No More TSA "Opt Out"

jhooper · Wed Dec 23, 2015 11:56 pm

Sorry if it's already posted, but I couldn't find it. Just read on cnn.com that there is no longer the option of "opting out" from the body scanner. They can now direct you to go through the advanced imaging technology whether you want to or not.

I figured we'd get to this point eventually. They just had to do it incrementally.

Thoughts?

cedarjet · Wed Dec 23, 2015 11:57 pm

How bad are those things? The guys who make them must be frequent fliers, if they were really dangerous, would they allow them?

IndianicWorld · Wed Dec 23, 2015 11:59 pm

Seems strange people could opt out anyway.

What were valid reasons for opting out?

HPAEAA · Thu Dec 24, 2015 1:01 am

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 2):

Seems strange people could opt out anyway.

What were valid reasons for opting out?

For some it was privacy concerns, others were considered about the regular doses of radiatioN.

IndianicWorld · Thu Dec 24, 2015 1:07 am

Quoting HPAEAA (Reply 3):
For some it was privacy concerns, others were considered about the regular doses of radiatioN.

Unless there was some medically certified reason why this would be harmful to a person then I wouldn't have thought any opt-out clause should be made available.

Good to see the rules being tightened up.

deltaffindfw · Thu Dec 24, 2015 1:12 am

Remember, in the beginning, the software showed your exact body. So, the TSA people could see the size of your "package" or breasts very clearly. Of course, the software is now fixed to show a cartoon figure.

Also, the old scanners did have conflicting stories about the radiation levels it emitted. Those machines are gone from all major airports. There might be a few very small airports that still have them. The new ones are deemed safe.

HPAEAA · Thu Dec 24, 2015 1:18 am

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 4):
Unless there was some medically certified reason why this would be harmful to a person then I wouldn't have thought any opt-out clause should be made available.

When they rolled them out there wasn't a lot of studies on the effects of exposure to these levels of radiation short term or long term, honestly don't know if they have done any more but the opt out was to allow people a choice given there is no evidence either way. Let's put it this way, you don't always have to prove harm, sometimes when exposing millions to something you want to prove its safe before it becomes mandatory. Not sure the reason they gave for eliminating- the pat downs are pretty thorough.. Even wondered if I should call the next day a few times lol.

northwestEWR · Thu Dec 24, 2015 1:53 am

How does this effect Known Crewmembers? Are they going to be forced through the body scanners?

AAlaxfan · Thu Dec 24, 2015 1:55 am

Here's the link to the article:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/23/travel...irport-screening-change/index.html

Cubsrule · Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:01 am

I'm not sure that this change will effect things much at all. The article suggests that "mandated screening" is not going to happen all the time, and the best way to avoid the scanners remains enrolling in Precheck, which is not difficult these days.

northwestEWR · Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:16 am

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 9):
best way to avoid the scanners remains enrolling in Precheck, which is not difficult these days.

I've been noticing the body scanners more and more in the PreCheck line. Sadly.

nry · Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:24 am

Even in Pre-check they do random scanning. I got picked twice in the last month (SFO and LAX).

I've always opted out. Having a wife who is a radiologist has made me wary of any additional radiation (it's all cumulative). It's definitely more inconvenient because they have to pat you down. Sad to see it go if true.

nyc2theworld · Thu Dec 24, 2015 4:22 am

Quoting northwestEWR (Reply 7):
How does this effect Known Crewmembers? Are they going to be forced through the body scanners?

They aren't now. I don't see why this would change.

Cubsrule · Thu Dec 24, 2015 4:30 am

Quoting northwestEWR (Reply 10):
I've been noticing the body scanners more and more in the PreCheck line. Sadly.

Most Precheck lines have them and have always had them. Random selectees and those who cannot get through the mag go through them.

Quoting nry (Reply 11):
Having a wife who is a radiologist has made me wary of any additional radiation (it's all cumulative).

What evidence exists that millimeter wave radiation has health effects? Backscatter machines have been gone for more than two years.

RWA380 · Thu Dec 24, 2015 5:15 am

Quoting jhooper (Thread starter):
Sorry if it's already posted, but I couldn't find it. Just read on cnn.com that there is no longer the option of "opting out" from the body scanner. They can now direct you to go through the advanced imaging technology whether you want to or not

A voluntary opt out is such a small percentage of flyers, who wants to be groped by a handsy TSA agent, when they can raise their arms once & get it over with? But there are for real medical reasons why people are unable to use them.

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 2):
Seems strange people could opt out anyway

My good friend has a pacemaker & is medically unable to to pass through these scanners. There is ALWAYS some TSA agent unfamiliar with the request or process & of course as persons in his party, we all get extra screening.

Quoting HPAEAA (Reply 3):

For some it was privacy concerns, others were considered about the regular doses of radiatioN

I'm sure many will see this as another right being taken away from them, can't please everyone I guess.

sccutler · Thu Dec 24, 2015 6:08 am

It's symptom of resistance to an inefficient and unnecessary agency.

Mir · Thu Dec 24, 2015 6:12 am

Quoting nry (Reply 11):
It's definitely more inconvenient because they have to pat you down.

The patdown doesn't take long, and since sometimes you can skip the line for the detector by requesting the patdown it's never really been an inconvenience for me. I'm disappointed to see the option go away.

-Mir

jetwet1 · Thu Dec 24, 2015 6:34 am

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 14):
My good friend has a pacemaker & is medically unable to to pass through these scanners. There is ALWAYS some TSA agent unfamiliar with the request or process & of course as persons in his party, we all get extra screening.

Very true, though as ever it seems to be certain airports that stick out, yes FLL i'm looking at you.

opethfan · Thu Dec 24, 2015 6:44 am

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 4):
Good to see the rules being tightened up.

Why? What does the scanner achieve, and what does it achieve that a pat down does not?

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 13):
What evidence exists that millimeter wave radiation has health effects? Backscatter machines have been gone for more than two years.

Well there have been countless things over the years that have had health effects unforseen for many many years. Smoking, excessive red meat, certain sugars and sweeteners, medications (birth control patches and thalidomide come to mind), etc. And last I checked, the backscatter machines were being moved to smaller airports as they were being moved out of the majors getting MMW.

Quoting deltaffindfw (Reply 5):
Remember, in the beginning, the software showed your exact body. So, the TSA people could see the size of your "package" or breasts very clearly. Of course, the software is now fixed to show a cartoon figure.

It's a software "skin" - the image is still taken and presumably saved. The output just shows the dummy man.

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 14):
I'm sure many will see this as another right being taken away from them, can't please everyone I guess.

Well who does it please? The companies that profit from these machines and the corrupt politicians they lobby. No one else.

Quoting Mir (Reply 16):
The patdown doesn't take long, and since sometimes you can skip the line for the detector by requesting the patdown it's never really been an inconvenience for me. I'm disappointed to see the option go away.

It's always fun to ask for the freedom fondle and subtly stick the package out.

My advice to anyone who doesn't approve: go to the pharmacy and buy a $10 arm sling. Boom, medical exception.

Edit: here is a link to the restraining order lawsuit that has been filed in the US First Circuit Court of Appeals: https://plus.google.com/+saizai/posts/ZDxd9Y6dTow

[Edited 2015-12-23 22:55:09]

rbavfan · Thu Dec 24, 2015 10:55 am

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 14):

The newer machines do not affect pacemakers nor did the old ones. It's not like the old pacemakers and microwave ovens.

csavel · Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:07 pm

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 1):
How bad are those things? The guys who make them must be frequent fliers, if they were really dangerous, would they allow them?

They guys who make them fly on private jets. After all let us not forget that a former head of Homeland Security just "happened" to become a lobbyist for a company who made the original machines. While I am picking on him, let's be frank, I am sure *every* high exec ot a federal agency belonging to *both* parties does the same thing. Kind of the reason for taking that job in the first place. Follow the money as they said in All the President's men.

The contractor-industrial complex!

apfpilot · Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:38 pm

I used to opt out because I didn't like the backscatter machines (which don't really exist anymore anyway) and because they didn't have the ATD, and I frankly didn't trust the security protocols they had to delete the images. Now that they have ATD and just MW machines I have no problem going through them. Now however I have precheck so it is pretty much a moot point.

LTU932 · Thu Dec 24, 2015 1:25 pm

I don't mind those machines anymore. In DFW, I went through them everytime, the same last week in HAM. I didn't have to go through them in EWR, but if told by TSA, I would have gone through one of them no questions asked.

In recent years, all those reports from the media about health concerns on things like red meat, the AIT bodyscanners, etc. have come off very tabloid-ish, even from legit media sources like tagesschau.de, so I take things with a grain of salt. Yes, health concerns may exist, but they're not immediately life threatening.

N1120A · Thu Dec 24, 2015 1:49 pm

This is a disgusting, unamerican and clear cut violation of human rights and needs to be stopped. The opt-out was the only reason there wasn't yet a legal challenge. That is probably going to change.

N766UA · Thu Dec 24, 2015 2:02 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):

Seems to me the "human rights" issue here is my right to not be blown out of the sky.

Seriously, you feel like getting your junk groped by a mallcop was less "unamerican?" (Whatever that even is?)

[Edited 2015-12-24 06:03:46]

delimit · Thu Dec 24, 2015 2:06 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
This is a disgusting, unamerican and clear cut violation of human rights and needs to be stopped.

How so?

apfpilot · Thu Dec 24, 2015 2:18 pm

Quoting N766UA (Reply 24):
Seems to me the "human rights" issue here is my right to not be blown out of the sky.

Seriously, you feel like getting your junk groped by a mallcop was less "unamerican?" (Whatever that even is?)

So how far are you willing to forgo the 4th amendment and the 5th amendment to avoid that?

delimit · Thu Dec 24, 2015 2:34 pm

Quoting apfpilot (Reply 26):
So how far are you willing to forgo the 4th amendment and the 5th amendment to avoid that?

It really depends on your definition of unreasonable. I don't see how you can make an argument that these scanners cross that line when the old metal detectors don't. As for the 5th, huh?

N766UA · Thu Dec 24, 2015 2:39 pm

Quoting apfpilot (Reply 26):

Don't start throwing that stuff at me. You aren't an expert on the constitution, especially not on where or how it pertains to air travel in the 21st century. (Seriously, the 5th?)

If you want to argue that you don't like the scanners, that's completely fine. If you want to argue that security in general is a farse, that's also fine, and I agree. But seriously I'm sick of all the "constitutional experts" in this country who think saying the word "amendment" makes them sound intelligent.

Oh, and to answer your question: to the extent neccessary to keep me from hitting a building at 500 knots, or falling 35,000 feet whilst on fire. THAT is my line.

[Edited 2015-12-24 06:43:38]

Armodeen · Thu Dec 24, 2015 2:43 pm

[quote=IndianicWorld,reply=4]
Unless there was some medically certified reason why this would be harmful to a person then I wouldn't have thought any opt-out clause should be made available.

Not directly at you but the thread in general...

So human rights don't matter when it comes to body scanners, but HANDS OFF OUR GUNS, its our constitutional right!!

apfpilot · Thu Dec 24, 2015 2:48 pm

Quoting delimit (Reply 27):
As for the 5th, huh?

Quoting N766UA (Reply 28):
(Seriously, the 5th?)

Due Process...

As I said above I have no issues with the scanners and I go through them when needed. I just get a bit peeved at people who claim that they don't care about things as long as they "prevent terrorism" What if the government mandated that everyone had to take an approved reversible sleeping pill before they could get on an airplane, it would eliminate all air terrorism but would that be too far?

delimit · Thu Dec 24, 2015 2:54 pm

How does this change even remotely infringe on someone's right to due process?

Quoting apfpilot (Reply 30):
I just get a bit peeved at people who claim that they don't care about things as long as they "prevent terrorism"

100% agree, and I definitely see the issues with regards to the 4th. My problem is that I don't see the scanners as any more infringing than the old detectors. The efficacy of the entire process of searching passengers is a different discussion.

Preventing terror is the modern equivalent of crying wolf.

delimit · Thu Dec 24, 2015 2:58 pm

Quoting N766UA (Reply 28):
Don't start throwing that stuff at me. You aren't an expert on the constitution, especially not on where or how it pertains to air travel in the 21st century. (Seriously, the 5th?)

Stop burying your head in the sand. The document should be read and interpreted by every member of the population. It's part of being a responsible member of a democracy.

Quoting N766UA (Reply 28):
Oh, and to answer your question: to the extent neccessary to keep me from hitting a building at 500 knots, or falling 35,000 feet whilst on fire. THAT is my line.

The government needs to provide actual justification to the population for infringing on its rights and [email protected]! is not sufficient justification.

I take issue with people using the change from the old detectors to the scanners because what they are really objecting to is the entire search process, which is a different discussion. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be talking about that.

apfpilot · Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:01 pm

Quoting delimit (Reply 31):

How does this change even remotely infringe on someone's right to due process?

There is an inherent liberty interest in the right to travel. Denying someone that because they won't submit to a body scan is a deprivation of liberty without due process of law. HAVING said that I do think that the government meets the burden required to deprive that with something as innocuous as AIT but it is always important to be cognizant of that right and be wary of it being infringed.

apfpilot · Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:03 pm

Quoting delimit (Reply 32):

I take issue with people using the change from the old detectors to the scanners because what they are really objecting to is the entire search process, which is a different discussion. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be talking about that.

I can see someone making a difference between the metal detectors which are a detection not a search, and the AIT (or pat down) which by their very nature are searches. If Stop and Frisk is unconstitutional one could argue why isn't AIT? (again note I think the government interest and the minimal invasiveness of the AIT is justified.)

delimit · Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:04 pm

Quoting apfpilot (Reply 33):
There is an inherent liberty interest in the right to travel.

What is being changed is the method of the search; not the search itself.

Quoting apfpilot (Reply 33):
Denying someone that because they won't submit to a body scan is a deprivation of liberty without due process of law.

You're denying them access to a method of travel; not denying their right to do so.

Quoting apfpilot (Reply 33):
HAVING said that I do think that the government meets the burden required to deprive that with something as innocuous as AIT but it is always important to be cognizant of that right and be wary of it being infringed.

100% agree.

Cubsrule · Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:06 pm

Quoting opethfan (Reply 18):
Well there have been countless things over the years that have had health effects unforseen for many many years. Smoking, excessive red meat, certain sugars and sweeteners, medications (birth control patches and thalidomide come to mind), etc.

Right, but there's a scientific reason each of them is harmful (and, in most cases, scientists sounding the alarm long before general acceptance). What is there with MMW?

Quoting opethfan (Reply 18):
And last I checked, the backscatter machines were being moved to smaller airports as they were being moved out of the majors getting MMW.

Rapiscan could not comply with the statutory directive on "masking" body traits, so the backscatter machines are now illegal. I can't swear that they are all physically gone, but I don't think anyone is using them in the States.

apfpilot · Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm

Quoting delimit (Reply 35):
You're denying them access to a method of travel; not denying their right to do so.

You are however undoubtedly putting a substantial burden on that right. Rights don't have to be completely removed for the taking to be unconstitutional. Look at Heller v. DC or McDonald v. Chicago. The 2A right wasn't completely denied infact but was for all practical purposes.

delimit · Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:12 pm

Quoting apfpilot (Reply 37):

You are however undoubtedly putting a substantial burden on that right. Rights don't have to be completely removed for the taking to be unconstitutional. Look at Heller v. DC or McDonald v. Chicago. The 2A right wasn't completely denied infact but was for all practical purposes.

It's true; although Heller is massively questionable in a lot of people's minds. That said, there's enough ambiguity there that both of us could argue about it till we're blue in the face and not get anywhere.

As for undue burden; it's an interesting conversation seeing as no one had access to this means of travel when the document guaranteeing our rights was written.

copter808 · Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:18 pm

Quoting deltaffindfw (Reply 5):
The new ones are deemed safe.

Deemed safe by WHO??

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 13):
What evidence exists that millimeter wave radiation has health effects?

What evidence exists that they are SAFE?

apfpilot · Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:25 pm

Quoting delimit (Reply 38):
It's true; although Heller is massively questionable in a lot of people's minds.

How about Thomas' dissent in McDonald arguing against incorporation completely!

1337Delta764 · Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:50 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 36):
Rapiscan could not comply with the statutory directive on "masking" body traits, so the backscatter machines are now illegal. I can't swear that they are all physically gone, but I don't think anyone is using them in the States.

Note that the TSA did sign a contract with AS&E for a potential new backscatter machine (with appropriate privacy software installed), however, I don't know what became of this contract. Around the same time, a contract was also signed with Smiths Detection for another model of MMW scanner in addition to the L-3 scanners already deployed.

delimit · Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:55 pm

Quoting apfpilot (Reply 40):
How about Thomas' dissent in McDonald arguing against incorporation completely!

Was that Thomas? I thought he was part of the main opinion.

einsteinboricua · Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:59 pm

Quoting HPAEAA (Reply 3):
others were considered about the regular doses of radiatioN.

Quoting copter808 (Reply 39):
What evidence exists that they are SAFE?

The fact that you get a higher dose of radiation undergoing X-rays and MRI should be a good indicator of just how negligible the effects from the scanners are. The day I see people asking to be cut open to avoid x-rays is the day I'll relent and say that they should not permit people to go through scanners. In the meantime, it's just hysteria with absolutely no foundation.

apfpilot · Thu Dec 24, 2015 4:01 pm

Quoting delimit (Reply 42):
Was that Thomas? I thought he was part of the main opinion.

Whoops meant concurrence.

delimit · Thu Dec 24, 2015 4:06 pm

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 43):
The fact that you get a higher dose of radiation undergoing X-rays and MRI should be a good indicator of just how negligible the effects from the scanners are.

To be fair, very few people get MRIs or X-Rays daily. It's not a good response to worries about the long term effects of airport scanners.

Quoting apfpilot (Reply 44):
Whoops meant concurrence.

I tend to avoid reading Thomas's opinions. My blood pressure can't take it. Scalia is at least entertaining.

[Edited 2015-12-24 08:08:18]

hiflyeras · Thu Dec 24, 2015 4:13 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
This is a disgusting, unamerican and clear cut violation of human rights and needs to be stopped. The opt-out was the only reason there wasn't yet a legal challenge. That is probably going to change.

At first I thought this was said in jest...but then turned on the news. Scary times.

Quoting apfpilot (Reply 33):
There is an inherent liberty interest in the right to travel. Denying someone that because they won't submit to a body scan is a deprivation of liberty without due process of law.

You're free to take a train, drive, take a bus. But of course all of them will likely require you to show identification at some point in your journey or, in the case of renting a car, not only prove your age but also carry a credit card. Ted Cruz will likely have you paying in gold bars. Is it also an undue burden to carry government issued I.D.?

Quoting delimit (Reply 35):
You're denying them access to a method of travel; not denying their right to do so.

Quoting delimit (Reply 38):
As for undue burden; it's an interesting conversation seeing as no one had access to this means of travel when the document guaranteeing our rights was written.

Just like Scalia and Thomas believe that the US Constitution is written in the blood of the founders and can't be interpreted for the 21st Century. Pardon me while I go load my musket to defend everyone's freedoms.

MKIAZ · Thu Dec 24, 2015 4:14 pm

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 43):
The fact that you get a higher dose of radiation undergoing X-rays and MRI should be a good indicator of just how negligible the effects from the scanners are

MRI's don't produce ionizing radiation.

I think we'll suddenly see a surge of people who can't lift their arms above their head.

nkops · Thu Dec 24, 2015 4:18 pm

The way I understood it, is only selctees cannot opt out anymore

Cubsrule · Thu Dec 24, 2015 4:47 pm

Quoting copter808 (Reply 39):
What evidence exists that they are SAFE?

If you won't do things that are not proven safe, then you shouldn't fly (due to radiation exposure, which can be and has been quantified) or drive a car (one of the most dangerous things most people do on a regular basis). If that's how you want to live, then that's your prerogative. I choose to live my life differently.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net