.
May 19th, 2009
06:00 PM ET

Should airports do away with whole-body scans?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Privacy groups want the government to get rid of whole-body imaging machines at airports - because they say the security technology performs a "virtual strip" search and produces "naked" pictures of passengers.

A TSA officer reviews a passenger's carry-on items during a whole body scan at Baltimore-Washington International Airport.

These sci-fi looking scanners were first introduced at a Phoenix airport in 2007. There are now 40 of them being tested and used in 19 airports. Some airports use them as a primary security check option instead of metal detectors; while others use it as a secondary option instead of a pat-down.

The Transportation Security Administration says the machines detect metallic and nonmetallic "threat items" to keep people safe, and that the technology is proven and they're highly confident in its detection capability. They also say this option is faster.

TSA officials say they're committed to respecting passenger privacy. The system uses a pair of security officers. The one who works the machine never sees the image, which is viewed behind closed doors by another officer, who never sees the passenger.

Also, the passenger's face is blurred. Officers can't bring cameras or any recording device into the room; and the machines automatically delete the images.

But critics are calling for more oversight, full disclosure for air travelers of what's going on here and legal language that would protect passengers and keep the TSA from changing its policy later on. The ACLU says we shouldn't pretend "being groped and being stripped" are our only options.

A bill was introduced in the House last month to ban these machines.

Here’s my question to you: Should airports do away with whole-body scans because they show "everything"?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Myra in Hawaii writes:
Absolutely not! See what? An outline of the human body? Even fully-clothed, I think we all know and can imagine what is beneath. But, what we do not know is what might be concealed. I say, if you have nothing to hide, other then what we already know you have, then why not show it?

Mikea from Charlotte, North Carolina writes:
Yes, scans like these should be eliminated. People who want to fly should not be subjected to a peep show for airport security perverts. By the way, records and images are not always erased or expunged and rules are not always followed. That's how people find themselves on the internet. Even Miss California knows that!

Diane from Allentown, Pennsylvania writes:
If it keeps us safe, why not? It’s not like the images are being shown on a JumboTron in the largest concourse in the airport. Personally I'd like at least a whistle. I can't imagine standing there and not laughing imagining the guy's face in the other room. But as long as there is no whooping and cat calls coming out of that room, what the heck? Loosen up America – strike a pose!

K.D. writes:
It's ironic how after 9-11 people kicked and screamed that they wanted more security in our country, especially airports. Now we install these whole-body scanner machines, and everyone is worried about privacy issues? People want to have their cake and eat it too.

Ian from Austin, Texas writes:
They should have never been introduced in the first place. These are just bringing us one step closer to a seemingly inevitable police state. I'm not willing to sacrifice my privacy for my liberty.

Kate writes:
I'm a frequent business traveler. I'm also a 67-year-old grandmother. Any TSA agent who can deal with that reality at 6:30am is welcome to it.

Dan from Ohio writes:
It would be quicker if we just went through the gate nude.


Filed under: Airlines • Travel
soundoff (266 Responses)
  1. Ralph

    No, modify them so they can detect illness and other medical issues and then I won't have to leave the country to go and get an affordable X-ray or health screening.
    Ralph- Corpus Christi, Texas

    May 19, 2009 at 1:10 pm |
  2. Courtney in Connecticut

    I was asked to test one at Heathrow a few years ago, and while it was a little odd, it really didn't bother me at all. It was hardly any different that being frisked at a concert in terms of privacy invasion and a lot quicker than the regular metal detector. Heck, they still make me take off paper-thin flip-flops when I go through security at the airport, so I say that anything that will make the experience safer and faster is a plus.

    May 19, 2009 at 1:21 pm |
  3. David Alexandria, VA

    Not if they make us safer. For a couple of months when I had a knee brace on from a skiing accident, I had to drop trou for everyone with a badge in an airport - you just suck it up and know that, if they care, I should care.

    May 19, 2009 at 1:23 pm |
  4. Paul Austin, Texas

    No if you have nothing to hide IE weapons or anything illegal you should not worry and if you are worried because security just may see your yaya it is you that has a problem.

    May 19, 2009 at 1:25 pm |
  5. Kevin in Dallas, TX

    They shouldn't do away with whole-body scans, but the should provide an alternative.

    May 19, 2009 at 1:27 pm |
  6. Ray Kinserlow

    I don't really care whether they scan me or not. At 63, I doubt they will be able to pay for the machine by selling the pictures of me.

    Ray Kinserlow
    Lubbock, Texas

    May 19, 2009 at 1:31 pm |
  7. Chuck in warren, Ohio

    Jack: This doesn't bother me at all. When you are broke you don't go any where.

    May 19, 2009 at 1:33 pm |
  8. Mike D.

    Airports should keep them as long as they are proven to speed lines. They will also render the " Will these metal plates set off the detector?"
    question moot.

    Downingtown PA

    May 19, 2009 at 1:35 pm |
  9. circy in new mexico

    They don't need to scan at all. Since 9/11, the government has acted like a chicken with it's head in the sand about security. They're so afraid someone might slip by if not detected at the airport they've gone overboard on security. Meanwhile the ports and borders are wide open. Using a little common sense would go a long way.

    May 19, 2009 at 1:37 pm |
  10. Jane (Minnesota)

    Not if it will help better in detecting banned objects and keep air travel safer. Come on people – no one is going to remember what you look like on a scan. It's time to grow up.

    May 19, 2009 at 1:38 pm |
  11. Ray in Nashville

    No, Jack. Even as we hear about the excesses under the Bush administration, we should keep in mind that there are still people out there who wish to do us harm.

    May 19, 2009 at 1:44 pm |
  12. Rich, Kankakee, IL.

    I refuse to fly because they treat people like cattle, and because the airlines basically kidnap you for hours on end. That is why I either drive or take the train, I will all them to treat me or anyone in my family bad! Thye over book on purpose to ensure that they have full planes, basically they lie to you to get you to the airport, after you have driven an hour to get there. Anyone who flies on airplane these days is asking to be treated like a sack of garbage, and then they charge you more if you check a bag, that is crazy!

    May 19, 2009 at 1:49 pm |
  13. RONALD CALDWELL

    This is a no brainer: Security and Safety outweigh modesty. To argue otherwise is to say it is okay to have my picture in a Batman mask for drivers license purposes. The intent is security not voyeurism as weak minds might construe the practice.

    May 19, 2009 at 1:50 pm |
  14. John from Alabama

    Jack: I do not like full body scans, but for the sake of security and safety of the flying public full body scans should continue. ACLU will just have to get over it. Should pictures show up on the internet then give lawyers something to do suing the airports.

    May 19, 2009 at 1:53 pm |
  15. Mark, Bradenton, FL

    Absolutley, I do not feel comfortable with these scanners. Who knows what happens with all this information. Would you want someone look at your wife Jack?

    May 19, 2009 at 1:54 pm |
  16. Dan from Alliance, OH

    It would be quicker if we just went through the gate nude.

    May 19, 2009 at 1:54 pm |
  17. Mars (Atlanta, GA)

    I don't think they should rid of full body scans in airports. I never knew that the scans showed "everything" ... I'd need more specifics on "everything". But I will continue to adhere to all security procedures for my safety and the safety of other travelers. However, as I'm walking through the security and being scanned, security can feel free to throw $ bills at me since they're getting a free show! Lol

    May 19, 2009 at 2:02 pm |
  18. Will from San Jose

    As far as we know, the 9/11 hijackers took over the planes with threats about non-existent bombs and small knives that were legal to carry on board at the time. If we had whole-body scans on the day of the attacks all of those hijackers would have passed through without issue. We shouldn't do away with the scans because the show "everything", we should do away with them because they would stop nothing.

    May 19, 2009 at 2:03 pm |
  19. Brian Riback - Waldwick, NJ

    Oh who cares? With all the nutcases roaming around we need to be more understanding. Leave it alone...with that many people walking by, do you think the security guards really care? People are acting like you are walking through security at the airport but being viewed by a monitor inside a small booth in an Adult Book Store. Just another thing completely blown out of proportion.

    May 19, 2009 at 2:05 pm |
  20. Ed Reed

    Not if they would also give me the radiologist's report.

    Ed Reed
    Port Aransas, TX

    May 19, 2009 at 2:10 pm |
  21. Tina Tx

    If they want to get their kicks out of looking at fat folks rolls and dimples then who cares. They are looking for hidden guns or so they say. I don't fly so I don't care.

    May 19, 2009 at 2:16 pm |
  22. C. Martin

    They DO invade privacy and are likely used for entertainment. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the potential here.

    May 19, 2009 at 2:19 pm |
  23. Sandy from Huntsville, Al.

    Show everything to who?? One lowly security person looking for weapons, maybe with a little more time they could check "length" or bra size. Could this be another "moral" election point for the far right?

    May 19, 2009 at 2:19 pm |
  24. Ann from Hampton, New Jersey

    Isn't that the purpose of the body scan – to show everything – including a hidden item for terroristic purposes? If there is nothing to hide, I am sure people would not resent being scanned. If you want to look at it from the funny side, aren't we all anatomically correct?

    May 19, 2009 at 2:22 pm |
  25. Harold from Anchorage,AK

    I consider it less invasive than being frisked,like the Germans did in the 1970's on me(in uniform) and my family traveling to Berlin.

    May 19, 2009 at 2:25 pm |
  26. Mark in OKC

    I don't know, Jack, sounds like the only thrill I could get at my age.

    May 19, 2009 at 2:25 pm |
  27. Scott in Canada

    Somehow, when people are complaining about their privacy from being seen nude, it's normally not because they care that someone who knows them or recognizes them sees them nude but because someone saw them nude. Show of hands: how many people feel its an invasion of privacy if they were required to put a mask on, strip down so that they could be searched? The guards never saw your face because of the mask so....what's the problem?

    May 19, 2009 at 2:26 pm |
  28. Gary of El Centro, Ca

    If they are used in "secondary" in place of a physical pat down, I think that's fine. I'd rather have the virtual pat down as opposed to someone running their hands over my body. They should not be used as a primary screening tool for all passengers however.

    May 19, 2009 at 2:26 pm |
  29. Peg from NY

    Full body scans at airports. Is this akin to those so called blood pressure machines at local pharmacies? LOL! I think the whole body scan dilemma is a whole lot of over doing it!

    May 19, 2009 at 2:26 pm |
  30. Bizz, Quarryville, Pennsylvania

    I would rather sit beside a passenger who looked suspicious that had a full body scan, then one who did not. I think having a full body scanned before you enter a plane, or were ever they feel it might be necessary, is a small price to pay for one safety in the world we live today. I would like to add, this is coming from an overweight 65 year-old man who shows the affect that gravity can have on your body over the years.

    May 19, 2009 at 2:26 pm |
  31. Charles in Illinois

    I have no problem with the body scans and don't understand why anyone would protest. Its for our safety to & from flight so the dilemma for those that have a problem going thru it, should be better directed on the couch of a Psychologist. Other countries have had these scans & x-rays for years with no problem from the customers, so the body scans should remain and those that don't want to deal with them can take the Greyhound or AMtrak.

    May 19, 2009 at 2:29 pm |
  32. Adam Thousand Oaks, CA

    Give me a break. They are performing a vital service for maintaining our security, not making a porno without our consent. If these measures help deter future disasters then I am all for it. The ACLU needs to lighten up on these kinds of cases. It makes them lose credibility when it comes to things that matter.

    May 19, 2009 at 2:32 pm |
  33. david from virginia

    Doesn't bother me. If I've had to get on an airplane in the first place, I'm already in for a bad day.

    May 19, 2009 at 2:34 pm |
  34. andrew

    No. As long as they do not save the file unless they find something, I have no challenge with it. Anything to get through the airport faster is fine by me. Now if pictures become public information through the freedom of information rules, ,,,,,,,

    May 19, 2009 at 2:38 pm |
  35. Jim from Chicago

    Frankly, at this point in my life, I would be flattered if someone were interested in looking at my body. Is there a place to drop off your phone number to a secret admirer?

    May 19, 2009 at 2:39 pm |
  36. Larry from Georgetown, Texas

    Heck NO Jack. They should start selling the scans to magazines. Of course they should do away with them, let's go back to strip searches and look and see with the eyes instead of electronic devices. My question is what are they finding on a daily basis that justifys these machines?

    May 19, 2009 at 2:39 pm |
  37. Alex (CT)

    Just inform the people going through security that the use of these scanning devices is questionnable in terms of privacy and if they decline then just use some other method of security screening. If something actually works better then use that because consumer privacy should be highly valued but just a simple notification regarding the devices would be satisfactory to me.

    May 19, 2009 at 2:41 pm |
  38. Tina Tx

    I am more worried about the maintence of the plane to worry about the scanners seeing my bones. Keep your plane in the air without it coming apart at the seams or the pilot wore out from lack of sleep then we will discuss what you get to see on my person.

    May 19, 2009 at 2:41 pm |
  39. Melissa

    No. I have nothing to hide so I have no problem with having a full body scan. The people that do, are the ones that are trying to do illegal things and just don't want to get caught.

    May 19, 2009 at 2:42 pm |
  40. Jim Bailey

    Given the flabby obesity of the American public you'd have to pay me double to work that machine! EWWWW-YUCK!
    Jim Bailey
    Cripple Creek CO

    May 19, 2009 at 2:43 pm |
  41. John

    Jacki...
    Yes they should. It is as simple as sexual harassment regardless of gender.
    John
    Pampa, TX

    May 19, 2009 at 2:47 pm |
  42. John

    Jack...
    Yes they should. It is as simple as sexual harassment regardless of gender.
    John
    Pampa, TX

    May 19, 2009 at 2:48 pm |
  43. John

    Jack...
    I don't miss it. My wife does, but the new media does a great job of keeping things stirred up, for all the political TV junkies.
    John
    Pampa,TX

    May 19, 2009 at 2:50 pm |
  44. Diane/Allentown PA

    If it keeps us safe, why not, its not like its being shown on a jumbotron in the largest concourse in the airport.

    Personally I'd like at least a whistle! Although I can't imagine standing there and not laughing imagining the guy's face in the other room!!! As long as there is no whooping and cat calls coming out of that room, what the heck?

    Loosen up America – strike a pose!

    May 19, 2009 at 2:55 pm |
  45. Mike S., New Orleans

    It is unfortunate that the airlines have used 9/11 as a license to treat passengers like rodents. The whole body scan is overkill and an invasion of privacy. If ever flyer opted for a manual search instead, it would cripple the airline industry. Is there really any reason to get from one place to another that fast?

    May 19, 2009 at 2:58 pm |
  46. Daniel Indiana

    It is an extreme invasion of privacy and should be ended. It appears as though the Obama is going to continue the intrusive policies of the Bush administration and the Republicans. And this is a liberal administration?

    May 19, 2009 at 2:59 pm |
  47. Jim S from Gardendale, Alabama

    Jack, I am for anything that reduces the probability of some nut boarding a plane with a weapon and the intent to kill everyone on board, including themselves. If this method prevents such an incident, then I'm all for continuing it. As with everything in this country, I'm sure the expense factor is going to determine whether of not its continued and when human lives are at stake, cost should NOT be a factor, but it probably will be, after all Jack, corporations run this country and not our government or at least they did under the Republicans and Bush.

    May 19, 2009 at 3:02 pm |
  48. RNM from Chicago

    The real question is whether or not this technology will really make us safer in the long run. Airport security has long been a policy of closing the barn door behind the horse to make it look like the TSA is doing something. We're still taking off our shoes, but who's really going to try a shoe bombing again? It's only a matter of time before committed terrorists find a new way to get around new technology or policies. This is just the latest attempt at security window dressing...or should I say window undressing?

    May 19, 2009 at 3:03 pm |
  49. Annie, Atlanta

    If they don't, you can almost guarantee a "breach" at some point (meaning a "trusted" employee figured out how to make a few extra bucks) and images of some famous folks will wind up on the internet, with faces unblurred. I don't have to worry about it, you do.

    May 19, 2009 at 3:03 pm |
  50. Mari, Salt Lake City, Utah

    Jack, most of the security at the airport is silly, and just 'grandstanding'! I don't care if they do a body-scan, just keep those pen knives, nail clippers, and pocket tools off the aircraft...... hee...... hee.

    May 19, 2009 at 3:06 pm |
  51. K.D.

    It's ironic how after 911 people kicked and screamed that they wanted more security in our country, especially airports. Now we install these whole body scanner machines, and everyone is worried about privacy issues? People wanna have their cake and eat it too.

    May 19, 2009 at 3:10 pm |
  52. Diane, Barneveld, NY

    Yes they should do away with them. How ever will the porno sites keep their business with things like this being legal?

    May 19, 2009 at 3:10 pm |
  53. Ryan, Galesburg, IL

    Any time an agency uses a new tool to "keep us safe", it means some part of our dignity or privacy is being destroyed. This Bush-era implement needs to be scrapped before our televisions start watching us, ala 1984.

    May 19, 2009 at 3:11 pm |
  54. Al, Lawrence KS

    I already wear no belt, carry no change, wear slip on shoes with rubber soles, no jewelery, no watches, no electonics, and pack 5 days worth of clothes in an 1 quart plastic bag. But if they still need to scan me, be my guest. Just don't giggle while looking at my scan.

    May 19, 2009 at 3:13 pm |
  55. Mary Alapa

    As long as there remains a doubt about long-term affects of low dose radiation I say get this technology to hell out of airports. It's similiar to the shoe store x-ray scandals of the 1950's. I know searches of individuals are less cost effective but we don't have any idea of the real long-term cost of this technology.

    May 19, 2009 at 3:19 pm |
  56. Geri - Mead, OK

    Government paranoia really comes up with odd creations and difficult challenges doesn't it? How do these machines, due to their xray capabilities, affect people who have to fly all of the time?

    The machine is better than the groping from perfect strangers though others may prefer the latter in this day and age.

    In the first instance Jack I'd prefer our government give up its paranoid stance. This would solve many of our government's problems and probably cut the national budget in half.

    May 19, 2009 at 3:20 pm |
  57. Beauregard

    Yes they should be banned. I went to work for TSA as a screener and trained on those machines for days so that I could watch naked women pass through them. All I ever got to see were bald fat men. What a waste of good government money. The women screeners got to watch all the women passengers and a lot of those screeners were lesbians. A guy just can't get a break in life anymore.

    May 19, 2009 at 3:20 pm |
  58. Justin

    Heck, strip search me. I don't mind, I look good naked.

    May 19, 2009 at 3:23 pm |
  59. Tomasz

    Greetings:

    There are a couple of questions that must be asked:
    Which company is it that is promoting and lobbying for these devices?
    How much money are they going to cost?
    Lastly:

    How much food and water and clothing can be procured for that money?

    May 19, 2009 at 3:23 pm |
  60. John in LA

    The scans are optional and faster, which seems okay.

    On the other hand, Jack, what's the point? If they remain optional (and REALLY save time)...okay.

    But don't tell us that they are helping fight terrorism. What terrorist is going to ask for an optional scan?

    And mandatory ones will never work–much too intrusive.whether the "Peeping Tom" is in front of you or in an adjoining room.

    How much do these cost? Is it really worth it?

    May 19, 2009 at 3:31 pm |
  61. Randy from Salt Lake City, UT

    Yes. I'd rather be frisked-over thoroughly by the cute girl in the picture of this thread. Oh yeah. That would be reeeeal nice.

    May 19, 2009 at 3:32 pm |
  62. The Broker.

    Yes of course. Every passenger should have to change into a light "travelling suite', and no baggage at all, taken as in flight..

    May 19, 2009 at 3:38 pm |
  63. Mike, Syracuse, NY

    Funny how the ACLU didn't offer any better options. I have knee replacements and have to get wanded with a pat down every time I fly, which is often. If I had a faster, less annoying option like full body scan, I'd jump at it.

    May 19, 2009 at 3:39 pm |
  64. dave

    Jack,
    No we have to know. A little discomforts is OK for safety sake.

    May 19, 2009 at 3:41 pm |
  65. Terry from North Carolina

    Jack
    Everyone seems to forget what happened on 9/11, a whole body scan is a small price to pay to insure security for everyone that has to fly.

    May 19, 2009 at 3:45 pm |
  66. Lynne Parker in N. Augusta, SC

    Heck no! There is always a way to turn something into a capitalist dream. I'm waiting to find out if I can purchase these pictures. I have an idea for a new dating service: The Host with the Most!

    May 19, 2009 at 3:45 pm |
  67. Richard in Colorado

    Why should they stop doing something so unintrusive. It is too bad that Americans are so upset at something like this. We are all born with the same bodies which have one of two models and I don't think some person who cannot even see your face and who looks at thousands of these bodies on a computer screen every day really cares what you may have more or less of unless it is something detrimental to the well-being of other people. Americans seem to think the worst of everything concerning the human body. Grow up folks.

    May 19, 2009 at 3:47 pm |
  68. Remo .............. Austin, Texas

    Jack,
    The last enounter that I had with TSA officer made me question the persons IQ. Unfortunately I haven't been given cause to change that question on "not all" but others that I've encountered.
    I've found that whenever a persons privacy is at stake, SOMEONE out there is going to breach that, and exploit it. Unless both TSA officers are stripped searched, lock up their cell phones, then locked into their work areas then there may be a remote chance that I might trust them.

    May 19, 2009 at 3:48 pm |
  69. Pablo in Tejas

    Jack
    Well how about that! At last we have something fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims can agree on. These machines are a violation of the viruous modesty aspired to by the followers of both Jesus and Mohammed. Guess President Obama was right. Everyone can find common ground if they look for it hard enough.

    Pablo
    Arlington Teaxs

    May 19, 2009 at 3:48 pm |
  70. Curtis from California

    I don't know how they can invest billions in this type of airport security when our ports and borders are still wide open. Priorities please! Correction: I do know how. Because there's money to be made inventing fancy naked picture machines, and it 'hurts' businesses to have to screen their containers at ports.

    May 19, 2009 at 3:48 pm |
  71. Gigi

    Yes, for the general public. And they need to have a very good reason for doing it at all. My neighbor was humiliated this past month. She is over seventy years old, with a German accent and was very upset at the way she was being treated. Was then given the whole treatment. Our elected officials are getting letters.
    I was once pulled out of line when I went to Texas because my ticket was marked for that person to be checked. I stood facing a crowd, with my husband in it observing my ordeal, when I broke out giggling because some in the crowd looked more dangerous than I did. I didn't write any letters but did ask why I was pulled out..

    Oregon

    May 19, 2009 at 3:49 pm |
  72. george

    To me body scans are Un-Constitutional, and should be stopped NOw if not sooner. The Constitution gaurantees us the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and tell me anyone that you know who could be very happy having their "private-cies" scanned.

    May 19, 2009 at 3:52 pm |
  73. Jerry

    No maybe they can find something I've had a hard time finding

    May 19, 2009 at 4:03 pm |
  74. Nancy in Albuquerque,NM

    Nobody wants to see you naked, Jack. But the purpose of screening in the airports is a sham. It does nothing to stop a would be terrorist. Simply take a walk around the perimeter of any airport. You will see vast areas where they may simply hop the fence. Or, where they may walk through a doorway into the interior of the airport. Or, drive behind another vehicle through a gate. Or, walk through a private hanger. Or walk through the cargo warehouse, where a terrorist may climb into a fedex truck and drive onto the runway. It's that easy, Jack. And better yet, nobody has to see you naked. Airport security has no clothes, because they focus everything on scanning and punishing the public while the entire area surrounding the airport is uncovered.

    May 19, 2009 at 4:03 pm |
  75. Jim

    Jack,

    What nonsense! A momentary blow to your modesty is a small price to pay for the added security.

    Jim
    Reno, Nevada

    May 19, 2009 at 4:03 pm |
  76. Gordon NJ

    Jack, Please tell the Prude Police to go away. I can't imagine why anyone is troubled by such vague impersonal outlines of a human body. This is obviously a highly effective way to find hidden weapons, and it is much less intrusive than being patted down. The fact that a member of congress would propose this law speaks both to their sexual hang ups and their indifference to terrorism. Whoever sponsored this legislation should be laughed out of town.

    May 19, 2009 at 4:03 pm |
  77. Colleen Brooks, Charlotte, NC

    Yes. It is an invasion of our privacy. I'm surprised they are allowed to use them at all.

    May 19, 2009 at 4:05 pm |
  78. Lynn, Columbia, Mo..

    I think it falls under our illegal search and seizure protections. They are assuming we are all potentially guilty. I find it un-American.

    May 19, 2009 at 4:05 pm |
  79. Myra Becnel

    Absolutley Not! See what? An outline of the human body? Even fully clothed, I think we all know and can imagine what is beneath. But, what we do not know is what might be concealed. I say, if you have nothing to hide, other then what we already know you have, then why not show it!

    Myra in Hawaii

    May 19, 2009 at 4:08 pm |
  80. Dee in sunny (and dry) Florida

    I can only go by the images you guys showed in your report on this topic.

    I thought the body images looked nothing at all like "real" people. As for showing all, isn't that the point? To show if a person has some sort of weapon concealed on their person? Is it true that the scans are seen by workers in one location and the actual scan is taking place in another location, so that the scanner never actually sees the real person and so cannot put a face to the image?

    So, why is this even an issue?

    Let's put it this way. Are YOU willing to get on a plane, with a couple hundred total strangers, any one of which might want to hijack the plane, or just go berserk? Or would you want to know that if a person DOES mean harm he/she has no weapon with which to do so.

    To me the question really does not even apply. What with 9-11, the incompetance of the airlines and the government in screening passengers, not to mention the pilots that might be drunk, too tired, or poorly trained, I am not getting on a plane ever again! Never.

    May 19, 2009 at 4:09 pm |
  81. Ralph Nelson

    No, not unless we have to go through them naked. Better safe than terrorist. Ralph, Yakima, Wa.

    May 19, 2009 at 4:10 pm |
  82. Bob D, Morrisown, NJ

    If there is a faster, more secure, less expensive option than these things should be done away with. I've seen the images they produce and it doesn't look like pornography to me. We even get naked for other processionals, like the health care variety.

    May 19, 2009 at 4:10 pm |
  83. chris

    yes it is and while we are at it let people bring cAn soda or ice tea or water with them so we can bring our own drinks on or flights and waiting at the airport

    May 19, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  84. Paula in Albuquerque

    In December, I shall be flying to New York City. In a couple of weeks, I shall reach my 65th birthday. If any TSA perv can get his jollies by seeing through MY clothing...he definitely deserves what he sees!!!

    May 19, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  85. Jackson from Rome, GA

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. "

    -Benjamin Franklin

    May 19, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  86. Barney Gorter - Milwaukie, Oregon

    NO, the images can be routed by gender to a TSA viewer of the same gender. A statement guaranteeing limited use of iimages to TSA as perscribed by law.

    May 19, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  87. David Bebeau,Springfield Missouri

    Absolutely NOT
    David

    May 19, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  88. Michael "C" Lorton, Virginia

    Jack: I don't think so--–it is probably a rare instances in which they get to see "everything,"--–and believe me that can be more scary than pleasant.

    May 19, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  89. Brittnay Palm Beach, Florida

    With our techonological abilities why does it have to be human eyes that scan these images. Can they not come up with a computer program that only alerts people when there is something abnormal below the surface. We are all skin and bone and anything else can set off the alarm. Im ok with that.

    May 19, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  90. Linda in Arizona

    I'm not as concerned about the "modesty" aspect as I am about how the machines work. Are they producing any kind of radiation? I know they will say they aren't, but you can't believe them. Also, I'm against all of this exaggerated "security screening". It's just another way for people to make money. Remember when the first bottle of Tylenol was tampered with? The result was the creation of a whole new industry. If they had just ignored it, it probably would never have happened again anyway. People are so ridiculously paranoid. Oh well, I suppose it's good for the economy.

    May 19, 2009 at 4:29 pm |
  91. Stacy from Leesburg, VA

    Jack, if someone wants to view my hairy, flabby, out of shape body, they don’t need a sophisticated machine. Just give me 10 dollars or a case of beer and I’ll show them whatever they want.

    May 19, 2009 at 4:32 pm |
  92. Theresa in Atlanta

    Privacy issues aside, I don't want to expose myself or my children to the potential unknown health risks associated with millimeter radio frequency signals being bounced off certain parts of the body.

    May 19, 2009 at 4:33 pm |
  93. Billy in Las Vegas

    as a retired airline pilot I say security first, keep the machines, Jack.

    do these Congress people think airline passengers pictures are going to be published in Playboy? these are the same fools that want to now end the Federal Flight Deck Officer (Armed Pilots) Program which is the BEST airline security program started since 9-11.

    May 19, 2009 at 4:33 pm |
  94. Donna Colorado Springs,Co

    Yes. It all seems really creepy and 1984ish to me! Remember how they scared everyone in the 1970's with the book "1984" Jack? Seriously, scanning and checking everything you're wearing and carrying on the plane is quite enough for me! Big Brother is alive and well!

    May 19, 2009 at 4:33 pm |
  95. Judy, Exeter, Calif,

    Jack – No way! Let the ACLU come up with a better idea then. I can just hear the phony outrage coming from the republican party now, if Obama signs that bill. I hope this congress isn't going to behave in the same manner as the republican congress did after Bush was elected. This sounds like the extreme left to me, and they are just as bad as the extreme right.

    May 19, 2009 at 4:35 pm |
  96. Kevin , Fl

    Absolutely not. They are whole body x rays , not the x rated things of rumor. These are the same open borders, Pro Amnesty people that are trying to open the flood gates again. Love America, and Protect it...........or leave.

    May 19, 2009 at 4:35 pm |
  97. Happy in Arizona

    Full body scans are a good thing. It can discover hidden drugs, etc. I am all for it. People who feel it invades their privacy are rediculous. My safety is more important than having someone see my body scan.

    May 19, 2009 at 4:38 pm |
  98. Scott Stodden

    No they shouldnt, we have these machines at our airports to keep us Americans safe so doing without them would probably make us less safe. I for one do not travel by plane but if I did I would want to feel as safe as possible, these machines help detect weapons and things that should not be brought on to airplanes in airports otherwise we might risk another 9/11, we dont want to fall back now do we Jack?

    Scott Stodden (Freeport, IL)

    May 19, 2009 at 4:40 pm |
  99. Roland(St George,UT)

    Leave those machines there! The current system of security is slow and tedious. As long as there is no health risk, I'm in favor of anything that will speed up the process. I doubt that the folks reading the machines are perverts, but even if one or two bored agents want to get their jollies off of seeing a semi-blurred X-ray image of yours truly (I'm an older middle-aged, paunchy guy), hey I really don't care! Just get me on my plane quickly and home safely! Honestly Jack, I'm a lot more concerned about whether the pilots have had enough sleep to flly the plane. Safety is the #1 issue...and the ACLU has gone off track on this one. (Roland/St George, UT)

    May 19, 2009 at 4:40 pm |
  100. Agnes from Scottsdale, AZ

    Jack: There is no silver bullet on this one. I have to believe the same minds that invented the full body scan can make some modifications that ensure the validity of the scanners while preserving the passenger's privacy. Maybe we all get cat scans as we get wheeled through the TSA? Just kidding!!

    May 19, 2009 at 4:42 pm |
  101. Jasmine in Germany

    Should medicine do away with MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) because it shows "everything"? At the airport, your personal data is not attached to the security image. At the hospital, lots of personal data is attached to your image and lots of people have access to it. Let's be happy the TSA is innovative and doing its job. If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about.

    May 19, 2009 at 4:42 pm |
  102. Gail, Plano Texas

    Jack: If this is all we have to talk about, or worry about, then we are in serious trouble. If these scanners are not used, and there is another terrorist attack, well then everyone majority of Republicans, will say we should have kept them. If not, people will just go on complaining about a non-issue.

    May 19, 2009 at 4:47 pm |
  103. Rick Medina,OH

    On 9/11, I was doing a training session at 9:30am, which was interrupted by the 'news.' I spent three days in a Holiday Inn across the street from Love Field. I was on the first flight out, and security measures took about 1/2 hour per person. Security, by definition, is invasive ... I'm OK with anything that speeds the process.

    Rick, OH

    May 19, 2009 at 4:48 pm |
  104. Ronald Holst

    I hope Not I want a job, especially when the Dallas cheer leaders fly.
    Ron
    San Antonio, TX.

    May 19, 2009 at 4:52 pm |
  105. Diane Dagenais Turbide

    Yes for dignity issue as welll as not believing in the system to protect privacy issue. I do not believe in seeing the system respect people's dignity when anyone in power needs to flex their muscles...it is a dangerous road for power abuse in the name of national security...spppry this must be the left over of the last eight years...as well as in the possibility of personnel not having 150% values towards people's right to their privacy and dignity.

    May 19, 2009 at 4:52 pm |
  106. Richard, Syracuse, NY

    NO. These are the best way to insure that illegal items do not get on board the planes. Now it is very easy to create something that would make the picture less clear. The individual would look like they are standing behind glass that is frosted.

    May 19, 2009 at 4:53 pm |
  107. Diane Dagenais Turbide

    Yes for dignity issue as welll as not believing in the system to protect privacy issue. I do not believe in seeing the system respect people’s dignity when anyone in power needs to flex their muscles…it is a dangerous road for power abuse in the name of national security…sorry this must be the left reflex over the last eight years…as well as in the possibility of personnel not having 150% values towards people’s right to their privacy and dignity.

    May 19, 2009 at 4:54 pm |
  108. Eric Bracke

    Jack,
    Until such a time comes to pass where we are all safer than today, then I say go ahead and use the machine.

    May 19, 2009 at 4:59 pm |
  109. mat

    wells if they want to see the sexxiness behind my clothes for the safety of others, then that's ok with me. I think somebody would get more out of looking at nude decending stairs then looking at an abstract image of me.

    May 19, 2009 at 5:00 pm |
  110. Deb in Lancaster, PA

    Oh, for Heaven's sake. People need to grow up. Airport personnel can scan me all they want if means my flight will be free of onboard box-cutters, guns or knives. How many airport employees get their jollies from scanning travelers? How sexy is an MRI image anyway?

    May 19, 2009 at 5:00 pm |
  111. Greg, Ontario

    Who can afford to fly anywhere?

    May 19, 2009 at 5:01 pm |
  112. Michael McDowell

    I think it is stupid to have body scans. If want porn go surf the internet. What's next, security officials copping a feel when the machine is on the fritz???

    May 19, 2009 at 5:05 pm |
  113. Rahn Hasbargen New Brighton, MN

    I'll agree to do away with scans that show "everything" when terrorists start showing everything without the scans.

    May 19, 2009 at 5:05 pm |
  114. dana meier

    No. Sadly I would hate it, but if it keeps us safer, I think we have to do it. Sounds like they are protecting the privacy of each person as much as they can... and if they are... good.... do it. If not... and there are kinks to work out where people are shown to the world in their skivvies.. then I say no way.

    May 19, 2009 at 5:06 pm |
  115. Buster in Poughkeepsie, NY

    As long as they can strip us without us having to disrobe, I'm all for it. It's the price you pay for being able to travel at high speeds. And I don't care if Joe Schmo has a rocket in his pocket, as long as it doesn't have a warhead.

    May 19, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
  116. Missy M

    I understand that these measures are designed to make us safe, and I appreciate that. But why do everyday, law-abiding travelers constantly have to prove that they're not terrorists? Everything from required identification, carry-on and luggage searches, metal scanners and having to take off the shoes are designed to make sure we're not carrying any weapons. You can't even carry a bottle of water onto a plane anymore and now, TSA wants to make sure we're not hiding anything sinister (like a banned bottle of shampoo) underneath our clothes. This machine does take precaution a bit too far.

    Missy M. Phoenix, Ariz.

    May 19, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  117. Nancy, Tennessee

    Let them keep on scanning if it keeps us safer on flights. I will handle the embarrassment of being scanned like I do when getting a PAP smear at the doctor, I will not think about it and go to my happy place in my mind. If they keep a would-be hijacker off the plane I'm flying on, then it is worth being undressed by a machine.

    May 19, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  118. Greg Mechanicsburg, PA

    The movie "Total Recall" had the right idea. These systems should be installed everywhere there is mass transit. Think of all the savings from reduced crime. It would pay for itself within a year. Why aren't we doing this already?

    May 19, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  119. Jim

    Absolutely! Full body scans are invasive, embarrassing and 99% unnecessary. I am sick and tired of being treated like a criminal because the government is afraid to step on someone's feelings. I don't like taking off my shoes in a filthy screening area, and I don't like strangers fingering my wife's underwear. We have lost our civility and our respect for decent law abiding citizens in favor of protecting the rights of terrorists.

    Jim in WY

    May 19, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  120. Bob from Houston

    It doesn't matter to me; there aren't any parts of my body that I'm ashamed of.

    May 19, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  121. james sloan

    Dear Jack, No, but with stringent oversight. Terrorism is real and we need to ajust our thinking accordingly. Jim/ Phoenixville, Pa.

    May 19, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  122. Sean in California

    Hell, Jack...I walk around naked most of the time at home anyway.

    May 19, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  123. Denny from Tacoma, WA

    No they should not. The criminals are very creative in their attempts to conceal things to include within various body orifices; therefore nothing should be overlooked. Of course one should check the Internet occasionally to make sure they are not on You Tube, etc.

    May 19, 2009 at 5:28 pm |
  124. Carolyn in Utah

    NO, NO, NO!!!!! Since having a total knee replaceent and later a plate in my arm because of a fracture, I have been subjected to being pulled aside, made to sit in a chair while someone checks the bottom of my feet, stand with my legs spread and arms outstretched, palm up, while someone wands me and does a pat down. Talk about humiliating and embarrassing! This trip, the SLC airport had the body scanner and what a difference. I even asked for the line that had it. In seconds, I was through it and off to the gate, just like most people. It appears that the ones who are crying porno, and want to get rid of it are the very ones that have never been subjected to the humiliating procedure that it is replacing. If you look at the pictures, they look like ones from textbooks, or manniquins in department stores. Too many pictures of too many people taken too quickly would make it difficult for anyone to think this is anything but marvelous technology. If people don't want to go through it, they should be given the option that I have had to endure for quite awhile. See how they like the humiliating experience. Then they can talk about invasion of privacy!

    May 19, 2009 at 5:30 pm |
  125. Sandra

    I was randomly targeted for one of these scans not long ago and I work for a major airline. I felt completely invaded and dirty! These TSA's guys are basicly robo cops who I am certain have good fun and lust with each scan!!!!

    PS: Hey Cafferty, here's an issue for you. With all the focus on Energy, why is there not the bigger picture of energy consumed with cell phones, gps, blackberries, etc. You get the gist. Thank you.

    May 19, 2009 at 5:34 pm |
  126. Bruce

    There is no excuse for all these incrementally increasing violations of privacy. Not only should scans be banned but traffic light cameras and car-GPS devices should also get the boot. Government and private industry is lower in rank and power than the people. Time to put them in their place!

    May 19, 2009 at 5:38 pm |
  127. David A Whitaker

    No maybe make it more private for the customers. If a female need to be scanned, have another female to scan them. The glass booth they have is unacceptable, have some respect for those that are traveling. Most people don't mine the scanning, but just the process of not being a private scan.

    David

    Martinsburg, WV

    May 19, 2009 at 5:48 pm |
  128. Roy - Chicago

    Jack, I would rather be scanned and safe, with a blurry face, than wonder about security when I get on a plane. It is incredibly immature for people to have an issue with this.....especially when the same people probably have the Playboy channel and go to 'the club' on the weekend.

    May 19, 2009 at 5:50 pm |
  129. Bill B., Walnut Creek, CA

    First they banned toothpaste tubes and mouthwash bottles of over 3 ounces, even when it was a 4 ounce container that was obviously less than half full. Then it was taking off shoes and throwing away nail clippers. Now it's gone from metallic scanners to full-body X-rays. Using TSA's logic we should soon be boarding planes completely naked.

    May 19, 2009 at 5:51 pm |
  130. Kelly in Atlanta

    Life imitates art (or am I the only one who has seen "Total Recall?") This is ridiculous Jack. Just how much of our right to privacy, or right to privacy of our privates, are we expected to give up in the name of safety? I for one think that steps like this are proof that terrorists have already won and are in effect forcing us to give up our rights as Americans. You know what I mean, those things included in the 4th amendment like my right to privacy.

    Speaking of life imitating art, with cameras, x-ray technology, facial and voice recognition software and Google Earth (with its camera right on my front door for the world to see) – everywhere you turn these days it looks like the Republicans are going to get exactly what they want.- To live amongst Regan once again, in 1984.

    May 19, 2009 at 5:58 pm |
  131. mikea,charlotte,nc

    yes , scans like that should be eliminated. people who want to fly should not be subjected to a peep show for airport security perverts.
    ps: Records and images are not always erased or expunged and rules are not always followed. That's how people find themself on the internet. Even Miss California knows that!

    May 19, 2009 at 5:58 pm |
  132. Susan Frost

    If I am ever again forced to get on an airplane, I wouldn't mind if everybody was forced to strip down and put on a hospital gown for the flight. Just the awful thought of being in one of the dreadful contraptions – or having it fly over your house – is bad enough without wondering if the guy sitting next to you is a terrorist nut who's going to blow the damn thing up! Come to think of it, along with the hospital gowns they could give me intravenous vodka.

    Susan
    Tuscaloosa, AL (AND STAYING HERE!)

    May 19, 2009 at 5:59 pm |
  133. Peter, KC

    Flying is a privilege not a right, just like starring in a porno movie!

    May 19, 2009 at 6:04 pm |
  134. Karen

    We Americans need to rethink our definition of privacy. In the age of Twitter, My Space, Facebook, and survailence cameras, privacy doesn't really exist in the terms it once did. Besides that, the safeguards in place are enough for me. While I don't agree that safety should be our # 1 priority (protecting civil liberties should be, so I understand the ACLU's role in this), safety is high enough on my list that I'll put up with what amounts to an MRI of my clothing. Naked-smaked. If this technology isn't used today, it'll be used in 5, 10, or 25 years, with acceptance. Better to start now, and keep the public safe.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:05 pm |
  135. Barbara in NC

    Considering you previous article on healthcare, maybe it could be a substitute for a Cat Scan or an x-ray.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:05 pm |
  136. Gary Sloan

    Jack:

    If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Modesty over safety, dah, that one is a no brainer for me!

    Gary,
    Lexington,KY

    May 19, 2009 at 6:07 pm |
  137. Michael Lakes

    You can either see everything now, or when my clothes has burned off during an attack.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:10 pm |
  138. Dave in Saint Louis!

    NO! Show everything you want I don't care just get me home safe!

    May 19, 2009 at 6:10 pm |
  139. Julia California

    Why bother with scans and pat downs. Just have everyone come naked and save all that money.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:11 pm |
  140. Chris B.

    Jack,

    Is this really what it must come to?! Hasn't the high security actions that have been put in place thus far been enough? I mean were losing nail-clippers here and since we stepped up the checkpoints since 9/11 have we endured anything like it?

    -Chris/CA

    May 19, 2009 at 6:11 pm |
  141. Ian Austin, TX

    They should have never been introduced in the first place. These are just bringing us one step closer to a seemingly inevitable police state. I'm not willing to sacrifice my privacy for my liberty.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:11 pm |
  142. Suzanna

    No! I would not go to an airport if it had body scan.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:11 pm |
  143. Craig Francis

    No of course not Jack, look I'm not extremely happy about be virtually stripped but I'd take that over longer wait times anyway

    From Columbus Indiana.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  144. Ed - Wake Forest, NC

    Many of the same folks who fear 'showing everything/ don't hesitate to throw on a skimpy bikini and parade up and down the beach showing everything.
    You can't have it both ways.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  145. MQu

    I am part Arabic originally and actually don't mind the prospect of a full body scan, rather than the humiliating treatment to which I am occasionally subjected. If the images are not stored and linked with a facial image, I fail to see the problem, if done correctly. Then again, I am a doctor who has sworn the hippocratic oath and have ultimate respect for human autonomy and integrity. If TSA were to exhibit these pre-requisites too, surely it would only make us safer.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  146. Edmund Kudzayi

    Blah blah, there is too much food in America, this is why people are bored. Safety is remains paramount... who cares if you see my chest hairs

    harare, zimbabwe

    May 19, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  147. Tyler from RI

    No! In fact, I think they should be implemented in more airports. As long as the image is not seen by the people who are seeing the passenger, there is absolutely no reason to ban them. It keeps us safer, and gets us through security faster!

    May 19, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  148. Mike - Toledo, OH

    I don't get it, does someone think the scans actually look sexy?

    May 19, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  149. Betty Ann Prescott

    No, this would be a much faster way for us to get through the line. I'm tired of taking off my shoes and lifting out my laptop and am not going to be flying any more.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  150. Chika Uzokwe (Greece)

    No need to agitate, they must always have a way to see everything about. And they will always have a reason;- 'our safety'

    May 19, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  151. David Jones

    Jack,

    When did this country stop believing in presumption of innocence? I don't think this method, or any other should be implemented by the government. It should be left up to the airlines. If the American people put any stock into these kinds of invasive security measures, then the airlines that implement them will receive our business.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  152. Christine from Haverford PA

    Jack, I'm for anything that gets me through the line faster and keeps my shoes ON– I'm sick and tired of doing a Gypsy Rose Lee and potentially getting Athlete's foot to get to the plane for a business trip– But if I still have to take my shoes off and surrender a new tube of lip gloss to keep the country safe - no no no.....

    May 19, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  153. Arlene Stevenson

    Whatever happened to the 4th ammendment? Of course scan someone's body, with radiation should be illegal. Poor America! Her rights are dissolving one by one. We are turning into scared, whining crybabies! Man UP America!

    May 19, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  154. Chris in Los Angeles

    Jack, NO scanning for all men & fat women, then the TSA can create a website where we can all view the scans of the rest.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  155. John Foland

    People are actually upset about this? What a joke! I'm certain that anyone who is worried about airport security screeners seeing them naked are very ugly and don't even merit a glance!

    May 19, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  156. eric

    I'm not ashamed of my body. If the TSA wants to sneak-a-peak, go ahead!

    May 19, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  157. Diane Dagenais Turbide

    I guess Wolf is a naturist!:>)

    There must be other types of imagery where you do not need to see the whole body!

    On the other hand Jack, this might be the new weight control solution for people!:>)

    May 19, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  158. Robert K

    Being an australian living in america, I'm constantly annoyed by americans wanting the best of both worlds, wanting both privacy as well as safety on airplanes, you cant have both. Everytime a new procedure comes up to better protect america you have people acting crazy about how it shouldnt be allowed for some ridiculous reason. STOP complaining about absolutely EVERYTHING you can and be happy that we live in a country that has amazing technology to better protect us!!!

    May 19, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  159. Julia

    Americans are so prude. So a trained professional in a room separate from yours seeking hidden devices might see a body that resembles yours naked. So what? You strip for doctors, body waxers, your significant other.... who cares if one more person sees you naked? This is no reason to freak out. This is a ridiculous concern. let's focus on real issues.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  160. Ed Howlett

    Airports should not do away with whole-body scans it's better then a pat down in every way

    May 19, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  161. Clay mathis

    If the ACLU is successful in banning full body scans I hope every ACLU member in the US is on the plane that is brought down because of something missed that would have been caught with the scan. Now that would be poetic justice.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  162. kate - florida

    I'm a frequent business traveler.

    I'm also a 67-year old grandmother.

    Any TSA agent who can deal with that reality at 6:30 am is welcome to it.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  163. Ken in NC

    So we want our skies to be as safe as possible to the flying public. A means to that end is put in place and now privacy groups want the government to get rid of it before it is off the ground.

    When the price of gas goes through the roof we scream become less dependent on oil by going green. OK so we talk wind power for energy and other groups complain they do not want the wind mills in their back yards.

    We catch terrorist and place them at Gitmo and torture them for information. After that black spot on this great nation we say that we must close this place and move on but then groups say this is right, however, we cannot house them anywhere on US soil.

    So what do we do? We must make changes but make them in someone else back yard and not my yard. YOU GET THE MESSAGE?

    May 19, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  164. Glenda

    Of course these methods of intrusion should be done away with. Each one is but another means of controlling the U.S. population, without cause. If we submit to this, or any other biometrics, we are fools, living under a growing dictatorship.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  165. Glenn in Seattle

    Jack –

    In 1972 I was coming home from my Navy duties in Germany. The Baader-Meinhof gang had recently bombed several military bases, and when I got to the Hamburg airport, the German military took each passenger into a screened-off area for a full-body search – while a soldier stood holding an automatic weapon pointed directly at each person, man or woman.

    I think a "virtual" search would be much more pleasant.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  166. Susan

    The xray in Phoenix took longer than a patdown. I didn't care who saw my skeleton, but I thought it would be faster. I have a hip replacement that rings the bell, so I always have a secondary search. When the xray techs looked at the pictures they sent people to pat me down in various parts of the body that would have already been checked had it just been a patdown. It was really frustrating because at 79 years old I really look like a terrorist.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  167. steve jonas

    Jack

    All this air travel expense, inconvenience, and invasion of privacy basically because of one small group of religious fanatics. Bring back racial profiling. And I hate to say it.

    Steve
    Jacksonville

    May 19, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  168. Chika Uzokwe (Greece)

    No need to agitate, they must always have a way to see everything about us. And they will always have a reason;- 'our safety'

    May 19, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  169. Clay Moran

    It still astounds me that people are worried about privacy at security checkpoints. The only thing the TSA is trying to do is to keep us safe. These machines give airports another option, especially for airports with heavy passenger volume. As for radiation, one is exposed to more radiation on a cross country flight than at a body scanning machine.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  170. Conde Zero

    I am fine with Full-Body scans - only the paranoid & sexually repressed will object.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  171. Mary Taegel

    Jack,
    Because I have a titanium knee, I am treated to a pat down every time I fly. If you think the scan is an invasion of privacy, try the full body pat down!
    Mary Taegel
    Houston

    May 19, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  172. sarina

    I went through the airport in La Paz, Bolivia once. Along with every other passenger, I was forced to go into a tiny room, take all my clothes off, and be searched by an airport officer. It wasn't the most comfortable experience, but I felt really safe on my flight.

    In this country we use a machine to do the same thing. There is no security officer sticking his hand in your "nether regions." If it increases security and I don't have to be touched I think that its good technology!

    May 19, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  173. Donn Ledwick

    Of course the government should stop peaking into our "private areas." This Owellian move is yet another move by Big Brother to shrink the privacy we no longer have. I wish it were 1984!

    May 19, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  174. Tony

    Jack, I'm more worried about the person whose job it is to have to look at those pictures all day.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  175. Marilyn

    No I don't think they should. I'm OK with an airport employee whos job it is to view these pictures for security purposes as opposed to my family seeing my picture on a coffin because some terrorist got through security and used my plane as a weapon.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  176. J M Williams

    Absolutely not! These scans don't show nearly as much as the motion picture industry or most magazines. I would much rather be safe than allow evil people to get explosives on an aircraft. What are these people thinking?

    May 19, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  177. Bridget

    We let doctors and tattoo artists see us naked because it is necessary for them to properly perform their jobs, and because such facilitation ultimately benefits us. If full-body scans really do make us safer (which I suspect most of us are unqualified to comment on), then shouldn't the TSA guys go in the same category?

    May 19, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  178. Larry Brown

    Body scans, Jack? Who has the money to go anywhere, so who cares? It's trivia.
    How about addressing the utter ridiculousness and outrageousness of a Republican senator being able to slip an amendment allowing the carrying of loaded firearms in national parks to a CREDIT CARD BILL?!, particularly since the right-wing has been bellyaching about Obama "taking their guns!" ever since he got into office?
    Oh the irony.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  179. Donna Pido

    I hope they're giving passengers printouts of their images. I'd want one of mine to hang on my refiigerator door as a reminder before opening it.

    Cheers!

    May 19, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  180. earl

    We all want secure air travel, but some are not willing to submit to a procedure which only minimally compromises privacy. This scan actually hastens the screening process and provides the closest thing to absolute security available.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  181. Boni Kennelly

    UP WITH THE NEW MACHINES, DOWN WITH THE HANDS..........I am five foot tall, 100 #, 75 yr old female and have gone thru the pat down, it was hilarious..........if you have nothing to hide you have no reason to reject anything that will keep us safe. I fly both overseas and in the U.S.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  182. Ken in NC

    I would go along with doing away with the scans if terrorist will promise not to blow up planes. YA THINK?

    May 19, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  183. Dan - Eustis, florida

    Of course not, we are a country of extreme prudes. Millions of dollars are spent on porn, plastic surgery and breast implants. There would only be about 10% of the people that have their original equipment anyway. If it
    speeds things up, great. If a few prudes are upset so be it. Lets get with
    the program and grow up.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  184. Catherine Nelson, Calgary

    I would feel sorry for the shock a "see all scan" of my old body would cause the viewer. This seems to be cruel and unusual punishment for the brave and diligent security guards.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  185. ryan

    Jack, Are you serious? Is the ACLU serious? Does anyone think there is somebody getting aroused by those images? Only a narrow-minded fool. Any pervert can find a lot better pictures on the internet no matter the fettish.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  186. John, Fayetteville, NY

    Absolutely full body scans. If anyone is offended, embarrassed, or doesn't want to comply, well they can simply try Amtrak, Greyhound, or drive themselves. We all have choices, and most of America will chose safety over modesty. It is not a "right" to fly, it's a privilege, so comply or chose a different mode of transportation, it's really that simple.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  187. michael

    Yes. Get rid of the x-ray machines. This is just another method to get us conditioned to accepting a survellance society. Add to it illegal spying and the Ameican public is getting sick and tired of all the snooping.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  188. Dan Poe

    I don't believe full body scanners should be used at airports. It comes down to whether you value your safety or freedom more (i.e. privacy) I choose freedom.

    Dan

    Yuba City, CA

    May 19, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  189. John

    Body scans are wrong in every sense. It is amazing that these were allowed to be put into production at all. Trusting ‘officers’ and the TSA not to abuse such a system is incredibly naive.
    What next, government cameras in our bathrooms and bedrooms at home? We cannot call ourselves a free country when we allow such blatant abuses of human dignity. I would far rather take my chances being blown to smithereens by some maniac than be subjected to such abuse. Benjamin Franklin said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

    May 19, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  190. Shelagh Wakeford

    FINALLY – Wolf Blitzer has hit the nail on the head as far as I am concerned. I don't care if I go through the screening system NAKED. I am most definitely concerned with the level of radiation one would ingest. My whole life has been geared to avoiding unnecessary Xray exposure. We are missing the entire point of this exercise. Shelagh Wakeford.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  191. drew

    No! Americans are so scared of nudity!!!! I have one and so do you! I would rather be safe on a plane , and not scared of my private parts being shown.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  192. MARY E JAMES

    I'm not as old as Cher but my body is waaaaaay past hers. I doubt my clothes have anyone fooled into thinking I have a Miss-Anywhere body. My knee replacements and a great job get me whole-body scanned almost each week. My real objection is that I don't think the TSA adds anything to our safety. As ususl, we are always fighting the last war.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  193. Felix

    I think we make big thing about what we look like without our clothes on, Than safety. We are all the same underneath our clothing. We can go to the doctors and get undress but not walk throught a machine that can save our lives.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:20 pm |
  194. Karl from SF, CA

    I want to fly safely and since I look worse without clothes then with, let'm look.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  195. Russell

    Get over it! Why are so worried about someone that couldnt give a damn seeing what you look like as an xray? Worry more about our security and not your body part sizes. Who knows, maybe it will bring out your inner exhibitionist?

    May 19, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  196. Tom in CA

    Everyone complains about porn.

    Now the taxpayer's have a porn site at every major airport – thanks to Congress and the TSA.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  197. M.K.

    Kudos to R&D efforts for bringing us the latest, cutting-edge technology. National security almost always takes precedence over individual liberties. This technology has already been adopted by the European Union for use by 2010. As a side note, thermal-imaging scanners are being used in airports in Jakarta, Indonesia to detect those infected with swine flu!

    P.S. Let's also put some of these scanners @ the BORDER!

    May 19, 2009 at 6:23 pm |
  198. Bill of Hewlett, NY

    We need to take precautions to ensure that passengers are safe. It's a matter of national security. Therefore, I strongly support the use of whole-body scans. On an unrelated note, I'm a flasher.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
  199. Stephen Dubret

    No!
    We all know that flying is relatively safe, except for the many we have lost because someone was able to smuggle weapons on-board.
    For them, a routine flight became a life-or-death-situation. Would you deny a doctor from viewing your naked body to determine if you were in a life-or-death situation? Probably not. I don't care what anybody sees. The more assurance I have of traveling safely, the better.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
  200. Carlos, FL

    Sure and while we are at it let us ban common sense too

    May 19, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
  201. Christian, Germany

    Why have they started to use these scanners in the first place? When was the last case of somebody trying to do something bad in an airplane cabin with something that would not have been detected by "regular" checks. I havent heard about any case in ages. All what these heightened security checks do, is collect massive amounts of water bottles, hairsprays and nail scissors.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
  202. michael green

    I feel that despite the incovience of full body scan at our airports, this unfortunately is needed to prevent people that are not as honest as others from being able to board flights with ways to jeopardize passengers that are trying to reach their destinations safely. I'm a family man myself although I understand that this process is not comfortable for most people including myself I would rather go thru this process that to have to live the rest of my life or have my wife and children without a father because someone was able to get past the system with a way to cancel my existence or someone that I love for their own selfish desires

    May 19, 2009 at 6:26 pm |
  203. Lowell Ostenson

    Say Jack – If those airpport scans make travel safer I'm all for it. So they show everything? Well everybody has everything and we all know what everything looks like so big deal. Thanks for shedding a little transperancy on this subject.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:26 pm |
  204. Hart Houston

    Should airport security be able fully scan someone, even if it shows "everything"!?!? Yes. I believe that not only is it imperative to scan someone if they are considered suspicious, but for the safety of others at this time. Why not? Yes, it may be violating some privacy issues, but in this case, just as it was during World War I, the espionage act, if I am correct, was used to stop people from protesting the war and using propaganda during a time of war. In this case, the war is on terrorism and it is necessary to be able to exercise this upgraded security for the good of all. Our rights are a privilege in this country and everyone should be glad that they are not somewhere else where much worse could happen to you. Suck it up and realize it is for the best.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:26 pm |
  205. Diane, Houston TX

    Oh Hell, we already have to take off most of our clothes other than our jeans, shirt and socks just to get "inspected" by the TSA in any ordinary security line. If we also end up "suspected or rejected" so what if we have to run nekkid through the airport? As someone who's seriously middle aged, I'm sure that many more than me would find it offensive if I had to do that. So let's just sing another round of "Alice's Restaurant" the next time that it comes around on the guitar. I suspect that Arlo Gurthrie would find it highly amusing. And so would I.

    Diane

    May 19, 2009 at 6:26 pm |
  206. Miss Robin

    As a Washingtonian who lived through 9/11 and flies often, I agree these are a necessary evil, and not too invasive.

    I'd rather get a MRI than an in-person strip search/pat-down, which happened to me after my bra set off an over-zealous metal-detector.

    I'd rather the bad guys get it, too. It's meant for safety.

    And to all those who are saying it will be a field day for perverts - how many Americans are overweight, anyway? That would be a job, I'd NOT want to have.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:27 pm |
  207. Stash

    Somebody's gotta look at me naked? Good Lord. Well, I guess I can stand it if they can, but, just in case, let me apologize in advance.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:27 pm |
  208. dan

    DAN

    Jack, Who cares?

    I am not a 'pretty person' but I would walk through the airport straight buck if it meant I would get through security, get on the plane and have a safe flight quicker than I currently experience. In terms of privacy I am more worried about information that may be used out on context as a result of my internet / phone being monitored. Privacy is a war worth fighting but this is not the battle.

    DAN

    May 19, 2009 at 6:28 pm |
  209. rudy dodier

    Hey Jack, I travel every week and picked the shortest line at a major airport recently. It turned out to be the line from hell! Whoever said that it was faster must have went thru after midnight. It was like molassas in the dead of winter. One of the reasons was because, in addition to keys and coins, you have to remove items that you don't presently have to, such as kleenex, combs, wallets, pens, none-metallic belts, etc from every pocket on your body. Basically, you cannot have any lint in your pockets or you may be pulled aside.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:28 pm |
  210. lynne from NC

    And they wonder why people decide to drive, take the train or the bus. This is totally unacceptable. If they're not fondling your clothing in your carry on (if you can afford the fee), they're fondling your person with a wand or by technology. I think this proves that we Americans are paranoid neurotics who have let the terrorists win.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:29 pm |
  211. SHARON: Anchorage, Alaska

    NO. As long as the machines are not dangerous to the person being imaged, the guard standing by the machine is not somehow being overexposed; and the security officer is kept separate from the screener who is viewing the imaging. A 2nd option could be offered to those who would prefer a very thorough pat down. I believe that after the complete hands on approach, travelers would probably think the picture option is not so bad.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:29 pm |
  212. Gary meyer

    Hi Jack..
    Not a term to be used usely at an airport (HI Jack). As a flight attendant with a total knee replacement in August 2008, I applaud the new screening process. I have seen them now at LAX and MIA. It shaves off at least 10 minutes for me , as I have been used to the conventional 'wanding'. I give it a good mark

    May 19, 2009 at 6:30 pm |
  213. Aaron, California

    In a place where toothpaste is on lock-down are we really surprised that full body X-Ray scans would be used?

    May 19, 2009 at 6:30 pm |
  214. Jeff from Redondo Beach,CA

    Jack
    I am ok with it as long as I don't hear a chuckle coming from the TSA employee.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:31 pm |
  215. Doug in Montana

    Hi Jack,
    I don't think they should not do away with the full body scans. If you want that much privacy, stay home. My concern is the psychological stress impacted upon the personnel that have to view my body.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:31 pm |
  216. Bill Ruch

    Hi Jack,
    Move all the body scanning machines out of the airports and put them on the Mexican border, then start scanning all the illegals that are crossing everyday. This is where the real risk to this country lies.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:31 pm |
  217. Anna of Milton, Florida

    Flying is not mandatory. It's a matter of choice. If you don't want to be x-rayed, take the train.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:31 pm |
  218. Mireille F

    Hi Jack,
    I think it is ok to scan every passengers boarding an airplane for security reason. It is a way to save lives. I really don't see why people are so upset about the scanners, they strip naked passengers fo save lives, anyway 60% of americans walk naked daily in our streets.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:33 pm |
  219. Lawrence P. Bestmann

    I much prefer being seen naked, in all my glory, than being blown up.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:36 pm |
  220. Dennis Siriba

    without SAFETY there is no PEACE, its just as simple common sense as that...you are not going to enjoy your glamorous body if you are always intimidated by terror. As long as scanning is the best option, to me its better option. To respect everybody's mixed opinions, this can be subjected to a referundem.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:36 pm |
  221. Ed in Georgia

    Jack,
    What's the big deal? The country has already been reading our emails and listening into our phone conversations, not to mention what the so-called Patriot Act did to rape us of even more freedoms. So, being "digitally dis-robed" really ain't no biggie. Besides, I'd rather go thru a scanner than put up with the no shoes nonsense any day.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:37 pm |
  222. Mike

    Anything that improves security at the airports and other major hubs of transportation is a good thing. The same people crying about being virtually strip searched, are the same people who will cry that the government isn't doing enough to secure our airports the next time there's an attack. Current security measures look great on paper and give 90% of the ignorant public a false sense of security, but anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that all the current security measures are good for are stopping the random nutcase, and not someone with a well thought out plan. Stopping the random nutcases is all well and good, but we need scanners like this to improve our ability to stop actual terrorists.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:37 pm |
  223. joe smith

    one thing sure, someone has sold a politician on the fact that at $170,000.00 a unit, and rising; but if you are able to convince the poor slobs who fly, that this will ultimately benefit them, and security as a whole, we wll make sure your re-election campaign is rewarded.. look pat people down, and if they don't like it, send them to Avis, Hertz, Enterprise, and the rest of us will take off into the sunset..you have to know where the moneys' coming from to buy these puppies..but where is it going...

    May 19, 2009 at 6:37 pm |
  224. Rosanne

    The kind of empty moralistic over-the-top rhetoric used to inflame passions in this case to make people feel abused by getting a safe, fuzzy, anonymous outline is just the kind of rhetoric that stalls progress on a whole range of issues.

    This is just pathetic. No one is getting stripped by these machines. No one is getting abused. Safety and efficiency are sufficient reasons for justifying these screeners and whipping people into a frenzy of sexual victimhood to get some sort of opposition to them is just ridiculous.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:39 pm |
  225. Justin from Warrensburg, Missouri

    Scanning my bags: fine.
    Patting me down: okay.
    Putting me naked on a view screen: no.

    I think in the endeavor of trying to protect ourselves, we've gone too far. We are very willing these days to trade in our liberty for a little bit of security. What's next: cameras in public restrooms?

    Remember Ben Franklin: "Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither."

    We need to look for alternative, non-invasive solutions. This is 2009, not 1984. Big Brother should not be watching us.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:40 pm |
  226. Ray

    I object to the naked body scans because it is an invasion of privacy and a thrill for some of the workers at security. If you look at most of the airports, especially LAX, the workers look like they are fresh off the streets- like gang members. They joke and laugh all the time. I'm sure they are comparing notes and comments on passenger's bodies. These people are not doctors or anything close to it. They are just low paid security workers. They shouldn't be getting their thrills at our expense.
    Perhaps there might be more support for it if all of the security staff worked totally in the nude themselves. Then at least it be fairly even,although probably very unsightly. Ugh!
    We don't need to see naked passengers to have good security. We just need security to do a better job with the methods in place.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:40 pm |
  227. Orlando

    Jack the answer to this is just a big no. My number one concern is to be safe and if that's what it takes, then so be it. I think people have to understand that this is the 21th century and we need self discepline and can no longer be behind in technology.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:41 pm |
  228. John, Portland OR

    I think they absolutely should stay. If you don't like them, take a train. On the other hand, I DO think it is absolutely appropriate to put legal limits on the devices' use. There will be a lot of pressure for the manufacturers of these machines to be able to sell them to everyone that has a business. I DON'T think that people should be required to go through one of these systems at, say, a movie theater, where the potential for privacy abuses would be much more significant and the societal benefit awould be much less.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:42 pm |
  229. Picaso

    Keep us safer. Best option since 9/11. Blah Blah Blah. I couldn't bring my bottle of water on a flight from Sacramento to L.A. Does that keep us safe? Did I have some Sci Fi, colorless, odorless chemical in my water bottle to release on the passengers? No...if you're wondering. It's all a facade to give the appearance of safety. I was very thirsty, by the way, and I paid $4 for that water.

    It just goes to show you that when you let "the system" go unchecked for too long, you'll find your whole country is run by a series of procedures without any human interaction, emotion and most importantly, sympathy and understanding.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:42 pm |
  230. Barry Norman

    Jack,
    I have ten pounds of titanium in my butt from two hip replacements so airport security is never a cake walk for me. I recently was offered the option of the "naked machine" and found it much LESS invasive than the patdown. Besides, I ran around naked on a hippie commune in the 60's and I have nothing to be ashamed of.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:42 pm |
  231. Michael

    Keep the machines. The pictures coming out of them are hardly porn, and the need for security to look in private areas on the body quickly is becoming necessary.

    Besides, if you don't want to do it there is still the train or your car.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:43 pm |
  232. Eric Rogers

    Jack I travel 35 weeks per year for work. One of the arguments the proponents of this X-ray search was that its faster than a pat down. I disagree based on the time to go through this system is about 3 minutes. A pat down is about 15 seconds. And by the way they are telling us this is better than a strip search. Probably. However I have never been involve in or even heard of TSA doing a strip search in all of my travels.
    By the way, your doing a great job!
    Eric R.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:44 pm |
  233. Brian

    The 9/11 hijackers used knives to take over the airplanes. Inmates in the US prison system are subject to body cavity searches, they are under 24-hour guard and they still manage to smuggle in weapons or create deadly "shanks" from toothbrushes, pieces of plastic, etc... and you think that these scans are going to keep weapons off the plane? Keep dreaming.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:44 pm |
  234. Cyle in Dublin

    The airport should sell copies of your personal body scan for a dollar.

    Adn use the funds soley to offset some of the costs of flying.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:46 pm |
  235. glen davis

    Jack the people of the U.S. are spoiled and need to be more humble and appreciative of what we have. Place "need" ahead of "wants". Full body search to get on a plane? Sure. And I say "nothing" carried on. Check "all" bags, laptops, cell phones etc. This would make things simple for all involved. Glen from Mississippi

    May 19, 2009 at 6:47 pm |
  236. Vicky

    Absolutely NO NO NO. It is Not acceptable to continue to be treated like prisoners and subjected to pornography (like we believe they won't find a way to keep images!!) and damaging rays. The entire so-called security needs to be moved to highest intellect and how about starting with the cargo, where we know they do not check and is the highest risk. Thanks. Keep up the Debates!!

    May 19, 2009 at 6:48 pm |
  237. joel palmer

    The entire TSA apparatus needs to be junked. Let everyone who wants to, board an airplane. Then hand out steak knives to everyone. End of story.

    Seriously, the ability to hijack and airliner today is zero. You just need to screen like Israel does. By profiling.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:49 pm |
  238. Aaron Seattle

    They should absolutely get rid of these. The FAA, CIA, FBI, and whatever other three letter organization wants to be involved can say all they want about how they will protect the person's right to privacy and assure us that nothing will be leaked and faces to be covered up.....but in this day-and-age of ever increasing cyber-warfare, digital interconnection, and all sorts of things leaking out from the government about domestic spying, and laptops being left cafe's I don't trust any one of these bureaucratic yes-men just trying to grab for a bigger piece of tax payer money pie.
    Republicans want to talk about pork, see if they know how much this is going to cost?! But I guess this is better than providing health care for the children or after school educational enrichment programs.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:49 pm |
  239. Doug Olson - Calgary

    all for it, if it will speed up the process.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:49 pm |
  240. Helen

    I have no problem with full body scanners. In fact, as a recipient of two hip replacements, I would prefer them.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:49 pm |
  241. joel palmer

    This is what's wrong with TSA.

    Fighting terrorism with minimum wage, poorly trained (and surly) screeners and forcing old ladies and wheelchair bound elderly to practically disrobe to board a plane.

    I am a form million miler and havent flown in over a year and plan not to if I can possibly avoid it.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:50 pm |
  242. joel palmer

    The easiest way to get rid of these ridiculous devices is for everyone to refuse to use them.

    TSA will get the picture quickly.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:50 pm |
  243. Karen from Plano, TX

    NO!! SO WHAT IF THEY SEE A SKELETON!! As long as the skeleton doesn't have a bomb attached to it. People need to get over it and be appreciative for our security!!

    May 19, 2009 at 6:50 pm |
  244. Pete

    We are a shy society when it comes to nudity. I trace our anxieties back to our Puritan friends in mass bay.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:51 pm |
  245. D

    People need to stop talking about how it's a question of dignity. Where's that same dignity when you have someone with a box cutter taking over a plane and crashing it? Is that your dignified way to die since you didn't want someone seeing your scan?

    May 19, 2009 at 6:51 pm |
  246. Kevin

    It'd be nice if the TSA focused less on security theater – like these extrememly expensive machines, and preventing us from carrying bottles of water through security – and was more concerned about the less secure aspects of air travel, like the vendors/employees at the airport, who have ready access to "secure" areas but aren't subjected to anything like the security that the travelers are.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:51 pm |
  247. Sheila

    So, the government would have us all believe our options are to be either murdered or violated. Find another option. If it is OK to use this technology for flying, then why not at your local bank? Or a football game? Bars? Your place of employment? How about high school? Think about all the places where violence frequently occurs. Are you prepared to be virtually strip searched in the name of safety and security in all of those places? Because if you allow it in one place, the others will follow. Once a freedom is given up, it is gone. This goes above and beyond what is needed and takes more away than it gives.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:51 pm |
  248. caminito

    JACK

    This would be laughable but is not

    The surrealitic image of these scanners infringes privacy as far an Egyptian mummy infringes their original living bodies!

    But, why these "privacy Groups did start such campaign ??
    Some because their lack of intelligence, but who pays for it ?? Possibly TERRORIST RELATED organization exploiting the "useful morons" (and some not soinnocent complices inside the groups) and very probably, the DRUG CARTELS. It seems to have escaped the press that these devices allow to see bags of narcotics outside and even inside the body (as they are sometmes swallowed)

    An investigation of the finances of these groups should be implemented urgently!!

    May 19, 2009 at 6:51 pm |
  249. Bob Watts

    Come on! Aren't we being a whole lot stupid with this rights thing, I want to be safe and this way I don't even have to take off my shoes. I,ll bet if George Cloney for the girls and Jessica Alba for the guys was watching the monitor that would be the end of this stupidy. I am law bidding so go ahead with the scanner, bugging my phone, taking my dna because I just don't care like the crooks, liars, terrorists, etc do.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:52 pm |
  250. Steven

    Yes we had/ have a terrorist problem which supports these being created but we should not be stripped literally due to a global control attempt to profile. This is a new era of GATICA type of control. This is just being smoothed over to distract us from the real goal of these TOTAL RECALL machines.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:52 pm |
  251. Michelle, Atlanta, GA

    Until I can walk around naked in the airport, this should not be allowed either.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:53 pm |
  252. D

    "No one is getting stripped by these machines. No one is getting abused. Safety and efficiency are sufficient reasons for justifying these screeners and whipping people into a frenzy of sexual victimhood to get some sort of opposition to them is just ridiculous."

    Thank you, Rosanne. People calling this porn are way off base.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:53 pm |
  253. Alex from Calgary, Canada

    I'm waiting for the government to require everyone strip naked and after the "internal probe" be made to wear provided outfits with numbers on them when flying. That's the next step.
    I'm more concerned about whether or not these scans are safe. We've been told time and again that X-rays can cause harm if not handled properly. How do we know this doesn't cause cancer?

    May 19, 2009 at 6:54 pm |
  254. Givemeabreak

    To think that someone is actually trying to make flying safer for Americans and those who travel here for legitamate reasons is wonderful. Why pull out a 250 pound white woman for a random strip search and then let a male Middle Eastern on board easily is beyond me. Profile profile and more profiling is needed. We know what they look like. No we can really see what they look like. Only someone's individaul rights might be violated. Oh ACLU come help me, save me. It's a fantastic piece of modern tech (as long as its safe) that can help us keep the skies friendlier...now how about breathalizing machines in the cockpit wired to the start button.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:54 pm |
  255. Larry in Colorado

    Why not? I fly alot and it's better to be safe than dead!

    May 19, 2009 at 6:55 pm |
  256. Robbie

    It's okay with me if they destroy the image in front of me before I continue with my trip. Otherwise, you can put money on the fact that some scan showing some unsuspecting woman's naked breasts and vagina will end up taped on the inside door of a janitor's locker. Remember that the TSA pays little, trains little, and "boys will be boys".

    May 19, 2009 at 6:55 pm |
  257. Richie

    I would just like you to think about having these TSA people ogling your 16 year old daughter.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:55 pm |
  258. Oliver

    This would not have prevented 9/11. It is is an unreasonable search and should be banned. The American public's willingness to continue to accept such actions is baffling. Lemmings, the lot.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:58 pm |
  259. RJ Seguin

    Once again, puritanical Americans are afraid of boobies and peepees. Can't people just grow up and get over the fact that we all have body parts? Also, these scanned images are full-color photos you as thought you were posing in a nudie magazine. They're just amorphous outlines of the body that look more like gelatinous mannequins than a discernable human being.

    Grow up, people. We're trying to not have highjackings and other tragedies here.

    RJ
    Cincinnati

    May 19, 2009 at 6:58 pm |
  260. Jasmine in Germany

    They would catch a lot of those dangerous illegal drugs being transported inside the body.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:59 pm |
  261. Warrick Gray

    Keep in mind, you can have freedom, and you can have security. You can NOT have both. I choose freedom, why? Because when someone wishes to do me , or my wife and kids harm, I have the freedom to shoot them dead. I don' t need to depend on some little 911 dial a prayer service, because cops are always minutes away when it's the seconds that matter.

    So no. I think they should get rid of the scanners. And for the people of middle eastern decent that feel singled out? Tough. It was people from the middle east that hijacked our planes. Don't like it? Feel free to go back to he hell hole of a country you came from. Have a nice day.

    May 19, 2009 at 6:59 pm |
  262. Betty

    What can you expect from a society that let the camel's head into the tent a long time ago. We're photographed constantly, forced to give anyone who asks for it our identification card, coded, sorted and put on every list the government can think of - and now our privates are to be privates no more. The noose justs get tighter and tighter with every advance in technology. Anyone who thinks it will stop with airprots (you know, the guys who said take the train or the bus) is naive. We've got to draw the line somehwere and say "no more." Life doesn't come with guarantees and the government can't promise us security – it can't even promise our identities won't be stolen from their data bases. It wasn't the terrorists who are destroying us - we're doing that to ourselves

    May 19, 2009 at 6:59 pm |
  263. Matt from Eugene Oregon

    If you get your feelings hurt by someone scanning you to make sure you do not have weapons, maybe you shouldn't be out in public anyway. Think of how much it will hurt when someone sticks that undetectable plastic knife in your neck! Everyone is so concerned about their privacy, but as soon as something bad happens, they are quick to point the finger and say "where was the security on that one?" Well, here they are, get over it or start driving!!

    May 19, 2009 at 7:00 pm |
  264. Nico Janssen

    Useless .... like a terrorist with half a brain will go through a scanner to reach the crime scene.

    The exception to this rule is that idiot that tried to burn his shoe and see where that got us.

    Body scans are only intended to make the rest of us law abiding citizens miserable and do not add any additional safety.

    May 19, 2009 at 7:00 pm |
  265. Jocelyn

    Security is more important than privacy. You wouldn't care about your privacy if you ended up on a hijacked plane. If that happened, I doubt anyone would say that they were glad that they sacrificed security for privacy.

    May 19, 2009 at 7:00 pm |
  266. Tami

    How many shoe bombs made it onto a plane? 1 as I recall yet now we must all take our shoes off just in case.

    How many bottles of liquid explosive? 1 and now we have to buy $4.00 bottles of water to take on a plane.

    By the way they caught those 2 examples – so what exactly is the point?

    Tell me how full body scans, taking my shoes off and not bringing juice onto a plane, I paid hundreds of dollars to get on would have prevented 9/11.

    May 19, 2009 at 7:05 pm |