5 ms·

It's sad that this isn't terribly surprising at this point. HN friends, please, please, make sure you opt out of the body scanners. If for nothing else, I can

It's sad that this isn't terribly surprising at this point. HN friends, please, please, make sure you opt out of the body scanners. If for nothing else, I can assure you the dude that's feeling your junk is far more embarrassed than you are and if he has to do it often enough, maybe he'll quit. Last time I flew, I got a new guy. It was his first time and one of the veteran BT's had to coach him through it. He seemed mortified and I think that might have been his last day on the job.

JimmyL 14y ago
Maybe it's just the airport I was flying out of (LGA), but I noticed that the TSA signs explaining the millimeter-wave scanners no longer say that you can opt-out of them. Where it used to say (IIRC) in smaller print at the bottom that you could opt-out and get a manual pat down in a private space if you so chose, there was now boilerplate text about how there were no health and safety risks associate with getting scanned by the machine, and that it wouldn't produce a photo-realistic image of me. Once I opted-out by walking to the metal detector and (after being told to go into the other line for the L3 ProVision unit) asking for a pat-down, the agents handled it as usual (a bunch of awkward shouts for a "male assist at station 3", an embarrassed guy walking over and asking if I knew how this process worked and had done it before, and then a pretty perfunctory pat-down) - but if I didn't a priori know that I had that right, it wasn't listed on any of the many signs in the security scanning area.
- kenneth_reitz 14y ago
  They normally have that posted somewhere, but it varies greatly from airport to airport.
- guelo 14y ago
  I thought it was the backscatter ones that people objected to. The millimeter-wave ones are much less intrusive and there's no concern about health risks.
wissler 14y ago
"if he has to do it often enough, maybe he'll quit." How is making someone with some decency quit a valuable objective, when he will only be replaced with someone with no decency?
- dalke 14y ago
  Or replaced by someone else with decency, and then another, and then another, and then ... The training costs add up, for one, potentially leading to change. Let's supposed eventually that position is filled by "someone with no decency." Then passengers getting screened become more and more annoyed and outraged, complaints rise, and potentially leading to change. Now, that change might be to no longer have opt-out. But in either case, the possible course of events is likely not as simple as what you outlined.
- marssaxman 14y ago
  Every time they have to hire a new screener, they have to spend money on training. If the job of screener is well-known to be unpleasant, they'll have to start paying the screeners a higher salary to compensate them. If passengers routinely opt for the time-consuming manual patdown instead of submitting to the pornoscanner, they'll have to hire more screeners to cope with the demand. Each of these things make the screening process more expensive. If we make it expensive enough perhaps they'll stop doing it. There doesn't seem to be any other way to get rid of it.
  - betelnut 14y ago
    Just to play devil's advocate, TSA could also put pressure on airlines to build the cost of the screenings into the price of air travel. Travelers could wind up paying for it (beyond taxes).
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      How would they apply that pressure? I don't see any airline being keen on being the first to raise their prices for pretty much no reason.
Evbn 14y ago
Also, you get a firm rub on the back which feels nice after carrying luggage.
new299 14y ago
I know this wasn't in the UK, but in the UK if you're selected, you can't opt out. Which is pretty insane.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  Everybody is selected in the US.
  - njs12345 14y ago
    I think this depends on airport. Going from Seatac to SFO recently they only put about half of the people through the scanners.
methodover 14y ago
I took a plane trip a couple days ago, and I had a new guy too. Unfortunately he was coached to move his hand along my inner leg until he 'felt resistance' which to him meant banging his hand, hard, against my testicles. It hurt. I'm not sure if I'll continue to opt out. If it's a choice between being seen without clothing and possibly being punched in the nuts, I think I'll choose the former.

JimmyL 14y ago

Maybe it's just the airport I was flying out of (LGA), but I noticed that the TSA signs explaining the millimeter-wave scanners no longer say that you can opt-out of them. Where it used to say (IIRC) in smaller print at the bottom that you could opt-out and get a manual pat down in a private space if you so chose, there was now boilerplate text about how there were no health and safety risks associate with getting scanned by the machine, and that it wouldn't produce a photo-realistic image of me. Once I opted-out by walking to the metal detector and (after being told to go into the other line for the L3 ProVision unit) asking for a pat-down, the agents handled it as usual (a bunch of awkward shouts for a "male assist at station 3", an embarrassed guy walking over and asking if I knew how this process worked and had done it before, and then a pretty perfunctory pat-down) - but if I didn't a priori know that I had that right, it wasn't listed on any of the many signs in the security scanning area.

kenneth_reitz 14y ago
They normally have that posted somewhere, but it varies greatly from airport to airport.
guelo 14y ago
I thought it was the backscatter ones that people objected to. The millimeter-wave ones are much less intrusive and there's no concern about health risks.

wissler 14y ago

"if he has to do it often enough, maybe he'll quit." How is making someone with some decency quit a valuable objective, when he will only be replaced with someone with no decency?

dalke 14y ago
Or replaced by someone else with decency, and then another, and then another, and then ... The training costs add up, for one, potentially leading to change. Let's supposed eventually that position is filled by "someone with no decency." Then passengers getting screened become more and more annoyed and outraged, complaints rise, and potentially leading to change. Now, that change might be to no longer have opt-out. But in either case, the possible course of events is likely not as simple as what you outlined.
marssaxman 14y ago
Every time they have to hire a new screener, they have to spend money on training. If the job of screener is well-known to be unpleasant, they'll have to start paying the screeners a higher salary to compensate them. If passengers routinely opt for the time-consuming manual patdown instead of submitting to the pornoscanner, they'll have to hire more screeners to cope with the demand. Each of these things make the screening process more expensive. If we make it expensive enough perhaps they'll stop doing it. There doesn't seem to be any other way to get rid of it.
- betelnut 14y ago
  Just to play devil's advocate, TSA could also put pressure on airlines to build the cost of the screenings into the price of air travel. Travelers could wind up paying for it (beyond taxes).
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    How would they apply that pressure? I don't see any airline being keen on being the first to raise their prices for pretty much no reason.

Evbn 14y ago

Also, you get a firm rub on the back which feels nice after carrying luggage.

new299 14y ago

I know this wasn't in the UK, but in the UK if you're selected, you can't opt out. Which is pretty insane.

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
Everybody is selected in the US.
- njs12345 14y ago
  I think this depends on airport. Going from Seatac to SFO recently they only put about half of the people through the scanners.

methodover 14y ago

I took a plane trip a couple days ago, and I had a new guy too. Unfortunately he was coached to move his hand along my inner leg until he 'felt resistance' which to him meant banging his hand, hard, against my testicles. It hurt. I'm not sure if I'll continue to opt out. If it's a choice between being seen without clothing and possibly being punched in the nuts, I think I'll choose the former.