I wouldn't necessarily equate the full body scanners with molestation. However, as a sexual assault survivor, I'm terrified of the enhanced pat downs, since they do involve the TSA agent using palms and fingers to touch genital regions (chest and crotch). I know that I'm not the only survivor who considers the enhanced pat downs an unacceptable alternative to the body scans, especially since said pat downs would be required if you're selected for a body scan and medically cannot go through, or if you go through a scanner and there's anything wrong.

It seems telling that the images use women appearing victimized; it tells us that men are never in this position, and that molestation and sexual violence are things that happen to women. (Also, I think I would have prefered if at least one of the models looked super-pissed off and was trying to push off the hands--that's how I'd feel!)

Amanda C. needs to look up "enhanced pat-down," which the TSA decreed as the sole alternative if you opt out of the body scan. The "enhanced" part is that the agent must (to be compliant) touch your genitals. For example, a search of a man's "legs" must move upward until "resistance" is felt. Which means the penis or scrotum, unless you've done a really creative tuck of some kind.

It's not that body scans = groping. But your choice (once they finish replacing the old scanners) will literally be body scanner or groping.

The full body scanners are akin to taking nude photographs and storing them on non-secured hard drives, where imprudent TSA agents can download them and do whatever they want with them. They are more detailed previous, similar scanners, and certainly moreso than they claim. There has been at least one TSA agent who quit his job after bullying by coworkers who saw his genitals by looking at his scan and harassed him about his penis being small.

Another story has surfaced about a pilot whose "pat down" was experienced by him as so invasive that he called it sexual molestation, said it interfered with his ability to fly, and the next time he was leaving home for the airport he vomited in his driveway at the prospect of going through it again.

These stories have been documented in multiple places, including here: http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/major-pilots-unions-rebel-tsa-screening-rules-urge/story?id=12100247

My opinion is that having a naked digital image of me on a hard drive or getting a pat down that for many truly does equal sexual assault are not choices that I should be asked to make, especially when there's no documentation that these scanners are any more secure than other safety measures already in place.

Is the "pat down" groping? Maybe it's up to the person receiving it to decide. People are speaking up and talking about how this has victimized them--men and women, survivors of sexual assault and not--and we should listen to their voices. They were sexually assaulted, and it would be disgusting to claim otherwise. And it IS disgussting to continue to support this.

Let me begin by saying I am completely opposed to both the porno body scanners and the groin/breast patdown.

If the posters depicted the women looking uncomfortable instead of showing them crying, and if they also included men, I would be in favor of them. However, I think it's insensitive to compare an (admittedly VERY intrusive) pat-down to a full-on sexual assault. (The difference I see is that you can prepare for or avoid a pat-down or porno scanner, but not a sexual assault.)

The ad campaign has the right idea, but I think the images are too jarring and could be triggers.

I think pictures of men being uncomfortable would be more effective. After all, isn't it a huge problem that we can't get people to take sexual assault seriously because it's a "women's problem"?

I think the "enhanced pat downs" sound like groping, and government-mandated groping that we can't really say no to under certain circumstances.

But as far as these ads ... I agree with the critiques people have offered, that it's unfortunate that they only chose women and the women appear to be passively crying rather than actively protesting. Also troubling is how attractive the women are. They're pretty and young, and they're wearing makeup (which is running) and low-cut shirts, we can see their bra straps. Some of this is definitely supposed to tie into how they're being victimized (the TSA agents are tearing their shirts off!). But it also suggests that we only care about groping when it happens to hot women, and even worse, it suggests that they're trying to get attention with these ads by getting us to look at the hot women first, and then pay attention to what's happening to them. I hate sexualized violence in advertising because it always catches my eye with the hotness first, I start looking, and then I realize there's something disturbing here and I should be offended, not turned on.

I thought those images of crying women relate to the "enhanced pat down" procedure people are subjected to who refuse to go through the scanner, not to the xray images.
If even a fraction of what you can read about it in various reports online is true, what with prodding between the asscheeks, kneading genitals and squeezing breasts, that does sound an awful lot like sexual assault.
I've read at least half a dozen repoorts from women and men who actually did feel sexually assaulted by the procedure.
For example here.

The images are disgusting regardless of whether or not one supports body scans. It's no coincidence that the women are attractive; the creators are using sexualized violence to draw attention to their cause.

While I would like to see a few images of men in this position, I don't find the comparison of the pat downs and scans with sexual violence inappropriate. Sexual violence is not "just" rape. Feminists have long argued that the state uses sexual violence as a form of control. These security procedures are a new form of that control: you are forced to give up your dignity in the interests of the state.

I think it's important to note that the leaked images posted at Gizmodo are from an older, lesser-resolution millimeter wave scanner than what the TSA currently uses in airports. So you might see those pictures and think "That's it?", but be aware the TSA's images can be much clearer. A better Gizmodo link, by the way, would be to the full article rather than the gallery, to give the important context. Here is that link: http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-100-leaked-body-scans?skyline=true&s=i

I can definitely see where this is being drawn from especially after reading this:

I recently had a conversation, for example, with a pilot whose 18-year-old daughter was chosen for a naked full-body scan. She told her Dad after going through the process that the screener had said to his colleague through the headset: “We have a real beauty coming through.”

via Cult of Mac

When I first saw the site, I expected to see those hands grabbing a man's groin, and I was surprised when I didn't.

There's a lot of discussion among the disability activist communities as was as transgendered communities about full body scanners and rights violations. The argument is that individuals who are transgendered - or whose genitalia do not "match" their outward gender presentation - or individuals who have urinary catheters, etc. will be at risk of being even more marginalized than they already are. And of course the issue that menstruating women wearing tampons or pads will have their privacy invaded in particular ways - and then, possibly, have to "prove" they are menstruating lest the tampon be read as a hidden weapon or some such...

http://menstruationresearch.org/2010/01/05/body-scans-disability-menstruation-and-security-theatre/

Ultimately, it does represent, as Foucault wrote, the state regulating the bodies of citizens through gaze and the all-seeing (techno-beaurocratic) eye...

--Sayantani
http:\\storiesaregoodmedicine.blogspot.com

Yes, the scanners are molestation, and the whole "scan or be groped" "choice" is just as bad. Those images do seem a bit icky, though -- and unnecessary, when we already have footage of people of all ages and genders being groped and objecting.

The thing that's been bothering me about the discourse concerning the TSA scanners has been all of the stuff about "would you your wife and kids get seen naked or groped?" Your kids, sure, you're responsible for protecting them from evils such as the TSA agents. But your wife? She's a grown-ass woman who can take care of herself, we don't need this caveman bullshit.

I got to have both the full body scan and the 'enhanced' pat down of my breasts. I'm guessing the metal in my bra was the problem? I don't know. I was headed home, it was early in the morning, I wasn't expecting it and once it happened I felt filthy. The TSA woman asked if I wanted privacy, I didn't realize why she asked that and said no. I guess I'm glad she only felt up my breasts and didn't have to go below. I'm looking into taking Greyhound or Amtrak for future travel. I can't go through that again.

I think sexual molestation *is* a legitimate metaphor here, because some women are experiencing TSA searches as sexual assault.

Erin had her labia and breasts fondled without notice or warning by a TSA screener in Tampa. In her view - and her lawyer's - this is a sexual assault, and she is proceeding accordingly: "I will not be a silent victim of sexual assault by a TSA agent. Total Sexual Assault."

http://www.ourlittlechatterboxes.com/2010/11/tsa-sexual-assault.html

Apparently when trying to make a point about being degraded or victimized, men don’t make suitable subjects.

I think we should realize that equal treatment is not equal consideration -- some groups in society are more affected by a thing than others. Women and men do not have perfectly equal responses to physical contact from a stranger, so the choice was not arbitrary. For women this search ties into fears of sexual assault, into triggers of past sexual assaults they may have been victims of, and into concerns about revoking consent. (The rule about not being allowed to refuse consent once the patdown has started without facing an $11k fine is particularly troublesome.)

In my opinion, men simply don't need to care about these issues as much -- it's a privilege men have. Men are statistically unlikely to be sexually assaulted, which ties into being statistically unlikely to be being triggered by the body search, and men don't have a physical disadvantage to another gender to always be aware and fearful of.

It's interesting that this group chose women to exhibit concerns about the new procedure, and it may reflect that the new procedure has more of a negative impact on women than on men; one could argue that this makes it a sexist or discriminatory procedure. I think that we should talk about how women are hurt more by the procedure than men, rather than assume that groups are choosing the imagery for sexist reasons -- the choice may actually be intended to fight sexism, not exploit it. Does that make sense?

From what I've read online, the people who "just happen to be picked" for the pornoscope, tend to be girls or women.

Here's a particularly nasty tale about it: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1147497-tso-saying-heads-up-got-cutie-you.html

And let's not forget images can and are being recorded. Just google Shahrukh Khan Heathrow. Won't even get started about the potential health dangers...

I think it is definately a valid metaphor. The alternatives are either let me see you naked or we'll touch you... it's hard to argue that is not a situation that removes choice from the passenger.

One more reason why I personally would never, ever visit the States, if this comes in.

I am glad to have found this post, and even gladder to have read these comments. I am not a sexual assault or abuse survivor, but I am a frequent business traveler (so frequent that I have had three of these enhanced "pat downs" already). The coercive experience, especially the first time, before I was fully prepared for it, was the most degrading and debasing one of my (admittedly sheltered) life. I certainly felt violated, and had to spend several minutes alone regaining my composure after the fact. I have been wondering ever since if it would have been triggering for an assault/abuse survivor, and then second-guessing myself for using those terms (even internally) to describe the event. Thank you to those of you who have shared here, because you have helped me validate my own experience. And I am terribly saddened by what many of you have endured.

It appears that this whole security theater act has finally gone one step too far for a majority of the public. It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out since most people seem to realize that the extremely invasive groping "option" is just a not-so-gentle means of encouraging people to choose the scanner.

And not even Orwell envisioned such a device.

Still, it might be fun to go through the scanner with an 18 inch long fake penis strapped on and made to appear as seamless and real as possible (hilarity would no doubt ensue). And maybe cutting some letters out of aluminum foil and sticking them to my chest so they spell out some choice words, like "I am not afraid of terrorism so please don't turn the place into a police state on my account" or a good ol' fashioned "Fuck you!"

Hmm, I think I'd better bring $11,000 with me next time I try to fly. And some day when y'all see a scanner image like one of the ones I just described going viral, you'll know I wasn't joking. Frankly, I'm not too worried about this disturbing trend because the TSA tools have forgotten about a law higher than any written by mere humans: A rigid imposition of Order necessarily leads to an escalation of Chaos. It's been proven mathematically by the fine folks who developed Chaos Theory, so my faith in freedom remains strong.

Reduced to its simplest component, this is about privilege. Specifically, what used to be known as "white privilege."

It used to be that white people could reasonably expect to be left alone by State actors (read: TSA agents), additionally, white people represented the power and authority structure.

This is no longer true, especially in gov't service agencies (TSA). That sexual assault is being invoked as a resistance framework (my body is hallowed, therefore any unwanted intrusion = sexual assault, the worst crime one can be accused of) is quite telling: it's a reassertion of privilege.

Comedian Paul Mooney has a piece about white people reacting poorly to brown/black/poor folks having the audacity to call them out of line. To get in their way. To *molest* them. It's five or so years old, and spot on.

TSA patdowns are a direct descendant of Prison Industrial Complex behaviors - the arbitrary invocation of power as a reminder that such power exists AND is threatening. They are, unfortunately, here to stay, as are all the rest of the trappings of a security-state. Some social commentators have referred to this as "the Israelification of America."

Is it illegal to request a happy ending?

Well, in the end you're stuck on a cramped plane. So however "happy" that makes you... :p

I just have to comment on this article, as I work with airport security, and I do between 250 and 500 pat-downs a day.
My first thought when I saw the images in the article, made by "Fly with dignity", was "Should I feel insulted by this?" You see, it's just a job to me. I don't think about who I do the pat-down on, what they look like, or if they are rich/poor, or anything along those lines. What I do think of, apart from doing the pat-down correctly, is how I am positioned, because I need to be able to react if the passenger (pax) makes a move against me. This has happened in the past, and it will happen in the future, and I want to be able to go home from work with no bruises, no cuts, and I most certanly don't want to end up in a hospital bed, or worse.

Yes, I do look at people when they come through security. Yes, my eyes will run up and down your body. And yes, my eyes will linger at your chest and waist. Not because I fantazise about your body, but rather because those are the areas where it's easiest to hide an object. (There are other areas too, but I'm not telling you the "tricks of the trade".)

I also work at an airport where male security officers only search male pax, and female security officers search female pax, to avoid the "sexual offense". In the two years since we started the male-male, female-female searces, we've had a huge reduction in complaints.

You see, we do care about the pax. We try to be friendly, to smile, and to be polite. It's just that our job is to prevent unfortunate incidents, and we take it very serious!

Things you, the pax, can do to make our day easier is this:
Understand that we have to do this, or find ourselves unemplyed.
Don't "joke" about bombs, weapons, and such when passing security.
Accept the regulations, because you have already agreed to them when ordering your ticket.
Remember that if you are grumpy, angry, or obnoxious, we react human. We are human too!

I have a question for all here:
Given the current situation, where some people are willing to bomb planes to get focus on their fanatic views, be it religious or mundane, how many of you would board a plane if you knew nobody, and nothing, had been searched? Hands on hearts?

I think it is interesting that using a same-sex officer to search somehow makes it ok and 'completely' unsexual. I am sure that they employ homosexuals who would enjoy groping. Is TSA in denial of their existence or what? Same goes for police, and anyone else who does searches.

Disclaimer: I am not a rape survivor so my experience is totally different, I don't have PTS, and I don't think that pat downs are essential for a good security. But I have been pat down five times and I didn't feel like I was beeing groped, It was impersonal, the agent was the same sex than me, it only takes 20 seconds and the agent always looked more bored than excited. I can understand that rape survivors feel triggered when a stranger touches them, but I was pat down and never feel scared, assaulted, or violated in anyway.
Anyway I am talking only of my experience.

Gwen, I don't think this in an appropriate metaphor, but only because of semantics: it's not a metaphor at ALL. People aren't saying "going through security is like being molested" simply because they don't feel like getting a pat down and they're convinced that the person operating the scanner is a cackling fiend taking nudie pictures home with them. People are comparing the pat downs to sexual assault because, well, a significant number of people feel very strongly that they HAVE BEEN sexually assaulted, indcluding people who are previous victims of sexual assault, and yeah, that's a pretty huge issue. Part of the issue is that we're still trained to see sexual assault in black and white: since this isn't some creepy guy popping out of the bushes or a frat boy putting a roofie in girls' drinks, we automatically want to dismiss it as "disturbing" that people would put this in the same category. Especially since really, the way the new procedure is described doesn't sound too terribly effective. How many people are using their vaginas and penises to transport weapons? Probably none. I've had to be 'patted down' previously under the old system, and it was plenty thorough without having to touch people like that, and would probably have found anything of significance. This is just more TSA theatrics, and furthermore, there doesn't seem to be a catalyst. Shoe bombers triggered the 'take off your shoes' rule, and people with liquid explosive triggered the '4 oz of liquids' rule, but what's prompting this? Until I hear stories of apprehending terrorists with exploding breasts and genitals, I really can't see the point.

Two by two, hands of blue...

(I will someday go back to posting comments with content, I promise...)

Oh,oh, I should have read the comments before writing anything. What are the differences between the old pat down and the new pat down? In the old pat down they touch you under the breast, and over the breasts and between the legs but very quick and very slightly (no rubbing and no fondling), like a quick slap. And they have been doing for 20 years at least, not to all the people . What are they doing now?

The dissembling here is amazing. So many myths being trotted out.

Look, all of you need to confront this head-on: there is NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT SOMEONE DETERMINED TO BLOW UP A PLANE!

Read that again: NOTHING YOU CAN DO.

Backscatter scanners, German shepherds with jackbooted sheriff deputies, profiling - it's all bullshit. None of it works. None of it is supposed to work. It's there to quiet you - the random exercise of power for the sake of power.

Sure, you've all got your individual lense through which you bury your irrational fear of death and assert some kind of privilege - that's your brain trying to shape the invisible fear of dying in an uncontrolled manner (translation: you are *not* in control of your destiny.)

So many of the comments above feel like people trying to reconcile this - rationalizing a response that returns to us an illusion of control over our destiny, be it resistance to purposeless state power or the invocation of gender privilege, etc.

The TSA experience can also bring into sharp focus the disparity between the mythical America the nation's citizens have been brainwashed into subscribing, and the stark realization that it just ain't so. (US Airports are technically "borders", hence 4th Amendment protections are not applied in the same way. GOTCHA!!)

There's a lot going on here, but most of it's rooted in the irrational fear of uncontrolled death. That people express this in a myriad of ways is quite fascinating.

(thank you.)

I am soon going to bed now, as it is night here in a bit and I need to take a time-out from the screen. (Most likely to substitute it with another screen :p) I just want to thank everybody who has commented on my comments. It was a rough ride, but a rewarding one! I have worked with airport security for 4 years, and perhaps I have gotten a bit disillutioned by it. It is good to get some new insights, and some food for thought.

I will continue to tell the passengers where, and how, they can complain, even if it means no promotions for me, because, as someone said, I have a job where you passengers are the paying customers, and the customer is (almost) always right.

So, thank you guys! I still hope you remember that most security officers are human too, and that they have to follow orders. But we can, and should, speak up if we feel what we do is wrong! (Unlike the greman officers during WWII, we don't get shot or shipped to the eastern front if we do!) and we should work from within the system, to change it to the better for all of us! To be able to do this though, we need constructive criticism, not verbal abuse. Please send letters of complaint to the right adress (I'm sure TSA has an adress somewhere.) where you tell them how you feel.

It might not work, but it's worth a try!

According to the TSA, “Advanced imaging technology cannot store, print, transmit or save the image”. http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/privacy.shtm They claim that this is a physical limitation of the model -they- get. (Which is allegedly different from the one that everyone else gets.) They do post a picture http://www.tsa.gov/blog/uploaded_images/TSA-Release-Images-2-050808-726403.jpg how they got this picture is unclear, since they claim that the system cannot store images.

Personally, I am going to ensure that my employeer (a federal agency not under DHS) knows that sending me on offical travel throuh such an airport is sexual harrasment.

K, above, said:

"Akeeyu, why does your husband choose to keep wearing suspenders to the airport?"

...in response to my statement about my husband constantly getting pulled out of line for additional screening due to wearing suspenders, as they have metal parts), but the comments were nested down too far to allow a direct reply, so here you go:

He wears suspenders to keep his pants from falling down.

I contacted the organization to ask them why they only had women portrayed as victims and that I was dissatisfied with their choices and asked them to reconsider the matter. I sent them a link to these comments.
They resonded:
"Please tell your professor he is making assumptions about our choice in imagery. We are nonprofit and have no voice in the ads we are given. People sent us female ads, we didn't ask for girls in our ads. We get what we can"

Speaking of assumptions...males are not the only ones who can be professors...

Re the images being triggering: I sent that group an email. Here is our conversation:

Me:
Those images are triggering and skeevy; I get your point in using them, but sexual assault survivors/people who want to know more are going to be triggered and put off by them. And since they're only of young attractive women, they have a definite porno vibe.

C'mon guys, you can do better.

flywithdignity.org

The idea is to be shocking and to the point. We also have male ones coming.

Me:
I do get that; but if I want to send your site to someone else (like more conservative acquaintances), it's likely to keep them from reading it at all. Especially at work.

And like I said, sexual abuse survivors, who are definitely on your side about this, are very likely to be triggered by images that graphic.

flywithdignity.org
We aren't that worried. Educated people (whom we want to be involved) will know the purpose is to educate people and not to be pronographic or anything like that.. Thanks for your input though, but we really like the angle the site has for the purpose of getting people to wonder what's going on, and so on.

Pretty blatant example of class/gender privilege blindness there, I thought.

Oh, airport security. Surely this is just enriching the passenger population for terrorists, by scaring off the legitimate travelers? Which is to say, eventually the procedures will be so miserable and humiliating that the only people desperate enough to make it through will be the explosive-happy fanatics. It'll just be a bunch of slightly-traumatized terrorists hanging out waiting to board; "I...I made it through. I feel so dirty. Death to Ameri--I think I need a hug..."

:p

Blogged this: http://workthatmatters.blogspot.com/2010/11/fly-way-too-friendly-skies.html

I didn't know the enhanced pat downs had started when I flew from Germany back home to the States a few months ago. At the Amsterdam airport, after having already gone through security twice (including metal detectors) and answering a long checklist of questions, we were all given enhanced pat downs. They didn't tell us we could be private. The security lady ran her hands around the inside edges of the cups of my bra and spent quite a bit of time feeling where the cups meet (I assume because I have a decorative strap there). I was beginning to be worried that I would have to take my shirt off. Then she ran her hands around the inside of the waistband of my pants and my underwear. I am not a sexual assault survivor, but I felt pretty damn squicked out and shaken by all of that. Are you honestly telling me they couldn't have just asked me to pull my shirt up a bit to check I didn't have anything down my pants?

Pretty good rundown of current state of concerns and issues w/scanners from Bruce Schneier: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/tsa_backscatter.html?nc=96. Pretty much in line with most of the critics here.

(replying to D from somewhere up there in threaded hell)

Please, call me Mr. Idiot. I'd prefer to keep things formal. Anyway, it seems I've gotten under your skin a bit there. I tend to do that, and probably will again.

A more careful reading of my comment would show that I anticipated most of your counter-arguments and added the relevant caveats and qualifications to address them. For example, you misinterpreted or deliberately ignored a half of what I said here: "What it comes down to is that I’m not going to sit there and let myself get molested if I’m physically capable of preventing it..." (the bold stuff was what you missed) then you go on and try to make me look like some kind of victim-blamer with this dizzying leap of logic: "Your logic would also mean that a rape victim is a coward if they chose not to fight back."

Well, that must be why I said "if I was physically capable of preventing it." It's not cowardice to be overpowered. I mean, duh. Nice try, though. But to pay for the privilege of standing in line, emptying your pockets, taking off your shoes, booting up your laptop, getting irradiated by a machine whose long-term effects are yet to be determined, getting fondled in ways fourteen year-old boys dream about in algebra class, and still possibly having to empty out your carry-on and let someone go through it while you're recovering from your encounter with Officer Coldfinger all while keeping your Full Compliance poker face on the whole time does smack of spinelessness in my most humble opinion. It just seems to me like it could be going over the proverbial line a wee bit, but of course that depending on where we all choose to draw it and for some reason you won't say where you draw yours (I asked earlier).

And jeeze, does it always have to be so black and white with you? Hero or coward, compliant lemming or loose-cannon outlaw, someone worthy of engaging in a debate with or someone just (and I quote) "talking out your ass..." yadda yadda yadda. It's kind of apparent that you think someone advocating active, physical self-defense is a macho asshole but drawing a line at some level of personal violation and sticking to it is almost always going to be pretty fucking far from heroic in both its execution and its consequences but again, that's not what it's about.

And don't be too self-satisfied with this argument, either:

The Declaration of Independence was a formal notice by a group of people going strait to the highest rung of the British government: the king. It is exactly along the lines of what I propose, and the opposite of what you propose. So, funny how you are actually arguing against yourself.

Hmm, well if I recall most of the signers suffered pretty intense catastrophes as a result of singing that piece of paper. Stuff like getting killed, having the family farm burned to the ground, family killed, imprisoned, etc. etc. Maybe they should've just gone straight to war and saved the postage? The Declaration was not a complaint form being sent through the "proper channels," (lol) it was their line in the sand; it's why it was called the "Declaration" instead of the "Request" or "A Complaint About a Lack of") and was against an entire government with the intent of forming a new one. Slightly different issue (and scale).

My problem is with the actions of a single agency, one that to me at least sure seems un-American/rogue. It puts these very bad ideas into effect with no public comment or accountability or concern for the principles they're pretending to defend, at least until enough Hell is raised that it threatens the orderly cash-flow of corporations large enough to have the elusive 'voice' heard by policy makers that all citizens are theoretically supposed to have... if we'd only try.

But this is not like some new unpopular tax that can be repealed by a ballot measure in the next election; paying a tax while waiting for it to be repealed might suck, but it doesn't victimize anyone. Going on and continuing to be groped/molested/irradiated until a law gets passed or meetings are held seems the greater cognitive disconnect to me.

These Taoists from the second century B.C.E. sound pretty smart and say it better than I do: "When society is orderly, you protect yourself with justice; when society is confused, you protect justice by yourself." (from The Masters of Huainan trans. by Thomas Cleary)

I am a twenty-six year old male, I have served my country via USMC and firmly believe in both our country as well as keeping it safe.
My largest concerns are applied to health, safety and human rights. First off, I do believe that heightening airport security is a phenomenal idea. However reading the documents/interviews that TSA has produced or participated in does not prove in any scientific way that these scanners are not hazardous to our health let alone their employees whom take in long hours of high levels of radiation. But that is a choice for the TSA employees to work there or elsewhere. It is not a choice for patrons of said airlines. In fact the alternative is rather disturbing and I do believe that it is in a gray area as far as sexual assault and molestation.
(Definition of Sexual Assault-A sexual assault has been committed when an individual engages in sexual activity without the explicit consent of the other individual involved.
Sexual activity is any touching of a sexual or other intimate part of a person for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party. This includes coerced touching of the actor by the victim as well as the touching of the victim by the actor, whether directly or through clothing.)
Molestation - (1. To disturb, interfere with, or annoy.
2. To subject to unwanted or improper sexual activity.)

Now as far as the TSA's comments to the public, they claim that it is a safe procedure for a person or persons to go through the screening process. If you read carefully into the studies that they have done and the administrators that conducted them, you will see just how un-credible their sources are. Now to state that you either must commit to a body scan (which images have already popped up across the internet worldwide), or go through a quite rigorous "pat down", is very intrusive and generally unwanted. So either you can subject yourself and your family to high levels of radiation or you can watch your young daughter/son or elderly parents be groped by TSA's staff. How well trained are their staff? What certifications and or classes have they taken? And just how high is their level of professionalism? Questionable at best in my opinion.
All-In-All I strongly believe that raising our levels of security is a step in the right path, but I strongly believe that this "step" was quite pre-mature and not a very safe way to go. After-all, don't we have enough citizens with cancer, terminal illness, painful ailments and don't we have a high enough level of un-welcomed nude pictures, sexual assault and molestation? Let alone the fact that when committing to a search you must leave your potentially expensive/irreplaceable belongings behind and unattended. I am sure I can speak for all Americans when i say that our levels of theft, burglary and larceny are way too high as is.

As a sexual abuse survivor, I did feel molested when I had to be patted down in an airport years back. It's one of the reasons I never want to fly again. While I think this imagery is gender-biased and blatantly created to incite fear, I also think it expresses the very real mental dread that some women, such as myself, have about being patted down by strangers in an airport.

I am a mother of three children. Boys 11 and 8 and a girl who is 3. I refuse to go through these procedures and I absolutely will not subject my children to them. What message would I be sending to my kids to tell them they need to stand still while a stranger gropes their body just because that stranger has a badge or an air of authority?

This has nothing to do with keeping us safe and everything to do with keeping us in our place. More people will die on the roads because of being discouraged to fly. Fewer than 10,000 Americans have died at the hands of terrorists counting troops in battle since 9/11. In that same time 150,000 died in car accidents. Are we sending TSA agents to make sure everyone who gets in a damn car is safe? No. There is no Utopian risk-free world and the idea that no price is too high for security is false. Banning cars would be too high a price and for me so is this "screening."

The proper solution is to get government out of it and let the airlines who have a vested interest in protecting both their property and their image as safe methods of travel choose the way to screen. Some will profile. If you don't like it you don't have to fly that airline. Some will have invasive procedures, again you choose.

However, I hear there is a solution: Naked Scanning Could Get Fun! http://bit.ly/hQazcA

"Nonconsensual" means that you did not freely agree to the sexual conduct. If you "agreed" to the sexual contact because you were being threatened with physical harm, for example, that would not be considered that you "freely agreed" to the contact. (This would apply just the same if being threatened with arrest, having to show up in court and pay up to $11,000 in fines for opting out entirely.)

Sexual conduct includes (but is not limited to) when the offender "touches or fondles your genitals, anus or breasts, including through clothing."

These TSA "security" checks are sexual assault. Buying an airline ticket does not constitute consent to sexual assault. As a male, I consider it sexual assault. If I were a woman I'd feel the same; it's not a gender-specific form of assault.

Can somebody provide the steps for filing an official complaint right in the airport if one is sexually assaulted by one of these TSA "officers", and the names of lawyers in various jurisdictions willing to pursue prosecution?

a.) There have, in fact, been sexual assault and sexual harassment cases which have arisen from the deplorable behavior of the personnel performing the pat-downs.

b.) It's entirely appropriate if you remember that, gee, sexual assault victims use airplanes too, and they might not want to be groped, patted down, OR sent through a questionable scanner that exposes their bodies.

People are saying whether it should be mostly men or mostly women in the picture. I think it should be a whole family. A granny, dad, mum and children - all being patted down with horrified looks. Then it doesn't matter whether its a mans issue or a womens issue - it can't be taken as a joke or funny when children and elderly are involved too. It would be free to be taken as it is - a complete and utter invasion of privacy.