Poll: Americans Deeply In Love With Full Body Scanners

CBS says the have a poll that shows Americans overwhelmingly support full body “naked” scanners at airports, despite what some “civil rights groups” have to say about them.

CBS says:

Although some civil rights groups allege that they represent an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, Americans overwhelmingly agree that airports should use the digital x-ray machines to electronically screen passengers in airport security lines, according to the new poll. Eighty-one percent think airports should use these new machines — including a majority of both men and women, Americans of all age groups, and Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike. Fifteen percent said airports should not use them.

You can check out the fill poll here.

Meanwhile, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano wrote in an op-ed in USAToday:

…We ask for cooperation, patience and a commitment to vigilance in the face of a determined enemy.

As part of our layered approach, we have expedited the deployment of new Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) units to help detect concealed metallic and non-metallic threats on passengers. These machines are now in use at airports nationwide, and the vast majority of travelers say they prefer this technology to alternative screening measures.

AIT machines are safe, efficient, and protect passenger privacy. They have been independently evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, who have all affirmed their safety. And the weapons and other dangerous and prohibited items we’ve found during AIT screenings have illustrated their security value time and again.

What do you guys think?


Edit Your Comment

  1. framitz says:

    Based on the pictures of the scans that I’ve seen there is no reason to worry that your ‘naked’ pictures will be recognizable. Not even your own mother would recognize you from the scan image.

    • c!tizen says:

      Thank you Mrs. Napolitano, your opinion is noted.

    • Mike says:

      You can also look at this Backscatter image: http://www.scottosphere.org/images/backscatter-xray-scan.jpg

      Just Google Backscatter images and you will get a feel for what they look like.

      • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

        Can I google Naked picts and get even hotter/clearer picts

        • Mike says:

          I like to play the safesearch challenge on Google. Set the filter to strict and see how long it takes to find a totally raunchy image in the image search. It is actually disappointingly easy to get past the filters to porn.

      • Griking says:

        In all honesty, people generally dress more revealing in real life than what you can really see in that pic. Basically what I see in this picture is a large bodied woman carrying a gun. However I couldn’t tell you if this were a white or dark woman. I couldn’t tell you her age other than the fact that she appears to be an adult. I couldn’t tell you what color her hair is or if she even has hair for that matter. The only way that I could possibly tell who this person was would be if I knew who the person was before I was shown the pic.

        • ludwigk says:

          The issue has NEVER involved recognizability. That is indeed irrelevant. It has ALWAYS hinged upon the CHOICE as to whether one is revealed or not. It is a fundamental element of self-autonomy.

        • buckeyegoose says:

          dude shes black, just look at dat junk in her trunk! prolly 30-40 yrs old. either that, or a realy getto white gurl

    • Oranges w/ Cheese says:

      Then you haven’t seen all the pictures. Those ones from the article earlier today? Yeah, that ain’t them.

    • Bohemian says:

      I don’t care much what they look like. I do have an issue with the radiation levels and that they will cause skin cancer due to how they penetrate the skin and are concentrated there. I also see no point in more security theater. I would rather have more risk than more of this crap. Most people who have discussed this would rather take the risk and not use these with a much smaller minority of scaredy cats who are willing to use them.

    • Chaosium says:

      “Based on the pictures of the scans that I’ve seen”

      You are poorly educated on this matter. Obviously their tactics of showing low-res shots from old technology is working for their PR. Read up on them.

    • Snoofin says:

      Nobody is making people fly either. If you dont want to be scanned then drive or stay home

      • brianary says:

        Maybe you aren’t required to fly if you sell burgers at McDonald’s. People with real jobs are often required to fly.

        False choice fallacy.

        • homehome says:

          I’ll be glad to inform all the police, firemen, medical professionals and teachers that since they don’t have to fly that they don’t have real jobs anymore. Nice assholish response.

          • sagodjur says:

            All of those professions may include the attendance of conferences and trainings that may be held in places farther away than is convenient for travel by car.

        • Snoofin says:

          Noone is required to fly. This is the modern age and we have things like teleconferenceing, video teleconferencing, email, fax, etc… There is no NEED to travel for a job

          • spamtasticus says:

            For you and your offspring’s sake I hope that comment about not “NEEDING” to fly to work was either a troll or sarcasm.

          • tooluser says:

            You don’t have much of a job. Some jobs demand a physical presence.

          • Rachacha says:

            Many jobs do require travel and require a physical prescence at the remote location. I travel about 1 week a month for my job, and we are using web conferencing more, however it can not replace an onsite visit where I need to tour and inspect a 50,000+ square foot facility. Rather than traveling for 2-3 days to conduct my work onsite, we use web conferencing to review paperwork and conduct interviews, and then we can schedule an onsite visit for the facility walk thru which now only takes a day, meaning I can visit more sites in a single trip.

          • falnfenix says:

            how do you propose we get our employees to a conference in Hawaii if we don’t need to fly? if we don’t go to that conference, we don’t pitch our product, and we lose projects.

            your logic is fail.

          • Chaosium says:

            “Noone is required to fly. This is the modern age and we have things like teleconferenceing, video teleconferencing, email, fax, etc… There is no NEED to travel for a job”

            You’ve never had a job of any importance, I see.

      • Chaosium says:

        “Nobody is making people fly either. If you dont want to be scanned then drive or stay home”

        If you don’t want to be strip searched, don’t drive.

      • Pax says:

        Please tell me, what highway do I take to drive to Honolulu, from Boston?

      • spamtasticus says:

        Nobody is making people talk either. If you don’t agree with your right to free speech being taken from you then just don’t speak.


      • Bill610 says:

        Or, if you’re too scared to fly without knowing that someone’s seen the other passengers naked or groped, them, why don’t YOU stay home?

      • hypochondriac says:

        That’s a very slippery slope. Thousands die do to drunk driving. A 9/11 can happen every year and You would save more lives by having every vehicle in America equipped with a breathalyzer the vehicle won’t start if your past the legal limit. Why not implement this if the goal was safer travel

      • GGV says:

        Because I can drive to Europe to see my dying Grandmother. (And no, staying home is not an option. If you suggest that, you’re a bigger idiot than most.)

    • common_sense84 says:

      Those are the older machines. Go look up pictures on the new stuff. You can see exactly what the mans penis looks like with lots of detail.

    • pop top says:
  2. savashley says:

    Guys we’ve seen the pictures..there is no making out any certain body parts from these scans. They’re fine. It’s still uncomfortable, agreed, but it’s that or the feel-up.

    • c!tizen says:

      “Guys we’ve seen the pictures”

      How? They can’t be saved. My government told me that the images are immediately deleted. Either you’re lying or they are.

    • macnbc says:

      Those were the older model, just run a Google image search for “Backscatter” and you’ll see the newer model:


    • chuckreis says:

      Or GASP, they change both methods to something that is actually effective.

    • MuffinSangria says:

      What pictures are you talking about? The ones from the consumerist article earlier today? Those were taken by different type of machine than the ones used at airports. The ones used at airports can tell if you are circumscribed or menstruating.

    • Preyfar says:

      But they don’t really protect people from anything. Oh no, Random Guy has a Bic lighter in his pocket. GET HIM! If a terrorist wanted, he’d just detonate himself *IN* the security line on a high volume travel day. That alone would be a statement, and the scanner would do nothing.

      The scanners DO help detect things that shouldn’t be there, true, but they’re not really there to protect passengers. It’s more to protect the planes. There is minimal to no security in the airport lobbies, ticket counters, baggage claim. And that’s the problem, really. If somebody wanted to do something, they could just load up a suitcase full of explosives, walk in during one of the many hectic days of travel season around the holidays… wouldn’t be pretty.

      More and more and more layers of security, but what exactly are they preventing? Loopholes abound.

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        That would kill a lot more people than a single plan crash, unless the debris hits others people.

      • kagekiri says:

        The only reason I can think that they don’t currently do this is airplanes are a bit more terror inducing when used as weapons, and larger amounts of explosives are more likely to have the FBI breathing down your neck before you can act.

        At least, I hope that’s the reason: they’re getting caught before they can build big enough bombs, rather than because they haven’t thought of it yet.

        • MrEvil says:

          Not really. ANFO (the same stuff that Tim McVeigh used) is quite easy to come by. All you do is mix Ammonium Nitrate dry fertilizer and Diesel fuel. Granted it’s not easy to detonate, lending to its use in mines and quarries for decades. But still not difficult to obtain. My old man buys a quantity of Ammonium Nitrate every year to mix in with his herbicides…Ironically he keeps it stored in a small shed next to the Diesel tank.

          A few 55 gallon drums in the back of a rental truck was all it took to destroy the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. Yet I don’t see the feds keeping better tabs on purchases of Ammonium Nitrate or truck rentals since the OKC bombing or the first world trade center attack.

    • kylere1 says:

      Take Image, Bring to Photoshop, adjust tones (I find Sepia works well)

      I’ve seen the pictures, and manipulated them, and you are so completely wrong that you should have merely kept quiet and be thought of as wrong.

    • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

      i am curious as to what images you have been looking at. because these look pretty clear to me. or at least clear enough to make me very uncomfortable. perhaps you feel ok with them, i don’t. and since i also don’t want to be groped, my option is to not fly. and i’m ok with that.



      • UltimateOutsider says:

        She’s talking about those pictures from Florida that were just released. It’s a different technology from what airports are using, and the pictures are pixellated like an Atari 2600 game.

        The airport scanners are definitely full-monty territory.

    • Oranges w/ Cheese says:

      Maybe they won’t see nipples, but they see ENOUGH. Enough that people could do really disgusting things to them with little imagination required.

      • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

        if it exists, there’s already a fetish for it. undoubtedly, someone somewhere gets off to these images already, nipples or not.

        • Chaosium says:

          Apparently 4chan has been obsessed with “xraying” pictures long before these machines were put into use. Blecch :(

          • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

            just because i know it could happen, doesn’t mean i need details…. ugh, now that’s stuck in my brain. thanks

      • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

        Couldn’t I just google “Naked picts of people” and get a lot more images that require no manipulation and are hi-res, for free?

        • amgriffin says:

          Didn’t get enough replies when you posted this comment elsewhere in this thread?

          It’s not about seeing pictures of people who deliberately pose naked, it’s about being coerced into being photographed naked or have your privates groped so that one may use air travel. If it really made it safer then it would be acceptable but all you really need are obese terrorists to hide bombs in their rolls. Neither patdown nor backscatter imaging is likely to find it.

          • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

            No, it’s about people who say that there will be naked photos of them somewhere. Notice the whole article today about the scanner in the courthouse storing images, and the fear that the TSA is doing it? That’s the problem, there’s no one reason to hate the scanners, so people are latching onto whatever they can. Kind of like vaccines.

            • ceriphim says:

              No no no. Full-body scanners at the airport are NOT the same as vaccines. There have been many scientific studies conducted validating vaccine efficacy. These are a few related links my 5 seconds of Googling uncovered.


              I can’t seem to find any scientific studies related to the efficacy of full-body scanners vis a vis airport security or preventing terrorism in airports. Mostly just speculation and conjecture.

              Take the hyperbole down a notch and stop helping the Jenny McCarthys of the world spread their unfounded unproven bullshit.

              • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

                I’m not even going to click your links. Instead of knee-jerking hyperbole on your part, read my comment. People are latching onto different aspects of the scanners in an attempt to prove them evil. They are moving the goal posts and changing everyday. First it’s radiation. When you get more flying than you would sitting in the machine for 20 minutes, they then say child pornography. Then it’s stealing bio-metric data, etc….

                • Don't_rip_me_off_bro says:

                  Or . . . maybe . . . or maybe they all happen to be legitimate concerns?

                • johnrhoward says:

                  They shouldn’t have to be proven evil to get rid of them. They should have had to have been proven effective in order to be used in the first place.

                • Chaosium says:

                  It’s not changing the goalposts if every one of them is a valid concern. I didn’t have a problem with TSA security until the machines and the patdowns.

        • Vivienne says:

          Is that even a serious question?

          Or are you really so thoroughly frightened by the terrorists, and lied to by your government that you don’t understand the legitimate privacy concerns involved with these machines?

          The question you should be asking isn’t “why shouldn’t we subject ourselves to nude-o-vision” the question should be “Why should we subject ourselves to nude-o-vision.”

          But to answer your question: Yes, you could easily down load a lot of porn from the internet. And yes this is different. For example, why do you wear clothes if you don’t mind having people see you naked?

        • 12345678nine says:

          It’s weird. All peeping toms just must just not have access to the internet.
          So now I know.

    • Mike says:

      You saw the wrong images. Those blurry images were from the millimeter wave scanner, not the x-ray backscatter. The backscatter images are VERY detailed, and you would totally be able to recognize anyone you know in them if the face were not blurred out.

    • th3v6cann3val0s3 says:

      Damn is that you in the Avatar? Why don’t we do a test and see what we really can see. Anyway, according to you we wouldn’t be able to make out any body parts right? :)

      • Chaosium says:

        People are coming out with stories about how they hear the TSA agents snickering that “the hot one” should get dragged over and watching a group of co-eds get dragged over for pornoscanning.

    • steve6534 says:

      Here’s a real picture from a backscatter x-ray machine (which also uses ionizing radiation – another sticking point) where you can CLEARLY see everything. Keep in mind this is 4 years old and a low resolution picture. The images today are likely much more enhanced.


      • Mike says:

        I noticed his penis likes to point to the left. I should not know that about anyone.

        • Applekid ┬──┬ ノ( ã‚œ-゜ノ) says:

          Indeed. Despite the expression, “how’s it hanging” rarely needs the honest answer.

          I’d be nervous they’d see my chest and discover where Quato has been hiding.

        • Laffy Daffy says:

          Ever get a suit made? When the tailor asked me if I “dressed right” or “dressed left” he was asking which pant leg the penis normally shifted toward …

      • Griking says:

        Ok I can see what appears to be a naked man. Yes, we can all see his penis but I’m pretty sure that we all already knew that he had one before we saw the pic. Can you tell me who he is? Can you tell me his nationality? What color hair or eyes does he have?

        I honestly doubt that the majority of people would even recognize a scan of themselves if they saw one.

    • evnmorlo says:

      If plastic explosives the size of a nipple must be seen, the one’s made of flesh need to be visible too. Otherwise the machines are worthless

    • TheGreySpectre says:

      Yes which is exactly why coworkers made fun of a TSA workers penis size

    • d67f8g9uno says:

      “It’s either that or” you stand up as a human being and refuse to have your rights violated by anyone, unto bankruptcy, imprisonment, or death, let alone inconvenience.

    • Zowie says:

      or fighting back. You know, actually standing up for what’s right, or what you believe in. People do it from time to time, and it sometimes it even works.

    • daemonaquila says:

      INCORRECT. There are 2 types of scanners – millimeter wave and x-ray. The x-ray scanners will show you EVERYTHING. The millimeter wave scanners are a joke – if you think you can see anything useful at all, you’re a marketer for the manufacturer, with cataracts and an active imagination. That’s the type of image that was leaked today.

    • Pax says:


      The image there? The left half is the scanner image. The right half is … just colored in, with photoshop. Just TINTED in flesh-tone, with the light-or-dark values reversed.

      And it looks like a straight, stripped-to-her-skin NUDE photo.

    • ap0 says:

      People who in any way excuse these machines are fascists, yourself included. You are what’s wrong with America.

      • savashley says:

        haha yep ya caught me..completely 100% fascist. no really just to clarify, all 30 of you people blasting me, i misunderstood the previous post of the stored body scans..i now know that they are very different from the back scatter images, and i would like to redact my original comment.

    • Alvis says:

      Or, you know, refuse to be searched at all. No one’s MAKING you fly.

    • Wrathernaut says:

      Look up false dichotomy.

  3. fs2k2isfun says:

    And what percentage of the people polled travel on any sort of regular basis? I would guess that more than half of all Americans don’t fly at all in any given year.

  4. LadyTL says:

    I say they just completely made up that poll.

    • c!tizen says:

      CBS = Creating B*S*

    • Oranges w/ Cheese says:

      Clearly, 1300 americans = ALL AMERICANS.

      • mmmsoap says:

        To be fair, with the proper statistical analysis, 1300 people isn’t a terrible number when completing a survey representing the whole country, if they had the survey professionally run by people who’s graduate studies and professional careers are built around writing and conducting non-biased polls. From my quick scan of the docs on the CBS website, it does look like a professional job.

        However I do have some nits to pick about the question that was asked. The poll was conducted from 11/7 to 11/10, which is about a week ago, and before some of the pictures surfaced on the internet.

        ALSO, the question was very generic “Do you support full-body x-rays,” and there’s absolutely room for people to respond one way or the other without fully understanding what it is (they could think it’s like a x-ray image at the doc’s, for example)…It wasn’t that different than saying “Some states have decided to import goat cheese for consumption by prisoners. Do you support importation of goat cheese?” Without a real disclosure of the pros and cons, then people are making uninformed decisions. (Heck, my state explains both sides of a ballot question more clearly than this on the official ballots.)

        It was also not made clear in the context of the question that the other option is the enhanced pat-down, and it seems to me (though I could be wrong) that that info would potentially influence people’s decisions.

        In short? While i believe the polling is accurately collected, they’re summing up data from a single question in a larger poll. I would be very interested to see the data in polling where ALL the questions were on this topic.

    • Chaosium says:

      “I say they just completely made up that poll.”

      The news agencies would NEVER lie for propaganda purposes! That’s never been done before!

    • Brontide says:

      They did. When I clicked through the survey less than 24 hours prior it was 90% against the scanners and somehow it did a 360 afterwards? Either they are making it up and/or they are horrible with statistics.

    • mikeP says:

      Its amazing how their poll has overwhelmingly different results than the consumerist poll and many other polls asking the same question.

  5. GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

    rabble rabble complain rabble

    • Beeker26 says:

      I’m with you. I really don’t get it. If someone wants to oogle over an x-ray image of my junk what the hell do I care?

      • jtheletter says:

        Well that’s your choice, isn’t it? Other people choose the opposite. What used to be a perfectly reasonable personal choice – who gets to see photos of oneself naked – is now the guiding choice on whether or not you may use the air travel infrastructure in this country; which by the way your taxes paid for as the airlines have been government subsidized for years.
        Others also may not be able to make the same choice you have, for example Muslim women are expressly forbidden from being naked in photos or allowing other men to touch them as would occur in a pat down. That’s a religious restriction which they are free to practice, until suddenly they want to fly, at which point the government is overriding their right to freedom of religion.
        This is not a simple black and white issue, and yes, there are other people who have strong feelings about it. Just because it’s a non-issue for you does not mean the argument is therefore closed.
        Example: Your family are strangers to me, I have no feelings for them, if they all died in a car crash tomorrow it wouldn’t matter one bit. But it might matter to you eh? Do you see how that works? One person’s nonchalance does not invalidate how others are affected by a particular issue.

        • Beeker26 says:

          Yet you still don’t explain why it matters to you. It’s not like the government is forcing you to get on an airplane. You could always take a car, train or boat.

          If the purpose of these scans were anything but for security I could see how there might be a point to the discussion. But it’s not like TSA workers are beating off under the counter as people pass thru, or the ones doing pat downs are getting their jollies by doing so. I’m betting the guy that has to touch your junk when you decline the scanner doesn’t like it any better than you do.

          It’s an unfounded and irrational response to something that should be a no-brainer, plain and simple.

          I wonder, do you put up the same resistance when getting an x-ray, cat scan, or MRI? Cause y’know the tech could be pleasuring himself the whole time you’re in the machine, right?

          Some people just aren’t happy unless they’ve got something to bitch and moan about.

          • Chaosium says:

            “Yet you still don’t explain why it matters to you. It’s not like the government is forcing you to get on an airplane. You could always take a car, train or boat.”

            Yet another American who doesn’t leave his home and has no idea about distance, I see. I fly across the coasts. I can not drive for 2+ weeks every time I have business. The people who fly the least dictate these idiotic policies for the people who fly the most.

            • Beeker26 says:

              No, you DON’T see. I travel quite frequently. And my only goal while traveling is to get where I need to go in one piece and with as little stress and drama as possible. The scanner simply does not faze me in the least. I DO NOT CARE. I’m mature enough to not be worried nor concerned about the outline of my shlong being shown for a few seconds on a monitor in glorious ghostly B&W.

              My statement was to say you always have a choice. If the scanners bother you that much then find an alternative method of travel. If that’s not realistic you better learn how to deal with it cause it’s unlikely they’re going away any time soon.

              Y’know, sometimes I hate being the voice of reason, but dammit, someone has to do it.

              • cluberti says:

                Well, that’s great for you. I unfortunately also have to travel for work distances that are not possible to drive given I usually must be to my destination in short order (if not the same day). These scanners may have safety risks long term (especially for frequent flyers), and until these things are proven safe (over years of testing), I’m just not comfortable with it. Honestly, I’d rather have someone manhandle my junk rather than get skin cancer, but given a *real* choice I’d say I’d prefer less security theater and more security (although I suppose that’s probably a pipe dream).

                Also, what is really to stop this from happening again?

                • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

                  Also, what is really to stop this from happening again?

                  The fact that we are talking about the TSA, and the arrticle you linked to is the US Marshalls scanning people for a test program at a Federal Courthouse? And they weren;t leaked, they were obtained through a FOIA request. That article title is titled that way to get idiots to click on it who won;t read the article, but instead parrot what they think it said.

                  • cluberti says:

                    The point is, the images *are* stored on the machines. They *could* be leaked. And we’re trusting the equivalent of the airport DMV to keep this sort of thing safe – they don’t follow any of their other procedures properly, so what’s to stop them from violating one that says they won’t save the pic and post it somewhere?

                    The point is, the machines *can* store images, and apparently it’s not hard to get the files off either.

              • Lollerface says:

                “Not flying” is not the voice of reason. I hate flying, I dont have to travel for work, but at multiple points in my life I have had to fly. There is no choice.

          • mac-phisto says:

            1) consider, for a moment, that children will be using these scanners. & the government will be retaining those photos. now consider that if those photos were retained on your computer, you’d be a felon. shouldn’t we hold our government to the same standards as its citizens? i know what you’re thinking – “please, the government isn’t a bunch of child rapists.” don’t be so sure about that (see point 2).
            2) it’s not like TSA workers are beating off under the counter as people pass thru, or the ones doing pat downs are getting their jollies by doing so.
            you so sure about that? “Child rape charge rocks TSA” – enjoy that.
            3) no, the government isn’t forcing me onto an airplane, but they are forcing me to undergo a higher level of scrutiny to fly. i accept that, but i also expect a certain level of respect in my choice to fly. i don’t consider taking naked photos, retaining them & then lying about that retention respectful in the least.
            4) the CAT/MRI isn’t a good comparison b/c you & your doctor(s) have a confidential relationship that is governed by law. you have no such relationship with airport security. furthermore, they are LICENSED & can be held accountable (civilly & criminally) for any improper handling of body scans. also consider that physicians (or even techs) have a considerable amount of time & money invested in their career whereas anyone who can pass a multiple choice test & a laughable background screen can become a TSA agent.

            but the biggest reason i’m against these scanners? they’re expensive, they were deployed untested & some experts consider them completely ineffective ( http://boingboing.net/2010/01/22/naked-airport-scanne.html, https://consumerist.com/2010/04/post-1.html ). why are we spending millions of dollars on this crap? graft. that’s what this is all about – enriching a few political insiders with lush government contracts for overpriced crap.

            • Groanan says:

              1) No, what we should do is remove thought crime altogether and take all images, video clips, text, etc. off the contraband list.

              Contraband items should be limited to counterfeit goods, illicit drugs, dangerous items, and other things that are bad for their physical properties (or infringement of copyright) instead of the thoughts or ideas they express, whether or not they are obscene.

              Making more people subject to an absolutely ridiculous law, that makes it a crime to hold onto evidence of another crime (that is highly punished on its own, with long jail sentences and incredibly high amounts of social stigma) is moving in the wrong direction.

              Once Google has facial recognition software, and reverse image search – combined with all the social networking sites out there – someone could find child pornography, scan the face, search Google, find the name of the kid (or the parents in a family photo online), and notify the police. Child abuse is already illegal; making evidence of the crime a further illegal act is retarded (though I think there is room for private rights of action against anyone who has their image or likeness sold against their consent, and that the Government should strictly forbid the sale of child pornography as a commercial incentive would create more of a market).

              Furthermore, the naked pictures of kids standing straight up in down with their hands up will not be considered child pornography in a court of law.

          • Lisse24 says:

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

            That is why it matters. All other points are moot. In any other setting, in order to be subjected to a search of this magnitude the Police must either have a warrant, or they must have reasonable cause to believe that you have just, or are about to, complete a crime.
            The fact that these searches are carried out by untrained personnel who probably couldn’t find weapons that terrorists had hidden on them, even if they were there, is just adding further insult.

            All the other arguments, while enlightening, are ultimately unimportant in the face of the constitution.

            We can both guarantee our rights and guarantee our safety. There are other ways, more effective ways, of finding terrorists and those are the methods that everyone should be supporting. Not this ineffectual and illegal BS.

          • ooeygooey says:

            I don’t get an x-ray, an MRI, or a cat scan every time I go to the doctor, as a pre-curser to an otherwise regular appointment, “just in case.” X-rays are damaging to the human body and should only be done if necessary. Ask your doctor, he will tell you the same thing.

          • Timbojones says:

            The purpose of these scans is NOT security. If it were, they would be effective at thwarting terrorist plots. As many people have said, NO successful plane attack, including the 9/11 hijackings, would have been prevented by the security measures now in place. The only thing that these ‘heightened security measures’ prevent are poorly planned attacks that already failed the first time.

            The purpose of these scans is to justify enormous government expenditure based on corruption and lobbies.

      • Pax says:

        If I were a parent of an dolescent … I would not want anyone to have this kind of image, of them:


        I mean, seriously. A picture like that, of a fifteen year old of either gender? Would get anyone but the TSA people thrown in jail. Seriously.

        So, why’s it okay suddenly, when it’s the government taking the picture?

        • Beeker26 says:

          That picture is a fake. Look at some of the other posts here. The dead giveaway is the pose. Who poses like that in an airport scanner?

          And I submit that taking a scan of a teenager for airport security is no more lewd than getting an x-ray or CT scan that includes the pelvis or chest.

  6. c!tizen says:

    “…We ask for cooperation, patience and a commitment to vigilance in the face of a determined enemy.”

    That’s the best description of the TSA I’ve ever heard from a government official.

    • oldwiz65 says:

      The TSA is determined to get as many people as possible to stop flying. If no one is flying, then they don’t have to worry about terrorists.

    • ooeygooey says:

      “We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia”.

  7. LHH says:

    So enlighten me. Does ole Janet Napolitano have to go through these things, or any public official? I thought not.

    • Arcaeris says:

      Yes, she demonstrated the machine and you can find scans of her online.

      • c!tizen says:


      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        Link or it didn’t happen.

        • c!tizen says:

          He’d provide one, but if you search Google for “backscatter images of Janet Napolitano” the image servers immediately self destruct which could alter the tilt of planet and send us head first into the worst ice age in history.

      • LHH says:

        Demonstrating is not the same as being required to submit to the process under normal conditions. I highly doubt she stands in line with the rest of us unwashed masses when taking a flight.

      • Fubish says: I don't know anything about it, but it seems to me... says:

        Hubba hubba! O wow! Hot dog!!! Where’s the link? Where’s the link?

    • ChristopherDavis says:

      Indeed. If they’re so safe, clearly there’s no issue preventing them from being installed at every entrance to TSA headquarters. “What? You don’t want to be scanned just because you went outside for a cigarette? You gave up your rights when you started working here.”

      • Oranges w/ Cheese says:

        Fuck, install them at all the entrances to congress and see how quick the congress-critters think they’re dangerous. I’d love to get the ones getting kickbacks through these things several times a week and see how they feel.

    • arcticJKL says:

      Yes, whenever they fly commercial. I’ve seen US Senators go through the same screening as everyone else.

  8. reimero says:

    I’m worried about the long-term effects of radiation from the backscatter-type scanners. The millimeter-wave ones, I’m less concerned about, but the TSA is being downright irresponsible with the backscatter ones.

  9. seismic007 says:

    The entire airport security screening system needs to be overhauled, reimagined, and reimplemented. I don’t feel any safer by the methodology in place, and the invasive nature of both the porno scanners and the grope-a-thon are unacceptable.

    • bravohotel01 says:

      Apparently, you are in the minority. The vast swath of unwashed sheeple approve of the magic box that keeps them safe.

      You see, people!? This is what we get for DRYING UP SCIENCE EDUCATION — most people DON’T KNOW ANYTHING about logic, reason, and how the physical world works!

  10. Mike says:

    You saw the wrong pictures. The ones you saw were not from the scanner that is being widely adopted. The Backscatter images are much more detailed than the earlier article that showed images from the other machine today. Have a look for yourself:


  11. Larraque eats babies says:

    I don’t take any issue with being scanned to fly. BUT I do take issue with the expense that operating and maintaining these machines must incur. Who’s paying for that?

  12. You Be Illin' says:

    The biggest problem of these machines is that they produce a lot of false positives, and then you get struck with the aggressive pat-down anyways. That’s the problem I have. Nate Silver on his 538 blog reported that the stitching on his jeans turned up a false positive.

    • typicalme says:

      Exactly what happened to me – I went through the scanner, and btw, they were very short with me throughout the process, and I was just nervous about it is all yet I was being talked to like I was a criminal… but i digress, I went through and then had to stand there in front of a lady who didn’t say a word to me, she just told me to stand there…. after about 20 seconds, she got a blip on her walkie talkie and they told her where exactly to pat me down.
      So basically i got scanned and patted down…. on the front and back of the top of my jeans… they had a number of golden-y rivets on my right front pocket and i guess that looked like something to the guy in the booth….
      it feels a lot more violating than I thought it would, that’s for sure.

  13. osiris73 says:

    Who in the hell did they poll? Sure, some people may be all for it until they actually have to go through one. Ask people how they feel about it as they’re walking up to the machine and forced to either go through it or be subjected to a very handsy pat down… or be taken to court and fined $10,000. I bet they’ll change their tune then.

  14. SkokieGuy says:

    Hey Janet, do tell us about all “the weapons and other dangerous and prohibited items we’ve found during AIT screenings………time and again” How many of them by backscatter x-ray?

    Or do you just want to give the public false reassurance by claiming the weapons found by xrays of carry ons and checked luggage (also Advanced Imaging Technology, right?) have anything to do with the effectiveness or success of the new backscatter?

    • dangerp says:

      I have no reason to doubt that they found many “weapons” using the technology. I’m just guessing they’re mostly scissors, keychains, shampoo bottles, and the like. Kinda like the keychain swiss army knife (about an inch long) they confiscated from my wife a couple months ago. I’m not sure you could threaten anyone with that “weapon”.

      On the other hand, I would highly doubt any real weapons brought with evil intentions were caught. Why would anyone bother? Just blow up the people standing in line for their porno shoots.

      • outlulz says:

        9/11. Boxcutters. Weapons that small have worked.

        • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

          You try that again with a boxcutter. Gaurenteed when the plane hits the ground, people with the box cutters will either be dead or in critical condition, and there will be a few passengers with some cuts, if they weren’t smart enough to wrap jackets/shirts around their arms/etc…

  15. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    They should inform them of the dangers of their use, and show what they look like in the scanner, and then repoll them.

  16. mcs328 says:

    I’d be for it if I knew there was a process that the information would be used as intended. Past articles like the workers who made fun of their co-workers small wee wee give me pause if they technology can be used with maturity. Or someone decides they found “something” near the groin or breasts area using the scanner to have an excuse to grope a person to get their rocks off.

  17. NaptownMVP says:

    Everyone should opt out…opt out…opt out! The line has got to be drawn somewhere, before we’re required to show up to the airport in nothing but see through underwear and unpack our entire bag onto a conveyor belt.


    • Michaela says:

      Slippery slope fallacy.

      Please revise your argument.

      • Groanan says:

        “Slippery slope fallacy.”

        Is that what public schools taught you? That if you can imagine any argument into any of the argument “fallacies” that the argument loses all of its merit?

        Whatever happened to critical thinking?

        How is being naked not the next step beyond appearing to be naked behind an x-ray machine? They could easily have us strip behind a curtain, walk ten paces in front of an inspector, and dress at the other end – it would be faster and cheaper that the x-ray.

        • Michaela says:

          I didn’t invent it into a fallacy. The poster gave the argument that body scanners should not be used, and their reasoning was that if not, we will be forced to come to airports naked. Where is the support to the poster’s claims? Others have provided reasoning behind their decisions to like or hate the scanners. This person should too.

          How is arriving at the air port naked NOT the next step in going behind an x-ray at the airport (which was the earlier poster’s comment) or physically stripping once in the security line? Well, first it is important to remember that there doesn’t necessarily have to be a next step. If the scanners work, the TSA will just use them as they are now. If they don’t, it is possible for the TSA to find another way to keep unwanted items off planes. The direction of this change doesn’t need to be in the direction towards public indecency, but could take a similar form of other (more successful) plane security measures from around the globe.

          Also, I just wanted to comment that your response to me was rather rude. I attacked the poster’s argument. Your statements at public schooling and critical thinking seemed less about fighting what I had said, and more about attacking my education. Please try to focus on attacking the content of someone’s argument rather than lowering yourself to childish behavior. If your argument is truly valid and good, it doesn’t need that crap around it.

      • NaptownMVP says:

        Not too good with patterns, eh? It’s not a fallacy to suggest that a pattern has emerged of asking for an inch and taking a mile in terms of airline security. Is it a jump to say that at some point in the future (I never did say “next”) we will be required to do such things in the name of security? Possibly, but I do have a historical pattern on my side, making it at the very least an educated hypothesis.

    • bravohotel01 says:

      I was planning on showing up to the airport wearing nothing but a thong speedo.

      Either that, or I was going to attach aluminum foil to every part of my body with rubber cement; fill my underwear and socks with washers and ball bearings; and glue iron filings into my hair.

  18. dolemite says:

    That’s because the vast majority of Americans are sheep that do not think for themselves and merely believe what is fed to them. They actually believe “Security Theater” does something. If they all knew they were having their families’ privates groped and nude photos taken by the government for absolutely no reason, they would have a different opinion completely.

    Any time I see a post about the scanners, there are about 50% of the people that make a statement like “if it makes me safer while flying, I have NO problem with it!” That’s the problem bud, it makes you absolutely no safer. If you want to be safe, you will have to have deep x-ray scans taken that completey map/penetrate the body, and we all know that isn’t safe for frequent fliers. I’m sure they would respond: “Well, if it prevents me from being blown up by terrorists, I don’t mind a little cancer.”

  19. Arcaeris says:

    Look up the scans of Janet herself. You can make out astounding detail, like the specific size and shape of her breasts (and which one is larger than the other), the shape of her body, everything. On a dude you can totally make out the penis and balls.

    And from those FOIA-released shots from Florida, the scan image is coupled with a real picture of the person standing in the machine. Some of you are saying this isn’t intrusive? That they can mail or store a picture of you clothed next to a picture of you through this machine? And BTW, you can invert the colors on the picture for a real good view…

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      and the shots from Florida were from a courthouse and a different agency than the TSA. It was part of a test, which would explain why it was set up that way.

    • MrMagoo is usually sarcastic says:

      Actually, if you look at the scans of Janet you can make out the penis and balls.

    • GqhnqCTE says:

      Janet never would and never will go through one of those machines

  20. Bubs2626 says:

    I don’t care if they strip me down and make me lift and pull every part of my body…as long as everyone else is doing it. Would make me feel a lot better about flying.

    • Chaosium says:

      “I don’t care if they strip me down and make me lift and pull every part of my body…as long as everyone else is doing it. Would make me feel a lot better about flying.”

      Bend over, buddy. They need to make a line for the people who are happy to get groped and fingered by strangers in public, also who are happy to send their children to that fate.

    • ap0 says:

      You’re not going to be one bit safer getting strip searched. It’s sad that you think you’re safer with these disgusting machines and pat-down procedures. Enjoy life in a police state, fascist.

    • ninabi says:

      “feel safer” is the key. But it may have nothing at all to do with actual safety. If they were scanning and sniffing all the cargo, now that would be an actual improvement.

    • Rachacha says:

      I’ll shatter your safe happy feeling for you. The new “naked scanners” do not penetrate into the body, therefore, any article that a terrorist or other bad person wanted to smuggle on the plane would simply need to be hidden in a body cavity. If you are talking about a bomb utilized by a suicide bomber, I would imagine it would be extremely easy to hide a couple pounds of explosives in a body cavity with a remote detonator in a liquid tight container. A setup like this would be virtually undectable through a body scan or pat down.

      The TSA keeps saying that the underwear bomber would have been caught with their new scanners or by a pat down, but we have not seen any evidence to confirm this.

  21. SgtBeavis says:

    What do I think? I think the terrorist have won.

  22. Bob Lu says:

    If the TSA “officers” were well trained, trustworthy and professional security personals who dedicate protecting us, it may be OK.

  23. zegota says:

    Nate Silver has a good writeup on why these polls, especially when they include “all Americans” are bullshit. The tl;dr is basically that very few Americans fly, and even fewer fly regularly, so of course you’re going to say you approve if you never actually have to deal with it.


  24. FilthyHarry says:

    The question as to whether or not the scans are invasive is answered by agents keeping copies of them.

  25. MuffinSangria says:

    The poll is faulty. The question was:

    “Some airports are now using “full-body” digital x-ray machines to electronically screen passengers in airport security lines. Do you think these new x-ray machines should or should not be used at airports?”

    I truly believe the question was designed to make people think of x-ray images, not the naked backscatter images. Frankly, not everyone knows the details of these machine, even people on here. If had never seen an example of the scan and heard this question, I’d be for it also.

  26. raybury says:

    Per http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/faqs.shtm, “The image cannot be stored, transmitted or printed, and is deleted immediately once viewed. Additionally, there is a privacy algorithm applied to blur the image.” Incompetano said something similar in her USA Today piece.

    More lies. Anything deleted must have been stored, yes? If not transmitted, how does the assigned viewer see it? Does the privacy algorithm hid faces (good: hides celebs; bad: hides facial expressions at a key moment), or merely junk, which would make it ineffective by hiding the area where the Christmas bomber secreted PETN?

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      Anything deleted must be stored, no. There is a thing known as a buffer. I have a TV that has a “freeze frame” button that literally freezes the frame on the screen. But that is it. It’s not stored, as it’s not a DVR, I can’t download it, and I can’t see anything else until I unfreeze it. These are the same thing. The buffer is constantly refilled, and if you turn the machine off, the buffer disappears.

      It’s not transmitted, it’s relayed. There is a closed circuit that has a direct line from the machine to the viewing device.

      And why would hiding faces be bad? There is a reason that there are people AT the machine watching you during your “key moment”. It’s not the guy who watches the monitors job to observe you, they are focused on the scan. It’s the people who are looking at you who are watching your body language.

      • johnrhoward says:

        Putting something in a buffer is storing it, albeit temporarily.

      • dolemite says:

        They’ve already disproven the lie “images can’t/won’t be stored”. There were thousands of images taken of airport employees and fliers.

      • Chaosium says:

        “if you turn the machine off, the buffer disappears. “

        The machines are designed to store pictures and do store pictures. The buffer is written to file.

  27. g.park says:

    I think the poll question is misleading:”Some airports are now using ‘full-body’ digital x-ray machines to electronically screen passengers in airport security lines. Do you think these new x-ray machines should or should not be used at airports?”
    I would imagine the term “x-ray” implies (for most people) that the machine displays a picture of your bones and any hard materials in/on your person. I think most people would indeed be comfortable with this idea. If the question had been more specific, perhaps “…using machines which display passengers’ naked bodies…” the responses would be different.

  28. pinteresque says:

    There’s a problem with the poll’s wording – without background information it’s easy to conflate your standard beep-when-you’re-wearing-a-metal-belt-buckle x-ray machines with “full-body x-ray machines”. Introductory questions are necessary to separate people who have heard about the NEW machines from the people who assume there’s no difference.

    • XTC46 says:

      The “beep due to belt buckle” is a metal detector…not an x-ray. An Xray would be what they put your luggage through, and these machines are x-ray machines.

  29. CBenji says:

    No offense, but the last time I had to fly you drag all your crap to the airport amazingly nothing was lost. Then you sit in the tube all uncomfortably with people all around you that you don’t know. I have never been that scared of being in a crash, but now between the pat downs or the scanners I have to say I think unless I am going across the country or overseas which most of my family live in Europe I am not going to make the journey. Forget it. I hate the whole experience anyway, and this just makes it suck worse. I don’t want anyone feeling me up, or doing anymore scans on me.

  30. AngryK9 says:

    How’s that old saying go? 75% of the statistics you see are made up?

  31. AngryK9 says:

    How’s that old saying go? 75% of the statistics you see are made up?

  32. wetrat says:

    I bet the polling results would be different if the polled people right after they came out of the security fondling, er, I mean, screening.

  33. Macgyver says:

    Those images are not naked.
    The ones you seen online can easily be faked from any photo editor.
    If people get turned on by these body scans, they have other problems then.

    • Chaosium says:

      “If people get turned on by these body scans, they have other problems then.”

      Ir-fucking-relevant. You don’t have to imagine that the people in another room who are archiving naked pictures of you (which are more accurate than you claim) are jerking off to be bothered by this.

    • ap0 says:

      It’s sad that a great TV hero like Macgyver has become an authoritarian pig.

  34. phira says:

    First off, there are two kinds of scanners. The millimeter-wave ones are the ones that are much blurrier. The backscatter x-ray machines are the ones where TSA is getting a very clear glimpse of your privates.

    My problem with the use of the backscatter x-ray machines is that the alternative to them is an “enhanced” pat down, which involves the TSA agent using fingers and palms everywhere, including your crotch and chest. This is HIGHLY invasive, and for a lot of sexual assault suvivors, myself included, it is absolutely not an acceptable alternative to the backscatter machines (essentially, TSA is telling me that I have to go through the backscatter machines or I’ll get to relive my assault).

    I also question the effectiveness of either type of scanner to prevent terrorism. When the body scanner issue first came up months ago, the head of airline security in Israel pointed out that they don’t use such scanners, and they manage just fine.

    Either way, I think the poll saying most Americans “love” the scanners is total bull.

    • Me - now with more humidity says:

      As a fellow survivor, I couldn’t agree more. And I make no guarantees about not having a severe and violent PTSD flashback if a TSA goon touches my kid.

  35. Mike says:

    I would like to see a poll that people are shown examples of images from backscatter machines, then asked if they approve of them. Or better yet, poll some people right after they are shown an image of themselves from one of these machines.

  36. kataisa says:

    CBS has a history of questionable reportage so I’ll take their poll with a grain of salt. According to my own observations and informal surveys with my friends and co-workers, these full-body scanners are very unpopular, highly invasive, and probably illegal.

    We all know these expensive “safety precaution” band-aids will do absolutely nothing to deter international terrorism.

    In summary, these machines are a complete waste of everybody’s time, money, and resources, and will only further exacerbate “air rage” problems as average law-abiding citizens are treated like criminals, and the terrorists snicker and laugh as we bankrupt ourselves.Good job, TSA, the terrorists win again.

  37. catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

    as much as we hate or love these machines, the little people don’t have a lot of lobbying power. and no CBS poll is going to make the government change their mind.
    my thought is to complain to the airline of which you might be a miles/club member. enough people tell the airline about the direct loss of business this will incur and THEY will lobby for the discontinuation.

  38. Sparty999 says:

    if you are hot… you shouldn’t care if people see it… if you are ugly, than nobody wants to see it. get over yourself and take one for the good ole USA.

    • dolemite says:

      Your chances of being killed by terrorists are roughly the same as winning powerball.

    • cash_da_pibble says:

      The point is that I only want one person in my life to see me naked, and it is DEFINITELY not a stranger in the Airport.

    • Mr. Fix-It says: "Canadian Bacon is best bacon!" says:

      Right, because if we’re attractive, we shouldn’t have to care about protecting our self-image, despite the very fact that being attractive would give cause for people to exploit this system further…

  39. Rask says:

    Someone needs to make a video parody of the SNL skit and call it “Jizzed in your hand” re: the new TSA groping policies.

  40. Power Imbalance says:

    CBS making up facts…. wouldn’t be the first time.

  41. Alvis says:

    JHU APL is a government shill

  42. jtheletter says:

    Let’s try an experiment here, let me reword a quote from the summary above:
    “Eighty-one percent of whites think airports should have separate facilities for blacks — including a majority of both men and women, Americans of all age groups, and Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike. Fifteen percent said airports should not discriminate base don race. “
    It’s called Tyranny of the Majority folks, and our Republic was set up to prevent that sort of abuse. Just because most people feel a certain way doesn’t make it right. Am I using a bit of hyperbole by comparing this to the civil rights struggle 50 years ago? Yes, however the underlying point is the same even if the scale of the abuses is different. Getting 81 out of 100 people to say the sun revolves around the Earth doesn’t make that the right answer.

  43. dcarrington01 says:

    So does this mean I don’t have to take off my shoes, belt, and everything else anymore? Or now do I have to get scanned so they can see me totally nekid?!

  44. Buckus says:

    I have a poll that indicates I’m the world’s greatest dad. Admittedly, my sample size is rather small, but, hey, it’s totally legit.

  45. duncanblackthorne says:

    I’ve flown somewhere less than 5 times in my entire 45 year life, and I DO NOT approve of these scanners.

  46. gregnva says:

    I fly ALL the time and have NO problem with whatever procedures, machines, etc that are in use to detect for bombs, terrorists or whatever. I certainly would NOT like to be blown up. And unless you fly ALL the time, you probably don’t understand my mentality about this.

    • jtheletter says:

      Do you realize that the last three foiled airline bombing attempts ALL made it through security? That the procedures in place completely failed to detect and stop the threat and it was basically a bit of luck and the incompetence of the terrorists that allowed them to be stopped?

      1. The shoe bomber? Caught by passengers IN FLIGHT while trying to light his shoe-bombs.
      2. The Underpants bomber? Again, caught IN FLIGHT while trying to chemically ignite his device.
      3. The most recent ink toner cartridge bombs? Also made it through security, were actually pulled by security officers and scanned during the investigation, came back clean, and finally had to be completely opened to reveal the bomb contents.

      The current security theater you put so much faith in is only stopping yesterday’s problems. It’s a farce, there is no innovation, there is no foolproof scanning. You are being made to submit to foolish, wasteful practices that do not fulfill their intended mission until after the fact.

    • rijrunner says:

      Right.. because with all this security, it would never occur to a terrorist that those long lines at the airport are much easier targets..

    • Chaosium says:

      “And unless you fly ALL the time, you probably don’t understand my mentality about this.”

      PILOTS’ UNIONS in the US and UK disagree with you, let alone all the European countries that have banned these devices. The more you fly, the greater your cancer risk by these unregulated, uncalibrated “medical” devices.

      You can rationalize your cowardice, but plenty of people who fly more than you know better.

    • NeverLetMeDown says:

      I walk a LOT, and there are often people around me when I do. There are a lot of people stabbed and shot in this country every day. I would be much more comfortable if everybody had to go through a metal detector upon leaving their house.

  47. Sunflower1970 says:

    We can certainly thank Chertoff for these. He’s a lobbyist now pushing these body scanners.

  48. Eli the Ice Man says:

    “Prefer to alternative methods”, which means it’s not so much they like them, they just like them better than having their balls fondled.

  49. gregnva says:

    I fly ALL the time and have NO problem with whatever procedures, machines, etc that are in use to detect for bombs, terrorists or whatever. I certainly would NOT like to be blown up. And unless you fly ALL the time, you probably don’t understand my mentality about this.

    • Lisse24 says:

      Yes, but these methods are ineffective. Wouldn’t you rather that the TSA spend money on tactics that are proven to actually stop terrorists then on this show that does nothing?

    • ap0 says:

      Enjoy your police state, fascist. You’re not a lick safer with these machines over metal detectors.

    • Mr. Fix-It says: "Canadian Bacon is best bacon!" says:

      This sounds like an Inverse Fallacy of Accidents.

      Because You’ve never had problems with the TSA, does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that nobody has problems with the TSA.

  50. beandog says:

    This is the real problem with airport security in general — the lowest common denominator is whichever airport has the least security. Sure, airports in the U.S. can have lots of security in place, but it doesn’t help if someone flying into the U.S. from an international airport outside of this country ends up here.

  51. Stuey says:

    I have nothing against what the scans would reveal – I have issue with the unstudied radiation.

    I bet that most of the people polled aren’t aware that they would receive a dose of high energy radiation every time they walk through such an imagining scanner.

    • catnapped says:

      Hey bub…gotta make a choice here…die of cancer or get blown up by brown peoples. No doubt most good Americans will choose the former.

      • Chaosium says:

        “Hey bub…gotta make a choice here…die of cancer or get blown up by brown peoples. No doubt most good Americans will choose the former.”

        You make the founding fathers cry, faux-patriot.

        • Groanan says:

          Where is Zombie Thomas Jefferson when we need him ; ;

        • Mr. Fix-It says: "Canadian Bacon is best bacon!" says:

          “We like war! We´re a war-like people! We like war because we´re good at it! You know why we´re good at it? Because we get a lot of practice. This country´s only 200 years old and already we´ve had ten major wars. We average a major war every twenty years in this country, so we´re good at it!

          And it´s a good thing we are, we´re not very good at anything else anymore! Can´t make a decent car, can´t make a TV set or a VCR worth a f%&#… got no steel industry left, can´t educate our young people; can´t get health care to our old people…

          But we can bomb the shit out of your country! Especially if your country’s full of brown people. Oh we like that, don’t we? That’s our hobby; bombing brown people! Iraq, Grenada, Libya, Panama… if you’re country’s full of brown people, tell ’em to watch the f&*% out, or we’ll goddamn bomb them!

          But when´s the last white people you can remember that we bombed, can you remember — can you remember ANY white people we´ve ever bombed? The Germans! They were the only ones, and that´s only because they were trying to cut in on our action! They wanted to dominate the world – bulls%&@, that´s our fuckin´ job!


    • Jayrandom says:

      My issue is with the privacy and the useless erosion of civil rights in the name of security theater.
      If you don’t like the radiation, then you shouldn’t fly. The dose you get from being 30000 feet in the air for six hours is considerably worse than anything you get from these machines.

      • Groanan says:

        Your belief, based on what the news media has told you, holds two presumptions:

        1. That the machines only put out as much radiation as they say they do.
        2. That it makes no difference in how the radiation is directed to your body at the end of the day.

        • Jayrandom says:

          A) Short of buying one of these devices and testing it myself, what the manufacturer says is all I have to go on. I’ve seen little evidence presented that suggests something other than what the manufacturers and news media have reported.

          B) Even if they were significantly under reporting the dose, most people are unaware of just how much extra radiation they receive while traveling at altitude, especially if they traverse the poles. Some people jump when they hear the word radiation and aren’t fully aware of all the risks involved in activities they already participate in fully.

          Either way, though, I think we’re in agreement that the machines need to go.

    • Jayrandom says:

      My issue is with the privacy and the useless erosion of civil rights in the name of security theater.
      If you don’t like the radiation, then you shouldn’t fly. The dose you get from being 30000 feet in the air for six hours is considerably worse than anything you get from these machines.

    • Groanan says:

      I share your concern with the radiation.

      1. These are new
      2. How often is their radiation output tested?
      3. Sure, they say that the does is low, but what difference does it make in how they use it?
      4. Do the TSA members have to scan each other everyday before work, and if not, why not?
      5. We try to reduce our exposer to radiation as much as possible, why use this method over metal detectors? What is the benefit of this added dosage of radiation? (aside from government contracting money).

  52. MuffinSangria says:

    If someone brings a bomb into the airport, what is to stop them from detonating it right there at the security checkpoint? They’d kill more people than on a plane. The TSA is not there to stop bombs and terrorists, that is the job of the intelligence community.

    You are in more danger driving to the airport. Stop being so paranoid and live a little.

  53. Chaosium says:

    I love Push Polling! Please, tell me what a small percentage of idiots think!

  54. Groanan says:

    Who cares how many Americans are willing to give up their rights?
    The Constitution doesn’t seem to say it is alright to have an abusive government so long as the majority of citizens don’t complain.

  55. JulesNoctambule says:

    I keep hearing people say ‘Well, as long as they make us safer, that’s okay!’ but I have yet to see proof that they live up to that qualification.

    • Rachacha says:

      Proof: Since we have been using these machines, no planes originating from the U.S. have been hijacked or blown up as a result of terrorism.

  56. donovanr says:

    The polls I see all run around 90%+ against.
    This shows just how desperate these guys are to keep buying these machines.

    • Chaosium says:

      Billions of dollars in sales blown on these pieces of crap allows for some significant lobbying power among both parties.

  57. mannyvel says:

    Most people have no idea that there’s anything happening, because it hasn’t happened on Jersey Shore yet.

    Once someone feels up The Situation at LGA on-screen, things will change. They will!

  58. Spooky says:

    I smell propaganda.

  59. brianary says:

    Correction: the headline should read “Push Poll: Americans Deeply In Love With Full Body Scanners”.

  60. Clogtowner says:

    We must do what the Ministry of Love tells us!

    • Groanan says:

      Besides, the Ministry of Truth has already shown us that they are safe, effective, and not a violation of our privacy!

  61. Geekybiker says:

    This just means most Americans either don’t fly or are morons. I’ll take the 1:10,000,000 chance something happens on my plane over the 1:1 chance of me being groped or having nude pictures take of me.

    • Groanan says:

      I blame democracy for giving morons power in our society.
      We need a Czar of America! (or a King/Queen) (Maybe a Pharaoh)

      • Mr. Fix-It says: "Canadian Bacon is best bacon!" says:

        I like Czar. Sounds classy, and its roots are in the word ‘caesar’!

        Pasha is a good one, too :D

  62. buddyedgewood says:

    Baaaa… says the sheeple. MSM is the best and easiest way to brainwash people.

  63. XTC46 says:

    I oppose the on the basis that I dont think they help. I think there are better ways to handle airport security and the whole method and mentality behind TSA is garbage.

  64. u1itn0w2day says:

    A CBS poll…

    Alot surveys period are not accurate. I don’t care if it’s confidential many people feel obligated to give the politically correct answer to strangers especially. In this case not being against “security”. And yeah alot of this respondents either don’t fly or don’t care- “oh no abuses will ever happen to me”.

    Then you have big sis giving a very constructed response which also plays to the insecure public talking about the dangerous items they have already found with the scanners( BUT would these have been discovered through other means and would something have actually happend if not discovered.

    The thing with alot of these measures in the name of security is in reality how much danger are we really in. Exactly how dangerous are these do it yourself kit bombs where in flight assembly is required. Personally I think alot of these methods were already attempted by terrorist want bes and failed. In reality not only do have to assemble a d i y bomb you have to hope because of the smuggling methods used that temperature and/or pressure/crushing from the body affect them. And wouldn’t metal detectors find most weapons and wouldn’t smuggling dangerous weapons also be danger to the terrorist as well. And in most cases where something eluded airport security the passengers and crew have prevented a successful attack.

    I’m terrorized by the government having this much power which is supposed to be defending us and our way of life/freedoms and force/manipulate us into giving up those very same freedoms.

  65. ap0 says:

    Completely irrelevant. We aren’t a bit safter with these machines. You ignorant fascists who think these machines actually do anything are quickly turning the USA into a fucking police state. Absolutely disgusting. I’m embarrassed to live in the same country with you.

  66. Charmander says:

    Yes, I believe that poll. Because I believe everything that I read.

  67. PsiCop says:

    Napolitano claims this new procedure was implemented as a response to the December 25, 2009 attempted bombing on a plane heading into Detroit. That’s a demonstrable lie, on two counts:

    1. It’s been 11 months since then. If there had actually been any urgency to respond to that particular threat, it’s a little late … 11 months later … to do anything about. The barn door, the horses, etc.

    2. The underwear bomber boarded his plan in Europe, not in the US. There is literally NO security measure that can be implemented within the US, that will do the slightest thing about someone who boards in another country and flies here.

    For me, it’s not so much the X-ray itself, but the lying about why they want to do it, that’s so troubling. What’s even more troubling is that so few people are aware they’re being lied to.

    • Concat says:

      That and there a few experts kicking around that are saying the scanners wouldn’t have even caught the underwear bomber in the first place.

  68. jeblis says:
  69. evilpete says:

    It would not be so bad if it sped up the security check process.

  70. nocturnaljames says:

    The propaganda machine in full force. Complaints are all over the place. Maybe if the TSA strip searches and does full body cavity searches on every citizen, they might actually catch a “terrorist” once? Or perhaps flying is still the safest way to fly WITHOUT the TSA and their huge costs.

  71. JBTX says:

    lets look at the definition of terrorism

    ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm)
    The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

    Who are the terrorist again ????

  72. FrankReality says:

    But of course most people are going to favor the scanners when the only alternatives are to be groped by a TSA putz or fined $10K after deciding you didn’t want to fly.

    TSA = Thugs ‘R Us

  73. Mooneyes says:

    I wonder what the polls would reflect if we only asked people who fly. I already find the process humiliating. I’ve learned to plan my clothes carefully for airports.. no metal decorations, pockets for my id, shoes that go off and on easily, oh yeah.. and don’t forget to wear your hair in a way that doesn’t set off the alarms. My hair barette has set off the detectors before. Oh yes.. and for the Ladies.. don’t forget what happens if you wear an underwire bra.

  74. David Ciani says:

    My issues are more with the federal government over stepping its mandate by conducting the searches that the TSA does. I would have absolutely no problem if they were conducted by the airline (or their contractor) as part of their contract of carriage.

    My solution:

    Make the airlines ultimately responsible for the security of their operations. If something gets through on their watch and does damage, they pay the price (ie unlimited liability). They will undoubtedly have to take out insurance to mitigate that risk. Their insurance policy will have some stipulations regarding standards for security screening. The government could make the insurance mandatory (like the FDIC) and retain control of the security standards but the airlines would be ultimately responsible for implementing them.

    As for the health effects of the machines, from what I have heard the millimeter wave technology is safer than the x-rays and whoever is conducting the searches should take that in to consideration when putting the purchase orders out for bid.

  75. Levk says:

    Well if you was paying me I would say yes to lol

  76. ninjatoddler says:

    Because there’s a human operator out there monitoring the naked pictures and that the human operator is a TSA employee, I’m all for banning full body scanners.

    Someday, there’s going to be a website like Wikileaks with full body images taken from those scanners. Then the whole world can check out nude scans of our bodies with no royalty payments coming our way.

    • peebozi says:

      i’m all for the whole world being photographed naked and published on line, though I believe people would like editorial control of their image.

  77. DEVO says:

    So what the hell is the difference between this crowd and the rest of America according to CBS and the consumerist polls.

  78. Don't_rip_me_off_bro says:

    So if I fly with my family and out of concern of the unknown, especially in light of what Johns Hopkins researchers have published, I opt my diapered child out of the backscatter, he will need to be molested, or would they require him to remove his diaper so they can check underneath his scrotum? Because I’m sure that being fondled by a stranger who isn’t his doctor will be totally harmless to his little phyche.

  79. zantafio says:

    Here’s what need to happen: somebody will have leak the body scan of one hot celebrity. That’s the only way we could save ourselves

  80. woogychuck says:

    Sounds legit right? I mean everybody wants to have naked scans and healthy problems right? It only seems it would be an issue if the machines didn’t actually makes us safer or if they cost millions of dollars…

  81. wrbwrx says:

    Wasn’t Fen-Phen legal and approved by the FDA? and tobacco? and Zicam? and Thalidomide.

    Shoe stores used to XRAY your feet to make sure that shoes fit correctly and operators are now having all types of delayed side effects.

    Just because the FDA says it is OK and safe does not mean a thing to me.

    • Disappointed says:

      Sorry about being a nit-picker here, but thalidomide was actually not approved by the FDA for use in humans until 1998: http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/common/thalidomide.html

      Looks like people in the US can take it now, but they have to be on two types of birth control while using it, and women using it are given pregnancy tests every month.

      At the time of the thalidomide disaster (the 1960s), the drug was not approved in the United States, but was approved in the rest of the developed world.

      So, this was one instance where the FDA actually did do its job properly, and protected its citizens. It does happen.

  82. Netstar says:

    If you think these full body scanners are bad, wait until you see what Homeland Security has in store for you. Check out the videos below. If you think this will not happen in your town you are wrong. I live in the suburbs of Atlanta, Ga. and the Feds conducted a mobile truck scanning (VIPER) checkpoint operation using the trucks in the video. They scanned every truck coming down the highway and caused a massive traffic jam. Wait until they set up security trailers at sporting and concert events. Coming soon to a neighborhood near you.

  83. AustinTXProgrammer says:

    I’m not worried about the pictures, I think they are absurdly expensive and ineffective.

  84. Concat says:

    Question: Do you want to be blown up by a terrorist? No? See! America DOES approve of the nude rays!

  85. common_sense84 says:

    It’s a setup. The poll asks about profiling terrorists and then asks about body scanners.

    It is designed so people will say yes.

  86. Sian says:

    This is great as it will help assist TSA in thwarting further terrorist attacks, as they have done dozens of times in the past.

    uh, yeah.

  87. thanq says:

    They conducted a poll among 1137 people over 3 days.

    This poll alone has already had more than 8000 votes within 24 hours.

    I guess 1137 are more “American” than 8000.

  88. peebozi says:

    Response to napolitano: Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

    in other news: The government of China just released a survey of its citizens happiness and level of satisfaction with how the country is run…88% responded that they were extremely satisfied with how things are going in china while 16% responded they were “extremery” satisfied.

  89. peebozi says:

    most people don’t follow the news and have no idea that this x-ray machine is different than others we have been introduced to over the years…doctor, dentist, etc.

    they should also ask whether these people think the old x-ray machine was acceptable…if they answered “what’s the difference” then their answer can be discarded.

  90. INsano says:

    “CBS says the have a poll…”

    3 words into the article and there’s a typo? Mush!

  91. 99 1/2 Days says:

    So why do we have to be the ones playing the full-monty parts in Security Theatre? I don’t do nudity unless it’s tasteful and relevant to the plot.

  92. StarVapor says:

    Adolf Hitler himself would have approved of managing the populace in the way that TSA is doing….We all know how that management style turned out.