6 ms·

Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners at airports

7 points by jonmc12 16y ago

redorb 16y ago
I think this reflects the number of a)Those who haven't traveled recently and b)Those who haven't traveled in the last few months... Ideally the poll would ask if those answering have ever been scanned; then at least show me the segmented results.
- timepilot 16y ago
  Not sure you are correct - I'm in the 2/3. I have been scanned several times and I'm fine with it. For me: safety > personal privacy.
  - orangecat 16y ago
    Please learn how to rationally evaluate risks before voting. Edit: This was an immature personal attack, and I apologize. It really shouldn't be voted up; others have made the same point in a more constructive manner.
  - yequalsx 16y ago
    I would like to know where you draw the safety vs. personal freedom line. How far is too far? For me we crossed the line a long time ago. It would be nice to hear a different perspective. As it stands now, a 13 year old boy or girl will be groped during an enhanced pat down. As I see it, 9/11 can't happen again. That is, an airplane will never again be hijacked and used as a missile. It's possible for someone to blow up a plane but not to turn it into a missile. There are lots of places where a terrorist can kill 200+ people that don't have any security at all. Given this, I don't understand why having the level of security in our airports is justified. We've made it so that airports are a much harder target than a sporting event. Thus, airports are much safer from a terrorism point of view. Enhancements to security are not needed and a waste of time. I genuinely would like to know why my reasoning is wrong in your opinion and where you draw the line.
    - timepilot 16y ago
      Actually, I think your reasoning is well "reasonable". :) I also agree with you that the hijack/missile scenario seems unlikely at this point (existing safety precautions seem appropriate). I remain surprised (but happy) that terrorists have not gone after softer targets (malls, etc). For some reason, they remain very focused on airplanes (maybe the shock and awe effect). As a result, taking steps to make air travel as safe as possible seems reasonable. Now - how we do that is an open question. We have already had an underwear bombing attempt. How do we prevent this from being attempted again? The only solution I have seen is the current scanners and sadly the "pat down". If there is a better one, lets deploy it. If not, then it seems the argument is personal privacy > the lives of the unfortunate passengers aboard the plane that explodes when the terrorists are successful. No? If the underwear bomber had been successful, would you have a different view?
      - yequalsx 16y ago
        No, I would not have a different view. It's not a goal to try to prevent someone from doing this again. That's simply not possible. The goal is to make its success as unlikely as possible without causing too great a burden. Groping and virtual strip searches go too far in my opinion. The so called underwear bomber was stopped because when people see a man trying to ignite his underwear they stop him. We're not that helpless. Life is risky. Zero people have died in the U.S. from terrorism on airplanes since 9/11. It's extremely unlikely that a terrorist will blow up a plane with the security measures that were in place 1 year ago. No need to go further. The next place to hide explosives are vaginas and anal regions. Do you think those should be probed as well? If a terrorist blows himself up at a TSA checkpoint should we have a checkpoint in order to get to the checkpoint? At what point does the security become theater to you?
        timepilot 16y ago
        "It's not a goal to try to prevent someone from doing this again. That's simply not possible. The goal is to make its success as unlikely as possible without causing too great a burden." - agreed "Groping and virtual strip searches go too far in my opinion." - Understood. Personally, I'm ok with the virtual strip search. If the physical search is a "professionally executed" pat down, I'm also ok with it. My wife and I fly multiple times/month and so far this has been our experience. If the search turned into "groping", I would have a different view. "Zero people have died in the U.S. from terrorism on airplanes since 9/11. It's extremely unlikely that a terrorist will blow up a plane with the security measures that were in place 1 year ago." - We just had a few close calls. The terrorists appear to be adapting. "The next place to hide explosives are vaginas and anal regions. Do you think those should be probed as well? If a terrorist blows himself up at a TSA checkpoint should we have a checkpoint in order to get to the checkpoint?" - This is indeed the rub. Where do you "draw the line?" - is always the issue when discussing giving up/forcing people to give up personal liberties for the good of others. Nevertheless, we do it all the time. For me the scanners/searches have not crossed the line. For you, they have.
  - timepilot 16y ago
    @orangecat: If you are suggesting I'm talking a health risk, fair enough. If you are suggesting the added security from the scanners is minimal, also fair enough. If you are trolling, you know what you can do.
    - orangecat 16y ago
      I'm suggesting that the risk of terrorists blowing up your flight using a method that backscatter machines would prevent, but that previous procedures would not prevent, is indistinguishable from zero. You're trading your civil liberties in exchange for nothing. And that would be fine, except you're also trading my civil liberties in the process.
      - timepilot 16y ago
        I am well aware the scanners are flawed. However, I have not seen a study that shows the added benefit is "indistinguishable from zero." Please provide links, I may agree with you.
        Semiapies 16y ago
        Alternately, will you provide evidence that the scanners have been beneficial in any remotely significant way?
        timepilot 16y ago
        The good and the bad: “While officials said [the scanners] performed as well as physical pat downs in operational tests, it remains unclear whether the AIT would have detected the weapon used in the December 2009 incident,” the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress’s audit arm, said Wednesday in written testimony to the House Homeland Security Committee. http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/gao-raises-questions-about-effectiveness-full-body-scanners http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/gao-raises-questions-abo...
        orangecat 16y ago
        All I can do is point to the zero deaths since 2001 caused by passengers smuggling dangerous objects onto planes. Flying is far safer than many other common activities whose risks we gladly accept, and that would remain true even if terrorists blew up a fully loaded 747 every year. And not specifically related to the new policies, but see here for plausible analyses that by inducing travelers to drive rather than fly, the TSA is on balance killing Americans: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1150928-analyst-tsa-methods-will-kill-more-americans-highway.html http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/115092...
davidj 16y ago
I don't believe this poll for a second. Liars!
Semiapies 16y ago
Going by the answers to other questions, roughly 2/3 of respondents are also not worried about terrorism. Naturally, there's a huge number of permutations there, but this boils down to an awful lot of people perfectly willing to be looked at naked or felt up just because someone in charge says it needs to be done. This is part of why I've gotten into arguments with other libertarians who want to rain abuse on TSA employees simply for working at the TSA. The truth is that the TSA simply isn't doing much that most Americans aren't perfectly happy to let them do.
- derefr 16y ago
  Maybe 2/3rds of people are just willing to be looked at naked/felt up for no reason whatsoever, not associating it with any sort of internal shame, only external social guilt. As long as they have some sort of social "hallway pass" to escape the repercussions, and thus guilt, of their (in)action (such as "I was drunk" or "he was wearing a lab coat" or "it was for a movie/documentary they're making" or "it will stop terrorists") they'll do whatever depraved things you like, and allow similarly depraved things to be done to them. I call this the "Girls Gone Wild" hypothesis, although it's probably a corollary to Milgram (though one testable with less ethical questionability, certainly.)
tptacek 16y ago
~20% is a significant drop (from the CBS poll earlier in November) in public support for scanners, but I don't think this issue is polled heavily enough to draw conclusive observations about trends. Roughly half of Americans objecting to the "pat-downs" is heartening, though.
- Semiapies 16y ago
  I don't know whether that last is significant if the pat-downs work as designed - to discourage people from opting out.
steve19 16y ago
If you mix with tech and/or libertarian-minded people, this may surprise you. Discussing this with my educated, liberal (Democrat) and wealthy (travel a lot) family, they think this security theater is wonderful. They have been so well conditioned that they are really fearful of terrorists. They think I am naive. Personally I am far more concerned about my safety when driving my car than I am in the air.
- SkyMarshal 16y ago
  Bruce Schneier has some numbers worth remembering for those debates with your parents: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/tsa_backscatter.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/tsa_backscatte... There's talk about the health risks of the machines, but I can't believe you won't get more radiation on the flight. Here's some data: A typical dental X-ray exposes the patient to about 2 millirems of radiation. According to one widely cited estimate, exposing each of 10,000 people to one rem (that is, 1,000 millirems) of radiation will likely lead to 8 excess cancer deaths. Using our assumption of linearity, that means that exposure to the 2 millirems of a typical dental X-ray would lead an individual to have an increased risk of dying from cancer of 16 hundred-thousandths of one percent. Given that very small risk, it is easy to see why most rational people would choose to undergo dental X-rays every few years to protect their teeth. More importantly for our purposes, assuming that the radiation in a backscatter X-ray is about a hundredth the dose of a dental X-ray, we find that a backscatter X-ray increases the odds of dying from cancer by about 16 ten millionths of one percent. That suggests that for every billion passengers screened with backscatter radiation, about 16 will die from cancer as a result. Given that there will be 600 million airplane passengers per year, that makes the machines deadlier than the terrorists. Nate Silver on the hidden cost of these new airport security measures: According to the Cornell study, roughly 130 inconvenienced travelers died every three months as a result of additional traffic fatalities brought on by substituting ground transit for air transit. That's the equivalent of four fully-loaded Boeing 737s crashing each year.
klbarry 16y ago
I certainly don't mind the scanners or the check as long as it's done respectfully and professionally.
qq66 16y ago
You need to control the messaging. Opponents should have called these "cancer scanners" from Day 1.
rgrove 16y ago
According to the data (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_11222010.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll...) 85% of those polled rarely or never travel by air. Draw your own conclusions.
tgflynn 16y ago
What strikes me is how few reports on this issue attempt to quantify the risks involved. Well over 30K people die each year in the US in traffic accidents (http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html) whereas only about 3K have died in the past 10 years due to airline terrorism. Hence the risk of being killed in a traffic accident is on the order of 100 times greater than that of being killed by a terrorist attack against aviation. Now consider how willing most drivers are to trade a marginal increase in accident risk for a marginal increase in convenience (say driving 10 MPH over the posted speed limit to arrive at one's destination early). In light of these risk preferences it is hardly surprising that many travelers are outraged at being forced by the government to undergo a humiliating and degrading procedure for such a minimal (and disputed at that) decrease in risk.
AceStar 16y ago
Well, a quarter of Americans believe Obama is muslim, so go figure...
markbernard 16y ago
It is slanted because of how the question was asked. 81% Of Americans Support Naked Airport Scans... If You Leave Out The Naked Part In Asking The Question(http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101116/17225811903/81-of-americans-support-naked-airport-scans-if-you-leave-out-the-naked-part-in-asking-the-question.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101116/17225811903/81-of-...)

7 points by jonmc12 16y ago

I think this reflects the number of a)Those who haven't traveled recently and b)Those who haven't traveled in the last few months... Ideally the poll would ask if those answering have ever been scanned; then at least show me the segmented results.

timepilot 16y ago
Not sure you are correct - I'm in the 2/3. I have been scanned several times and I'm fine with it. For me: safety > personal privacy.
- orangecat 16y ago
  Please learn how to rationally evaluate risks before voting. Edit: This was an immature personal attack, and I apologize. It really shouldn't be voted up; others have made the same point in a more constructive manner.
- yequalsx 16y ago
  I would like to know where you draw the safety vs. personal freedom line. How far is too far? For me we crossed the line a long time ago. It would be nice to hear a different perspective. As it stands now, a 13 year old boy or girl will be groped during an enhanced pat down. As I see it, 9/11 can't happen again. That is, an airplane will never again be hijacked and used as a missile. It's possible for someone to blow up a plane but not to turn it into a missile. There are lots of places where a terrorist can kill 200+ people that don't have any security at all. Given this, I don't understand why having the level of security in our airports is justified. We've made it so that airports are a much harder target than a sporting event. Thus, airports are much safer from a terrorism point of view. Enhancements to security are not needed and a waste of time. I genuinely would like to know why my reasoning is wrong in your opinion and where you draw the line.
  - timepilot 16y ago
    Actually, I think your reasoning is well "reasonable". :) I also agree with you that the hijack/missile scenario seems unlikely at this point (existing safety precautions seem appropriate). I remain surprised (but happy) that terrorists have not gone after softer targets (malls, etc). For some reason, they remain very focused on airplanes (maybe the shock and awe effect). As a result, taking steps to make air travel as safe as possible seems reasonable. Now - how we do that is an open question. We have already had an underwear bombing attempt. How do we prevent this from being attempted again? The only solution I have seen is the current scanners and sadly the "pat down". If there is a better one, lets deploy it. If not, then it seems the argument is personal privacy > the lives of the unfortunate passengers aboard the plane that explodes when the terrorists are successful. No? If the underwear bomber had been successful, would you have a different view?
    - yequalsx 16y ago
      No, I would not have a different view. It's not a goal to try to prevent someone from doing this again. That's simply not possible. The goal is to make its success as unlikely as possible without causing too great a burden. Groping and virtual strip searches go too far in my opinion. The so called underwear bomber was stopped because when people see a man trying to ignite his underwear they stop him. We're not that helpless. Life is risky. Zero people have died in the U.S. from terrorism on airplanes since 9/11. It's extremely unlikely that a terrorist will blow up a plane with the security measures that were in place 1 year ago. No need to go further. The next place to hide explosives are vaginas and anal regions. Do you think those should be probed as well? If a terrorist blows himself up at a TSA checkpoint should we have a checkpoint in order to get to the checkpoint? At what point does the security become theater to you?
      - timepilot 16y ago
        "It's not a goal to try to prevent someone from doing this again. That's simply not possible. The goal is to make its success as unlikely as possible without causing too great a burden." - agreed "Groping and virtual strip searches go too far in my opinion." - Understood. Personally, I'm ok with the virtual strip search. If the physical search is a "professionally executed" pat down, I'm also ok with it. My wife and I fly multiple times/month and so far this has been our experience. If the search turned into "groping", I would have a different view. "Zero people have died in the U.S. from terrorism on airplanes since 9/11. It's extremely unlikely that a terrorist will blow up a plane with the security measures that were in place 1 year ago." - We just had a few close calls. The terrorists appear to be adapting. "The next place to hide explosives are vaginas and anal regions. Do you think those should be probed as well? If a terrorist blows himself up at a TSA checkpoint should we have a checkpoint in order to get to the checkpoint?" - This is indeed the rub. Where do you "draw the line?" - is always the issue when discussing giving up/forcing people to give up personal liberties for the good of others. Nevertheless, we do it all the time. For me the scanners/searches have not crossed the line. For you, they have.
- timepilot 16y ago
  @orangecat: If you are suggesting I'm talking a health risk, fair enough. If you are suggesting the added security from the scanners is minimal, also fair enough. If you are trolling, you know what you can do.
  - orangecat 16y ago
    I'm suggesting that the risk of terrorists blowing up your flight using a method that backscatter machines would prevent, but that previous procedures would not prevent, is indistinguishable from zero. You're trading your civil liberties in exchange for nothing. And that would be fine, except you're also trading my civil liberties in the process.
    - timepilot 16y ago
      I am well aware the scanners are flawed. However, I have not seen a study that shows the added benefit is "indistinguishable from zero." Please provide links, I may agree with you.
      - Semiapies 16y ago
        Alternately, will you provide evidence that the scanners have been beneficial in any remotely significant way?
      - timepilot 16y ago
        The good and the bad: “While officials said [the scanners] performed as well as physical pat downs in operational tests, it remains unclear whether the AIT would have detected the weapon used in the December 2009 incident,” the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress’s audit arm, said Wednesday in written testimony to the House Homeland Security Committee. http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/gao-raises-questions-about-effectiveness-full-body-scanners http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/gao-raises-questions-abo...
      - orangecat 16y ago
        All I can do is point to the zero deaths since 2001 caused by passengers smuggling dangerous objects onto planes. Flying is far safer than many other common activities whose risks we gladly accept, and that would remain true even if terrorists blew up a fully loaded 747 every year. And not specifically related to the new policies, but see here for plausible analyses that by inducing travelers to drive rather than fly, the TSA is on balance killing Americans: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1150928-analyst-tsa-methods-will-kill-more-americans-highway.html http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/115092...

davidj 16y ago

I don't believe this poll for a second. Liars!

Semiapies 16y ago

Going by the answers to other questions, roughly 2/3 of respondents are also not worried about terrorism. Naturally, there's a huge number of permutations there, but this boils down to an awful lot of people perfectly willing to be looked at naked or felt up just because someone in charge says it needs to be done. This is part of why I've gotten into arguments with other libertarians who want to rain abuse on TSA employees simply for working at the TSA. The truth is that the TSA simply isn't doing much that most Americans aren't perfectly happy to let them do.

derefr 16y ago
Maybe 2/3rds of people are just willing to be looked at naked/felt up for no reason whatsoever, not associating it with any sort of internal shame, only external social guilt. As long as they have some sort of social "hallway pass" to escape the repercussions, and thus guilt, of their (in)action (such as "I was drunk" or "he was wearing a lab coat" or "it was for a movie/documentary they're making" or "it will stop terrorists") they'll do whatever depraved things you like, and allow similarly depraved things to be done to them. I call this the "Girls Gone Wild" hypothesis, although it's probably a corollary to Milgram (though one testable with less ethical questionability, certainly.)

tptacek 16y ago

~20% is a significant drop (from the CBS poll earlier in November) in public support for scanners, but I don't think this issue is polled heavily enough to draw conclusive observations about trends. Roughly half of Americans objecting to the "pat-downs" is heartening, though.

Semiapies 16y ago
I don't know whether that last is significant if the pat-downs work as designed - to discourage people from opting out.

steve19 16y ago

If you mix with tech and/or libertarian-minded people, this may surprise you. Discussing this with my educated, liberal (Democrat) and wealthy (travel a lot) family, they think this security theater is wonderful. They have been so well conditioned that they are really fearful of terrorists. They think I am naive. Personally I am far more concerned about my safety when driving my car than I am in the air.

SkyMarshal 16y ago
Bruce Schneier has some numbers worth remembering for those debates with your parents: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/tsa_backscatter.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/tsa_backscatte... There's talk about the health risks of the machines, but I can't believe you won't get more radiation on the flight. Here's some data: A typical dental X-ray exposes the patient to about 2 millirems of radiation. According to one widely cited estimate, exposing each of 10,000 people to one rem (that is, 1,000 millirems) of radiation will likely lead to 8 excess cancer deaths. Using our assumption of linearity, that means that exposure to the 2 millirems of a typical dental X-ray would lead an individual to have an increased risk of dying from cancer of 16 hundred-thousandths of one percent. Given that very small risk, it is easy to see why most rational people would choose to undergo dental X-rays every few years to protect their teeth. More importantly for our purposes, assuming that the radiation in a backscatter X-ray is about a hundredth the dose of a dental X-ray, we find that a backscatter X-ray increases the odds of dying from cancer by about 16 ten millionths of one percent. That suggests that for every billion passengers screened with backscatter radiation, about 16 will die from cancer as a result. Given that there will be 600 million airplane passengers per year, that makes the machines deadlier than the terrorists. Nate Silver on the hidden cost of these new airport security measures: According to the Cornell study, roughly 130 inconvenienced travelers died every three months as a result of additional traffic fatalities brought on by substituting ground transit for air transit. That's the equivalent of four fully-loaded Boeing 737s crashing each year.

klbarry 16y ago

I certainly don't mind the scanners or the check as long as it's done respectfully and professionally.

qq66 16y ago

You need to control the messaging. Opponents should have called these "cancer scanners" from Day 1.

rgrove 16y ago

According to the data (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_11222010.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll...) 85% of those polled rarely or never travel by air. Draw your own conclusions.

tgflynn 16y ago

What strikes me is how few reports on this issue attempt to quantify the risks involved. Well over 30K people die each year in the US in traffic accidents (http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html) whereas only about 3K have died in the past 10 years due to airline terrorism. Hence the risk of being killed in a traffic accident is on the order of 100 times greater than that of being killed by a terrorist attack against aviation. Now consider how willing most drivers are to trade a marginal increase in accident risk for a marginal increase in convenience (say driving 10 MPH over the posted speed limit to arrive at one's destination early). In light of these risk preferences it is hardly surprising that many travelers are outraged at being forced by the government to undergo a humiliating and degrading procedure for such a minimal (and disputed at that) decrease in risk.

AceStar 16y ago

Well, a quarter of Americans believe Obama is muslim, so go figure...

markbernard 16y ago

It is slanted because of how the question was asked. 81% Of Americans Support Naked Airport Scans... If You Leave Out The Naked Part In Asking The Question(http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101116/17225811903/81-of-americans-support-naked-airport-scans-if-you-leave-out-the-naked-part-in-asking-the-question.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101116/17225811903/81-of-...)