3 ms·

My guess is that they're too embarrassed to just say "we think a terrorist might sew a grenade inside his scrotum."

by Glyptodon 13y ago

btilly 13y ago
My guess is that some administrator somewhere thought that this would force compliance with the scanning machines.
- tsaoutourpants 13y ago
  Exactly. Most people find the opt-out procedure (the pat-down) to be more invasive than the nude body scanners. They say you have a choice and that nude body scanners are optional, but the "choice" is really whether they use a machine to look at every inch of your body or use their fingers to touch every inch of your body. All this when explosive trace detection machines are not even 1/10th the cost of nude body scanners.
- Osiris 13y ago
  That's what happened to me. When they first came out I always looked for a line without the scanner, or when I wasn't able to, I'd opt-out of the scanner. At least, that was until I got one of the new intrusive pat downs. I know go through the scanner because I'd rather someone look at my naked than touch me. My wife recently had a walking cast on and wasn't able to go through the scanner so they gave her a pat down. She told me it felt humiliating. Why do we let out government touch our private parts without probably cause? It's insanity.
  - daniel_reetz 13y ago
    In all honesty, I prefer the pat-down. Better to be a brief and unpleasant memory in the mind of some TSA agent than to be a permanent body scan stored in a database somewhere.
malandrew 13y ago
I'm just waiting to see what kinds of invasive practices we're regularly subject[0] to when an attacker decides to pack their anal cavity with explosives and have a short copper or other non-ferric lead to the blasting charge hanging out their butt. Near as I can tell, such a tactic wouldn't show up on any body scanner or metal detector and the actual detonation device could be your standard battery. After all it only took one shoe bomber to make everyone everywhere have to take off their shoes before flying. Up until now, we have not been able to have a rational discussion of cost we as a society are paying to reduce the risk of terrorism because all logic goes out the window when the words "terrorism" or "terrorist" are used. I would imagine that the likely threat of an uncomfortable anal probing would at least prompt even the most die hard supporters of all this security theatre to question if what we are doing makes any sense at all. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6680266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6680266
sitkack 13y ago
Except when you opt out you DO NOT go through a metal detector. The last 10 times I have opted out, no metal detector screening.

My guess is that they're too embarrassed to just say "we think a terrorist might sew a grenade inside his scrotum."

btilly 13y ago

My guess is that some administrator somewhere thought that this would force compliance with the scanning machines.

tsaoutourpants 13y ago
Exactly. Most people find the opt-out procedure (the pat-down) to be more invasive than the nude body scanners. They say you have a choice and that nude body scanners are optional, but the "choice" is really whether they use a machine to look at every inch of your body or use their fingers to touch every inch of your body. All this when explosive trace detection machines are not even 1/10th the cost of nude body scanners.
Osiris 13y ago
That's what happened to me. When they first came out I always looked for a line without the scanner, or when I wasn't able to, I'd opt-out of the scanner. At least, that was until I got one of the new intrusive pat downs. I know go through the scanner because I'd rather someone look at my naked than touch me. My wife recently had a walking cast on and wasn't able to go through the scanner so they gave her a pat down. She told me it felt humiliating. Why do we let out government touch our private parts without probably cause? It's insanity.
- daniel_reetz 13y ago
  In all honesty, I prefer the pat-down. Better to be a brief and unpleasant memory in the mind of some TSA agent than to be a permanent body scan stored in a database somewhere.

malandrew 13y ago

I'm just waiting to see what kinds of invasive practices we're regularly subject[0] to when an attacker decides to pack their anal cavity with explosives and have a short copper or other non-ferric lead to the blasting charge hanging out their butt. Near as I can tell, such a tactic wouldn't show up on any body scanner or metal detector and the actual detonation device could be your standard battery. After all it only took one shoe bomber to make everyone everywhere have to take off their shoes before flying. Up until now, we have not been able to have a rational discussion of cost we as a society are paying to reduce the risk of terrorism because all logic goes out the window when the words "terrorism" or "terrorist" are used. I would imagine that the likely threat of an uncomfortable anal probing would at least prompt even the most die hard supporters of all this security theatre to question if what we are doing makes any sense at all. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6680266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6680266

sitkack 13y ago

Except when you opt out you DO NOT go through a metal detector. The last 10 times I have opted out, no metal detector screening.