Backscatter

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by Brock

Hey Waldo -

Your opening comment, which is:

"Really? Guarantee? Bwahhahaha. Sure thing, pal."

leads me to believe you did not understand it was a hypothetical, totally unrealistic situation I made up ... as in "pretend like."

A lot of the rest of what you said was a good history refresher. Much of it I agreed with.

Waldo, my pal - everyone was impacted. Our whole fucking nation was tramatized.

You don't mind me calling you pal, do you? I see you used that endearing term towards me. LOL!

This has been interesting discussion. I am out of here. Past my bedtime.

Um... but it's not. It's a real situation which did, in fact, happen. And the scanners and the pat-downs are also real. You are not asking a hypothetical question at all. What you are asking is a moot question. It's really not my fault you don't understand the concept.

It's a moot question because even if the people on that plane submitted to the scans and the pat-downs it wouldn't have changed the outcome. Heck, they could have submitted to cavity searches and it wouldn't have changed one thing. It wasn't explosives or guns and even knives. The hijackers had box-cutters. Which, at the time, were perfectly acceptable to fly with. Box-cutters.

But you're right. Everyone was impacted and my own impact is no greater than that of anyone else. But then again, that was my point, you see?

And no, I don't mind you calling me "pal". I do mind you doing it in a way which comes across, here in writing, like some sort of posturing, but that's only because I find that sort of behavior to be annoying and childish.

[RockOn]

......

Ok

[Nat]

I most likely will not stop flying over this, but I find the situation traumatizing. There are many, many people who (like me) have experienced sexual trauma, and the situation feels really violative. There are a lot of people who don't have a problem with it - which is swell for you. But I totally understand that guy when he says that basically he doesn't want to have to endure sexual assault to fly. That is what it feels like to me to have to choose between a naked pic and being thoroughly groped - and if you freak out and want to leave, you could face an 11k fine.

I have some PTSD symptoms, but not nearly as bad as others I've known. Just *thinking* about this situation is pretty triggering to me, but I think I could force myself to go through with it if there were no other choice. (And when I say, "it," I mean the patdown most likely because that will be a woman and I will be able to see her face - and because my "pat-down" can't be "leaked" - all of which are slightly better though still potentially very traumatizing depending on how it goes. I've had no problems with the old-style back-of-hands patdowns, but the fingers and palms patdowns sound pretty frightening to me.

The pictures that were leaked are both comforting and upsetting. Comforting because they are far more obscuring than the backscatter naked pics on the first page of this thread. Upsetting because of the lies TSA has told about how they aren't saved or sent anywhere.

I don't think this situation is alright at all. I think if I were a mom, I would be even less alright with my child facing these choices.

[Andrea]

I would prefer to take the chance on a one-in-gazillion terrorist attack than be violated by our government every time I fly.

Andrea

[Waldo]

And because you can't make up stuff this good, the NYT writes about the TSA being concerned at the growing support for National Opt Out Day.

The author of the piece writes: "Do the imagers, for example, detect sanitary napkins? Yes. Does that then necessitate a pat-down? The T.S.A. couldn’t say. Screeners, the T.S.A. has said, are expected to exercise some discretion."

Feministing has a great write up about that little gem.

[Nat]