Excellent post. Thank you.

Ok, but why was and is anyone for any reason able to opt out of WTMD screening and receive a pat down? You stated a medical reason, but didn't cover any other example. Why?

But my point is this: the opt out is not policy regarding AIT. It was and is a policy that pre-dates the use of AIT, thus, it can be cincluded it has Littleton do with the AIT.

IMO this is a very interesting topic, and I think you've articulated something well with this pair of reasons. TSA has very cleverly created a scheme where they can claim that the majority of scans and pat-downs were passenger choice. This excuse could be used to defend either an anti-patdown lawsuit or an anti-scanner lawsuit or liability, but not both.

The courts in the Gilmore case already set a precedent for using passenger choice as an excuse to not put a stop to TSA antics, in that a passenger could choose not to show ID and accept SSSSelectee SSSScreening, therefore the ID check was a choice.

Where TSA's cleverness breaks down is on the passengers who still get an "enhanced" or "resolution" patdown after going through the scanners. E.g., should people with ostomy bags be required to undergo invasive personal touching as a condition of flying?

I do think one reason you missed is that there are some people who cannot use the scanner (e.g., can't lift arms), and TSA knows that they can't officially be in the business of diagnosing medical problems, so they have to make it a passenger choice. The long-standing (but little known) "anyone can opt out of the WTMD" policy would be for the same reasons.

If you look at the big picture, TSA has actually been *very* careful to either cover up their policies or create an illusion of choice when it comes to some of their most egregious violations. I believe that their legal and PR departments both know full well that mandatory-ID checks would not be tolerated (at least 6-10 years ago), so they created the no-ID SSSS choice and now the no-ID 20-questions choice. And I think they knew full well that mandatory virtual strip searches would not be tolerated.

Where they may have erred is that they've now created a scheme where certain populations get mandatory very personal physical searches that hopefully some court will rule goes beyond what is reasonable without any individualized suspicion other than a medical condition and possessing an airline ticket.

I don't recall any discusssion, signage, or advisement that a person could Opt Out of the WTMD if they just wanted to.

Another case of TSA not being upfront with the public?

I think the basis reason for the opt out is that they knew, ahead of time, a certain percentage of the population, including airline employees, would object to being exposed to the radiation emitted by these machines, on an infrequent, but especially frequent basis.

I'm sure there were legal strategies, but the hit to the airline industry, and the political fallout, AND the resulting scrutiny of the safety of the machines would have become a major situation in the US.

Instead, they just offer a "pat down", and people "choose" to be felt up, rather than "safely irradiated", and it takes the charge out of the issue.

It was a clever choice, and it's worked.

I'm just waiting for them to start saying that the nudie-scope kills germs and that by using the nudie-scope they are making flights healthier.

Unfortunately the response from many TSOs appears to be the same whether one 'opts out' for medical reasons or for other reasons. I don't actually consider it 'opting out' when one cannot use the WBI because one cannot raise ones arms, stand for the required period of time, follow directions, etc.

Yet there doesn't seem to be any differentiation in my experience; the hostile response that many report here for non-medical opting out is what I experience when I explain that I am unable to use the machine. I would still choose to opt out even if I could use the machine, but I am unable to do so, and TSA doesn't seem to have considered that and doesn't seem to have a protocol in place as how to deal with those passengers. (They may in fact have a protocol, but it doesn't appear to have been understood by the TSOs I have encountered)

The average poor shmuck that has to grab your genitals is probably not thrilled about it, but their management, who doesn't have to do it themselves, got you to consent to a search -- either the virtual strip search or the hands on version. The option of 'no search' wasn't selected. Because it means not flying today.

Keeping the opt-out means trained staff who can perform the grope as backup for the nude-o-scope once the WMD's are removed. If the nude-o-scope fails, then they pat down everyone as a fall back to technology. It also can be used at airports that don't have the nude-o-scope yet. Send a TSA screener or two, and a box of gloves and you're done. The next generation search may be the nude-o-scope followed by the grope, because we can't be too careful. As soon as 100% of screeners are trained in the process. The choice then, might be the grope before the xray, or after.

Is the public just being softened up for the next big thing? This may not be by design -- more likely it's just by accident -- try a new technique, and if there's not enough objection incorporate it into the ceremony. The current version of the pat down was test marketed at two airports before it was rolled out everywhere else. Why? No one objected enough.

Grope or Xray - the perception that the public has a choice is maintained.

Go back 10 years - would what's going on now, have been accepted then, if someone proposed it?

Fast forward 10 years and use your imagination for what's to come: An extension of today's airport environment into federal buildings, courthouses, other modes of transportation, K-12 schools and public events (sporting, concerts, political events) by private and public organizations. All places where at least some of them have at least WMD/HHMD today, but didn't have it some number of years ago. Will most of the public accept that? Out of an abundance of caution? If it happens verrrrry sloooooowly? For the children? Yes, they will and they have accepted it.

The airport environment will probably get more intrusive. It seems to be the testing ground for what a sample of the population will tolerate, before it escapes from there and spreads to other venues.

Getting slightly more fantastic, future airport 'tests' might include be DNA sampling ("We're just holding onto it for now, in case we need it later. It'll just take a second. Say ah") more intrusive searches becoming the norm. Maybe photo boarding passes you get to wear around your neck.

Some schools are requiring students to use clear back packs (google clear back pack) Is clear carry on luggage in the future? Prisons already have sit-and-go detectors to detect items inserted into the body. How long before the airport does? It's only a few seconds, and it'll come to pass when the next generation bomber decides to go internal. In-body prosthesis? Good luck with that.

The technology to do all of this exists, it just hasn't been widely implemented. Yet.

10 years from now, airport gropes may be looked back with a fond remembrance, compared to what's happening then.

Opting out or not, may not be the key issue right now.

My guess is that the TSA is offering the 'choice', hoping to stave off court battles or losing court decisions, until the technology evolves into something more acceptable.

For example, if there was a MMW scan (virtually all science agrees there is no danger from microwave exposure at this level), and it was completely automated image detection (no person sees the images, perhaps a stick figure with an area circled), and the images were never stored, I think most people would consider that a 'reasonable' search that is roughly equivalent to a DUI checkpoint. If TSA could accomplish this type of search without making you remove EVERYTHING from your pockets, that would be doubleplusgood as far as Congress is concerned.

I know some people on this forum would not agree that this level of search was reasonable or Constitutional, but I think it would eliminate the objections from 99.9% of American travelers.

I do sometimes wonder if the lack of a trusted traveler program is because it would open a can of worms by either
a) having a disparate impact based on race, religion or gender
b) codifying TSA's infractions against the traditional right-to-interstate-travel, enabling an easy lawsuit

But I'm guessing it's probably bureaucratic paralysis and incompetence rather than deep analysis of civil rights. :D

If 10 years ago you told people they'd be waiting in line without shoes throwing away their shampoo and water while being analyzed by pre-crime mindreaders as a man kneels in front of them to feel their genitals they'd say you were a loon. If you continued on about scanners that allow the government to see them naked they probably would have locked you in a mental institution.

Passengers have always had options. If you did not want to pass through the WTMD, then you could have the full-body pat down as an alternative screening method. Same applies with the AIT.

The key to the AIT is that you must be physically capable of standing still for a brief amount of time in order to be scanned. People who are not physically capable are NOT ELIGIBLE to undergo AIT screening. This is not the same as the opt-out. People who ARE physically capable but decline to undergo the screening have opted out and undergo the newer version of the full-body pat down as an alternative screening method.

The people who typically opted out of WTMD screening were those with pace makers (most current pace makers are perfectly safe for WTMD screening but TSA encourages pace maker patients to avoid WTMD screening) and pregnant women. There is no risk to pregnant women; however, I can understand why pregnant women would want to avoid ANY risk no matter how remote. The last category of people who were patted down in lieu of undergoing WTMD screening were those who physically cannot pass through the WTMD like passengers with disabilities. That's about as simple as I can explain it. No twists, turns or hidden agendas here. The point is that passengers have to undergo a screening process.

Why then do so many TSOs treat us as if we are choosing to opt-out? I am not referring to the pat down, but rather being treated with aggression, the shouting of 'I got an opt out!' or similar, and the generally unpleasant behaviour that some of us do encounter?

Not everyone who is ineligible to use the AIT has a clearly visible reason. Yet even on the days when it must be obvious to even the most obtuse observer, I have been treated in that fashion.

And until recently I tended to side more with the TSOs and didn't have real issues at the checkpoint, and don't approach with an attitude or react with verbal insults etc.

I'm genuinely curious as to how this is trained to the actual TSOs at the checkpoint, as it seems that there is a general lack of training around diversity and special needs.

When you say that these folks in the past were patted down, you should point out that this was the old fairly reasonable frisk, not the new butt caresses and sex organ rubdowns. The old was tolerable, the new one is demeaning and abusive. So please don't talk about them as if they are the same thing.

^^^
good post. However, I think that the percentage of government-trusters is very fragile. QE 1, 2, and soon to be QE 3 has pretty much finished our currency, yet in this Hobson's choice the economy collapses without it. The consequence is being seen in the collapsing value of the dollar (several year low, and now accelerating in its decline, today plunging below 74: with 72 being the tipping point), which is why you have rapidly rising prices (oil, other resources, food), and public statements from foreign governments (China) that they can buy no more of our debt or absorb more of our currency as foreign reserves.

Things are rolling to their conclusion a lot faster than most folks realize. There will be little love left for the federal government when this happens, and no money. No money to play silly games at airports. No money to buy and staff scanners. a lot less pax. of those that are left, a much higher percentage of angry pax.

Those who think the TSA has set up a new and lasting status quo are very badly mistaken.

Based on your knowledge, when can we expect a rash of skin cancer cases showing up for all those TSA agents standing near these machines all day? One year? Two, three? That would do it.

Here is my understanding of the -exact- mechanics involved here:

- Ionizing radiation is radiation with a wavelength and sufficient energy to knock atoms off of molecules.

- When atoms are knocked off a molecule, the molecule becomes something new, a new chemical.

- If this occurs in DNA, i.e., knocks an atom off a DNA molecule then, in rare cases, the cell will survive and replicate with "broken DNA" (mutagenic).

- Usually your body just kills the changed cell or does something else with it, but in some cases the cell can survive and go on to replicate and this now becomes a cancer. This is why sometimes tumors have teeth in them and hair and stuff, the DNA got all FUBAR and starts making different kinds of cells/etc., including new ones that don't work right or may replicate very quickly (taking resources away from healthy cells).

- Also, some of these "new chemicals" themselves are carcinogenic (alter other molecules because they aren't balanced with their bonds/etc and are unstable). These chemicals can sit in your body a long time, maybe you never remove them.

- It only takes one unlucky ionization of a molecule and you've got a fatal cancer.

- Even if they have got the dosage sooo low, like, let's figure the maximum best case of a single x-ray particle per like 1 square millimeter of your body, they are still doing it to your whole body. The images I've seen indicate the dosage is probably a lot higher than this? 100,000 x-ray particles per square MM? (This is a total guess) ... a lot of the x-rays are going to be absorbed, and they need them to bounce off the molecules in your body to get an image.

The above is basically my understanding of the direct process of these cancers.

Now, in terms of timelines, do you see why it's so hard to predict? From what I've heard, the typical "gestation period" for a cancer can be as long as 20 years.

This is why it makes me so angry they are putting children in these things ... they have 80 years of life before some of these effects can turn into cancer, and their WHOLE BODY inside and out is exposed to these including vital organs because they are so skinny.

The other thing I really don't like about the scanners is the wavelengths ... they are specifically tuned to bound off skin ... that means specifically ionizing soft-tissues. It's my understanding that things like bone x-rays and things, most of these go right through your body without hitting anything and only some of them hit bone. But these soft tissue x-rays? They are going to be hitting all of your skin and bouncing off.

The bottom line is that there is no such thing as a safe exposure to radiation, every additional exposure increases your risk of DNA mutagenesis or these toxic chemicals being left in your body/etc.

And if you look at the only known image that was an official one, you can see that where the guy had clothing on, the xrays bounced off the actual skin layer, but where he didn't have clothing (his face/etc) it actually imaged his skull and had near total absorption in the cheeks.

Your face and any exposed skin gets hit really pretty hard by these machines.

Radiation should only be used from the perspective of risk analysis. Does the benefit outweigh the risks? In the case of these machines the existing estimates indicate as many or more people will get cancer from these machines as terrorists kill per year. This effectively DOUBLES our risk of being killed while flying over terrorism alone.

And then you weigh whether the machines actually help reduce the risk of terrorism and I don't think a case can be made that they do because anyone can walk right through these machines with a tampon/butt bomb.

And that's another part that I don't like. The specs I've read indicate the machines can put out something like 10,000X the radiation. What for? Are they planning to just have some camel jockey spinning a knob and giving you a full body CT-Scan (massive radiation) just because he wants to look inside your anus?

Also, the TSA is materially misrepresenting reality when it says these machines are the same as radiation in flight. Cosmic radiation overwhelmingly goes right through the hull of the plane and your body without intersecting anything. Indeed quarks actually go right through the whole planet 50% of the time because they are so small. Soft-tissue intersecting radiation is going to be overwhelmingly blocked by the hull of the plane and the shielding they build into it. Hard radiation will get through, but it's not of the same properties that intersect your skin.

I'm not saying cosmic radiation isn't a cancer risk (it is and there is a lot of it at high altitude), but the TSA is materially misrepresenting reality when comparing the two. Different particles, different wavelengths/etc., they all have different effects and the sort of radiation they are using in these machines, my personal view is that it may be lower dosage than a bone x-ray, however the properties of these x-rays intersecting soft tissue are much much higher risk particles, maybe 1000X higher risk per particle because of the properties (total guess on my part).

Bottom line ... just opt-out (especially your children), sexual assault is indisputably the safer choice.

You know, I've come to a sobering conclusion recently. When I look at our encroaching police state abuses, and the sheeple I realize that no one ever fights back against human rights abuses. Not even Americans. As long as you abuse a small percentage of your country at a time and spread the abuse throughout people groups, we'll just take it. Revolutions, and/or true political change only happen over money. Once the majority have financial problems, the government is in trouble. Until then, everyone is happy to bend over, or ignore the oppression of the next guy.