@sassafras_: I agree — it is such a hot button issue, and it'll be interesting to see how different wordings affect results as there's no way more polling won't be done on this.

@sassafras_: I respect that point of view. I wish that that was the kind of language we all would use in this national debate, instead of one side using phrases such as "nudie-scanners" and "gropings," and the other side using the typical "terrorist-lover" nonsense.

@Paul Voth: I agree 100%. It's a scary thought for journalism to express the opinions of only the majority. I hold the exact same view as you when it comes to not being bothered by them, and I very much know that a lot of people feel otherwise, strongly. A lot of those 80% don't like going through it, I'm sure…

@sassafras_: That's an internet poll. While they're good for fun, you can't measure public opinion with them. Sample size isn't everything. In fact, it's nothing without controls. People voting in that poll probably clicked on that story because they don't like the scanners. You don't want confounding variables…

@DJEsch: Yes, it's the CBS poll, and here's the full survey results including the question they asked:

@Etarip: They were fighting for much, much, much greater causes. Not wanting a blurry black and white blob of a pic of you without clothes seen by some person who's seen 1000 other blurry blobs on any given day is trumped by world peace. Just a little. Protest is good, but for truly worthy causes.

@sassafras_: I know it well. (Flirted with prelaw as an undergrad.) Searches are not unreasonable if freely consented to. Signs are all over the airport saying you're forfeiting your right to leave security without being screened once you enter the line. But the key is that no one is forcing you to enter the line.…

I think it's time for the body scanner obsession to stop on Giz. More than 80% of Americans support their use and expansion of their use, as does a vast majority of congress and the president. The courts aren't going to touch it, and even if they did, the civil-liberties-unfriendly Supreme Court won't do anything to…

@Dallifornia: Minimal amounts of x-rays. You soak up that amount of radiation in a few minutes at altitude, so unless you're flying across town, the additional radiation is negligible.

@sassafras_: You would rather have 9/11 happen twice than what's happening now? Wow. What "constitutional right" are you talking about? The "right" to fly? It's not like the government is stoping people walking down the sidewalk and making them walk through a body scanner.....

@whormongr: You have to go through the machines a whopping 1000 times to meet the maximum recommended radiation level...privacy concerns aside, it's just not a health problem.

@OMG! Ponies!: Yes. Thank you. People fearing what they don't take the time to understand — it happens over, and over, and over.... It's the reason why, for example, we don't have irradiated meat. It could prevent countless bouts of foodborne illnesses, all for a few pennies extra per pound, but people think…

First, something tells me there's more to the story than meets the eye. (i.e. at the very least, the word "allegedly" should be used here.)