25 ms·

Pilot Stands Up To TSA And Refuses Full Body Scan

188 points by yread 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago
Wow, what a story and what a composure that pilot has. If it were me you would have been able to see steam coming from my ears. There was a cartoon a couple of years ago that showed nude people in line for a pat-down as the only way to get on board an airplane. We're not there just yet but we're getting there. I really wonder how long all this security theater is going to continue. And I also hope that this brave man will not lose his job for standing up to this abusive behavior, and if he does that all his colleagues will walk out with him.
- michael_dorfman 16y ago
  Forgive my being dense, but where was the abusive behavior, exactly? They asked him to take a full body scan. He declined. They offered him an "alternative option"-- to get frisked. He declined. The security folks refused to let him board the plane without either a) or b) above. At the end of this impasse, they asked him a few questions to file an incident report. Pain in the ass? Sure. Abuse? I don't see it.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    The abusive behavior is in insulting a man that on a daily basis carries the responsibility for the lives of a few hundred people with having to comply with idiotic rules like these. If you do not consider it abusive that's fine with me but I can fully understand his position. All he needs to do damage are his hands and his head, and he doesn't even have to take off for that, all he has to do is not brake on the pad in line for takeoff. Are you going to read his mind to make sure he has no bad plans? What's next ? Are we going to strip-search busdrivers ? Captains of ocean liners ? I used to visit the US on a very regular basis, a few years ago I decided I'd had enough of the insults and the power trips these TSA types go through, I'm very happy that someone with some visibility finally has enough of it and steps up. What bugs me a lot more is all the people that stand by and let it happen. That's being complicit to some extent. That war on terror was won long ago. But not by who you think.
    - gaius 16y ago
      I've traveled all over the world, I've encountered both incompetent and paranoid border guards - but only in the US do they enjoy it. Best border I've been through recently would be Estonian - but living next door to Finland, they've no doubt seen it all...
    - michael_dorfman 16y ago
      I'm not sure I fully agree that the rules in this case are idiotic. Certainly, a pilot is able to do damage without bringing any devices with him. However, if we waive all security for people holding a pilot's badge, we create an extreme incentive for identity theft. I'm not suggesting we strip-search anybody. What I am suggesting is that for security measures to be effective, they either have to be a) random, or b) universal. I used to visit the US on a very regular basis, a few years ago I decided I'd had enough of the insults and the power trips these TSA types go through I feel your pain--but are you sure you aren't projecting a bit in this case? As I said before, I don't see any evidence of "insults or power trips" in this case at all. In fact, I see a reasonable attempt at accommodation on the part of the TSA types.
michael_dorfman 16y ago
The complicating factor here is not that he not only refused a Full Body Scan, but that he refused to be frisked as well: On the other side I was stopped by another agent and informed that because I had “opted out” of AIT screening, I would have to go through secondary screening. I asked for clarification to be sure he was talking about frisking me, which he confirmed, and I declined.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  The man is a pilot. If he ever intends to kidnap or blow up a plane, no amount of frisking will stop him. What's the next step? Functional MRI?
  - michael_dorfman 16y ago
    So, anyone holding a pilot's ID card should get waived through security?
    - Devilboy 16y ago
      You just need to ID him, not search him. Check his badge, call it in if you're not sure, done.
      - michael_dorfman 16y ago
        Congratulations. You've just introduced a single point of failure to the system: anyone with a badge forged well enough to fool a security guard now has carte blanche.
        rbanffy 16y ago
        Anyone who boards a plane as a pilot, or co-pilot, has pretty much charte blanche.
        tomjen3 16y ago
        Not really - make all pilots have their badge authenticated at the security point with a computer fetching the image from a database and comparing it with: 1) the pilot 2) the picture of the id Done.
IgorPartola 16y ago
Soon to get on a plane we'll have to get naked and be sedated. The airlines will just stack people along with the cargo and revive them at the destination.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Doesn't sound that worse than the last time I flew couch...
hackoder 16y ago
Looking at this 'from the outside' (US), some of this stuff is absolutely shocking. How scared is the average person to continue tolerating stuff like this? And when/where does it stop? The BIGGEST QUESTION for me is this: Will there every come a point where the government will say "Ok, the world is safe again, we're giving you your liberties back."?
- jacquesm 16y ago
  > The BIGGEST QUESTION for me is this: Will there every come a point where the government will say "Ok, the world is safe again, we're giving you your liberties back."? I think I know the answer to that one but you will not like it one bit. What's the last time a country repealed a law that limited citizens rights somehow without there being a confrontation about it?
  - tomjen3 16y ago
    Define confrontation. Because I would argue that the end of the legal limits on the price you could charge on things in most of Europe was just such an event.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    Confrontations happen with every political change. The real question is whether it's feasible to repeal laws that limit citizens rights; the US presents numerous examples that suggest it is. In 1972 the draft ended. In 1996 export of strong cryptography from the US was legalized. Since the 1990's, 18 states have either decriminalized marijuana or legalized medicinal marijuana. A couple states during that time span legalized assisted suicide. Judicial rulings in the past ten years alone have overturned laws banning firearms and sodomy, and in five states, same sex marriage was legalized.
- psyklic 16y ago
  I can see it from both perspectives. It is shocking, but the government isn't just doing full body scans for kicks. Airlines are ridiculously hard to secure - if terrorists use another one as a bomb after the US has spent so much money already protecting them, then we're in big trouble. Not only would more terrorists try to hijack planes, but we would lose some standing with other countries because of "insecure" transit systems. The BIGGEST QUESTION for me is: Will there ever come a point where our airlines WILL be safe again? If there is ever a lapse in our security, will someone new try to embarrass us using the same attack? Will the world ever be safe?
jgrahamc 16y ago
It's interesting that people like this story because what I see is a pilot who first refused the body scanner and then refused the alternative (a pat down) and was refused entry to the airport. I don't see this as a big deal. He wasn't arrested and appears to have been dealt with politely by all concerned. The "stands up to the TSA" in the headline makes it sound like he's frikkin' Gandhi standing up the British. And I'm probably going to burn karma for saying this but, welcome to Reddit.
- bad_user 16y ago
  Considering he's a pilot that flies the airplane, do you think he would need to conceal objects from security scanning to crash that airplane into a building? Boy, those Sep 11 attacks where like a needle straight to the heart ;)
  - jgrahamc 16y ago
    http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1802972 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1802972
  - aberkowitz 16y ago
    What it comes down to is that there is no system in place for TSA to determine whether a pilot is actually a pilot. See this essay [1] for a clear argument. [1] http://www.schneier.com/essay-130.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-130.html
- lionhearted 16y ago
  Agreed. I'm actually a supporter of the scanning technology, because I think it will reduce time spent in line at airports. The shoes taking off thing still seems kind of unnecessary and it's gross that everyone walks through the screening area in only their socks. On a side note, I fly a lot, and it seems like TSA and Homeland Security have gotten much more organized, fast, and polite over the last few years. It was pretty bad 3+ years ago, but the last few flights I took in the USA they were polite and calm and prompt. This piece seems like much ado about nothing - there's legitimate problems in the USA right now, but this event doesn't seem like one of them.
davidw 16y ago
This is one of those stories that looks like it's designed to get you hot and bothered about a topic that is not very related to tech and startups. In other words, I think there are other sites that are better choices for long, far ranging discussions about things like civil liberties, terrorism, and so on and so forth.
- borism 16y ago
  Absolutely! Everyone interested in relevant discussion can go to airliners.net where this is top story for few days now: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4957718/ http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/re... Another relevant site is pprune.org: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/430970-pilot-challenges-tsa.html http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/430970-pilot-challenges-t... Those are the places where real pilots and aviation professionals discuss the issue. One excellent quote from PPRune: "What you have here is an idiot with an agenda. Fortunately he's likely so early in his career, he may not have thrown that much away, but he did make good inroads at getting stuck on TSA's watch list." Totally irrelevant to HN.
- shill 16y ago
  This story is relevant to HN because 80% of the posts here are about building businesses and this often requires air-travel. Refusing to be X-raped by the TSA could have negative long term repercussions on your ability to travel efficiently.
  - davidw 16y ago
    By that measure, 100% of businesses here are run by people who breathe air and drink water, so articles about environmentalism are pertinent too. Likewise, most of us are human beings with sexual and emotional needs, which, if not met, might lead to frustrations that could damage businesses, so "how to score with hot chicks" is on-topic too. I call that game "7 degrees of hacker news".
maxklein 16y ago
Am I the only one who actually thinks that searches should be more thorough? Airplanes are instruments that people like to target, and I'd not be comfortable flying unless people are properly screened. It's scary enough with the possibility that the plane could drop out of the sky, but adding an additional threat of someone blowing up the plane would make it a terrible experience. You are a nice person, your friends probably, but there are a lot of crazy people out there that would hijack or bomb planes, given the chance.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  How will you ever know if you can trust the pilot? Are you going to dissect their brain before take-off?
  - Udo 16y ago
    You can't, you can never completely trust people. A few years ago there was an incident where an Egyptian airline pilot suddenly screamed "Allahwakbar!" and put the plane in a nose dive. Everybody died. But that's not the point. The point is, there will never be complete safety. It's physically impossible. However, that answer is considered heretical. And while we're at it: the security measures at the airports do exactly nothing to make us any safer either. They're not even designed to do that. They are designed to impress politicians. All that gestapo compliance crap is just a nasty side effect. As far as this guy is concerned, it's just another variant of "rage quit", because he essentially did this to quit his job. There is no way in hell he didn't know exactly what would happen. After years and years of going through all the motions of Security Theater he chose to do all the things that get you red-flagged. His point was of course to demonstrate that we don't live in a free society anymore. But we knew that for some time now.
- philk 16y ago
  The guy is a pilot. There's no point whatsoever in searching him more thoroughly before he flies a plane because he already has control over it.
  - 16y ago
DanielBMarkham 16y ago
I'm a pilot, a libertarian, and somebody who believes that it is a fair trade to temporarily trade freedoms for security, such as when governments institute blackout laws during air-raids when the nation is at war. But this virtual strip-searching is going too far. Somebody needs to be a grownup and stop abusing the public in return for the promise of a risk-free travel experience. The problem, from a political perspective, is this is one of those "clean water" issues -- an issue with only one side. Who wants to be in favor of dirty water? Yet the real question facing governments is what kind of trade to make between tax revenue and water treatment plants, what kinds of burdens to put on industry to not pollute (too much), etc. The real question is very nuanced and involves lots of trade-offs and discussions about private property rights and the public good. But the problem is, even though it's a trade-off, there's no upside to taking the other side of the issue. Let's suppose somebody gets elected on the platform to eliminate body scanners. All the scanners get eliminated and the public cheers. The next month there is a terrible attack -- one that could have been prevented by the use of body scanners. I know what the logical response is, but what do you think the actual response from the public will be? It's going to be to get rid of that foolish politician who's reckless ways caused so much harm and misery. And to DavidW's point, yes, I think this is a HN issue, although it is also emotionally-charged. It's a hacker issue because it gets to the heart of all hacking: just because you can do something, should you? If I can create a mind-reading device to stop terrorists, should I? It also addresses the ways people can create organizational systems without balance -- systems that continue growing ad infinitum. I would expect this virtual strip-searching to be only the beginning: as terrorist defeat these (by the use of rectally-planted explosives, as the pilot points out) then government will up the ante and find a way to give rectal exams. They'll have to. It's a one-sided issue.
- psyklic 16y ago
  It's a one-sided issue which our government has said that they're gonna fix - small cost to attack, enormous cost to defend. The US had no other choice though. If one vulnerability is found, terrorists will just continue to exploit it, and it will erode trust in our transit networks. Are you saying we should just let 9/11s happen, and then fix the holes? Are alternative scanning methods just as effective? Wouldn't you prefer that everyone else on your flight is scanned, just to make sure you'll be safe? It's a tricky issue.
edw519 16y ago
Here's how it works: - x-ray machine: 30 seconds - full body scan: add 30 seconds - pat down: add 5 to 20 minutes Do I think these policies and procedures are violations of my personal rights? Yes. Am I willing to risk my job standing up for my beliefs? No. I'm not even willing to risk being late for dinner. Given a choice, I always opt for the fastest, regardless of what I believe in. Even if I'm right, what do I win by missing my plane? That's what they're counting on.
- tptacek 16y ago
  The pat down does not add 5 to 20 minutes. It's exactly the same secondary screening they give you if you set off the metal detector, performed by exactly the same person; if it took 20 minutes, the whole line would bottleneck.
  - edw519 16y ago
    My pat down did take 20 minutes. It was done by another person while the original person kept their original job. There was a backlog of people who refused to go through the "naked machine". And, yes, the whole line did bottleneck.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      That's never happened to me. Sorry it happened to you. I invariably refuse the strip search.
  - icefox 16y ago
    My pat down and search of everything on me took a good 15 minutes. When standing in line they asked each one of us if we wanted the xrays or patdown (they installed it just days before) and I was horrified when the person in front of me said "Oh I don't care" and the person in front of them simply said "that line looks faster". I couldn't believe they were so willing to take whatever security measure was added. I can only imagine what they are going to do next.
    - 16y ago
steveklabnik 16y ago
I'm not really sure if I'm going to be able to effectively fly any more. Every time I go through these lines, I get noticeably and visibly upset. I keep my mouth shut, but the combination of being subversive looking and noticeably agitated means I get picked out for secondary screening a lot. :/ It makes my blood boil every single time. I feel so ashamed that I basically am forced to support this kind of behavior by needing to fly at times, and feel totally helpless about doing anything about it. I'm seriously wondering if I'm going to be able to continue traveling as these shenanigans get worse and worse. I see a lot of driving in my future. :/
- JoelMcCracken 16y ago
  Take the train, if possible. Its not quite as convenient, but at least it is leisurely.
  - Vivtek 16y ago
    That would work great if America still had a train system. I always worried about this when we lived in Puerto Rico. Due to the Jones Act, there are no passenger ships to the island - to leave, you have to fly.
    - rubyrescue 16y ago
      There's nothing i can find on the Jones Act banning passenger ships - only making Puerto Ricans US citizens - can you elaborate?
      - Vivtek 16y ago
        Ah. The Jones Act also specifies that all ships traveling between American ports must be (1) made in America, (2) registered in America, (3) owned by Americans, and (4) crewed by Americans. The consequence is that the market can't actually bear passenger travel between American ports. So there isn't any. At all. Hasn't been for decades. Unless you own and sail your own boat, you can't get there from here except by air. Weird - and definitely an unintended consequence. The Puerto Ricans are quite aware of it. But as long as shipyard labor on the East Coast continues to support protectionism no matter how meaningless, there will continue to be no passenger shipping to Puerto Rico.
jdietrich 16y ago
I have absolutely no doubt that the most evil words in the english language are "I'm just doing my job". It speaks of the profoundest moral cowardice, a complete abrogation of personal responsibility. Zimbardo showed that the inevitable consequence of unchecked authority is abuse. Milgram showed that a large proportion of us will do just about anything to our fellow man because someone with a clipboard says so. Asch showed us that we will swear that black is white if we are surrounded by people who tell us so. This isn't about emotion or politics, it is about some basic psychological facts. If you give a man a badge and a hat he will start beating people down the moment you turn your back. If you give a man the authority to do "whatever is necessary", that authority will be extended to dominate and control as far as is possible. If you tell a man "You have no other choice, you must go on", he will kill in cold blood. All preventable deaths are unfortunate, but deaths due to terrorism are incredibly rare. Even in the most violent and chaotic places on earth, road traffic accidents dwarf the death toll due to terrorism. If we cared about the preservation of human life, we would spend the TSA's budget on eliminating malaria, tuberculosis and infant diarrhea. If we cared about saving western lives, we would spend the money on public health education and support, road traffic safety, school meals and so on. It is clear that we're not acting rationally. In response to an extremely rare risk, we are spending countless billions on largely ineffective responses and sacrificing civil liberties on a grand scale. This isn't just about body-scanners, it's about extraordinary rendition, warrantless wiretapping, the criminalisation of photography and who the hell knows what else. Whatever argument might be made for the TSA, it is absolutely bogus to suggest that they are in any way a rational or proportional response to risk. Every dollar that we spend on building scanners or spying on students is a dollar that we can't spend on feeding schoolkids or preventing diabetes or making roads safer. Government spending is finite and every dollar of the TSA's budget is money that could be spent much more effectively and save far more lives.
- vic_nyc 16y ago
  While I agree there is some sort of 'mass psychology' at work here, I believe there are some additional (and more important factors). There is certainly a lot of irrationality in people who accept these things and who have no direct/executive power to change them. But is there irrationality in the people who decided to put these policies into place? I don't believe it. Quite the contrary, I believe the politicians who created and support these laws have other, unacknowledged interests, that are concealed behind the "terrorism prevention" mantra. There are so many other things that can be put into place, why are these guys deciding on these particular ones? A couple of things: money and control. I'm not a journalist, but it would be great if an investigative journalist analyzed the people and the interests behind these regulations. I suspect they would find connections with the companies who provide the screening equipment, and the policy decision makers. As to the 'control' aspect, this is more related to the psychological idea. The people in power crave control, so they will generally tend to favor policies in that direction. Which is why their power must be constantly monitored and kept in checked by us the people. Without that we can't have any long-lasting liberty.
vaksel 16y ago
personally I feel like the whole threat of terrorism is overblown. If they were a real threat we'd see more attacks on U.S. soil. There are a ton of soft targets like malls, subways, schools that aren't protected. Instead the only attacks on the U.S. soil, seem to come from people who think they are joining a movement. It's always some incompetent dumbass, who got brainwashed by the media frenzy, with no actual connections to actual terrorists. Hell, the reason 911 happened was because everyone in this country was told to just sit down and wait to get rescued. If someone tried to hijack a plane now with box cutters, they'd get their asses kicked by everyone on the plane.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  9/11 was a game changer. Up to that point, planes were kidnapped for hostages. In that scenario, the best to do is not to confront the highjackers.
bmj 16y ago
I wonder if some of this discussion would have trended in a different way if the pilot's post wasn't festooned with the markings of a "tea party-er?"
jules 16y ago
Why do they need to search the pilot in the first place? So that he doesn't hijack the plane? He already controls the plane.
jdp23 16y ago
EPIC, along with Bruce Schneier and Chip Pitts, is suing to stop the use of the body scanners http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/epic_v_dhs_suspension_of_body.html#lawsuit http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/epic_v_dhs_suspension_... you can help out by donating -- they're a 501c3, so it's tax-deductible
arb99 16y ago
So they're looking for bomb making things (etc) on him, yet when he's on the plane he's going to be the pilot. I don't think he needs to bring things with him to bring the plane down...
watchandwait 16y ago
The privacy group EPIC is leading the litigation against these abusive scanners. You can learn more and support their efforts with donation: http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/ http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/
clr 16y ago
I lived in Israel for 6 years. I do not want to have an Israel/Palestine debate, I just want to talk about airport security. I go insane at airports in the US because these people do not know what they are doing. In Israel, they hire the best and the brightest just out of their army service to do airport security. They have their pick of applicants because the jobs are well-paid, and offer fantastic benefits, one of which is the chance to live abroad in the various countries served by El Al. Housing and stipend paid for. I understand that much of what El Al does for security screening amounts to racial profiling. But surely we can take what they have established and work with them to make it better and conform to US laws and civil rights. I am sad because we don't even try. Instead, we have underpaid dolts who don't know what a bookmark is (happened to me).
marze 16y ago
If everyone refuses the body scan in favor of a "pat down" the TSA would be forced to modify the plan, since that would require 4x as much time or 4x as many agents. Too many guinea pigs wanting to help answer the question if long term exposure to naked body scanning machine x-rays cause cataracts or worse.

188 points by yread 16y ago

Wow, what a story and what a composure that pilot has. If it were me you would have been able to see steam coming from my ears. There was a cartoon a couple of years ago that showed nude people in line for a pat-down as the only way to get on board an airplane. We're not there just yet but we're getting there. I really wonder how long all this security theater is going to continue. And I also hope that this brave man will not lose his job for standing up to this abusive behavior, and if he does that all his colleagues will walk out with him.

michael_dorfman 16y ago
Forgive my being dense, but where was the abusive behavior, exactly? They asked him to take a full body scan. He declined. They offered him an "alternative option"-- to get frisked. He declined. The security folks refused to let him board the plane without either a) or b) above. At the end of this impasse, they asked him a few questions to file an incident report. Pain in the ass? Sure. Abuse? I don't see it.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- jacquesm 16y ago
  The abusive behavior is in insulting a man that on a daily basis carries the responsibility for the lives of a few hundred people with having to comply with idiotic rules like these. If you do not consider it abusive that's fine with me but I can fully understand his position. All he needs to do damage are his hands and his head, and he doesn't even have to take off for that, all he has to do is not brake on the pad in line for takeoff. Are you going to read his mind to make sure he has no bad plans? What's next ? Are we going to strip-search busdrivers ? Captains of ocean liners ? I used to visit the US on a very regular basis, a few years ago I decided I'd had enough of the insults and the power trips these TSA types go through, I'm very happy that someone with some visibility finally has enough of it and steps up. What bugs me a lot more is all the people that stand by and let it happen. That's being complicit to some extent. That war on terror was won long ago. But not by who you think.
  - gaius 16y ago
    I've traveled all over the world, I've encountered both incompetent and paranoid border guards - but only in the US do they enjoy it. Best border I've been through recently would be Estonian - but living next door to Finland, they've no doubt seen it all...
  - michael_dorfman 16y ago
    I'm not sure I fully agree that the rules in this case are idiotic. Certainly, a pilot is able to do damage without bringing any devices with him. However, if we waive all security for people holding a pilot's badge, we create an extreme incentive for identity theft. I'm not suggesting we strip-search anybody. What I am suggesting is that for security measures to be effective, they either have to be a) random, or b) universal. I used to visit the US on a very regular basis, a few years ago I decided I'd had enough of the insults and the power trips these TSA types go through I feel your pain--but are you sure you aren't projecting a bit in this case? As I said before, I don't see any evidence of "insults or power trips" in this case at all. In fact, I see a reasonable attempt at accommodation on the part of the TSA types.

michael_dorfman 16y ago

The complicating factor here is not that he not only refused a Full Body Scan, but that he refused to be frisked as well: On the other side I was stopped by another agent and informed that because I had “opted out” of AIT screening, I would have to go through secondary screening. I asked for clarification to be sure he was talking about frisking me, which he confirmed, and I declined.

rbanffy 16y ago
The man is a pilot. If he ever intends to kidnap or blow up a plane, no amount of frisking will stop him. What's the next step? Functional MRI?
- michael_dorfman 16y ago
  So, anyone holding a pilot's ID card should get waived through security?
  - Devilboy 16y ago
    You just need to ID him, not search him. Check his badge, call it in if you're not sure, done.
    - michael_dorfman 16y ago
      Congratulations. You've just introduced a single point of failure to the system: anyone with a badge forged well enough to fool a security guard now has carte blanche.
      - rbanffy 16y ago
        Anyone who boards a plane as a pilot, or co-pilot, has pretty much charte blanche.
      - tomjen3 16y ago
        Not really - make all pilots have their badge authenticated at the security point with a computer fetching the image from a database and comparing it with: 1) the pilot 2) the picture of the id Done.

IgorPartola 16y ago

Soon to get on a plane we'll have to get naked and be sedated. The airlines will just stack people along with the cargo and revive them at the destination.

rbanffy 16y ago
Doesn't sound that worse than the last time I flew couch...

hackoder 16y ago

Looking at this 'from the outside' (US), some of this stuff is absolutely shocking. How scared is the average person to continue tolerating stuff like this? And when/where does it stop? The BIGGEST QUESTION for me is this: Will there every come a point where the government will say "Ok, the world is safe again, we're giving you your liberties back."?

jacquesm 16y ago
> The BIGGEST QUESTION for me is this: Will there every come a point where the government will say "Ok, the world is safe again, we're giving you your liberties back."? I think I know the answer to that one but you will not like it one bit. What's the last time a country repealed a law that limited citizens rights somehow without there being a confrontation about it?
- tomjen3 16y ago
  Define confrontation. Because I would argue that the end of the legal limits on the price you could charge on things in most of Europe was just such an event.
- philwelch 16y ago
  Confrontations happen with every political change. The real question is whether it's feasible to repeal laws that limit citizens rights; the US presents numerous examples that suggest it is. In 1972 the draft ended. In 1996 export of strong cryptography from the US was legalized. Since the 1990's, 18 states have either decriminalized marijuana or legalized medicinal marijuana. A couple states during that time span legalized assisted suicide. Judicial rulings in the past ten years alone have overturned laws banning firearms and sodomy, and in five states, same sex marriage was legalized.
psyklic 16y ago
I can see it from both perspectives. It is shocking, but the government isn't just doing full body scans for kicks. Airlines are ridiculously hard to secure - if terrorists use another one as a bomb after the US has spent so much money already protecting them, then we're in big trouble. Not only would more terrorists try to hijack planes, but we would lose some standing with other countries because of "insecure" transit systems. The BIGGEST QUESTION for me is: Will there ever come a point where our airlines WILL be safe again? If there is ever a lapse in our security, will someone new try to embarrass us using the same attack? Will the world ever be safe?

jgrahamc 16y ago

It's interesting that people like this story because what I see is a pilot who first refused the body scanner and then refused the alternative (a pat down) and was refused entry to the airport. I don't see this as a big deal. He wasn't arrested and appears to have been dealt with politely by all concerned. The "stands up to the TSA" in the headline makes it sound like he's frikkin' Gandhi standing up the British. And I'm probably going to burn karma for saying this but, welcome to Reddit.

bad_user 16y ago
Considering he's a pilot that flies the airplane, do you think he would need to conceal objects from security scanning to crash that airplane into a building? Boy, those Sep 11 attacks where like a needle straight to the heart ;)
- jgrahamc 16y ago
  http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1802972 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1802972
- aberkowitz 16y ago
  What it comes down to is that there is no system in place for TSA to determine whether a pilot is actually a pilot. See this essay [1] for a clear argument. [1] http://www.schneier.com/essay-130.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-130.html
lionhearted 16y ago
Agreed. I'm actually a supporter of the scanning technology, because I think it will reduce time spent in line at airports. The shoes taking off thing still seems kind of unnecessary and it's gross that everyone walks through the screening area in only their socks. On a side note, I fly a lot, and it seems like TSA and Homeland Security have gotten much more organized, fast, and polite over the last few years. It was pretty bad 3+ years ago, but the last few flights I took in the USA they were polite and calm and prompt. This piece seems like much ado about nothing - there's legitimate problems in the USA right now, but this event doesn't seem like one of them.

davidw 16y ago

This is one of those stories that looks like it's designed to get you hot and bothered about a topic that is not very related to tech and startups. In other words, I think there are other sites that are better choices for long, far ranging discussions about things like civil liberties, terrorism, and so on and so forth.

borism 16y ago
Absolutely! Everyone interested in relevant discussion can go to airliners.net where this is top story for few days now: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4957718/ http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/re... Another relevant site is pprune.org: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/430970-pilot-challenges-tsa.html http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/430970-pilot-challenges-t... Those are the places where real pilots and aviation professionals discuss the issue. One excellent quote from PPRune: "What you have here is an idiot with an agenda. Fortunately he's likely so early in his career, he may not have thrown that much away, but he did make good inroads at getting stuck on TSA's watch list." Totally irrelevant to HN.
shill 16y ago
This story is relevant to HN because 80% of the posts here are about building businesses and this often requires air-travel. Refusing to be X-raped by the TSA could have negative long term repercussions on your ability to travel efficiently.
- davidw 16y ago
  By that measure, 100% of businesses here are run by people who breathe air and drink water, so articles about environmentalism are pertinent too. Likewise, most of us are human beings with sexual and emotional needs, which, if not met, might lead to frustrations that could damage businesses, so "how to score with hot chicks" is on-topic too. I call that game "7 degrees of hacker news".

maxklein 16y ago

Am I the only one who actually thinks that searches should be more thorough? Airplanes are instruments that people like to target, and I'd not be comfortable flying unless people are properly screened. It's scary enough with the possibility that the plane could drop out of the sky, but adding an additional threat of someone blowing up the plane would make it a terrible experience. You are a nice person, your friends probably, but there are a lot of crazy people out there that would hijack or bomb planes, given the chance.

jacquesm 16y ago
How will you ever know if you can trust the pilot? Are you going to dissect their brain before take-off?
- Udo 16y ago
  You can't, you can never completely trust people. A few years ago there was an incident where an Egyptian airline pilot suddenly screamed "Allahwakbar!" and put the plane in a nose dive. Everybody died. But that's not the point. The point is, there will never be complete safety. It's physically impossible. However, that answer is considered heretical. And while we're at it: the security measures at the airports do exactly nothing to make us any safer either. They're not even designed to do that. They are designed to impress politicians. All that gestapo compliance crap is just a nasty side effect. As far as this guy is concerned, it's just another variant of "rage quit", because he essentially did this to quit his job. There is no way in hell he didn't know exactly what would happen. After years and years of going through all the motions of Security Theater he chose to do all the things that get you red-flagged. His point was of course to demonstrate that we don't live in a free society anymore. But we knew that for some time now.
philk 16y ago
The guy is a pilot. There's no point whatsoever in searching him more thoroughly before he flies a plane because he already has control over it.
- 16y ago

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

I'm a pilot, a libertarian, and somebody who believes that it is a fair trade to temporarily trade freedoms for security, such as when governments institute blackout laws during air-raids when the nation is at war. But this virtual strip-searching is going too far. Somebody needs to be a grownup and stop abusing the public in return for the promise of a risk-free travel experience. The problem, from a political perspective, is this is one of those "clean water" issues -- an issue with only one side. Who wants to be in favor of dirty water? Yet the real question facing governments is what kind of trade to make between tax revenue and water treatment plants, what kinds of burdens to put on industry to not pollute (too much), etc. The real question is very nuanced and involves lots of trade-offs and discussions about private property rights and the public good. But the problem is, even though it's a trade-off, there's no upside to taking the other side of the issue. Let's suppose somebody gets elected on the platform to eliminate body scanners. All the scanners get eliminated and the public cheers. The next month there is a terrible attack -- one that could have been prevented by the use of body scanners. I know what the logical response is, but what do you think the actual response from the public will be? It's going to be to get rid of that foolish politician who's reckless ways caused so much harm and misery. And to DavidW's point, yes, I think this is a HN issue, although it is also emotionally-charged. It's a hacker issue because it gets to the heart of all hacking: just because you can do something, should you? If I can create a mind-reading device to stop terrorists, should I? It also addresses the ways people can create organizational systems without balance -- systems that continue growing ad infinitum. I would expect this virtual strip-searching to be only the beginning: as terrorist defeat these (by the use of rectally-planted explosives, as the pilot points out) then government will up the ante and find a way to give rectal exams. They'll have to. It's a one-sided issue.

psyklic 16y ago
It's a one-sided issue which our government has said that they're gonna fix - small cost to attack, enormous cost to defend. The US had no other choice though. If one vulnerability is found, terrorists will just continue to exploit it, and it will erode trust in our transit networks. Are you saying we should just let 9/11s happen, and then fix the holes? Are alternative scanning methods just as effective? Wouldn't you prefer that everyone else on your flight is scanned, just to make sure you'll be safe? It's a tricky issue.

edw519 16y ago

Here's how it works: - x-ray machine: 30 seconds - full body scan: add 30 seconds - pat down: add 5 to 20 minutes Do I think these policies and procedures are violations of my personal rights? Yes. Am I willing to risk my job standing up for my beliefs? No. I'm not even willing to risk being late for dinner. Given a choice, I always opt for the fastest, regardless of what I believe in. Even if I'm right, what do I win by missing my plane? That's what they're counting on.

tptacek 16y ago
The pat down does not add 5 to 20 minutes. It's exactly the same secondary screening they give you if you set off the metal detector, performed by exactly the same person; if it took 20 minutes, the whole line would bottleneck.
- edw519 16y ago
  My pat down did take 20 minutes. It was done by another person while the original person kept their original job. There was a backlog of people who refused to go through the "naked machine". And, yes, the whole line did bottleneck.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    That's never happened to me. Sorry it happened to you. I invariably refuse the strip search.
- icefox 16y ago
  My pat down and search of everything on me took a good 15 minutes. When standing in line they asked each one of us if we wanted the xrays or patdown (they installed it just days before) and I was horrified when the person in front of me said "Oh I don't care" and the person in front of them simply said "that line looks faster". I couldn't believe they were so willing to take whatever security measure was added. I can only imagine what they are going to do next.
  - 16y ago

steveklabnik 16y ago

I'm not really sure if I'm going to be able to effectively fly any more. Every time I go through these lines, I get noticeably and visibly upset. I keep my mouth shut, but the combination of being subversive looking and noticeably agitated means I get picked out for secondary screening a lot. :/ It makes my blood boil every single time. I feel so ashamed that I basically am forced to support this kind of behavior by needing to fly at times, and feel totally helpless about doing anything about it. I'm seriously wondering if I'm going to be able to continue traveling as these shenanigans get worse and worse. I see a lot of driving in my future. :/

JoelMcCracken 16y ago
Take the train, if possible. Its not quite as convenient, but at least it is leisurely.
- Vivtek 16y ago
  That would work great if America still had a train system. I always worried about this when we lived in Puerto Rico. Due to the Jones Act, there are no passenger ships to the island - to leave, you have to fly.
  - rubyrescue 16y ago
    There's nothing i can find on the Jones Act banning passenger ships - only making Puerto Ricans US citizens - can you elaborate?
    - Vivtek 16y ago
      Ah. The Jones Act also specifies that all ships traveling between American ports must be (1) made in America, (2) registered in America, (3) owned by Americans, and (4) crewed by Americans. The consequence is that the market can't actually bear passenger travel between American ports. So there isn't any. At all. Hasn't been for decades. Unless you own and sail your own boat, you can't get there from here except by air. Weird - and definitely an unintended consequence. The Puerto Ricans are quite aware of it. But as long as shipyard labor on the East Coast continues to support protectionism no matter how meaningless, there will continue to be no passenger shipping to Puerto Rico.

jdietrich 16y ago

I have absolutely no doubt that the most evil words in the english language are "I'm just doing my job". It speaks of the profoundest moral cowardice, a complete abrogation of personal responsibility. Zimbardo showed that the inevitable consequence of unchecked authority is abuse. Milgram showed that a large proportion of us will do just about anything to our fellow man because someone with a clipboard says so. Asch showed us that we will swear that black is white if we are surrounded by people who tell us so. This isn't about emotion or politics, it is about some basic psychological facts. If you give a man a badge and a hat he will start beating people down the moment you turn your back. If you give a man the authority to do "whatever is necessary", that authority will be extended to dominate and control as far as is possible. If you tell a man "You have no other choice, you must go on", he will kill in cold blood. All preventable deaths are unfortunate, but deaths due to terrorism are incredibly rare. Even in the most violent and chaotic places on earth, road traffic accidents dwarf the death toll due to terrorism. If we cared about the preservation of human life, we would spend the TSA's budget on eliminating malaria, tuberculosis and infant diarrhea. If we cared about saving western lives, we would spend the money on public health education and support, road traffic safety, school meals and so on. It is clear that we're not acting rationally. In response to an extremely rare risk, we are spending countless billions on largely ineffective responses and sacrificing civil liberties on a grand scale. This isn't just about body-scanners, it's about extraordinary rendition, warrantless wiretapping, the criminalisation of photography and who the hell knows what else. Whatever argument might be made for the TSA, it is absolutely bogus to suggest that they are in any way a rational or proportional response to risk. Every dollar that we spend on building scanners or spying on students is a dollar that we can't spend on feeding schoolkids or preventing diabetes or making roads safer. Government spending is finite and every dollar of the TSA's budget is money that could be spent much more effectively and save far more lives.

vic_nyc 16y ago
While I agree there is some sort of 'mass psychology' at work here, I believe there are some additional (and more important factors). There is certainly a lot of irrationality in people who accept these things and who have no direct/executive power to change them. But is there irrationality in the people who decided to put these policies into place? I don't believe it. Quite the contrary, I believe the politicians who created and support these laws have other, unacknowledged interests, that are concealed behind the "terrorism prevention" mantra. There are so many other things that can be put into place, why are these guys deciding on these particular ones? A couple of things: money and control. I'm not a journalist, but it would be great if an investigative journalist analyzed the people and the interests behind these regulations. I suspect they would find connections with the companies who provide the screening equipment, and the policy decision makers. As to the 'control' aspect, this is more related to the psychological idea. The people in power crave control, so they will generally tend to favor policies in that direction. Which is why their power must be constantly monitored and kept in checked by us the people. Without that we can't have any long-lasting liberty.

vaksel 16y ago

personally I feel like the whole threat of terrorism is overblown. If they were a real threat we'd see more attacks on U.S. soil. There are a ton of soft targets like malls, subways, schools that aren't protected. Instead the only attacks on the U.S. soil, seem to come from people who think they are joining a movement. It's always some incompetent dumbass, who got brainwashed by the media frenzy, with no actual connections to actual terrorists. Hell, the reason 911 happened was because everyone in this country was told to just sit down and wait to get rescued. If someone tried to hijack a plane now with box cutters, they'd get their asses kicked by everyone on the plane.

rbanffy 16y ago
9/11 was a game changer. Up to that point, planes were kidnapped for hostages. In that scenario, the best to do is not to confront the highjackers.

bmj 16y ago

I wonder if some of this discussion would have trended in a different way if the pilot's post wasn't festooned with the markings of a "tea party-er?"

jules 16y ago

Why do they need to search the pilot in the first place? So that he doesn't hijack the plane? He already controls the plane.

jdp23 16y ago

EPIC, along with Bruce Schneier and Chip Pitts, is suing to stop the use of the body scanners http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/epic_v_dhs_suspension_of_body.html#lawsuit http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/epic_v_dhs_suspension_... you can help out by donating -- they're a 501c3, so it's tax-deductible

arb99 16y ago

So they're looking for bomb making things (etc) on him, yet when he's on the plane he's going to be the pilot. I don't think he needs to bring things with him to bring the plane down...

watchandwait 16y ago

The privacy group EPIC is leading the litigation against these abusive scanners. You can learn more and support their efforts with donation: http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/ http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/

clr 16y ago

I lived in Israel for 6 years. I do not want to have an Israel/Palestine debate, I just want to talk about airport security. I go insane at airports in the US because these people do not know what they are doing. In Israel, they hire the best and the brightest just out of their army service to do airport security. They have their pick of applicants because the jobs are well-paid, and offer fantastic benefits, one of which is the chance to live abroad in the various countries served by El Al. Housing and stipend paid for. I understand that much of what El Al does for security screening amounts to racial profiling. But surely we can take what they have established and work with them to make it better and conform to US laws and civil rights. I am sad because we don't even try. Instead, we have underpaid dolts who don't know what a bookmark is (happened to me).

marze 16y ago

If everyone refuses the body scan in favor of a "pat down" the TSA would be forced to modify the plan, since that would require 4x as much time or 4x as many agents. Too many guinea pigs wanting to help answer the question if long term exposure to naked body scanning machine x-rays cause cataracts or worse.