November 17, 2010 10:54AM 

# The Security Logic Clarifies the Question 

By [Jim Harper](https://www.cato.org/people/jim-harper) 

---

<a class="js-popover-trigger cursor-pointer popover-trigger" data-bs-placement="bottom" data-bs-trigger="click" id="popover-trigger"> 

SHARE 

</a> 

A new post on the [TSA blog](http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/11/opting-out-of-advanced-imaging.html) gets the logic behind the strip/​grope combination correct.

> \[I\]f you’re selected for AIT and choose to opt-out, we still need to check you for non-metallic threats. That’s why a pat-down is required. If you refuse both, you can’t fly.

Any alternative allows someone concealing something to decline the strip-search machine, decline the intimate pat-down, and leave the airport, returning another day in hopes of not being selected for the strip-search machine. The TSA reserves the right to fine you $11,000 for declining these searches.

So the question is joined: Should the TSA be able to condition air travel on you permitting someone to look at or touch your genitals?

I’ve argued that [the strip/​grope is security excess](https://www.cato.org/strip-or-grope-vs-risk-management/) not validated by risk management. It’s akin to a regulation that fails the “arbitrary and capricious” standard in adminstrative law. But the TSA is not so constrained.

##### Related Tags 

[Defense and Foreign Policy](https://www.cato.org/defense-foreign-policy), [Technology and Privacy](https://www.cato.org/technology-privacy) 

[![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) 
This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).