By

CBSNews /

CBS/ January 11, 2010, 1:00 PM

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.
26 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
wordgirrrl says:
It blows my mind that people are concerned about losing their privacy while being subject to use a full-body scanner at U.S. airports.

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
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
grannysunni says:
Just because somebody in the intelligence and TSA field can't do their jobs, we're expected to be willing to participate in full body scanners? I don't think so! It should be used only as a very last resort, for people who fail the initial security and profile checks. Their screening is to make us think they're protecting our security when they're really not. They don't screen the bulk cargo in the belly of the plane. They don't examine the contents of the small bottles of shampoo, bath gel, hair spray, foot powder, toothpaste, etc, that are 3 oz or less. How can they possibly know those containers are safe? The underwear bomber had liquid chemicals in a syringe. If A-Q can't get something through on their person or in their carry on bag, is our gov't so naive to think they won't try some other method?

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.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
gilmomuff says:
Probably that 90% of people who answered the poll
are no flyers and the nearest they ever came to a plane
has been on their TV box !
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
RedWings_ninety_one says:
I support this idea because other wise the best way to search every person is to conduct a VERY thurough cavity search on everyone. This would be too time consuming. They already have this technology pretty well for people's bags, why not people?
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
gwjackie says:
SAFETY FIRST IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT WALK.
reply
RedWings_ninety_one replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
I like your solution.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
gwjackie says:
Body scanners for all no pat-down for anyone no cell phones on planes everyone in hand cuffs to there seat and duck tape over there mouth for flights not to exceed 10 hours. This rule for (Republicans) only this should do it.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
gilmomuff says:
Why spend 150,000$ per scanner, just to make a few inspectors laugh
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!)
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Empire-George- says:
As long as Political Correctness is present, we will always be at risk (Ie: Ft.Hood shooter, Christmas bomber).....when they begin to address the real threat (Muslim males between 18-40) instead of worrying about "offending" someone, then we can move towards real safety....until then, don't offend anyone, we wouldn't want a muslim terrorist offended, right ?
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Empire-George- says:
by retiredgustav January 11, 2010 10:30 AM EST
If you don't like it don't fly.
___________________

How about targeting the Islamic terrorists, instead of making 300 million people virtually strip searched?
reply
excoachken replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
How about disarming all the home grown, "Christian" nut cases with more strict screening and restrictions on the manufacturing and distribution of weapons. There are many more "In house" terrorists, most carrying NRA cards in their pockets, than those trying to get on airplanes. Read the papers. Everyday another loose cannon with his own cannon, "terrorizes" some innocent people in small town U.S.A. We need stronger gun laws to reduce this brand of terror!
linkicon reporticon emailicon
excoachken says:
Why would anybody object to such an anonymous, innocuous "search"? I would walk through a checkpoint as naked as a newborn, if it means that I arrive safely on the other end. This survey simply proves that 20% of Americans have serious hang ups about their bodies AND their basic sexuality. Funny how that correlates exactly with the numbers of the radical "Tea Bag" group. I might suggest something truly Freudian about the selection of their group moniker!
reply
See all 26 Comments