The TSA is now calling National Opt-Out Day "irresponsible."
John Pistole, TSA Administrator: "On the eve of a major national holiday and less than one year after al Qaida's failed attack last Christmas Day, it is irresponsible for a group to suggest travelers opt out of the very screening that could prevent an attack using non-metallic explosives."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/11/12/131275949/protest...
That, to me, doesn't jive with their stance that body scanners aren't a big deal because you can opt out. To me, it confirms that opt-out "enhanced pat-downs" were introduced to intimidate people into being scanned.
"On the eve of a major national holiday and less than one year after al Qaida's failed attack last Christmas Day, it is irresponsible for a group to suggest travelers opt out of the very screening that could prevent an attack using non-metallic explosives."
He seems to be overlooking the possibility that things are getting so bad with the TSA that increasing numbers of travelers would rather take their chances with terrorists and underwear bombs than submit to the TSA's heavy-handed, dehumanizing procedures.
And that no security measure at the airport will prevent a threat before the security checkpoint. With or without people opting out of the body scanners, security checkpoints are bottlenecks (something that the scanners have, in fact, exacerbated) and therefore vulnerable.
To me it reads "if you want airport security to go faster so you can get to your plane on time and see your family in time, listen to and trust TSA personnel"
John Pistole should man up, show some leadership, and release his bodyscan to the public to demonstrate through actions not words how these scanners aren't a big deal. John: we're waiting for the pics.
This reminds me of Gandhi's non-cooperation attitude and shrewdness in dealing with unjust people or policies in power.
As an individual, you are powerless when you go through the security line. As a group, however, the American people have all of the power. Because this is both a democracy and a capitalist country (however flawed it may be), if there is an organized and concerted effort against the TSA policies, they simply cannot stand. Congress would not be able to oppose a unified voice of the people saying "this is not okay" and the airlines would not be able to tolerate a significant reduction in customers (and therefore would put pressure on the TSA to change its policies).
Gandhi organized a "day of prayer and fasting" which was basically a general strike of all of India. It was a wake-up call to the British. If somebody organized a "do not fly" day where no one flew, that would probably be a bigger wake-up call than opting out of the scan.
Sometimes you have to give up some temporary convenience or comfort to send a message to those in power that you don't agree. During the Montgomery bus boycott, people stopped using the bus and this was extremely inconvenient but they would rather not trade their dignity for convenience.
The major difference between this situation and any efforts of Gandhi or the civil rights movement is one of leadership.
An entire country would (and did) follow Gandhi. I don't think there is a single person in the US whom everyone would follow for a day. Especially if it meant shutting down all business travel during that day.
I tend to agree; however, if the issue was important enough I think that a significant portion of our population would organize to achieve a goal. Look at how many people showed up for the rally to restore fear and/or sanity which actually didn't have any stated goals.
I think that's a rose-colored view on Gandhi. Maybe eventually most of the country followed Gandhi, but I doubt that was the case immediately. Any disobedience campaign takes time to develop.
The way to stop the sexual assaults is not to target the sexual assaults, but to target flying. Don't opt out of the scanners, the opt out won't be available forever anyway. Just don't fly. Not on a particular day. Just don't fly.
Currently, there are two major kinds of travelers, business and vacation. It will be difficult to curb vacation travel, since you want to go somewhere and you only have a week to do it.
Business travel would be possible to cut drastically. And it would be good for business too. "All" it would need (and I realize "all" encompasses a lot), would be much more excellent process and data integration and sharing. I don't mean adding the word "solution" to a Lotus notes sale. I mean systems that make it all but irrelevant whether your employee or vendor is on site or on the moon.
I'm not an enterprisy guy, so I know I've stated that in a clumsy and probably mistargeted way. But it does seem that if anyone, or any industry, could cut the need for travel and increase the value of services and products sold, the world would beat a path.
Maybe the cost/benefit lines didn't cross. Maybe we'll look back and have the TSA to thank for that crossing, and a better way to do global business.
Ugh, it makes me sad to see everyone blaming these people for "holding up the line." No, it's the TSA, who decided to treat every passenger as a criminal suspect, who are holding up the line!
I hope they're successful in getting TSA's ridiculous policy changed. One shouldn't have to choose between being unnecessarily irradiated and virtually strip-searched or being sexually assaulted (in any other context, TSA's new pat-down procedures would be classified as criminal sexual conduct) just to ride on an airplane.
It's just a normal pat-down, the kind that might be given by an officer of the law to someone reasonably suspected to be armed and dangerous. It's not like the pat-downs themselves are unusual, it's that the TSA doesn't have cause (or maybe even authority) to do these pat-downs.
Also, it's not sexual, so it can't possibly be sexual assault. Assault or battery is about the most you could claim.
You might consider it non-sexual, but try asking a rape victim instead. I most certainly consider someone touching my private parts a sexual assault; and the fact that it's institutionalized doesn't make it any less a scandal. Don't be under any illusions; people who enjoy this kind of thing will see it as an interesting alternative career choice to school janitor etc.
If the scanners become mandatory here in the UK for going to the US (they aren't on Virgin Atlantic flying out of Heathrow, last time I checked, a couple of weeks back), I'll probably have to quit my job, as I will no longer want to travel.
Yeah, that's what I meant when I said they might not have authority. But they have been delegated that authority by the DHS, which does have cabinet-level executive status. So it's arguable.
It's interesting how you consider any interaction with your "private parts" to be sexual in nature. If you lean against a table, are you having sex with it? Are you having sex with your underwear right now?? The agent isn't touching you sexually, so it's not sexual assault.
If I lean against a table it's not sexual, but when the table grabs my balls it sure as hell is. What I find interesting is that you equate an inanimate object in contact with a sexual organ with a human being fondling your penis, vagina, or breasts.
I honestly care less about the pats, if a dude or dudette wants to touch my balls and buttocks to make sure I'm not packing (pun intended), then go ahead. But to see them extend this same courtesy to grandmothers and little children is disgusting, unnecessary, and irresponsible.
An argument could be made, a really depressing argument in so many ways, that including children and grandmothers in the TSA's sexual assaults is for their protection, because if they were exempt, they could be targets for hiding contraband.
But what happens when terrorist children shove explosives inside themselves through their anuses, or when terrorist grandma shoves a handgun inside her vagina?
It's a very slippery slope to climb without a safety-line mate. The minimal increase in security this new procedures allows is just too small in contrast to the vast damage it does towards people's liberties and towards avoiding precedents that could influence some Big Brother type of behavior.
This might sound awful, but a terrorist attack is most likely to be thwarted because some agents doing profiling decided to be extra careful with Muslims (and this is just an example, I'm not targeting Muslims in any way), than because we have xray machines that strip people naked.
I'm not making the argument that I noted, I'm just pointing out that it fits within the twisted logic of our current situation.
I agree with your points, and I don't feel any safer for the new procedures. Indeed, I feel less safe, because the TSA's efforts are misdirected, and the TSA has demonstrated its disdain for me, my rights and my dignity.
Oh no I got from your post that you where not making that specific point. Sorry if I came off as 'protective' of my ideals or something, I was just trying to convey why I thought that the TSA policies are rubbish. I agree with you that there is a counterpoint to the way I see everything regarding this, I just think that the counter point is as misguided as the policies are.
The pat downs are sexual in nature because they are done by rubbing the palms against the persons body including the genitals and breasts on women.
A police officer conducts this type of pat-down when a person is arrested or is in the process of being arrested or detained because there is a sufficient threat indicator. What the TSA is doing is saying that either you get irradiated and people get to see you naked, or you're a potential terrorist/criminal.
Classic red herring. You couldn't sneak a pistol through security before 9/11, you couldn't do it after 9/11, and the NakedTron 5000 doesn't do a damn thing to change that.
If anybody knows people in tv or radio, it'd be good to get the word out.
Opt-Out Day is Nov 24th. The day before Thanksgiving. It's going to be packed and slow without people opting out. Make sure to remind the mad people that it's the TSA that's forcing you get a pat down.
I generally agree that there is way too much corporate control of the American government, but this is a pretty great example of how laws sometimes do nothing but hurt corporations.
Because I don't want to put up with this bullshit, I will take the (less profitable) bus or drive when I'm travelling fairly short distances. The airlines lose out, the oil companies lose out, and the airplane manufacturers lose out. I save a little money that I otherwise wouldn't have spent.
If the airlines were a powerful lobbying force, they would try to streamline the process of flying to attract get more people through in less time. The government decided that making people feel like they were safe from terrorists was more important than satisfying the airline lobbyists, so they chose to create security theater.
So in your opinion, silently boycotting corporations is the only effective thing you can do? What a depressing world view, and one that seems extremely ignorant of American history.
Actually, given the additional delays for security, trips under ~ 250 miles, buses and trains are a viable alternative. I'd suspect that those routes are rapidly becoming more profitable for ground transport. Maybe that can help with investment in high speed trains.
The TSA Radius is the distance below which you'd rather drive than fly. (I invented this term, but feel free to use it.) As far as I'm concerned, they've just increased the TSA Radius to infinity.
If you opt-out, please be respectful to the TSA security people. They're just working and can't change the policies for you. Most of them are not in high positions and can't just walk away and find another job the next day/week. So they're not quitting no matter how rudely you treat them. No point to it and it'll just make them grumpy towards you and everybody after you.
It's best to just talk to them like a regular person and be nice about it. It'll make the pat down experience better for you and them. Just ask them to send the word upstream.
edit - Why was I voted down? Is someone suggesting that you should act like a douche bag to the staff?
Actually, I'm kind of surprised that no TSA agents have fought this and turned the situation into a hostile work environment lawsuit payday yet.
Coming soon to a courtroom near you...
Attorney: Could you please tell the court in your own words about the events leading up to your termination from TSA?
Plaintiff: I refused to perform enhanced pat-down procedures on the grounds that this procedure constituted criminal sexual conduct. I was repeatedly reprimanded for my refusal to participate in illegal conduct and subsequently terminated for this...
The post may have gotten a lot of up votes, but it doesn't mean he/she is right.
I'm pretty sure that those low TSA people would LOVE to get a better job, but guess what they're there and that's the reality of it. In a better reality, we wouldn't have this security theater. However, we should focus our angry/energy towards solutions that will bring better results.
Besides, if they quit, there lines of people to take their place. The economy isn't that great and there's lots of people looking for jobs.
(I'm not saying let them keep their jobs and security theater. Just saying not need waste energy on being rude to them.)
Too few people will even give the scanners a second thought. Unfortunately, most people are satiated enough to watch their freedom gradually erode without realizing what's happening. I don't know how far this call to opt-out will spread, but if enough people opt-out to draw the attention of those who haven't paid attention yet, things might change.
It takes a lot of effort to match government sponsored indoctrination. If this works at all, it might lead to a lot more people waking up and saying 'no' to the bullshit constantly being shoved down their throats.
Not sure how feasible or legal it is to do this, but a good strategy for a demonstration might be to hand out fliers to people waiting in the security line. On the fliers would be some information on the new security policy and body scanners and an example image of a body scan. Also attached would be a sticker that says "opt out".
That we people can make an informed and visible decision before they encounter the TSA pressure.
Better yet, t-shirts. The front of the t-shirt is innocuous (so the security guards don't get alarmed too early), but the back explains the body scan process to everyone in line behind you, with example images.
It would also be nice to include some objective, unbiased data explaining how effective these types of security measures are at preventing terrorist attacks.
One of the great things about this backlash is that it springs mostly from just a handful of small, mostly web-based efforts. Jonah Goldberg's post arguably kicked off this latest, biggest anti-body-scanner outcry.
There are lots of others. This whole thing has heated up a lot in the last week or two. And I suspect the next week or two are going to be a lot bigger.
This protest might not slow down security lines. These new scanners are pretty slow to begin with.
When I went through SFO recently it took 1-2 minutes to go through the scanner. The slowness seemed to be a combination of the instructions given to the flyer for positioning themselves inside the device, the slowness of the device itself, and the slack in the line.
In any case, I remember thinking that a pat-down might actually be quicker.
The speed of the magnetometer lines have always been gated by the hand-luggage x-ray machine, in my experience; usually a magnetometer arch is shared by two lines. To hear some people claim that these things will speed up the lines is pretty ludicrous, especially considering that you need to take more stuff out of your pockets.
And then there's the wonderful cost implications. The machines are already 20x more expensive than the magnetometer arches, as I understand it, so the total cost to make up the numbers (to get the speed back through parallelism) could be 40x or more, tens of millions for every decent-sized checkpoint.
Recently when I choose not to go through the digital strip search they spent a good 20 minutes going through my stuff, asking me questions and getting a pat down.
Not harder, just slower, and why would they care about that? There are many people with enough empathy and diligence to feel bad if you miss your flight. But I don't see how any of them could stomach working for TSA.
I can't get behind this, especially when it comes to kids. I really hope that someone finds proof they do store images and sues the US government/TSA for child pornography or something similar. While I doubt this opt-out day will gain serious traction to make a decision, I agree that the best thing to do is continue to call media attention to and scrutinize it.
The TSA has asserted that the machines cannot store pictures, but security personnel at a courthouse in Florida were found to not only have saved images but shared them among colleagues in order to humiliate one of their coworkers.
I saw that, but it's not enough. Someone needs to send some of these pictures (even better, pictures of congress members) to Wikileaks or a similar organization to really push this forward.
I'm emigrating from Canada to New Zealand and we're flying on Nov. 25.
Since I'm near the border, we're flying from Detroit to Fort Worth and then LA.. I am not looking forward to this flight.
I've already had dozens of medical x-rays in the past few months, and don't particularly want to get another dose, however low it may be.
On the other hand, opting out sounds really unpleasant. I especially don't want my wife potentially suffering that indignity at the hands of a male TSA agent (as some people have reported).
I don't think I have the balls to opt-out this time around.. I just want to survive the 48 hour trip intact, with all my luggage.. but this will likely be the last time I fly through the US.
I've opted out twice and it really hasn't been a big deal. It's slightly slower, but the security guys treated me fine. It was no more invasive than being patted down before entering a nightclub to make sure you aren't carrying anything pointy.
Given your health concerns, opting out seems like the clear choice (though bear in mind I'm pulling from a sample size of only 2).
There are two kinds of scanners. One uses low energy X-rays, the other uses microwaves. If you got the microwave kind, that would not add to your X-ray dose.
I understand pat-downs within the U.S. are by same-sex agents. This wouldn't be the kind of thing they would get wrong.
There seems to be debate about whether or not this day is good or bad. But it is pretty simple if the scanners are good the day is bad, if the scanners are bad then the day is good.
This is the real issue, but there has probably been alot of debate about this already? What made you take your current stance?
I went though the body scanner this Monday in Cincinnati, well aware of the fact that they can see your penis etc (and it was cold that day...). It didn't bother me that much, but it was much more time consuming than going through the old metal detectors, and I don't like the fact that this could be harmful (but I haven't researched how credible this is).
We have to draw the line somewhere; if not here, they'll push the line further, and further. The TSA has no motive to do a cost-benefit analysis: the force pushing them forward is risk, no matter how small, but the only force pushing back against them is how much budget they can get out of the American taxpayer. The saliency of terrorism fears overpowers analytic reason in too many people.
A quick search indicates there are over 87,000 flights daily in the US alone; that puts the number at over a quarter billion flights without a successful terrorist incident in the absence of these scanners.
I would recommend taking this one step further. Let's all find a day in the next few months where we simply refuse to fly. We can call it "dignity day". If air traffic was significantly down because of this, the airlines would start pressuring the TSA to back off. After all, keeping shareholders happy trumps whatever safety concerns we might have.
The gas "boycotts" are stupid, because they just shift sales to the days before and after. This could have a meaningful impact, because it really will increase the number of molestations that TSA agents have to perform.
Really disappointed in the hackernews community for downing dissenting opinions in this thread. I understand this is an emotional issue for people but that doesn't excuse for immaturity. Fortunately my karma is pretty meaningless to me as much as I like to watch it go up (or down.)
You called the communities opinion pathetic, based on some erroneous what "ifs" you came up with. Lot's of people just gave you their point of view on why you're wrong and others just down voted you because you didn't back up anything you said with facts. Here's my take:
1) I don't care about anyone seeing me naked, I've been working out for years, four times a week to look like I look now and if could walk butt naked everywhere I would. That doesn't mean that it's alright to look at other people's naked bodies, and sure as hell doesn't make right the possibility of a predator looking at naked children.
2) Regarding the scanner's radiation in no way is a healthy thing, and in the absence of actual proof stating if it's really negligible or if it poses a serious health risk, everyone should consider it dangerous. You're basically saying that it's OK to walk through that tight dark alley in the middle of a bad neighborhood at midnight because there's no proof that anyone has been killed or mugged there. I'd rather avoid that kind of situation unless completely necessary thank you very much.
You wanted a rational discussion so I'm giving you a rational answer (I have no emotional issue with the topic at hand). I don't care about people touching me or seeing me naked, and I do care (albeit very little) about the potential health risks. I find your comment on how seeing someone's body through X-rays is not a big deal, but seeing someone's luggage through X-ray is a violation of privacy, preposterous and honestly laughable. Tell me what the big difference between looking into your luggage and looking at your naked body is that makes the latter so unimportant in comparison to the former.
You made a comment for the sake of disagreeing (instead of saying anything of any value for the discussion) and then made some utterly incompetent remarks all the while calling people immature and basically saying their opinions have no value because you believe we're all cattle in the herd of the Anti-TSA fad. While I don't agree there was a necessity for down-votes, you're comments did add no value whatsoever so the people where in a way correct to do so. Next time if you're going to disagree do it politely and state facts and opinions instead of trying to come of as the better person.
Thanks for the feedback, however I did not call the community's opinion pathetic, nor did I state a bunch of ifs. In fact I did not even use the word "if" that I could find, nor did I state conditionals in any other way. I did say there was a pathetic lack of rational discussion, and I was not referring to HN specifically, but instead the general public discourse.
I did not comment "for the sake of disagreeing," but rather because I strongly disagree with the prevailing group think going on. This policy was poorly presented to the public, but that does not excuse its butchering, nor the wholesale dismissal of the TSA.
I also think it's wrong to pile on a bunch of decent people working as TSA agents just because of a couple bad anecdotes that made the news. Further, I think the rationale behind the policy, ways to limit abuse, and the trade-offs should be the subject of discussion. Instead it's a bunch of "fuck the police" without consideration for those of us in favor of having secure airline flights.
I don't see how being searched for weapons and explosives before boarding an aircraft is a violation of privacy, and finding ways around a more thorough search does not mean a more thorough search shouldn't be implemented.
You are free to fly your own plane without such searches, or to drive, walk, take a train, etc - however if you get on a plane with other people you simply do not have a right to not be searched, any more than you do when entering a courthouse, having a private dinner with the President, or going to a nightclub. Those policies are implemented to counter real dangers and threats, and your right to privacy does not prevail here.
I just got off a flight from OAK-SEA without incident or encounter, a few helpful pointers, and plenty of courtesy.
I get that you didn't mean it as a put down, I was just expressing to you how it read for me (and probably for a lot of people). I didn't mean to come off as aggressive towards you specifically, I was more being aggressive towards the idea itself.
Now I don't see where the general disdain relates to the TSA agents themselves, with the exceptions of a few posts stating that people that work as TSA agents would resign as a result of this policies, and I agree with you in that they aren't the ones that should have to deal with out unhappiness with the policies.
It's not that people think that they have a right to not be searched, it's that people think they have a right to not be treated in a way that demeans them and that violates some of the basic human rights they posses. There is no expectation of privacy on an airport, and as such you should be searched for dangerous artifacts and weapons, but that doesn't mean that you should be stripped by a machine or 'fondled' and 'groped' without a reason. There is no expectation of privacy while walking down the street or getting into a bus, and as such, but that doesn't give the right to anyone to take naked xray pictures of your person or to touch you in way you not deem appropriate.
You might get plenty or courtesy on behalf of the TSA agents, and that's great; however the fight is not with the agents themselves, it's with the policies that demand people to submit to potentially damaging irradiation or to a search procedure that proves to be invasive and with which you don't feel comfortable with.
This anti scanner fad stinks of mob mentality and hysteria. There is no evidence images have been stored at airports or that harm is caused by scans. There is a pathetic lack of rational discussion of factual policies and why such policies might be necessary, whether we like them or not.
I expect more from the HN crowd.
Someone want to fill us on on facts instead of speculation and fear mongering?
In a free society, people are being coerced to participate in a security procedure that violates their privacy. Don't want to go through the porno scanners? Okay, punk — have fun being aggressively groped in punishment.
You don't get to enact this kind of invasive, extreme policy on a whim. Extreme measures call for extreme circumstances and at this point, no one has made any sort of compelling case for the necessity of seeing the American public naked or grabbing them by the nuts.
No one asked for this. And no one gave permission for this, aside from bureaucrats with more agenda than sense.
Finally, anyone dedicated to destroying themselves and others with a nonmetallic explosive is simply going to shove it up their ass. No pat down can detect that. So what, beyond further terrorizing the public, is the point?
The terrorists groups are a bunch of amateurs. If you want to see real terror, call up some bureaucrats.
Don't forget that "no one has made a compelling case that this will increase overall commercial air travel security" along with "money better spent on inspecting all cargo shipped on commercial flights." After all, that's how the printer cartridges were shipped.
You have to say that, otherwise people will say "if that's what's needed to make flying safe then I'm willing to put up with it."
We have always been coerced into procedures that violate our privacy when we fly. If we were not, terrorists would regularly board aircraft with guns and ammo.
From a shitload of personal travel (I fly twice a month) I have found 95% of the TSA to be good humored and responsible. The situation today is fa better than it was when run by private companies.
The TSA agents who are unhappy about groping strangers are going to be the ones who find a new job. I fully expect that if this policy continues, the people most attracted to TSA positions will be those who derive pleasure from subjecting strangers to a sexualized grope.
"far better than it was" ... citation needed? I thought the GAO has reported several times that it's as easy to get "bomb parts" and other weapons through TSA security as it was in the pre-TSA days.
I've been trying to find the report. The closest I got to was one on "TSA's Cost and Performance Study of Private-Sector Airport Screening" which said there are methodological problems in the TSA's report on the cost of private security over TSA-base ones. It pointed out that a handful of airports (including SFO) use private security.
By far better I mean the procedures are faster, better explained, and the operation is more professional.
My point is not to advocate government run security, but to point out that all this reactionary criticism of TSA is unjustified and it's crowdthink going on right now.
But is the security any better? Back in the 1990s the procedures were faster (because there was less checking) and better explained (because there were fewer things to explain). Does 3-1-1 and taking off of shoes make us more secure? If not, then the professionalism is unwarranted.
And every study report I've seen says that outside of a few things (secure doors, which the airlines fought against in the 1990s; and halting the practice of responding to hijacker demands), the overall security is not made better by this ever-increasing level of passenger scrutiny.
That's not what I said and your logic makes no sense.
A few months ago we had security X. We now have security Y, which is more expensive and more intrusive. Is that change justifiable? The TSA has not really justified this, which is easy to see from the Government Accountability Office reports.
A decade ago we had security A. We now have security Y (still). The same argument holds - are flights more secure, and which security factors are beneficial and which are not? Quite clearly the secure doors and rejection of the policy to agree to hijacker demands are effective against a broad range of attacks meant to use airplanes as a directed weapon. This is a security change I would not drop.
But since the GAO has shown that it's as easy to smuggle in "bomb parts" into an airport during periods A and Y, there is quite clearly limited improvement in the effectiveness of preventing people from blowing up planes. Note that this is a different security threat than in the previous paragraph.
How here does this equal to a logical conclusion that we should drop all security checks? That only makes sense if you think that none of the security screenings work, which I quite clearly did not say.
Oh, and in your original post you said you "found 95% of the TSA to be good humored and responsible." If you deal with 3 TSA people each trip then every 5 trips you'll be dealing with a non-good humored or non-responsible TSA member. If in a 1990s-era airport you found that only 90% of the staff was the same, but you only needed to deal with a single magnetometer staff, then you would have problems only every 7 trips. More professional staff doesn't necessarily mean a better experience.
> We have always been coerced into procedures that violate our privacy when we fly.
Detecting metallic objects isn't really a violation of privacy. Neither is seeing an X-ray image of mundane baggage. This is your body, we're talking about. And I'm not aware of any previous policy that allowed TSA to cop a feel with such gratuitous abandon.
> If we were not, terrorists would regularly board aircraft with guns and ammo.
When "terrorists" and other boogeymen reach the airport with all their destructive goodies, our security apparatus has already failed.
> Detecting metallic objects isn't really a violation of privacy. Neither is seeing an X-ray image of mundane baggage. This is your body, we're talking about. And I'm not aware of any previous policy that allowed TSA to cop a feel with such gratuitous abandon.
Personally, I'd rather have someone see a black and white outline of my naked body than look through my luggage - the former has no meaning or value, the second is actually private. What you consider "mundane," I consider personal.
> When "terrorists" and other boogeymen reach the airport with all their destructive goodies, our security apparatus has already failed.
So - no wiretaps, no racial profiling, no country profiling, no searches, no detainment, no internet monitoring - I suppose we use love and psychic powers?
One major pilots union is already instructing its members to bypass the scans, out of concerns that the radiation dose is absorbed disproportionately by the skin:
I don't care much about the nakedness aspect, but I do resent security theater, which now apparently extends to physically intimidating "enhanced pat-downs" and making everyone remove belts, even at airports without backscatter imagers:
These machines cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, offer no additional security, and take naked pictures of you. There really isn't much to discuss.
A leading Israeli airport security expert says the Canadian government has wasted millions of dollars to install "useless" imaging machines at airports across the country.
"I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747," Rafi Sela told parliamentarians probing the state of aviation safety in Canada.
"That's why we haven't put them in our airport," Sela said, referring to Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world.
Sela, former chief security officer of the Israel Airport Authority and a 30-year veteran in airport security and defence technology, helped design the security at Ben Gurion.
The scan is for detecting additional, nonmetallic threats, especially explosives. Just one problem: nothing in the new procedures can prevent moving the same thing via your rectum.
So if we want to pretend everyone will adhere to a specific conception of the threat model, sure, spend a bunch of money and alienate the traveling public.
Pedantics. The suggestion that full body scanners and effective pat downs provide no (or little) additional security over the status quo is difficult to believe.
I'm guessing the same people critical of this policy criticized the previous one for being easy to circumvent.
Of the zero successful terrorist incidents in the last quarter-billion US flights in the past 9 years, how many would this technology and procedure have stopped?
How much money do we need to spend to prevent these zero events from occurring in the next 9 years?
And how much did extra was spent on preventing the third of a million motor deaths that occurred during the same period?
There is a huge lack of rationality in the middle of this issue for far too many people. The spending and procedures are way out of proportion to the risks, quite apart from how poorly allocated the spending is. The guy who used to run the TSA (Chertoff) now works for the guys selling these machines.
So we should keep security the same until something terrible happens? Or should we continue to improe security based on new information and technology?
What's irrational is to assume because nothing has happened in the last 8 years (successfully anyway) that our current measures are adequate for the next eight.
Part of the problem is the lack of overall risk assessment. The OMB has pointed out that the TSA does not have way to judge how best to spend resources. As a result, we have ever increasing levels of passenger screening (focusing on the same threat model is like "keep security the same", right) while we still after 9 years don't have things like 100% cargo inspection (remember, the printer cartridges were flying as cargo) and no screening of ground crew.
The irrational part isn't that we assume our current measures are adequate. The irrational part is the changes we're making have no rational basis, little public input, and any public objections are responded to with "we can't go into the details in public because it's too sensitive," which is a very non-democratic answer to something which affects so many people.
Actually, they provide less security when used to replace, rather than supplement metal detectors. You can conceal a (sheathed) knife or (very small) pistol within your anus, with lube, patience, and some not inconsiderable discomfort. Neither will be detected by body scans, though they would be apparent to metal detectors.
They are superior only in the very specific case of explosives or ceramic knives concealed under clothing.
There is no evidence images have been stored at airports
There is, but even is they weren't they still could easily be saved via a photograph. Also, I don't really care if anyone sees me naked anymore, but I bet most of the public does, and to violate the right to be covered in clothes of the people is irresponsible.
... or that harm is caused by scans.
It's an X-ray machine. It irradiates your body. Some experts say it's negligible, others say it's not negligible at all, some say it's not a big deal, and others say it is a big deal for regular travelers. I really don't care if it is/isn't harmful until it is scientifically proven it's not, in the meanwhile I'll choose to label said machine as a potential danger to my health.
There is a pathetic lack of rational discussion of factual policies and why such policies might be necessary, whether we like them or not.
You find pathetic that people want to discuss their opinion on the violation of their civil right because you disagree? You want actual facts? How about this: 1) There is some probability that you might be inflicting unnecessary damage on your body with this machines. 2) You're giving the TSA consent to see you naked, which not only is it a violation of your rights, but it's an awful precedent to set. 3) Various security experts have expressed their disdain of such measures because the small (if any) benefit to security they might offer is not commensurate to the inconvenience, potential health damage, and violation of rights that are being committed. 4) Not doing anything about it (not complaining) makes this sort of actions easier to justify in the future. 5) There are adults watching your children naked without a real need to do so nor your consent. 6) It freaking annoys the hell out of me and every one in the line.
Do you even want me to get started on the pat down policy? I mean I would expect that in a military base, a police station, the White House, or a drug deal, but in an airport and done to children, elderly women, and people whom might be extremely offended by it? Fuck no.
The real solution to this is profiling, plain and simple. Everybody knows this, but it's a career suicide for whomever sets it up. Imagine the articles: "Muslim man was unjustly groped at airport by slender blonde TSA agent. Man said 'she grabbed my penis...'"
The real irresponsibility here is the TSA claiming that an opt out day is irresponsible, when they could easily avoid it by not imposing their ridiculous and useless security standards. In the mean time, I'll keep shoving my shampoo bottles up my ass.
John Pistole, TSA Administrator: "On the eve of a major national holiday and less than one year after al Qaida's failed attack last Christmas Day, it is irresponsible for a group to suggest travelers opt out of the very screening that could prevent an attack using non-metallic explosives." http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/11/12/131275949/protest...
That, to me, doesn't jive with their stance that body scanners aren't a big deal because you can opt out. To me, it confirms that opt-out "enhanced pat-downs" were introduced to intimidate people into being scanned.