11 ms·

I wish I had the means to do what he's doing. But the problem for me, and for many other people I'd imagine, is that when I'm at an airport, chances are I've p

by acabal 16y ago

I wish I had the means to do what he's doing. But the problem for me, and for many other people I'd imagine, is that when I'm at an airport, chances are I've paid a very large amount of money to be at a certain place at a certain time for what is probably an important reason. Risking losing that much money and the possibility of not getting to where I need to be, even for the noble goal of civil disobedience to protest a ridiculous and screwed-up system, is just too daunting for me. All it takes is one TSA officer having a bad day and misinterpreting something I've said to send me and my bags home--and even if they're in the wrong, the only thing that can decide that is an expensive court case, and I'll still have missed my flight. I applaud people like this who remind the system that it works for us and not the other way around. I sadly can't take the risk of doing it myself.

jarin 16y ago
I'm in the same boat as you. I probably wouldn't go so far as to refuse both and get kicked out of the airport (although I would like to), but opting out of the scanner and going for "the grope" is probably the next best thing.
noodle 16y ago
i travel every few months and do have the means to do what he's doing. my main concern is that if i get kicked off the flight and my ticket refunded, what will happen to my checked luggage?
- pyre 16y ago
  You could always inquire with the airline.
- hfinney 16y ago
  Checked luggage will not fly on the plane without the passenger. Especially if he refused screening! They might want to search it some more but it will stay at the airport where you are.
  - marze 16y ago
    Incorrect. If you get a bite to eat and miss the last boarding call (flying US domestic) the flight will leave without you but with your luggage. The system would grind to a halt if this was not the case.
    - barrkel 16y ago
      I accidentally downvoted you (phone). You're perfectly correct, as anyone who's just missed a flight will attest.
      - dotBen 16y ago
        I'm not sure, and it's an interesting question. I've been on international flights where we've been waiting on the tarmac to depart and a flight attendent has announced on the PA system that "we're just waiting to have the bags removed of someone who missed their flight".
        _delirium 16y ago
        I believe the current policy is strict for international flights (no bag without a passenger, must remove it if passenger misses flight), but looser on domestic flights. Not 100% sure that's true, but digging in some air-travel forums comes up with airline employees claiming the same thing as of late-2009.
        salvadors 16y ago
        There are lots of cases where baggage gets delayed or waylaid, and so the passenger ends up flying without their luggage. They then send that luggage onwards on the next flight — obviously without the passenger. Yes, it would be hard to engineer that to happen, so it's not very useful to someone planning to do something nasty with it — but it does mean there can't be a strict no bag without passenger rule.
        saileshkrish 16y ago
- rdtsc 16y ago
  The bigger problem, I think, is ending up on some black list. So next time you want to fly and don't choose to participate in the "enhanced" version of the security theater, you might find yourself pulled out of the line "randomly" every single damn time. Also there is no way to get off the black list, possibly ever. That is a pretty high price to pay.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
random42 16y ago
But the problem for me, and for many other people I'd imagine, is that when I'm at an airport, chances are I've paid a very large amount of money to be at a certain place at a certain time for what is probably an important reason Freedom does not come cheap.
Lewisham 16y ago
I feel the same way. As a non-US citizen, I essentially have zero rights when it comes to many things in this country, and probably can look forward to seeing the inside of a cell if I tried asserting any peaceful disobedience at an airport (not to mention say goodbye to any chance of citizenship). It does seem, however, that the dam is about to break on the TSA. The number of stories I see on the net seems to show dissent skyrocketing, although I admit this is a limited sample.
- Silhouette 16y ago
  > It does seem, however, that the dam is about to break on the TSA. The number of stories I see on the net seems to show dissent skyrocketing, although I admit this is a limited sample. The trouble is, increasing dissent by 100x still doesn't make much of a dent if it just means 99.9% of people are willing to be abused instead of the 99.999% it was before. From the comments by security staff typically quoted in these articles, it sounds like almost everyone sucks it up in practice, whether because they don't care or because they're too worried about not being able to make an important journey to protest the point.
  - ugh 16y ago
    I don’t think the percentage of people who won’t opt out is all that important. It would be a nice additional argument but it’s not really essential for the fight. A few thousand outraged people with good connections, good stories and media that picks them up is sometimes all it takes.
    - Silhouette 16y ago
      It's important from a practical point of view. If 99.9% of people will consent to a certain government abuse, even if they do not condone it, then the government can commit that abuse and deal offensively with the other 0.1%. If 9% of people will consent to the abuse, dealing with the other 91% offensively doesn't work. This is what civil disobedience is ultimately all about: enforcing a law that most people don't agree with is not a sustainable approach, because there are always a lot more people than law enforcers.
poet 16y ago
Imagine how difficult it would be if you had to fight for your liberties in the first place. Consider situations like these the cost of maintenance. If you don't have the financial means to bear risk like this man did, there are certainly other ways to participate like calling your representatives and writing letters.
mseebach 16y ago
Get the cheapest fare you can get out of your local airport to where-ever. Go there, do this, go home. If you make it through, just don't get on the flight. Be nice to the airline though, they're not a fault (in this issue, at least). Get there early, let them know (afterwards) that you're not flying. Don't trouble them with a refund. Keep in mind that you're probably violating the T&Cs by not intending to get on the flight.
- imajes 16y ago
  there's a real risk if you do this that you'll end up on the no fly. at least take a flight someplace, earn some miles and come back. Otherwise you may be seen to be performing surveillance, and that can land you in hot water.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    And you know this because of the 0 documented cases of this happening, and your years of experience in counterterrorism operations?
- napierzaza 16y ago
  That's tricky because there's a big possibility you won't even go through the backscatter. So anyone wanting to do this is not guaranteed to get their chance. Unless you have a printer toner cartridge with you. Fight on.
philwelch 16y ago
In all the TSA discussions on Hacker News, people seem to have settled on a procedure which is maximally inconvenient for the TSA but should still allow you to catch your flight: opt out of the backscatter scanning, request a supervisor to be present during the pat down to make sure you're not sexually abused, and make sure they do the pat down in the public screening area rather than a private room. You do get groped, but it makes an impression on the other travelers, slows down the system, and makes the groping agent uncomfortable, which are all positive outcomes in terms of protesting the system.
- ams6110 16y ago
  The notion that a TSA pat-down is in any way, shape, or form equivalent to "sexual abuse" is an insult to anyone who has been a victim of the real thing.
  - Lewisham 16y ago
    "Sexual abuse" is a very wide spectrum. Unwanted touching is where is begins. That is not to cheapen those who have suffered at the other end of the spectrum.
    - mkramlich 16y ago
      I disagree. It's a spectrum that is as wide or as narrow as you wish it to be. I personally think it's more narrow than many others do here on HN, for example. I think a real lame effect that happens though is that the instant someone uses the word assault or abuse it suggests much more evil or sexually explicit or intimate acts than what an actual specific situation may have involved. The phrase "sexual assault" can start off being applied to a hand on the back or kiss on the cheek, and then as the description of the event propagates across many people or channels, suddenly it can morph into "rape" or "molestation" -- even though traditionally those words refer to much more serious and specific, intimate and/or violent sexual acts. It's one of the things I think we as a society, in any general public forum, with no serious moderation or curation or participant filtering (like HN, in my judgment) cannot discuss intelligently or productively because it's always vulnerable to this particular thought error, among others.
jrockway 16y ago
Donate to the ACLU so that when someone who does have the means to do something like this and gets taken to court, they get the legal help they need to win. You don't have to be an activist to take action.

by acabal 16y ago

jarin 16y ago

I'm in the same boat as you. I probably wouldn't go so far as to refuse both and get kicked out of the airport (although I would like to), but opting out of the scanner and going for "the grope" is probably the next best thing.

noodle 16y ago

i travel every few months and do have the means to do what he's doing. my main concern is that if i get kicked off the flight and my ticket refunded, what will happen to my checked luggage?

pyre 16y ago
You could always inquire with the airline.
hfinney 16y ago
Checked luggage will not fly on the plane without the passenger. Especially if he refused screening! They might want to search it some more but it will stay at the airport where you are.
- marze 16y ago
  Incorrect. If you get a bite to eat and miss the last boarding call (flying US domestic) the flight will leave without you but with your luggage. The system would grind to a halt if this was not the case.
  - barrkel 16y ago
    I accidentally downvoted you (phone). You're perfectly correct, as anyone who's just missed a flight will attest.
    - dotBen 16y ago
      I'm not sure, and it's an interesting question. I've been on international flights where we've been waiting on the tarmac to depart and a flight attendent has announced on the PA system that "we're just waiting to have the bags removed of someone who missed their flight".
      - _delirium 16y ago
        I believe the current policy is strict for international flights (no bag without a passenger, must remove it if passenger misses flight), but looser on domestic flights. Not 100% sure that's true, but digging in some air-travel forums comes up with airline employees claiming the same thing as of late-2009.
        salvadors 16y ago
        There are lots of cases where baggage gets delayed or waylaid, and so the passenger ends up flying without their luggage. They then send that luggage onwards on the next flight — obviously without the passenger. Yes, it would be hard to engineer that to happen, so it's not very useful to someone planning to do something nasty with it — but it does mean there can't be a strict no bag without passenger rule.
      - saileshkrish 16y ago
rdtsc 16y ago
The bigger problem, I think, is ending up on some black list. So next time you want to fly and don't choose to participate in the "enhanced" version of the security theater, you might find yourself pulled out of the line "randomly" every single damn time. Also there is no way to get off the black list, possibly ever. That is a pretty high price to pay.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

random42 16y ago

But the problem for me, and for many other people I'd imagine, is that when I'm at an airport, chances are I've paid a very large amount of money to be at a certain place at a certain time for what is probably an important reason Freedom does not come cheap.

Lewisham 16y ago

I feel the same way. As a non-US citizen, I essentially have zero rights when it comes to many things in this country, and probably can look forward to seeing the inside of a cell if I tried asserting any peaceful disobedience at an airport (not to mention say goodbye to any chance of citizenship). It does seem, however, that the dam is about to break on the TSA. The number of stories I see on the net seems to show dissent skyrocketing, although I admit this is a limited sample.

Silhouette 16y ago
> It does seem, however, that the dam is about to break on the TSA. The number of stories I see on the net seems to show dissent skyrocketing, although I admit this is a limited sample. The trouble is, increasing dissent by 100x still doesn't make much of a dent if it just means 99.9% of people are willing to be abused instead of the 99.999% it was before. From the comments by security staff typically quoted in these articles, it sounds like almost everyone sucks it up in practice, whether because they don't care or because they're too worried about not being able to make an important journey to protest the point.
- ugh 16y ago
  I don’t think the percentage of people who won’t opt out is all that important. It would be a nice additional argument but it’s not really essential for the fight. A few thousand outraged people with good connections, good stories and media that picks them up is sometimes all it takes.
  - Silhouette 16y ago
    It's important from a practical point of view. If 99.9% of people will consent to a certain government abuse, even if they do not condone it, then the government can commit that abuse and deal offensively with the other 0.1%. If 9% of people will consent to the abuse, dealing with the other 91% offensively doesn't work. This is what civil disobedience is ultimately all about: enforcing a law that most people don't agree with is not a sustainable approach, because there are always a lot more people than law enforcers.

poet 16y ago

Imagine how difficult it would be if you had to fight for your liberties in the first place. Consider situations like these the cost of maintenance. If you don't have the financial means to bear risk like this man did, there are certainly other ways to participate like calling your representatives and writing letters.

mseebach 16y ago

Get the cheapest fare you can get out of your local airport to where-ever. Go there, do this, go home. If you make it through, just don't get on the flight. Be nice to the airline though, they're not a fault (in this issue, at least). Get there early, let them know (afterwards) that you're not flying. Don't trouble them with a refund. Keep in mind that you're probably violating the T&Cs by not intending to get on the flight.

imajes 16y ago
there's a real risk if you do this that you'll end up on the no fly. at least take a flight someplace, earn some miles and come back. Otherwise you may be seen to be performing surveillance, and that can land you in hot water.
- jrockway 16y ago
  And you know this because of the 0 documented cases of this happening, and your years of experience in counterterrorism operations?
napierzaza 16y ago
That's tricky because there's a big possibility you won't even go through the backscatter. So anyone wanting to do this is not guaranteed to get their chance. Unless you have a printer toner cartridge with you. Fight on.

philwelch 16y ago

In all the TSA discussions on Hacker News, people seem to have settled on a procedure which is maximally inconvenient for the TSA but should still allow you to catch your flight: opt out of the backscatter scanning, request a supervisor to be present during the pat down to make sure you're not sexually abused, and make sure they do the pat down in the public screening area rather than a private room. You do get groped, but it makes an impression on the other travelers, slows down the system, and makes the groping agent uncomfortable, which are all positive outcomes in terms of protesting the system.

ams6110 16y ago
The notion that a TSA pat-down is in any way, shape, or form equivalent to "sexual abuse" is an insult to anyone who has been a victim of the real thing.
- Lewisham 16y ago
  "Sexual abuse" is a very wide spectrum. Unwanted touching is where is begins. That is not to cheapen those who have suffered at the other end of the spectrum.
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    I disagree. It's a spectrum that is as wide or as narrow as you wish it to be. I personally think it's more narrow than many others do here on HN, for example. I think a real lame effect that happens though is that the instant someone uses the word assault or abuse it suggests much more evil or sexually explicit or intimate acts than what an actual specific situation may have involved. The phrase "sexual assault" can start off being applied to a hand on the back or kiss on the cheek, and then as the description of the event propagates across many people or channels, suddenly it can morph into "rape" or "molestation" -- even though traditionally those words refer to much more serious and specific, intimate and/or violent sexual acts. It's one of the things I think we as a society, in any general public forum, with no serious moderation or curation or participant filtering (like HN, in my judgment) cannot discuss intelligently or productively because it's always vulnerable to this particular thought error, among others.

jrockway 16y ago

Donate to the ACLU so that when someone who does have the means to do something like this and gets taken to court, they get the legal help they need to win. You don't have to be an activist to take action.