It was always my understanding that the best route was to opt-out. But I am reading about others on this forum who will take the millimeter-wave scan. I haven't taken any scans at all. Which is a bigger violation of our Constitutional rights...pat-down or millimeter wave scan? Of course the nude-o-scope is not an option at all...

Cannot even believe I have to have this conversation...which is the BIGGER violation

I think it's a personal call. Both are abhorrent, but I go for the patdown because the health risks are less, the Nude-o-Scopes exemplify government waste and corruption, the patdown doesn't generate electronic images of my naked body that can be saved, the patdown gives TSA fewer details about anything I am concealing, the patdown forces TSA staff to be uncomfortable, and I know exactly who is assaulting me (as opposed to the anonymous viewer of Nude-o-Scope images).

Agreed! I want to look them in the eye as they violate my civil rights.

It's a very personal choice.

For some people who are very uncomfortable with being physically touched, like the discussion in another active thread today, the MMW/NoS is the better option. I have a lot of respect for folks like that thread's OP and Alaska State Rep Sharon Cissna who take the scanner but insist on leaving the airport if TSA wants to touch them.

For me, it's more about defying the standard sheeple behavior (which is to take the MMW), bogging down TSA resources with an opt-out, and making TSA perform a humiliating search (humiliating for the screener) in public. I find the required "surrender pose" in the MMW humiliating for the passenger but the required crotch pat-down pose for the screener more humiliating for the screener. I personally have no problem with being touched, but I understand those who do.

I find it hard to believe, nor have I ever seen any evidence, that TSA workers feel humiliated. I think you need a conscience for that and I'm quite sure any number of them enjoy frisking innocent strangers.

Me, too. Part of the defiance is to make them change gloves, even if you know they have changed them (assert that you didn't see them do it). Then, make them test the gloves in the trace detector before touching you. It's about 50/50 among clerks whether or not they will push back. Look them right in the eye with a scowl worthy of Ray Lewis. I'm saving the line: "Do you enjoy doing this to young boys?" for the right clerk.

Do not, under any circumstances, go to a private screening. Be prepared to walk if necessary.

It's important we do not distinguish between the MMW and the cancer boxes, because that's exactly what the TSA wants us to do. How many times have we had clerks tell us, with respect to the MMWs: "Don't worry. This one doesn't cause cancer."? It's clear that the TSA is driving the public towards acceptance of the Gumby MMW NOSs. We have to resist that at every opportunity.

PreCheck doesn't do it, either. All that does is take more and more of us out of the debate by placating the frequent flyer.

There has been a lot of debate over this, and it really boils down to a personal choice.

I choose MMW over the sexual assault. I will not let them touch me. I'll leave the airport and try again tomorrow or rent a car to get where I'm going, but I will not be sexually assaulted.

WBI, before the ATR software, was an absolutely despicable, disgusting, egregious violation of our civil rights, a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment. Yeah, yeah, I know all about the Davis decision and the Administrative Search Doctrine, and it don't hold water - a device which renders a nude image of your body under your clothing, no matter how fuzzy and indistinct it might be, for viewing by a government actor, is so invasive and intrusive that it falls well outside the definition of the Davis decision. Not only that, but it searches for EVERYTHING, not just weapons and explosives, which means that it's not "confined in good faith to that purpose", and is therefore a LEO-style search which is limited by the 4th Amendment to situations where warrant, probable cause, or articulable suspicion are present (which they are not in an administrative airport security screening).

Despite all of that, however, I went through the MMW anyway, because the alternative was a sexual assault, and that I will never, ever submit to.

My objections to WBI today are different. In theory, I have no objection to MMW with ATR, because no government actor is viewing your image. MMW with ATR is, in essence, no more intrusive or invasive than a WTMD. But that's the theory - practical application is, of course, a horse of a different color.

In practical application, the ATR software is not yet sophisticated enough to accurately determine what is or is not a prohibited or threatening item. The false-positive rate is outrageously high. I've seen it estimated here that anywhere from 30%-50% of all people who pass through the things alarm; I've also seen it estimated here that anywhere from 45% to 90% of those who alarm have no prohibited items on them. That's a tremendous rate of failure of the machine, no matter how you look at it - and for a machine that costs so much to deploy, operate, and maintain, a failure rate that high on the taxpayers' dime is simply unnacceptable to me.

Then there is a procedural matter - resolution of alarms. TSA initially required anyone who alarmed the WBI to have a full-body pat-down, despite the fact that the infernal machine actually TELLS you where the anomaly is on the victim, er perp, er, suspect, er, traveler. But with such a high rate of anomalies, TSA found it absolutely impractical to continue that practice, so they caved a little - based solely on their own desire to do as little actual work as possible at all times, IMHO - and instituted the target-area pat-down. While less of a sexual assault than a simple assault, the target area pat-down is still disgusting and still a violation of the 4th Amendment when done without cause. Yet it's being perpetrated on millions of people per day. Last time I flew, I watched the WBI I had just gone through while I was putting my shoes and belt back on, and it was alarming for about 1/3 the scans, causing in-place target area pat-downs on every alarming traveler. I was incensed when I saw a pair of little elderly ladies in the 80s getting their legs rubbed. Neither, apparently, actually had any prohibited items, since they were passed on immediately.

So, while I still go through the MMW, I still have major objections to it, because the scan itself is not, to me, a violation of my rights, but the manner in which the alarms are resolved IS, and the darn things simply don't freakin' work!

My reason, and only reason, for surrender to the ATR is that it reunites me with my stuff faster. If not for the $20K in electronics, I would opt out every time. I still opt out BSX.

As for the image, if they look at mine more harm is done to them than to me.

I'm sure a number of them do enjoy it, but I have been patted down by several screeners who seemed visibly uncomfortable (my subjective opinion) with the palm-up-the-leg and hands-in-the-pants routines. Two cases that come to mind are a 65+ year old male screener who also seemed to have trouble with the bending motions required to do the grope and a younger male screener who based on his accent and mannerisms was very likely Muslim and gave off a vibe that he was not comfortable with having to violate someone like that. I have also seen screeners try to avoid having to do the opt-out-patdown by passing the hot-potato task around to some unlucky screener.

that's been my experience as well. I've never had a woman who seemed like she enjoyed it or even wanted to power-trip. Usually they viewed it as a task they had to perform or as a task they did not really want to perform.

I presume you are calling backscatters nude-o-scopes. I consider them AND MMW nude-o-scopes, because they generate nude images of your body (which is then interpreted by ATR, when present.

Personally, I opt out of both, because I don�t agree with the methodological approach, and it is pretty much all I can do to make it clear that it is not OK to do this to anyone at the checkpoint. I am also considering refusing to remove my shoes (since I�m going to be groped anyway, might as well make a full statement).

Agree. I know the prevailing wisdom is that TSA clerks are pervs that get off on molesting travelers but realistically I think the vast majority are not pervs and really don't like groping same-sex travelers. Thus, every opportunity for a patdown is an opportunity to make the clerk's day much worse. If enough of us opted out all the time maybe more clerks would do the honorable thing and quit their jobs.

That's why a critical strategy for opting out is to exploit this vulnerability in the clerk workforce.

It is not necessary for the ATR computer to generate an image and very likely does not. The analysis of the data can be done numerically. The image was only necessary for the human operator.

It is still an unreasonable search. Looking under ones clothes without a good reason is just wrong, even if it is done electronically.

Actually, what I've read says that the ATR software doesn't look at the image, it looks at the raw scan return data.

In other words, the emitter sends out MMW energy, it bounces off the victim/perp/suspect/traveler, and is received by the scanner. The receivers record a series of data which is most likely a huge pile of numbers.

Those numbers can then be interpolated by the image software to create a digital image, or interpolated by the ATR software to analyze for returns that are not consistent with skin.

Or both, to be honest, since the ATR software was a retrofit; it's entirely possible that the imaging software and hardware is still in place on every MMW unit in the country, and could be activated at any time.

Being a cynic, I am naturally suspicious of anything TSA says. However, being a realist, I realistically doubt that the caliber of person hired nationwide as TSOs could keep it a secret if the perv boxes were still in operation.