6 ms·

That was exactly my position. Then I got really uncomfortable during a pat-down at SFO and decided that I'd rather suffer humiliation at the hands of a machine.

by asciimo 11y ago

67726e 11y ago
I'm curious what they did to make you uncomfortable? Aside from some pissed off grumbling it usually doesn't elicit much of a response.
- asciimo 11y ago
  It started when the agent asked if I had ever been patted down before. I said something like "many times." He told me a story about some guy who flies out of SFO twice a week and always opts out. His tone was creepy, and he suggested that this fellow must really like getting patted down. Meanwhile, he was taking his time, giving me an unusually thorough "screening." I was disturbed by the whole thing and felt violated.
mindslight 11y ago
Really? I call the process "molestation" and refer to the goons as "kiddie-fondlers" in every day conversation, but honestly I've never been uncomfortable with how they've actually touched me. I don't particularly want to be touched, but maybe my violation meter has already been pegged by the larger process or maybe I'm just happy to finally get through the obvious-target-of-next-false-flag chokepoint and interact with someone closer to being a human. Or maybe SFO is different due to having privatized thugs plus SF, uh, customs.
- ipsin 11y ago
  If you've never been uncomfortable with how they've touched you, maybe it's probably because you've never been firmly searched. I thought the "light touch" was universal, but once I did get an agent who really "got up in there" . It wasn't traumatic for me, and I'd do it again, but it was a very different experience from previous pat-downs.
  - mindslight 11y ago
    Maybe? I've been felt up more than 20 times. I think perspective has a lot to do with it. I try to make a point of getting eye contact with people mindlessly going through the cancer scanner [0]. So I'm thinking more "bring it on", and if they do anything I reflexively react to, all the better for illustrating the modern state of USG. And as I said, having to completely unpack my backpack and separate myself into 4 or 5 bins is violating enough. Their net function is basically to destroy security. [0] Standard operating theory of the machines likely doesn't add to cancer risk, but I don't see why I should take on liability for unknowable malfunctions that may. And boy those goons sure do get hyper defensive when you ask why they're not wearing dosimeters.
    - tjohns 11y ago
      Regarding cancer: All the US scanners use millimeter-wave (radio) now. All of the older backscatter x-ray machines have been sold off. A dosimeter would show zero, because there's no longer any ionizing radiation involved.
      - mindslight 11y ago
        I do not know what process is emitting the millimeter waves, their intensity/harmonics, or ways it can fail. I have the background to investigate these things, but do not see the point of spending time justifying totalitarianism, even if it is scientific totalitarianism. Furthermore, any technical conclusion of mine would only be half the story, given the lack of long term studies on biological effects of those frequencies. If the situation were completely different and a friend had one and offered cool pictures of myself, I would do some diligence and make a conscious choice about stepping into one. But as it stands, there is just no upside. It does feel slightly dirty pushing non-scientific FUD [0], but it seems like an appropriate way to possibly convey the concept that USG actually doesn't have your interests at heart. If your average punter was concerned with objective truth, they wouldn't have been goaded by fairy tales about terrorists in the first place. Re: dosimeter, does the same apply to the baggage scanner? I doubt it, since then it couldn't see through most things. And my point there is mostly about the extreme cognitive dissonance of the individual thugs. [0] non-scientific. Not anti-scientific.

That was exactly my position. Then I got really uncomfortable during a pat-down at SFO and decided that I'd rather suffer humiliation at the hands of a machine.

by asciimo 11y ago

That was exactly my position. Then I got really uncomfortable during a pat-down at SFO and decided that I'd rather suffer humiliation at the hands of a machine.

67726e 11y ago

I'm curious what they did to make you uncomfortable? Aside from some pissed off grumbling it usually doesn't elicit much of a response.

asciimo 11y ago
It started when the agent asked if I had ever been patted down before. I said something like "many times." He told me a story about some guy who flies out of SFO twice a week and always opts out. His tone was creepy, and he suggested that this fellow must really like getting patted down. Meanwhile, he was taking his time, giving me an unusually thorough "screening." I was disturbed by the whole thing and felt violated.

mindslight 11y ago

Really? I call the process "molestation" and refer to the goons as "kiddie-fondlers" in every day conversation, but honestly I've never been uncomfortable with how they've actually touched me. I don't particularly want to be touched, but maybe my violation meter has already been pegged by the larger process or maybe I'm just happy to finally get through the obvious-target-of-next-false-flag chokepoint and interact with someone closer to being a human. Or maybe SFO is different due to having privatized thugs plus SF, uh, customs.

ipsin 11y ago
If you've never been uncomfortable with how they've touched you, maybe it's probably because you've never been firmly searched. I thought the "light touch" was universal, but once I did get an agent who really "got up in there" . It wasn't traumatic for me, and I'd do it again, but it was a very different experience from previous pat-downs.
- mindslight 11y ago
  Maybe? I've been felt up more than 20 times. I think perspective has a lot to do with it. I try to make a point of getting eye contact with people mindlessly going through the cancer scanner [0]. So I'm thinking more "bring it on", and if they do anything I reflexively react to, all the better for illustrating the modern state of USG. And as I said, having to completely unpack my backpack and separate myself into 4 or 5 bins is violating enough. Their net function is basically to destroy security. [0] Standard operating theory of the machines likely doesn't add to cancer risk, but I don't see why I should take on liability for unknowable malfunctions that may. And boy those goons sure do get hyper defensive when you ask why they're not wearing dosimeters.
  - tjohns 11y ago
    Regarding cancer: All the US scanners use millimeter-wave (radio) now. All of the older backscatter x-ray machines have been sold off. A dosimeter would show zero, because there's no longer any ionizing radiation involved.
    - mindslight 11y ago
      I do not know what process is emitting the millimeter waves, their intensity/harmonics, or ways it can fail. I have the background to investigate these things, but do not see the point of spending time justifying totalitarianism, even if it is scientific totalitarianism. Furthermore, any technical conclusion of mine would only be half the story, given the lack of long term studies on biological effects of those frequencies. If the situation were completely different and a friend had one and offered cool pictures of myself, I would do some diligence and make a conscious choice about stepping into one. But as it stands, there is just no upside. It does feel slightly dirty pushing non-scientific FUD [0], but it seems like an appropriate way to possibly convey the concept that USG actually doesn't have your interests at heart. If your average punter was concerned with objective truth, they wouldn't have been goaded by fairy tales about terrorists in the first place. Re: dosimeter, does the same apply to the baggage scanner? I doubt it, since then it couldn't see through most things. And my point there is mostly about the extreme cognitive dissonance of the individual thugs. [0] non-scientific. Not anti-scientific.