7 ms·

TSA Body Scan? Just Say 'No,' Leading Expert Says

72 points by ycnews 11y ago

ycnews 11y ago
Marc Rotenberg is the lawyer who the author obtained comments from for this article.
pfooti 11y ago
Wow, so the important part that's not made clear in this headline is that the TSA recently (last week) asserted that it could deny people patdowns and require submission to body scans. The article indicates that this is likely an untenable legal position, but it seems like that's the opinion of the lawyer rather than a court injunction or retraction by the TSA. Likely there needs to be more lawsuits before the policy is forced to change.
- saurik 11y ago
  It is frustrating (and to my eyes highly suspicious) that the TSA announced this when it did, when a lot of people are paying less attention and doing less reporting as so much of the country is shut down for the holidays :/. Here is the context you may have missed. "TSA can now force you to go through body scanners [pdf]" (166 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10779589 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10779589 "TSA Sued Over New Policy to Refuse Opt-Outs" (77 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10788826 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10788826 "TSA Announces It Will Decide Who Goes Through the Body Scanner, Thank You" (4 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10782118 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10782118
  - hellbanner 11y ago
    Stand up for yourself. If you're fine with the pat down but not the body scanner and you're refused, turn around and go home.
    - cstross 11y ago
      Easier said than done if it happens to you while you're about to board your return flight home!
    - saurik 11y ago
      FWIW, I absolutely intend to do this, and in the process ask for the name of the officer who refused me and that of the manager on shift. This means that if I hear that this is remotely likely to really happen, when I take flights I will need to leave a day earlier so I can "try again". I am seriously at the point where I am thinking of traveling to the one important conference outside of California that I speak at every year by car, which will be a 34 hour round trip to Colorado. The thing is: I don't think the TSA cares that I do any of this (they certainly don't care that I drive so many places, as they don't even know, but I also think the only way they care about me opting out is it makes their process slightly less efficient, so they turn to more invasive techniques and announce policy changes that further impose), so it doesn't quite feel like "standing up for my rights" as much as "taking it in the ass" :/.
      - pavel_lishin 11y ago
        I think they'd only care if they were hit with a lawsuit; which I would strongly encourage you to file if this happens. (http://professional-troublemaker.com/ http://professional-troublemaker.com/ might be able to help.) I rarely travel alone; it's usually with a wife, and soon it'll be with a wife and kid, so I'm not sure we'll get the option to just say no :/
        sokoloff 11y ago
        With kids (6 and under so far), my wife and I are always offered the metal detector without asking.
    - pfooti 11y ago
      If you're fine with the pat down but not the body scanner and you're refused, turn around and go home. Or, say, turn around and stay where you are instead of going home. I do get the pat down pretty regularly, but I can't say for certain that I'd cancel an entire flight (and take the hit to either my professional reputation (outbound) or delay getting home to my family (return)) to stand up for this. That's not even considering the financial hit - I doubt the airlines would be sympathetic and waive the $100+ rebooking fee they've started charging. I get the principled stand you're trying to make, but there's quite a few gray areas here. edit: balancing parentheses, and context
Bud 11y ago
Extraordinarily annoying Forbes anti-ad-blocker wall. Can't even proceed into site without disabling ad blocker. Ick.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- dsjoerg 11y ago
  You want to read an article for free, they want you to see their article with ads. It's a negotiation, and you are free to say no and just not read the article. I thought it was tastefully done. They even mentioned they were running a "light ads" site. Why would they want to serve their pages to people using ad-blockers anyway? What would you prefer they have done?
  - paulpauper 11y ago
    It's not like they don't have enough ads on the article pages themselves. I'm sure they are extremely profitable with all those ads plastered everywhere, with enough ads that it slows the browser. I hope LinkedIn and Quora contributors gains more traction, because the user experience is much better for the reader. Facebook is another example of a company that is extremely profitable while running ads that are not too obtrusive or annoying.
  - LesZedCB 11y ago
    My ad-blocker is run to prevent tracking as well. I want them to not track either.
    - pfooti 11y ago
      FWIW, I block pretty much everything ghostery can block and can interact with the Forbes site just fine.
    - dbg31415 11y ago
      I disabled ad-block but left tracking-blocker on and it still wouldn't let me in. At that point I figured it wasn't worth it. They want to lose visitors, fine. What they're forgetting is that people who have ad blockers also share and post links to various networks... they aren't just shutting out the ad-blockers, they're shutting out anyone the ad-blockers may be friends with. It's retarded, but it's their prerogative. Incidentally, here's a great host file blocker for programs that run ads but don't support ad-block plugins. http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/hosts http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/hosts
pmoriarty 11y ago
How many people actually opt out of the scans? I always do, but when I'm waiting to be patted down I always seem to be the only one. Everyone else always seems to go for the scan. Another annoying thing is that invariably they have me wait sitting almost right next to the scanner. I've seen images showing that people behind scanners also get scanned. The best I can hope for is that the radiation dose is somewhat lower than when you're actually in the scanner itself.
- nitid_name 11y ago
  How much of a dose do you actually get from the scans? The best numbers I can find seem to point to something in the 0.015 μSv to 0.88 μSv range. At cruising altitude, you get 0.04 μSv per minute from cosmic radiation. I don't think the radiation from these machines should be the biggest concern.
  - fluxquanta 11y ago
    Most people hear radiation and automatically think "Chernobyl 2.0" without looking into the details. I love using the banana equivalent dose as a way to help people understand that not all radiation is created equal.
  - pmoriarty 11y ago
    The radiation may not be that much, relatively speaking. But it's all focused on your skin. Plus, this kind of radiation exposure hasn't been tested on humans for long. I'd feel better about being scanned had these scanners been in use for 20 years without many adverse effects reported. As it stands, the jury's still out. And I'd personally rather wait a little longer in line and get a pat down than take a chance with my health.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      Do you drive to the airport? EDIT: Driving to the airport will expose you to far more risk than walking through the machine, however you define that risk.
bitwize 11y ago
Ah, the old Constitutional bait-n-switcheroo.
mark_l_watson 11y ago
They want more people to use the machines, just to justify them. I think the pat downs are more effective security wise.
jsjohnst 11y ago
Glad to see this story getting some coverage, hope to see more. As someone who has always opted out (when not pre-check), last week's news made me anxious of how many debates I'd have to get into all over again in regards to the constitutionality of the AIT machines when flying. Can anyone give a good reason why they don't send you through the metal detector before the pat down? If security were the objective, that seems far better to combine the two. Sadly as we all know at this point, their mission seems to be security theater, not actual security.
- brians 11y ago
  Yes! The legal precedent that allows them to insist on examining you hinges on then having no initial information about what you're carrying. If you cleanly pass through a metal detector, then refuse a pat-down, a court MIGHT say the TSA can't pat you down after. Similarly, the TSA officers before the screening can't be trained in detecting concealed weapons, because that might count as knowledge about whether you're armed, and a court might say that the government only gets one observation. Hence the BDOs: oh no, your honor. Those staff aren't trained to detect weapons. They're there to detect behavior! I know you asked for a good reason, and I feel embarrassed to propose this as one. But it appears to be the actual reason.
  - jsjohnst 11y ago
    I knew of this reasoning previously, hence my using of "good reason", but none the less appreciate the reply. +1'd it as it might be educational for someone else, especially as you clearly stated the "logic" they are likely applying.
noja 11y ago
London (so not TSA) will deny requests to bypass the body scanners.
Xephyrous 11y ago
Archive.org cache: https://web.archive.org/web/20151226155815/http://www.forbes.com/sites/lisabrownlee/2015/12/24/tsa-body-scan-just-say-no-leading-expert-says/ https://web.archive.org/web/20151226155815/http://www.forbes...
draw_down 11y ago
If you're gonna do this, please have the courtesy to be behind me in line. Your stance is admirable and all, but getting through security is slow enough as it is.
- forbescontent 11y ago
  Oh, excuse me, I didn't realise my rights were marginally inconveniencing you.
- MatthewMcDonald 11y ago
  Opt outs are removed from the body scanner line, and do not block other people from continuing through the machine.
- saurik 11y ago
  When I opt out I get to sit around waiting for a male TSA employee to no longer feel he has better things to do so he can give me a pat down; I have ended up waiting rather extreme periods of time in the past for this to happen: you get to go around me in line the second I say "opt out", and nothing I do affects your line... I can end up with an argument with the employee (which may be what you are objecting to), and it still probably doesn't affect you (as in, I am pretty sure that my arguing with the person assigned to direct the people at he conveyer doesn't slow you down even if you are intending to opt out as I will just keep finding myself punted to later and later in the queue).
  - late2part 11y ago
    I wonder if there's an argument you're making that suggests your due process rights should involve blocking others queued. I wish it were true. Maybe the 14th amendment could be used to say that the not immediately servicing your opt-out is unequal treatment?
    - saurik 11y ago
      (I was just making a point that someone should not be angry at me for opting out because they claim I made their day take longer.)
glasz 11y ago
i was thinking about how to phrase this: i just hope anyone, who never opts out, doesn't get grilled by a defective device some day.
nickthemagicman 11y ago
The thing that makes me nervous, and I might be being conspiratorial here, but could they store your body features in a database? I.e. Sort of a fingerprinting like facial recognition but for the entire body? I'm sure everyone's body has unique features.
jgalt212 11y ago
I find the both the scans and pat downs invasive. The pat downs take longer and I find them more invasive, so I choose the scan. If the situation were reversed, I'd opt out of the pat down.
chx 11y ago
My problem with body scanners? Before Snowden I thought I am in tinfoil hat territory -- but now I am reasonably sure this happens or could happen any time: they store those scans along with your personal data. But, you are saying, you are not identifying yourself going into the scanner. Sure you don't but they have a very, very good idea about who is at the airport based on simply the flight manifests and then it's just a matter of matching your face to a relatively small list: Atlanta had 100M passengers, that's only 274 000 daily and you can start with likelier candidates the closer to the time, it's unlikely you'd need to check more than 10-20k faces. Edit: to add, the TSA does not even need to be aware of this going on, the clerks on spot even less so.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  Yup. I'm not worried about cancer. To be honest, I'm not even worried about people seeing me semi-naked - my laptop camera takes a snapshot every 20 minutes, so I'm sure I've already accidentally exposed my ass online. I'm concerned that the software is closed-source, and uninspected by anyone but the creator, so I have no idea what it's doing. Sure, they claim that the new machines only show the agents a generic body outline - but again, given that nobody's seen the source code, I have no idea what the machine actually sees or stores. I'm worried about the lack of transparency.
- JshWright 11y ago
  > you are not identifying yourself going into the scanner You don't have your ID checked and boarding pass scanned moments before entering the scanner? Sure, you wouldn't know exactly the order folks entered the scanner after being identified, but assuming you couldn't correlate the scan to the ID based on other publically available information, all it would take is for you fly twice to correlate the scan to the ID (say... both legs of a round trip flight?).
  - chx 11y ago
    I fail to see how could you exfiltrate data from the "name game" stations. I have watched very, very closely and I just can't see how your data could enter into a computer. Or do I remember wrong? I do not think they have an actual data connection to verify the validity of the boarding pass.
amyjess 11y ago
The TSA's body scanners are actively and deliberately hostile to transgender people: https://archive.is/LOoPB https://archive.is/LOoPB http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trans-woman-upset-tsa-scanners-flagging-body-anomaly-article-1.2369457 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trans-woman-upset-t... If you have both breasts and a penis, you will be treated as a terrorist, detained, and humiliated. This is why, as a trans person myself, I refuse to fly until the TSA is abolished.
- cryoshon 11y ago
  Yeah, the TSA's behavior is disgusting. If you want things to change in your favor, you need to howl from the rooftops and make people understand the trouble the TSA puts you through. Personal accounts are the most compelling. Write your congressman!
bisby 11y ago
In Belfast, flying over to Edinburgh, my wife (who previously had cancer) asked to not use the machine. They told her "it's not radiation, it's not like the American ones" (despite being the exact same one they had at O'Hare). After 2-3 minutes of debating, they finally let her get a pat down. And then after the pat down, forced her to go through the machine anyway. We were in a foreign country, on a pretty tight schedule (missing this flight wasn't an option), and I wasn't exactly well versed on the legality of these things in Europe to make the argument. Having seen the photos these things generate, it seems like they're pretty much useless unless someone is carrying something on them that would probably be pretty apparent anyway. Is there any cases where these machines have caught someone?
mythealias 11y ago
I am surprised that speed at which this article fell off the front page. There are older article with fewer comments and points that are still on the front page. Is it due to the downvotes for the forbes link?

72 points by ycnews 11y ago

Marc Rotenberg is the lawyer who the author obtained comments from for this article.

Wow, so the important part that's not made clear in this headline is that the TSA recently (last week) asserted that it could deny people patdowns and require submission to body scans. The article indicates that this is likely an untenable legal position, but it seems like that's the opinion of the lawyer rather than a court injunction or retraction by the TSA. Likely there needs to be more lawsuits before the policy is forced to change.

saurik 11y ago
It is frustrating (and to my eyes highly suspicious) that the TSA announced this when it did, when a lot of people are paying less attention and doing less reporting as so much of the country is shut down for the holidays :/. Here is the context you may have missed. "TSA can now force you to go through body scanners [pdf]" (166 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10779589 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10779589 "TSA Sued Over New Policy to Refuse Opt-Outs" (77 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10788826 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10788826 "TSA Announces It Will Decide Who Goes Through the Body Scanner, Thank You" (4 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10782118 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10782118
- hellbanner 11y ago
  Stand up for yourself. If you're fine with the pat down but not the body scanner and you're refused, turn around and go home.
  - cstross 11y ago
    Easier said than done if it happens to you while you're about to board your return flight home!
  - saurik 11y ago
    FWIW, I absolutely intend to do this, and in the process ask for the name of the officer who refused me and that of the manager on shift. This means that if I hear that this is remotely likely to really happen, when I take flights I will need to leave a day earlier so I can "try again". I am seriously at the point where I am thinking of traveling to the one important conference outside of California that I speak at every year by car, which will be a 34 hour round trip to Colorado. The thing is: I don't think the TSA cares that I do any of this (they certainly don't care that I drive so many places, as they don't even know, but I also think the only way they care about me opting out is it makes their process slightly less efficient, so they turn to more invasive techniques and announce policy changes that further impose), so it doesn't quite feel like "standing up for my rights" as much as "taking it in the ass" :/.
    - pavel_lishin 11y ago
      I think they'd only care if they were hit with a lawsuit; which I would strongly encourage you to file if this happens. (http://professional-troublemaker.com/ http://professional-troublemaker.com/ might be able to help.) I rarely travel alone; it's usually with a wife, and soon it'll be with a wife and kid, so I'm not sure we'll get the option to just say no :/
      - sokoloff 11y ago
        With kids (6 and under so far), my wife and I are always offered the metal detector without asking.
  - pfooti 11y ago
    If you're fine with the pat down but not the body scanner and you're refused, turn around and go home. Or, say, turn around and stay where you are instead of going home. I do get the pat down pretty regularly, but I can't say for certain that I'd cancel an entire flight (and take the hit to either my professional reputation (outbound) or delay getting home to my family (return)) to stand up for this. That's not even considering the financial hit - I doubt the airlines would be sympathetic and waive the $100+ rebooking fee they've started charging. I get the principled stand you're trying to make, but there's quite a few gray areas here. edit: balancing parentheses, and context

Bud 11y ago

Extraordinarily annoying Forbes anti-ad-blocker wall. Can't even proceed into site without disabling ad blocker. Ick.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dsjoerg 11y ago
You want to read an article for free, they want you to see their article with ads. It's a negotiation, and you are free to say no and just not read the article. I thought it was tastefully done. They even mentioned they were running a "light ads" site. Why would they want to serve their pages to people using ad-blockers anyway? What would you prefer they have done?
- paulpauper 11y ago
  It's not like they don't have enough ads on the article pages themselves. I'm sure they are extremely profitable with all those ads plastered everywhere, with enough ads that it slows the browser. I hope LinkedIn and Quora contributors gains more traction, because the user experience is much better for the reader. Facebook is another example of a company that is extremely profitable while running ads that are not too obtrusive or annoying.
- LesZedCB 11y ago
  My ad-blocker is run to prevent tracking as well. I want them to not track either.
  - pfooti 11y ago
    FWIW, I block pretty much everything ghostery can block and can interact with the Forbes site just fine.
  - dbg31415 11y ago
    I disabled ad-block but left tracking-blocker on and it still wouldn't let me in. At that point I figured it wasn't worth it. They want to lose visitors, fine. What they're forgetting is that people who have ad blockers also share and post links to various networks... they aren't just shutting out the ad-blockers, they're shutting out anyone the ad-blockers may be friends with. It's retarded, but it's their prerogative. Incidentally, here's a great host file blocker for programs that run ads but don't support ad-block plugins. http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/hosts http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/hosts

pmoriarty 11y ago

How many people actually opt out of the scans? I always do, but when I'm waiting to be patted down I always seem to be the only one. Everyone else always seems to go for the scan. Another annoying thing is that invariably they have me wait sitting almost right next to the scanner. I've seen images showing that people behind scanners also get scanned. The best I can hope for is that the radiation dose is somewhat lower than when you're actually in the scanner itself.

nitid_name 11y ago
How much of a dose do you actually get from the scans? The best numbers I can find seem to point to something in the 0.015 μSv to 0.88 μSv range. At cruising altitude, you get 0.04 μSv per minute from cosmic radiation. I don't think the radiation from these machines should be the biggest concern.
- fluxquanta 11y ago
  Most people hear radiation and automatically think "Chernobyl 2.0" without looking into the details. I love using the banana equivalent dose as a way to help people understand that not all radiation is created equal.
- pmoriarty 11y ago
  The radiation may not be that much, relatively speaking. But it's all focused on your skin. Plus, this kind of radiation exposure hasn't been tested on humans for long. I'd feel better about being scanned had these scanners been in use for 20 years without many adverse effects reported. As it stands, the jury's still out. And I'd personally rather wait a little longer in line and get a pat down than take a chance with my health.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Do you drive to the airport? EDIT: Driving to the airport will expose you to far more risk than walking through the machine, however you define that risk.

bitwize 11y ago

Ah, the old Constitutional bait-n-switcheroo.

mark_l_watson 11y ago

They want more people to use the machines, just to justify them. I think the pat downs are more effective security wise.

jsjohnst 11y ago

Glad to see this story getting some coverage, hope to see more. As someone who has always opted out (when not pre-check), last week's news made me anxious of how many debates I'd have to get into all over again in regards to the constitutionality of the AIT machines when flying. Can anyone give a good reason why they don't send you through the metal detector before the pat down? If security were the objective, that seems far better to combine the two. Sadly as we all know at this point, their mission seems to be security theater, not actual security.

brians 11y ago
Yes! The legal precedent that allows them to insist on examining you hinges on then having no initial information about what you're carrying. If you cleanly pass through a metal detector, then refuse a pat-down, a court MIGHT say the TSA can't pat you down after. Similarly, the TSA officers before the screening can't be trained in detecting concealed weapons, because that might count as knowledge about whether you're armed, and a court might say that the government only gets one observation. Hence the BDOs: oh no, your honor. Those staff aren't trained to detect weapons. They're there to detect behavior! I know you asked for a good reason, and I feel embarrassed to propose this as one. But it appears to be the actual reason.
- jsjohnst 11y ago
  I knew of this reasoning previously, hence my using of "good reason", but none the less appreciate the reply. +1'd it as it might be educational for someone else, especially as you clearly stated the "logic" they are likely applying.

noja 11y ago

London (so not TSA) will deny requests to bypass the body scanners.

Xephyrous 11y ago

Archive.org cache: https://web.archive.org/web/20151226155815/http://www.forbes.com/sites/lisabrownlee/2015/12/24/tsa-body-scan-just-say-no-leading-expert-says/ https://web.archive.org/web/20151226155815/http://www.forbes...

draw_down 11y ago

If you're gonna do this, please have the courtesy to be behind me in line. Your stance is admirable and all, but getting through security is slow enough as it is.

forbescontent 11y ago
Oh, excuse me, I didn't realise my rights were marginally inconveniencing you.
MatthewMcDonald 11y ago
Opt outs are removed from the body scanner line, and do not block other people from continuing through the machine.
saurik 11y ago
When I opt out I get to sit around waiting for a male TSA employee to no longer feel he has better things to do so he can give me a pat down; I have ended up waiting rather extreme periods of time in the past for this to happen: you get to go around me in line the second I say "opt out", and nothing I do affects your line... I can end up with an argument with the employee (which may be what you are objecting to), and it still probably doesn't affect you (as in, I am pretty sure that my arguing with the person assigned to direct the people at he conveyer doesn't slow you down even if you are intending to opt out as I will just keep finding myself punted to later and later in the queue).
- late2part 11y ago
  I wonder if there's an argument you're making that suggests your due process rights should involve blocking others queued. I wish it were true. Maybe the 14th amendment could be used to say that the not immediately servicing your opt-out is unequal treatment?
  - saurik 11y ago
    (I was just making a point that someone should not be angry at me for opting out because they claim I made their day take longer.)

glasz 11y ago

i was thinking about how to phrase this: i just hope anyone, who never opts out, doesn't get grilled by a defective device some day.

nickthemagicman 11y ago

The thing that makes me nervous, and I might be being conspiratorial here, but could they store your body features in a database? I.e. Sort of a fingerprinting like facial recognition but for the entire body? I'm sure everyone's body has unique features.

jgalt212 11y ago

I find the both the scans and pat downs invasive. The pat downs take longer and I find them more invasive, so I choose the scan. If the situation were reversed, I'd opt out of the pat down.

chx 11y ago

My problem with body scanners? Before Snowden I thought I am in tinfoil hat territory -- but now I am reasonably sure this happens or could happen any time: they store those scans along with your personal data. But, you are saying, you are not identifying yourself going into the scanner. Sure you don't but they have a very, very good idea about who is at the airport based on simply the flight manifests and then it's just a matter of matching your face to a relatively small list: Atlanta had 100M passengers, that's only 274 000 daily and you can start with likelier candidates the closer to the time, it's unlikely you'd need to check more than 10-20k faces. Edit: to add, the TSA does not even need to be aware of this going on, the clerks on spot even less so.

pavel_lishin 11y ago
Yup. I'm not worried about cancer. To be honest, I'm not even worried about people seeing me semi-naked - my laptop camera takes a snapshot every 20 minutes, so I'm sure I've already accidentally exposed my ass online. I'm concerned that the software is closed-source, and uninspected by anyone but the creator, so I have no idea what it's doing. Sure, they claim that the new machines only show the agents a generic body outline - but again, given that nobody's seen the source code, I have no idea what the machine actually sees or stores. I'm worried about the lack of transparency.
JshWright 11y ago
> you are not identifying yourself going into the scanner You don't have your ID checked and boarding pass scanned moments before entering the scanner? Sure, you wouldn't know exactly the order folks entered the scanner after being identified, but assuming you couldn't correlate the scan to the ID based on other publically available information, all it would take is for you fly twice to correlate the scan to the ID (say... both legs of a round trip flight?).
- chx 11y ago
  I fail to see how could you exfiltrate data from the "name game" stations. I have watched very, very closely and I just can't see how your data could enter into a computer. Or do I remember wrong? I do not think they have an actual data connection to verify the validity of the boarding pass.

amyjess 11y ago

The TSA's body scanners are actively and deliberately hostile to transgender people: https://archive.is/LOoPB https://archive.is/LOoPB http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trans-woman-upset-tsa-scanners-flagging-body-anomaly-article-1.2369457 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trans-woman-upset-t... If you have both breasts and a penis, you will be treated as a terrorist, detained, and humiliated. This is why, as a trans person myself, I refuse to fly until the TSA is abolished.

cryoshon 11y ago
Yeah, the TSA's behavior is disgusting. If you want things to change in your favor, you need to howl from the rooftops and make people understand the trouble the TSA puts you through. Personal accounts are the most compelling. Write your congressman!

bisby 11y ago

In Belfast, flying over to Edinburgh, my wife (who previously had cancer) asked to not use the machine. They told her "it's not radiation, it's not like the American ones" (despite being the exact same one they had at O'Hare). After 2-3 minutes of debating, they finally let her get a pat down. And then after the pat down, forced her to go through the machine anyway. We were in a foreign country, on a pretty tight schedule (missing this flight wasn't an option), and I wasn't exactly well versed on the legality of these things in Europe to make the argument. Having seen the photos these things generate, it seems like they're pretty much useless unless someone is carrying something on them that would probably be pretty apparent anyway. Is there any cases where these machines have caught someone?

mythealias 11y ago

I am surprised that speed at which this article fell off the front page. There are older article with fewer comments and points that are still on the front page. Is it due to the downvotes for the forbes link?