Plan to.

Flying together with the boyfriend in May. He will also be declining such.

Sadly, we both get targeted for secondaries quite often. Me, when I cannot remove my shoes due to a disability (though when he flies with me, that's not a problem, but I still do refuse to let my bag-o-prescriptions out of my sight, which has caused issues in the past), and him, because he's the size of a large, adult yeti. It puts people on edge.

So San Bernardino County here in CA is set to ban registered sex offenders from driving neighborhood ice cream trucks--but that's OK, because that same population is probably now scheming to get hired as backscatter operators.

I'm just waiting for the first case of this to pop up--"Hey, how come every time a junior-high tour group comes through, that guy wants to go run the backscatter machine?" :eek:

It's not out of the realm of possibility:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12302041/

But... the TSA would never hire sex offenders. They do background checks! :rolleyes:

(Kip Hawley, the "leader" of the TSA, is a disgusting shoe pervert and he's still employed.)

SchmeckFlyer, we're in violent agreement about the (lack of) health risks, but I disagree about the technology TSA is proposing. (And I know you didn't mention MRI but someone else did in terms of risking exposure to an insulin pump.)

The NYT article you quoted also said: "Officials intend to try other alternatives, like a so-called millimeter wave machine that uses harmless radio waves, instead of X-rays, to do a full body scan" and the TSA article has the same phrase "harmless radio waves".

Millimetre-wave (mm-wave) scanners are radio. They're much closer in frequency to other radio devices than to x-rays or to the infrared spectrum used for cameras.

In the same units:
Mobile phones, WiFi: 1 - 5 GHz
(Some) satellite systems: 10 - 40 GHz
mm-wave scanners: 100 - 200 GHz
infrared camera: 20,000 - 40,000 GHz
x-rays: 30 million - 3 trillion GHz

x-rays penetrate skin and mm-waves don't, mainly due to the frequency difference. Radiowaves from mobile phones or a TV transmitter go through your clothes; visible light doesn't, infrared is partially blocked. mm-wave frequencies are used for scanners because they go through clothing but not skin. The power in mm-waves is also much less than in medical x-rays, but that's not the point.

My expertise is at the radio end of the spectrum so I'm not going to get into the debate about x-ray dosages and health effect. But x-rays and above are classed as "ionising radiation" because they can detach electrons from atoms. Radio, including mm-wave, is non-ionising. Clothing has very different dielectric properties than skin (unless you're wearing a recently-dead animal :D) so it doesn't follow that waves through clothing=waves through body.

As I said before, it's possible to do mm-wave scans by just measuring the reflected mm-wave energy from sunlight, or even (!) by measuring the mm-wave energy that you, as a warm object, are emitting. This is slow, however, and therefore impractical for airport screening. Using a low-powered mm-wave source to illuminate you and measuring the reflection is like using a flash camera rather than waiting for a time-exposure. From memory, the transmit power is roughly the same as a mobile phone.

There are good reasons to be concerned about these scanners: privacy issues and how detected objects will be resolved. Objecting on the basis of inappropriate comparisons with x-rays is not going to help the overall argument.

I didn't choose the name "Radiogirl" because I like pop music. I've been to scientific talks about mm-wave scanners, although I have no commercial interest in them or in any security-related products.

Again, while I appreciate all the scientific explanations, no one is yet able to confirm that these machines emit waves at the frequency and power advertised - that in fact they are as safe as the government claims.

Why? Because all of the information the public has on these machines has been released by the government and its test lab - none of these machines (to my knowledge) have been released to a full independent lab, acting in the public interest, to verify the authenticity of the claims, audit the machine's output and analyze the real effect on bare skin.

Your theories on millimeter wave might be accurate, but it does not mean that THIS machine actually complies with what you posit about the technology itself. The power output claimed by the government might be a fraction of the real output this machine is capable of producing.

I simply cannot trust the claims of Sandia Labs and the TSA until these machines are released for public audit, and an independent entity has the opportunity to run spot checks on the output of the machines when they go into the airports.

Then it would have been Radiogrrl. :)

I still think the bigger issue is this:

No one has the right to strip search you without probable cause, and flying does NOT constitute probable cause. This seeing of us naked, though, IS a strip search.

My personal beliefs do not even permit me to wear pants. I don't own a single pair to be worn as clothing (I do have tight ski pants to wear under skirts though, but would never, ever wear them without the skirt--they just look like thick, black tights). Why would I willingly allow a member of this government to see my outline like that?

My boyfriend and I were laughing about this tonight. He exclaimed, "If I don't get to see you that way, nobody does!"

We'll be waiting for a full report of the new 'experience'!

Dammit, birdstrike, that was my punchline! :mad:

You can strip search without probable cause, although limited in nature. You can be strip searched at the border without PC, although reasonable articulable suspicion is necessary, if memory serves.

PC is the level of suspicion for arrest. If I can arrest you, I don't need to strip search you.

As for aviation, I think it will have to be tested in court.

Under what circumstances can you strip search me without either probable cause (pat down search only), a warrant or an arrest?

Ditto. KleineFrau, you strike me as someone who takes absolutely no crap. I can't wait to hear what happens the first time someone tries to pull some of this on you!

Mike

As mentioned, a border search. Apparently, also, this new technology (which is equivalent of a strip search in most ways) is also good to go in airport screening, although it hasn't passed the judicial test yet.

And, apparently, might have been able to be used nearly everywhere else according to this article: WSJ Subscription required

Just define airport searches as "domestic military operation" and *bingo* you're in.