3 ms·

Does anyone know why the TSA even gives you the choice to opt out of the backscatter machines? You can't opt out of the metal detectors. It seems like the def

by dadkins 16y ago

Does anyone know why the TSA even gives you the choice to opt out of the backscatter machines? You can't opt out of the metal detectors. It seems like the default policy would be for the new machines to be mandatory as well.

dedward 16y ago
Because they are controversial, show you naked, expose you to x-ray, and they thought this would be a better way for people to accept it from a PR point of view. Metal detectors are non-invasive, efficient, don't take naked pictures of you, and you are still supposed to opt-out if you have something like a pacemaker where the metal detector represents a possible health risk.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  The government does not have the right to make me submit to a dose of penetrating ionizing radiation, no matter how small the dose! This is invasive. I don't know how a court could find this to be "routine."
ZachPruckowski 16y ago
It's a slow-boiling sort of thing. Here was their plan: 1) Implement the backscatter machines with a non-invasive opt-out. Most people won't opt-out, but those that do won't complain, because the opt-out is painless. 2) Now that you've had backscatter machines for nearly a year, make the opt-out much more invasive. The complainers will be seen as crazy, since the Backscatter has been something we've been tolerating for a year and people won't understand the difference between "normal patdown" and "invasive patdown" 3) Come 2012 or 2013 or so, Backscatter machines are deployed pretty much everywhere, the opt-out goes away entirely. Anyone who hates the Backscatter has either stopped flying due to the patdowns or already been broken in by punitive molestation and PR pressure.
- ZachPruckowski 16y ago
  >Here was their plan: It occurs to me now (after the edit deadline has passed) that this might have implied I have some sort of inside knowledge. That's not the case. The above is conjecture.

by dadkins 16y ago

dedward 16y ago

Because they are controversial, show you naked, expose you to x-ray, and they thought this would be a better way for people to accept it from a PR point of view. Metal detectors are non-invasive, efficient, don't take naked pictures of you, and you are still supposed to opt-out if you have something like a pacemaker where the metal detector represents a possible health risk.

stcredzero 16y ago
The government does not have the right to make me submit to a dose of penetrating ionizing radiation, no matter how small the dose! This is invasive. I don't know how a court could find this to be "routine."

ZachPruckowski 16y ago

It's a slow-boiling sort of thing. Here was their plan: 1) Implement the backscatter machines with a non-invasive opt-out. Most people won't opt-out, but those that do won't complain, because the opt-out is painless. 2) Now that you've had backscatter machines for nearly a year, make the opt-out much more invasive. The complainers will be seen as crazy, since the Backscatter has been something we've been tolerating for a year and people won't understand the difference between "normal patdown" and "invasive patdown" 3) Come 2012 or 2013 or so, Backscatter machines are deployed pretty much everywhere, the opt-out goes away entirely. Anyone who hates the Backscatter has either stopped flying due to the patdowns or already been broken in by punitive molestation and PR pressure.

ZachPruckowski 16y ago
>Here was their plan: It occurs to me now (after the edit deadline has passed) that this might have implied I have some sort of inside knowledge. That's not the case. The above is conjecture.