11 ms·

World's largest association of pilots boycotts body scanners

220 points by mcantelon 16y ago

xutopia 16y ago
I wonder what happens when a normal person refuses to be scanned by these newfangled scanners? I'm going to the US soon and I don't like the body scanners.
- smanek 16y ago
  I've refused (and I'm flying again tomorrow and plan to refuse again if asked). You get a, rather invasive, pat down. But, if everyone refuses, it will cost them enough time that they should have to stop.
  - ojbyrne 16y ago
    Hopefully. I suspect instead, they'll just make the body scanners mandatory.
  - jemfinch 16y ago
    Or they'll just stop letting those who decline fly at all.
  - Devilboy 16y ago
    Someone on Reddit got selected for the scanner, and after getting scanned the TSA proceeded to give him the invasive gope-search too. So it sounds like you might as well 'opt out' of the scanner since it won't save you from having your genitals felt up.
- afshin 16y ago
  I refused last week. I got pat down pretty invasively. The TSA agent seemed rather embarrassed about it. The protocol says that when they touch private areas, they must point out that they're using the back of the hand, but being groped is being groped. If everyone refuses, I hope, it will be simply too costly to continue ... but I'm still not sure if allowing myself to be literally manhandled is any less an invasion of my privacy except insofar as there's no photographic evidence that can be stored indefinitely.
  - jemfinch 16y ago
    > there's no photographic evidence that can be stored indefinitely. The machines are capable of storing the pictures, and all we have is the promise of a long abusive government agency that they are not.
    - afshin 16y ago
      Yes, I agree. Maybe I was unclear above, but what I meant to say was that not being photographed was one of the main motivations I had for consenting to being patted down, despite the discomfort.
    - tdfx 16y ago
      If TSA uses the same machines as the Department of State uses at embassies then I can speak from experience that the pictures are stored by default.
      - joshwa 16y ago
        Having looked at the TSA documents in the EPIC lawsuit, the TSA operational requirements are that the machines must be incapable of storing the images. Not that this makes me any more OK with subjecting myself (and inflicting upon others) what is essentially a strip search.
        poet 16y ago
        The machines are capable of storing images. Straight from the mouth of Gale Rossides, the Deputy Administrator of the TSA [1]. The functionality is supposed to be disabled after an install, but such safeguards seem tenuous at best. [1] http://www.infowars.com/media/tsadoc.pdf http://www.infowars.com/media/tsadoc.pdf
  - oiuytgfyhujik 16y ago
    There is a gay rights group who are planning to protest it by turning up at the airport in costume insisting on a special pat down and pretending (or not) to enjoy it very much. Sounds like a great day out - especially if you are into uniforms!
- joshd 16y ago
  (Cross-posted from my Reddit account) I went through SFO on the weekend and said I didn't want to go through the machine. You're made to feel pretty stigmatised, you have to stand there while the TSA officer repeatedly yells out "We got an opt-out. Male opt-out." across the hall. The pat down itself was extremely thorough but considering how much the TSA gets bagged on Reddit, the officer was incredibly professional. It didn't feel lewd or dirty. Sure, it was violating and I resented having to be put through the experience, but the guy was just doing his job and it was obvious he'd been extensively trained. All up it took about 5 minutes of my time. What worried me the most was that afterword he asked "The TSA is conducting a survey, why did you opt-out?" I replied that I didn't like my freedoms being taken away. However, thinking about this later, I realised that if in a year they release stats that say "only 1% of people opt-out, and only 5% of those people do so for medical or religious reasons" then it is going to be a hell of a lot easier for them to push for the scans to become mandatory.
  - mike-cardwell 16y ago
    "The TSA is conducting a survey, why did you opt-out?" With a straight face: "Because I get sexual gratification from having my genitles fondled. Your job is sort of like prostitution, but you get paid by the pimps rather than the customers." Then walk away.
- cmoylan 16y ago
  I flew a few days ago and opted out of the body scanner. The pat down was definitely very thorough and a little uncomfortable, but I could tell the TSA officer administering it was just as uncomfortable as I was. It held up the line for about 5 minutes because they didn't let anyone through while I was being searched. I never felt intimidated and will continue to opt out, so if that was their intention, they failed.
aresant 16y ago
Did you know that they had full dose radiation-driven "shoe fitting" devices in over 10,000 shoe stores up until 1970? They were eventually pulled when reports of burns and stunting of bone and cartilage began to emerge. It's the little vignettes of history like this that remind me how many grand-experiments there are out there using us all as the unwitting test subjects. Is the Pilot Union’s boycott a kneejerk reaction to the measured warning about potential radiation damage? Maybe. But never underestimate how quickly politicos helping to equip our airports with $100 - 200k a pop units will happily ask for forgiveness, not permission. Citation for shoe stores - http://www.hemonctoday.com/article.aspx?rid=28218 http://www.hemonctoday.com/article.aspx?rid=28218
- oiuytgfyhujik 16y ago
  But this is different - they have done long term studies following the total life health of 1000s of pilots who have been exposed to these scanners 10x a day for their whole careers.
  - Anechoic 16y ago
    Link/source?
    - oiuytgfyhujik 16y ago
      biblo-ref: Journal of Ironic Internet Postings 1 April 2011
      - ramchip 16y ago
        For added convenience: @ARTICLE{oiuytgfyhujik:11, author = {{oiuytgfyhujik}}, title = {{on: World's largest association of pilots boycotts body scanners}}, year = {2011}, journal = {{Journal of Ironic Internet Postings}}, note = {\url{http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1885309}} }
      - dejb 16y ago
        There is an apparently dwindling minority of people who would consider this to be sarcasm and not irony. For these few, irony is never merely logical negation. It necessarily involves unintended and opposite consequences flowing from the protagonist's actions. A short internet search suggests I may be the last of this kind.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jfrancis 16y ago
The key is to make the pat-down as time consuming and embarrassing as possible for the TSA staff. Follow these steps: 1) Refuse the body scanner and request a manual pat-down. 2) Ask to have a supervisor, or a second TSA staff, present during the pat-down. Explain that this is to ensure that no sexual harassment occurs. 3) If you are a guy, ask to have a female TSA staff member perform the pat-down. If your request is denied, calmly explain to the TSA guy that you are homosexual and that a pat-down by another guy will turn you on and will make you sexually extremely uncomfortable. 4) During the pat-down, make comments such as "Oh yeah, I like it when you touch me there!", or "Can I get a happy ending?"
- CamperBob 16y ago
  5) Count perforations in ceiling tiles in the room where they detain you for "additional screening" 6) Miss flight and lose non-refundable airfare
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    Great thinking. Let's just keep taking up the arse because otherwise we might be inconvenienced! I know that TSA has gotten worse literally every year but we wouldn't want to be inconvenienced. Far better to just hope that it works out on its own!
  - eitland 16y ago
    > 6) Miss flight and lose non-refundable airfare It was the pilots that boycotted the sscanner this time.
    - CamperBob 16y ago
      6) Miss flight and get canned by airline
      - jfrancis 16y ago
        None of those things would make you miss your flight or get canned.
tomhenderson 16y ago
There was an interesting opinion piece in New Scientist about radiation safety levels recently (31 July 2010). It looked at health studies from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and studies of chemotherapy patients that suggest that the current recommended radiation limit (1 millisievert per year) is overly cautious. The article went on to suggest that the recommendation be raised to a lifetime total of 5 sieverts at no more than 0.1 sievert per month. The article is here, unfortunately behind a pay wall: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727715.800-whos-afraid-of-radiation.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727715.800-whos-afra...
blahedo 16y ago
Hang on, do we know this is for real? I followed the link to news.com.au, and I can find one or two other blogs that are referring to this, but the APA site itself (http://public.alliedpilots.org/ http://public.alliedpilots.org/) makes no reference to anything like this, including in their "For the Media" section (press releases and such).
- mrkurt 16y ago
  Here's a copy of the message the APA president sent to pilots: http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/11/apa-president-advises-against.html http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/11/apa-pres...
  - blahedo 16y ago
    Ok, thanks. I notice this doesn't really rise to the level of an APA "boycott", though.
IgorPartola 16y ago
It seems that the debate in the comments here is on whether to give the TSA employees a hard time (with suggestions) or to try to pressure the politicians who let this happen (with no concrete suggestions). I wonder if the pressure really should be applied to the airlines. Obviously they are in a tough spot, but once they start to really lose profits, they would be sure to run to DC screaming. Just a thought.
access_denied 16y ago
Just for the record: I am not going to use air travel in the US as long as that stuff is going on.

220 points by mcantelon 16y ago

I wonder what happens when a normal person refuses to be scanned by these newfangled scanners? I'm going to the US soon and I don't like the body scanners.

smanek 16y ago
I've refused (and I'm flying again tomorrow and plan to refuse again if asked). You get a, rather invasive, pat down. But, if everyone refuses, it will cost them enough time that they should have to stop.
- ojbyrne 16y ago
  Hopefully. I suspect instead, they'll just make the body scanners mandatory.
- jemfinch 16y ago
  Or they'll just stop letting those who decline fly at all.
- Devilboy 16y ago
  Someone on Reddit got selected for the scanner, and after getting scanned the TSA proceeded to give him the invasive gope-search too. So it sounds like you might as well 'opt out' of the scanner since it won't save you from having your genitals felt up.
afshin 16y ago
I refused last week. I got pat down pretty invasively. The TSA agent seemed rather embarrassed about it. The protocol says that when they touch private areas, they must point out that they're using the back of the hand, but being groped is being groped. If everyone refuses, I hope, it will be simply too costly to continue ... but I'm still not sure if allowing myself to be literally manhandled is any less an invasion of my privacy except insofar as there's no photographic evidence that can be stored indefinitely.
- jemfinch 16y ago
  > there's no photographic evidence that can be stored indefinitely. The machines are capable of storing the pictures, and all we have is the promise of a long abusive government agency that they are not.
  - afshin 16y ago
    Yes, I agree. Maybe I was unclear above, but what I meant to say was that not being photographed was one of the main motivations I had for consenting to being patted down, despite the discomfort.
  - tdfx 16y ago
    If TSA uses the same machines as the Department of State uses at embassies then I can speak from experience that the pictures are stored by default.
    - joshwa 16y ago
      Having looked at the TSA documents in the EPIC lawsuit, the TSA operational requirements are that the machines must be incapable of storing the images. Not that this makes me any more OK with subjecting myself (and inflicting upon others) what is essentially a strip search.
      - poet 16y ago
        The machines are capable of storing images. Straight from the mouth of Gale Rossides, the Deputy Administrator of the TSA [1]. The functionality is supposed to be disabled after an install, but such safeguards seem tenuous at best. [1] http://www.infowars.com/media/tsadoc.pdf http://www.infowars.com/media/tsadoc.pdf
- oiuytgfyhujik 16y ago
  There is a gay rights group who are planning to protest it by turning up at the airport in costume insisting on a special pat down and pretending (or not) to enjoy it very much. Sounds like a great day out - especially if you are into uniforms!
joshd 16y ago
(Cross-posted from my Reddit account) I went through SFO on the weekend and said I didn't want to go through the machine. You're made to feel pretty stigmatised, you have to stand there while the TSA officer repeatedly yells out "We got an opt-out. Male opt-out." across the hall. The pat down itself was extremely thorough but considering how much the TSA gets bagged on Reddit, the officer was incredibly professional. It didn't feel lewd or dirty. Sure, it was violating and I resented having to be put through the experience, but the guy was just doing his job and it was obvious he'd been extensively trained. All up it took about 5 minutes of my time. What worried me the most was that afterword he asked "The TSA is conducting a survey, why did you opt-out?" I replied that I didn't like my freedoms being taken away. However, thinking about this later, I realised that if in a year they release stats that say "only 1% of people opt-out, and only 5% of those people do so for medical or religious reasons" then it is going to be a hell of a lot easier for them to push for the scans to become mandatory.
- mike-cardwell 16y ago
  "The TSA is conducting a survey, why did you opt-out?" With a straight face: "Because I get sexual gratification from having my genitles fondled. Your job is sort of like prostitution, but you get paid by the pimps rather than the customers." Then walk away.
cmoylan 16y ago
I flew a few days ago and opted out of the body scanner. The pat down was definitely very thorough and a little uncomfortable, but I could tell the TSA officer administering it was just as uncomfortable as I was. It held up the line for about 5 minutes because they didn't let anyone through while I was being searched. I never felt intimidated and will continue to opt out, so if that was their intention, they failed.

aresant 16y ago

Did you know that they had full dose radiation-driven "shoe fitting" devices in over 10,000 shoe stores up until 1970? They were eventually pulled when reports of burns and stunting of bone and cartilage began to emerge. It's the little vignettes of history like this that remind me how many grand-experiments there are out there using us all as the unwitting test subjects. Is the Pilot Union’s boycott a kneejerk reaction to the measured warning about potential radiation damage? Maybe. But never underestimate how quickly politicos helping to equip our airports with $100 - 200k a pop units will happily ask for forgiveness, not permission. Citation for shoe stores - http://www.hemonctoday.com/article.aspx?rid=28218 http://www.hemonctoday.com/article.aspx?rid=28218

oiuytgfyhujik 16y ago
But this is different - they have done long term studies following the total life health of 1000s of pilots who have been exposed to these scanners 10x a day for their whole careers.
- Anechoic 16y ago
  Link/source?
  - oiuytgfyhujik 16y ago
    biblo-ref: Journal of Ironic Internet Postings 1 April 2011
    - ramchip 16y ago
      For added convenience: @ARTICLE{oiuytgfyhujik:11, author = {{oiuytgfyhujik}}, title = {{on: World's largest association of pilots boycotts body scanners}}, year = {2011}, journal = {{Journal of Ironic Internet Postings}}, note = {\url{http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1885309}} }
    - dejb 16y ago
      There is an apparently dwindling minority of people who would consider this to be sarcasm and not irony. For these few, irony is never merely logical negation. It necessarily involves unintended and opposite consequences flowing from the protagonist's actions. A short internet search suggests I may be the last of this kind.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

jfrancis 16y ago

The key is to make the pat-down as time consuming and embarrassing as possible for the TSA staff. Follow these steps: 1) Refuse the body scanner and request a manual pat-down. 2) Ask to have a supervisor, or a second TSA staff, present during the pat-down. Explain that this is to ensure that no sexual harassment occurs. 3) If you are a guy, ask to have a female TSA staff member perform the pat-down. If your request is denied, calmly explain to the TSA guy that you are homosexual and that a pat-down by another guy will turn you on and will make you sexually extremely uncomfortable. 4) During the pat-down, make comments such as "Oh yeah, I like it when you touch me there!", or "Can I get a happy ending?"

CamperBob 16y ago
5) Count perforations in ceiling tiles in the room where they detain you for "additional screening" 6) Miss flight and lose non-refundable airfare
- loewenskind 16y ago
  Great thinking. Let's just keep taking up the arse because otherwise we might be inconvenienced! I know that TSA has gotten worse literally every year but we wouldn't want to be inconvenienced. Far better to just hope that it works out on its own!
- eitland 16y ago
  > 6) Miss flight and lose non-refundable airfare It was the pilots that boycotted the sscanner this time.
  - CamperBob 16y ago
    6) Miss flight and get canned by airline
    - jfrancis 16y ago
      None of those things would make you miss your flight or get canned.

tomhenderson 16y ago

There was an interesting opinion piece in New Scientist about radiation safety levels recently (31 July 2010). It looked at health studies from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and studies of chemotherapy patients that suggest that the current recommended radiation limit (1 millisievert per year) is overly cautious. The article went on to suggest that the recommendation be raised to a lifetime total of 5 sieverts at no more than 0.1 sievert per month. The article is here, unfortunately behind a pay wall: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727715.800-whos-afraid-of-radiation.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727715.800-whos-afra...

blahedo 16y ago

Hang on, do we know this is for real? I followed the link to news.com.au, and I can find one or two other blogs that are referring to this, but the APA site itself (http://public.alliedpilots.org/ http://public.alliedpilots.org/) makes no reference to anything like this, including in their "For the Media" section (press releases and such).

mrkurt 16y ago
Here's a copy of the message the APA president sent to pilots: http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/11/apa-president-advises-against.html http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/11/apa-pres...
- blahedo 16y ago
  Ok, thanks. I notice this doesn't really rise to the level of an APA "boycott", though.

IgorPartola 16y ago

It seems that the debate in the comments here is on whether to give the TSA employees a hard time (with suggestions) or to try to pressure the politicians who let this happen (with no concrete suggestions). I wonder if the pressure really should be applied to the airlines. Obviously they are in a tough spot, but once they start to really lose profits, they would be sure to run to DC screaming. Just a thought.

access_denied 16y ago

Just for the record: I am not going to use air travel in the US as long as that stuff is going on.