You absolutely can do a search without touching the body. I have passed through checkpoints many times without being touched. Are you sayig that on those occasions I could have been hiding something dangerous that would have gone undetected?

It makes no sense to subject some passengers to humiliating invasive searches of their private body parts while others walk on through. Terrorists will find the path of least resistance, so the only people who will be subject to being touched in sensitive places are the ones without evil intent.

There are many people with access to airplanes who are never searched at all. What sense does it make to go completely overboard with one group of people while letting ramp workers skip even a simple metal detector?

no what I am saying is that if you beep at the walk thru and go to secondary and a area beeps with the hand wand the only way to clear the area is to touch the area. Yes one biggest hole at the airport is under the airport The personnel that have SIDA access do not get the background check that we as TSA employees get. That area is left to police by the agency that uses the area

I never beep at the walk thru. I get sent to secondary when my airline SSSS'es me. I think even most TSA apologists admit that SSSS is an inane waste of resources, but that doesn't help me when I'm getting repeatedly groped at the airport. TSA agents should not be permitted to touch me.

No airport screener ever touched me pre-9/11, and there's no excuse for it now.

I know that some people believe that TSA should never touch passengers. I know that some poeple say that better technology is needed. It would be nice to have the technology as seen in "Total Recall" where you can see any items without seeing anatomical parts of the passenger. I'm sure it may happen eventually. Even with that technology, the cost alone would be catastrophic. Picture at least 1 scanner in 429 airports. Actually I think there are more airports now, around 434. Busier airports would need more than one. Life would be good. But until it happens, we must resort to the "Stone Age" of screening so I have heard it called. That means, anytime the handwand alarms, a physical inspection of the area is required. Some screeners allow the courtesy of allowing the passenger to remove any items that may have caused that alarm, then re-wand the area. I'm in favor of it and I encourage it. This is the only method I can see to help alleviate some passengers frustrations with us. But, with all we try to do to be as helpful as possible and get the passengers through will as little of an inconvinience as possible, there are those that wish to have their 15 minutes of fame and scream Rodney King as they go through. They may play the race card, or the age card, or the sex card. I believe that TSA screeners do not look at every passenger as a terrorist but as someone that is flying. I stress innocent until proven guilty. But there is that procedure between the ticket counter and the gate that has to happen. I cannot apologize for the inconvinience of screening but I can say that I understand your discontent. I fly too and have had the SSSS's before.

Thanks, kmitchell74. I still have to wonder: why would this invasive form of screening be of any security value when there are many people in the secured area who have not undergone it? Forget the distinction between SSSS and not SSSS; there are airport contractors and ramp workers and cargo truck drivers who have access but haven't been searched at all. The terrorists are not dumb. They will find the weakest link. There is zero security value in doing an Uber-search of only some people. You only guarantee that every single person being Uber-searched is an innocent traveler.

Given that the airport is only as secure as its least intensively searched occupant, why can't the TSA just equalize the searches so everyone gets the same search? And I mean: everyone.

But those people have had background checks done or they are being escorted by someone who has. I'm just glad to see that TSA makes their own screeners go through the checkpoints just like passengers, because I always thought one of THEM might be a potential (disgruntled) risk.

You make mention of an invasive search. What is that you speak of? Surely you're not calling secondary screening invasive?!? I mean, I had my butt grazed ever-so slightly by a wand once, but it was nothing to write home about. My manhood is still unscathed. :D

Hi AirMan,

Background checks are clearly not an indication of whether someone is a risk. Mohamed Atta got a student visa renewal, which required a background check, after 9/11. Bureaucratic nonsense is just not predictive of future behavior.

And yes, I call secondary screening invasive, because when I get secondary screening I have to submit to having my breasts felt by a stranger. I am also put at risk of intentional or unintentional touching of other private parts of my body, and my womanhood is NOT unscathed.

We all know that airport employees going beyond the checkpoint are screened, yet those who work out on the tarmac are not. I agree with you in the fact that I would also like to see ALL airport employees screened, but at what cost? There is a big difference in a background checked employee versus a non-background checked passenger. Who do you HONESTLY think would be the bigger threat? I'll take my chances on the employee whose name and criminal history is clean versus a passenger who may have just escaped the looney bin! The alternative is to pour more money into TSA to screen everybody, and to that I say :td:.

You're right, they (non-TSA employees) get a REAL background check. It is the law! A few months back, LAX and other airport systems paid out of their own budgets to expediate the process of conducting background checks on the TSA.