
TSA can now force you to go through body scanners [pdf] - aestetix
http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-tsa-pia-32-d-ait.pdf
======
toomuchtodo
Annnnnd now there's no way my pregnant wife is going to travel with me by air.
Thanks security theater!

EDIT: I have TSA Pre via DHS/CBP Global Entry, as does my wife. There should
be no reason for us to go through a body scanner if the TSA and DHS believe
their background check and fingerprinting are effective.

~~~
TallGuyShort
>> There should be no reason for us to go through a body scanner if the TSA
and DHS believe their background check and fingerprinting are effective.

The general concept of security in layers is perfectly reasonable because no
measure can be 100% effective. Combining a few 99% effective measures can get
you acceptably close. We do the same thing in cybersecurity.

That said, the TSA is still dumb because of how arbitrary and unfair the
requirements can be.

~~~
Retric
The problem is there trying to combine 20% effective methods. Last time they
used box cutters, a wooden stake would be just as effective. Or just do
something else, it's not like aircraft are the only thing out there.

The TSA is basically just building a 50 foot fencepost in the middle of
nowhere and pretending people need to climb it instead of walking around.

~~~
Caprinicus
Even bringing a literal gun onto a plane wouldn't help someone hijack it now.
The only reason 9/11 worked was because the threat of it happening was unheard
of, now everyone would swarm them before they had a chance of getting anywhere
near the locked cockpit

------
darkpicnic
My best guess as to why they changed this procedure is not to increase
security (since they know body scanners to be ineffective), but because so
many people were opting out that it was increasing delays. I always opt out
and notice they try to incentivize me by saying "We're really busy right now,
it'll be a while". I always politely wait. Sadly, now that they have this as
an option, I doubt I'll want to do much flying anymore.

~~~
jlgaddis
I opt out every time and it's the same conversation every time.

"Ok, we're gonna have to call somebody over here."

"No problem."

"Well, you might be waiting a while."

"That's show I show up waaay early, I've got plenty of time."

I think it pisses them off, but I don't care. I don't think I've ever waited
more than two or three minutes, anyways.

~~~
darkpicnic
Yep. They also have no system for it. I believe they intentionally don't
create an area for you to wait in, so you feel awkward standing there. Your
stuff often gets sent through the scanner WAY before you actually get a pat
down, so you end up constantly searching for a line of site to the end of the
scanner to make sure your stuff is still there.

~~~
dmitrygr
Put your stuff under the metal table. If they object, tell them to check their
handbook.

They are required to let you keep your eyes on your stuff, if you request
this. When someone is ready for you, you put your stuff on the belt, and then
go get groped.

~~~
nolite
You know where it is in the handbook so we can reference this? (or a link to
an online version)

~~~
dmitrygr
I was once told to say this by a helpful agent and it's worked every time.
Never seen the handbook or any proof of its existence.

------
tjohns
At least the backscatter x-ray machines are gone, now replaced entirely in the
US with millimeter-wave scanners.

Personally, I don't care if somebody's looking at my body on a computer
monitor. However, I do care if I'm being exposed to extra ionizing radiation
for no good reason. Which is why I always opted out of the x-ray machines, but
don't really mind going through millimeter-wave ones.

(Obviously, other folks will feel very different about this. If your concern
is privacy, the millimeter-wave machines aren't much of an improvement --
though I do believe most of the human elements of the system have been
replaced with image recognition on newer versions.)

------
grandalf
I would love to have a job where I got to try to break through all the TSA's
nonsense security.

If I believed any of it was making us safer I'd happily comply, but the whole
process is so ham-handed it's embarrassing.

I brought a small radio transceiver with some coils of wire through recently
and the look on the agent's face when he removed it from my bag was "oh shit
I've found an explosive device". He looked extremely relieved when I told him
it was a radio (but didn't inspect it further), then he proceeded to lecture
me about the importance of putting my toiletries into a zip lock bag (they
were in a similarly sized see-through bag with a zipper)...

~~~
CaptSpify
Honesty? it seems pretty boring. Look at their failure-rate:
[http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/11/04/surpris...](http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/11/04/surprise-
tsa-is-still-sucking-terribly-n2075370)

It'd be fun if there was an actual potential to be caught. This? Not so much

~~~
grandalf
Hah good point. I wonder when it will become a crime to publish/link articles
like that.

------
orblivion
This seemed inevitable to me. There's officially nothing wrong with the
scanners, right? Out-opters are just old fashioned, and they're just putting
up with us for now until we die out, or they slowly but inevitably loosen the
last fingers from our grip on our own dignity.

I've already been denied entrance into the secure area of an airport once a
couple years ago, until I went through a scanner, because they found traces of
some chemicals on me and/or my luggage. (Was probably from a campfire).

~~~
67726e
I don't opt-out to be old-fashioned, I do it as protest. You want to waste my
time with your security theater, I will surely waste yours.

~~~
asciimo
That was exactly my position. Then I got really uncomfortable during a pat-
down at SFO and decided that I'd rather suffer humiliation at the hands of a
machine.

~~~
mindslight
Really? I call the process "molestation" and refer to the goons as "kiddie-
fondlers" in every day conversation, but honestly I've never been
uncomfortable with how they've actually touched me. I don't particularly want
to be touched, but maybe my violation meter has already been pegged by the
larger process or maybe I'm just happy to finally get through the obvious-
target-of-next-false-flag chokepoint and interact with someone closer to being
a human. Or maybe SFO is different due to having privatized thugs plus SF, uh,
customs.

~~~
ipsin
If you've never been uncomfortable with how they've touched you, maybe it's
probably because you've never been firmly searched.

I thought the "light touch" was universal, but once I did get an agent who
really "got up in there" . It wasn't traumatic for me, and I'd do it again,
but it was a very different experience from previous pat-downs.

~~~
mindslight
Maybe? I've been felt up more than 20 times.

I think perspective has a lot to do with it. I try to make a point of getting
eye contact with people mindlessly going through the cancer scanner [0]. So
I'm thinking more "bring it on", and if they do anything I reflexively react
to, all the better for illustrating the modern state of USG.

And as I said, having to completely unpack my backpack and separate myself
into 4 or 5 bins is violating enough. Their net function is basically to
_destroy_ security.

[0] Standard operating theory of the machines likely doesn't add to cancer
risk, but I don't see why I should take on liability for unknowable
malfunctions that may. And boy those goons sure do get hyper defensive when
you ask why they're not wearing dosimeters.

~~~
tjohns
Regarding cancer: All the US scanners use millimeter-wave (radio) now. All of
the older backscatter x-ray machines have been sold off.

A dosimeter would show zero, because there's no longer any ionizing radiation
involved.

~~~
mindslight
I do not know what process is emitting the millimeter waves, their
intensity/harmonics, or ways it can fail. I have the background to investigate
these things, but do not see the point of spending time justifying
totalitarianism, even if it is scientific totalitarianism. Furthermore, any
technical conclusion of mine would only be half the story, given the lack of
long term studies on biological effects of those frequencies.

If the situation were completely different and a friend had one and offered
cool pictures of myself, I would do some diligence and make a conscious choice
about stepping into one. But as it stands, there is just no upside.

It does feel slightly dirty pushing non-scientific FUD [0], but it seems like
an appropriate way to possibly convey the concept that USG actually doesn't
have your interests at heart. If your average punter was concerned with
objective truth, they wouldn't have been goaded by fairy tales about
terrorists in the first place.

Re: dosimeter, does the same apply to the baggage scanner? I doubt it, since
then it couldn't see through most things. And my point there is mostly about
the extreme cognitive dissonance of the individual thugs.

[0] non-scientific. Not _anti_ -scientific.

~~~
tjohns
The baggage scanners do use x-rays. Much stronger than the body scanners, in
fact, since (as you pointed out) the goal is to see _through_ things. So yes,
a dosimeter would react to them.

I was about to say "hopefully nobody's sticking their hand inside one", but
then I found this:

[http://io9.gizmodo.com/5973513/what-a-human-being-looks-
like...](http://io9.gizmodo.com/5973513/what-a-human-being-looks-like-going-
through-an-airport-x-ray-machine)

------
warfangle
What's interesting is, flying out of SFO a few weeks ago, I was directed into
a line with no body scanners and only a metal detector. I was also instructed
to keep my laptop in my bag and my shoes on.

But there was a K9 unit tensa-barrier-ed off that everyone had to walk past.

~~~
fancyketchup
You were part of "managed inclusion" in TSA Pre(check).

~~~
warfangle
managed inclusion ended at the beginning of september.

~~~
fancyketchup
Managed inclusion v2 was ended in September. That's when managed inclusion v3
began[1].

[1] [http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-
de...](http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-
debate/1710806-more-free-passes-precheck-managed-inclusion-iii.html)

~~~
warfangle
aha.

Either way, I vastly prefer this to everything else :)

Maybe I'll have to sign up for pre ... I only fly four or five times a year,
but it seems worth it.

------
js2
TSA Pre is also no guarantee. With Pre, you normally proceed through a metal
dectector. However, the metal detectors randomly alarm to force some
passengers through the image scanner. You could previously opt-out at that
point and receive a manual screening. With this policy change, you might
additonally be compelled to go through the scanner.

~~~
saryant
I chewed out a screener and his supervisor when that happened to me.

Turns out you can call a TSA agent an idiot and nothing happens.

~~~
js2
Pre is a racket. At my home airport, they regularly send non-Pre passengers
through the Pre line. They have no way of knowing past that point who has Pre
and who doesn't. (In theory I guess they could ask to see your ticket again,
but they don't.)

Added to clarify:

I have Pre and it is printed on my boarding pass, otherwise I could not enter
the Pre line. They check for the "Pre" stamp both when I enter the line, and
when they scan the pass at the end of the line. After that point, I put away
my ID and boarding pass and enter a "reduced screening" line (the point where
they check your baggage and send you through the metal detector).

What I'm saying is that at my airport, they sometimes also direct non-Pre
passengers (who've had their boarding pass checked via a separate line) into
the same "reduced screening" line. At that point, both Pre and non-Pre
passengers are receiving the same "reduced screening".

It is at this point where I've had the metal detector randomly flag me for
going through the image scanner. When I protested that I had Pre, their
response was "we don't have any way to know that at this point").

Pre almost always saves me time, so it's not a racket in that sense. But it is
a racket in the sense that it's no guarantee you won't end up with a pat-down.
It's theater in the sense that: either the government trusts me, or they
don't. If they don't trust me, they shouldn't have issued me Pre. If they do
trust me, then I shouldn't need to be patted down.

~~~
asciimo
I tried to casually walk down the Pre aisle at SFO a couple weeks ago and the
TSA agent correctly assessed my ineligibility. I think it gets encoded into
your boarding pass.

~~~
cdubzzz
Interestingly, my wife got Pre and I did not but now whenever she books things
for the two of us, I also get Pre. I figured they'd kick me out when they
scanned the pass, but it has worked now at six different airports.

~~~
dandandan
It's part of the data in the barcode on the boarding pass. If the boarding
pass says Pre-check you're good; my GF also gets it consistently when we're on
the same PNR but on her own (same booking that gets split or booked
individually) she never receives it.

------
RA_Fisher
Hmm, Medtronic says my wife shouldn't go through the scanner with her insulin
pump ... [http://www.medtronicdiabetes.com/customer-
support/traveling-...](http://www.medtronicdiabetes.com/customer-
support/traveling-with-an-insulin-pump-or-device)

~~~
RA_Fisher
Can't go through x-ray, can't carry it through the scanner (I presume) -- a
true catch 22.

------
obeone
It appears from the wording that you can still request an opt out, but that
they can refuse: "While passengers may generally decline AIT screening in
favor of physical screening, TSA may direct mandatory AIT screening for some
passengers."

~~~
jlgaddis
> _" ... as warranted by security considerations ..."_

------
pera
The TSA should start sedating every passenger, then pack them and put 'em into
the planes. Then we will be safe!

~~~
gboudrias
If there was a way to do this safely it would be my preferred method of
travel.

~~~
steve-howard
Many people attempt this ad-hoc through the inflight beverage service.

------
thoreauway
As someone who always opts out, this makes me sad.

------
alttab
If only body scanners were proven to be effective.

~~~
pyre
They are effective at getting people to falsely believe that they are
effective.

"Look! It's a 'scanner' just like on Star Track! 'Bet they can detect
_anything_ with one of those!"

------
cryoshon
Because going through the body scanners prevented the mass shooting or Boston
Bombing, right? If we just make airport security more invasive, we'll be safe,
right? Wrong.

Security theater is a fool's game. We'd be better off adjusting our
geopolitical and societal priorities (such as mental health care, among other
things) so that people don't want to terrorize us-- which will never be
completed, by the way. Violence is going to happen no matter what, so our task
is harm reduction rather than feel-invasive-but-do-nothing measures a la TSA.

------
SCAQTony
The PDF does not define what TSA Advanced Imaging Technologies are. It implies
rather than defines that it is a x-Ray even though the image is a generic
drawing of a person with a superimposed an icon what area should be searched.

Not okay.

~~~
afiedler
The TSA doesn't use backscatter x-ray machines any more. They were all removed
because the company that makes them (Rapiscan) couldn't figure out a way to
mask the naked images.

Now they just use millimeter wave machines, which have the body outlines only.
I really don't find this objectionable from a privacy standpoint. It it
basically a better metal detector in that it detects non-metal objects, too,
and shows the scanner exactly where they are on the body.

~~~
slouch
Fun story: Last time I flew, the scanner detected the surgical plate in my
right shoulder. The TSA agent saw the diagram and put his hand on my _left_
shoulder before letting me walk.

~~~
mattdotc
In October, I also triggered the machine for having a suspicious back.

The cause? I was in Hawaii, wearing a backpack. If you didn't know, their
airports are mostly open-air. Of course, Hawaii is pretty warm and it was
humid, so I was sweaty on my shoulders where the straps were.

Win for security (theater).

------
jlgaddis
I have to get back to work so I just skimmed over this quickly, but I didn't
see anything that supports the claim in the title. Anyone who has read the
whole thing mind pointing it out?

ETA: I did see the part that everyone is quoting, but the title makes this
sound like this will apply to everyone all the time and I don't think this
document backs up that claim.

~~~
aestetix
Page 4: "While passengers may generally decline AIT screening in favor of
physical screening, TSA may direct mandatory AIT screening for some passengers
as warranted by security considerations in order to safeguard transportation
security"

~~~
crymer11
Additionally (on page 5):

> Individuals undergoing screening using AIT generally will have the option to
> decline an AIT screening in favor of physical screening. Given the
> implementation of ATR and the mitigation of privacy issues associated with
> the individual image generated by previous versions of AIT not using ATR,
> and the need to respond to potential security threats, TSA will nonetheless
> mandate AIT screening for some passengers as warranted by security
> considerations in order to safeguard transportation security.

~~~
jlgaddis
Thanks aestetix and crymer11, I actually saw that part but the title makes it
sound like TSA can force everyone to do AIT screening. The text doesn't
support that, though.

> _"... TSA will nonetheless mandate AIT screening for some passengers ..."_

Okay, so _some_ passengers ...

> _" ... as warranted by security considerations ..."_

... assuming they have a reason to, basically.

Don't get me wrong. I loathe the TSA, think that the imaging stuff is bullshit
and a violation, and I "opt out" every time I fly. The title, though, makes it
sound as if _everyone_ will be subjected to the screening _everytime_ they
fly. I don't think this document supports that claim.

------
mathgeek
The requirement may be a step backward, but at least the idea of not storing
the images is a step forward.

~~~
bradbeattie
Discreet cellphone pic? Hard to imagine an image being "unstorable".

~~~
URSpider94
There is no "pic" at all. The images are never viewed by humans. All you get
is a stylized threat alert indicator on a generic silhouette.

~~~
exhilaration
Do you have a source for this? Have all US airports upgraded to the "no pic"
technology?

~~~
balls187
Not an exhaustive search, but there doesn't seem to be a definitive source
that explains that all machines have been replaced, however the TSA has laid
out the timetable for June 1, 2013, and that all machines were to be removed
by Rapidscan at their own expense.

[http://blog.tsa.gov/2013/01/rapiscan-backscatter-
contract.ht...](http://blog.tsa.gov/2013/01/rapiscan-backscatter-
contract.html)

------
scrupulusalbion
I now feel somewhat smug over refusing to fly whatsoever since hearing about
the body scanners. The security theater is indeed a serious issue, but if the
body scanners are physically harmless (not certain about that), then I am not
sure why I should be concerned. Perhaps those who are disfigured, have to
carry around a colostomy bag, etc. have a good reason to not be seen naked for
some bogus security theater, but I suspect that that matches relatively few
people.

Don't get me wrong, I still think the body scanners are terrible and that the
security theater is a problem. However, my reason for not flying is a moral
one, namely that some people are being paid to look at the naked bodies of
thousands of people throughout the day. Perhaps if the TSA could provably (1)
match the sex of the scanner-operator with the person-to-be-scanned, (2) match
homosexual operators with the opposite sex, and (3) prevent all images from
being recorded, then I would consider flying again.

However, I can't trivially prove the second and third before entering the
scanner, thus I see the body scanners as a reason for me to avoid flying
altogether.

------
edwhitesell
Does anyone know if this also impacts children being forced through the
scanner? I didn't notice it mentioned in the doc.

------
littletimmy
Can these scanners ever malfunction and give someone a massive dose of
radiation? Does anyone have research on this?

------
Overtonwindow
So does that mean it's OK to wear my "I made it to second base with a TSA
screener" T-shirt?

------
ck2
So wait, does congress still get to opt-out and be waived through?

[https://google.com/search?q=congress+exempt+from+tsa+scanner...](https://google.com/search?q=congress+exempt+from+tsa+scanners)

Love how their manual suggests the results are stick figures and how they fail
to note smartphones could take a photo of the ATR monitor for posterity.

~~~
URSpider94
The results ARE stick figures now. The lewd x-Ray goggles photos that we all
saw before are gone now.

~~~
ck2
I don't believe that for a second.

I bet there are different modes they can select.

------
Dublum
The link appears dead with an access denied error, does anyone have a mirror?

~~~
d33
[http://kolos.math.uni.lodz.pl/~d33tah/privacy-tsa-
pia-32-d-a...](http://kolos.math.uni.lodz.pl/~d33tah/privacy-tsa-
pia-32-d-ait.pdf)

~~~
Dublum
thank you!

------
thefastlane
when discussing the safety of these technologies, please share citations! as i
write this comment, i don't see a single reference to a published research
paper in this discussion (unless i missed it).

------
justifier
Where is part 9: Principal of health?

------
shALKE
They already do this in some airports in Germany, rather then the classic
metal detector crap.

~~~
Kliment
Legally speaking, it's optional to go through those. I exercise my right to
opt out every time I fly, and the variation in response among airports is
quite spectacular. CGN has posters telling you how to opt out, and a dedicated
optout lane (Terminal 2 at least). DUS wants to see ID and tries to intimidate
you into conforming.

~~~
dogma1138
Some gates don't have metal detectors anymore it seems that they are being
phased out slowly but surely. And in some cases even if you have the option to
opt out you might not even know that you are in a body scanner line as some
lines might start where the scanner isn't visible yet. The problem in my
opinion is that body scanners are considerably less effective than metal
detectors.

A personal experience from going through on in Germany is that it flagged the
passport and boarding pass that i had in my breast pocket which lead to the
guy patting my chest like he was a 15 year old getting to 2nd base. The
scanner however had no objection to my key chain which I have had a leatherman
micra on which technically has a knife (its only 4cm long and is legal to
carry even on air travel or at least it was never flagged for me).

