7 ms·

When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.

422 points by Rickasaurus 16y ago

batasrki 16y ago
A positive spin on this idiotic story, nicely done. Activism need not be violent nor do people need to be yelled at or talked down to. I still firmly believe that any TSA employee who doesn't want to be a part of this should refuse to, just as any traveller should refuse to go through the machine. But, there need not be drama. In fact, I'd say that refusal without drama and in public has a more powerful effect than any verbal argument might.
- Legion 16y ago
  > Activism need not be violent nor do people need to be yelled at or talked down to. The lack of self-righteousness in the story was extremely refreshing. As the author said: "Information, properly delivered, is power." Emphasis mine.
  - eru 16y ago
    Yes. The article also shows the power of wearing Vibram FiveFingers.
verdant 16y ago
This is what I have been thinking. If enough people refuse, its so inconvenient for them that they don't bother to hassle you.
danilocampos 16y ago
Never underestimate the potential for convincing an underpaid federal employee to cut corners. If you make this stuff too inconvenient for the guys on the ground, the policy gets eroded from the inside. Until Napolitano cracks down. But that's several moves ahead.
- ck2 16y ago
  I think most of them are intoxicated on the power, I mean how much would someone have to pay you to grope people all day? I'd quit in an hour. Have you seen the photo where this horrifying parody http://imgur.com/Nu5f8.jpg http://imgur.com/Nu5f8.jpg is the wallpaper on the computer screen in the TSA office? http://imgur.com/1xFBp.jpg http://imgur.com/1xFBp.jpg I mean think about the mentality - in the very workplace they do it.
  - danilocampos 16y ago
    I'm actually more horrified by my tax dollars paying for the TSA to sit in Herman Miller chairs, but damn. Beggars belief.
    - sliverstorm 16y ago
      There are possibly some good reasons for that. If your employee sits most of the day, and you are covering his medical expenses, perhaps it is a good idea to get him a chair that doesn't screw up his body.
      - eru 16y ago
        You should get your employee a standing desk instead.
      - jbooth 16y ago
        Pff, why should common sense get in the way of some good bitching about tax dollars? I'm sick of my tax dollars paying for their computers, they should have to type stuff up themselves in triplicate.
  - scott_s 16y ago
    Saying "I would do X when presented with Y" is easy to say when you have not been presented with Y. Regarding the wallpaper, yes, it's inappropriate. Perhaps it is an indication that the people are drunk with power. But it could also be another instance of people in an uncomfortable situation using humor as a coping mechanism.
ck2 16y ago
How dumb are people to not realize it's radiation one way or another? Do they think it's "magic" they can see through your clothes? How can there be a class action lawsuit against printer ink, but not against radiating you for no reason with devices that have no track record? Where are these devices for entering Congress or the Whitehouse if they are so safe? So would the President choose the radiation naked picture method or the deep groping method for his daughters? I'd seriously like that question asked at some point by the press. ps. Even if you opt-out, you are probably being exposed to whatever radiation method they use. Note how in this photo the person in line, not just the person in the scanner is being exposed: http://i.imgur.com/NycwX.jpg http://i.imgur.com/NycwX.jpg
- johns 16y ago
  > Do they think it's "magic" they can see through your clothes? Yes.
- lylejohnson 16y ago
  > So would the President choose the radiation naked picture method or the deep groping method for his daughters? I'd seriously like that question asked at some point by the press. No one in the press has the guts to ask him this. But man, I'd love to see that too.
  - ck2 16y ago
    To be fair, not just the President but also any Congressperson/Senator that is interviewed for the rest of the year on any program. Which one do you want your mother/children experiencing, naked picture radiation, deep groping, or would you instead choose the $10,000 fine for leaving (and possibly being put on the no-fly list forever)?
    - shaddi 16y ago
      Maybe I'm just cynical but I'd imagine the answer would be something like, "The scanner. The devices are safe and we feel their use is important for ensuring the safety of US citizens. Next question?"
sliverstorm 16y ago
Further proof that social engineering is, as always, far more effective than direct hacking at getting through security with a payload, even when that payload may not be bytecode.
swolchok 16y ago
I thought it was established on HN that that letter about safety had been properly addressed (it's from April).
- mbreese 16y ago
  Yes, the letter is from April, but not many people buy the FDA response to the letter. See: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/11/fda-sidesteps-safety-concerns-over-tsa-body-scanners.ars http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/11/fda-sidesteps-sa... 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...
jambo 16y ago
I agree that having to choose between flying and getting groped/strip-scanned or not flying is ridiculous, and I'm happy that he and others were able to circumvent this. But he says they were using Millimeter Wave Scanners, which as far as I can tell, and contrary to his argument, do not use x-rays. That letter refers to another type of machine, x-ray backscatter scanners.
- batasrki 16y ago
  Well, firstly, the fact that the TSA employee didn't challenge that statement tells me that either that employee isn't properly informed or he/she knows more than what is publicly known. I'm gonna go on a limb and say it's the former rather than latter. Secondly, it shouldn't be a question of whether the machine is x-ray or millimeter wave. Both of those emit radiation and until there's definitive proof that one or both do not cause damage, they shouldn't be in use.
  - jambo 16y ago
    I'm not arguing for them. I'm arguing for arguing well.
  - ars 16y ago
    There is definitive proof that millimeter wave does not cause cancer, considering it's basically far infrared light which hits you all day every day. Millimeter wave and X-ray scanners are not the same thing and should never be confused. I personally would never go through an X-ray scanner. Are the scanners marked in some way so I know which is which?
    - jcl 16y ago
      From an NPR blog entry: By the way, you might be wondering: Can the average traveler standing in a security line tell the difference? Yes, a TSA spokesman says. The X-ray type is blue and has two walls. The millimeter-wave machine is grayish-white and is more cylindrical. 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...
rgrove 16y ago
"No thanks, I’ve already had cancer, just feel me up or whatever." Brilliant!
- ck2 16y ago
  Even if you opt-out, you are probably being exposed to whatever radiation method they use. Note how in this photo the person in line, not just the person in the scanner is being exposed: http://i.imgur.com/NycwX.jpg http://i.imgur.com/NycwX.jpg
jbail 16y ago
Great moral: "Information, properly delivered, is power."
gasull 16y ago
Direct link to the printed letter (PDF): http://j.mp/cancer-ray http://j.mp/cancer-ray
yummyfajitas 16y ago
Just curious, does anyone have some hard evidence that the MWBS is a cancer risk? I ask this simply because anti-X activists have pushed junk science claims of the form "X causes CANCER" many times [1], so I'm a little dubious. I don't think fighting civil liberties violations with junk science is a useful tactic, if that is indeed what is happening here. [1] For example, feminists pushed the "silicone gel implants cause breast cancer", anti-bioscience types push "GMO foods cause cancer". Drug warriors have pushed "pot causes cancer" and anti-abortion crusaders pushed "abortion causes cancer".
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- DanI-S 16y ago
  There's a letter here from a group of X-ray imaging and cancer experts recommending further study: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35498347/UCSF-letter-to-Holdren-concerning-health-risks-of-full-body-scanner-TSA-screenings-4-6-2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35498347/UCSF-letter-to-Holdren-co...
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    I'm no expert, but I have a basic understanding of radiation physics. And this letter reads like FUD: The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue.Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high. This statement is very shady. When a photon interacts with a cell, it has a certain (small) probability of causing a carcinogenic mutation. The probability that the radiation is safe is (1-P)^N, where N is the number of interactions [1]. The fact that it is all deposited in the skin is irrelevant to leading order [2], this simply makes skin cancer more likely than breast or liver cancer. I.e., if the dose in the form of a chest x-ray caused a 1e-9 chance of skin cancer and 1e-9 chance of breast cancer, it instead causes a 2e-9 chance of skin cancer with comparably reduced breast cancer risk. [1] I'm ignoring high field (nonlinear) effects, since if the field were strong enough to cause them, it would probably also vaporize the person being scanned. [2] It's actually a good thing since many skin cells are dead or will soon die, and thus carcinogenic mutations will harm them less.
mattmaroon 16y ago
"They’re expendable workers. I own this place. I’m the boss. They work for me. The only reason I don’t fire them is that they’re cheaper than robots. Etc." I hate people like that. Why must he build himself up by putting down others? Regardless of what you think of the TSA's procedures, the people in the airport don't make the law. They're just decent people trying to make a living. If you have to insult them, albeit only to yourself, just to opt out of a scan you're probably the one who needs replaced by a robot.
- mcantor 16y ago
  I believe he was intentionally using hyperbole there. For example, if he were being literal, why would he mention "firing" anyone, since he obviously can't actually do that?
  - mattmaroon 16y ago
    It doesn't matter. It says something about him regardless. It says something about the snobbishness here too that nobody else thinks its even noteworthy.
    - mcantor 16y ago
      Sorry--I'm not trying to be condescending here, but, are you familiar with what exaggeration really means?
- jdminhbg 16y ago
  It's really easy to Godwin a response to this, but I'll opt out and just ask: How decent are these people if they signed up for jobs to look at naked pictures and grope strangers? I'm all for being respectful as a tactic, but it's not as if they're doing anything to deserve respect.
  - scott_s 16y ago
    I find your argument disingenuous, since these people were likely hired before these new regulations were in place.
rdouble 16y ago
I recently flew JFK->SFO and back on Virgin. There are no backscatter machines at the Virgin terminal at JFK. They do have them at SFO. About every 10th person was selected to go through the scanner. Nobody opted out. Contrary to most reports, the TSA agents at both airports were pretty nice and helpful. At JFK, they were helping a number non-english speaking travelers speed their way through the line so they wouldn't miss their flight. If anything was off, a couple of the agents at SFO were too chipper at 6am, which made them seem slightly insane. Privacy and health concerns aside, an issue with this machine is that it does nothing to speed up the security line. If anything, it is slightly slower than the metal detector. I wonder if this is really a cancer risk. For instance, I feel like living in Toxic Williamsburg is probably a worse cancer risk than going through the backscatter machine twice a year. http://gothamist.com/2007/04/11/toxic_williamsb.php http://gothamist.com/2007/04/11/toxic_williamsb.php
- kenjackson 16y ago
  If anything was off, a couple of the agents at SFO were too chipper at 6am Probably because they were looking forward to seeing some hotties.
  - rdouble 16y ago
    The main chipper employee I remember was the androgynous female directing traffic at the front of the line. I would like to think if she wanted to see a nude hottie I would have been selected for the device, but who knows which way she was swinging. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_(Saturday_Night_Live) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_(Saturday_Night_Live)
Rickasaurus 16y ago
Some lines I've been saving up, feel free to contribute. "Aren't you at least going to buy me dinner first?" "Woah there buddy, don't skimp on the foreplay." "I think you might have missed a spot."
js2 16y ago
Relatedly: http://www.myvidster.com/video/600891/Video_of_TSA_Screener_Accosting_3_Year_Old_Child_at_Security_Checkpoint http://www.myvidster.com/video/600891/Video_of_TSA_Screener_...
wccrawford 16y ago
And just like that, it's that easy for someone to avoid the whole system. If -anyone- can avoid them, then terrorists can. And that defeats the whole system. Of course, that assumes the system worked in the first place, which I don't believe.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
albertcardona 16y ago
The actual letter from Prof. John Sedat and others, UCSF: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ucsf-jph-letter.pdf http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ost...
motters 16y ago
Americans really should start a campaign against this kind of degrading treatment and make sure that it's stopped. It shows a profound lack of respect for human dignity. The video showing a child being molested by an airport security guard is just horrific, and long lasting psychological damage could occur with a child that young after having a traumatic experience of that kind.
aaroneous 16y ago
Two interesting excerpts from the Backscatter X-ray wikipedia page: The national radiation safety standard (see below) sets a dose per screening limit for the general-use category. To meet the requirements of the general-use category a full-body x-ray security system must deliver less than the dose a person receives during 4 minutes of airline flight. TSA has set their dose limit to ensure a person receives less radiation from one scan with a TSA general-use x-ray security system than from 2 minutes of airline flight. And Fathers exposed to medical diagnostic x-rays are more likely to have infants who contract leukemia, especially if exposure is closer to conception or includes two or more X-rays of the lower gastrointestinal (GI) tract or lower abdomen.[36] In medical radiography the x-ray beam is adjusted to expose only the area of which an image is required, so that generally shielding is applied to the patient to avoid exposing the gonads,[37] whereas in an airport backscatter scan, the testicles of men and boys will be deliberately subjected to the direct beam, and radiation will also reach the ovaries of female subjects. Whilst the overall dose averaged over the entire body is lower in a backscatter X-ray scan than in a typical medical X-ray examination, because of the shielding of the gonads used in medical radiography this in itself does not mean that the dose to the testicles would be less in an airport scan.
- SkyMarshal 16y ago
  Good find, especially the second paragraph, thanks.
j79 16y ago
I opted out during my last flight. After everything I had read, I decided I needed to experience it first hand. I was expecting a huge scene, with the TSA agent screaming, "OPT OUT! We've got an opt out here!", and then being manhandled, groped, and basically demeaned in front of other passengers. After removing my shoes (the one part of airport security theatre I absolutely hate) and placing my belongings in those gray trays, I walked up to the TSA agent, who asked me multiple times if I had anything in my pockets-had I forgotten my wallet? Did I have my wrist watch on? Etc. After the person in front of me had completed his scan, the TSA agent directed me to step forward. I asked if I could opt out. He responded with, "sure", and in his walkie-talkie, said, "I have a male-opt out." He then looked at me and said, "One second..." He got a response back in his walkie talkie, and then directed me to walk through the scanner, pointing out that the scanner was not on. On the other side, I was greeted by an older gentleman, who also pointed out the scanner was off. He asked if I would prefer being patted down in a private location. I declined. He then explained everything he would do: From the pat down, to using the back of his hand for the more "private" areas. I said, "okay...", honestly expecting the worst at this point. He proceeded with the pat down at this point. He did my upper body first (arms, chest, back) and then went to my backside and said, "I'll now be using the back of my hand to pat your more private area" (my butt, basically...) I responded, "okay", and then with a brush, he ran his hand down the backside of my leg. I'll be honest: My immediate thought was, "That's it? I've been grabbed worse in a club/bar..." Of course, I still hadn't received the crotch check... He then explained he would be patting down my leg. "Here goes...", I thought. With the back of his hands, he patted down my upper thighs (no where near the crotch), and then wrapped his hands around my legs and went "up" until "contact" was made, but immediately moved down, patting the rest of my leg. He then moved on to the other. Again, I've seen and experienced far worse contact made in a club/bar. After that, he had to get his gloves scanned (similar to the band they use for laptops), and after everything came clear, he thanked me for cooperating. I thanked him in response, and went on my way. While I realize it's entirely dependent on the TSA agent you're dealing with, as well as personal/emotional experience, my own experience wasn't nearly as bad as I had prepared myself for. When I pointed this out to a friend of mine (via text), he responded, "Yeah, but you're not a hot chick..." He probably has a point :) A few observations: Two of the four or five passengers who opted-in to get scanned, had to be patted down after - a similar experience I had (I went through the scanner once before, a mistake on my part, and had to be patted down after...) The TSA agent made a comment during the pat down that surprised me: He wasn't a fan of the scanners himself. He said (paraphrasing here), "I've been reading about the radiation from these machines. You think passengers have it bad? I have to stand in front of this thing all day!" Edit: Shoot, this is a lot longer than I had anticipated. A tl;dr: I opted-out of the scanner out of my own curiosity. The airport I flew out of employed TSA agents who made the experience not nearly as bad as I had anticipated... Of course, YMMV.
Tomek_ 16y ago
Sorry for being cynical, but for me this story reads more or less like: there's a guy who didn't have enough balls to opt out only by himself and thus decided to find others to join him (he even brought some papers to show), and the others were some family where a woman, "fortunately"(?) had a cancer before - it's rather sad.
- jarin 16y ago
  I think you are completely off base. In my opinion, it seems the guy was planning to opt out anyway and wanted to do his small part in spreading awareness of the problems associated with the scanners. I would even go so far as to say the radiation literature is a strawman for the bigger problem (people have shown that they are willing to give up their personal liberties, but EVERYONE responds to physical danger).
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
isleyaardvark 16y ago
"There’s a senate oversight meeting tomorrow, so please call these people and tell them how you feel (http://hillwho.com/index.php?option=com_sobi2&sobi2Task=sobi2Details&catid=10&sobi2Id=5651 http://hillwho.com/index.php?option=com_sobi2&sobi2Task=...)." Buried the lede.
heimidal 16y ago
I would upvote this 1000 times if I could.
frossie 16y ago
I flew through three airports with backscatter machines last week. I had a small child with me. Each time i was directed to the regular metal detector - and in one case where my child walked ahead and was about to go through the backscatter machine, she got called back by the TSA person with some agitation and directed through the metal detector instead. I don't have enough data points to know for sure, but I am wondering if they are purposefully not screening kids in these things and if so, are they doing so due to the radiation exposure concerns. Like the OP, I never saw anybody opt out.
- Semiapies 16y ago
  Alternately, they may be concerned about having pictures of naked children stored on the hard drive. Or both!
shill 16y ago
Write in big letters at the top of the literature: "Please read this then pass it to the person behind you in line. Thank you."
davethewave 16y ago
Has anyone thought of the impact of tourism. I'm in Australia and there has been a bit of a campaign to spend your holidays in California on the tv. I was deciding to take the family to Europe or the US, after hearing all the travel problems the US has - Europe here we come. I'm not the only one.
delackner 16y ago
Anyone care to do the math on what it would cost in excess fuel to add enough metal shielding to the fuselage to offer passengers "new and improved: no x-rays!" flights? (Only mostly not serious). With more widespread awareness of x-ray exposure during a normal flight, I wonder if we will see any people so agitated that they wear stuff like this: http://www.medvena.com/protection_clothing_maco_en.html http://www.medvena.com/protection_clothing_maco_en.html

422 points by Rickasaurus 16y ago

A positive spin on this idiotic story, nicely done. Activism need not be violent nor do people need to be yelled at or talked down to. I still firmly believe that any TSA employee who doesn't want to be a part of this should refuse to, just as any traveller should refuse to go through the machine. But, there need not be drama. In fact, I'd say that refusal without drama and in public has a more powerful effect than any verbal argument might.

Legion 16y ago
> Activism need not be violent nor do people need to be yelled at or talked down to. The lack of self-righteousness in the story was extremely refreshing. As the author said: "Information, properly delivered, is power." Emphasis mine.
- eru 16y ago
  Yes. The article also shows the power of wearing Vibram FiveFingers.

verdant 16y ago

This is what I have been thinking. If enough people refuse, its so inconvenient for them that they don't bother to hassle you.

danilocampos 16y ago

Never underestimate the potential for convincing an underpaid federal employee to cut corners. If you make this stuff too inconvenient for the guys on the ground, the policy gets eroded from the inside. Until Napolitano cracks down. But that's several moves ahead.

ck2 16y ago
I think most of them are intoxicated on the power, I mean how much would someone have to pay you to grope people all day? I'd quit in an hour. Have you seen the photo where this horrifying parody http://imgur.com/Nu5f8.jpg http://imgur.com/Nu5f8.jpg is the wallpaper on the computer screen in the TSA office? http://imgur.com/1xFBp.jpg http://imgur.com/1xFBp.jpg I mean think about the mentality - in the very workplace they do it.
- danilocampos 16y ago
  I'm actually more horrified by my tax dollars paying for the TSA to sit in Herman Miller chairs, but damn. Beggars belief.
  - sliverstorm 16y ago
    There are possibly some good reasons for that. If your employee sits most of the day, and you are covering his medical expenses, perhaps it is a good idea to get him a chair that doesn't screw up his body.
    - eru 16y ago
      You should get your employee a standing desk instead.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Pff, why should common sense get in the way of some good bitching about tax dollars? I'm sick of my tax dollars paying for their computers, they should have to type stuff up themselves in triplicate.
- scott_s 16y ago
  Saying "I would do X when presented with Y" is easy to say when you have not been presented with Y. Regarding the wallpaper, yes, it's inappropriate. Perhaps it is an indication that the people are drunk with power. But it could also be another instance of people in an uncomfortable situation using humor as a coping mechanism.

ck2 16y ago

How dumb are people to not realize it's radiation one way or another? Do they think it's "magic" they can see through your clothes? How can there be a class action lawsuit against printer ink, but not against radiating you for no reason with devices that have no track record? Where are these devices for entering Congress or the Whitehouse if they are so safe? So would the President choose the radiation naked picture method or the deep groping method for his daughters? I'd seriously like that question asked at some point by the press. ps. Even if you opt-out, you are probably being exposed to whatever radiation method they use. Note how in this photo the person in line, not just the person in the scanner is being exposed: http://i.imgur.com/NycwX.jpg http://i.imgur.com/NycwX.jpg

johns 16y ago
> Do they think it's "magic" they can see through your clothes? Yes.
lylejohnson 16y ago
> So would the President choose the radiation naked picture method or the deep groping method for his daughters? I'd seriously like that question asked at some point by the press. No one in the press has the guts to ask him this. But man, I'd love to see that too.
- ck2 16y ago
  To be fair, not just the President but also any Congressperson/Senator that is interviewed for the rest of the year on any program. Which one do you want your mother/children experiencing, naked picture radiation, deep groping, or would you instead choose the $10,000 fine for leaving (and possibly being put on the no-fly list forever)?
  - shaddi 16y ago
    Maybe I'm just cynical but I'd imagine the answer would be something like, "The scanner. The devices are safe and we feel their use is important for ensuring the safety of US citizens. Next question?"

sliverstorm 16y ago

Further proof that social engineering is, as always, far more effective than direct hacking at getting through security with a payload, even when that payload may not be bytecode.

swolchok 16y ago

I thought it was established on HN that that letter about safety had been properly addressed (it's from April).

mbreese 16y ago
Yes, the letter is from April, but not many people buy the FDA response to the letter. See: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/11/fda-sidesteps-safety-concerns-over-tsa-body-scanners.ars http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/11/fda-sidesteps-sa... 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...

jambo 16y ago

I agree that having to choose between flying and getting groped/strip-scanned or not flying is ridiculous, and I'm happy that he and others were able to circumvent this. But he says they were using Millimeter Wave Scanners, which as far as I can tell, and contrary to his argument, do not use x-rays. That letter refers to another type of machine, x-ray backscatter scanners.

batasrki 16y ago
Well, firstly, the fact that the TSA employee didn't challenge that statement tells me that either that employee isn't properly informed or he/she knows more than what is publicly known. I'm gonna go on a limb and say it's the former rather than latter. Secondly, it shouldn't be a question of whether the machine is x-ray or millimeter wave. Both of those emit radiation and until there's definitive proof that one or both do not cause damage, they shouldn't be in use.
- jambo 16y ago
  I'm not arguing for them. I'm arguing for arguing well.
- ars 16y ago
  There is definitive proof that millimeter wave does not cause cancer, considering it's basically far infrared light which hits you all day every day. Millimeter wave and X-ray scanners are not the same thing and should never be confused. I personally would never go through an X-ray scanner. Are the scanners marked in some way so I know which is which?
  - jcl 16y ago
    From an NPR blog entry: By the way, you might be wondering: Can the average traveler standing in a security line tell the difference? Yes, a TSA spokesman says. The X-ray type is blue and has two walls. The millimeter-wave machine is grayish-white and is more cylindrical. 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...

rgrove 16y ago

"No thanks, I’ve already had cancer, just feel me up or whatever." Brilliant!

ck2 16y ago
Even if you opt-out, you are probably being exposed to whatever radiation method they use. Note how in this photo the person in line, not just the person in the scanner is being exposed: http://i.imgur.com/NycwX.jpg http://i.imgur.com/NycwX.jpg

jbail 16y ago

Great moral: "Information, properly delivered, is power."

gasull 16y ago

Direct link to the printed letter (PDF): http://j.mp/cancer-ray http://j.mp/cancer-ray

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Just curious, does anyone have some hard evidence that the MWBS is a cancer risk? I ask this simply because anti-X activists have pushed junk science claims of the form "X causes CANCER" many times [1], so I'm a little dubious. I don't think fighting civil liberties violations with junk science is a useful tactic, if that is indeed what is happening here. [1] For example, feminists pushed the "silicone gel implants cause breast cancer", anti-bioscience types push "GMO foods cause cancer". Drug warriors have pushed "pot causes cancer" and anti-abortion crusaders pushed "abortion causes cancer".

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
DanI-S 16y ago
There's a letter here from a group of X-ray imaging and cancer experts recommending further study: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35498347/UCSF-letter-to-Holdren-concerning-health-risks-of-full-body-scanner-TSA-screenings-4-6-2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35498347/UCSF-letter-to-Holdren-co...
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  I'm no expert, but I have a basic understanding of radiation physics. And this letter reads like FUD: The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue.Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high. This statement is very shady. When a photon interacts with a cell, it has a certain (small) probability of causing a carcinogenic mutation. The probability that the radiation is safe is (1-P)^N, where N is the number of interactions [1]. The fact that it is all deposited in the skin is irrelevant to leading order [2], this simply makes skin cancer more likely than breast or liver cancer. I.e., if the dose in the form of a chest x-ray caused a 1e-9 chance of skin cancer and 1e-9 chance of breast cancer, it instead causes a 2e-9 chance of skin cancer with comparably reduced breast cancer risk. [1] I'm ignoring high field (nonlinear) effects, since if the field were strong enough to cause them, it would probably also vaporize the person being scanned. [2] It's actually a good thing since many skin cells are dead or will soon die, and thus carcinogenic mutations will harm them less.

mattmaroon 16y ago

"They’re expendable workers. I own this place. I’m the boss. They work for me. The only reason I don’t fire them is that they’re cheaper than robots. Etc." I hate people like that. Why must he build himself up by putting down others? Regardless of what you think of the TSA's procedures, the people in the airport don't make the law. They're just decent people trying to make a living. If you have to insult them, albeit only to yourself, just to opt out of a scan you're probably the one who needs replaced by a robot.

mcantor 16y ago
I believe he was intentionally using hyperbole there. For example, if he were being literal, why would he mention "firing" anyone, since he obviously can't actually do that?
- mattmaroon 16y ago
  It doesn't matter. It says something about him regardless. It says something about the snobbishness here too that nobody else thinks its even noteworthy.
  - mcantor 16y ago
    Sorry--I'm not trying to be condescending here, but, are you familiar with what exaggeration really means?
jdminhbg 16y ago
It's really easy to Godwin a response to this, but I'll opt out and just ask: How decent are these people if they signed up for jobs to look at naked pictures and grope strangers? I'm all for being respectful as a tactic, but it's not as if they're doing anything to deserve respect.
- scott_s 16y ago
  I find your argument disingenuous, since these people were likely hired before these new regulations were in place.

rdouble 16y ago

I recently flew JFK->SFO and back on Virgin. There are no backscatter machines at the Virgin terminal at JFK. They do have them at SFO. About every 10th person was selected to go through the scanner. Nobody opted out. Contrary to most reports, the TSA agents at both airports were pretty nice and helpful. At JFK, they were helping a number non-english speaking travelers speed their way through the line so they wouldn't miss their flight. If anything was off, a couple of the agents at SFO were too chipper at 6am, which made them seem slightly insane. Privacy and health concerns aside, an issue with this machine is that it does nothing to speed up the security line. If anything, it is slightly slower than the metal detector. I wonder if this is really a cancer risk. For instance, I feel like living in Toxic Williamsburg is probably a worse cancer risk than going through the backscatter machine twice a year. http://gothamist.com/2007/04/11/toxic_williamsb.php http://gothamist.com/2007/04/11/toxic_williamsb.php

kenjackson 16y ago
If anything was off, a couple of the agents at SFO were too chipper at 6am Probably because they were looking forward to seeing some hotties.
- rdouble 16y ago
  The main chipper employee I remember was the androgynous female directing traffic at the front of the line. I would like to think if she wanted to see a nude hottie I would have been selected for the device, but who knows which way she was swinging. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_(Saturday_Night_Live) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_(Saturday_Night_Live)

Rickasaurus 16y ago

Some lines I've been saving up, feel free to contribute. "Aren't you at least going to buy me dinner first?" "Woah there buddy, don't skimp on the foreplay." "I think you might have missed a spot."

js2 16y ago

Relatedly: http://www.myvidster.com/video/600891/Video_of_TSA_Screener_Accosting_3_Year_Old_Child_at_Security_Checkpoint http://www.myvidster.com/video/600891/Video_of_TSA_Screener_...

wccrawford 16y ago

And just like that, it's that easy for someone to avoid the whole system. If -anyone- can avoid them, then terrorists can. And that defeats the whole system. Of course, that assumes the system worked in the first place, which I don't believe.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

albertcardona 16y ago

The actual letter from Prof. John Sedat and others, UCSF: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ucsf-jph-letter.pdf http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ost...

motters 16y ago

Americans really should start a campaign against this kind of degrading treatment and make sure that it's stopped. It shows a profound lack of respect for human dignity. The video showing a child being molested by an airport security guard is just horrific, and long lasting psychological damage could occur with a child that young after having a traumatic experience of that kind.

aaroneous 16y ago

Two interesting excerpts from the Backscatter X-ray wikipedia page: The national radiation safety standard (see below) sets a dose per screening limit for the general-use category. To meet the requirements of the general-use category a full-body x-ray security system must deliver less than the dose a person receives during 4 minutes of airline flight. TSA has set their dose limit to ensure a person receives less radiation from one scan with a TSA general-use x-ray security system than from 2 minutes of airline flight. And Fathers exposed to medical diagnostic x-rays are more likely to have infants who contract leukemia, especially if exposure is closer to conception or includes two or more X-rays of the lower gastrointestinal (GI) tract or lower abdomen.[36] In medical radiography the x-ray beam is adjusted to expose only the area of which an image is required, so that generally shielding is applied to the patient to avoid exposing the gonads,[37] whereas in an airport backscatter scan, the testicles of men and boys will be deliberately subjected to the direct beam, and radiation will also reach the ovaries of female subjects. Whilst the overall dose averaged over the entire body is lower in a backscatter X-ray scan than in a typical medical X-ray examination, because of the shielding of the gonads used in medical radiography this in itself does not mean that the dose to the testicles would be less in an airport scan.

SkyMarshal 16y ago
Good find, especially the second paragraph, thanks.

j79 16y ago

I opted out during my last flight. After everything I had read, I decided I needed to experience it first hand. I was expecting a huge scene, with the TSA agent screaming, "OPT OUT! We've got an opt out here!", and then being manhandled, groped, and basically demeaned in front of other passengers. After removing my shoes (the one part of airport security theatre I absolutely hate) and placing my belongings in those gray trays, I walked up to the TSA agent, who asked me multiple times if I had anything in my pockets-had I forgotten my wallet? Did I have my wrist watch on? Etc. After the person in front of me had completed his scan, the TSA agent directed me to step forward. I asked if I could opt out. He responded with, "sure", and in his walkie-talkie, said, "I have a male-opt out." He then looked at me and said, "One second..." He got a response back in his walkie talkie, and then directed me to walk through the scanner, pointing out that the scanner was not on. On the other side, I was greeted by an older gentleman, who also pointed out the scanner was off. He asked if I would prefer being patted down in a private location. I declined. He then explained everything he would do: From the pat down, to using the back of his hand for the more "private" areas. I said, "okay...", honestly expecting the worst at this point. He proceeded with the pat down at this point. He did my upper body first (arms, chest, back) and then went to my backside and said, "I'll now be using the back of my hand to pat your more private area" (my butt, basically...) I responded, "okay", and then with a brush, he ran his hand down the backside of my leg. I'll be honest: My immediate thought was, "That's it? I've been grabbed worse in a club/bar..." Of course, I still hadn't received the crotch check... He then explained he would be patting down my leg. "Here goes...", I thought. With the back of his hands, he patted down my upper thighs (no where near the crotch), and then wrapped his hands around my legs and went "up" until "contact" was made, but immediately moved down, patting the rest of my leg. He then moved on to the other. Again, I've seen and experienced far worse contact made in a club/bar. After that, he had to get his gloves scanned (similar to the band they use for laptops), and after everything came clear, he thanked me for cooperating. I thanked him in response, and went on my way. While I realize it's entirely dependent on the TSA agent you're dealing with, as well as personal/emotional experience, my own experience wasn't nearly as bad as I had prepared myself for. When I pointed this out to a friend of mine (via text), he responded, "Yeah, but you're not a hot chick..." He probably has a point :) A few observations: Two of the four or five passengers who opted-in to get scanned, had to be patted down after - a similar experience I had (I went through the scanner once before, a mistake on my part, and had to be patted down after...) The TSA agent made a comment during the pat down that surprised me: He wasn't a fan of the scanners himself. He said (paraphrasing here), "I've been reading about the radiation from these machines. You think passengers have it bad? I have to stand in front of this thing all day!" Edit: Shoot, this is a lot longer than I had anticipated. A tl;dr: I opted-out of the scanner out of my own curiosity. The airport I flew out of employed TSA agents who made the experience not nearly as bad as I had anticipated... Of course, YMMV.

Tomek_ 16y ago

Sorry for being cynical, but for me this story reads more or less like: there's a guy who didn't have enough balls to opt out only by himself and thus decided to find others to join him (he even brought some papers to show), and the others were some family where a woman, "fortunately"(?) had a cancer before - it's rather sad.

jarin 16y ago
I think you are completely off base. In my opinion, it seems the guy was planning to opt out anyway and wanted to do his small part in spreading awareness of the problems associated with the scanners. I would even go so far as to say the radiation literature is a strawman for the bigger problem (people have shown that they are willing to give up their personal liberties, but EVERYONE responds to physical danger).

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

isleyaardvark 16y ago

"There’s a senate oversight meeting tomorrow, so please call these people and tell them how you feel (http://hillwho.com/index.php?option=com_sobi2&sobi2Task=sobi2Details&catid=10&sobi2Id=5651 http://hillwho.com/index.php?option=com_sobi2&sobi2Task=...)." Buried the lede.

heimidal 16y ago

I would upvote this 1000 times if I could.

frossie 16y ago

I flew through three airports with backscatter machines last week. I had a small child with me. Each time i was directed to the regular metal detector - and in one case where my child walked ahead and was about to go through the backscatter machine, she got called back by the TSA person with some agitation and directed through the metal detector instead. I don't have enough data points to know for sure, but I am wondering if they are purposefully not screening kids in these things and if so, are they doing so due to the radiation exposure concerns. Like the OP, I never saw anybody opt out.

Semiapies 16y ago
Alternately, they may be concerned about having pictures of naked children stored on the hard drive. Or both!

shill 16y ago

Write in big letters at the top of the literature: "Please read this then pass it to the person behind you in line. Thank you."

davethewave 16y ago

Has anyone thought of the impact of tourism. I'm in Australia and there has been a bit of a campaign to spend your holidays in California on the tv. I was deciding to take the family to Europe or the US, after hearing all the travel problems the US has - Europe here we come. I'm not the only one.

delackner 16y ago

Anyone care to do the math on what it would cost in excess fuel to add enough metal shielding to the fuselage to offer passengers "new and improved: no x-rays!" flights? (Only mostly not serious). With more widespread awareness of x-ray exposure during a normal flight, I wonder if we will see any people so agitated that they wear stuff like this: http://www.medvena.com/protection_clothing_maco_en.html http://www.medvena.com/protection_clothing_maco_en.html