5 ms·

For kicks, a little while ago, I refused one of these machines (you can't really cause a "ruckus" too often when flying for work). The guy just shrugged, gave

by ErrantX 16y ago

For kicks, a little while ago, I refused one of these machines (you can't really cause a "ruckus" too often when flying for work). The guy just shrugged, gave me a quick pat down and let me through. I'd say about 30% of the people took the same option and received the same treatment. Same every time since I've that I've been through. But the last time one guy made a big deal of how invasive the machine was (not rude, just loud about his refusal) and got the works (well, a rough pat down and then taken to one side). Obviously, this is a different case, he was just joking around with them. But I imagine this could easily have been a different story if one of the TSA officers couldn't handle a bit of humour (all too common, sadly). Just saying. These machines are a real problem for our privacy/society. But all the "horror" stories (not so much this one) we are seeing are mostly the result of people making a fuss, and getting rough treatment. We should just refuse these, politely and quietly, and at such a volume all they can do is what they have done previously; give us a pat down. Fortunately it looks like the UK air services are "rebelling" somewhat against "draconian security measures". It's not 100% certain what they are talking about, but I got the impression this covered resisting the spread of these machines in the UK. Which makes a change :)

tptacek 16y ago
I said the same thing a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, the story you're commenting on provides context that invalidates that point: the TSA has stepped up the intrusiveness of the "opt-out" pat-downs. According to Jeffrey Goldberg, who is probably not making this up, they are deliberately touching people's crotches in an effort to discourage people from taking the pat-down.
- Silhouette 16y ago
  Fortunately, this sort of thing tends to attract the wrong kind of attention after a while. When enough people find your behaviour offensive enough, they will stop using your service. That will hit your bottom line, and that will make it bad for business. Maybe most people will tolerate this kind of abuse even if they don't like it, but even running 90% full planes instead of 100% is a serious dent in your profits in this sort of industry. Sadly, I suspect the comments by the various air industry executives in the UK over the past week or so are motivated more by falling profits than any ethical problem with these devices, but if the end result is the same in practice, I welcome their opposition anyway. Also, as someone pointed out on (I think) the BBC News story about those comments, it is not exactly in the airlines' interests to have their planes blown up. If we assume that the executives at such businesses are at least reasonably aware of the real effectiveness of these security measures, the fact that they are still now openly saying things have gone too far is quite telling.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  I think then it becomes a resistance thing. We refuse in such numbers that these pat downs become too much to handle. It at least takes the fight to them. Unfortunately such a strategy needs strong adoption; and sadly most of modern society seem too apathetic.

by ErrantX 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago

I said the same thing a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, the story you're commenting on provides context that invalidates that point: the TSA has stepped up the intrusiveness of the "opt-out" pat-downs. According to Jeffrey Goldberg, who is probably not making this up, they are deliberately touching people's crotches in an effort to discourage people from taking the pat-down.

Silhouette 16y ago
Fortunately, this sort of thing tends to attract the wrong kind of attention after a while. When enough people find your behaviour offensive enough, they will stop using your service. That will hit your bottom line, and that will make it bad for business. Maybe most people will tolerate this kind of abuse even if they don't like it, but even running 90% full planes instead of 100% is a serious dent in your profits in this sort of industry. Sadly, I suspect the comments by the various air industry executives in the UK over the past week or so are motivated more by falling profits than any ethical problem with these devices, but if the end result is the same in practice, I welcome their opposition anyway. Also, as someone pointed out on (I think) the BBC News story about those comments, it is not exactly in the airlines' interests to have their planes blown up. If we assume that the executives at such businesses are at least reasonably aware of the real effectiveness of these security measures, the fact that they are still now openly saying things have gone too far is quite telling.
ErrantX 16y ago
I think then it becomes a resistance thing. We refuse in such numbers that these pat downs become too much to handle. It at least takes the fight to them. Unfortunately such a strategy needs strong adoption; and sadly most of modern society seem too apathetic.