[elliemay]

I just flew out of reagan international airport and they have these new scans. They basically allow security to look at you naked. Not only that, but you have to stand in a very vulnerable position.

Your only other choice is a pat down, in public, by a total stranger. If you decline, you do not get on the plane.

Both of these are very strong triggers for me but I have to travel for my job.

If I felt safer on the plane as a result of this screening, then it might be a different matter, but I don't. I'm still convinced that security is more interested in making sure that you don't bring more than the alloted amount of fluid on the plane than actually keeping it safe.

I mean, they let the guy that tried to blow up Times Square on a plane.

It's just upsetting to me, and a violation of my privacy.

Please don't tell me that it is my choice to fly - it isn't. My only choice is to quit my job or not.

[Vibe]

I'm so sorry you're required to go through something like that to keep your job. I know I would feel very similarly if put in your position. The concept is pretty violating.

However, I didn't think these new security procedures had been implemented in most airports. Are there any other airports within driving distance that you could fly out of? Or am I just out of the loop on this one?

[Fresia]

It is violating, no question there. I'm so sorry you do not have a choice in the matter. I can feel your frustration. I used to have to travel for my job and hated that part of travel too. Any consideration to looking for another job that doesn't require so much travel? Just a thought.

There are no easy answers for airport security. They are always a step behind the cunningness of those who are trying to harm us. I really appreciate security trying to keep us safe but I do wish there was a another way.

[(JD)]

I'm sorry it triggered you. Would it help to know that (according to the TSO) the person who is "with" you at the scanner is not the one viewing you on the scanner? That TSO is supposed to be in a remote area and doesn't actually see who you are, only the scanned image. I think that's about as private as it could be, for having to be.

It would seem terribly embarrassing for everyone if it was like they scan our luggage, standing there viewing and deciding things in front of us! But it isn't supposed to be that way, especially at Reagan, since that was where they demonstrated it first, I think.

I'm more concerned about how they have invaded our privacy over time ... since the 90s I think ... knowing where I go, what I buy, what I view on the internet, sending me ads of competing brands based upon what info they gathered on me, ability to view my home and yard through the satellites, being able to turn the fuel off on my car to make me stop, stuff like that is too much for me to think about!

Glad you were able to do it.

[purple_fins]

ugh..... airport security can be so violating and stressful.
I think Araya had a good point-- about going to an alternate airport, if possible. The east coast has so so many airports that aren't that far from each other-- it's always amazed me since in most places, out in the mid-west and west-- one has to drive(there is sketchy public transportation) two or three hundred miles to get to an alternate airport.

off topic--

being able to turn the fuel off on my car to make me stop,

I've never heard of such a thing! wonder why they don't have that kind of device on the cars where people are being chased by cops, driving 100 mph and sometimes even going the wrong direction.........

[serafim_etal]

Originally Posted by purple_fins

ugh..... airport security can be so violating and stressful.
I think Araya had a good point-- about going to an alternate airport, if possible. The east coast has so so many airports that aren't that far from each other-- it's always amazed me since in most places, out in the mid-west and west-- one has to drive(there is sketchy public transportation) two or three hundred miles to get to an alternate airport.

off topic-- I've never heard of such a thing! wonder why they don't have that kind of device on the cars where people are being chased by cops, driving 100 mph and sometimes even going the wrong direction.........

It's my understanding that only Onstar equipped vehicles are able to be manipulated in this way!

[purple_fins]

Originally Posted by serafim_etal

It's my understanding that only Onstar equipped vehicles are able to be manipulated in this way!

Oh I see-- thank you.
I guess a criminal isn't going to order and pay for Onstar.

[splitimage]

I'm sorry that you find airport security screening triggering. I find it extremely unpleasant and difficult too. But I won't let it stop me from flying. Personally I'd pick the scanner as I'd find that less invasive than a full physical pat down - the person seeing the image, see's your body outline, but not enough to identify you as a person. I find it kind of impersonal really. We have those scanners at my airport too.

When I've had to go throught the full body pat down, i found it helped a bit to try and disscotiate, and pretend it wasn't me that was being touched, it was just something happenning to someone, but it wasn't touching the real me.

Good luck with your future flying.

--splitimage

[Elysium]

This is really irritating and triggering to me too. I realize they are doing this for our safety, but I don't see how it makes things any safer really. I haven't noticed a decrease in how many airline bombings or hi-jackings have taken place. All I've noticed is how many times I had to buy a new tube of toothpaste when I got to where I was going because they made me throw it out at the airport because it was 1/2 an ounce to much.

Not to make light of your post, but I think next time I fly, if I have to go through one of these new scanner things, I'm going to make sure to wear a strap on dildo under my clothes!!

Give them a little something to talk about!!

[elliemay]

THanks all. I considered getting "SCAN THIS" tatooed in metallic ink on my stomach, but I think that might be a little drastic.

It's just something I'm going to have to put up with.

I'm with you Elysium, they are hyper-vigilant with those liquids. Heaven forbid you have an ounce too much.

As for the poster who noted the overall decline in privacy over the years. Sure, I'm upset with that too.

However, I would note that these scanners are the first things I've encountered that actually, IMO, invade my person. Not what I do, or buy, or where I go.

To me, the single most fundamental civil right is the privacy of my person. That's just my opinion, others may disagree, and I see their point as well.

I just think this has gone a bit too far with minimal benefit to my personal protection. I mean it's common knowledge these scanners are out there, so people who wish to do harm will simply find another way to do it.

[sanityseeker]

I am with you ellemay. I had to fly to Vegas a few weeks ago and we intentionally went to a small airport to avoid the scanners at the the larger one. The real irony is that cargo is not put through the same careful inspection. It was reported recently that frieght customers pressure the airlines to move their goods as quickly as possible and that means avioding tight inspections of what is being shipped. Its crazy because most of the airline bombs that took down planes.... eg the Air India bombing.... the bombs were in the cargo. Not on a passenger.

The body scanning is just a ruse to make us think we are flying safer. Not true.

[(JD)]

Yes, it's annoying anyway, to have privacy invaded (and to think they won't catch the bad guys anyway...) We have to be careful as to how far we let them go, "in the interest of our safety" as governments world-wide are known to overstep their boundaries.

As for the cars that are shut off? That's nearly any car with a GPS in them now, from the factory, read this for a new take on why: http://autos.aol.com/article/engine-shut-off-systems/