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

[RamboLiberal]

Source: Washington Post

-----

On the basic question of investigating threats versus protecting privacy, the public remains about where it has been in recent years. Fully 68 percent of those polled say that the federal government should focus on looking into possible terrorist actions, even if that intrudes on personal privacy. About 26 percent say it's more important for the federal government to avoid privacy intrusions.

These views carry directly to public assessments of the new scanning machines: 64 percent support them, 32 percent are opposed. While attention has been focused on stiff opposition to the new machines, about twice as many of those polled "strongly support" as "strongly oppose" the new digital X-ray machines.

About a third of all Americans see the new scanning machines as a potential health risk, but most say that's not a big concern. A sizable number - 45 percent - of those who see a possible health risk nonetheless support the new scanners.

The balance shifts, however, when it comes to the enhanced pat-downs. On that question, Americans divide down the middle, with 48 percent saying this new level of search is justified to try to prevent terrorism and 50 percent saying it goes too far. About 37 percent of all Americans say they feel strongly that the new procedure is overly intrusive.

Sixty-nine percent of Democrats support the new scanners, as do 65 percent of Republicans. Fifty-two percent of Democrats call the new pat-downs justified, compared to 49 percent of Republicans.




Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/22/AR2010112205514.html?hpid=topnews

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

1. Oh please keep me safe from everything, I will do anything

you ask.

[Kali]

8. ...

:thumbsup:

[L.Torsalo]

55. Initial poll found that support

was 4 out of 5. So 20% has already risen to 32%. These polls are bs. No one wants these fucking things.

[Nostradammit]

2. A new Washington Post-ABC News Poll?

I don't believe a fucking word of it.

If the Washington Post or ABC says it you can be sure the truth is
180 degrees opposite.

Why do we pay any attention to these proven propagandists?

[Iowa]

44. Exactly right. I have not spoken to a single person who isn't outraged by this...

This poll is bullshit.

[customerserviceguy]

46. Unfortunately, I did speak to someone who is not outraged

It's my supervisor, and yes, she's utterly clueless about everything else, too.

[golddigger]

3. Bullshit poll.

[saigon68]

56. Total Bullshit

They ask toothless wonders who never fly if its a good idea.

The same cretins who voted for bush and the rest of the criminals

[abelenkpe]

4. Baloney

I can't believe that.

[Hulk]

5. How many of that 68% are flying the "friendly skies"??

I'd like to see a poll of people at the airport, going through this humiliation in the name of stupidity. That would be a lot more telling.

This is like asking people how they feel about paying more taxes to support people they don't know or don't care about. These polls are bull shit.

I'm flying often...and I resent this whole intrusion into my privacy. How ugly do we have to get?

Why not put in body scanners, and give the rub downs at football stadiums, shopping malls, etc...where there are often TENS OF THOUSANDS of people gathered. A terrorist would have a hay day blowing up a few thousand innocent people at one of these events..and they don't even have to buy a ticket for a plane ride.

Absolute bull shit stupidity!!

[frazzled]

10. I flew three round-trips in the last month

I didn't get humiliated. I did go through one scanner; the rest were metal detectors. It was a pain in the ass, as usual -- but it's been that way since 2001. Nine years. What else is new.

I personally don't care whether I go through a body-scanner or a metal detector. I have no problems with having my body appear on a screen. The process itself, however, is exhausting and time consuming and often feels unnecessary and random. But it's not the new rules -- that's just hyped up media frenzy. Pat downs aren't new (they were pretty invasive before -- and I've had several), and very few people will get them.

What irks me the MOST about flying these days is the airlines. They've added hefty fees to check a bag while at the same time reducing the size of a rollaboard one can carry on. They treat you like cattle -- more so than TSA, imo. I absolutely detest flying: but it's not because of the scanners.

[bluedigger]

6. I can believe it.

The majority of the American public does not fly, and is perfectly willing to sacrifice their rights when it has no practical effect on them. Of course, the ramifications escape them.

[DJ13]

7. Biased poll results as a means of control

Joseph Goebbels would have been proud of his progeny.

[hlthe2b]

9. Bullshit. When they euphemistically term it "pat down", of course

your will get a lot of uninformed and non-flyers voting this way. MISLEADING as hell.

[customerserviceguy]

45. They corrupt the language

to hide the truth.

[frylock]

11. just 15 percent of those polled say they travel by plane every few months..

Most say they fly less than once a year or never. Sixty-six percent say the risk of terrorism on airplanes is not that great.

Those who say they take flights at least once every year are less supportive of the new scanners than those who rarely or never fly, although most still like the idea. By 54 to 43 percent, those who fly at least once annually say the pat-down procedure goes too far.

[Tx4obama]

12. I want to see a poll regarding 'pat downs' - and ask only those folks that have experienced it

since the time the new rules took effect.

[lsewpershad]

13. The terrorists have won

We are now affraid of our own shadows. Pretty soon some corporation, for humongus profits, will develop something to save us frm our shadows

[Igel]

43. No, they haven't.

The goal of terrorism isn't timidity and inconvenience.

It's terror, prior to submission--doing what they want, whether releasing somebody from prison, leaving their country so that their comrades can take over, bringing down the country to make all the bad guys (us, that is) suffer untold suffering, or converting en masse to their religion and anointing them as minor deities for their perfection and righteousness.

Many have been afraid of some of their shadows for a long time: The zero-risk, precautionary-principle-rules folk. Or, more likely, they're afraid of other people's shadows.

[bluestateguy]

14. "As long as it's that brown skinned guy who gets scanned and stripped"

That's pretty much the attitude.

[northernlights]

15. I wonder how they'll feel after the scanner bounces them for a zipper or something

And they get a chance to have their genitals groped.

May not be so sure after that.

For me, I'd rather take my chances with an underwear bomber...

[Dr.Phool]

16. baaaa, baaaaa, baaaaaa.

[Tx4obama]

17. Yesterday on the news I noticed during several segment on cable TV....

many times on many shows when a question was be asked about the 'new invasive pat downs' the guests would avoid that specific question that was asked and immediately start yapping about the 'body scanners'.
It was very irritating and I kept waiting for the various hosts to say 'That wasn't what I asked" but none of them did.

[TK421]

18. uh huh...sure they do, if this poll says that, sure they do!

MUST OBEY

[Quixote1818]

19. I suppose I don't support this because I know it is offensive to many people, however

I could care less if they did one of those scans on me. No big deal.:shrug:

[grahamhgreen]

26. What if it gave you cancer? What if it wound up on the internet?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

36. Do you have proof it does?

And the scans don't show your face.

[bettyellen]

37. i could tell it was you anyway, LOL!

[grahamhgreen]

40. Yes. Xrays cause cancer. Your kidding Yourself if you dont think everybodies

scans will wind up un the internet. With your name, links to your facebook photos etc..

I'm sure it will be great for the children.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. The backscatter X-ray gives you about the same dose as 2 minutes of flying

Unlike medical X-rays, the X-rays used in backscatter technology bounce off the skin, revealing what's under your clothes, but not what's under your skin. Medical X-rays go through the body, revealing bones and internal organs.

The TSA says you will be exposed to as much radiation undergoing a backscatter body scan as you would during two minutes of your flight. The high altitude of a cross-Canada flight exposes you to about 0.03 mSv of radiation. You'd need to fly across the country 100 times to equal the amount of radiation you are naturally exposed to in a year.


http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/01/05/f-airport-scanners-radiation-risk.html

[catchnrelease]

47. On the dangers of TSA backscatter scanners

Dr. Sedat is Professor Emeritus in Biochemistry and Biophysics at the University of California, San Francisco, with expertise in imaging. He is alo a member of the National Academy of Sciences. The other cosigners includes Dr. Marc Shuman, an internationally well known and respected cancer expert and UCSF professor, as well as Drs. David Agard and Robert Stroud, who are UCSF Professors, X-ray crystallographers, imaging experts and NAS members.


We, a number of University of California, San Francisco faculty, are writing — see the attached memo — to call your attention to our concerns about the potential serious health risks of the recently adopted whole body back scatter X-ray airport security scanners. This is an urgent situation as these X-ray scanners are rapidly being implemented as a primary screening step for all air travel passengers.

(snip)

The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmic ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, this comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest X-rays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high.



http://firedoglake.com/letter-from-john-w-sedat-et-al-on-the-dangers-of-tsa-backscatter-scanners/

[grahamhgreen]

49. Nice PR firm quote, but the reason the pilots don't go through is because of the radiation,

Its extra radiation that i dont want.

What if you had some precancerous lesions and this was just enough to set it off?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

48. LOL!

:rofl:

[somone]

20. The years of conditioning paid off

[fascisthunter]

21. so how much did this polling company make?

[high density]

22. I wish they'd start polling on "strip search" instead of "body scan"

I don't think a lot of people yet realize what a "body scan" is.

[LisaL]

23. Give it time.

Not that many people have actually experienced the new enhanced airport security.
They should do this poll on people who went through it, especially those who underwent both the x-rays and then the pat downs because something "suspicious" was discovered and see how many of those approve.

[Matariki]

24. Don't believe it. Propaganda damage control in effect.

[enlightenment]

25. Definitely.

ABC or CBS run an "unscientific" poll and the results are held up as proof that people overwhelmingly support the use of the scanners.

Last week Reuters did an "unscientific" poll that showed the EXACT opposite - but try googling "reuters poll body scanners" . . . practically every headline about it points first to the UNSCIENTIFIC nature of the poll.

[TheWatcher]

27. Two Thirds Of Americans are Hapless Sheep Who See Five Fingers Instead Of Four.

And deserve neither Freedom, nor Security.

Or, this is just another Bullshit piece of Pravda Like Propaganda that demonstrates how desperate TPTB have become.

Land Of The Cowards, Home Of The Enslaved.

[ProudDad]

28. So the National Security State

and Permenent War Economy(tm)...

And their propaganda machine seems to be working...

Nearly 2/3 of USAmericans thought slavery was a great idea in the 1850s... Means nothing...

[Demeter]

29. Give them a week or 5

By New Year's Eve it will be more like 20%

[ProudDad]

30. I'd be willing to bet that 98% of them haven't been groped yet (n/t)

[avaistheone1]

31. Another phoney poll

Then again Americans are pretty stupid, so maybe the poll is true.

Two-Thirds of Americans Can't Name Any U.S. Supreme Court Justices, Says New FindLaw.com Survey
• Only 53% of adults know how long it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun.
• Only 59% of adults know that the earliest humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same time.

Nearly half the U.S. population believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Say it ain't so!

"About 1 in 4 Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.) But more than half of Americans can name at least two members of the fictional cartoon family, according to a survey.

"The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just 1 in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms."






:wow:

[bongbong]

32. Interesting number!

68 percent, rounded up from 66.666666666666%

They asked Chertoff, Cheney, and Bush. The first two said "Yes, I'm in favor of it", and the 3rd was dozing from a hangover so they recorded his vote as "no".

[sofa king]

33. Down from four out of five last week.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4615971&mesg_id=4615971

But just wait until next week.

[Bill McBlueState]

34. cool

Last I heard, it was 80%. People are starting to have their doubts.

[Toucano]

35. So it's dropping. CBS had it at 80% one week ago.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20022876-503544.html


The more people fly, the more they learn, the more they will hate this policy.

[blackspade]

38. Propoganda.

Even if this poll is correct (which I doubt)just because 68% of Americans have had the crap scared out of them, doesn't make the abridgement of the 4th Amendment OK.

[valerief]

39. Afraid of everything but the real enemy -- the puppetmasters of our political body. nt

[RoccoR5955]

42. How many of them actually travel on planes?

Half, a third, a quarter?
Did they ask airplane travelers, or the general public? If the general public, how many travel on planes? Inquiring minds want to know.

[JackRiddler]

50. Bullshit. All it means is two-thirds haven't caught on to what the question refers to.

[SoCalDemGrrl]

51. How bout polling on sticking one's hands down your underwear and groping??

Please these polls have got to be bullshit or else the American public has really jumped the shark!!!

Heaven help us!

[awoke_in_2003]

52. and 50% of americans are below average...

so fucking what- the 4th Amendment is still the 4th Amendment.

[tomg]

53. For me, the real issue is not safety

or the idea of someone looking at my nekkid body. It isn' even the royal pain in the assedness of it all.

The real issue, and the one they are going after, is the right to privacy. The right to privacy is one of the most complex issues we face, including such things as reproduction rights, rights of accussed, identity issues and the like. It is clearly in the interests of the corporatists to say that we have no inherent right to privacy.

This is simply one more stage in the battle over whether we have the individual right to privacy. If they can establish in a court case ( and you know it will come up and you know those fascists on Robert's Supreme Council - sorry - Court will decide that "national security" blah blah), then it is over. Sorry not covered in the constitution, so you have no right to privacy.

edit:typo

[Blandocyte]

54. How about a poll of security experts?

I'm not putting much stock in the modal American's take on anything these days.