TSA Body Scan? Just Say 'No,' Leading Expert Says(forbes.com)
forbes.com
TSA Body Scan? Just Say 'No,' Leading Expert Says
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lisabrownlee/2015/12/24/tsa-body-scan-just-say-no-leading-expert-says/
143 comments
It is frustrating (and to my eyes highly suspicious) that the TSA announced this when it did, when a lot of people are paying less attention and doing less reporting as so much of the country is shut down for the holidays :/. Here is the context you may have missed.
"TSA can now force you to go through body scanners [pdf]" (166 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10779589
"TSA Sued Over New Policy to Refuse Opt-Outs" (77 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10788826
"TSA Announces It Will Decide Who Goes Through the Body Scanner, Thank You" (4 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10782118
"TSA can now force you to go through body scanners [pdf]" (166 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10779589
"TSA Sued Over New Policy to Refuse Opt-Outs" (77 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10788826
"TSA Announces It Will Decide Who Goes Through the Body Scanner, Thank You" (4 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10782118
Stand up for yourself. If you're fine with the pat down but not the body scanner and you're refused, turn around and go home.
FWIW, I absolutely intend to do this, and in the process ask for the name of the officer who refused me and that of the manager on shift. This means that if I hear that this is remotely likely to really happen, when I take flights I will need to leave a day earlier so I can "try again". I am seriously at the point where I am thinking of traveling to the one important conference outside of California that I speak at every year by car, which will be a 34 hour round trip to Colorado. The thing is: I don't think the TSA cares that I do any of this (they certainly don't care that I drive so many places, as they don't even know, but I also think the only way they care about me opting out is it makes their process slightly less efficient, so they turn to more invasive techniques and announce policy changes that further impose), so it doesn't quite feel like "standing up for my rights" as much as "taking it in the ass" :/.
I think they'd only care if they were hit with a lawsuit; which I would strongly encourage you to file if this happens. (http://professional-troublemaker.com/ might be able to help.)
I rarely travel alone; it's usually with a wife, and soon it'll be with a wife and kid, so I'm not sure we'll get the option to just say no :/
I rarely travel alone; it's usually with a wife, and soon it'll be with a wife and kid, so I'm not sure we'll get the option to just say no :/
With kids (6 and under so far), my wife and I are always offered the metal detector without asking.
If you're fine with the pat down but not the body scanner and you're refused, turn around and go home.
Or, say, turn around and stay where you are instead of going home.
I do get the pat down pretty regularly, but I can't say for certain that I'd cancel an entire flight (and take the hit to either my professional reputation (outbound) or delay getting home to my family (return)) to stand up for this. That's not even considering the financial hit - I doubt the airlines would be sympathetic and waive the $100+ rebooking fee they've started charging.
I get the principled stand you're trying to make, but there's quite a few gray areas here.
edit: balancing parentheses, and context
Or, say, turn around and stay where you are instead of going home.
I do get the pat down pretty regularly, but I can't say for certain that I'd cancel an entire flight (and take the hit to either my professional reputation (outbound) or delay getting home to my family (return)) to stand up for this. That's not even considering the financial hit - I doubt the airlines would be sympathetic and waive the $100+ rebooking fee they've started charging.
I get the principled stand you're trying to make, but there's quite a few gray areas here.
edit: balancing parentheses, and context
I once made an (extremely benign, I swear) comment, directed at a friend of mine, about a situation I had just seen where a man who paid for pre-check was not being provided with any special line access. My friend and I then, as I always do and directed him to do, opted out. I swear a TSA employee overheard the comment and we were "punished" for the entire thing: I have never experienced such a thorough and invasive interrogation, even going through customs.
We were each assigned, simultaneously, two employees (so four people, total): one to do a pat down and the other to just stare at us and lord over our stuff. We were then asked a barrage of questions about who we were, why we were in the area, who the other person was... great questions that were absolutely hilarious given my job and the two of us being a tiny tech company ("what is his job title?" "oh man, what does he call himself? I think it is Vice President of Business Development or something like that?").
I was asked about how I felt standing in line and then the interrogator used my answer (which I will state was extremely deferent; I actually can tell back most of the interaction pretty accurately, but I will save you that version of this ;P) to kind of chastise me (we were late for our flight, by the way, and knew we had no way of getting to it in time, but simply did not care as we had nowhere to be in life for days and we both seasoned and crazy travelers, so I wasn't at all rushed or bothered). I hate these people. I hate them so very very bad.
Ok, but so: in my experiences with them I think you will just fail. The TSA agent will be quite happy to have you sit there until you miss your flight, and they will probably love telling other TSA employees stories about the asshole in line who thought they would stand up and fight but who got no sympathy from anyone in the command hierarchy and got to sit there "as I smiled at them and shook my finger" as their flight took off :/. Or maybe I don't know what your goal is with "turn around and stay where you are" (actually, after typing all of this, I am wondering if your point was that you might get stranded when you are out and about?).
We were each assigned, simultaneously, two employees (so four people, total): one to do a pat down and the other to just stare at us and lord over our stuff. We were then asked a barrage of questions about who we were, why we were in the area, who the other person was... great questions that were absolutely hilarious given my job and the two of us being a tiny tech company ("what is his job title?" "oh man, what does he call himself? I think it is Vice President of Business Development or something like that?").
I was asked about how I felt standing in line and then the interrogator used my answer (which I will state was extremely deferent; I actually can tell back most of the interaction pretty accurately, but I will save you that version of this ;P) to kind of chastise me (we were late for our flight, by the way, and knew we had no way of getting to it in time, but simply did not care as we had nowhere to be in life for days and we both seasoned and crazy travelers, so I wasn't at all rushed or bothered). I hate these people. I hate them so very very bad.
Ok, but so: in my experiences with them I think you will just fail. The TSA agent will be quite happy to have you sit there until you miss your flight, and they will probably love telling other TSA employees stories about the asshole in line who thought they would stand up and fight but who got no sympathy from anyone in the command hierarchy and got to sit there "as I smiled at them and shook my finger" as their flight took off :/. Or maybe I don't know what your goal is with "turn around and stay where you are" (actually, after typing all of this, I am wondering if your point was that you might get stranded when you are out and about?).
Yes, my particular comment was that I don't have a choice to turn around and leave if I'm denied a pat-down whilst opting out on the return leg of my flight. It was a kind of sarcastic response to my comment parent. Sarcasm doesn't translate all that well in plain text and nested comment threads.
TSA agents run the gamut from fascist jerkwads to rando people working a crappy, thankless job. I'm sorry you got treated badly - I've also had bad experiences going through opt-outs.
TSA agents run the gamut from fascist jerkwads to rando people working a crappy, thankless job. I'm sorry you got treated badly - I've also had bad experiences going through opt-outs.
Next time, try this: "I will not answer questions without an attorney, why are you impeding my Constitutional right to travel?"
To which they will likely retort with the part of their script dealing with Constitution-free zones in airports and near the borders.
As I've said elsewhere in this discussion: You can't win the war by losing battles on the ground. You have to take the fight to the top. If you want change, you have to approach it politically, as disgusting as that concept is. Unfortunately, I fear it will take an entire new generation of Congress to effect that change, and with no term limits that will never happen.
As I've said elsewhere in this discussion: You can't win the war by losing battles on the ground. You have to take the fight to the top. If you want change, you have to approach it politically, as disgusting as that concept is. Unfortunately, I fear it will take an entire new generation of Congress to effect that change, and with no term limits that will never happen.
That's what I would do, stay there. I wouldn't be a dick about it though, I'd simply explain that I don't mind being pat down, but don't want to be scanned for personal reasons. If it was obvious they were going to make an issue out of it, then that's when I'd calmly turn on the Periscope app and notify them I was streaming live video and audio, then sit down and see how it plays out.
(Not directed to you) but how pathetic has this nation become. When I became naturalized, I didn't do it for the $. They sold me a an apparently fake bill of goods, asserted that I have certain 'inalienable' rights. To see an entire nation subject themselves to being treated like cattle ... what a sad spectacle.
I can't see how anyone could reasonably go home. Even going home from a planned bus journey would be annoying.
I don't think it's that easy. I don't fly much but seem to recall that once you enter the screening area you can't just turn around and walk out.
Easier said than done if it happens to you while you're about to board your return flight home!
How many people actually opt out of the scans? I always do, but when I'm waiting to be patted down I always seem to be the only one. Everyone else always seems to go for the scan.
Another annoying thing is that invariably they have me wait sitting almost right next to the scanner. I've seen images showing that people behind scanners also get scanned. The best I can hope for is that the radiation dose is somewhat lower than when you're actually in the scanner itself.
Another annoying thing is that invariably they have me wait sitting almost right next to the scanner. I've seen images showing that people behind scanners also get scanned. The best I can hope for is that the radiation dose is somewhat lower than when you're actually in the scanner itself.
I've never seen anyone I wasn't traveling with opt out. I'm not concerned about a radiation dose or whatever, I'm more concerned with "fuck the TSA". Anything that makes their jobs shittier makes me happier. It's pure spite.
The TSA people you deal with at the security line are pretty low level employees. They don't decide to use the body scanner or make people take their shoes off etc. I agree that the US has pretty much the most dehumanizing security process, but don't make their same mistake and dehumanize the low level TSA workers. Instead, use that bitterness and anger to talk to people who can change it: your congressman, maybe there's a way to talk to the head of the TSA. Making a TSA screener's job harder makes the world a worse place and doesn't change things.
The main reason I opt out is in the hope that enough people will opt out that they'll be forced to change their policy. I'm doing my part.
Making the TSA clowns miserable is just a bonus. Maybe they'll think their job sucks so much that they'll quit and find a real job. Maybe they'll tell their manager that people are complaining and it'll work its way up the chain.
At the end of the day, making the TSA clown's job harder makes me happier, which is something I desperately need after going through the rigmarole. So I'm going to keep being just on the ragged edge of polite to them and sneak in whatever jabs I can. Fuck them.
Making the TSA clowns miserable is just a bonus. Maybe they'll think their job sucks so much that they'll quit and find a real job. Maybe they'll tell their manager that people are complaining and it'll work its way up the chain.
At the end of the day, making the TSA clown's job harder makes me happier, which is something I desperately need after going through the rigmarole. So I'm going to keep being just on the ragged edge of polite to them and sneak in whatever jabs I can. Fuck them.
They're called "stooges" not "clowns".
stooge sto͞oj/Submit noun 1. derogatory a person who serves merely to support or assist others, particularly in doing unpleasant work. "you fell for that helpless-female act and let her make you a stooge" synonyms: underling, minion, lackey, subordinate; More 2. a performer whose act involves being the butt of a comedian's jokes. synonyms: butt, foil, straight man "a comedian's stooge"
stooge sto͞oj/Submit noun 1. derogatory a person who serves merely to support or assist others, particularly in doing unpleasant work. "you fell for that helpless-female act and let her make you a stooge" synonyms: underling, minion, lackey, subordinate; More 2. a performer whose act involves being the butt of a comedian's jokes. synonyms: butt, foil, straight man "a comedian's stooge"
It's best to adopt a broad strategy of resistance, starting with direct contempt/ostracization to the most obvious target (TSA lackeys) and ending with writing your congressman threatening to donate to his competitor if there isn't action taken in your favor.
The less socially desirable the TSA jobs are, the fewer people will hang onto them and feel like they are rewarded for "good work".
The less socially desirable the TSA jobs are, the fewer people will hang onto them and feel like they are rewarded for "good work".
I was off to the side once at ORD when I overheard a few TSA employees talking. The first said something that prompted the second to say "You the man!" to which the first quickly responded "No, I'm not, if I were, I wouldn't be here...", the second person shrugged and said nothing.
My point is, neither you nor the TSA want to be there.
My point is, neither you nor the TSA want to be there.
I would happily pay them their current wage to sit at home and watch TV instead of sexually harassing me every time I fly. Better yet, maybe we could pay them to do some public works. There's a hundred thousand useful things we could do with the TSA's budget and manpower, but instead I make them fondle my balls simply because I can. Whee.
I don't understand how you are accusing someone of sexual harassment and simultaneously bragging that you "make them fondle my balls simply because I can"? In addition to being a hideous person it seems that you do not understand what it means to be sexually harassed.
Yes, I'm a horrible person for objecting to people wasting my time and money to no useful purpose. You've figured me out.
It did not take a lot sleuthing to "figure you out." Bragging that "I make them fondle my balls simply because I can" is sufficient evidence that you are a terrible person.
It was supposed to point out the ridiculousness of the situation. It's obvious that I'm not "making" them do it, it's a consequence of the absurd situation we find ourselves in. Someone, somewhere, decided high school flunkies should be paid to molest travelers. The "whee" was obvious sarcasm, meant to apply to the whole statement.
They do want to be there. McDonalds wouldn't hire them, so this is the only job they can get.
I've also never seen anyone else opt-out. Like you said, it's my way of giving the Theater of Security Administration the finger in the only way I know how.
I was departing MSP once, a few days before the Republican National Convention was going to take place. One of the clowns made smalltalk with me and the RNC came up. She mentioned she wasn't looking forward to dealing with all the traffic through the airport. I said, "Well, you don't have to work here, you know?". She just gave me this withering look, and I walked away with a smile on my face. I sincerely hope I ruined her day. For all the man-hours and money she and those in her position throw down the toilet every day, one ruined day seems like small payback.
Fuck the TSA.
Fuck the TSA.
You walked away with a smile on your face because you hoped you had ruined somebody's day? This woman did not throw money and man hours down the toilet every day. She does not have any decision making authority and did not draft the legislation creating TSA. In another comment you accuse them of sexually harassing you and yet you brag that you "make them fondle my balls simply because I can."
Quite frankly you sound like a petty, angry, and terrible person.
Quite frankly you sound like a petty, angry, and terrible person.
She doesn't have to work there. "I'm poor and useless and I was just following orders" is no excuse.
Quite frankly, TSA agents should be shamed and suffer for directly profiting from this bullshit.
Quite frankly, TSA agents should be shamed and suffer for directly profiting from this bullshit.
When confronted by someone working for the TSA, yes, I am. If they're going to waste my time and insist that I throw away fucking water, I'm going to find some way to pay them back.
Your anger is directed at the wrong people.
I don't agree. I don't want these clowns to think I approve of what they're doing or that I appreciate their service or even that I tolerate-but-dislike what they're doing. These people are being paid to perform a disservice to everyone and I hate them for it.
I support your position. Your message can be delivered with honey or vinegar. Attrition in crease in the ranks of the underlings is a valid tactic. Next time, just tell them about the dramatic increase in cancer that TSA folks have from being near the full body scanners.
I agree with the "fuck the TSA" sentiment, really I do. I also appreciate the work you do with the Wine community and at Codeweavers. But as a government worker myself, I can say first hand that the peons are not "The System", and that woman whose day you hope you ruined doesn't make the policies she has no choice but to follow.
Sure, there are a few TSA workers who inevitably derive pleasure (or simply don't feel anything, which may be worse) from having to do what they do. But for most, it's just a job, and certainly not their dream job. If you're going to piss down the throat of a random TSA worker, I can easily picture you as the self-important asshole who makes fun of the cashier at the grocery store to her face for being so poor, or who kicks a dog when it crosses your path a bit too slowly.
In other words, you come across as a sociopathic asshole. It's not all about you, dude, and it's not King Coldpie's world the rest of us grovel in. Grow the fuck up already.
Sure, there are a few TSA workers who inevitably derive pleasure (or simply don't feel anything, which may be worse) from having to do what they do. But for most, it's just a job, and certainly not their dream job. If you're going to piss down the throat of a random TSA worker, I can easily picture you as the self-important asshole who makes fun of the cashier at the grocery store to her face for being so poor, or who kicks a dog when it crosses your path a bit too slowly.
In other words, you come across as a sociopathic asshole. It's not all about you, dude, and it's not King Coldpie's world the rest of us grovel in. Grow the fuck up already.
Ah, but the obedience of the peons IS the system. This is why we have enshrined the idea of "following orders is not an excuse". There will always be people willing to do bad things because they are told, and we must treat them as culpable. I guess you can argue that poverty "forces" people into working for the TSA, but that's just as dehumanizing because it implies they have no agency. These people have agency, and chose to work for the TSA, which they likely knew beforehand was a much detested organization.
Without peons, there are no effectors for the policies passed from above, and historically, we've seen the people at the top be terrified and manipulated by disorder in their bottom most ranks.
Without peons, there are no effectors for the policies passed from above, and historically, we've seen the people at the top be terrified and manipulated by disorder in their bottom most ranks.
And yet you have people like me, who work for "the man" (in my case as customer relations), whose job is to ensure the public is well served and gets exactly what they need from the agency. Granted, I work for local government and not federal, but the concept is the same. I go out of my way to make sure the person whose needs I'm serving are met, with a smile and courteousness that I'm not forced to offer. Of course, I could just "play the role" and be a cold, bureaucratic robot, but I prefer to give what I'd like to get. When I go to the Department of Driver Services, I want the clerk to be polite and helpful, therefore in my job I do the same.
Besides, how do you know the TSA agent being spit on isn't trying to work their way up the chain so they can be a better manager and fix the way things work on the ground floor? Someone like coldpie could be ironically dragging down the spirit of the one person on his side.
The world isn't black and white, nor is it two-dimensional. Every single government employee is not a mindless drone, implicit in the shenanigans of their superiors.
Besides, how do you know the TSA agent being spit on isn't trying to work their way up the chain so they can be a better manager and fix the way things work on the ground floor? Someone like coldpie could be ironically dragging down the spirit of the one person on his side.
The world isn't black and white, nor is it two-dimensional. Every single government employee is not a mindless drone, implicit in the shenanigans of their superiors.
> [my] job is to ensure the public is well served and gets exactly what they need from the agency
See if you can puzzle out the difference between you and the TSA clowns that makes me treat you well and them like scum.
See if you can puzzle out the difference between you and the TSA clowns that makes me treat you well and them like scum.
I'm starting to get the impression that you're simply trolling here (I know I know, calling that out is verboten on HN but I stand behind it), but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt one more time. Would you prefer a doctor who only treats the symptoms, and derives perverse pleasure from inflicting pain on the patient in the process? Or rather one who focuses on the disease itself and seeks a permanent cure? Because you are clearly the former, not the latter.
You have a laser focus on the effect, when you should be attacking the cause. If you can't or won't see that, I don't know what else to say.
You have a laser focus on the effect, when you should be attacking the cause. If you can't or won't see that, I don't know what else to say.
the peons are not "The System", and that woman whose day you hope you ruined doesn't make the policies she has no choice but to follow.
I can understand feeling empathy for the people doing these jobs, but that doesn't make them less responsible for their moral decisions.
"I was just following orders" is not a legitimate excuse. (I won't finish the comment, out of respect for Godwin's Law)
I can understand feeling empathy for the people doing these jobs, but that doesn't make them less responsible for their moral decisions.
"I was just following orders" is not a legitimate excuse. (I won't finish the comment, out of respect for Godwin's Law)
> "I was just following orders" is not a legitimate excuse.
Nor is there an excuse for treating another human being like a piece of shit because they have a job you don't like. How is one any better than the other?
Nor is there an excuse for treating another human being like a piece of shit because they have a job you don't like. How is one any better than the other?
For the thousandth time, I'm not mistreating them because they "have a job I don't like." I'm mistreating them because they are mistreating me for no benefit to anyone. I'm sorry I'm not Ghandi, but when someone harms me for absolutely no reason I'm liable to be angry about it.
I don't understand the equivalence between "someone who's making me wait in line for hours in order to have all my shit taken out of my bags and re-packed by myself in order to perform provably[1] no useful service to anyone" and "someone who checks me out at the grocery store."
One is actively making my day worse to no useful purpose, so I treat them like the dirt that they are. The other is performing a valuable service which I appreciate and thank accordingly.
[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-u...
One is actively making my day worse to no useful purpose, so I treat them like the dirt that they are. The other is performing a valuable service which I appreciate and thank accordingly.
[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-u...
> One is actively making my day worse to no useful purpose, so I treat them like the dirt that they are.
You're making two mistakes here. One, you're assuming that all TSA agents are evil jerks who only took the job so they can fulfill their life's goal of fucking with coldpie. I'll counter that the vast majority of TSA employees are regular people like you'd find in any entry level position. Maybe they hate their job, or maybe they feel they are doing their part in keeping America safe (whether they believe the security theater bullshit they're fed, or not). Either way, they are human beings just like you. You are no better than they are, and vice versa. You are putting yourself on a pedestal and looking down on them as if they are subhuman. That is textbook sociopath.
Two, you are equating policy set by their superiors with the entry level agents themselves. They have absolutely no say in what they are forced to do, yet they are the ones you're taking it all out on. You're quite simply barking up the wrong tree.
If you want anyone to take you seriously rather than thinking you're a raving lunatic, you should direct your ire towards the policy makers. Work the political angle, because you're fighting a losing battle on the ground. Making one of thousands of employees feel like shit does absolutely nothing for your claimed cause, and only serves to feed your own selfish need to feel superior (which I strongly suspect is your actual motive, whether you realize it or not).
You're making two mistakes here. One, you're assuming that all TSA agents are evil jerks who only took the job so they can fulfill their life's goal of fucking with coldpie. I'll counter that the vast majority of TSA employees are regular people like you'd find in any entry level position. Maybe they hate their job, or maybe they feel they are doing their part in keeping America safe (whether they believe the security theater bullshit they're fed, or not). Either way, they are human beings just like you. You are no better than they are, and vice versa. You are putting yourself on a pedestal and looking down on them as if they are subhuman. That is textbook sociopath.
Two, you are equating policy set by their superiors with the entry level agents themselves. They have absolutely no say in what they are forced to do, yet they are the ones you're taking it all out on. You're quite simply barking up the wrong tree.
If you want anyone to take you seriously rather than thinking you're a raving lunatic, you should direct your ire towards the policy makers. Work the political angle, because you're fighting a losing battle on the ground. Making one of thousands of employees feel like shit does absolutely nothing for your claimed cause, and only serves to feed your own selfish need to feel superior (which I strongly suspect is your actual motive, whether you realize it or not).
> You are putting yourself on a pedestal and looking down on them as if they are subhuman.
No. I am angry at people for mistreating me to no one's benefit.
> They have absolutely no say in what they are forced to do, yet they are the ones you're taking it all out on. You're quite simply barking up the wrong tree.
Do you believe that being paid removes all culpability for your actions? Suppose I found someone to pay me to break the windows in your house[1] every day. Would you treat me with kindness and thank me for my service, while writing a letter to my benefactor asking him politely to stop paying me to break your windows?
[1] Ignore the legality of this action. If that's a sticking point for you, replace it with some other legal-but-annoying behavior, whatever.
No. I am angry at people for mistreating me to no one's benefit.
> They have absolutely no say in what they are forced to do, yet they are the ones you're taking it all out on. You're quite simply barking up the wrong tree.
Do you believe that being paid removes all culpability for your actions? Suppose I found someone to pay me to break the windows in your house[1] every day. Would you treat me with kindness and thank me for my service, while writing a letter to my benefactor asking him politely to stop paying me to break your windows?
[1] Ignore the legality of this action. If that's a sticking point for you, replace it with some other legal-but-annoying behavior, whatever.
> No. I am angry at people for mistreating me to no one's benefit.
I'd say you're angry at the system (and rightfully so!), and taking it out on the ones who are just trying to feed their families. You're quite literally cutting off the nose to spite the face.
And I still maintain that you are yourself just as sadistic and hateful as the system you bemoan, if not more so.
I'd say you're angry at the system (and rightfully so!), and taking it out on the ones who are just trying to feed their families. You're quite literally cutting off the nose to spite the face.
And I still maintain that you are yourself just as sadistic and hateful as the system you bemoan, if not more so.
So you think that getting paid relieves you of all culpability for your actions. I don't agree.
> So you think that getting paid relieves you of all culpability for your actions.
Not at all, and you know very well I never said that. Since you're so keen on putting words in my mouth to reach an erroneous conclusion, I'm just going to stop here.
Not at all, and you know very well I never said that. Since you're so keen on putting words in my mouth to reach an erroneous conclusion, I'm just going to stop here.
You were asked the question twice[1][2] and ignored it both times, so I was trying to pin down an answer. I'm trying to find where our disagreement lies.
1) We agree that the TSA agents' actions should make me angry.
2) We agree that the TSA agents themselves are culpable for their actions.
3) Therefor, it makes sense for me to be angry at the TSA agents.
4) I think our disagreement lies here, where I think I am allowed to retaliate (within the bounds of the law, obviously) against those who upset me, while you think I'm not.
You were couching your argument in terms of "they're just doing their jobs; be angry at the policy makers, not at those who carry out the policy," which made me think the disagreement was in (2) above. But your reply here makes me think the disagreement is in (4).
I understand the viewpoint that one should always turn the other cheek to one's oppressors. I don't subscribe to it myself. If they're going to harass and anger me and waste my time, I really don't have any problems returning the favor.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10801547
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10801549
1) We agree that the TSA agents' actions should make me angry.
2) We agree that the TSA agents themselves are culpable for their actions.
3) Therefor, it makes sense for me to be angry at the TSA agents.
4) I think our disagreement lies here, where I think I am allowed to retaliate (within the bounds of the law, obviously) against those who upset me, while you think I'm not.
You were couching your argument in terms of "they're just doing their jobs; be angry at the policy makers, not at those who carry out the policy," which made me think the disagreement was in (2) above. But your reply here makes me think the disagreement is in (4).
I understand the viewpoint that one should always turn the other cheek to one's oppressors. I don't subscribe to it myself. If they're going to harass and anger me and waste my time, I really don't have any problems returning the favor.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10801547
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10801549
I used to do that to but unfortunately, all that does is make the day suck more for that individual while not impacting the TSA. Even if it pushes that person to quit, there are plenty lining up to take her job.
You're hating the player when you should be hating the game.
I opt out of the scans pretty regularly. Of course, I'm in the queue for getting tsa precheck now, so hopefully it won't be for long.
For me, it's not a radiation thing. It's more about a kind of semi-philosophical objection to the idea that people should look at naked pictures of me in order to provide the illusion of safety. AIT (advanced imaging technology) seems to be the quintessence of snake oil - we're told we need it and any real research into its efficacy is discouraged (still though, there's indications that metal detectors were probably better at catching threats). [0] [1]
[0]: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/06/tsa_not_detec... [1]: https://radsec.org/secure1000-sec14.pdf
For me, it's not a radiation thing. It's more about a kind of semi-philosophical objection to the idea that people should look at naked pictures of me in order to provide the illusion of safety. AIT (advanced imaging technology) seems to be the quintessence of snake oil - we're told we need it and any real research into its efficacy is discouraged (still though, there's indications that metal detectors were probably better at catching threats). [0] [1]
[0]: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/06/tsa_not_detec... [1]: https://radsec.org/secure1000-sec14.pdf
I am very curious about the mental path you took from having a philosophical objection to intrusive scans for the purpose of security theater, to simply registering with the government ahead of time and asking them to do some background check and keep that on file. (Maybe the latter actually sounds effective to you, and so isn't only "providing the illusion of safety"?) I have considered pre-check (as one reason I opt out is the research that millimeter wave scans might "unzip" DNA and lead to epigenetic modifications), but as I am also philosophically in strong objection to the entire process I can't bring myself to lose the battle before it is even fought by "taking the easy way out" and "paying the Danegeld", giving the TSA a sweaty wad of "don't scan me cash" to join pre-check and essentially "submit" myself to a different and yet in some ways similar kind of invasive search :/. (I, personally, consider the pat downs I constantly get much less invasive.)
It's a pragmatic thing. Similarly, sometimes I go through the imager knowing that the thing doesn't add any real security to my flight at all (so I decide to view it as a complicated piece of art in interaction between me and the TSA).
At the end of the day, I have to travel - I have a job (yay) that lets me work remote (yay), but that means cross-country fights on a monthly basis. If I opt out of flying, I also opt out of working for a rad nonprofit developing software that helps teachers share artifacts of practice. Skipping flying is an option, sure (I could get a job in SF, it's not that hard probably for someone with my background), but I've prioritized keeping my existing job over that.
Like it or not, we've structured an economy that requires people to fly. People should just be more aware of what they're giving up to make that happen.
My objection to the scanners isn't actually about the government spying on my butt. It's about how the general public is willing to let the government look at naked pictures of them without really thinking about the trade-off they are making. Lots of people don't even realize that there is a naked picture at all - if you talk to them, they think all that happens is an outline and a yellow box. If every time you go through the scanner you're aware of the deep violation of your privacy that the scanner represents, I'm okay with that.
So yeah, precheck is a cop-out. Long form performance art is a pain in the spied-upon nethers, so I'm closing the show. I'm still aware of the sacrifice of privacy we've all made, and I'll still work to make other people aware of it as well.
At the end of the day, I have to travel - I have a job (yay) that lets me work remote (yay), but that means cross-country fights on a monthly basis. If I opt out of flying, I also opt out of working for a rad nonprofit developing software that helps teachers share artifacts of practice. Skipping flying is an option, sure (I could get a job in SF, it's not that hard probably for someone with my background), but I've prioritized keeping my existing job over that.
Like it or not, we've structured an economy that requires people to fly. People should just be more aware of what they're giving up to make that happen.
My objection to the scanners isn't actually about the government spying on my butt. It's about how the general public is willing to let the government look at naked pictures of them without really thinking about the trade-off they are making. Lots of people don't even realize that there is a naked picture at all - if you talk to them, they think all that happens is an outline and a yellow box. If every time you go through the scanner you're aware of the deep violation of your privacy that the scanner represents, I'm okay with that.
So yeah, precheck is a cop-out. Long form performance art is a pain in the spied-upon nethers, so I'm closing the show. I'm still aware of the sacrifice of privacy we've all made, and I'll still work to make other people aware of it as well.
For me, I paid th TSA Danegeld for the ease of travel, especially when traveling with children. The Pre-Check lines are great and makes you forget about how terrible the TSA is. Yes you have to pay and give them information, but they have the information anyway. For me it has been worth it, even though I coughed up the information. Travel is just so much better with Pre-Check.
You could fight off the Danes with spears and shields. The TSA, not so much. You might get a bit of satisfaction out of making their job 1% more difficult, but be honest, that's all it is.
Add in the fact that TSA regularly lets weapons through and has never caught a terrorist.
> How many people actually opt out of the scans? I always do, but when I'm waiting to be patted down, I always seem to be the only one.
A few times when I've flown out of PDX, there was a substantial line for opt-outs; sadly not every time.
I've also heard anecdotes that when DEFCON let out, the airport handling all the return flights ended up just sending everyone through the metal detectors rather than deal with thousands of people all opting out.
A few times when I've flown out of PDX, there was a substantial line for opt-outs; sadly not every time.
I've also heard anecdotes that when DEFCON let out, the airport handling all the return flights ended up just sending everyone through the metal detectors rather than deal with thousands of people all opting out.
There was a "restore the fourth" day of protest scheduled, maybe during Christmas or Thanksgiving some years ago - TSA's reaction was same thing, they pretended like the body scanners were out of order and pushed everyone through the x-ray scanners.
Seems like all it would take is a few days of mass opt outs and the TSA would come to a screeching halt.
So true about many things (plea bargains, commercial banks, etc) but who will bell the cat?
How much of a dose do you actually get from the scans?
The best numbers I can find seem to point to something in the 0.015 μSv to 0.88 μSv range. At cruising altitude, you get 0.04 μSv per minute from cosmic radiation.
I don't think the radiation from these machines should be the biggest concern.
The best numbers I can find seem to point to something in the 0.015 μSv to 0.88 μSv range. At cruising altitude, you get 0.04 μSv per minute from cosmic radiation.
I don't think the radiation from these machines should be the biggest concern.
The radiation may not be that much, relatively speaking. But it's all focused on your skin.
Plus, this kind of radiation exposure hasn't been tested on humans for long. I'd feel better about being scanned had these scanners been in use for 20 years without many adverse effects reported. As it stands, the jury's still out. And I'd personally rather wait a little longer in line and get a pat down than take a chance with my health.
Plus, this kind of radiation exposure hasn't been tested on humans for long. I'd feel better about being scanned had these scanners been in use for 20 years without many adverse effects reported. As it stands, the jury's still out. And I'd personally rather wait a little longer in line and get a pat down than take a chance with my health.
It also depends on whether the machine in use (different airports use different machines) are millimeter wave or backscatter x-ray. Millimeter wave machines (the majority of installations), if I am not mistaken, do not emit ionizing radiation, whereas the backscatter machines do.
You can tell which type of machines are in use at your airport by the informational posters displayed in the queue, the brand and physical appearance of the machines themselves, or by checking online.
My policy has always been to ask for a pat-down when they use backscatter (to avoid the unnecessary radiation), and go through the machine if they use millimeter wave. The dose of radiation may be small (relative to normal amounts of cosmic radiation or black lightning or bananas or ...), but they don't really know if the machines are out-of-spec until, well, they do. I'd like to avoid becoming 'that person' who was severely over-radiated right before they decommissioned a malfunctioning machine.
Do you drive to the airport?
EDIT: Driving to the airport will expose you to far more risk than walking through the machine, however you define that risk.
EDIT: Driving to the airport will expose you to far more risk than walking through the machine, however you define that risk.
Most people hear radiation and automatically think "Chernobyl 2.0" without looking into the details. I love using the banana equivalent dose as a way to help people understand that not all radiation is created equal.
> At cruising altitude, you get 0.04 μSv per minute from cosmic radiation.
All the more reason to minimize it every chance you get, wouldn't you say?
All the more reason to minimize it every chance you get, wouldn't you say?
radiation is some sort of valid strawman argument. it's purpose is to get all the stupid sheep concerned who just blindly submit to anything some clown tells them to.
Are you safer with or without the radiation? Without, obviously, so why not ignore it?
"Just a little higher chance of cancer" is not a comforting observation.
"Just a little higher chance of cancer" is not a comforting observation.
I used to opt out due to radiation and privacy concerns when airports were using the backscatter scanners.
After US airports switched to millimeter wave scanners, I no longer opt out.
My understanding is that the new scanners emit far less radiation, and no TSA agent operator is viewing naked images.
The software presents a stylized body silhouette on a monitor that you and the TSA agent both view when you exit the scanner.
If my understanding is correct, then isn't this a reasonable approach?
After US airports switched to millimeter wave scanners, I no longer opt out.
My understanding is that the new scanners emit far less radiation, and no TSA agent operator is viewing naked images.
The software presents a stylized body silhouette on a monitor that you and the TSA agent both view when you exit the scanner.
If my understanding is correct, then isn't this a reasonable approach?
A "reasonable approach" using technology that doesn't work: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/airport-security-price...
I usually travel with my family. I'm afraid if I opt out, they'll make an example out of me, and I'll ruin my family vacation.
For what it's worth, as a white male, I've never had a bad experience opting out. At the very worst, they're curt and overly professional. Most of the time they make small chat.
I have had bad experiences twice. I am polite but refuse to answer questions or make small talk. Twice the man moved his hand "upwards until resistance" very fast and into my testicle. I complained and the managers response was "he has to go up until he feels resistance." TSA Complaint made, response was "no substantiating evidence." Shades of a police state.
One way to help with that is to arrive earlier than you would expect.
I used to opt out when the scans were backscatter X-ray. Now, though, at least all the airports I've been to recently use millimeter wave scanners, which is non-ionizing radiation. If you use a cell phone, you shouldn't be concerned about the cancer risk of these machines.
Every time, which my family always find hilarious and inconvenient. Radiation isn't an issue, as the above comment said it's very much a "fuck the TSA" stance.
I always opt out because I had a melanoma. I am well aware that its not xrays but my doctor told me to take no chances (I have more than a thousand moles=
But you still fly?
EDIT: Flying at altitude probably exposes you to more radiation than the machines. A 7 hour flight is roughly the same as a chest x-ray, and that's way more than the machines.
EDIT: Flying at altitude probably exposes you to more radiation than the machines. A 7 hour flight is roughly the same as a chest x-ray, and that's way more than the machines.
Sorry for downvoting you twice (here and on your other comment), I feel like I owe you an explanation:
Dan, if you have something to say, just say it. This rhetorical Q&A works in a conversation; here, it just looks petty.
In fact, I think I agree with what you're trying to say ("the flight itself exposes you to a lot more radiation"?), but if you don't actually say it, I can't be sure. And there's nothing to respond to, if I (or someone else) don't.
Not that I'm the boss of anyone; by all means, do what you want. Just that I dislike getting downvoted without explanation, so here's to being slightly less of a hypocrite than usual :)
Dan, if you have something to say, just say it. This rhetorical Q&A works in a conversation; here, it just looks petty.
In fact, I think I agree with what you're trying to say ("the flight itself exposes you to a lot more radiation"?), but if you don't actually say it, I can't be sure. And there's nothing to respond to, if I (or someone else) don't.
Not that I'm the boss of anyone; by all means, do what you want. Just that I dislike getting downvoted without explanation, so here's to being slightly less of a hypocrite than usual :)
That's a useful explanation, so thank you.
Yes I still fly because I need to and yes I am of course aware of the risk of flying. That doesn't mean I should do more than I need to.
I opt out every time (at US airports). The only time I've ever seen anyone else opt-out was after leaving a tech conference.
I ended up chatting with the guy afterwards and he reported that I was also the only random person he'd ever seen waiting in the opt-out line. He was wearing a deliciously nerdy "Affordable Cleric Act" T-shirt.
I ended up chatting with the guy afterwards and he reported that I was also the only random person he'd ever seen waiting in the opt-out line. He was wearing a deliciously nerdy "Affordable Cleric Act" T-shirt.
I can't imagine why one would prefer to be physically touched by a stranger than be scanned by a no-contact device. It's almost certain that people who like to be touched by random people are in the minority. The "cancer risks" are laughable pseudoscience.
Tbh, I go for the scan because it doesn't bother me and the radiation dosage is the same as a few minutes of flight time.
The scans are less of a problem than the idea that the government can force people to go through them.
The scans are less of a problem than the idea that the government can force people to go through them.
Same here. I always opt out I'm the only one sitting there for 5 minutes. Funny thing is I was thinking about the radiation sitting next to it last time also. I was about 10 feet from it I think at MIA.
Just keep stepping to the side, away from the line of sight of those machines.
My problem with body scanners? Before Snowden I thought I am in tinfoil hat territory -- but now I am reasonably sure this happens or could happen any time: they store those scans along with your personal data. But, you are saying, you are not identifying yourself going into the scanner. Sure you don't but they have a very, very good idea about who is at the airport based on simply the flight manifests and then it's just a matter of matching your face to a relatively small list: Atlanta had 100M passengers, that's only 274 000 daily and you can start with likelier candidates the closer to the time, it's unlikely you'd need to check more than 10-20k faces.
Edit: to add, the TSA does not even need to be aware of this going on, the clerks on spot even less so.
Edit: to add, the TSA does not even need to be aware of this going on, the clerks on spot even less so.
Yup. I'm not worried about cancer. To be honest, I'm not even worried about people seeing me semi-naked - my laptop camera takes a snapshot every 20 minutes, so I'm sure I've already accidentally exposed my ass online. I'm concerned that the software is closed-source, and uninspected by anyone but the creator, so I have no idea what it's doing.
Sure, they claim that the new machines only show the agents a generic body outline - but again, given that nobody's seen the source code, I have no idea what the machine actually sees or stores.
I'm worried about the lack of transparency.
Sure, they claim that the new machines only show the agents a generic body outline - but again, given that nobody's seen the source code, I have no idea what the machine actually sees or stores.
I'm worried about the lack of transparency.
> you are not identifying yourself going into the scanner
You don't have your ID checked and boarding pass scanned moments before entering the scanner? Sure, you wouldn't know exactly the order folks entered the scanner after being identified, but assuming you couldn't correlate the scan to the ID based on other publically available information, all it would take is for you fly twice to correlate the scan to the ID (say... both legs of a round trip flight?).
You don't have your ID checked and boarding pass scanned moments before entering the scanner? Sure, you wouldn't know exactly the order folks entered the scanner after being identified, but assuming you couldn't correlate the scan to the ID based on other publically available information, all it would take is for you fly twice to correlate the scan to the ID (say... both legs of a round trip flight?).
I fail to see how could you exfiltrate data from the "name game" stations. I have watched very, very closely and I just can't see how your data could enter into a computer. Or do I remember wrong? I do not think they have an actual data connection to verify the validity of the boarding pass.
They don't, the agent at the desk is just making sure that the name on the ticket matches the name on the ID you provide. There's been countless articles about how insecure this is. You buy a ticket under a false name and print out a second one that has your real name on it. The airline's no-fly list checks the fake name on the real ticket you bought but the TSA agent checks the real name on the fake ticket matches the ID that's handed to him.
There are little to no downsides to storing that information.
It will have value to someone, most likely intelligence, law enforcement and private security agencies.
I'd say it's safe to assume it's been stored.
Many times you have to have your photo ID scanned before entering security and you have cameras pointed at you from multiple angles while queued. The task of matching scans with their owners becomes much more trivial.
It will have value to someone, most likely intelligence, law enforcement and private security agencies.
I'd say it's safe to assume it's been stored.
Many times you have to have your photo ID scanned before entering security and you have cameras pointed at you from multiple angles while queued. The task of matching scans with their owners becomes much more trivial.
Don't understand the downvotes. Poster is saying that there's little to no downside for those who would benefit from storing it. Not that there's no downside for the individuals being scanned.
I've noticed a trend where if you don't make a value judgment after such a comment, it is interpreted as support.
I am pointing out the ease at which the government has operated and will operate when given the opportunity to collect such data. The government will see no repercussions for storing data the Stasi and KGB couldn't even dream of collecting and analyzing.
I am well aware of the abuses and rights violations that storing that information can enable. The OP was made to illustrate how easily we will find ourselves heading down that path.
I am pointing out the ease at which the government has operated and will operate when given the opportunity to collect such data. The government will see no repercussions for storing data the Stasi and KGB couldn't even dream of collecting and analyzing.
I am well aware of the abuses and rights violations that storing that information can enable. The OP was made to illustrate how easily we will find ourselves heading down that path.
My problem with body scanners: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/tsa-screener-...
I don't care if some dude with a high school degree sees me naked. It's just that, as a matter of principle, the entire thing is a sham, and the TSA knows it.
I don't care if some dude with a high school degree sees me naked. It's just that, as a matter of principle, the entire thing is a sham, and the TSA knows it.
Extraordinarily annoying Forbes anti-ad-blocker wall. Can't even proceed into site without disabling ad blocker. Ick.
Forbes is one of those sites from which I really don't feel bad about blocking ads. And now, with their new anti-ad-blocker wall, I don't feel bad about not visiting them at all.
They really earned it by having one of the most consistently obnoxious web surfacing experiences for many years. Their ad interstitials are so insulting that I'd rather just give my eyeballs to some other publications.
They really earned it by having one of the most consistently obnoxious web surfacing experiences for many years. Their ad interstitials are so insulting that I'd rather just give my eyeballs to some other publications.
You want to read an article for free, they want you to see their article with ads. It's a negotiation, and you are free to say no and just not read the article.
I thought it was tastefully done. They even mentioned they were running a "light ads" site.
Why would they want to serve their pages to people using ad-blockers anyway?
What would you prefer they have done?
I thought it was tastefully done. They even mentioned they were running a "light ads" site.
Why would they want to serve their pages to people using ad-blockers anyway?
What would you prefer they have done?
After disabling my adblocker to visit the site I was greeted with an auto-play video (with sound) that took up half the page. This is not what I would term 'ad light'.
I'd rather they serve their ads from their own server, then I'd never encounter their ad-blocker-blocker.
I'm not actually running an adblocker, I'm running RequestPolicy and NoScript. Forbes.com and forbesimg.com are allowed as are requests between them, but I'm not going to go through and individually allow requests out to multiple other sites just to see which one is serving ads (though I suspect it's the permanently-marked-untrusted doubleclick.net).
I'm not actually running an adblocker, I'm running RequestPolicy and NoScript. Forbes.com and forbesimg.com are allowed as are requests between them, but I'm not going to go through and individually allow requests out to multiple other sites just to see which one is serving ads (though I suspect it's the permanently-marked-untrusted doubleclick.net).
My ad-blocker is run to prevent tracking as well. I want them to not track either.
I disabled ad-block but left tracking-blocker on and it still wouldn't let me in. At that point I figured it wasn't worth it.
They want to lose visitors, fine.
What they're forgetting is that people who have ad blockers also share and post links to various networks... they aren't just shutting out the ad-blockers, they're shutting out anyone the ad-blockers may be friends with. It's retarded, but it's their prerogative.
Incidentally, here's a great host file blocker for programs that run ads but don't support ad-block plugins.
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/hosts
They want to lose visitors, fine.
What they're forgetting is that people who have ad blockers also share and post links to various networks... they aren't just shutting out the ad-blockers, they're shutting out anyone the ad-blockers may be friends with. It's retarded, but it's their prerogative.
Incidentally, here's a great host file blocker for programs that run ads but don't support ad-block plugins.
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/hosts
FWIW, I block pretty much everything ghostery can block and can interact with the Forbes site just fine.
It's not like they don't have enough ads on the article pages themselves. I'm sure they are extremely profitable with all those ads plastered everywhere, with enough ads that it slows the browser. I hope LinkedIn and Quora contributors gains more traction, because the user experience is much better for the reader. Facebook is another example of a company that is extremely profitable while running ads that are not too obtrusive or annoying.
Yes, very annoying. I wrote on the spot this very crude one liner to bypass it. Not an example of software engineering, sorry. I'm sure people here can rewrite it in their language of choice.
URL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/lisabrownlee/2015/12/24/tsa-body-scan-just-say-no-leading-expert-says/
ruby -e 'require "json";require "net/http";
puts JSON.parse(Net::HTTP.get(URI(ENV["URL"])).lines.map {
|line| line.match(/fbs_settings.content = ({.+})/) }.compact.first[1])["body"]'
> tmp.html; firefox tmp.html; rm tmp.html
If you are persistent, there is a workaround. Quite interesting tidbit of information once you figure it out.
With umatrix, just needed to allow forbesimg.com and it worked.
I hit it twice and it let me in.
Looks like an A/B test.
[deleted]
Marc Rotenberg is the lawyer who the author obtained comments from for this article.
Glad to see this story getting some coverage, hope to see more. As someone who has always opted out (when not pre-check), last week's news made me anxious of how many debates I'd have to get into all over again in regards to the constitutionality of the AIT machines when flying.
Can anyone give a good reason why they don't send you through the metal detector before the pat down? If security were the objective, that seems far better to combine the two.
Sadly as we all know at this point, their mission seems to be security theater, not actual security.
Can anyone give a good reason why they don't send you through the metal detector before the pat down? If security were the objective, that seems far better to combine the two.
Sadly as we all know at this point, their mission seems to be security theater, not actual security.
Yes! The legal precedent that allows them to insist on examining you hinges on then having no initial information about what you're carrying. If you cleanly pass through a metal detector, then refuse a pat-down, a court MIGHT say the TSA can't pat you down after. Similarly, the TSA officers before the screening can't be trained in detecting concealed weapons, because that might count as knowledge about whether you're armed, and a court might say that the government only gets one observation. Hence the BDOs: oh no, your honor. Those staff aren't trained to detect weapons. They're there to detect behavior!
I know you asked for a good reason, and I feel embarrassed to propose this as one. But it appears to be the actual reason.
I know you asked for a good reason, and I feel embarrassed to propose this as one. But it appears to be the actual reason.
I knew of this reasoning previously, hence my using of "good reason", but none the less appreciate the reply. +1'd it as it might be educational for someone else, especially as you clearly stated the "logic" they are likely applying.
In Belfast, flying over to Edinburgh, my wife (who previously had cancer) asked to not use the machine. They told her "it's not radiation, it's not like the American ones" (despite being the exact same one they had at O'Hare). After 2-3 minutes of debating, they finally let her get a pat down. And then after the pat down, forced her to go through the machine anyway.
We were in a foreign country, on a pretty tight schedule (missing this flight wasn't an option), and I wasn't exactly well versed on the legality of these things in Europe to make the argument.
Having seen the photos these things generate, it seems like they're pretty much useless unless someone is carrying something on them that would probably be pretty apparent anyway. Is there any cases where these machines have caught someone?
We were in a foreign country, on a pretty tight schedule (missing this flight wasn't an option), and I wasn't exactly well versed on the legality of these things in Europe to make the argument.
Having seen the photos these things generate, it seems like they're pretty much useless unless someone is carrying something on them that would probably be pretty apparent anyway. Is there any cases where these machines have caught someone?
The TSA's body scanners are actively and deliberately hostile to transgender people: https://archive.is/LOoPB http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trans-woman-upset-t...
If you have both breasts and a penis, you will be treated as a terrorist, detained, and humiliated.
This is why, as a trans person myself, I refuse to fly until the TSA is abolished.
If you have both breasts and a penis, you will be treated as a terrorist, detained, and humiliated.
This is why, as a trans person myself, I refuse to fly until the TSA is abolished.
Yeah, the TSA's behavior is disgusting.
If you want things to change in your favor, you need to howl from the rooftops and make people understand the trouble the TSA puts you through. Personal accounts are the most compelling. Write your congressman!
If you want things to change in your favor, you need to howl from the rooftops and make people understand the trouble the TSA puts you through. Personal accounts are the most compelling. Write your congressman!
Archive.org cache: https://web.archive.org/web/20151226155815/http://www.forbes...
The thing that makes me nervous, and I might be being conspiratorial here, but could they store your body features in a database?
I.e. Sort of a fingerprinting like facial recognition but for the entire body?
I'm sure everyone's body has unique features.
I'm sure everyone's body has unique features.
I am surprised that speed at which this article fell off the front page. There are older article with fewer comments and points that are still on the front page.
Is it due to the downvotes for the forbes link?
Is it due to the downvotes for the forbes link?
London (so not TSA) will deny requests to bypass the body scanners.
I find the both the scans and pat downs invasive. The pat downs take longer and I find them more invasive, so I choose the scan.
If the situation were reversed, I'd opt out of the pat down.
If the situation were reversed, I'd opt out of the pat down.
They want more people to use the machines, just to justify them.
I think the pat downs are more effective security wise.
I think the pat downs are more effective security wise.
i was thinking about how to phrase this: i just hope anyone, who never opts out, doesn't get grilled by a defective device some day.
Ah, the old Constitutional bait-n-switcheroo.
If you're gonna do this, please have the courtesy to be behind me in line. Your stance is admirable and all, but getting through security is slow enough as it is.
When I opt out I get to sit around waiting for a male TSA employee to no longer feel he has better things to do so he can give me a pat down; I have ended up waiting rather extreme periods of time in the past for this to happen: you get to go around me in line the second I say "opt out", and nothing I do affects your line... I can end up with an argument with the employee (which may be what you are objecting to), and it still probably doesn't affect you (as in, I am pretty sure that my arguing with the person assigned to direct the people at he conveyer doesn't slow you down even if you are intending to opt out as I will just keep finding myself punted to later and later in the queue).
I wonder if there's an argument you're making that suggests your due process rights should involve blocking others queued.
I wish it were true.
Maybe the 14th amendment could be used to say that the not immediately servicing your opt-out is unequal treatment?
I wish it were true.
Maybe the 14th amendment could be used to say that the not immediately servicing your opt-out is unequal treatment?
(I was just making a point that someone should not be angry at me for opting out because they claim I made their day take longer.)
Opt outs are removed from the body scanner line, and do not block other people from continuing through the machine.
The article indicates that this is likely an untenable legal position, but it seems like that's the opinion of the lawyer rather than a court injunction or retraction by the TSA. Likely there needs to be more lawsuits before the policy is forced to change.