8 ms·

National Opt-Out Day Called Against Invasive Body Scanners

98 points by ojbyrne 16y ago

blahblahblah 16y ago
I hope they're successful in getting TSA's ridiculous policy changed. One shouldn't have to choose between being unnecessarily irradiated and virtually strip-searched or being sexually assaulted (in any other context, TSA's new pat-down procedures would be classified as criminal sexual conduct) just to ride on an airplane.
- sp332 16y ago
  It's just a normal pat-down, the kind that might be given by an officer of the law to someone reasonably suspected to be armed and dangerous. It's not like the pat-downs themselves are unusual, it's that the TSA doesn't have cause (or maybe even authority) to do these pat-downs. Also, it's not sexual, so it can't possibly be sexual assault. Assault or battery is about the most you could claim.
  - barrkel 16y ago
    TSA agents aren't officers of the law. You might consider it non-sexual, but try asking a rape victim instead. I most certainly consider someone touching my private parts a sexual assault; and the fact that it's institutionalized doesn't make it any less a scandal. Don't be under any illusions; people who enjoy this kind of thing will see it as an interesting alternative career choice to school janitor etc. If the scanners become mandatory here in the UK for going to the US (they aren't on Virgin Atlantic flying out of Heathrow, last time I checked, a couple of weeks back), I'll probably have to quit my job, as I will no longer want to travel.
    - sp332 16y ago
      Yeah, that's what I meant when I said they might not have authority. But they have been delegated that authority by the DHS, which does have cabinet-level executive status. So it's arguable. It's interesting how you consider any interaction with your "private parts" to be sexual in nature. If you lean against a table, are you having sex with it? Are you having sex with your underwear right now?? The agent isn't touching you sexually, so it's not sexual assault.
      - sp4rki 16y ago
        If I lean against a table it's not sexual, but when the table grabs my balls it sure as hell is. What I find interesting is that you equate an inanimate object in contact with a sexual organ with a human being fondling your penis, vagina, or breasts. I honestly care less about the pats, if a dude or dudette wants to touch my balls and buttocks to make sure I'm not packing (pun intended), then go ahead. But to see them extend this same courtesy to grandmothers and little children is disgusting, unnecessary, and irresponsible.
        sixtofour 16y ago
        An argument could be made, a really depressing argument in so many ways, that including children and grandmothers in the TSA's sexual assaults is for their protection, because if they were exempt, they could be targets for hiding contraband.
        sp4rki 16y ago
        But what happens when terrorist children shove explosives inside themselves through their anuses, or when terrorist grandma shoves a handgun inside her vagina? It's a very slippery slope to climb without a safety-line mate. The minimal increase in security this new procedures allows is just too small in contrast to the vast damage it does towards people's liberties and towards avoiding precedents that could influence some Big Brother type of behavior. This might sound awful, but a terrorist attack is most likely to be thwarted because some agents doing profiling decided to be extra careful with Muslims (and this is just an example, I'm not targeting Muslims in any way), than because we have xray machines that strip people naked.
        sixtofour 16y ago
        I'm not making the argument that I noted, I'm just pointing out that it fits within the twisted logic of our current situation. I agree with your points, and I don't feel any safer for the new procedures. Indeed, I feel less safe, because the TSA's efforts are misdirected, and the TSA has demonstrated its disdain for me, my rights and my dignity.
  - sp4rki 16y ago
    The pat downs are sexual in nature because they are done by rubbing the palms against the persons body including the genitals and breasts on women. A police officer conducts this type of pat-down when a person is arrested or is in the process of being arrested or detained because there is a sufficient threat indicator. What the TSA is doing is saying that either you get irradiated and people get to see you naked, or you're a potential terrorist/criminal.
terryjsmith 16y ago
I can't get behind this, especially when it comes to kids. I really hope that someone finds proof they do store images and sues the US government/TSA for child pornography or something similar. While I doubt this opt-out day will gain serious traction to make a decision, I agree that the best thing to do is continue to call media attention to and scrutinize it.
- philfreo 16y ago
  The TSA has asserted that the machines cannot store pictures, but security personnel at a courthouse in Florida were found to not only have saved images but shared them among colleagues in order to humiliate one of their coworkers.
  - terryjsmith 16y ago
    I saw that, but it's not enough. Someone needs to send some of these pictures (even better, pictures of congress members) to Wikileaks or a similar organization to really push this forward.
- d2viant 16y ago
  Generally speaking, you can't sue the U.S. Government.
  - jarin 16y ago
    Sure you can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act
torme 16y ago
Well, I'll be flying that day, but I would probably opt out without the designated day.
- ahi 16y ago
  Same here. Except I like to think of it as opting in for a rub down.
jambo 16y ago
The TSA is now calling National Opt-Out Day "irresponsible." John Pistole, TSA Administrator: "On the eve of a major national holiday and less than one year after al Qaida's failed attack last Christmas Day, it is irresponsible for a group to suggest travelers opt out of the very screening that could prevent an attack using non-metallic explosives." http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/11/12/131275949/protests-mount-over-safety-and-privacy-of-airport-scanners http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/11/12/131275949/protest... That, to me, doesn't jive with their stance that body scanners aren't a big deal because you can opt out. To me, it confirms that opt-out "enhanced pat-downs" were introduced to intimidate people into being scanned.
- physcab 16y ago
  To me it reads "if you want airport security to go faster so you can get to your plane on time and see your family in time, listen to and trust TSA personnel"
- SkyMarshal 16y ago
  "On the eve of a major national holiday and less than one year after al Qaida's failed attack last Christmas Day, it is irresponsible for a group to suggest travelers opt out of the very screening that could prevent an attack using non-metallic explosives." He seems to be overlooking the possibility that things are getting so bad with the TSA that increasing numbers of travelers would rather take their chances with terrorists and underwear bombs than submit to the TSA's heavy-handed, dehumanizing procedures.
  - jambo 16y ago
    And that no security measure at the airport will prevent a threat before the security checkpoint. With or without people opting out of the body scanners, security checkpoints are bottlenecks (something that the scanners have, in fact, exacerbated) and therefore vulnerable.
  - jamesbritt 16y ago
    My biggest terror fear is the TSA.
sp332 16y ago
Ugh, it makes me sad to see everyone blaming these people for "holding up the line." No, it's the TSA, who decided to treat every passenger as a criminal suspect, who are holding up the line!
pinchyfingers 16y ago
Too few people will even give the scanners a second thought. Unfortunately, most people are satiated enough to watch their freedom gradually erode without realizing what's happening. I don't know how far this call to opt-out will spread, but if enough people opt-out to draw the attention of those who haven't paid attention yet, things might change. It takes a lot of effort to match government sponsored indoctrination. If this works at all, it might lead to a lot more people waking up and saying 'no' to the bullshit constantly being shoved down their throats.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- ojbyrne 16y ago
  Actually, given the additional delays for security, trips under ~ 250 miles, buses and trains are a viable alternative. I'd suspect that those routes are rapidly becoming more profitable for ground transport. Maybe that can help with investment in high speed trains.
  - geophile 16y ago
    The TSA Radius is the distance below which you'd rather drive than fly. (I invented this term, but feel free to use it.) As far as I'm concerned, they've just increased the TSA Radius to infinity.
- natnat 16y ago
  I generally agree that there is way too much corporate control of the American government, but this is a pretty great example of how laws sometimes do nothing but hurt corporations. Because I don't want to put up with this bullshit, I will take the (less profitable) bus or drive when I'm travelling fairly short distances. The airlines lose out, the oil companies lose out, and the airplane manufacturers lose out. I save a little money that I otherwise wouldn't have spent. If the airlines were a powerful lobbying force, they would try to streamline the process of flying to attract get more people through in less time. The government decided that making people feel like they were safe from terrorists was more important than satisfying the airline lobbyists, so they chose to create security theater.
- jberryman 16y ago
  So in your opinion, silently boycotting corporations is the only effective thing you can do? What a depressing world view, and one that seems extremely ignorant of American history.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
jim_h 16y ago
If anybody knows people in tv or radio, it'd be good to get the word out. Opt-Out Day is Nov 24th. The day before Thanksgiving. It's going to be packed and slow without people opting out. Make sure to remind the mad people that it's the TSA that's forcing you get a pat down.
henry81 16y ago
I fly out the Friday after this and will absolutely be opting out.
aneth 16y ago
This anti scanner fad stinks of mob mentality and hysteria. There is no evidence images have been stored at airports or that harm is caused by scans. There is a pathetic lack of rational discussion of factual policies and why such policies might be necessary, whether we like them or not. I expect more from the HN crowd. Someone want to fill us on on facts instead of speculation and fear mongering?
- tumult 16y ago
  Sure. These machines cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, offer no additional security, and take naked pictures of you. There really isn't much to discuss.
  - aneth 16y ago
    How does a full body scan not provide additional security over a metal detector? Another absurd counterintuitive postulate based on no evidence. Follow that up with "no discussion necessary" and you have mass hysteria.
    - danilocampos 16y ago
      The scan is for detecting additional, nonmetallic threats, especially explosives. Just one problem: nothing in the new procedures can prevent moving the same thing via your rectum. So if we want to pretend everyone will adhere to a specific conception of the threat model, sure, spend a bunch of money and alienate the traveling public.
      - aneth 16y ago
        So because it doesn't provide absolute security it doesn't provide "additional" security? Those are two very different things.
        danilocampos 16y ago
        It provides incremental security at a cost to our civil liberties and taxes that is orders of magnitude greater than existing policy.
nphase 16y ago
This reminds me of all those Facebook groups telling people to protest OPEC by not buying gas on X day.
- orangecat 16y ago
  The gas "boycotts" are stupid, because they just shift sales to the days before and after. This could have a meaningful impact, because it really will increase the number of molestations that TSA agents have to perform.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
mark_l_watson 16y ago
As I just ranted on my blog: call your Congressional representatives and ask them how they would feel about their wives and kids being groped. BTW, the backscatter scanners might prove to be very unsafe.
techiferous 16y ago
This reminds me of Gandhi's non-cooperation attitude and shrewdness in dealing with unjust people or policies in power. As an individual, you are powerless when you go through the security line. As a group, however, the American people have all of the power. Because this is both a democracy and a capitalist country (however flawed it may be), if there is an organized and concerted effort against the TSA policies, they simply cannot stand. Congress would not be able to oppose a unified voice of the people saying "this is not okay" and the airlines would not be able to tolerate a significant reduction in customers (and therefore would put pressure on the TSA to change its policies). Gandhi organized a "day of prayer and fasting" which was basically a general strike of all of India. It was a wake-up call to the British. If somebody organized a "do not fly" day where no one flew, that would probably be a bigger wake-up call than opting out of the scan. Sometimes you have to give up some temporary convenience or comfort to send a message to those in power that you don't agree. During the Montgomery bus boycott, people stopped using the bus and this was extremely inconvenient but they would rather not trade their dignity for convenience.
- trunnell 16y ago
  would rather not trade their dignity for convenience I wonder if that idea is still as powerful today.
- synnik 16y ago
  The major difference between this situation and any efforts of Gandhi or the civil rights movement is one of leadership. An entire country would (and did) follow Gandhi. I don't think there is a single person in the US whom everyone would follow for a day. Especially if it meant shutting down all business travel during that day.
  - techiferous 16y ago
    I tend to agree; however, if the issue was important enough I think that a significant portion of our population would organize to achieve a goal. Look at how many people showed up for the rally to restore fear and/or sanity which actually didn't have any stated goals.
trunnell 16y ago
This protest might not slow down security lines. These new scanners are pretty slow to begin with. When I went through SFO recently it took 1-2 minutes to go through the scanner. The slowness seemed to be a combination of the instructions given to the flyer for positioning themselves inside the device, the slowness of the device itself, and the slack in the line. In any case, I remember thinking that a pat-down might actually be quicker.
- barrkel 16y ago
  The speed of the magnetometer lines have always been gated by the hand-luggage x-ray machine, in my experience; usually a magnetometer arch is shared by two lines. To hear some people claim that these things will speed up the lines is pretty ludicrous, especially considering that you need to take more stuff out of your pockets. And then there's the wonderful cost implications. The machines are already 20x more expensive than the magnetometer arches, as I understand it, so the total cost to make up the numbers (to get the speed back through parallelism) could be 40x or more, tens of millions for every decent-sized checkpoint.
- icefox 16y ago
  Recently when I choose not to go through the digital strip search they spent a good 20 minutes going through my stuff, asking me questions and getting a pat down.
  - cheald 16y ago
    The point is that if enough people are opting out, it's going to be a lot harder for them to take the time to individually harass people.
    - prodigal_erik 16y ago
      Not harder, just slower, and why would they care about that? There are many people with enough empathy and diligence to feel bad if you miss your flight. But I don't see how any of them could stomach working for TSA.
jberryman 16y ago
Not sure how feasible or legal it is to do this, but a good strategy for a demonstration might be to hand out fliers to people waiting in the security line. On the fliers would be some information on the new security policy and body scanners and an example image of a body scan. Also attached would be a sticker that says "opt out". That we people can make an informed and visible decision before they encounter the TSA pressure.
- nitrogen 16y ago
  Better yet, t-shirts. The front of the t-shirt is innocuous (so the security guards don't get alarmed too early), but the back explains the body scan process to everyone in line behind you, with example images.
  - sixtofour 16y ago
    Wear your Fourth Amendment tshirt whenever you fly.
- techiferous 16y ago
  It would also be nice to include some objective, unbiased data explaining how effective these types of security measures are at preventing terrorist attacks.
- barrkel 16y ago
  I was wondering if it would make sense to hand out dosimeters instead, to encourage people to think about what they're submitting to.
seles 16y ago
There seems to be debate about whether or not this day is good or bad. But it is pretty simple if the scanners are good the day is bad, if the scanners are bad then the day is good. This is the real issue, but there has probably been alot of debate about this already? What made you take your current stance? I went though the body scanner this Monday in Cincinnati, well aware of the fact that they can see your penis etc (and it was cold that day...). It didn't bother me that much, but it was much more time consuming than going through the old metal detectors, and I don't like the fact that this could be harmful (but I haven't researched how credible this is).
- barrkel 16y ago
  We have to draw the line somewhere; if not here, they'll push the line further, and further. The TSA has no motive to do a cost-benefit analysis: the force pushing them forward is risk, no matter how small, but the only force pushing back against them is how much budget they can get out of the American taxpayer. The saliency of terrorism fears overpowers analytic reason in too many people. A quick search indicates there are over 87,000 flights daily in the US alone; that puts the number at over a quarter billion flights without a successful terrorist incident in the absence of these scanners.
jim_h 16y ago
If you opt-out, please be respectful to the TSA security people. They're just working and can't change the policies for you. Most of them are not in high positions and can't just walk away and find another job the next day/week. So they're not quitting no matter how rudely you treat them. No point to it and it'll just make them grumpy towards you and everybody after you. It's best to just talk to them like a regular person and be nice about it. It'll make the pat down experience better for you and them. Just ask them to send the word upstream. edit - Why was I voted down? Is someone suggesting that you should act like a douche bag to the staff?
- blahblahblah 16y ago
  Actually, I'm kind of surprised that no TSA agents have fought this and turned the situation into a hostile work environment lawsuit payday yet. Coming soon to a courtroom near you... Attorney: Could you please tell the court in your own words about the events leading up to your termination from TSA? Plaintiff: I refused to perform enhanced pat-down procedures on the grounds that this procedure constituted criminal sexual conduct. I was repeatedly reprimanded for my refusal to participate in illegal conduct and subsequently terminated for this...
- miles 16y ago
  See tptacek's comment from a few weeks ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1849035 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1849035
  - jim_h 16y ago
    The post may have gotten a lot of up votes, but it doesn't mean he/she is right. I'm pretty sure that those low TSA people would LOVE to get a better job, but guess what they're there and that's the reality of it. In a better reality, we wouldn't have this security theater. However, we should focus our angry/energy towards solutions that will bring better results. Besides, if they quit, there lines of people to take their place. The economy isn't that great and there's lots of people looking for jobs. (I'm not saying let them keep their jobs and security theater. Just saying not need waste energy on being rude to them.)
karzeem 16y ago
One of the great things about this backlash is that it springs mostly from just a handful of small, mostly web-based efforts. Jonah Goldberg's post arguably kicked off this latest, biggest anti-body-scanner outcry. Among web sites: http://www.optoutday.com http://www.optoutday.com is probably the most notable. http://wewontfly.com http://wewontfly.com is another biggie. http://www.imadethetsafeelmyresistance.com http://www.imadethetsafeelmyresistance.com (disclosure: I made it) has gotten a bunch of traffic too. There are lots of others. This whole thing has heated up a lot in the last week or two. And I suspect the next week or two are going to be a lot bigger.
Gibbon 16y ago
I'm emigrating from Canada to New Zealand and we're flying on Nov. 25. Since I'm near the border, we're flying from Detroit to Fort Worth and then LA.. I am not looking forward to this flight. I've already had dozens of medical x-rays in the past few months, and don't particularly want to get another dose, however low it may be. On the other hand, opting out sounds really unpleasant. I especially don't want my wife potentially suffering that indignity at the hands of a male TSA agent (as some people have reported). I don't think I have the balls to opt-out this time around.. I just want to survive the 48 hour trip intact, with all my luggage.. but this will likely be the last time I fly through the US.
- robfitz 16y ago
  I've opted out twice and it really hasn't been a big deal. It's slightly slower, but the security guys treated me fine. It was no more invasive than being patted down before entering a nightclub to make sure you aren't carrying anything pointy. Given your health concerns, opting out seems like the clear choice (though bear in mind I'm pulling from a sample size of only 2).
  - dalke 16y ago
    What kind of nightclubs do you go to? I've never seen that before. The most has been to check for ID.
    - robfitz 16y ago
      Welcome to Atlanta! ;)
- hfinney 16y ago
  There are two kinds of scanners. One uses low energy X-rays, the other uses microwaves. If you got the microwave kind, that would not add to your X-ray dose. I understand pat-downs within the U.S. are by same-sex agents. This wouldn't be the kind of thing they would get wrong.
  - 16y ago
hyperbovine 16y ago
I'm so tired of seeing pictures like this: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/11/airport_scan_f.jpg http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/11/airpor... Classic red herring. You couldn't sneak a pistol through security before 9/11, you couldn't do it after 9/11, and the NakedTron 5000 doesn't do a damn thing to change that.
- tptacek 16y ago
  The press has been running stories about random people managing to get guns past airport security for literally decades.
siculars 16y ago
I think I will buy a ticket somewhere just so that I can participate.
daimyoyo 16y ago
I would recommend taking this one step further. Let's all find a day in the next few months where we simply refuse to fly. We can call it "dignity day". If air traffic was significantly down because of this, the airlines would start pressuring the TSA to back off. After all, keeping shareholders happy trumps whatever safety concerns we might have.
- cheald 16y ago
  This would be useless for the same reason that "Gas Out" boycotts are useless. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18492185/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18492185/ The only way to make an impact is to fly less, not to shift your flying dates around to avoid a given day.
aneth 16y ago
Really disappointed in the hackernews community for downing dissenting opinions in this thread. I understand this is an emotional issue for people but that doesn't excuse for immaturity. Fortunately my karma is pretty meaningless to me as much as I like to watch it go up (or down.)
- sp4rki 16y ago
  You called the communities opinion pathetic, based on some erroneous what "ifs" you came up with. Lot's of people just gave you their point of view on why you're wrong and others just down voted you because you didn't back up anything you said with facts. Here's my take: 1) I don't care about anyone seeing me naked, I've been working out for years, four times a week to look like I look now and if could walk butt naked everywhere I would. That doesn't mean that it's alright to look at other people's naked bodies, and sure as hell doesn't make right the possibility of a predator looking at naked children. 2) Regarding the scanner's radiation in no way is a healthy thing, and in the absence of actual proof stating if it's really negligible or if it poses a serious health risk, everyone should consider it dangerous. You're basically saying that it's OK to walk through that tight dark alley in the middle of a bad neighborhood at midnight because there's no proof that anyone has been killed or mugged there. I'd rather avoid that kind of situation unless completely necessary thank you very much. You wanted a rational discussion so I'm giving you a rational answer (I have no emotional issue with the topic at hand). I don't care about people touching me or seeing me naked, and I do care (albeit very little) about the potential health risks. I find your comment on how seeing someone's body through X-rays is not a big deal, but seeing someone's luggage through X-ray is a violation of privacy, preposterous and honestly laughable. Tell me what the big difference between looking into your luggage and looking at your naked body is that makes the latter so unimportant in comparison to the former. You made a comment for the sake of disagreeing (instead of saying anything of any value for the discussion) and then made some utterly incompetent remarks all the while calling people immature and basically saying their opinions have no value because you believe we're all cattle in the herd of the Anti-TSA fad. While I don't agree there was a necessity for down-votes, you're comments did add no value whatsoever so the people where in a way correct to do so. Next time if you're going to disagree do it politely and state facts and opinions instead of trying to come of as the better person.

98 points by ojbyrne 16y ago

I hope they're successful in getting TSA's ridiculous policy changed. One shouldn't have to choose between being unnecessarily irradiated and virtually strip-searched or being sexually assaulted (in any other context, TSA's new pat-down procedures would be classified as criminal sexual conduct) just to ride on an airplane.

sp332 16y ago
It's just a normal pat-down, the kind that might be given by an officer of the law to someone reasonably suspected to be armed and dangerous. It's not like the pat-downs themselves are unusual, it's that the TSA doesn't have cause (or maybe even authority) to do these pat-downs. Also, it's not sexual, so it can't possibly be sexual assault. Assault or battery is about the most you could claim.
- barrkel 16y ago
  TSA agents aren't officers of the law. You might consider it non-sexual, but try asking a rape victim instead. I most certainly consider someone touching my private parts a sexual assault; and the fact that it's institutionalized doesn't make it any less a scandal. Don't be under any illusions; people who enjoy this kind of thing will see it as an interesting alternative career choice to school janitor etc. If the scanners become mandatory here in the UK for going to the US (they aren't on Virgin Atlantic flying out of Heathrow, last time I checked, a couple of weeks back), I'll probably have to quit my job, as I will no longer want to travel.
  - sp332 16y ago
    Yeah, that's what I meant when I said they might not have authority. But they have been delegated that authority by the DHS, which does have cabinet-level executive status. So it's arguable. It's interesting how you consider any interaction with your "private parts" to be sexual in nature. If you lean against a table, are you having sex with it? Are you having sex with your underwear right now?? The agent isn't touching you sexually, so it's not sexual assault.
    - sp4rki 16y ago
      If I lean against a table it's not sexual, but when the table grabs my balls it sure as hell is. What I find interesting is that you equate an inanimate object in contact with a sexual organ with a human being fondling your penis, vagina, or breasts. I honestly care less about the pats, if a dude or dudette wants to touch my balls and buttocks to make sure I'm not packing (pun intended), then go ahead. But to see them extend this same courtesy to grandmothers and little children is disgusting, unnecessary, and irresponsible.
      - sixtofour 16y ago
        An argument could be made, a really depressing argument in so many ways, that including children and grandmothers in the TSA's sexual assaults is for their protection, because if they were exempt, they could be targets for hiding contraband.
        sp4rki 16y ago
        But what happens when terrorist children shove explosives inside themselves through their anuses, or when terrorist grandma shoves a handgun inside her vagina? It's a very slippery slope to climb without a safety-line mate. The minimal increase in security this new procedures allows is just too small in contrast to the vast damage it does towards people's liberties and towards avoiding precedents that could influence some Big Brother type of behavior. This might sound awful, but a terrorist attack is most likely to be thwarted because some agents doing profiling decided to be extra careful with Muslims (and this is just an example, I'm not targeting Muslims in any way), than because we have xray machines that strip people naked.
        sixtofour 16y ago
        I'm not making the argument that I noted, I'm just pointing out that it fits within the twisted logic of our current situation. I agree with your points, and I don't feel any safer for the new procedures. Indeed, I feel less safe, because the TSA's efforts are misdirected, and the TSA has demonstrated its disdain for me, my rights and my dignity.
- sp4rki 16y ago
  The pat downs are sexual in nature because they are done by rubbing the palms against the persons body including the genitals and breasts on women. A police officer conducts this type of pat-down when a person is arrested or is in the process of being arrested or detained because there is a sufficient threat indicator. What the TSA is doing is saying that either you get irradiated and people get to see you naked, or you're a potential terrorist/criminal.

terryjsmith 16y ago

I can't get behind this, especially when it comes to kids. I really hope that someone finds proof they do store images and sues the US government/TSA for child pornography or something similar. While I doubt this opt-out day will gain serious traction to make a decision, I agree that the best thing to do is continue to call media attention to and scrutinize it.

philfreo 16y ago
The TSA has asserted that the machines cannot store pictures, but security personnel at a courthouse in Florida were found to not only have saved images but shared them among colleagues in order to humiliate one of their coworkers.
- terryjsmith 16y ago
  I saw that, but it's not enough. Someone needs to send some of these pictures (even better, pictures of congress members) to Wikileaks or a similar organization to really push this forward.
d2viant 16y ago
Generally speaking, you can't sue the U.S. Government.
- jarin 16y ago
  Sure you can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act

torme 16y ago

Well, I'll be flying that day, but I would probably opt out without the designated day.

ahi 16y ago
Same here. Except I like to think of it as opting in for a rub down.

jambo 16y ago

The TSA is now calling National Opt-Out Day "irresponsible." John Pistole, TSA Administrator: "On the eve of a major national holiday and less than one year after al Qaida's failed attack last Christmas Day, it is irresponsible for a group to suggest travelers opt out of the very screening that could prevent an attack using non-metallic explosives." http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/11/12/131275949/protests-mount-over-safety-and-privacy-of-airport-scanners http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/11/12/131275949/protest... That, to me, doesn't jive with their stance that body scanners aren't a big deal because you can opt out. To me, it confirms that opt-out "enhanced pat-downs" were introduced to intimidate people into being scanned.

physcab 16y ago
To me it reads "if you want airport security to go faster so you can get to your plane on time and see your family in time, listen to and trust TSA personnel"
SkyMarshal 16y ago
"On the eve of a major national holiday and less than one year after al Qaida's failed attack last Christmas Day, it is irresponsible for a group to suggest travelers opt out of the very screening that could prevent an attack using non-metallic explosives." He seems to be overlooking the possibility that things are getting so bad with the TSA that increasing numbers of travelers would rather take their chances with terrorists and underwear bombs than submit to the TSA's heavy-handed, dehumanizing procedures.
- jambo 16y ago
  And that no security measure at the airport will prevent a threat before the security checkpoint. With or without people opting out of the body scanners, security checkpoints are bottlenecks (something that the scanners have, in fact, exacerbated) and therefore vulnerable.
- jamesbritt 16y ago
  My biggest terror fear is the TSA.

sp332 16y ago

Ugh, it makes me sad to see everyone blaming these people for "holding up the line." No, it's the TSA, who decided to treat every passenger as a criminal suspect, who are holding up the line!

pinchyfingers 16y ago

Too few people will even give the scanners a second thought. Unfortunately, most people are satiated enough to watch their freedom gradually erode without realizing what's happening. I don't know how far this call to opt-out will spread, but if enough people opt-out to draw the attention of those who haven't paid attention yet, things might change. It takes a lot of effort to match government sponsored indoctrination. If this works at all, it might lead to a lot more people waking up and saying 'no' to the bullshit constantly being shoved down their throats.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

ojbyrne 16y ago
Actually, given the additional delays for security, trips under ~ 250 miles, buses and trains are a viable alternative. I'd suspect that those routes are rapidly becoming more profitable for ground transport. Maybe that can help with investment in high speed trains.
- geophile 16y ago
  The TSA Radius is the distance below which you'd rather drive than fly. (I invented this term, but feel free to use it.) As far as I'm concerned, they've just increased the TSA Radius to infinity.
natnat 16y ago
I generally agree that there is way too much corporate control of the American government, but this is a pretty great example of how laws sometimes do nothing but hurt corporations. Because I don't want to put up with this bullshit, I will take the (less profitable) bus or drive when I'm travelling fairly short distances. The airlines lose out, the oil companies lose out, and the airplane manufacturers lose out. I save a little money that I otherwise wouldn't have spent. If the airlines were a powerful lobbying force, they would try to streamline the process of flying to attract get more people through in less time. The government decided that making people feel like they were safe from terrorists was more important than satisfying the airline lobbyists, so they chose to create security theater.
jberryman 16y ago
So in your opinion, silently boycotting corporations is the only effective thing you can do? What a depressing world view, and one that seems extremely ignorant of American history.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

jim_h 16y ago

If anybody knows people in tv or radio, it'd be good to get the word out. Opt-Out Day is Nov 24th. The day before Thanksgiving. It's going to be packed and slow without people opting out. Make sure to remind the mad people that it's the TSA that's forcing you get a pat down.

henry81 16y ago

I fly out the Friday after this and will absolutely be opting out.

aneth 16y ago

This anti scanner fad stinks of mob mentality and hysteria. There is no evidence images have been stored at airports or that harm is caused by scans. There is a pathetic lack of rational discussion of factual policies and why such policies might be necessary, whether we like them or not. I expect more from the HN crowd. Someone want to fill us on on facts instead of speculation and fear mongering?

tumult 16y ago
Sure. These machines cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, offer no additional security, and take naked pictures of you. There really isn't much to discuss.
- aneth 16y ago
  How does a full body scan not provide additional security over a metal detector? Another absurd counterintuitive postulate based on no evidence. Follow that up with "no discussion necessary" and you have mass hysteria.
  - danilocampos 16y ago
    The scan is for detecting additional, nonmetallic threats, especially explosives. Just one problem: nothing in the new procedures can prevent moving the same thing via your rectum. So if we want to pretend everyone will adhere to a specific conception of the threat model, sure, spend a bunch of money and alienate the traveling public.
    - aneth 16y ago
      So because it doesn't provide absolute security it doesn't provide "additional" security? Those are two very different things.
      - danilocampos 16y ago
        It provides incremental security at a cost to our civil liberties and taxes that is orders of magnitude greater than existing policy.

nphase 16y ago

This reminds me of all those Facebook groups telling people to protest OPEC by not buying gas on X day.

orangecat 16y ago
The gas "boycotts" are stupid, because they just shift sales to the days before and after. This could have a meaningful impact, because it really will increase the number of molestations that TSA agents have to perform.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

mark_l_watson 16y ago

As I just ranted on my blog: call your Congressional representatives and ask them how they would feel about their wives and kids being groped. BTW, the backscatter scanners might prove to be very unsafe.

techiferous 16y ago

This reminds me of Gandhi's non-cooperation attitude and shrewdness in dealing with unjust people or policies in power. As an individual, you are powerless when you go through the security line. As a group, however, the American people have all of the power. Because this is both a democracy and a capitalist country (however flawed it may be), if there is an organized and concerted effort against the TSA policies, they simply cannot stand. Congress would not be able to oppose a unified voice of the people saying "this is not okay" and the airlines would not be able to tolerate a significant reduction in customers (and therefore would put pressure on the TSA to change its policies). Gandhi organized a "day of prayer and fasting" which was basically a general strike of all of India. It was a wake-up call to the British. If somebody organized a "do not fly" day where no one flew, that would probably be a bigger wake-up call than opting out of the scan. Sometimes you have to give up some temporary convenience or comfort to send a message to those in power that you don't agree. During the Montgomery bus boycott, people stopped using the bus and this was extremely inconvenient but they would rather not trade their dignity for convenience.

trunnell 16y ago
would rather not trade their dignity for convenience I wonder if that idea is still as powerful today.
synnik 16y ago
The major difference between this situation and any efforts of Gandhi or the civil rights movement is one of leadership. An entire country would (and did) follow Gandhi. I don't think there is a single person in the US whom everyone would follow for a day. Especially if it meant shutting down all business travel during that day.
- techiferous 16y ago
  I tend to agree; however, if the issue was important enough I think that a significant portion of our population would organize to achieve a goal. Look at how many people showed up for the rally to restore fear and/or sanity which actually didn't have any stated goals.

trunnell 16y ago

This protest might not slow down security lines. These new scanners are pretty slow to begin with. When I went through SFO recently it took 1-2 minutes to go through the scanner. The slowness seemed to be a combination of the instructions given to the flyer for positioning themselves inside the device, the slowness of the device itself, and the slack in the line. In any case, I remember thinking that a pat-down might actually be quicker.

barrkel 16y ago
The speed of the magnetometer lines have always been gated by the hand-luggage x-ray machine, in my experience; usually a magnetometer arch is shared by two lines. To hear some people claim that these things will speed up the lines is pretty ludicrous, especially considering that you need to take more stuff out of your pockets. And then there's the wonderful cost implications. The machines are already 20x more expensive than the magnetometer arches, as I understand it, so the total cost to make up the numbers (to get the speed back through parallelism) could be 40x or more, tens of millions for every decent-sized checkpoint.
icefox 16y ago
Recently when I choose not to go through the digital strip search they spent a good 20 minutes going through my stuff, asking me questions and getting a pat down.
- cheald 16y ago
  The point is that if enough people are opting out, it's going to be a lot harder for them to take the time to individually harass people.
  - prodigal_erik 16y ago
    Not harder, just slower, and why would they care about that? There are many people with enough empathy and diligence to feel bad if you miss your flight. But I don't see how any of them could stomach working for TSA.

jberryman 16y ago

Not sure how feasible or legal it is to do this, but a good strategy for a demonstration might be to hand out fliers to people waiting in the security line. On the fliers would be some information on the new security policy and body scanners and an example image of a body scan. Also attached would be a sticker that says "opt out". That we people can make an informed and visible decision before they encounter the TSA pressure.

nitrogen 16y ago
Better yet, t-shirts. The front of the t-shirt is innocuous (so the security guards don't get alarmed too early), but the back explains the body scan process to everyone in line behind you, with example images.
- sixtofour 16y ago
  Wear your Fourth Amendment tshirt whenever you fly.
techiferous 16y ago
It would also be nice to include some objective, unbiased data explaining how effective these types of security measures are at preventing terrorist attacks.
barrkel 16y ago
I was wondering if it would make sense to hand out dosimeters instead, to encourage people to think about what they're submitting to.

seles 16y ago

There seems to be debate about whether or not this day is good or bad. But it is pretty simple if the scanners are good the day is bad, if the scanners are bad then the day is good. This is the real issue, but there has probably been alot of debate about this already? What made you take your current stance? I went though the body scanner this Monday in Cincinnati, well aware of the fact that they can see your penis etc (and it was cold that day...). It didn't bother me that much, but it was much more time consuming than going through the old metal detectors, and I don't like the fact that this could be harmful (but I haven't researched how credible this is).

barrkel 16y ago
We have to draw the line somewhere; if not here, they'll push the line further, and further. The TSA has no motive to do a cost-benefit analysis: the force pushing them forward is risk, no matter how small, but the only force pushing back against them is how much budget they can get out of the American taxpayer. The saliency of terrorism fears overpowers analytic reason in too many people. A quick search indicates there are over 87,000 flights daily in the US alone; that puts the number at over a quarter billion flights without a successful terrorist incident in the absence of these scanners.

jim_h 16y ago

If you opt-out, please be respectful to the TSA security people. They're just working and can't change the policies for you. Most of them are not in high positions and can't just walk away and find another job the next day/week. So they're not quitting no matter how rudely you treat them. No point to it and it'll just make them grumpy towards you and everybody after you. It's best to just talk to them like a regular person and be nice about it. It'll make the pat down experience better for you and them. Just ask them to send the word upstream. edit - Why was I voted down? Is someone suggesting that you should act like a douche bag to the staff?

blahblahblah 16y ago
Actually, I'm kind of surprised that no TSA agents have fought this and turned the situation into a hostile work environment lawsuit payday yet. Coming soon to a courtroom near you... Attorney: Could you please tell the court in your own words about the events leading up to your termination from TSA? Plaintiff: I refused to perform enhanced pat-down procedures on the grounds that this procedure constituted criminal sexual conduct. I was repeatedly reprimanded for my refusal to participate in illegal conduct and subsequently terminated for this...
miles 16y ago
See tptacek's comment from a few weeks ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1849035 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1849035
- jim_h 16y ago
  The post may have gotten a lot of up votes, but it doesn't mean he/she is right. I'm pretty sure that those low TSA people would LOVE to get a better job, but guess what they're there and that's the reality of it. In a better reality, we wouldn't have this security theater. However, we should focus our angry/energy towards solutions that will bring better results. Besides, if they quit, there lines of people to take their place. The economy isn't that great and there's lots of people looking for jobs. (I'm not saying let them keep their jobs and security theater. Just saying not need waste energy on being rude to them.)

karzeem 16y ago

One of the great things about this backlash is that it springs mostly from just a handful of small, mostly web-based efforts. Jonah Goldberg's post arguably kicked off this latest, biggest anti-body-scanner outcry. Among web sites: http://www.optoutday.com http://www.optoutday.com is probably the most notable. http://wewontfly.com http://wewontfly.com is another biggie. http://www.imadethetsafeelmyresistance.com http://www.imadethetsafeelmyresistance.com (disclosure: I made it) has gotten a bunch of traffic too. There are lots of others. This whole thing has heated up a lot in the last week or two. And I suspect the next week or two are going to be a lot bigger.

Gibbon 16y ago

I'm emigrating from Canada to New Zealand and we're flying on Nov. 25. Since I'm near the border, we're flying from Detroit to Fort Worth and then LA.. I am not looking forward to this flight. I've already had dozens of medical x-rays in the past few months, and don't particularly want to get another dose, however low it may be. On the other hand, opting out sounds really unpleasant. I especially don't want my wife potentially suffering that indignity at the hands of a male TSA agent (as some people have reported). I don't think I have the balls to opt-out this time around.. I just want to survive the 48 hour trip intact, with all my luggage.. but this will likely be the last time I fly through the US.

robfitz 16y ago
I've opted out twice and it really hasn't been a big deal. It's slightly slower, but the security guys treated me fine. It was no more invasive than being patted down before entering a nightclub to make sure you aren't carrying anything pointy. Given your health concerns, opting out seems like the clear choice (though bear in mind I'm pulling from a sample size of only 2).
- dalke 16y ago
  What kind of nightclubs do you go to? I've never seen that before. The most has been to check for ID.
  - robfitz 16y ago
    Welcome to Atlanta! ;)
hfinney 16y ago
There are two kinds of scanners. One uses low energy X-rays, the other uses microwaves. If you got the microwave kind, that would not add to your X-ray dose. I understand pat-downs within the U.S. are by same-sex agents. This wouldn't be the kind of thing they would get wrong.
- 16y ago

hyperbovine 16y ago

I'm so tired of seeing pictures like this: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/11/airport_scan_f.jpg http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/11/airpor... Classic red herring. You couldn't sneak a pistol through security before 9/11, you couldn't do it after 9/11, and the NakedTron 5000 doesn't do a damn thing to change that.

tptacek 16y ago
The press has been running stories about random people managing to get guns past airport security for literally decades.

siculars 16y ago

I think I will buy a ticket somewhere just so that I can participate.

daimyoyo 16y ago

I would recommend taking this one step further. Let's all find a day in the next few months where we simply refuse to fly. We can call it "dignity day". If air traffic was significantly down because of this, the airlines would start pressuring the TSA to back off. After all, keeping shareholders happy trumps whatever safety concerns we might have.

cheald 16y ago
This would be useless for the same reason that "Gas Out" boycotts are useless. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18492185/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18492185/ The only way to make an impact is to fly less, not to shift your flying dates around to avoid a given day.

aneth 16y ago

Really disappointed in the hackernews community for downing dissenting opinions in this thread. I understand this is an emotional issue for people but that doesn't excuse for immaturity. Fortunately my karma is pretty meaningless to me as much as I like to watch it go up (or down.)

sp4rki 16y ago
You called the communities opinion pathetic, based on some erroneous what "ifs" you came up with. Lot's of people just gave you their point of view on why you're wrong and others just down voted you because you didn't back up anything you said with facts. Here's my take: 1) I don't care about anyone seeing me naked, I've been working out for years, four times a week to look like I look now and if could walk butt naked everywhere I would. That doesn't mean that it's alright to look at other people's naked bodies, and sure as hell doesn't make right the possibility of a predator looking at naked children. 2) Regarding the scanner's radiation in no way is a healthy thing, and in the absence of actual proof stating if it's really negligible or if it poses a serious health risk, everyone should consider it dangerous. You're basically saying that it's OK to walk through that tight dark alley in the middle of a bad neighborhood at midnight because there's no proof that anyone has been killed or mugged there. I'd rather avoid that kind of situation unless completely necessary thank you very much. You wanted a rational discussion so I'm giving you a rational answer (I have no emotional issue with the topic at hand). I don't care about people touching me or seeing me naked, and I do care (albeit very little) about the potential health risks. I find your comment on how seeing someone's body through X-rays is not a big deal, but seeing someone's luggage through X-ray is a violation of privacy, preposterous and honestly laughable. Tell me what the big difference between looking into your luggage and looking at your naked body is that makes the latter so unimportant in comparison to the former. You made a comment for the sake of disagreeing (instead of saying anything of any value for the discussion) and then made some utterly incompetent remarks all the while calling people immature and basically saying their opinions have no value because you believe we're all cattle in the herd of the Anti-TSA fad. While I don't agree there was a necessity for down-votes, you're comments did add no value whatsoever so the people where in a way correct to do so. Next time if you're going to disagree do it politely and state facts and opinions instead of trying to come of as the better person.