In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

If this thing gets put into use, I will never fly again.

zuzu

Pam’s got a post today about a new airport screening device to be put into test by the TSA in Phoenix.

The technology, called backscatter, has been around for several years but has not been widely used in the U.S. as an anti-terrorism tool because of privacy concerns.

Gee, ya think?

71 thoughts on If this thing gets put into use, I will never fly again.

  2. I’m pretty sure some airport considered this pre-9/11 and the plan was scrapped because of public resistance then. It will be interesting to see what happens this time around.

  4. And how long do we think it will be before the TSA is sued for some kind of sexual misconduct?

    Also, aren’t there health risks involved in regular X-rays? Has that issue been addressed?

  5. Cooper is correct – this technology had been considered and rejected prior to (and after) 9/11 because of privacy concerns. I think this shows that officials who live within the security cocoon lose touch with the ‘common people’ as well as their sense of judgement.

    This should be one of those PR blunders that comes once in a while and results in a resignation or two. I would expect that the religious conservatives will have the most trouble with virtual disrobement, and I can’t imagine how this can be required of muslim women without anticipating a court case that can only embarrass the TSA and the Administration.

    Then again, perhaps we could run all the conservative commentators through and if they have anything to back up their big words.

  7. Also, aren’t there health risks involved in regular X-rays? Has that issue been addressed?

    That’s what I’d like to know. I got all kinds of information about x-rays from my orthopedist when he was just shooting my knee. What kind of public health impact will there be with randomly shooting x-rays through everyone?

  8. Apparently (and I am by no means convinced of this, it’s just what I’ve heard) the X-rays used are higher energy than those used in medical imaging, and therefore are more likely to backscatter than to penetrate the skin–that’s how it produces an image of, well, your naked body. My only expertise with high energy X-rays involves their production in the sun’s atmosphere, so I’m not exactly well read as far as their impact on the human body, but I can’t say I’m not nervous about the health implications of all this. I’d really like to see a thorough explanation of the physics of this thing.

  9. If you have a problem with it, ask for a pat-down. Not everyone is able to go through this type of machine, so that will always be an option (at least until security theater ramps up even more).

  10. Also, aren’t there health risks involved in regular X-rays? Has that issue been addressed?

    Well, after reading the article, it appears that only persons who fail the initial screening would be asked to walk through the backscatter X-rays, and that they could refuse the backscatter machine if they consented to a pat-down search instead. In theory at least, one could avoid the radiation exposure.

    Also, interestingly, the backscatter machine would NOT display an image on a screen in the airport terminal – the image would be transmitted to a remote location where a TSA employee would approve or reject the passenger. The idea is that the face in the backscatter image is vague and distorted enough the the remote screener could never match it to an individual. I’m not sure if this set-up will make the machine more or less objectionable to those who are uncomfortable with it. The whole idea doesn’t bother me personally, but enough other women have voiced concerns about it here and at Pandagon for me to decide it stinks.

  11. I’m sure it’ll be real healthy for the TSA employees to be exposed to all that radiation, too.

    But no worries — employees of Homeland Security don’t have the same kinds of employee protection that other federal employees do!

  13. “Excuse me, Miss, but our guy at the scanner says you have a penis. Oh, did I say that too loud? My mistake. Would you step out of line for a moment so we can check a couple of things? …No, this has nothing to do with that memo a couple of years back about how people apparently cross-dressing ought to be searched extra, because they might be terrorists in disguise. We just have a guy who really likes doing pat-downs on your sort of lady. Also, would you be interested in a pamphlet? You probably want to take care of those love handles you hid so well with that–may I say it?–fetching jacket.”

  14. “Excuse me, Miss, but our guy at the scanner says you have a penis. Oh, did I say that too loud? My mistake.”

    Ha! Or how about a certain type of guy going through–“Hey, I know how it looks, but let me assure you, I’m a grower, not a hanger!” Reminds me of the X-Files where they go to an Arctic research lab and have to deal with a parasite of some sort. At one point they have to strip naked to see who has the parasite, and Mulder says, “Now, before any of you pass judgment, may I remind you all that we are at the North Pole?”

  16. Couple that with this and the joy becomes exponential:

    “If an immigrant was ugly, several officers would leave their desks to go behind a screen and laugh at her passport picture. The photo would be copied and pinned up on a wall.”

  17. Other things I’m concerned about:

    1) The TSA has to blur genitals, backside, and nipples. (And faces.) Is that done automatically? How will that work?

    2) They’re broadcasting the image from the security checkpoint to another screening room far off in the airport. What kind of security measures to be in place to ensure those images are transmitted securely?

    3) Are we going to provide TSA agents with any training whatsoever to address the concerns of transgendered passengers?

  18. 1. Haha. Oops, budget cuts.

    2. Sure they are.

    3. Oh, God, I’m rolling here.

    Keep in mind the TSA is basically a glorified security agency. They aren’t highly trained, and their pay reflects that. I’d suspect, too, that they’re not inclined to make waves.

  19. This is what scares me:

    But the TSA said the X-rays will be set up so that the image can be viewed only by a security officer in a remote location. Other passengers, and even the agent at the checkpoint, will not have access to the picture.

    In addition, the system will be configured so that the X-ray will be deleted as soon as the individual steps away from the machine. It will not be stored or available for printing or transmitting, agency spokesman Nico Melendez said.

    You get searched illegally and you have no redress.

  20. Does anybody really believe there is no way to print or retain those images? They are, after all, evidence if the X-rayed person turns out to be doing something illegal. And note the weasel language about the ‘system will be configured’–it’s not that the machines can’t print or save, it’s just that we’ll turn off that setting. Riiight.

  22. Odd how they didn’t use a male subject.

    Actually, if you google for backscatter, you’ll find images of men in which their testes are clearly defined.

  23. Well yeah, evil fizz, that’s what I meant. If you can’t show an image of a guy photographed with that process in public, how can it not be a privacy issue?

  24. If you can’t show an image of a guy photographed with that process in public, how can it not be a privacy issue?

    Ah, it all becomes clear. =)

  25. At the point where they’re going to be using this thing, you’re up for an invasion of privacy anyway. You’ve failed one test or another, and I can see why many people would rather do this than be patted down. And I think the reason they don’t need to save the image is because if you’re carrying a carefully-hidden machete, they’ll probably take it away from you at that point. I just can’t get too worked up about this, really.

  26. The pat downs are procedurally supposed to be by a TSA employee of your same sex, is that right? As a woman, I’ve always had women pat me down, but I’ve never watched the procedure for men. (Wheelchairs don’t go through the scanners.) And, of course, this all gets complicated for transgender folk.

    I see complications with this scatter x-ray machine for all kinds of people with medical implants and prothestics.

  27. Let us not forget, flying is a privilege not a right – or an obligation. If you don’t like the requirements, you can always choose not to fly.

    Of course, if they asked you to strip naked, I would object (or not fly). I’ve always been a shy person but if someone miles away sees the shape of by body (with blurry details) without a facial picture attached, I can live with that if it increases the chances of me living through the flight.

  29. While I’ve never had the full pat-down, I’ve certainly had the upper-body version when my bra set off something (oh, they’ll tell you that your bra won’t set it off, but that doesn’t explain why I’ve been getting snagged for years, depending on airport, from such innocuous combinations of metal as underwires, bra hooks, rivets and zippers).

    All out in full view. And, frankly, I’d rather have a pat-down, which is ephemeral, than one of these scans, which may or may not be saved.

  30. At the point where they’re going to be using this thing, you’re up for an invasion of privacy anyway

    Well, heck, let’s just make people strip and walk through the scanners naked, and submit to an internal examination to make sure they’re not hiding anything dangerous.

  32. This is starting to sound like an Orwellian version of “Would you rather?”

    Would you rather have a naked picture taken of you? Or be groped by a stranger?

  33. I can live with that if it increases the chances of me living through the flight.

    You’re assuming that this technique is actually going to have such an effect. Exactly how many terrorists attacks have we had in US planes involving undetected plastic explosives?

    Just be grateful you’re not an an international traveler.

  34. You’re assuming that this technique is actually going to have such an effect.

    The nasty thing is that we’ll never really know if it has an effect. If it works, the bad guys will choose another technique, hopefully a less effective one, that avoids the scan. The trick is to make terrorism as hard as possible, there is no pratical way to make it impossible.

  35. Just be grateful you’re not an an international traveler.

    Having read the article and being a foreign traveler, I’m confused about what the issue is. This is a site where one man falsely accused of rape, with his life ruined, out of a hundred thousand is considered okay but 1/million caught as potential national security threat is a tragedy. Cry me a river.

  36. This is a site where one man falsely accused of rape, with his life ruined, out of a hundred thousand is considered okay but 1/million caught as potential national security threat is a tragedy.

    Oh, you’re one of *those*.

  39. The nasty thing is that we’ll never really know if it has an effect. If it works, the bad guys will choose another technique, hopefully a less effective one, that avoids the scan. The trick is to make terrorism as hard as possible, there is no pratical way to make it impossible.

    Well, gosh, don’t you think the bad guys have already figured out the holes in the system? I mean, they got boxcutters on planes once. Now, they know that the screeners are looking for gels and shampoos in carryon bags. I’m sure they can figure out some way to get around the security theater surrounding backscatter technology — like, say, not failing the initial screen in the first place.

    A friend of mine who has family in the Israeli military told me about El Al’s screening procedures. They screen everyone, EVERYONE, as a high security risk. I could deal with that, frankly, because it’s applied evenly.

    Also, the security screener job with El Al is considered an entry level job in the Israeli intelligence world. The jobs are low pay but high status, filled by kids recently discharged from the military who want to see the world. Whereas, the US security screeners are both low pay and low status, and there’s nowhere to go.

  40. It’s always exciting to see the appearance of a new troll.

    I assume that you are talking about me. I make a point not to avoid going with the flow just for the sake of doing so – but I never post unless I’ve been reading for at least a few weeks and I never post just to troll. I hate that previous long sentence since it is hard to read but… I actually agree with 50-75% of what is posted on this site (depending on the week).

    I suspect that you are used to anyone not agreeing with the group-think being a troll. Having visited other blogs, I don’t blame you. I am trying to engage – not troll.

  41. The scores are assigned to people entering and leaving the United States after computers assess their travel records, including where they are from, how they paid for tickets, their motor vehicle records, past one-way travel, seating preference and what kind of meal they ordered.

    I’m probably missing something, but is there any reason to take into account what kind of meal they ordered other than religious profiling? Are people who don’t eat salt somehow suspect, or are they just going for the people who ordered the hallal meals?

  42. The trick is to make terrorism as hard as possible, there is no pratical way to make it impossible.

    No. The trick is to minimize the threat of terrorism in a way which reconciles risk with privacy. Look, we utterly fail at keeping drugs and weapons out of prisons, which are supposed to be even more secure than airports. We’re not going to have better luck with the addition of one capriciously utilized new machine. The object is not to make terrorism as hard as possible, just sufficiently difficult to deter the overwhelming majority of would be terrorists.

  43. A friend of mine who has family in the Israeli military told me about El Al’s screening procedures. They screen everyone, EVERYONE, as a high security risk. I could deal with that, frankly, because it’s applied evenly.

    For the last five years the US has had the same number of airplane terrorist attacks as Isreal. You (not you specifically) complain about the security-crap at the airport but you suggest that somehow it would be better if instead of being random it happened to everyone. Somehow I find that logic lacking. Sure it sucks to the the person out of X who has to deal with the extra checks but if 100% are subject to the same screening, either costs will go through the roof or the level of checking will drop.

    As for stopping terrorists, you just need to increase the risk (for them) until they consider other targets.

    Also, the security screener job with El Al is considered an entry level job in the Israeli intelligence world. The jobs are low pay but high status, filled by kids recently discharged from the military who want to see the world. Whereas, the US security screeners are both low pay and low status, and there’s nowhere to go.

    I personally would rather have 10 times the checkers. and check everyone thoroughly. Rotate that group around so the bad guys never know when/where the full-court-press will happen. You can’t protect everywhere all the time. It is a matter of playing with their heads so that they don’t know what is a “safe” target.

  44. is there any reason to take into account what kind of meal they ordered other than religious profiling?

    Well, that would net you Jews, Muslims, and vegetarian/vegans*, all of whom the TSA is certain fit some kind of terrorist profile.

    *Assuming they’re looking for radical environmentalists who have been dubbed domestic terrorists.

  45. For the last five years the US has had the same number of airplane terrorist attacks as Isreal.

    Israel.

    And what happened five years ago? Gosh, what could that be?

    You (not you specifically) complain about the security-crap at the airport but you suggest that somehow it would be better if instead of being random it happened to everyone. Somehow I find that logic lacking.

    Oh, you misunderstand me. The problem isn’t so much that the screening is random vs. mandatory. After all, mice receiving random shocks act just the same as mice receiving shocks all the time.

    The problem is that the “random” screening isn’t random. When, as Sally noted, the screening is based on what kind of meal a passenger ordered, it’s no longer random. It’s profiling, and that’s the kind of thing that winds up missing certain kinds of people because it doesn’t focus on them.

    Truly random screening would be, say, taking every third person in line.

  46. Sure it sucks to the the person out of X who has to deal with the extra checks but if 100% are subject to the same screening, either costs will go through the roof or the level of checking will drop.

    Yeah, and it also sucks to be a part of a profiled group, who are conveniently absent from your analysis.

  47. We’re not going to have better luck with the addition of one capriciously utilized new machine. The object is not to make terrorism as hard as possible, just sufficiently difficult to deter the overwhelming majority of would be terrorists.

    If Ford decided that they were going to skip adding a part to their new car model that would save them 10 million dollars per year but would result in the death of 1 driver per million, how would you feel?

    In the terms of terrorism, it matters less that this kind of system be employed everywhere. It is a matter of creating the image in terrorist’s heads that airplanes aren’t the target that are easy to hit. Even a rotating system would work so that they are never sure what is in place at any given airport.

    Frankly, given the shit everyone gives Bush, the terrorists don’t think that hitting US planes would be easy today.

  48. *Assuming they’re looking for radical environmentalists who have been dubbed domestic terrorists.

    But they have been. Vegan groups were some of those on the FBI watch list, and “radical environmentalists” like ELF have been one of the few groups that have been labeled “terrorist” recently. Even though, you know, people have been ramming their cars into abortion clinics in Iowa.

  49. Sure it sucks to the the person out of X who has to deal with the extra checks but if 100% are subject to the same screening, either costs will go through the roof or the level of checking will drop.

    And that’s where you lose me, and I think most of us, kiddo. Where you attack the crew here for not caring enough to go far enough to stop terrorism, but when it’s suggested everyone, including you, get screened, suddenly the position is different. It’s, “well, look, if everyone got screened, that would be silly. Sucks to be one of those people who has to worry every goddamn day about being singled out and put under everyone else, or who’s treated like a traitor in their own country, or who’s put on display like a circus attraction, but if that’s what it takes for me to be safe, well, ain’t that a shame, huh? I guess I can let them make that sacrifice.”

    I mean, God forbid what happens if people like you run things; whatever terrorist group you’re shaking in your boots over is just going to find someone who looks like you and pass them through every damn checkpoint you please.

  50. If Ford decided that they were going to skip adding a part to their new car model that would save them 10 million dollars per year but would result in the death of 1 driver per million, how would you feel?

    I’d feel like you were a blithering idiot, comparing diverse groups of people to uniform machine parts.

    But hey, what do I know?

  51. The problem is that the “random” screening isn’t random. When, as Sally noted, the screening is based on what kind of meal a passenger ordered, it’s no longer random. It’s profiling, and that’s the kind of thing that winds up missing certain kinds of people because it doesn’t focus on them.

    Truly random screening would be, say, taking every third person in line.

    There is random and there is random. No smart person assumes that terrorists will always assume accepted forms. However wasting time screening my 88 year-old grandmother and feeling her up while letting the 19 year-old male or female (male being more likely) from Iran pass by is silly.

    If you were screening for people who were likely to blow up abortion clinics you would question? White christian males. Why? Because throughout recent history, they are the perpetators. And no one would cry racism on that.

    There is a clear pattern with Islamic terror but we are supposed to limit ourselves to random checking because it makes us feel better about ourselves. You can’t ignore non-obvious targets since they have shown that they actively trying to recruit white females (for example) but concentrating on proven groups is just smart. Spendind 50% on obvious targets and 50% on everyone else would seem like a good balance.

  52. If Ford decided that they were going to skip adding a part to their new car model that would save them 10 million dollars per year but would result in the death of 1 driver per million, how would you feel?

    Well, for starters, I think the collective privacy and dignity of the American people is worth more than 10 million dollars.

  53. There is random and there is random. No smart person assumes that terrorists will always assume accepted forms. However wasting time screening my 88 year-old grandmother and feeling her up while letting the 19 year-old male or female (male being more likely) from Iran pass by is silly.

    The minute you stop screening 88 year old grandmothers is the day that the people who are actually looking to send bombs onto airliners start strapping bombs to 88 year old women. How hard is this to understand?

    OTOH, if every third person gets screened at a level higher than the initial screen, then both the 88-year-old grandmother and the 19-year-old man are going to get caught up at some point.

  54. I’d feel like you were a blithering idiot, comparing diverse groups of people to uniform machine parts.

    But hey, what do I know?

    I’d feel like a “blithering idiot” if I were “comparing diverse groups of people to uniform machine parts”. Luckily, I’m not.

    If you knowingly weaken a system for whatever reason, there are consequences. You may accept that the value of not offending certain people is worth the, admittedly, small increase increase in risk so that they can board your airplane without issue. But there is an increased risk for your good deed. The price of your good deed is paid by all travellers.

    My Ford reference was that security was all about trade-offs. Some of them are uncomfortable. They have to be made but it doesn’t mean we like them. I’m not sure why zuzu assumed that I was comparing people to “uniform machine parts”. For what it is worth, I don’t have a 666 anywhere on my body.

  55. The minute you stop screening 88 year old grandmothers is the day that the people who are actually looking to send bombs onto airliners start strapping bombs to 88 year old women. How hard is this to understand?

    If we can reduce them to having to use old women, we have won. How hard is this to understand?

  56. For what it is worth, I don’t have a 666 anywhere on my body.

    Oooh! Book of Revelations references! We’re skairt!

    Gosh, Eric, maybe you could explain just what you meant by comparing Ford parts to terrorist screening. Because something tells me you know not much at all about either.

  57. If we can reduce them to having to use old women, we have won. How hard is this to understand?

    But planes are still blowing up. So how have we won? They just got smarter.

  58. Um, Eric P? Where on this site did anyone say that it’s ok for men to be falsely accused of rape? Just because feminists oppose the misogynistic shaming of women who claim to have been raped does not mean that we support false accusations.

  59. Last year, flying from San Diego to Seattle after a bike touring trip, I accidentally boarded the plane with my Swiss Army knife in my carry-on. The screeners somehow didn’t catch it, and I had forgotten to switch it into my checked bags. That’s how effective all of these extra security measures have been. Scary. Of course, I’m a young, white-looking woman.

  60. Gosh, Eric, maybe you could explain just what you meant by comparing Ford parts to terrorist screening. Because something tells me you know not much at all about either.

    I do have to go to bed but to keep it simple, it wasn’t about parts but about statistics. At a certain point, you can only spend/allocate so much for safety before the costs get too astronomical. Ford *could* build a completely safe car for a million bucks/machine but no one would drive it. As much as we value safety, there is a trade-off.

    I was never comparing people to car parts – I didn’t answer that part of your post since I assumed you were joking and didn’t actually mean it! My goodness, don’t take this the wrong way but where do you live that assuming something like that for real is considered okay?

  61. Um, Eric P? Where on this site did anyone say that it’s ok for men to be falsely accused of rape? Just because feminists oppose the misogynistic shaming of women who claim to have been raped does not mean that we support false accusations.

    If you believe that the “victim” can never be lying , then there really isn’t any men “falsely accused of rape” are there?

  62. I can’t even believe how off topic this is, and I really apologize, but I can’t help but comment on Eric P’s remarks…

    In a world where women who come forward to say that she has been raped are at some point called a slut and/or blamed for their own “negligence” (leading to the fact that most sexual assaults are unreported), how often do you think women are going to make false accusations and expose themselves to that? I’m certainly not saying that false accusations of rape never ever happen, nor am I saying that the burden of proof should be entirely on the accused rapist. I just think that claiming that women regularly falsely accuse men of rape is ludicrous.

    Not to mention that I imagine that many of the times that men say they have been “falsely” accused of rape, it’s probably because in the mind of the man, it wasn’t rape according to his standards. But that certainly doesn’t mean that it wasn’t rape to the woman, and that’s what matters.

    Okay, sorry for that OT rant, but I couldn’t resist.

  63. At a certain point, you can only spend/allocate so much for safety before the costs get too astronomical.

    And installing this new machinery, as has most of the TSA’s reaction to 9-11, is a perfect example of just that: they’re wasting money, while real security threats go on unchecked. We’re not very good at assessing real risk, as this article in Time pointed out:

    We pride ourselves on being the only species that understands the concept of risk, yet we have a confounding habit of worrying about mere possibilities while ignoring probabilities, building barricades against perceived dangers while leaving ourselves exposed to real ones. Six Muslims traveling from a religious conference were thrown off a plane last week in Minneapolis, Minn., even as unscreened cargo continues to stream into ports on both coasts.

    In other words, you have a far, far, greater chance of drowning in your bathtub than of being falsely accused of rape.

  64. If we can reduce them to having to use old women, we have won. How hard is this to understand?

    Tell that to Israelis who get killed in terrorist attacks committed by women. Steyn’s article’s attention grabber was, after all, about a 64-year-old female suicide bomber.

  65. Re: the strapping bombs to old women issue – this is exactly the type of movement (I won’t call it progress) made in drug importation starting about 15 years ago after the federal sentencing guidelines went into effect. When young men were getting caught too frequently with drug balloons inside of them and suffering long jail sentences, drug importers switched to young, (and sometimes pregnant) women as drug mules, figuring that if they got caught they’d get a lighter sentence. Don’t think that people with enough interest won’t be able to find someone that’s outside the profile to do the work for them.

  66. If you believe that the “victim” can never be lying , then there really isn’t any men “falsely accused of rape” are there?

    Eric, either you provide cites, links and quotes of posts on this site saying that accusers never lie and that men can never be falsely accused of rape, or you drop this issue. Put up or shut up.

    Posts only, not comments. Direct quotes and links, not paraphrases or strawmen.

  68. We really need to turn this into bingo.

    “C’mon, I just need whining about the First Amendment for the win…BINGO!”

  69. Nah, I think you still need some kind of blaming thing going on, too: “Be it on YOUR heads—somehow—–if the terrorists win!” And somehow it’s the fault of women scorned and PCness.

  71. 1) The TSA has to blur genitals, backside, and nipples. (And faces.) Is that done automatically? How will that work?

    I’m sticking the drugs in my asscrack.

    —
    The sensitivity of those scanners is variable. They can be set to detect fillings, so, yeah, they can detect bra hardware. If I were a different person, I would take off my bra with my shoes. However, I am not that person.

Comments are currently closed.