Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Female Passengers Say They Were Targeted For TSA Body Scanners

Posted by Soulskill on from the when-there's-something-to-abuse-somebody-will-abuse-it dept.

wiedzmin writes "TSA agents in Dallas singled out female passengers to undergo screening in a body scanner, according to complaints filed by several women who said they felt the screeners intentionally targeted them to view their bodies. Allegedly, women with 'cute bodies' were directed through the body scanners up to three times over by female agents, who appeared to be acting on a request from male agents viewing the scans in a separate room. Apparently this was done because the scans were 'blurry,' possibly due to autofocus problems with agents' smartphone cameras." After hearing the claims, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) announced plans to introduce legislation that would require the presence of "passenger advocates" at airports to deal with complaints like these.

18 of 572 comments (clear)

  1. And yet by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Interesting

    People are surprised that when you take marginally skilled, semi-officious private sector workers and give them civil service protection behavior that was an instant firable offense becomes something you have to endure with a smile...

    1. Re:And yet by twotailakitsune · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Ben and Teller bullshit had a show that talked about this. They had random people on the street sit in a van and keep a eye on a car. They had to video recorded when the car left.

      Next door some people was having fake sex. What to guess where the random people pointed the cam?

    2. Re:And yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Remove the people in the "back room", and have the back of the person doing the scanning visible to the people waiting in line to be scanned...AND have the display from the scan visible to those waiting. (We say the scan doesn't show anything indecent, so this will demonstrate that fact to the general public.) With this solution, the person won't get to see the person entering the scanner. And don't have the output display visible to anyone who is selecting who goes through the scanner. (although when I've flown, everyone was automatically directed to the scans, unless they opted out of the scan and for the full body feel up.)

      I'd also recommend that all baggage handling/inspecting areas have windows that the general flying public can watch...that should eliminate theft by baggage scanners and handlers. And with minimal cost.

  2. OPT OUT by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Folks, you can ask not to go through the scanners. Just say "OPT OUT". You get the pat down, of course, but from my experience, it seems to bother them more than it bothers me. And it sends a message.

    I've never trusted TSA to verify the safety of those machines. I'll take the grope rather than trust an unregulated scanner that bombards my body with who knows what power and type of radio or ionizing radiation.

    1. Re:OPT OUT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      +1 to this. I do it all the time. It's not a big deal, and in reality isn't as invasive as the scanners. At one airport I thought I would be able to go through the standard metal detector until and agent told me to go through the scanners. I told them "Opt Out" and was patted down instead. While not great, pat downs are not that bad, and I know my body isn't subjected to any health risks. A colleague traveling with me had to go through the scanner and was also selected for a pat down.

    2. Re:OPT OUT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ultimate opt-out: Learn to fly, buy a plane, and use airfields that don't have the TSA. There are at least 4000 airports in the US. Chances are, you'll find one closer to where you wanted to go. Added bonus - go where you want to whenever you feel like it. Day trip to the beach? Done!

      If you say flying is too expensive, consider that you can get an airworthy 2-seater for about $15,000. Some airports even have free parking for both your car and the plane. Hangar space can be found for $200/mo similar to urban car garages.

    3. Re:OPT OUT by SteveFoerster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I do this, and take the opportunity to tell the TSA guy that he really ought to do some Google searches for "terahertz radiation" if he's going to be exposed to it all day. So far all the guys I've said that too seemed interested, perhaps more so because I was actually friendly and not calling them sexual predators like most people seem to. If they won't stand next to those machines, those machines can't be there.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    4. Re:OPT OUT by lorenlal · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not acceptable because my wife was directed to a scanner, and opted for the pat down. She said it ended up being horrible, and she felt quite violated. Like other posters said, this is a case where *neither* option actually increases security. I honestly believe that the pat down is designed to be so intrusive that the scanner ends up being no so bad in comparison.

    5. Re:OPT OUT by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is a non-violence approach as best as Ghandi himself would have come up with. If the everyone opted for a pat down, then there would be massive queues as the TSA sods could not keep up with the folks in line, that gives them bad press - which is the last thing they want coming up to an election.

      A possibly more effective solution: Refuse to fly. Take a bus, take a train, drive, or forgo travel, but don't pay into the system by buying a plane ticket.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    6. Re:OPT OUT by Tsingi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A possibly more effective solution: Refuse to fly. Take a bus, take a train, drive, or forgo travel, but don't pay into the system by buying a plane ticket.

      Or, don't fly to the US. They don't like us foreigners there anyway.

    7. Re:OPT OUT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're making the assumption that the machines are configured / calibrated correctly. I've seen no evidence to indicate that's a valid assumption.

    8. Re:OPT OUT by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      or just one skydiving trip...

      (oblig: notsureifserious.jpg)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    9. Re:OPT OUT by mr1911 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is quite likely you do not get the same patdown as an attractive woman does. It is also quite likely that an invasive patdown will not trigger memories of other invasive, unwelcome groping you may have had in the past, which is not as uncommon of an issue as you might think.

      Either way, the scanners and groping do nothing to preserve or enhance the safety of the flying public. It all needs to be done away with immediately.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    10. Re:OPT OUT by dfm3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I live in outsde the US, but I can only implore you folks in the US to fight tooth and nail for all you can. Beat them at their own game - you have the numbers and you have the media there more than ready to take any hot load that will make the masses agitated. Use it to your (and by that defnition, everybody's) best advatage.

      If only I had a mod point. As someone who lives in the US but travels abroad, I understand where you're coming from. We in the states have a habit of exporting the worst of our bad practices (McDonalds, anyone?) and privacy intrusions to countries who are all too happy to adopt them minus the fleeting oversight and alternatives that we still get to enjoy here. For example, I've heard that more than a few countries (though I don't recall which) are in the process of implementing the scanners minus the option of a pat down - either you get scanned or you don't fly. I guarantee that TSA would strip away our options in a heartbeat if there weren't a significant percentage of people who would raise a fuss too loud to be ignored (I'm not talking about Joe Passenger, but people with more clout such as airline employees and a few politicians). Even now we have limited options - opt out, write to our representatives - but rest assured there are still those of us who are doing what we can to stand up for our privacy. Hopefully if enough stories like this one get publicized, public opinion will swing in the direction of respecting the privacy and dignity of those of us who just want to exercise our right to travel.

  3. Re:Absolutely by PlatyPaul · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Agreed 100%. Statistically speaking, the best approach is to only scan men, as the vast majority of (current) terrorists are male, and the available pool of potential future women recruits is (currently) smaller.

    Is it too crazy to expect that sampling for security should match the actual observed distribution (with a uniform prior)?

    --
    Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
  4. Sorry, but I have to call BS on the claims by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a former screener, I have always been candid about what is wrong with the TSA, its policies, practices and personnel. I know the people at the TSA and most of them are pretty much exactly as most people assume/presume. However, there is one thing that female screeners don't do and that's "act at the request of male screeners." That pure paranoia here. There is simply NO WAY it is happening at the request of male screeners. That said, I also know there is a large portion of homosexuals (both male and female) working for the TSA. They are largely the same demographic that occupy the pedestrian ranks of other "security professional organizations." So if the rate of "targeting cute bodied females" is unusually higher than other groups, then it is likely done for their own reasons, not at the request of others.

  5. Let the airlines be the advocates by mrxak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How about letting the airlines themselves be the passenger advocates? They're the ones with the financial incentive to get security under control, not some new federal agency, or worse yet, some new division of TSA with the same bosses. Plant some airline employees next to the radiation machines all day long for a while, and maybe some of them will talk to their superiors in the airlines and get the industry to start lobbying to end the TSA.

    My security theater strategy is to just chat up the initial intake guy who looks at my ID. I'm friendly, polite, and they just wave me through with no extra security check needed. If they ever do pick me for the scanner, I plan to take the pat down, and talk about cancer clusters already detected, and radiation levels being higher than advertised from the scanners.

    I think the pat down is just as atrocious as the scanner, and I fly a lot less now than I did before these new procedures got implemented, but the reality is you really can't drive everywhere. I'm not going to refuse both the scanner and the pat down, but I'm definitely not going to willingly take on more radiation exposure than I absolutely have to.

    --
    -mrxak
    Onions Will Kill You
  6. Re:Beyond popular belief... by AaronLS · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's like 15 9/11's a year! So we should be launching some cruise missiles at that traffic fatality problem right about now.