3 ms·

>It's easy to spread FUD, but these devices are likely safe. We have two facts here: * These machines should not be in use as they do nothing to help security

>It's easy to spread FUD, but these devices are likely safe. We have two facts here: * These machines should not be in use as they do nothing to help security and they are ripe for abuse (and have already been abused in their short time of being used) * The public is not ever going to be bothered enough by privacy concerns to actually do something about it. They would, however, do a great deal if they felt their lives depended on it. Taking these two facts into account, if a leading scientist says these things may be dangerous I would tend to take his word for it without digging into it. That sounds bad but how else can one deal with people who value convenience over what is right?

tptacek 16y ago
I accidentally upvoted you. There is the truth and there is falsity. None of our principles, including the one that says minimum wage security workers shouldn't be looking at us naked, mean anything if we can't look each other in the eyes and articulate them truthfully. It is falsity that is allowing people to convince airport authorities that these machines make sense. If you want to get into the bullshitting arms race, know a priori that you will lose; those people are much better at it than you are, and they have more to gain or lose.
- pyre 16y ago
  You're only principled because you don't live in the US, and need to use air travel </sarcasm> ;-)
- loewenskind 16y ago
  I'm not saying to lie. I'm saying if someone with credentials comes out and says there may be health issues with these things we don't need to look any further. They shouldn't be in the airport whether they present a safety risk or not. Instead of wasting energy chasing something that doesn't change the over all outcome (finding out they're safe still doesn't mean they should be used), use that energy to research things that do matter. It's just about being efficient. :)

tptacek 16y ago

I accidentally upvoted you. There is the truth and there is falsity. None of our principles, including the one that says minimum wage security workers shouldn't be looking at us naked, mean anything if we can't look each other in the eyes and articulate them truthfully. It is falsity that is allowing people to convince airport authorities that these machines make sense. If you want to get into the bullshitting arms race, know a priori that you will lose; those people are much better at it than you are, and they have more to gain or lose.

pyre 16y ago
You're only principled because you don't live in the US, and need to use air travel </sarcasm> ;-)
loewenskind 16y ago
I'm not saying to lie. I'm saying if someone with credentials comes out and says there may be health issues with these things we don't need to look any further. They shouldn't be in the airport whether they present a safety risk or not. Instead of wasting energy chasing something that doesn't change the over all outcome (finding out they're safe still doesn't mean they should be used), use that energy to research things that do matter. It's just about being efficient. :)