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.

8 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: 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.