Apropos today's introduction of full-body scanners at Logan Field in Boston:
These machines, which provide naked images of travelers, will soon operate at the nation's
largest airports. But I refuse to go through a full-body scan. When the scanners arrive at O'Hare, I'll start flying from Midway. When they come to Midway, I'll use Gary-Chicago, or take the train, or ride an intercity bus. (If I've figured out these evasions, don't you suppose Al Qaeda has, too?)
Relatively few travelers seem to share my qualms. They tell TV interviewers they're
willing and eager to be screened using "enhanced" security measures (echoes of "enhanced
interrogation techniques"). "Anything," said one man, "so long as my family is safe." Really?
How about having a government official shove his finger up your butt? Because that's what's
next. If full-body scanning interferes with concealing explosives in underwear, a determined
bomber will conceal them in his rectum. Presto: body-cavity searches for all.
Surprisingly, a pair of otherwise civil-libertarian friends shrugged when they heard this rant.
"I'm not with you on this one," they said. They cited the impersonality and brevity and
disposability of the images. (I'm skeptical of the proposition that the government will
collect information and throw it away: since when?) They reduced me to inarticulate dudgeon, because I couldn't imagine how they could fail to share a response I felt so viscerally.
And then I realized: they're men. They haven't spent their entire lives bracing themselves
against precisely the violation of being stripped naked by a stranger. As far back as grammar
school, it was accepted practice in my middle-class neighborhood for a boy to threaten to grab a girl walking home and strip her. I don't know if this was ever actually done, but the mere threat was effective in keeping girls frightened and under control. And, as Susan Brownmiller established, the threat of rape-including the notion if not the actuality of nakedness-is the pervasive device by which men keep women in line.
So public nakedness may put a man in mind of swim class or an Army physical: an annoyance, perhaps, but not a threat. It puts a woman in mind of the fear she carries around all the time, whether parking in a garage or going to sleep in a house with an unbarred back door or heading out for an evening. And that's why I suspect most women know intuitively that full-body scans are the bridge too far: the privacy violation that simply can't be tolerated.
I've been fortunate. I've never been stripped or raped. And I don't propose to let a government agent be the one to end my lucky streak.
Already people in airports give me dirty looks when I complain (sotto voce) about having to take off my shoes and my coat and my belt while accounting to a stranger for my underwire bra. My critics seem to imagine I'm objecting to the inconvenience. Wrong: I'm objecting because the Constitution says I'm entitled to be secure in my person from unreasonable searches, and because I know --and I know the TSA knows -- that it has no earthly reason to search me, or most of the other people it holds hostage at the X-ray machine.
Instead, why not try making sure the no-fly list is up to date? (The existence of that list demonstrates that even Homeland Security regards the rest of us as yes-flies.) Try screening with people instead of machines, through conversations with those who pay cash or have no luggage or buy a one-way ticket. And while you're at it, try educating flight attendants about the difference between someone trying to detonate an explosive and someone engaging in prayer.
Freedom requires a limit on governmental interference with travel. We knew that when the Berlin Wall separated the two halves of Germany. We know that about people prevented from leaving North Korea today. Now we just have to apply it to ourselves.
The whole TSA system is an elaborate -- and stupid -- charade; but til now, I've put up with it. That's over. Being looked at naked by guards is bad enough when it's done to prisoners of war. I'm not an enemy combatant -- not a combatant of any kind, not an enemy of any kind -- and I won't allow myself to be treated like a prisoner in my own country.
No one else should either. If every woman who shares my gut response to the full-body scan reports that to her Congressman-or Congresswoman!-this nonsense would end. What are we waiting for?
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
And I also remember those threats of being grabbed & stripped from school days. Our lots will be equal when men are as likely to be raped as women are, a sorry state. Where are the men who object to this outragous scanning?
Now I feel like that sense of pride, and the security I felt just thinking about it, is crumbling all around me. The control I took back for myself is now being taken away from me and I feel like I am being attacked all over again. I didn't fight that guy off to be forced to go through this now.
The lack of control is central to someone who has been assaulted. Now we are told that we either go through the body scanners or be subjected to a pat-down. Neither is acceptable to me.
I feel comfortable with being in my one-piece suit in front of people as I worked as a lifeguard/swim instructor and still swim on a regular basis. The next time I fly through an airport where these scanners are in place I will respectfully request the TSA get what they need through a visual exam of me in my one-piece bathing suit. This will give me the sense of control I need and hopefully ensure them that I am not a threat.
If they do not comply, I will not fly.
However, I recently discovered that one of the airports I frequent is on the list to get a full body scan shortly. When I read the name of that airport, the mental exercise became a reality and I am now sure that I cannot put myself through this ordeal. As the author suggests, I intuitively knew that this was not right.
I worked for many years with rape victims. I can only imagine the trauma that this measure would bring to anyone who has ever been sexually assaulted. Talk about re-victimizing the victim!
Yes, this is a feminist issue. Yes, this is a human issue. Yes, this is truly insane. Not only should we be contacting our congresswomen/congressmen, we should make it known that we will boycott any aiport that is considering installing a full body scanner. What a violation of our civil liberties.
The argument that flying is a choice is specious at best. So, anytime the government intrudes on us we should lay down our beliefs of individual liberty because it is a choice to engage in that behavior? When I think it's a reasonable trade-off and that it is essential to safety/security, sure.... In this case, no way!!! Keep speaking the truth, Ms. Kleiman!
Except that it's not. I'm no great fan of the full body scan thing or the TSA in general, but there is no right to fly. It IS a choice, often the most logistically sensible choice, but a choice. An airline can refuse to allow you to board for a variety of reasons. There is no right to fly.
Women visit male doctors, have male nurses attend to them when necessary. They are thankful for the stranger (cab driver, policeman or helpful citizen) who helps deliver a baby who arrives too soon. But what is being discussed here is nothing more than false modesty. No woman has anything about their body that most men don't know about - some are better endowed than others, just as men are.
We see women in teensie-weenie bikinis that leave nothing to the imagination - and think nothing of it. We see almost naked women on the covers of magazines at the check-out counters - and think nothing of it. We watch naked men and women in sex scenes on TV and in the movies - and think nothing of it. We even see full frontage naked men in movies - and think nothing of it. The e-mails that I receive often show lots more of someone than I care to see - but in today's world I take it for granted - so think nothing of it.
Please, can someone explain to this old woman - what is so scary or invasive with this method of screening?
You argue that because some people are comfortable appearing nude or nearly nude in public or on film, that it is acceptable to photograph everyone sans clothes. That reality show personalities should set the standard for appropriate behavior. Who would make a better Emily Post, Snookie or Paris Hilton?
Then there are the reports that the scanners are not effective: http://www.americablog.com/2010/01/german-tv-highlights-failings-of-body.html; that there may be health risks associated with exposure to radiation: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601209&sid=aoG.YbbvnkzU; and that images are not destroyed as promised: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/10/shah-rukh-khan-claims-nak_n_457200.html.
Enjoy the excuse to flaunt "what your momma gave you." I will opt for the pat down.
The pictures obtained by the scanners are really little more than blobs. No reasonable person should take offense. If it bothers you so much please don't fly. Don't try to eliminate a legitimate safety device that has the potential to save lives. I personally don't fly anymore (I would in an emergency.) because of the cramped airline seating and the hours wasted at the airport.
I'd say that was a pretty good idea.
Of course, until Amtrak gets the body-scan machines, too.
Here's a solution to all the controversy over full-body scanners at the airports.
Have a booth that you can step into that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have on you.
It would be a win-win for everyone, and there would be none of this crap about racial profiling and this method would eliminate a long and expensive trial. Justice would be quick and swift..
Case Closed!
Your evasion by bus or train is irrelevant for the Islamist living outside North America, i.e. they must fly here. One way they could avoid our security is if they fly to Central America and travel by ground to the USA. They can still do this because our borders are not secure.
> the Constitution says I'm entitled to be secure in my person from unreasonable searches
So you also think that the right to keep and bear arms is inviolate?
> why not try making sure the no-fly list is up to date?
Sure, if there was a retinal scan, fingerprint, or DNA result associated with a name. Also, unlike domain names, there is no universal organization guaranteeing unique names for humans.
> buy a one-way ticket
Remember your previous line about al-Qaeda figuring out evasions? Using a round-trip ticket for a suicide run is often cheaper than buying a one-way ticket, too.
> The whole TSA system is an elaborate -- and stupid -- charade
I agree. Let's assign points for all known suspicious behavior and strip search those that earn 10 points. IRA or ETA member: 10 points. 18-40 years of age: 2 points. Shifty or evasive behavior: 6 points. Traveling from a known terrorist hot-spot: 8 points. No luggage: 2 point. Paid cash: 2 points. Muslim or loudly religious (any faith): 4 points.
i disagree with your notion that this is an unwarranted search by the government. flying in an airplane is a voluntary act. you dont have to do it. if you view this as a violation of your civil rights, then you simply shouldnt fly, which you said you wont.
typical woman...crying about something. LOL THAT WAS A JOKE!
You know the centuries-old tale about the married couple who swapped jobs for a day, and the woman came home with the harvest and found the family goat on the roof, eating the thatch, no food cooked, the dishes unwashed, the baby unfed, and her husband sitting on the unswept floor crying? Now that's a typical man. :-)
JOKE. No?
men and women are not the same. laughing at the differences or even percieved differences is completely fine to me.
if you aint laughing, you aint living. -mencia
On a very fundamental level some people would feel violated by this technology. Often these people have valid and very personal reasons for their reaction. Argue all you like on that thought, but it is not a negotiable point. It is a fact.
If GOPfreedSlaves does not have that gut reaction, then good for him. He has the right to his own reaction and opinion and to dismiss the privacy and health concerns of others. I would suggest that he discuss the matter with some of the women in his life. He might find a different perspective thought-provoking.
Perhaps a more effective use of our efforts would be to focus how to effectively screen passengers while not causing unnecessary trauma and drama.
My job entails extensive domestic and international travel. It is a wonderful job and I would like to keep it. While I usually insist on dinner before being groped, I will opt for the pat down at the airport and continue to register my opposition to these full-body scans.
Safe travels everyone.
As others have said, get over yourself, haven't you everh been to a gym locker room? Besides, the screening is voluntary and you can always opt for a search the old-fashioned, time-consuming way instead. Knock yourself out; I just hope I'm not in line behind you.
The bad part is that attempting to wrap silly protestations like this one in the flag of feminism tends to diminish real feminist concerns in the minds of many.
The argument about the "nakedness" fear of women is also bogus hyperventilation. If only female attendants viewed the female passenger the ACTUAL problem would disappear--but I suspect the author's objections wouldn't go away. This isn't a fear so much as an excuse to be offended.
Finally, the point about more effective screening would be meaningful, if she didn't hide behind the same civil-liberties claims that make effective screening impossible. To really work, middle-eastern and ethnic minorities would have to be DELIBERATELY targeted for additional screening--at least until the ill-intentioned changed their tactics. I don't forsee the author advocating for effective, though intrusive, profiling.
The entire piece rings false.
Meanwhile, strapping big males with no luggage between the ages of 18 and 40 - who would be a bit harder for the TSA to challenge, let's face it - are just fine, thank you very much.
it's 24 hours door to door from one place to another; we can't be taking trains or buses in the US as part of that travel (and anyone who thinks train travel is "comprehensive" in the US has never been to Europe, where public transport actually works).
As she also points out, the right to travel is a civil right. It's a predicate of freedom in western civilisation, and the means of transport don't affect the possession of the right itself.
Ms. Kleiman is quite right: it's an assault, it's a violation of our right to privacy, and to top it off, it's ineffectual.
Namely, the screening IS ineffectual, but your "civil liberties" arguments are PRECISELY why it is ineffective--you foreclose on profiling as a means to targe the "strapping 40-yr old male", and instead the attention is directed to your mother and toddler.
YOUR obstructionism is why screening is necessary in the ineffectual way it is presently conducted.
A full-body-xray, while not fool-proof DOES eliminate the "civil liberties" concerns of the anti-profiler crowd (namely, adverse ethnic selection), but you then decry the invasion of privacy.
Conclusion, TAKE THE BUS.
In what universe? This is the most absurd statement I have read in months.
Whether it is the burqa-wearing women in Afghanistan or elsewhere, there must be enablers, and not just male-gender enablers, of the Taliban.
No matter what excuse is given for the burqa-wearing rules and making the women subject to the switch-carrying Taliban, a purpose for such rules is to subjugate both the women and their relatives, both male and female.
A woman who fails to properly wear a burqa in the presence of a Taliban or a Taliban enabler can be hit by a switch. Once, twice, or as many times as the person carrying the switch wants to hit her. A person carrying a switch is empowered to do so by both the like-minded enablers and any nearby person who is powerless to stop it.
The purpose for the burqa-wearing rules is to demonstrate power. No matter what excuses are given, that is the purpose behind compelling burqa wearing in the Middle-East. There is no doubt that there are female enablers of this as well.
It is foolishness. But enforced foolishness. Elsewhere, in this string of posts, someone wrote,
"If it helps keep me safer I'd stand in the middle of the terminal naked singing I'm a Little Teapot." As absurd as this is, it illustrates that body-scanning rules will be enabled here.