions of wasted dollars.

Again, both NIST and APL said publicly that they weren't allowed to test actual scanners in actual use at actual airports. I've provided tons of links to their words at TSA News. Their words, not mine.

P.S. And I never claimed that the MMW machines emit ionizing radiation. I know they don't.

Also see Marquette U professor Taly Gilat-Schmidt:

"Our study on backscatter airport scanners did not quantify the risk of the scanners nor did it draw any conclusions about risk . . . I have posted a response statement on my website, which I invite you to include on your website . . . Our study was not intended to estimate the risk. It is different from the UCSF study. Our purpose was to estimate the radiation deposited in specific organs and tissues, given the Hopkins exposure measurements, which are the only available exposure measurements. This is a valid research question, and we answered it with scientifically accepted methods. The paper was peer reviewed four times. We made no attempt to quantify risk. Our paper discusses in detail all limitations and assumptions that may affect our estimates. We make a call in the paper for more access to systems for independent measurements. I’ve attached a reprint of the paper for your review . . . ."

She also said she wouldn't put her child through one.

http://tsanewsblog.com/3607/news/prof-taly-gilat-schmidt-responds/

And since we can only include one link per comment, here's the link where Prof. Gilat-Schmidt said she wouldn't put her children through them; as it happens, it's a post written by Amy, from June 13, 2012:

http://tsanewsblog.com/3499/news/lousy-reporting-by-la-times-on-scanners/

Thanks so much, Lisa, for posting these here. Been on deadline all day and into the night -- just breaking now.

I am now pretty sure that Lisa does not know anything about radiation physics.
Specifically, the Rapiscan 1000 has been tested. It puts out the specified dose rate, within tolerances.
My industry DOES understand the effect of exposing people to ionizing radiation.
Each citation of assorted "experts" is an "appeal to authority" fallacy (I notice that some "argument creep" is occurring now). No such citation disposes of industry experience.

But do not miss the key point: testing has occurred, and it is discoverable by anyone who looks. Someone may play games, such as claiming it has not been tested on Penguins, Koala Bears, or Congressmen – but that would be silly, wouldn't it?

Of course it would.

Independent testing. Independent testing. Independent testing. Which I've written dozens of times at TSA News and have explained here. I give up.

Guys, it's all N/A now. The backscatter machines, as Lisa said, are no longer in use. And that's not the point anyway. Focus.

Radwaste, in no way to I intend to challenge your knowledge of radiation-emitting machinery.

I simply want to point out that, despite the "low" levels of radiation the backscatter machines emitted at any given time, there were concerns about 1) the fact that the TSA would not permit the machines to be independently tested and 2) the fact that mechanical failure within the machine could ead to the constantly-moving parts--if broken and frozen in place--to deposit more radiation on a single body part than would be medically prudent. You are surely aware that it is illegal, in Europe, to irradiate someone for non-medical purposes.

Here is an excerpt from a NYT article on the above concerns Link: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/x-ray-scans-at-airports-leave-lingering-worries/?_php=true&_type=blogs&smid=tw-share&_r=0

"The machines move a narrowly focused beam of high-intensity radiation very quickly across the body, and David Brenner, director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University Medical Center, says he worries about mechanical malfunctions that could cause the beam to stop in one place for even a few seconds, resulting in greater radiation exposure.

For security reasons, much about how the machines work has been kept secret. The T.S.A. says the full-body scanners have been assessed by the Food and Drug Administration, the United States Army Public Health Command and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.

But researchers at these institutions have not always had direct access to the scanners in use, and some of the published reports about them have been heavily redacted, with the authors’ names removed. Independent scientists say limited access has hampered their ability to evaluate the systems."

On the issue of "grooming": I think we need to remember that even doctors, in their offices, can commit sexual assault, and yet we pretty much HAVE to train kids to submit to their unwanted touches - starting with painful shots. Even when we explain to small children what shots are for, their common response is "I'd RATHER get sick!"

(There's even a kid's book about shots called "I'd Rather Get a Spanking Than Go to the Doctor.")

In other words, the issue of "grooming" isn't as black and white as some might think.

I mean, once kids are old enough to accept the idea of an occasional shot without screaming, when and what DO you say to them about the possibility that they might run into an unethical health care worker some day?

Lisa wrote "Rad, I will add that I've always thought the argument about scanner safety was a red herring,

Rad wrote "Now, if you want to get into conspiracy theories, etc., go right ahead

Lisa wrote "P.S. And I never claimed that the MMW machines emit ionizing radiation. I know they don't.

Rad wrote "I am now pretty sure that Lisa does not know anything about radiation physics.

I am now pretty sure that Radwaste does not bother to actually read peoples responses before arguing with them about what they write

luj, nice cherry pick. You missed the subject change, too.

Meanwhile: here is something everybody might - might - understand about the backscatter machine.

Imagine for a moment that it is a GUN. The gun shoots the .30-'06 cartridge, and it is proofed at the factory.

The gun has been tested. We KNOW what its bullets do.

In claim after useless claim, hands are wrung that the gun wasn't fired at enough people or something, and it has actually been claimed that it could magically become a thousand times more powerful.

I have been asked to "focus". OK - back to the beginning: the TSAblog claim that the Rapiscan was not tested remains FALSE, and the only thing hiding that plain fact from the claimant is the combination of ignorance of manufacturing processes and a basic fear of radiation beyond all reason.

I'm pretty sure that the bigger issue is the wholesale rights violations. Not some minor details on the specifications of machines used.