Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don't Fly During Ramadan (2013)

varnull.adityamukerjee.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 120 posts

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan (2013)

#61

Post by cs2818 »

I recently was selected for a more thorough screening at the DFW airport, which included walking through the metal detector twice, having a body scan, the new "universal pat-down" [0], and individual swabbing and x-ray of every item in my bag (everything required to be powered up as well).

I am often selected for pat-downs, despite using the scanner, and I must say the newly implemented pat-down procedure was much more intimate than I was comfortable with. There's got to be a better way.

[0] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/03/03/tsa...

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan (2013)

#62

Post by School-Cotton »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #42
jordigh wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Besides the uncertainty about the harmful effects of that radiation, there's also the issue of how they collect and pass around the naked images.

> uncertainty about the harmful effects of that radiation Personally I don't think there is much there to be concerned about. We know these waves penetrate less than 1mm into your skin, and that the only way they can cause damage is by thermal effects. We know it's not ionizing radiation, not by a long shot. I believe getting a sunburn at the beach is far worse. I think the privacy concerns, and the frequently low ef…

How is the comparison to sunburns supposed to make anyone feel better

I go through millimeter wave scanners a few dozen times a year -- getting sunburned that often would dramatically increase your cancer risk.

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan (2013)

#63

Post by macspoofing »

phkahler wrote: post #44
macspoofing wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's sad how much flying has changed since 9/11. Sad but predictable in a world with a global movement of suicidal religious fanatics willing to murder thousands of people and cause billions in property damage. It is what is. I miss the old days too, but I wouldn't vote to water-down airport security. >I'm sad at how he was treated and it's something that needs to be changed. Does it? He refused the millimeter wave…

He didn't refuse the scanner, he was given a choice and when his choice was going to get complicated he could no longer switch back to the scanner. He did opt for the scanner on his new flight. But none of that is really relevant to how he was treated. Why deny him a glass of water?

>He didn't refuse the scanner

He wasn't detained because he refused a scanner. You know that.

>when his choice was going to get complicated he could no longer switch back to the scanner.

Well ... yeah. What you refer to as a complication was him testing positive for explosives or poison.

>Why deny him a glass of water?

Is that the problem? He didn't get a glass of water?

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan (2013)

#64

Post by dang »

burger_moon wrote: post #14
ajmurmann wrote: post #4

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6258422

That last discussion was a shit show of people one-upping each other in the oppression olympics. It seems like as soon as you compare one persons experience to being not as bad or worse than another persons the entire thread devolves into terrible accusations and comparisons.

That second sentence would make a good HN comment. The first one is pointlessly inflammatory; please don't do that here.

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan (2013)

#65

Post by thr3290 »

literallycancer wrote: post #54
thr3290 wrote: post #43

> timestamp on the paper: 10:40. ..... It was 2:20PM So this guy sets off the alarm (swab probably found traces of explosives ), has no paperwork in order (proof of work), and has to wait for 3 hours before it gets resolved. Last time the HN crowd was enraged over someone who was questioned for 15 minutes... I was detained overnight, and some of my friends were denied entry to US for bullshit reasons... It is like a…

>has no paperwork in order (proof of work) Oh? I must have missed the law that required people to do be able to prove where they work at all times. >and has to wait for 3 hours before it gets resolved By this time, I hadn’t had any food or water in almost eighteen hours. Learning to read would be a good start.

Did you ever cross international border?

My reading is just fine, read the article. He was 'fasting' before security check. And he should say it is a medical emergency, if he felt like passing out.

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan (2013)

#66

Post by macspoofing »

parenthephobia wrote: post #51
macspoofing wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's sad how much flying has changed since 9/11. Sad but predictable in a world with a global movement of suicidal religious fanatics willing to murder thousands of people and cause billions in property damage. It is what is. I miss the old days too, but I wouldn't vote to water-down airport security. >I'm sad at how he was treated and it's something that needs to be changed. Does it? He refused the millimeter wave…

> Where did the TSA go wrong here? Perhaps it was the bit where they held him for 18 hours without charge, due process, food, or water. Edit: Misread the article. He was held for 3½ hours. Still, refusing to give him a glass of water was not necessary, unless water-activated throat-bombs are now a thing. In a more general sense, TSA went wrong the same way they usually go wrong. Kafka-esque "you're not detained but y…

>Still, refusing to give him a glass of water was not necessary,

OK. Sure. I suppose if you're held for 3 hours, you should have a right to water. Is the big problem here? If you're detained for more than 1 hour you should get a bottle of water?

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan (2013)

#67

Post by dang »

thr3290 wrote: post #65
literallycancer wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>has no paperwork in order (proof of work) Oh? I must have missed the law that required people to do be able to prove where they work at all times. >and has to wait for 3 hours before it gets resolved By this time, I hadn’t had any food or water in almost eighteen hours. Learning to read would be a good start.

Did you ever cross international border? My reading is just fine, read the article. He was 'fasting' before security check. And he should say it is a medical emergency, if he felt like passing out.

Please don't create many obscure throwaway accounts; we ban those. HN is a community. Anonymity is fine, but users should have some consistent identity that other users can relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be an entirely different forum.

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan (2013)

#68

Post by js2 »

I set off the chemical detector at SFO once.

I'm convinced it was because I'd been to one of those indoor go-kart'ing places the day before as part of a company event, and wore the same jeans.

Extended screening was not a fun experience. I've always opted out so I'm used to the standard pat down. This was a lot more invasive. I was directed to a private area with two security officers (SFO uses a private contractor, not TSA). Besides a more thorough pat down, my bag was unpacked and its items were swabbed and chemical tested. I don't think the chemical tester went off a second time. The whole procedure took about 15 minutes. It's not the easiest situation in which to remain calm.

But, instead of getting annoyed at the security personnel (TSA or otherwise), I remind myself that this is ultimately the doing of congress and my fellow citizens. And then I send the ACLU another donation.

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan (2013)

#69

Post by daveFNbuck »

a3n wrote: post #20
tuna-piano wrote: post #10

Do you believe the government entered his apartment? It seems at least somewhat likely. They see the sparse apartment and picture of some religious thing on the wall, and it freaks them out. They take the picture back to their office to figure out what the hell it is. I'm not knowledgeable about this stuff, but it seems like they could have used a "sneak and peek" warrant, as authorized in the patriot act. https://ww…

> Do you believe the government entered his apartment? Yes, I do believe that, because it's plausible, and because they asked him, when facing his apartment building, which side the parking lot is on. Which suggests that someone was there who could verify the answer.

To me it suggests that they had someone in the building trying to figure out which unit he lives in.

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan (2013)

#70

Post by semi-extrinsic »

School-Cotton wrote: post #62
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> uncertainty about the harmful effects of that radiation Personally I don't think there is much there to be concerned about. We know these waves penetrate less than 1mm into your skin, and that the only way they can cause damage is by thermal effects. We know it's not ionizing radiation, not by a long shot. I believe getting a sunburn at the beach is far worse. I think the privacy concerns, and the frequently low ef…

How is the comparison to sunburns supposed to make anyone feel better I go through millimeter wave scanners a few dozen times a year -- getting sunburned that often would dramatically increase your cancer risk.

Maybe it's not a good comparison, IDK. The trouble with getting a sunburn is because UV radiation is ionizing, and we know that causes cancer. Even if you don't get sunburnt, frequent unprotected exposure to strong sun increases cancer risk.

Maybe going to the sauna is a better comparison? We don't really have a consistent way of comparing effects of different types of non-ionizing radiation.

Post reply on HN