TSA Full Body Scanners & Intrusive Pat-Downs: Has Airport Security Gone Too Far?

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."  This famous quote by Benjamin Franklin is all over the web today amid a sea of controversy that hit the mainstream media after John Tyner, a 31 year old from California, blogged about his experience with airport security at San Diego International Airport.  Mr Tyner, who upon refusing to be seen virtually naked in a Backscatter X-Ray (also known as Advanced Imaging/Millimeter wave technology) was informed that he would instead need to conform to receiving a physical pat-down that would involve a manual check of the groin area.  After refusing what he believed to constitute molestation and a violation of his civil rights, he was denied access to his flight, and upon trying to leave the airport, was informed that he might even face charges and a $10,000 fine for failing to follow TSA regulations and complete the security check. 

Mr Tyner wrote: "She (the TSA agent) described to me that because I had opted out of the backscatter screening, I would now be patted down, and that involved running hands up the inside of my legs until they felt my groin. I stated that I would not allow myself to be subject to a molestation as a condition of getting on my flight. The supervisor informed me that it was a standard administrative security check and that they were authorized to do it. I repeated that I felt what they were doing was a sexual assault, and that if they were anyone but the government, the act would be illegal."
Upon trying to leave the airport, Mr Tyner was again approached and told he had to return to the security screening area.  He writes, "He informed me that I could not leave the airport. He said that once I start the screening in the secure area, I could not leave until it was completed. Having left the area, he stated, I would be subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine.

It is interesting to note that this topic is very controversial, and while there has been an outpouring of support for Mr Tyner's refusal to cooperate with the TSA screening process, there is also equally passionate support for these stricter anti-terrorist security measures.

Many of Mr Tyner's supporters claim that as a government agency, the TSA is prohibited from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment.  One anonymous reader wrote: "THANK YOU. The TSA is out of control and we need to reign them in. You now have a "choice" of being photographed naked or molested if you want to fly. It's absurd. I can only bet members of Congress don't fly commercially with their families."

On the opposing side of the argument, another anonymous reaction read, "If the rules mean you're going to be subjected to insignificant amounts of radiation while someone briefly glimpses your precious 'junk', or that you might be touched, then you have two options: 1. Deal with it, or 2. Leave. The airline, and, in turn, the government, are responsible for the safety of everyone on the plane you wished to get on, as well as any potential targets on the ground in case of a bombing or hijacking, therefore, they've made the rules to try and detect bombs or weapons as best they can, and as unobtrusively as possible."

What do you think?  Have Airport Security measures gone too far?  Or do you agree with the implementation of this new technology and what passengers are subjected to if they refuse to be scanned?

Please join the discussion here

For a list of airports with Full Body Scanners, click here (Jaunted)