Another typical, common, horrible experience in the USA. This is what we've come to. And this is what the sheeple are just fine with.

FYI, all, the Benjamin Franklin quotation, oft paraphrased, is:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

We have to keep fighting.

Here's a source for radiation dangers, on this post (post has more):

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/28/molecular_biolo.html

My background is electrical engineering making odd measurements, worked for GE making x-ray machines years ago.

The backscatter x-ray dose is deceptively low due to how the measurement is averaged and how the particular ionization detectors used by the mfg respond to a fast moving x-ray beam. The
instantaneous dose to the skin and few cm of tissue is quite high perhaps 400-1000 x the "average" dose. The important info such as beam current needed to calculate the dose are missing from the report. Reading old patents and other docs fills in the missing info.

Also the REM dose assumes a whole body exposure of hard x-rays not applicable to soft x-ray that deliver most of the damage just a few cm deep. Soft x-rays are statically more damaging to DNA due to interaction with phosphate atoms that make up the DNA backbone. The intense soft x-ray pencil beam creates more difficult to repair double DNA breaks. One on
twenty have DNA repair issues due to a BRCA gene defect. An equal dose of random cosmic rays does not do the same damage as a bright brief collimated soft x-rays to the body. Links below have longer explanations for this subject.

search "Airport-Back-scatter-Scanner-Dose-Explained"
Warm Regards Jeff Buske

Latest outrage, though I can't get the link to open:

TSA bullied and groped a pregnant first grade teacher‎
Computerworld (blog) - 2 hours ago
Time again, we've seen TSA agents treat little kids, elderly folks, and people with disabilities like highly potential terrorists. ...

Found it at another source:

Pregnant Teacher Harassed By TSA On Easter Sunday Tells Her Story
http://theintelhub.com/2011/04/26/pregnant-teacher-harassed-by-tsa-on-easter-sunday-tells-her-story/

Oh boo-hoo. You have to walk through a scanner. Cry me a Niagara.

It's idiosyncratically self-important boobs that are holding up the line to the planes. I hope they pull you aside and do deep anal probes, in a small room, known for that purpose. People would see you go into the room, and come out humiliated and whimpering. That's what you get for holding up the line.

True, the whole Homeland Security Department should be eliminated, and airline pilots given solid locking cabin doors and shotguns with frangible bullets. But as long as we have the TSA, let's just hustle through the lines and get on the planes.

Johnny Butt-thunder,

You are mistaken if you think acquiescing to the stripsearch scanner precludes a grope. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Any "anomaly" supposedly detected by the scanner -- ponytail holder in pocket, coins, whatever -- or just the whim of a TSA goon -- can get you yanked for a grope even after you've gone through the scanner.

But the exhortation to ignore abuse and gross abrogation of rights does put you solidly in the sheeple camp. You have lots of company.

I'm not going to subject myself to one more bit of radiation than necessary. You don't know where your personal threshold is for cancer, and furthermore, what concerns me greatly is how this is priming all of us to be docile sheep about our rights.

Amy, the "docile sheep" bit is precisely the point in my book. I started ringing alarm bells about this 18 months ago, before any of us knew anything about the potential radiation risks from these things. It was the "I'm a criminal" attitude I objected to (and, in fact, I'm sorry to even use that analogy, because I don't believe criminals should be treated like trash, either, even though that's the norm in this country).

But wait another 10, 15 years, maybe less, when epidemiological studies are done. Then we'll see how many people have been injured by these machines -- most of them, ironically, TSA employees themselves. They're the ones standing by these things day in and day out, being exposed to god knows how much radiation from improperly calibrated scanners.

I actually wept while listening to Miss Castillo. I wept for my rights and for my countries future.

With elections coming up, perhaps someone at the next town hall meetings could politely ask Mr Obama if he would allow his wife and two lovely daughters to be given an enhanced patdown before each flight paid for by government tax dollars....

Not for a minute would I expect this to occur, but it would be a chuckle to see his reaction.

Interesting story, as was yours, Amy. Thanks for blogging it (you will remember I sent a "polite reminder," since I wanted to know what it was like and was afraid you would forget to tell us - now I know: fat chance you'd forget!)

Do you happen to know whether the "Dallas" airport in Ms. Castillo's video was DFW or Love? I am sure it matters to no one to me, but to me it does matter, since I am flying this weekend.

I wondered in your blogpost and also about Ms. Castillo: what do you suppose would have happened if either of you had been wearing a maxi-pad (sorry to get personal, but it occurs to me that could either keep them from going too far, OR cause them to go further than they otherwise would have)? Surely wearing a thick maxi-pad isn't all THAT odd? I would be curious to hear what you think would have happened in that case, because I have zero interest in being nuked.

Finally, Google "TSA Status" to see a website that gives the best information they have been able to gather about TSA scanner lanes in all the airports for which they have information. (It seems to be responding VERY slowly today...wonder whether it is overwhelmed, or taken down.)

I don't fly all that much, maybe once or twice a year, most recently this past February. I don't remember seeing one of those full body scanners, or witnessing events like what Miss Castillo or Miss Alkon went through. Now, before we go any further, I'm not questioning their accounts! Where I'm going with this is, some airports clearly have less intrusive security than others. Reagan National, which I've used most often, has never given me a problem. Dulles, which handles more international traffic, has been more of a mixed bag from my experience.

So, does anyone know of a web site that rates different airports in terms of TSA horror? That would be a useful site to have (I did a couple of Google searches, but didn't find much).

GHarkness -- just saw your post. Does the site you mentioned do what I just talked about?

The issue with the child is that parents might hide something on the child. The child is not the terrorist, the parents are. The child might just be the carrier.

Dulles, Reagan National, and BWI are notorious for abusive TSA behavior. But this is going on all over the country; and because agents can do what they want, when they want, how they want, I can't see how any ratings system would be trustworthy. TSA behavior is capricious. By the way, there was an actual strip-search ring going on at Reagan National -- news story:

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/post911/aviation/iteam_reaganstripsearch.html

I don't fly all that much, maybe once or twice a year, most recently this past February. I don't remember seeing one of those full body scanners, or witnessing events like what Miss Castillo or Miss Alkon went through.

When Gregg and I flew Delta to Detroit, only people who buzzed got put through the scanners or groped. I never make the metal detector buzz, so I haven't been groped since the time a couple of years ago at McCarran.

I think it's best to not weigh in with "I have little experience with this but..."

GHarkness -- just saw your post. Does the site you mentioned do what I just talked about?

Yes, it does, exactly. I have accessed it numerous times and observed several updates noted on it. "All of a sudden," though, the site appears to be not responding.

Gee, I wonder why that would be?

Sorry; I forgot to mention the site that seems to have disappeared.

http://ofsevit.dynalias.com:8081/ari/tsa/

It originally came from a person posting at the link below. Lots of good discussion there. (I am hoping Amy's spam filter doesn't eat this second link - you don't have to register to read on this forum).

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security-222/

Seems our Miss Amy as well as Ms. Castillo is mentioned in various threads.

Note from Amy: Please post ONE LINK PER COMMENT ONLY. Feel free to post two -- or 10 -- just post another comment with each, and wait about 20 seconds between comments, or it will go to my spam folder.

You get a pretty steep amount of radiation just from flying. Pilots are monitored for that reason. I can understand not wanting to incur any more radiation burden than necessary, but these machines are unlikely to increase your risk of cancer. Radwaste in the comments at the previous article you linked Amy explained it much better.

If it really matters that much I would recommend staying out of granite buildings and not living downwind of a coal fired power station.

The invasion of privacy issue is completely different of course. That part of it is ludicrous.

The issue with the child is that parents might hide something on the child. The child is not the terrorist, the parents are. The child might just be the carrier.

A good point The Former Banker. While I support some profiling to minimise the resources required, it's important that there be *some* random element. If it became known that any particular class of people (kids, old white haired grannies, whatever) were completely immune from searches then they become the vector of choice.

Whether the searches are actually effective or not is a different story. Probably not, and the whole thing is bureaucratic nonsense.

The five stages of undersanding the TSA

( Hat tip to psychologist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model )

Denial: This can't be as stupid as it seems. The TSA must have thought about this, and it must have come to a sensible determination of what is needed for our safety. I will show that I am strong by complying with the rules.

Anger: This is so degrading and useless. Why me? It is obvious that I am not a terrorist. I'm travelling with my family. My 3 year old isn't a terrorist. Don't they have eyes, or a bit of common sense? What is the sense in these rules? I'm flying from New York to Kansas, for crying out loud.

Bargaining: OK, I'll go through the machine. Just don't pick me out for "special treatment". If I'm very cooperative, I can hold on to my 3 year old, right? And you won't fondle my child, right? I'll give you my toothpaste if you let him keep the teddy bear, right?

Depression: This is terrible, but what can I do? I will comply. I will just think happy thoughts as he (ugh! oomph!) does what is required, and I hope not more. Is anyone looking? It doesn't really matter. This will all be over in a while. I can't do anything about this. I will just hope that they improve their policy in the future. I'll wait. It might get better, or maybe not, who cares.

Acceptance: I now see. The TSA is part of bigger government policy. Beyond the TSA, there is a government that wants to do so much good. And, now they are doing it to me. I wanted a government which would "nudge" people into proper choices. I now see that they have the power, and no restraint.

They won't stop themselves, and I don't have the power to stop them. Even "we" don't have that power for now. My concern can't be just the TSA. I must be concerned about government power in general.

This is an example of what they are willing to do in the open. What are they doing behind the scenes in thousands of ways? What are the millions of injustices which prevent our country from prospering?

I must endure the TSA for now. My fellow citizens must endure all of those government agencies for now. If I accept that government always goes too far, I will have the courage to take away most government power. Instead, I'll rely on policies that I can accept or reject as an individual. I will support the politicians who will limit that government.

I won't fly, don't ask me
I won't fly, don't ask me
I won't fly, away, with you
My heart won't let your hands do things that they shouldn’t do

You know what?, I’m weepy
You know what?, you're so creepy
And, oh, what you do to me
I'm like an ocean wave that's bumped on the shore
I feel so absolutely stumped on the floor

When I go I'll get there in a rental
I won’t be scanned to fly on Continental
But this feeling isn't purely mental
For, heaven rest us, I don’t wear asbestos

And that's why
I won't fly, why should I?
I won't fly, how could I?
I won't fly, merci beaucoup
My lady parts are there for romance,
So get away from my pants, I won’t fly

I won't fly, don't ask me,
I won't fly, don't ask me
I won't fly, away, with you
My heart won't let your hands do things that they shouldn’t do

You know what?, you're dreadful,
Ring-a-ding-ding, now spread’em,
And, oh, what you do to me
I'm like an ocean wave that's bumped on the shore
I feel so absolutely stumped on the floor

When I go I'll get there in a rental
I won’t be scanned to fly on Continental
But this feeling isn't purely mental
For, heaven rest us, I don’t wear asbestos

and that's why
I won't fly, I won't fly,
I won't fly, merci beaucoup
My lady parts are there for romance,
So get away from my pants, I won’t fly!!

Susie is a hero for speaking out about how this absolutely unacceptable violence against her body affected her. I applaud her for using her experience to help others by working to end airport sexual abuse. Her reaction was entirely understandable, normal, and justified. I have personally spoken with at least a dozen other women who related stories exactly like hers, including the extreme emotional impact and the tears. She did everything right, including following every conceivable channel to complain and fight back after she was violated. She did not deserve to be degraded and abused like this, and no innocent traveler does.

Invasive searches are forbidden by the fourth amendment unless done under an articulable suspicion of wrongdoing. These screeners are not "just doing their job", they are choosing to trample our Constitutional rights. These people take money to pornographically image children and to force non-consensual sexual contact on unwilling victims; they do not deserve our respect or sympathy.

I am a frequent flyer who has been boycotting flying for the past six months, cancelling trip after trip, or driving or taking the train even when this means 24 hours on the road. Even after making my decision never to line up and let government agents inspect my genitals, I am still plagued with disgust, nightmares, and recurrent disturbing thoughts about all the sexual assaults being inflicted on innocent people for no reason at all. This violence affects me every day, even though I refuse to go anywhere near an airport. I will never stop fighting! Abolish the TSA, now.

I think these incidents are all about TSA agents taking revenge on people who don't have shitty jobs. Race, class, sex--anyone who might be "above" the TSA minion gets groped. Has anyone in a burkha been molested?

In case you had any doubts about the caliber of people hired to grope you:

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2011/04/tsa-screener-charged-with-distributing.html

I can understand not wanting to incur any more radiation burden than necessary, but these machines are unlikely to increase your risk of cancer.

I would agree with you, Ltw, except for the problem of maintenance. Who, amongst the TSA goons, is qualified to test and maintain these machines, and how often do they do so? How would they know if one (or dozens) were to malfunction? If their level of competence in maintaining these reasonably complex machines is **anything** like their level of general competence in doing the rest of their job... then I expect we will be a nation of easy-to-find glow-in-the darkers in the not too distant future.

Freeze Drills -- did any of you know about these:

ON THE ROAD; Playing Simon Says At Airport Security
By JOE SHARKEY
Published: March 29, 2011

. . . On the two occasions that I have experienced the freeze drill -- once at the Los Angeles airport and, more recently, at Atlanta -- it was clear to me that travelers believed they were required to stop and stand motionless -- even those who had cleared security and were merely within shouting distance of the checkpoint. Officers seemed to reinforce that impression, too.

The freeze issue has been getting more attention lately. On Wewontfly.com, a Web site started last year in opposition to certain T.S.A. procedures, including the more aggressive body pat-downs, a woman commented that she was recently involved in a freeze drill at the Atlanta airport.

''As we were going through the security checkpoint, one of the supervisors suddenly yelled 'freeze!' '' she wrote. ''Everyone was forced to just stand there for about a minute. We were not allowed to move, fidget, look around, speak, nothing.''

. . . ''I kind of scratch my head on this,'' said James Babb, the other co-founder of Wewontfly.com. ''All I can think of is obedience training. I kind of know what to expect from the T.S.A., but really on this, my frustration is with the public that says, 'Oh, an authority figure said freeze, so I'd better freeze,' and not ask reasonable questions.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/business/29road.html

And here's a forum where people discuss these idiotic "freeze drills":

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5103484/1/

I found it! I found it! And yes, only ONE link, Amy :-) Apparently it's been updated.

http://tsastatus.net/

I would agree with you, Ltw, except for the problem of maintenance.

A reasonable point gkarkness. If they're built correctly they should shut down on failure (or on failure of the sensors that detect for failures). Failure mode analysis is a very mature field in engineering and it can be done with vanishingly small probability of error - at a cost. They shouldn't be relying on the operators. I've done some of these things in factories involving heavy robotic machinery - we're not talking the chance that an x-ray beam might irradiate your balls for a few seconds, but several tons of steel smashing into your head. Tends to concentrate the mind.

Whether they *are* built correctly or not, of course, I really don't know.

Amy, you may like this: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/10/the_airline_scr.html

The TSA is part of DHS. DHS is a cabinet-level agency administered by the executive branch and funded by congress. Writing letters to the TSA is cute but, effectively, useless.

The only way the TSA will change anything is if there is political pressure to change. The only way you will see political pressure is if politicians believe that they will not have a job if they do not change something.

We had a great opportunity in 2010 during the mid-term elections. Having approx a 43% voter turn-out across the nation though did nothing to convince our politicians that the electorate is serious about this issue, along with many many other issues.

You want change? Stop voting for the same people. Pretty simple. Watch the congressional reaction if the majority of the 33% of senators up for reelection in 2012 do not retain their seats. The 66ish% that are still sitting there will change something. Better? Maybe. Maybe worse too. But if they know that their buddies got booted because they cannot enact reasonable regulations for the TSA to operate under, among many other reasons, I would bet that changes that make life better would occur.

We, Americans, tend to denigrate our responsibility to vote. The bottom line is that if we do not, if we do not vote responsibly, then all of us get the congress and currently have. The only reason third-party candidates do not get elected is because people do not vote for them. Americans are responsible for the TSA and must be responsible for changes if they are to happen.

I particularly hate it when people say they have 'nothing to hide'. We do have something to hide... our private parts. That's why they're private. That's why we cover them with clothes. Let's review. When you're randomly picked, you either have the option of getting your picture taken with full frontal and rear nudity, arms raised so nothing is covered, or you have the option of getting thoroughly groped and handled in places that most people don't let a first date touch. Both of these options are very uncomfortably sexual in nature. In American culture, it's not just a violation of privacy, it's a violation of virtue. In cruder language, either you're forced to make porn for them or you're forced to let them molest you.

Lately, the TSA has been deliberately making the pat-downs more uncomfortable to the point of being traumatizing, in an attempt to get people to accept the scanners because it's "easier" for them. Not only that, they don't change their gloves between pat-downs. The gloves are there to protect the agent, not us. So, basically, you're not only getting felt up, you're getting the skin germs from the last twenty people or so on your own bare skin. Lovely, eh? Also, at every airport I've seen them doing this, they very much tend to "randomly" pick the young and attractive girls. A gorgeous blonde pixie-like girl I know flies quite a lot (round trip every 3-4 weeks) and has been picked every single time. The 200 lb brown-haired woman with acne? Flies just as much and she hasn't been picked once.

The reasons I don't trust the scanners? First, I don't care if the person behind the monitor has seen a thousand nudie pictures that day and "won't remember". I don't want him/her seeing a picture of me nude. That's sexual in nature. Second, we don't know how harmful the radiation is. People have claimed to know, but they really can't, not just by looking at the machine. Third, do you seriously trust your security to someone whose job it is to look at naked people all day? And finally... all it takes is a bored TSA member with a cell phone camera and five minutes of coloring in photoshop, and your naked picture is posted on the internet forever for all to see.

All this is backfiring on them, though. It's coming up on the news more and more, and the outrage is getting higher and higher. Me, I'm just glad I don't have to fly for a while and I hope the practice is taken out before I have to.

Sarah, you said all the things I've been thinking!

The only part I am concerned with (in your post) is the last paragraph. It isn't backfiring fast enough, and too many people take an "oh well" attitude about it. WAY too many people.

I belong to an affinity group that has a huge number of humblingly (to me) intelligent people. After speaking to many of them, I am still shaking my head to discover - they don't care about this! I work in an office that - again - employs people who run circles around me intellectually.....and they don't care! In both groups, the replies I get indicate that it's just an annoyance, nothing more.

We have to find a way to make people understand what they are giving up when they allow this level of molestation.

Update: I made it through security at Love Field in Dallas this morning - they only have the regular metal detectors - no milliwave, no scanners, no Rape-scan (rapiscan). Yay!

And despite the fact that no one saw me nekkid, no one felt of my crotch (with thick maxi-pad, just in case), and DH forgot to remove his shoes (and no one noticed).....we didn't blow the plane up, we didn't hijack it, and no flight attendant, pilot or passenger died as a result of the above "laxity"! Imagine that!

This whole thing has gotten SO out of hand.