Poll: 4 in 5 Support Full-Body Airport Scanners
CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.
Americans have differing views on two potentially inconvenient and invasive practices that airports could implement to uncover potential terrorist attacks, a new CBS News poll shows. Americans overwhelmingly approve of the use of full-body digital x-ray machines - a new technology in use at some airports in the U.S. Most, meanwhile, do not approve of racial or ethnic profiling - a practice not in place.
In response to continued security threats, the Transportation and Security Administration recently began introducing full body scanners with more enhanced technology than past devices into airports nationwide. If a passenger refuses to pass through the new scanners, TSA agents are now allowed to conduct a very detailed, very personal, body search on that person.
Although some civil rights groups allege that they represent an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, Americans overwhelmingly agree that airports should use the digital x-ray machines to electronically screen passengers in airport security lines, according to the new poll. Eighty-one percent think airports should use these new machines -- including a majority of both men and women, Americans of all age groups, and Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike. Fifteen percent said airports should not use them.
In an op-ed for USA Today, Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano today urged Americans to be patient in the face of the heightened airplane security measures.
"Al-Qaeda and those inspired by its ideology are determined to strike our global aviation system and are constantly adapting their tactics for doing so," she wrote. "Our best defense against such threats remains a risk-based, layered security approach that utilizes a range of measures, both seen and unseen, including law enforcement, advanced technology, intelligence, watch-list checks and international collaboration."
Health Blog: Should John Tyner Should Worry about More Than His Junk?
New Airport Security to Slow Down Holiday Travel
While the TSA has implemented new security measures, it does not single out individuals based on their ethnic or racial backgrounds. (It has since 2003 conducted behavioral profiling.)
Most Americans do not think it would be justified for people of certain racial or ethnic groups to be subject to additional security checks at airport checkpoints. Fifty-two percent say no, while 37 percent say it would be justified.
Feelings on this may be sensitive to news about terror threats. Back in January 2010 -- after a failed Christmas Day attempt by a Nigerian citizen to detonate explosives hidden in his underwear on a flight to Detroit - a slight majority of Americans thought ethnic profiling was justified. In 2006, shortly after British authorities unveiled a potential terror plot using liquid explosives, 49 percent of Americans supported ethnic profiling at airports.
Some groups of Americans see this issue differently. Republicans are divided on this issue, while Americans over 65 and those who think a terrorist attack within the next few months is very likely are more apt to think ethnic and racial profiling is justified than not.
This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1,137 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone November 7-10, 2010. Phone numbers were dialed from RDD samples of both standard land-lines and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.
Popular in Politics
- Obama prom pictures surface
- Drones, Gitmo part of broad Obama counterterrorism speech
- House passes GOP bill to speed Keystone XL pipeline approval
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 767 Comments
- Lawmakers push to punish sexual offenders in the military
- Christie: Keep politics out of Oklahoma disaster relief
- Former Miss America might challenge McConnell
- Amid scrutiny of commerce pick, White House confident about her fate
I was so disgusted and upset, that I actually started to cry. Let me tell you, THAT was disconcerting to my family. Yes, they agreed, it was unreasonable, but it was "no big deal". The doctor sees me naked, and blah blah blah. But all I could think was that I did not feel "secure in my person", no matter how many terrorists they actually catch doing this (which so far seems to be none). My family's reaction only added to my feelings of shame and frustration, so I quickly decided I was overreacting and spent our four-day vacation trying to forget it. But then I considered, and decided that my gut was exactly right. There is something so ****** up about this situation, that my reaction makes sense. The only reason it is anomalous is that everyone has just accepted that they will have to be abused by the airports. And either everyone protests, or no one protests. And since everyone does not protest, no one protests. And then we become sheep.
If any part of this poll is genuine, all it shows is that the terrorists are winning--the public truly is terrified!
However, the poll is of dubious merit for the following reasons:
1) Only about 1200 people were polled. This is only a small fraction of those who fly each year
2) "Random sampling" is a fairly ******** term. Picking 1200 people out of the phonebook is not likely to represent the real demographics of America, and oversampling and undersampling would occur very easily in such a small random sample. The sampling should reflect the correct proportions of passengers, not names drawn from a hat.
3) The question just asks if the person thinks that scanners should be used, which seems straightforward, but it isn't. Did the people who answered this poll think in terms of whether they actually thought that scanners were a good idea or whether they merely PREFERRED scanning to its current alternative? Because right now, those are our options.
On another note, since when is the purpose of the constitution to protect the majority? I'm pretty sure it's supposed to protect EVERYONE. So just because a proposed 80% of Americans are OK with being sexually assaulted, that does not mean the concerns of the 20% are to be negated. And if some are concerned enough about attacks to tell those who are opposed that they have the option of not flying, I would like to place that choice back in your lap. YOU have the choice not to fly. If you're not comfortable with the INHERENT risk of flying, then do NOT fly. But do not infringe upon my constitutional and human rights. I will not submit to being sexually assaulted and/or photographed naked (it's not just a chalk line, http://www.rupture.co.uk/Images/big/terminal4-LARGE.jpg it's one of the few unaltered photos of the unaltered image that the TSA workers see) just because you think it's necessary. Especially when the government is using my own tax money to sexually assault me, and is spending none of that money in developing non sexual assault methods that are just as good if not better than these infernal machines and pat downs. Not to mention all those special people whose wallets are being nicely lined because of all of these machines.
And for those suggesting that we should suck it up given that our doctors see us naked, I would suggest that the TSA then employ doctors and nurses to do the screenings who can simultaneously do breast exams and testicular exams as they would have to grope those parts anyways. Then some good would actually come from it all, given that it's not effective for the purposes it claims. This would offset the estimated 1 in 20,000,000 that could die from cancer caused by the WBI machines (see various news stories).
I guess the bottom line is that when I go to the airport in my bikini so no one sexually assaults me, they better not arrest me for indecent exposure ;)