4 ms·

I’ve opted out 3 times so far, without incident. Twice in LA, once in Seattle. While heading to the door to board I didn’t look at the scanner and told the gate

I’ve opted out 3 times so far, without incident. Twice in LA, once in Seattle. While heading to the door to board I didn’t look at the scanner and told the gate agent that I’d like to opt out. They said okay, I got on the plane, and that was it. Not even an alternative screen. Not to say that your experience is invalid, but it’s not universal. Tho I am fundamentally against the technology in the first place, hence the opt out.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
If you're against the technology, don't waste your time opting out (said as someone who spent way more effort over years of opting out of millimeter wave backscatter scans on principle). Support the ACLU, call, write, and meet with your representatives, do things that matter. Opting out simply causes you pain without any benefit. Tools are never the problem; it's their implementation, use, oversight, and governance. Seek change at the appropriate layer. Disclaimer: I'd embrace any auth system that streamlines my travel process (facial recognition at TSA checkpoint and the airline gate), but also believe one should be able to opt out and downgrade to traditional documents if desired.
- Zigurd 7y ago
  Hopefully not being a tool about it, but mmwave and backscatter are different imaging technologies. Backscatter imaging is an x-ray technology, which, while very very low energy, uses ionizing radiation. Mmwave is not ionizing radiation.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    I lumped them together on purpose (xray was previously used and was eventually repurposed for prisons by TSA, now millimeter wave is exclusively used by TSA), but your point and context is important and taken.
- monksy 7y ago
  Continue to opt-out. It annoys the TSA. That's a good thing. I do it if I'm "required" to go through the body scanner.
  - mindslight 7y ago
    It's also a good way to put totalitarianism on display out in the open, rather than letting it lurk quietly. It's amazing how nobody wants to make eye contact with you as you're being groped and fondled.
    - monksy 7y ago
      Eh, it's amusing. Treat it like a massage and realize they're going to reach in your waistband. It's not really a big deal.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    Thank you for doing your part. Every time you opt out, people may notice. The more you opt out, the more you may inspire others to do so. The parent's argument is a self fulfilling prophecy.
    - monksy 7y ago
      When I do, it really break's people's pattern because they think I'm waiting to go through the scanner. I'm just waiting beside of it like I'm told.
      - mindslight 7y ago
        "Are you waiting?" "Oh, no. I'm not going in that thing"
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > It annoys the TSA. No, it doesn't. It annoys all the other travelers whom you are inconveniencing by slowing down the screening process. The TSA people who screen you are just going to follow their standard procedures in response to whatever you do; it's all the same to them.
- jshevek 7y ago
  >If you're against the technology, don't waste your time opting out I'm not saying it's worth any particular persons time to do so, but opting out does send a kind of signal. The more people opt out, the better, in addition to the steps you mentioned.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Nowhere near enough people opt out for it to matter, nor will they, hence my comment's position.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > Support the ACLU, call, write, and meet with your representatives, do things that matter. While this is always a good way to make your views known, that doesn't mean it will accomplish what you are seeking. Even if everyone who has a genuine objection to intrusive security screening at airports were to do what you suggest, I strongly suspect it would still amount to a small enough percentage of voters that it would not change the incentives of elected representatives. The underlying point is that this is about risk aversion. Yes, people don't like intrusive security screening, but they even more don't like the risk of being on a plane that gets hijacked by terrorists, and they believe it's the government's job to prevent that from happening. That's why we have the airport security procedures we have. Unless that risk calculation changes, the procedures are not going to change.
afturner 7y ago
I'm glad to hear that. I didn't have the best flight and was really happy to be home.. so it definitely stuck with me when that happened. Also.. is it possible that mine was a different thing? The agent just held up a random webcam, it wasn't on a "legit" scanner.

toomuchtodo 7y ago

If you're against the technology, don't waste your time opting out (said as someone who spent way more effort over years of opting out of millimeter wave backscatter scans on principle). Support the ACLU, call, write, and meet with your representatives, do things that matter. Opting out simply causes you pain without any benefit. Tools are never the problem; it's their implementation, use, oversight, and governance. Seek change at the appropriate layer. Disclaimer: I'd embrace any auth system that streamlines my travel process (facial recognition at TSA checkpoint and the airline gate), but also believe one should be able to opt out and downgrade to traditional documents if desired.

Zigurd 7y ago
Hopefully not being a tool about it, but mmwave and backscatter are different imaging technologies. Backscatter imaging is an x-ray technology, which, while very very low energy, uses ionizing radiation. Mmwave is not ionizing radiation.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  I lumped them together on purpose (xray was previously used and was eventually repurposed for prisons by TSA, now millimeter wave is exclusively used by TSA), but your point and context is important and taken.
monksy 7y ago
Continue to opt-out. It annoys the TSA. That's a good thing. I do it if I'm "required" to go through the body scanner.
- mindslight 7y ago
  It's also a good way to put totalitarianism on display out in the open, rather than letting it lurk quietly. It's amazing how nobody wants to make eye contact with you as you're being groped and fondled.
  - monksy 7y ago
    Eh, it's amusing. Treat it like a massage and realize they're going to reach in your waistband. It's not really a big deal.
- jshevek 7y ago
  Thank you for doing your part. Every time you opt out, people may notice. The more you opt out, the more you may inspire others to do so. The parent's argument is a self fulfilling prophecy.
  - monksy 7y ago
    When I do, it really break's people's pattern because they think I'm waiting to go through the scanner. I'm just waiting beside of it like I'm told.
    - mindslight 7y ago
      "Are you waiting?" "Oh, no. I'm not going in that thing"
- pdonis 7y ago
  > It annoys the TSA. No, it doesn't. It annoys all the other travelers whom you are inconveniencing by slowing down the screening process. The TSA people who screen you are just going to follow their standard procedures in response to whatever you do; it's all the same to them.
jshevek 7y ago
>If you're against the technology, don't waste your time opting out I'm not saying it's worth any particular persons time to do so, but opting out does send a kind of signal. The more people opt out, the better, in addition to the steps you mentioned.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Nowhere near enough people opt out for it to matter, nor will they, hence my comment's position.
pdonis 7y ago
> Support the ACLU, call, write, and meet with your representatives, do things that matter. While this is always a good way to make your views known, that doesn't mean it will accomplish what you are seeking. Even if everyone who has a genuine objection to intrusive security screening at airports were to do what you suggest, I strongly suspect it would still amount to a small enough percentage of voters that it would not change the incentives of elected representatives. The underlying point is that this is about risk aversion. Yes, people don't like intrusive security screening, but they even more don't like the risk of being on a plane that gets hijacked by terrorists, and they believe it's the government's job to prevent that from happening. That's why we have the airport security procedures we have. Unless that risk calculation changes, the procedures are not going to change.

afturner 7y ago

I'm glad to hear that. I didn't have the best flight and was really happy to be home.. so it definitely stuck with me when that happened. Also.. is it possible that mine was a different thing? The agent just held up a random webcam, it wasn't on a "legit" scanner.