Poll: 3 in 4 Support Airport Body Scans
Almost three quarters of the American public are in favor of full body x-ray scanners at airports, according to the findings of a new CBS News poll conducted in the wake of the failed Christmas Day bombing attempt on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.
Of those questioned, 74 percent said airports should use the controversial machines because they provide a detailed check for hidden weapons and explosives and reduce the need for physical searches. Just 20 percent said the machines should not be used because they see through a passenger's clothing and thus constitute an invasion of privacy.
Racial and ethnic profiling of passengers at airports received less support, with just over half (51 percent) saying added security checks for passengers from certain ethnic or racial groups is justified. Thirty-eight percent said such profiling was not justified. Views on racial and ethnic profiling have changed little since a previous CBS News poll in 2006.
President Obama's response to the attempt on Northwest flight 253 won the support of more than half the public, but those views were highly partisan.
Fifty-seven percent of the Americans questioned by CBS said they approved of the way the Obama administration responded to the attempted terrorist attack, while only 29 percent said they disapproved. The ratings are better than recent measures of President Obama's overall approval.
However, when broken down on party lines, 75 percent of self-professed Democrats said they approved of how the President handled the incident. Just 41 percent of Republicans said the same.
In more detail:
• Men were more likely (51 percent) than women (48 percent) to say racial or ethnic profiling is justified. Older Americans were also more apt to support it. Partisanship also factors into people's views: 62 percent of Republicans supported profiling at airports while just 42 percent of Democrats did so.
• Those who spend the most time in the air - roughly one in ten Americans - also were more apt to support profiling. 62 percent of self-described frequent fliers said more rigorous checks for certain groups of people by airport security are justified, compared to 49 percent of those who fly occasionally or never.
• Additional airport security checks are viewed as going only so far in preventing terrorism. Four in five Americans think if the government required even more comprehensive screening procedures in airports that would be effective in stopping future attacks, but few - just a quarter - said it would be "very effective."
This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1,216 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone January 6-10, 2010. Phone numbers were dialed from random digit dial samples of both standard land-line 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.
Copyright 2010 CBS. All rights reserved. Of those questioned, 74 percent said airports should use the controversial machines because they provide a detailed check for hidden weapons and explosives and reduce the need for physical searches. Just 20 percent said the machines should not be used because they see through a passenger's clothing and thus constitute an invasion of privacy.
Racial and ethnic profiling of passengers at airports received less support, with just over half (51 percent) saying added security checks for passengers from certain ethnic or racial groups is justified. Thirty-eight percent said such profiling was not justified. Views on racial and ethnic profiling have changed little since a previous CBS News poll in 2006.
President Obama's response to the attempt on Northwest flight 253 won the support of more than half the public, but those views were highly partisan.
Fifty-seven percent of the Americans questioned by CBS said they approved of the way the Obama administration responded to the attempted terrorist attack, while only 29 percent said they disapproved. The ratings are better than recent measures of President Obama's overall approval.
However, when broken down on party lines, 75 percent of self-professed Democrats said they approved of how the President handled the incident. Just 41 percent of Republicans said the same.
In more detail:
• Men were more likely (51 percent) than women (48 percent) to say racial or ethnic profiling is justified. Older Americans were also more apt to support it. Partisanship also factors into people's views: 62 percent of Republicans supported profiling at airports while just 42 percent of Democrats did so.
• Those who spend the most time in the air - roughly one in ten Americans - also were more apt to support profiling. 62 percent of self-described frequent fliers said more rigorous checks for certain groups of people by airport security are justified, compared to 49 percent of those who fly occasionally or never.
• Additional airport security checks are viewed as going only so far in preventing terrorism. Four in five Americans think if the government required even more comprehensive screening procedures in airports that would be effective in stopping future attacks, but few - just a quarter - said it would be "very effective."
This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1,216 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone January 6-10, 2010. Phone numbers were dialed from random digit dial samples of both standard land-line 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.
- Dad Punishes Daughter with Free Babysitter Ad Play Video
- How to stop junk mail - forever
- Legit Work-from-Home Websites - and the Scams
- New tornadoes hit Midwest Play Video
- Terms to Never Use in Your Resume
- 'Sex And The City' Premieres Play Video
- Bill Nye's Withered Romance
- Lorena Bobbitt, 15 Years Later













Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R. Utah, said "we don't need to look at naked eight-year-olds and grandmothers to secure airplanes." Why is this such an outlandish thought. Doesn't he think that terrorists have enough ingenuity to start using their eight-year-olds and grandmothers to fulfill their plots of destruction? I wasn't aware that al-Qaida and Taliban fighters had age restrictions when it came to their attacks.
Scan, scan, scan. Scan infants, scan mothers, scan teenagers, scan the elderly. Afraid of losing your privacy? Bodies are bodies, yours isn't special, mine isn't special, theirs aren't special. Everyone has a body. Unless you're concealing something illegal, what do you have to be afraid of?
Privacy advocates should stick to what they defend best: computerized government databases, creditors, banks and super-sleuths that collect personal data each time you use your credit and debit cards.
If the scanners are able to scan your body and locate something as small as a penny, kudos to technology! Should I be scanned, and airport security has a question about the massive scar tissue I have near my rectum, I will not only be happy to comply to moon the security guard, I will go into great depth to tell her about the numerous failed rectal fistula surgeries that landed me this blemished rump. After all, it's not something you can just bring up in normal conversation, so if security wants to go there, I'll accept their offer and go there with a zest that comes from politely silencing myself regarding said rump.
The fact that the scanners can't detect something concealed in a body cavity isn't a problem. The United States is equipped with enough abandoned dogs that the government can use this as an opportunity to save thousands of our canine friends from euthanasia. All of those previous smoking rooms that people would run to in order to inhale a quick smoke before their next flight have become extinct and could be transformed into a doggy daycares so that the dogs could catch a break between sniffs.
Unless you're hiding something, giving up a little privacy sure beats being afraid to fly due to terrorists.
http://www.unsweptsecrets.blogspot.com
Furthermore, I do not think Obama and his administration handled the flight 253 incident well. For one thing, Brennan and Napolitano expressed surprise that Al Quaida was operating in Yemen and Napolitano was further surprised that they would use one person to carry out an attact. This "surprise" mind you, was despite the fact that the Obama admin had been briefed by the Bush admin about Al Quaida operating in Yemen. This "surprise" was despite Brennan having traveled to Saudi Arabia in September, 2009, to learn more about the AQ underwear bomber that tried to kill the Saudi intelligence chief. This was despite all the other intelligence they had gathered. This was despite the USS Cole bombing in 2000 - in Yemen. They claimed they didn't connect the dots. As a result of their failure, Obama assigned people to process intelligence received within 48 hours. It's incomprehensible to think they did not have people assisgned to process intelligence received prior to this event. They claimed a misspelled name prevented them from connecting the dots. Why wouldn't they have enough common sense to do a wider search when nothing came up in the database? After all, Google searches will ask if you want to search for a similar keyword. It's stunning to think our intelligence community and state department doesn't have that capability.
are no flyers and the nearest they ever came to a plane
has been on their TV box !
because they found an extra virile member part on "some" women ?
No, those scanners will discover many more body abnormalities then
explosives, including some folds, large ones, profound enough to hide
a bazooka and some -nests- not being quite full as they appear to be...
I says an ENEMA for every air traveler ! The inspectors will be able
to see the back of their victims with this ultimate and safe -application-
and make sure that no cavity is too small or too big enough to hide bad
substances.
(I do hope that my enema stock shoots up!)
If you don't like it don't fly.
___________________
How about targeting the Islamic terrorists, instead of making 300 million people virtually strip searched?