It  may seem like the current uproar and ongoing revolt against the Transportation  Security Administration’s newest security protocols came out of nowhere,  but opposition to full-body scanners has been building for some time.   The breadth of the opposition is perhaps most clearly apparent in the  unified position of third party and Independent activists from across  the political spectrum.

Just  under a year ago, the advanced imaging technology could be found in use  at fewer than two dozen airports, where they were deployed for their  initial public testing phase.  However, following the failed bomb plot  by the so-called “underwear bomber” on Christmas Day 2009, there were  increased calls for heightened airport security measures.  In a  Quinnipiac University poll from January 14th, 2010, 63% of respondents  stated that the government's anti-terror policies put too much emphasis  on protecting civil liberties and not enough on ensuring national  security, and a whopping 84% supported more widespread use of airport  body scanners.  The TSA obliged and, over the course of the year,  installed and unveiled new full-body scanning machines at airports  across the country in at least two different waves, one this spring and  another in late October.

From  the very beginning, opposition to the scanners made for strange  political bedfellows: the American Civil Liberties Union and the  National Rifle Association were early opponents of TSA plans to deploy  the scanners throughout the country. The breadth of the opposition is  even more apparent when one considers the positions of third party and  Independent political activists.  Independent, Green, Libertarian,  Pirate Party and Constitution Party activists are united in their  opposition to the TSA’s new security protocols.

Mary Starrett, the  Communications Director of the conservative Constitution Party,  published an early and robust diatribe against the scanners in late  January.  Pulling no punches, Starrett argued that:

“X-rays zapping us at airports and government buildings across  the country . . . are being touted as another small step toward a more  secure America.  In truth, they represent a giant leap toward slavery.”

Starrett elaborated a series of arguments that are by now familiar to  anyone who has been following the controversy.  They are unconstitutional  and violate the Fourth Amendment.  They likely pose a significant health  risk, and they represent an unreasonable breach of personal privacy.

Over  the course of the year, opposition has only grown, as more  and more travelers have been confronted with and had to pass through the  machines.  Former Green Party presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, has urged Congress to hold  rigorous hearings to review the Department of Homeland Security and  Transportation Security Administration’s use of full-body scanners.  In  addition to broaching the issues raised by Starrett, Nader questioned  the effectiveness of the machines in a letter to the members of the  Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs from  September 7th, in which the longtime consumer rights advocate wrote:

“Many security experts have concluded that scanning devices can be  easily defeated by concealing explosives in body cavities. A March 2010  GAO report concluded that it was unclear whether scanning devices would  have detected the explosives hidden in the underwear of a man who tried  to blow up a Detroit-bound airplane last Christmas.”

Shortly thereafter, Bradley Hall published an article at the website of the US Pirate Party warning that  body scanners and advanced imaging technology were being purchased in  large numbers by US law enforcement agencies, and could well be deployed  far beyond the confines of the airport security perimeter.

“US law  enforcement agencies are among the customers of a Massachusetts-based  company that is selling full-body scanners to be mounted inside vans and  used on streets,” he wrote on the basis of a report by Forbes.   Hall indicated the high potential for the abuse of such machines by  drawing a comparison with airport body scanners.

“The body scanners  currently being expanded to most major US airports have caused some  controversy among privacy advocates. While the Department of Homeland  Security initially claimed the machines would not have the ability to  store nude images of passengers,” he continued, “the  Electronic Privacy Information Center discovered earlier this year that  the machines being installed at airports have a setting that allows them  to store and transmit the images.  There have been several high-profile  cases of screening technology being abused.”

Of  course, in recent weeks, the number of high-profile incidents revealing  the controversial nature of the scanners and surrounding protocols has  skyrocketed.  This is due, in no small part, to the fact that anyone who  chooses to opt out of a full-body scan is subjected to an invasive  physical search referred to by the TSA as “enhanced pat downs.”  Given  that the US government’s so-called “enhanced interrogation” techniques  are in many cases indistinguishable from traditional forms of torture,  it should come as no surprise that the DHS/TSA’s “enhanced pat downs”  are being compared to sexual assault and molestation.  One can only wonder what they will “enhance” next.

Mark Hinkle,  the Chair of the Libertarian Party, has called for an immediate end to  the program and protocol.

“The TSA should end the strip-search machine  program immediately. We've reached a point where our government has no  qualms about humiliating us,” Hinkle states in a press release from  earlier this month.  He continues, “The fact that I want to travel on an  airplane does not make me a threat, and it does not allow anyone to  conduct a warrantless search under my clothing.”

Independent  citizens’ groups aimed at resisting and shutting down the program are  being founded on an almost daily basis. There are Fed Up Flyers, We Won’t Fly, Don’t Scan Us, Fly with Dignity, and finally Opt Out Day, which is calling for a nationwide boycott of the scanners on one of the most hectic travel days of the year, November 24th.

The  widespread political opposition to strip-search scanners and enhanced  pat-downs has finally resulted in some movement among Democratic and  Republican party lawmakers to investigate the controversial programs.   Bipartisan groups in the New Jersey and Idaho state legislatures have  begun efforts to ban the use of the machines in their respective states,  and the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has  announced that there will be a full committee hearing on Transportation  Security Administration oversight today.