3 ms·

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

by 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.
    - tjohns 11y ago
      The baggage scanners do use x-rays. Much stronger than the body scanners, in fact, since (as you pointed out) the goal is to see through things. So yes, a dosimeter would react to them. I was about to say "hopefully nobody's sticking their hand inside one", but then I found this: http://io9.gizmodo.com/5973513/what-a-human-being-looks-like-going-through-an-airport-x-ray-machine http://io9.gizmodo.com/5973513/what-a-human-being-looks-like...

by ipsin 11y ago

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.
  - tjohns 11y ago
    The baggage scanners do use x-rays. Much stronger than the body scanners, in fact, since (as you pointed out) the goal is to see through things. So yes, a dosimeter would react to them. I was about to say "hopefully nobody's sticking their hand inside one", but then I found this: http://io9.gizmodo.com/5973513/what-a-human-being-looks-like-going-through-an-airport-x-ray-machine http://io9.gizmodo.com/5973513/what-a-human-being-looks-like...