5 ms·

TSA Agent about to scan pilot's daughter: "Heads up, got a cutie for you."

105 points by jarin 16y ago

eli 16y ago
I'm not sure this anonymous anecdote advances the debate about airport security in any meaningful way.
- protomyth 16y ago
  Anonymous anecdotes and writings have a long history of relevance in US. http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/ http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/
  - natrius 16y ago
    The Federalist Papers were not anecdotes. They were philosophy. Anecdotes must be true to be of any consequence, so the identity of the author helps to verify the anecdote. Philosophy just has to be correct, which makes the identity of the writer unimportant.
    - protomyth 16y ago
      Journalism has a long history of using anonymous sources so knowing the source is not a necessary item. In a lot of ways, I don't see as much distinction as you do between anecdotes and philosophy particularly with the writings of people who were talking about governing people.
- ezy 16y ago
  I think in aggregate, it helps. And it's hard to not be anonymous when you can be put on a black list. It's not like you're converting anecdotes to data in the typical sense. It's more that it illustrates the kind of abuse that can happen, and why people are so concerned. In some ways, it beats harping on ideals of privacy when you're dealing with organizations who are concerned with nothing but pure pragmatism. You can draw connections from these incidents to the ideals to show that these aren't isolated incidents, but a pattern that emerges when we ignore some ideals to pursue others. It's similar to the "bad apples" excuse applied to other disciplines -- yeah, you can say that a majority of police officers or investment bankers aren't total douchebags, but enough are that you have to look into why and what you should do about the problem. And the only way that happens is by pointing out particular incidents as they happen, over and over and over again.
- bhiggins 16y ago
  I agree, we should just not talk about it and let the government do whatever they see fit. Brilliant.
sliverstorm 16y ago
Wait... why are we having people do this anyway? Backscatter scans would be perfect if it wasn't for the privacy problem, so why aren't we using image processing software to look for objectionable objects etc instead of people?
- callahad 16y ago
  > Backscatter scans would be perfect if it wasn't for the privacy problem What about the safety problem? A few academics at UCSF drafted an open letter regarding the safety backscatter scanners, available at http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf Reading it firmly shifted my objection from one based on privacy to one based on safety. Therac-25 wasn't that long ago, after all. And, of course, let's not forget shoe fitting fluoroscopes.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- trafficlight 16y ago
  Because that doesn't create jobs. And every politician will tell you that we need to be creating jobs in these horrible times.
- makmanalp 16y ago
  Maybe it's easier to blame people than software? Or maybe we don't have enough samples of bomb carrying people to train software with?
- chc 16y ago
  People distrust technology. Even in cases where it's more reliable than a human (and I'm not sure this would be one), there's an inherent mistrust of machines making decisions.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- DevX101 16y ago
  Because you haven't done it yet. Do it, prove that it works, get a political or corporate sponsor for your product to roll it out, and help to solve this growing war between personal liberty and government security.
amichail 16y ago
Why can't they use better tech to make the images less objectionable without compromising security?
- hyperbovine 16y ago
  There are many objections; the nature of the images is only one. These procedures are also objectionable philosophically, medically, and ethically. Better tech isn't going to solve any of those problems.
krackpot 16y ago
Also relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TCHSGvNwRY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TCHSGvNwRY
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  [from the video] "come up with some sort of game with the child" Isn't that what most child molesters do?
xpaulbettsx 16y ago
I think the thing that bothers me the most about this situation is not the backscatter machine, but the punitive "enhanced pat-down". There has to be more reasonable ways to both ensure flight safety, without resorting to touching genitals.
- hyperbovine 16y ago
  > There has to be more reasonable ways to both ensure flight safety, without resorting to touching genitals. Maybe there are not. If the plot were executed correctly, the crotch bomber would have blown up the plane, and it doesn't sound like anything in the X-ray / metal detector system was set up to handle that. The point is, there is no such thing as "ensuring" flight safety. Along with the benefit of increased flight safety, to each added screening procedure is associated a cost of loss of personal freedom and privacy. The traditional debate has vastly overstated the former, and completely ignored the latter. People who are up in arms about the groping are calling for a fairer accounting. Terrorism is a very concentrated, visual form of evil, so the knee jerk reaction is that it must be stopped at all costs. Loss of freedom is, by contrast, diffuse and widespread, and people are less apt to become emotional over it. It's inherently difficult to balance the two, and yet it must be done.
marze 16y ago
Even if this anonymous post is completely fictional, I am certain this exact scenario plays out every single day at various US airports. Why would it not? A simple improvement would be to have separate scanning machines for males and females with a same sex screener. Also, a collection of x-ray scanner pictures of passengers of all ages and genders should be posted by the security line so everyone in line can make up their own mind if they want to be scanned or would prefer to opt out for manual screening.
- hyperbovine 16y ago
  What if you are gay? All the hoopla about "same-sex screeners" is so 1950s. The real solution is to dispense with screening procedures which are so invasive that sexualization becomes an issue.
  - natrius 16y ago
    The other solution is to lose the irrational fear of others seeing one's body. It would make me uncomfortable too, but that doesn't mean it's rational. The backscatter machines seem like less of an inconvenience than taking off your shoes and putting them back on every time you walk into an airport. If they actually do make things safer and don't cause any health issues, I don't see a problem with them.
    - hyperbovine 16y ago
      No, you are missing the point. I have absolutely no problem with nudity. Really: I go to hot springs and cavort naked with random strangers all the time. There is a much more profound philosophical issue here, and that is that the government should not have the freedom to conduct invasive searches with impunity. This is fundamentally engrained in the constitution, but as is its wont, technology has raced past our existing legal framework. We need to fundamentally re-examine the sort of society in which we wish to live in an age where almost any conceivable sort of search is made trivial. Where does it end? I contend that, if we simply acquiesce to these scanners and allow them to be installed in every airport, that will be but the tip of the iceberg. You will wake up some day in the near future and find these installed in every courthouse, train station, bus terminal, Federal building in the land. From there it's but a short leap to see them popping up at retail establishments, sporting events, movie theaters, and every other facet of your day-to-day life. Just like that, a privacy which nobody even thought to care about--the ability to conceal things on your person--has vanished into thin air. Where does it end? By your very logic, if the government had a machine that could read minds, you would be for it. Yet something tells me you would find that completely abhorrent. Where does it end?
chopsueyar 16y ago
Did anyone else read further into the thread where a fellow has been monitoring the TSA agents using a yeasu vx6r HT and recording the conversations with a digital audio recorder? He would then burn the inappropriate conversations to CD and send them to the TSA's office. Live streaming online would be great.

105 points by jarin 16y ago

eli 16y ago

I'm not sure this anonymous anecdote advances the debate about airport security in any meaningful way.

protomyth 16y ago
Anonymous anecdotes and writings have a long history of relevance in US. http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/ http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/
- natrius 16y ago
  The Federalist Papers were not anecdotes. They were philosophy. Anecdotes must be true to be of any consequence, so the identity of the author helps to verify the anecdote. Philosophy just has to be correct, which makes the identity of the writer unimportant.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    Journalism has a long history of using anonymous sources so knowing the source is not a necessary item. In a lot of ways, I don't see as much distinction as you do between anecdotes and philosophy particularly with the writings of people who were talking about governing people.
ezy 16y ago
I think in aggregate, it helps. And it's hard to not be anonymous when you can be put on a black list. It's not like you're converting anecdotes to data in the typical sense. It's more that it illustrates the kind of abuse that can happen, and why people are so concerned. In some ways, it beats harping on ideals of privacy when you're dealing with organizations who are concerned with nothing but pure pragmatism. You can draw connections from these incidents to the ideals to show that these aren't isolated incidents, but a pattern that emerges when we ignore some ideals to pursue others. It's similar to the "bad apples" excuse applied to other disciplines -- yeah, you can say that a majority of police officers or investment bankers aren't total douchebags, but enough are that you have to look into why and what you should do about the problem. And the only way that happens is by pointing out particular incidents as they happen, over and over and over again.
bhiggins 16y ago
I agree, we should just not talk about it and let the government do whatever they see fit. Brilliant.

sliverstorm 16y ago

Wait... why are we having people do this anyway? Backscatter scans would be perfect if it wasn't for the privacy problem, so why aren't we using image processing software to look for objectionable objects etc instead of people?

callahad 16y ago
> Backscatter scans would be perfect if it wasn't for the privacy problem What about the safety problem? A few academics at UCSF drafted an open letter regarding the safety backscatter scanners, available at http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf Reading it firmly shifted my objection from one based on privacy to one based on safety. Therac-25 wasn't that long ago, after all. And, of course, let's not forget shoe fitting fluoroscopes.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
trafficlight 16y ago
Because that doesn't create jobs. And every politician will tell you that we need to be creating jobs in these horrible times.
makmanalp 16y ago
Maybe it's easier to blame people than software? Or maybe we don't have enough samples of bomb carrying people to train software with?
chc 16y ago
People distrust technology. Even in cases where it's more reliable than a human (and I'm not sure this would be one), there's an inherent mistrust of machines making decisions.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
DevX101 16y ago
Because you haven't done it yet. Do it, prove that it works, get a political or corporate sponsor for your product to roll it out, and help to solve this growing war between personal liberty and government security.

amichail 16y ago

Why can't they use better tech to make the images less objectionable without compromising security?

hyperbovine 16y ago
There are many objections; the nature of the images is only one. These procedures are also objectionable philosophically, medically, and ethically. Better tech isn't going to solve any of those problems.

krackpot 16y ago

Also relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TCHSGvNwRY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TCHSGvNwRY

burgerbrain 16y ago
[from the video] "come up with some sort of game with the child" Isn't that what most child molesters do?

xpaulbettsx 16y ago

I think the thing that bothers me the most about this situation is not the backscatter machine, but the punitive "enhanced pat-down". There has to be more reasonable ways to both ensure flight safety, without resorting to touching genitals.

hyperbovine 16y ago
> There has to be more reasonable ways to both ensure flight safety, without resorting to touching genitals. Maybe there are not. If the plot were executed correctly, the crotch bomber would have blown up the plane, and it doesn't sound like anything in the X-ray / metal detector system was set up to handle that. The point is, there is no such thing as "ensuring" flight safety. Along with the benefit of increased flight safety, to each added screening procedure is associated a cost of loss of personal freedom and privacy. The traditional debate has vastly overstated the former, and completely ignored the latter. People who are up in arms about the groping are calling for a fairer accounting. Terrorism is a very concentrated, visual form of evil, so the knee jerk reaction is that it must be stopped at all costs. Loss of freedom is, by contrast, diffuse and widespread, and people are less apt to become emotional over it. It's inherently difficult to balance the two, and yet it must be done.

marze 16y ago

Even if this anonymous post is completely fictional, I am certain this exact scenario plays out every single day at various US airports. Why would it not? A simple improvement would be to have separate scanning machines for males and females with a same sex screener. Also, a collection of x-ray scanner pictures of passengers of all ages and genders should be posted by the security line so everyone in line can make up their own mind if they want to be scanned or would prefer to opt out for manual screening.

hyperbovine 16y ago
What if you are gay? All the hoopla about "same-sex screeners" is so 1950s. The real solution is to dispense with screening procedures which are so invasive that sexualization becomes an issue.
- natrius 16y ago
  The other solution is to lose the irrational fear of others seeing one's body. It would make me uncomfortable too, but that doesn't mean it's rational. The backscatter machines seem like less of an inconvenience than taking off your shoes and putting them back on every time you walk into an airport. If they actually do make things safer and don't cause any health issues, I don't see a problem with them.
  - hyperbovine 16y ago
    No, you are missing the point. I have absolutely no problem with nudity. Really: I go to hot springs and cavort naked with random strangers all the time. There is a much more profound philosophical issue here, and that is that the government should not have the freedom to conduct invasive searches with impunity. This is fundamentally engrained in the constitution, but as is its wont, technology has raced past our existing legal framework. We need to fundamentally re-examine the sort of society in which we wish to live in an age where almost any conceivable sort of search is made trivial. Where does it end? I contend that, if we simply acquiesce to these scanners and allow them to be installed in every airport, that will be but the tip of the iceberg. You will wake up some day in the near future and find these installed in every courthouse, train station, bus terminal, Federal building in the land. From there it's but a short leap to see them popping up at retail establishments, sporting events, movie theaters, and every other facet of your day-to-day life. Just like that, a privacy which nobody even thought to care about--the ability to conceal things on your person--has vanished into thin air. Where does it end? By your very logic, if the government had a machine that could read minds, you would be for it. Yet something tells me you would find that completely abhorrent. Where does it end?

chopsueyar 16y ago

Did anyone else read further into the thread where a fellow has been monitoring the TSA agents using a yeasu vx6r HT and recording the conversations with a digital audio recorder? He would then burn the inappropriate conversations to CD and send them to the TSA's office. Live streaming online would be great.