4 ms·

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 t

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.
    - ugh 16y ago
      Civil disobedience is luckily not the only way to reverse policy decisions. The topic seems to pick up a lot of steam even without masses of people refusing to be scanned. (I was very surprised to see that Spiegel Online [1] – one of the most popular if not the most popular news website in Germany – has the planned Thanksgiving boycott as its top-story [2] at the moment. That’s irrelevant for the discussion in the US but it shows that it’s a hot topic.) [1] http://www.spiegel.de http://www.spiegel.de [2] Pilots and Passangers Revolt Against Check Lunacy: http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/0,1518,729012,00.html http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/0,1518,729012,00.html
      - mkramlich 16y ago
        Agreed. I think organized synchronized boycotts would be much more effective than doing "civil disobedience" and/or drama queen shenanigans at the airport. Hit airlines in their wallet (and the related travel industries), and that will have a larger effect. Money talks. Large amounts of money talk loudly, especially to Congress.
ugh 16y ago
What I always wanted to know is whether non-US citizens (tourists, people with a visa) can opt out. The TSA website doesn’t seem to make any distinctions, it just says “imaging technology screening is optional for all passengers.“ [0] [0] http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/faqs.shtm http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/faqs.shtm
- Lewisham 16y ago
  I don't believe the TSA, at the routine level, make distinction between domestic and not (unless you fit a racial profile). It's when things heat up that the problems begin. Being arrested in the UK as a citizen of the UK is not a big deal IMHO, a night in a cell is a bummer, but not the end of the world. In the US, on a visa, I have no idea what is and isn't being recorded about me, and a reasonable amount of paranoia is required. As the OP said, the other aspect is that you are flying because you need to be somewhere and flight is the only option. This more heavily biases international travelers towards compliance, because they have a lot more to lose in time/money if they don't board their flight.

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.
  - ugh 16y ago
    Civil disobedience is luckily not the only way to reverse policy decisions. The topic seems to pick up a lot of steam even without masses of people refusing to be scanned. (I was very surprised to see that Spiegel Online [1] – one of the most popular if not the most popular news website in Germany – has the planned Thanksgiving boycott as its top-story [2] at the moment. That’s irrelevant for the discussion in the US but it shows that it’s a hot topic.) [1] http://www.spiegel.de http://www.spiegel.de [2] Pilots and Passangers Revolt Against Check Lunacy: http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/0,1518,729012,00.html http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/0,1518,729012,00.html
    - mkramlich 16y ago
      Agreed. I think organized synchronized boycotts would be much more effective than doing "civil disobedience" and/or drama queen shenanigans at the airport. Hit airlines in their wallet (and the related travel industries), and that will have a larger effect. Money talks. Large amounts of money talk loudly, especially to Congress.

ugh 16y ago

What I always wanted to know is whether non-US citizens (tourists, people with a visa) can opt out. The TSA website doesn’t seem to make any distinctions, it just says “imaging technology screening is optional for all passengers.“ [0] [0] http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/faqs.shtm http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/faqs.shtm

Lewisham 16y ago
I don't believe the TSA, at the routine level, make distinction between domestic and not (unless you fit a racial profile). It's when things heat up that the problems begin. Being arrested in the UK as a citizen of the UK is not a big deal IMHO, a night in a cell is a bummer, but not the end of the world. In the US, on a visa, I have no idea what is and isn't being recorded about me, and a reasonable amount of paranoia is required. As the OP said, the other aspect is that you are flying because you need to be somewhere and flight is the only option. This more heavily biases international travelers towards compliance, because they have a lot more to lose in time/money if they don't board their flight.