You've probably heard about the "Don't Touch My Junk" guy, who refused to allow airport security officers to give him a full-body pat down -- which includes a "groin check."John Tyner scored a viral video hit by using his cell phone to record the incident, which had Transportation Security Administration officials remove him from the boarding area and then threaten to fine him $10,000.
The reason Tyner was to be subjected to such an invasive procedure was that he declined an offer to subject himself to another one: the X-ray body scan. It is a new airport screening technology that takes such a vivid picture through a person's clothing that it comes into conflict with child porn laws.
As of now, there are about 200 of these machines in U.S. airports. By the end of 2011, that number will be closer to 1,000.
Having a detailed, weirdly colored picture of you in your birthday suit taken (and then probably stored in some federal database for all of eternity) is the future of air travel. Are you OK with this new anti-terrorism measure, or are you peeved, like Tyner?
Read on for the pros and cons of the TSA's new security measure.
| I guess -- we live in a post-9/11 world | |
|---|---|
| Nope -- this is a step too far |
I Have Nothing to Hide
• As Tyner learned, the alternative to the X-ray is a pat-down. So, unless you have a fetish involving being touched by uniformed people making right around the minimum wage, you should probably just submit to the new technology.
• It will probably spin off a new sub-genre of porn, which will make you feel better about your own relatively normal porn-watching habits.
• You know those times when you swallow your car keys in a drunken haze and then completely forget about it? Well, now one trip to the airport will provide resolution to that confusing (and all-too-common) scenario.
I'm With the "Don't Touch My Junk" Guy
• Some suspect the TSA is so gung ho about the X-ray scanners because ex–Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff consults for the company that makes them. What's going to happen if current Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano links up with a firm that makes a body-cavity search machine after she leaves her post?
• Whenever we sacrifice our civil liberties -- and in this case, our dignity -- in the name of preventing terrorism, the terrorists win. (Little-known fact: Whenever someone uses this rhetorical device, a puppy dies.)
• Do we really think this is going to stop the bad guys' next big plot?


























Fast Food CEO Shuts Down Struggling Branch During 'Undercover Boss' Episode
Fla. School Bus Dispatcher Suspended With Pay After Allegedly Aiding Bank Robbery
This is why you need a dash cam on at all times [UPDATE]
The Hidden $1,000 Bonus Obama Put in Your Paycheck
House of the Day: David Hyde Pierce's Spanish Palace
Money and Power: The Richest and Poorest U.S. Presidents
Women Guitarist Dead: Christopher Reimer, 26, Dies in His Sleep
Art and Superheroines: When Over-Sexualization Kills the Story [Sex]
The Tax Break That Millions Miss Out On
Replacements' Slim Dunlap Hospitalized After Stroke







Comments:
Add a comment
Tuesday 16 November
By StarThrower50
My problem with the increasing level of security deemed necessary on commercial flights is two- or perhaps threefold. First, either method is far more invasive than the metal detectors we've endured since 9/11. And second, I'm not sure that the increased security will be any more effective than previous methods, at least not enough to warrant the loss of personal privacy. I do NOT want my nude image in a federal database for centuries! At the very worst, these images should be fleeting -- expunged forever the minute the flight lands safely. And if that's not possible, then find a method that is. You've stopped when you found a half-vast method which comes up wanting in too many categories. add to this, the fact that frequent flyers will be exposed to massive amounts of potentially cancer- (etc.) causing radiation over their flying careers. Each tiny dose imparts just a little more DNA-breaking damage which will cumulatively take its toll. Find a better way to keep us safer in the skies.
Reply
Tuesday 16 November
By Yvonne
I just went through the humiliating experience of a total "pat down". It was the most uncomfortable situations I've ever been in at the airport. Touching my breasts, being made to show my bare stomach and waistband, and the most humiliating...touching near my "nether regions"! All because I have an artificial knee. That means EVERY time I travel by air from various airports, I will have to endure this treatment! I would much rather them have an x-ray of me in my birthday suit, than to go through another "pat down".
Reply
Wednesday 17 November
By metric152
The part I have an issue with is walking through an x-ray scanner. When you goto the hospital they put a lead vest on you. I know it's not the same strength, but I'm still not comfortable with a low-level of it. Not enough testing has been done with it.
Reply
Thursday 18 November
By Jean
Once again a company is making a fortune with this technology. We have to take their word for it that the low level of radiation emitted is safe. We have to take the TSA's word for it that these full body images are being destroyed. We are not safer when people are being randomly screened. This is not being used on people with a certain profile because we don't want to offend anyone. People who fly , especially citizens flying domestically have already revealed their identity, etc. to the airlines unlike people coming across our borders many of them illegally. We need to secure our borders and that is not being done by Homeland Security.
Reply
Tuesday 14 December
By Rita
I had a full pat down in Frankfurt, Germany and my husband was scanned with the body scanner. Neither of which were a bid deal. If they can catch one person from blowing up a plane it is very worth it to me. The full pat down was not vulgar and I was not "Groped". I don't see what the big problem is.
Reply