Opt Out of a Body Scan? Then Brace Yourself(finance.yahoo.com)
finance.yahoo.com
Opt Out of a Body Scan? Then Brace Yourself
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Opt-Out-of-a-Body-Scan-Then-nytimes-3016411705.html?x=0
122 comments
The whole invasive pat-down is just a way to intimidate and humiliate people away from that choice.
This is the last straw for me, personally. I'll just be vacationing closer to home now or working old-school road trips into my plans. Maybe if the outraged take a few less flights a year, the vacation, airline and union lobbies will take up the cause.
This is the last straw for me, personally. I'll just be vacationing closer to home now or working old-school road trips into my plans. Maybe if the outraged take a few less flights a year, the vacation, airline and union lobbies will take up the cause.
For whom on HN are pat downs intimidating and/or humiliating? I personally don't mind it at all, but I can understand that they could be a problem for somebody.
I'm much more worried about CCTV's everywhere, cell phone tracking, internet usage tracking, tracking cars with cameras on highways that read number plates, etc. All these tools are extremely well suited for keeping a dictator in place. I'm afraid that if we get one, then we're not getting rid of him any time soon.
I'm much more worried about CCTV's everywhere, cell phone tracking, internet usage tracking, tracking cars with cameras on highways that read number plates, etc. All these tools are extremely well suited for keeping a dictator in place. I'm afraid that if we get one, then we're not getting rid of him any time soon.
Me. It's insane. It serves no purpose other than to intimidate and harasses normal citizens just trying to get from point A to point B. The fact that I'm assumed to be that stupid, plus the 1984-esqe overtones really, really gets to me.
Right. So it's not so much the physical aspects of pat downs, but the reasons behind the pat downs?
I mean, I was raised Catholic, so I'm not exactly the model of immodesty, but yes, its not the 'omg they'll touch my junk' part as it is the infringement on basic human rights part.
And being reminded that some people think this is okay. And that most people accept it.
I have slightly unusual polititcal views, so such a visible reminder that I'm 'the only person who cares' really riles me up.
And being reminded that some people think this is okay. And that most people accept it.
I have slightly unusual polititcal views, so such a visible reminder that I'm 'the only person who cares' really riles me up.
I fly out of Boston, which has the machines, so opting out has become part of travel process for me. TSA agents were more aggressive with my last trip out (Sunday, October 31), not only with loudly announcing several times that they had an opt-out, but also in the pat down, which included pulling the clothes from my body and looking between the cloth and underthings. ("I have to clear your waistband," is how the TSA agent explained it.)
So, it's humiliating. But I'm not going to stop opting out. The difference between the pat down and the machine for me is this -- the pat down happens in the moment, between two people. There's no record. It exists only in the time it takes. It can't be stored, it can't be transmitted, it can't be tied to a flight record or anything else at some future date. It forces TSA to confront what they're doing, and it's one small way I can say at the airport, I am human, I'm not an abstraction. I have rights, respect them.
So, it's humiliating. But I'm not going to stop opting out. The difference between the pat down and the machine for me is this -- the pat down happens in the moment, between two people. There's no record. It exists only in the time it takes. It can't be stored, it can't be transmitted, it can't be tied to a flight record or anything else at some future date. It forces TSA to confront what they're doing, and it's one small way I can say at the airport, I am human, I'm not an abstraction. I have rights, respect them.
So you haven't seen or had the new pat-downs then?
They're tantamount to a strip search. They lift, they separate.
The choice for airline passengers in the US is now: be photographed nude, or have the TSA jostle your luggage. Reasonableness has been left at the door.
Raising data tracking concerns is a false dichotomy; I can hate and distrust the expansion of both.
The choice for airline passengers in the US is now: be photographed nude, or have the TSA jostle your luggage. Reasonableness has been left at the door.
Raising data tracking concerns is a false dichotomy; I can hate and distrust the expansion of both.
You're right I've only experienced European pat downs so far. However, I doubt that any kind of pat down would bother me much except if it takes an unreasonable amount of time. Somehow they nearly always select me randomly. I make sure that I'm the one enjoying the pat down the most by smiling and winking at the officer when I get selected.
Agreed that the photographing and pat downs are unreasonable. One time I got selected for a pat down because the metal detector went off of my belt. They checked me thoroughly, but they didn't even bother to open my bag even though it contained a cooking set in a 30x30x30cm metal container...I could have put three guns and a kg TNT in there and they wouldn't have noticed it on their screen.
Agreed that the photographing and pat downs are unreasonable. One time I got selected for a pat down because the metal detector went off of my belt. They checked me thoroughly, but they didn't even bother to open my bag even though it contained a cooking set in a 30x30x30cm metal container...I could have put three guns and a kg TNT in there and they wouldn't have noticed it on their screen.
>One time I got selected for a pat down because the metal detector went off of my belt.
I think they have an override under the desk that they can push - I get stopped every time (internal UK flights, not many). I've always found I'm stopped often, I'm bearded and usually have a backpack.
I think they have an override under the desk that they can push - I get stopped every time (internal UK flights, not many). I've always found I'm stopped often, I'm bearded and usually have a backpack.
Other recent posts on HN have said that the TSA is planning to start more thorough pat-downs specifically to discourage people from opting out. You may not mind the pat-down right now, but I'm not sure you'll be saying the same thing a few months from now.
Good thing I'm too poor to fly these days.
Good thing I'm too poor to fly these days.
"Opt out over here! I'm not going through the strip search!"
and then make a point of loudly enjoying the pat down.
"Oh yes... A bit to the left, that's it!"
I went through O'Hare recently, where they've installed a battery of these devices. The way they had it set up, it was used as the secondary screener for people who got called out for random searches.
Guess who got called for "random" searches in the machine? Pretty much every hot chick in line. Now, this observation was purely anecdotal, so take it for what it is. But the coincidence was not lost on me, or on anyone else in the line. It was disgusting behavior on the TSA workers' part.
Guess who got called for "random" searches in the machine? Pretty much every hot chick in line. Now, this observation was purely anecdotal, so take it for what it is. But the coincidence was not lost on me, or on anyone else in the line. It was disgusting behavior on the TSA workers' part.
I was at O'Hare this summer and noticed the exact same thing. All the dudes ended up going through the metal detector, and most of the girls went through the full body scanner.
Then I got really upset when I saw them selecting a young teenage girl to go through the scanner as well - perverts.
Then I got really upset when I saw them selecting a young teenage girl to go through the scanner as well - perverts.
This make me wish there was one nearby within site from an insecure area.
It would be very interesting to take data on male/female ratio over course of a few hours.
It would be very interesting to take data on male/female ratio over course of a few hours.
Some fun things against which to compare the ratio:
- Total male/female ratio among the group processed that day (obviously).
- Average male/female ratio involved in terrorist threats and incidents.
I bet the numbers would tell quite a story.
- Total male/female ratio among the group processed that day (obviously).
- Average male/female ratio involved in terrorist threats and incidents.
I bet the numbers would tell quite a story.
If that is really the case, I can’t wait for the deluge of lawsuits…
TSA is ridiculous.
TSA is ridiculous.
I thought only women operated the machinery where women were scanned and only men, where the men are scanned?
Gender doesn't necessarily determine sexual orientation; the machines are required to have facilities to store and transmit images; and besides, the mere power of forcefully suggesting someone submit to a strip search is titillation in itself, quite apart from viewing any resulting imagery.
I never said it did.
The implication of the comment I was replying to was that it was a bunch of men wanting to look at naked women. I just didn't see how that could be if you were only allowed to observe someone of the same sex...
The implication of the comment I was replying to was that it was a bunch of men wanting to look at naked women. I just didn't see how that could be if you were only allowed to observe someone of the same sex...
Well how would you ever know? You never get to see.
Considering that TSA screeners have been known to change policy, at will, whenever its convenient for them I doubt this policy is consistently enforced.
Maybe they save the pictures and share later?
Supposedly they're not capable of saving or transmitting the pictures. I mean, obviously the machines are capable. But they're nerfed for TSA use. Supposedly.
This is the most ridiculous concept in the digital age. If it's being recorded by a computer, it can be copied. Hell, if it can be seen, it can be illicitly recorded. When you can buy tiny cameras from ThinkGeek that fit in the bridge of your glasses and can record VGA video for hours on a single battery charge, you can forget about pictures not being "saved".
And when the job is looking at naked pictures all day, what do you expect? I mean, who do you think seriously is seeking that sort of job in the first place?
And when the job is looking at naked pictures all day, what do you expect? I mean, who do you think seriously is seeking that sort of job in the first place?
Supposedly, but they've already admitted it's not true: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html
What's your citation for that? I've never heard of this and there's no mention of it on the TSA website.
I don't have one. That's why I didn't claim it as fact.
nope
I just passed through the airport in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The back-scatter scanner is right next to the metal detector and the procedure was that they would "offer" you the choice to walk through the new scanner and said if you turned it down that they would have to perform a physical search. I told them I did not wish to go through the scanner, at which point they walked me past the metal detector (not through) to the pat-down area. While standing there for a few moments for the TSA personel, several people went through the metal detector with no further search. Further, the notification that the machine is still in testing phase is posted after you have already passed through it. It was abundantly clear at that point, the new policy of intimidation and humiliation has nothing to do with my personal safety.
The unilateral and unpublished changes in screening procedure are blatant abuses of authority and undermine the principles of our society. The argument that I have given implicit consent to being searched just by buying an airplane ticket is completely voided when the search procedures are constantly changing without detailed public knowledge or immediate explanation.
I have no fears about flying in general or those caused by the threat of terrorism. I am much more likely to die in a small plane crash with one of my pilot friends at the controls. What terrifies me the most is this blatant disregard of civil liberties and the apparent complacency with which the public submits to the draconian policies being put in place without consent of the people.
The unilateral and unpublished changes in screening procedure are blatant abuses of authority and undermine the principles of our society. The argument that I have given implicit consent to being searched just by buying an airplane ticket is completely voided when the search procedures are constantly changing without detailed public knowledge or immediate explanation.
I have no fears about flying in general or those caused by the threat of terrorism. I am much more likely to die in a small plane crash with one of my pilot friends at the controls. What terrifies me the most is this blatant disregard of civil liberties and the apparent complacency with which the public submits to the draconian policies being put in place without consent of the people.
Every story about the TSA always seems to end with something like this article did:
"Mr. Delahorne said he was perfectly willing to comply with all procedures to ensure good security."
There's always a quote about how someone is willing to do what must be done to ensure our safety. It makes me think that news agencies are required to do this or get paid to do this.
"Mr. Delahorne said he was perfectly willing to comply with all procedures to ensure good security."
There's always a quote about how someone is willing to do what must be done to ensure our safety. It makes me think that news agencies are required to do this or get paid to do this.
I just view it as a sort of standard disclaimer to preempt the usual criticism that dissenters are somehow ignorant, unreasonable, or un-American.
Basically: "I'm an otherwise reasonable person in full possession of my faculties."
Basically: "I'm an otherwise reasonable person in full possession of my faculties."
That's possible but the impression that I have is that by always including such remarks it has the effect of making people who disagree with security measures as wanting something bad to happen. It's sort like the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Instead of focusing on whether or not the measures are appropriate the debate is about whether or not you want to be safe. I think it makes dissenters look bad by making them against being safe.
Yep, this is an old PR trick. It's why you'll see organizations that are preparing to be involved in a political demonstration agree to a 'points of unity' that always have a clause about 'respecting a diversity of tactics.'
If you start asking one group, "What do you think of those guys smashing windows?", it changes the dialogue from "What's your message," to "Aren't those guys bad?" And it's not like you're able to properly discuss such a subtle point as "this is a false dichotomy," when talking to news outlets.
If you start asking one group, "What do you think of those guys smashing windows?", it changes the dialogue from "What's your message," to "Aren't those guys bad?" And it's not like you're able to properly discuss such a subtle point as "this is a false dichotomy," when talking to news outlets.
My guess is the option of opting out is likely going to be removed in a year or so. The most effective way to remove freedom and privacy is incrementally.
What happens when a parent has their children opt-out of the full-body scanner? Can the TSA be sued for child abuse or can the parent press for criminal charges for touching?
I have curtailed my domestic flying personally or with my family due to these asinine security theater exhibitions. In all it amounts to about $5000.00 in lost revenue to the airline industry every year. So if enough people do this then hopefully that will send a message to these people.
Now there may be a time when I or my family have to fly and for sure I will be opting out my entire family. When they go to feel-up my children I will ask the person doing it if he/she has a history of child molestation...since they are getting all personal with me and my children I plan on getting personal with them.
I will try and remember to report back when with the results...
Now there may be a time when I or my family have to fly and for sure I will be opting out my entire family. When they go to feel-up my children I will ask the person doing it if he/she has a history of child molestation...since they are getting all personal with me and my children I plan on getting personal with them.
I will try and remember to report back when with the results...
To me this is just another reason (of many) that travelers should consider general aviation (charter, etc.) as an alternative to commercial airline travel.
The straight financial cost may be higher but avoiding all of this sort of nonsense has its rewards, and remember that most GA operators are locally-owned smallish businesses that appreciate your support and treat their passengers like customers and not like prisoners (or worse).
The straight financial cost may be higher but avoiding all of this sort of nonsense has its rewards, and remember that most GA operators are locally-owned smallish businesses that appreciate your support and treat their passengers like customers and not like prisoners (or worse).
I echo tocomment - for someone who has only ever flown commercial, how would one go about finding and hiring a GA operator? What's kind of premium would you expect pay for a regional (eg Chicago to Detroit) flight or a longer flight (eg Chicago to LA)?
I'm actually pursuing my private pilot's license so my route would be a little different than most, but here in Wisconsin we have Wisconsin Aviation which operates out of several airports and provides everything from aircraft rental for pilots to full charter services:
http://www.wisconsinaviation.com/
http://www.wisconsinaviation.com/
I'm also curious. Do you use a national charter company or do you have to contract directly with owner/pilots? How much does it cost? How fast is it compared to regular commercial travel?
A little over a decade ago, my company used a local charter company when Northwest's pilots went on strike. We were able to get a five-seat turboprop with two pilots for $2000 for 70 minute flight (about 400 miles.) A full-fare ticket on Northwest cost about $540 at the time. Our total travel time was cut in half--no ticketing, no security screening, no baggage claim. We even convinced the rental car companies to run our cars over to the charter office. All we had to do was say hello at the charter office and head on to the plane. This particular company also had seven- and ten-seaters which were slightly cheaper per person per hour. I assume the prices would be more expensive now. Anybody have experience with netjet or similar fractional ownership?
EDIT: Forgot to mention that the same flight on Northwest was 50 minutes in the air.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that the same flight on Northwest was 50 minutes in the air.
The GA safety record is 50 times poorer than that of commercial airlines. (http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/safety) I'll take the rectal probe, thank you.
The GA safety record also includes student pilots, weekend pilots, crop-dusters, and other high-risk flight operations.
Scheduled airlines are operated under FAA Part 121 rules, charter operators work under Part 135 rules, and everything below that is under Part 91 rules. Part 135 operations are much safer than for all GA. It's safer than driving, though not quite as safe as flying a scheduled air carrier.
From the NTSB (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/table1.htm), in 2009 scheduled air carriers had 0.006 fatalities per 100,000 flight hours, on-demand carriers 0.07 per 100,000, and all GA 1.33 fatalities per 100,000 hours.
Scheduled airlines are operated under FAA Part 121 rules, charter operators work under Part 135 rules, and everything below that is under Part 91 rules. Part 135 operations are much safer than for all GA. It's safer than driving, though not quite as safe as flying a scheduled air carrier.
From the NTSB (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/table1.htm), in 2009 scheduled air carriers had 0.006 fatalities per 100,000 flight hours, on-demand carriers 0.07 per 100,000, and all GA 1.33 fatalities per 100,000 hours.
It's a fair point. Nevertheless, when faced with a tenfold increase in the risk of death, I suspect most people would opt for dealing with the TSA.
Regardless, the debate is pointless--GA is not a realistic solution for 95% of air travelers.
Regardless, the debate is pointless--GA is not a realistic solution for 95% of air travelers.
> It's a fair point. Nevertheless, when faced with a tenfold increase in the risk of death, I suspect most people would opt for dealing with the TSA.
Only when presented in an alarming but meaningless manner like that.
Only when presented in an alarming but meaningless manner like that.
[deleted]
Tell us more. How would I get to cancun for example?
I never thought of that, but wouldn't the TSA have authority over GA as well?
I was once shuttled to a business meeting in a small plane (maybe six to eight seats). I had no idea what to expect, showing up for my small flight. I parked at the airport, walked down to the runway where I met the pilot. I said, "is there a security screening? I've got a knife [about 3.5in blade, in my pocket]. I've also got this big thing of water." Pilot said, "that's nice, hop on in the plane. Need anything else?" I even got to listen to my MP3 player during take off.
Assuming that what I flew was "GA," then no, it doesn't seem like the TSA applies there.
As for how you get these sorts of flights and how much they cost, I can't help. I was just the passenger, and haven't done it since.
Assuming that what I flew was "GA," then no, it doesn't seem like the TSA applies there.
As for how you get these sorts of flights and how much they cost, I can't help. I was just the passenger, and haven't done it since.
"""TSA’s Office of General Aviation is committed to working with the industry and community to develop and implement reasonable and effective security measures. As part of these efforts, TSA has recently launched the General Aviation Secure Program. This program is designed to build upon the Airport Watch program, encouraging everyone to be vigilant about general aviation security and report any unusual activities to TSA."""
[ http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/tsnm/general_aviation/programs... ]
( which I found via http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/tsnm/general_aviation/index.sh... )
[ http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/tsnm/general_aviation/programs... ]
( which I found via http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/tsnm/general_aviation/index.sh... )
Baltimore Washington Intl. airport and
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport both recently got body scanners. They both changed their process to close all lanes not equipped with a body-scanner and funnel everyone through the one or two scanners they had.
At BWI they would make every 15th or so person go through the scanner, or anyone who volunteered by walking up to it instead of the metal detector.
At Atlanta the scanners weren't even operational yet and they still only opened the metal detectors with scanners beside them and had an army of TSA screeners standing around doing nothing while a huge crowd of travelers waited in a very long line.
The processes have indeed changed.
At BWI they would make every 15th or so person go through the scanner, or anyone who volunteered by walking up to it instead of the metal detector.
At Atlanta the scanners weren't even operational yet and they still only opened the metal detectors with scanners beside them and had an army of TSA screeners standing around doing nothing while a huge crowd of travelers waited in a very long line.
The processes have indeed changed.
Additionally I would feel perfectly safe flying without any security screening at the airports.
No "terrorists" have been attacking schools, churches, malls, buses, trains, bridges, theaters, libraries, office buildings, etc. Either they only attack planes (not even the airports themselves) or there aren't enough terrorists to justify this amount of "security".
No "terrorists" have been attacking schools, churches, malls, buses, trains, bridges, theaters, libraries, office buildings, etc. Either they only attack planes (not even the airports themselves) or there aren't enough terrorists to justify this amount of "security".
I've always been baffled by the lack of those sorts of attacks. One can imagine the economic damage if everyone was terrified to go to malls, grocery stores, schools, etc.
Amazon.com would be about the only company to come out okay.
Amazon.com would be about the only company to come out okay.
I hate to keep making a point of this, but it has happened in the past and the solution wasn't pretty. Wikipedia says:
The Troubles' impact on the ordinary people of Northern Ireland produced such psychological trauma that the city of Belfast had been compared to London during the Blitz. [104] The stress resulting from bomb attacks, street disturbances, security checkpoints, and the constant military presence had the strongest effect on children and young adults. [105] In addition to the violence and intimidation, there was chronic unemployment and a severe housing shortage. Vandalism was also a major problem. In the 1970s there were 10,000 vandalised empty houses in Belfast alone. Most of the vandals were aged between eight and thirteen. [106] Activities for young people were limited, with pubs fortified and cinemas closed. Just to go shopping in the city centre required passing through security gates and being subjected to body searches.
In addition, some statistics from the same page:
Injuries 47,541
Shootings 36,923
Armed robberies 22,539
People charged with paramilitary offences 19,605
Bombings and attempted bombings 16,209
Arson 2,225 [citation needed]
I'm constantly amazed that after surviving the Troubles we over-react so massively to a couple of nutjobs lighting their crotches. Al Qaeda are incompetent morons. PIRA were fucking scary.
The Troubles' impact on the ordinary people of Northern Ireland produced such psychological trauma that the city of Belfast had been compared to London during the Blitz. [104] The stress resulting from bomb attacks, street disturbances, security checkpoints, and the constant military presence had the strongest effect on children and young adults. [105] In addition to the violence and intimidation, there was chronic unemployment and a severe housing shortage. Vandalism was also a major problem. In the 1970s there were 10,000 vandalised empty houses in Belfast alone. Most of the vandals were aged between eight and thirteen. [106] Activities for young people were limited, with pubs fortified and cinemas closed. Just to go shopping in the city centre required passing through security gates and being subjected to body searches.
In addition, some statistics from the same page:
Injuries 47,541
Shootings 36,923
Armed robberies 22,539
People charged with paramilitary offences 19,605
Bombings and attempted bombings 16,209
Arson 2,225 [citation needed]
I'm constantly amazed that after surviving the Troubles we over-react so massively to a couple of nutjobs lighting their crotches. Al Qaeda are incompetent morons. PIRA were fucking scary.
The IRA was a completely different case.
They weren't asking agents to directly murder random individuals or property. They had the tacit support of (or were at least politely ignored by) much of the surrounding populace and social institutions. They didn't stick out in a crowd. They were born and raised there, had history, jobs, families.
Al Qaeda enjoys none of those advantages for planning attacks in the US. Until and unless they can successfully recruit within the US and garner support within the US, an IRA-style campaign is implausible.
That Al Qaeda has to rely on people who consistently can't light a fuse under stress, or keep a bomb-factory under wraps highlights how much harder it is to find people to perform wanton murder, even as compared to finding people willing to destroy property or carry out targeted murders.
They weren't asking agents to directly murder random individuals or property. They had the tacit support of (or were at least politely ignored by) much of the surrounding populace and social institutions. They didn't stick out in a crowd. They were born and raised there, had history, jobs, families.
Al Qaeda enjoys none of those advantages for planning attacks in the US. Until and unless they can successfully recruit within the US and garner support within the US, an IRA-style campaign is implausible.
That Al Qaeda has to rely on people who consistently can't light a fuse under stress, or keep a bomb-factory under wraps highlights how much harder it is to find people to perform wanton murder, even as compared to finding people willing to destroy property or carry out targeted murders.
Besides the fact that most of the Al Qaeda members involved in the London bombings were British citizens, if you stand out then the IRA style attacks are easier to perform. You don't have to get through airport security or pass a background check. You just go shopping. Thousands of immigrants do it without being stopped by the police.
> They weren't asking agents to directly murder random individuals or property.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles
"In 1972, the Provisional IRA killed approximately 100 soldiers, wounded 500 more and carried out approximately 1,300 bombings,[66] mostly against commercial targets which they considered "the artificial economy".[67][68] The bombing campaign killed many civilians, notably on Bloody Friday on 21 July, when 22 bombs were set off in the centre of Belfast killing seven civilians and two soldiers. "
But otherwise I agree. The level of competence of Al Qaeda recruits is laughable in comparison to PIRA. Which is exactly my point - we've survived far worse, why are we giving up so much of what we stand for for protection from such incompetent terrorists?
> They weren't asking agents to directly murder random individuals or property.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles
"In 1972, the Provisional IRA killed approximately 100 soldiers, wounded 500 more and carried out approximately 1,300 bombings,[66] mostly against commercial targets which they considered "the artificial economy".[67][68] The bombing campaign killed many civilians, notably on Bloody Friday on 21 July, when 22 bombs were set off in the centre of Belfast killing seven civilians and two soldiers. "
But otherwise I agree. The level of competence of Al Qaeda recruits is laughable in comparison to PIRA. Which is exactly my point - we've survived far worse, why are we giving up so much of what we stand for for protection from such incompetent terrorists?
Having citizenship doesn't confer the same benefits of having roots like the IRA did. It makes you less suspicious than someone without citizenship, sure. But it's still not sufficient for an IRA-style campaign.
e.g. Attacking a shopping mall or hotel isn't difficult and all but impossible to prevent, I absolutely agree. The difference is, the al qaeda agent won't find refuge a few blocks away. He won't melt into any crowd. He won't have trusted people from the community who will keep quiet or lie to the authorities for him. He won't have a weapon supplier who continues to supply him. And the resource that he does have are far more likely to melt away as it becomes clear that he is out to indiscriminately murder. Ergo the ability of any foreign agent to make subsequent strikes is drastically reduced.
And, unless I'm mistaken, the IRA never set out to murder non-uniformed, uninvolved civilians. Those that were killed, such as on Bloody Friday, were considered among the IRA wholly undesirable collateral damage. While it takes a certain kind of person to be convinced to drop off a bomb designed to strike a military target, or property target of a collaborator, that might kill innocent people, it's far, far more difficult to find people who will execute an attack designed to kill people going about their day.
And I absolutely agree that our response is laughable. But that's how it goes. Authority has no vested interest in proportional or rational response. Its rewards are aligned with over-reaction. If its masters (ostensibly the voters) don't choose to curtail that response or correct the reward structure, we'll only see continued escalation.
e.g. Attacking a shopping mall or hotel isn't difficult and all but impossible to prevent, I absolutely agree. The difference is, the al qaeda agent won't find refuge a few blocks away. He won't melt into any crowd. He won't have trusted people from the community who will keep quiet or lie to the authorities for him. He won't have a weapon supplier who continues to supply him. And the resource that he does have are far more likely to melt away as it becomes clear that he is out to indiscriminately murder. Ergo the ability of any foreign agent to make subsequent strikes is drastically reduced.
And, unless I'm mistaken, the IRA never set out to murder non-uniformed, uninvolved civilians. Those that were killed, such as on Bloody Friday, were considered among the IRA wholly undesirable collateral damage. While it takes a certain kind of person to be convinced to drop off a bomb designed to strike a military target, or property target of a collaborator, that might kill innocent people, it's far, far more difficult to find people who will execute an attack designed to kill people going about their day.
And I absolutely agree that our response is laughable. But that's how it goes. Authority has no vested interest in proportional or rational response. Its rewards are aligned with over-reaction. If its masters (ostensibly the voters) don't choose to curtail that response or correct the reward structure, we'll only see continued escalation.
> But it's still not sufficient for an IRA-style campaign
Sure, you wouldn't be as successful as the IRA, but it would still be a damn sight easier than attacking planes. Consider the hotel attacks in India for an example of how poorly defended most locations are.
> the IRA never set out to murder non-uniformed, uninvolved civilians
They bombed shops and factories that they considered to be part of the 'artificial'' economy of the British rulers. Non-uniformed, uninvolved civilians tend to work in shops and factories, hence the huge number of civilian injuries and casualties.
More stats:
Deaths by status of victim[2]
Status No.
Civilian 1855
Members of security forces (and reserves) 1123
of whom:
British Army (excluding Northern Ireland regiments) 502
Royal Ulster Constabulary 301
Ulster Defence Regiment 196
Northern Ireland Prison Service 24
Garda Síochána 9
Royal Irish Regiment 7
Territorial Army 7
English police forces 6
Royal Air Force 4
Royal Navy 2
Irish Army 1
Members of Republican Paramilitary Groups 394
Members of loyalist Paramilitary Groups 151
> .... property target of a collaborator ...
Whilst the Troubles was nominally a political conflict the lines were drawn across ethnic/religious grounds. Being a Protestant was sufficient to draw fire from PIRA (similary Catholics were persecuted by the loyalists).
Sure, you wouldn't be as successful as the IRA, but it would still be a damn sight easier than attacking planes. Consider the hotel attacks in India for an example of how poorly defended most locations are.
> the IRA never set out to murder non-uniformed, uninvolved civilians
They bombed shops and factories that they considered to be part of the 'artificial'' economy of the British rulers. Non-uniformed, uninvolved civilians tend to work in shops and factories, hence the huge number of civilian injuries and casualties.
More stats:
Deaths by status of victim[2]
Status No.
Civilian 1855
Members of security forces (and reserves) 1123
of whom:
British Army (excluding Northern Ireland regiments) 502
Royal Ulster Constabulary 301
Ulster Defence Regiment 196
Northern Ireland Prison Service 24
Garda Síochána 9
Royal Irish Regiment 7
Territorial Army 7
English police forces 6
Royal Air Force 4
Royal Navy 2
Irish Army 1
Members of Republican Paramilitary Groups 394
Members of loyalist Paramilitary Groups 151
> .... property target of a collaborator ...
Whilst the Troubles was nominally a political conflict the lines were drawn across ethnic/religious grounds. Being a Protestant was sufficient to draw fire from PIRA (similary Catholics were persecuted by the loyalists).
And all I'm trying to draw a line between, is the way the shops were the target for the IRA as opposed to the civilians, themselves.
It's a lot easier to talk someone into leaving a bomb next to a boiler than to pick up an assault rifle and fire indiscriminately into a crowd of civilians.
It's a lot easier to talk someone into leaving a bomb next to a boiler than to pick up an assault rifle and fire indiscriminately into a crowd of civilians.
Al Qaeda are incompetent morons. PIRA were fucking scary.
I kinda-sorta agree: suicide bombing's a pretty stupid way to go about things, as it means you wipe out all your capable terrorists after only one go. The IRA didn't have that problem - well, intentionally at least.
I kinda-sorta agree: suicide bombing's a pretty stupid way to go about things, as it means you wipe out all your capable terrorists after only one go. The IRA didn't have that problem - well, intentionally at least.
Al Qaeda also seem to keep throwing themselves after hard targets. PIRA (and the UVF, UDA etc) left bombs on trains, dropped them in shopping centre bins, posted them through letter-boxes. The really terrifying thing was that nowhere was safe.
One of my earliest memories is helping to check under the car for bombs before driving to school.
One of my earliest memories is helping to check under the car for bombs before driving to school.
Thats the part I never got either - I remember after 11/9 that I had wished America was British, because you guys reacted so sensible and wouldn't have gone so crazy. A country that can survive the Blitz isn't going to care about a couple of buildings.
Britain didn't react any more sensibly though. We had arguably even more erosion of civil liberties as a result eg http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8...
Yaeh - but to a 7th grader that wasn't apparent 2 days later.
I still hope that with enough tea and scones one can get some sensibility back into that country.
I still hope that with enough tea and scones one can get some sensibility back into that country.
Stupid lawmaking aside, I was really proud the day after the London bombings to see so many people commuting to work regardless. There were a fair few white faces and it was deathly silent but the place was still packed. You can blow up our trains and murder our citizens but life goes on.
Thats great to hear - I really hate the politicians for what they have done to the UK.
I feel like they acted the way they did because they thought the public wanted to see some kind of action in response to the threat. It's as much the fault of the British public for being so ambivalent about politics that the government is left trying to guess what we want.
Perhaps if more people were to study modern history it would be a bigger issue. Outside of my immediate friendship group, most of the people I've talked about it don't seem to view it as an issue. If you don't explicitly value civil liberty then it seems like a fair exchange for the chance to catch a terrorist before they act. Not many people think it through further than that.
Perhaps if more people were to study modern history it would be a bigger issue. Outside of my immediate friendship group, most of the people I've talked about it don't seem to view it as an issue. If you don't explicitly value civil liberty then it seems like a fair exchange for the chance to catch a terrorist before they act. Not many people think it through further than that.
"a severe housing shortage... there were 10,000... empty houses in Belfast alone."
A potent reminder of the kind of glaringly painful inefficiencies that come out of this kind of thing.
A potent reminder of the kind of glaringly painful inefficiencies that come out of this kind of thing.
Not inefficiency as such. Many houses were empty because the occupants were forcefully evicted.
"Another feature of the political violence was the involuntary or forced displacement of both Catholics and Protestants from formerly mixed residential areas. For example, in Belfast, Protestants were forced out of Lenadoon, and Catholics were driven out of the Rathcoole estate and the Westvale neighbourhood. In Derry city, almost all the Protestants fled to the predominantly loyalist Fountain Estate and Waterside areas."
"Another feature of the political violence was the involuntary or forced displacement of both Catholics and Protestants from formerly mixed residential areas. For example, in Belfast, Protestants were forced out of Lenadoon, and Catholics were driven out of the Rathcoole estate and the Westvale neighbourhood. In Derry city, almost all the Protestants fled to the predominantly loyalist Fountain Estate and Waterside areas."
Despite what the security and media apparatus would have us believe, it simply isn't easy to convince people to go on murderous rampages. Most people are not monsters. Let alone suicidal ones.
When you realize the inhumanity required to follow through on a terror plot is the limiting resource, their targeting and methods make more sense.
When you realize the inhumanity required to follow through on a terror plot is the limiting resource, their targeting and methods make more sense.
Forest fires seem, to me, the low hanging fruit. Lots of economic damage for little effort so the fact they're not being done make me doubt the omnipresence of Emmanuel Goldstein.
I'm surprised Al Qaeda hasn't used the DC snipers as a model.
This amazes me also. Imagine 6 or 8 teams of two shooting one person at random every other day or so in our largest metro areas. It would paralyze the country.
And TSA would start swiping your hands at the airport to see if you had recently fired a gun.
And TSA would start swiping your hands at the airport to see if you had recently fired a gun.
Exactly. The DC folks got caught because they used the same vehicle and stayed in the same area. Al Qaeda surely has the resources to avoid that one.
Add in some random rural targets and the entire country comes to a standstill. That this hasn't happened yet indicates to me either that Al Qaeda is far more neutered than we generally think, or they utterly lack any amount of imagination.
It's rather terrifying how close our society is to total panic and shutdown.
Add in some random rural targets and the entire country comes to a standstill. That this hasn't happened yet indicates to me either that Al Qaeda is far more neutered than we generally think, or they utterly lack any amount of imagination.
It's rather terrifying how close our society is to total panic and shutdown.
>That this hasn't happened yet indicates to me either that Al Qaeda is far more neutered than we generally think, or they utterly lack any amount of imagination.
Or perhaps Al Quaeda isn't quite what you've been told. For some reason that is considered impossible by almost all normally open minded people.
Or perhaps Al Quaeda isn't quite what you've been told. For some reason that is considered impossible by almost all normally open minded people.
I tend to doubt that Al Qaeda is some poor, misunderstood group of people who just want to be our friends if we'd only let them.
Just got through the airport lastweek and didn't have to deal with this silliness. But I can't wait to go back to the US so I can opt-out. I'm not a perv, but can't wait to see the look on the screener's face while s/he's forced to touch my johnson.
"That's not a roll of quarters my friend" :-)
"That's not a roll of quarters my friend" :-)
Serious question for the physicists: How feasible would it be to put a faraday cage in one's underpants that wouldn't trigger a metal detector but would mess up the body scanner?
A Faraday cage is, by definition, a conductive cage. You'll have a hard time getting a conductive material through a metal detector.
Your best bet would be to construct a garment from a material which is significantly absorbs/attenuates the extremely high frequencies (30GHz to 300GHz) used by these millimeter-wave imaging scanners. Normal clothing passes these waves with minimal attenuation, where they bounce off of your skin and return to the scanner. The scanner then uses these returned signals to reconstruct an image of your naked body for the TSA to examine. If your clothing instead absorbs most of this signal, or at least attenuates it significantly enough to fall below the dynamic range of the imager, the TSA won't be able to see much.
Absorbing millimeter-wave signals to a significant enough degree will require a relatively thick material. I typically use RF foam in the lab when I'm working on EMI compliance issues because it is cheap and easy to cut to size. Attenuation data is scarce for the EHF band, but ARC Technologies has a lossy flexible foam that has 25dB of attenuation at 40GHz ( http://www.arc-tech.com/lossyflexiblefoam.php ), which amounts to 50dB of round-trip attenuation from the imager to your skin back to the imager. 50dB loss means only 0.001% of the original signal will bounce back to the scanner.
Even more absorption can be had if you use pyramidal foam, much like you see in a typical antenna chamber. ( http://www.ets-lindgren.com/pdf/absorber.pdf ) Of course, this probably won't be the most comfortable garment you've ever worn.
Still, I would imagine wearing such a garment would immediately raise red flags and you would quickly find yourself in a back room with some unfriendly TSA agents. You're much better off opting out.
Your best bet would be to construct a garment from a material which is significantly absorbs/attenuates the extremely high frequencies (30GHz to 300GHz) used by these millimeter-wave imaging scanners. Normal clothing passes these waves with minimal attenuation, where they bounce off of your skin and return to the scanner. The scanner then uses these returned signals to reconstruct an image of your naked body for the TSA to examine. If your clothing instead absorbs most of this signal, or at least attenuates it significantly enough to fall below the dynamic range of the imager, the TSA won't be able to see much.
Absorbing millimeter-wave signals to a significant enough degree will require a relatively thick material. I typically use RF foam in the lab when I'm working on EMI compliance issues because it is cheap and easy to cut to size. Attenuation data is scarce for the EHF band, but ARC Technologies has a lossy flexible foam that has 25dB of attenuation at 40GHz ( http://www.arc-tech.com/lossyflexiblefoam.php ), which amounts to 50dB of round-trip attenuation from the imager to your skin back to the imager. 50dB loss means only 0.001% of the original signal will bounce back to the scanner.
Even more absorption can be had if you use pyramidal foam, much like you see in a typical antenna chamber. ( http://www.ets-lindgren.com/pdf/absorber.pdf ) Of course, this probably won't be the most comfortable garment you've ever worn.
Still, I would imagine wearing such a garment would immediately raise red flags and you would quickly find yourself in a back room with some unfriendly TSA agents. You're much better off opting out.
> Even more absorption can be had if you use pyramidal foam
Hell, it would also make the pat-down a lot more interesting!
Thanks for the detailed answer.
Of course my original question was somewhat facetious, but I do think it's farcical that, nine years after 9/11, in order to fly within the "land of the free and home of the brave" one has to be subjected to these humiliating so-called security measures. Military-industrial complex indeed! It would be interesting to trace the political donations given by the companies that make these machines...
Hell, it would also make the pat-down a lot more interesting!
Thanks for the detailed answer.
Of course my original question was somewhat facetious, but I do think it's farcical that, nine years after 9/11, in order to fly within the "land of the free and home of the brave" one has to be subjected to these humiliating so-called security measures. Military-industrial complex indeed! It would be interesting to trace the political donations given by the companies that make these machines...
If it's made to bounce off of skin, what about leather clothes?
Sounds like bacon underwear would work pretty well.
What thickness of foam are we talking about?
I just returned from an international trip a couple of weeks ago and am glad I missed this. However the snap on my pants (!) must have set off the metal detector so I was still patted down.
In what other business is a normal, paying customer treated this way? Not quite the golden age of commercial aviation . . .
In what other business is a normal, paying customer treated this way? Not quite the golden age of commercial aviation . . .
An organization, say like the EFF, should coordinate mass "opt-out" travel at peak travel times.
A little "gridlock" might highlight the absurdity of the situation.
A little "gridlock" might highlight the absurdity of the situation.
"No, no. The process has always been the same, at every airport."
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
Why the hell wasn't this an election issue? I would have gladly voted against any candidate who supported this.
If enough would choose opt out (despite the obvious intimidation tactics), then the entire process would become so inefficient that an easy, efficient alternate would be provided (or the scanners removed altogether). It would likely take a majority of people opting out though.
‘No, no. The process has always been the same, at every airport.’
INGSOC! We should have known, 1984 is long due.
INGSOC! We should have known, 1984 is long due.
I am seriously tempted to find some metal tape for the next time I have to fly, "mark up" my t-shirt with a suggestion as to where the TSA can shove their body-scan machine, and walk through side-ways.
Your idea reminds me of this story from 2006.
Milwaukee resident Ryan Bird wrote "Kip Hawley is an Idiot" on a plastic bag given to passengers by airport security. As a result he claims he was detained and told that the First Amendment did not apply to security checkpoints.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/606142...
Kip Hawley was the head of TSA at the time.
Milwaukee resident Ryan Bird wrote "Kip Hawley is an Idiot" on a plastic bag given to passengers by airport security. As a result he claims he was detained and told that the First Amendment did not apply to security checkpoints.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/606142...
Kip Hawley was the head of TSA at the time.
All it reminds me of is the person who actually had that idea, on this site, five days ago.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1849311
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1849311
It is a rather obvious hack, isn't it?
Hey thats not that bad - 25 minutes is well worth the fun.
For women, there are http://www.flyingpasties.com
Sounds like a great way to get a real strip-search as well as a virtual one. Of course, you may be willing to accept that to make your point.
Who is responsible for crafting these procedures, I.E., requiring the body scans or alternative opt-out procedures? Do they have a name besides "Homeland Security"?
Perhaps you're thinking of the Transportation Security Administration?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Adminis...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Adminis...
Original article (not framed by Yahoo):
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/business/02road.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/business/02road.html
To the frequent business travelers, might this increase the growing trend of working remotely?
Now that it's trivial to set up video-conferencing on your home workstation, and collaborate via online tools that range the gamut from github to office docs to just about anything you can imagine, might this drive even more people to shift business travel to remote work instead?
Now that it's trivial to set up video-conferencing on your home workstation, and collaborate via online tools that range the gamut from github to office docs to just about anything you can imagine, might this drive even more people to shift business travel to remote work instead?
I heard those body scanners can cause cancer
I've been through Cleveland Hopkins Intl' and San Jose Intl' in the last days and there were "opt-out lanes" in which no body scanners were used and you went through the normal metal detectors. No pat down either. Nobody told you into which lane you have to go, so there was absolutely no pressure.
They can pat me down in the crotch until they're blue in the face: they'll never find anything.
I'm not sure what that means, or if I want to know, or if I'm seeing innuendos where there aren't any, but it made me lol anyway. Have an upvote.
It seems that the best way to get around this would be to make life unbearable for the TSA agents. The politicians can't be reached.
While physically assaulting them would be very satisfying, simply freezing them out socially would properly be a better tactic, since it is impossible to arrest people for.
While physically assaulting them would be very satisfying, simply freezing them out socially would properly be a better tactic, since it is impossible to arrest people for.
"The politicians can't be reached."
Of course they can! Mail, email, they can certainly be reached, and right now they're extra sensitive to issues that upset their constituents.
Of course they can! Mail, email, they can certainly be reached, and right now they're extra sensitive to issues that upset their constituents.
right now they're extra sensitive to issues that upset their constituents
Quite the opposite. Right now is the maximum time before the next election. That means they've got the longest time possible for you to forget. Any shenanigans they'd like to engage in would be safest now.
Quite the opposite. Right now is the maximum time before the next election. That means they've got the longest time possible for you to forget. Any shenanigans they'd like to engage in would be safest now.
It is the maximum time, but issues are not that simple. The long-term members of Congress know the electorate are upset, and want to make nice; the new members are spoiling for a fight; the Dems are in disarray and retreat (I haven't a clue as to why), and the GOP is eagerly taking ground. It's a perfect time to push an issue with your Congress members.
I have not had the opportunity to opt out yet. But when I do, I will gladly join in the opt out screaming session, and add some other choice words of my own.
I refuse to quietly be a part of some absurd bureaucratic plot that slowly and steadily strips away my civil rights.