Opt Out of a Body Scan? Then Brace Yourself • Hacker News Board

Re: Opt Out of a Body Scan? Then Brace Yourself

#11

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 2:26 PM UTC

daten wrote: post #10

daten wrote: post #8

Baltimore Washington Intl. airport and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport both recently got body scanners. They both changed their process to close all lanes not equipped with a body-scanner and funnel everyone through the one or two scanners they had. At BWI they would make every 15th or so person go through the scanner, or anyone who volunteered by walking up to it instead of the metal detector. At At…

Additionally I would feel perfectly safe flying without any security screening at the airports. No "terrorists" have been attacking schools, churches, malls, buses, trains, bridges, theaters, libraries, office buildings, etc. Either they only attack planes (not even the airports themselves) or there aren't enough terrorists to justify this amount of "security".

I've always been baffled by the lack of those sorts of attacks. One can imagine the economic damage if everyone was terrified to go to malls, grocery stores, schools, etc.

Amazon.com would be about the only company to come out okay.

Re: Opt Out of a Body Scan? Then Brace Yourself

#12

Post by gjm11 » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 2:26 PM UTC

teilo wrote: post #7

I am seriously tempted to find some metal tape for the next time I have to fly, "mark up" my t-shirt with a suggestion as to where the TSA can shove their body-scan machine, and walk through side-ways.

Sounds like a great way to get a real strip-search as well as a virtual one. Of course, you may be willing to accept that to make your point.

Re: Opt Out of a Body Scan? Then Brace Yourself

#13

Post by recampbell » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 2:28 PM UTC

Who is responsible for crafting these procedures, I.E., requiring the body scans or alternative opt-out procedures? Do they have a name besides "Homeland Security"?

Re: Opt Out of a Body Scan? Then Brace Yourself

#14

Post by ajaxian » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 2:31 PM UTC

Serious question for the physicists: How feasible would it be to put a faraday cage in one's underpants that wouldn't trigger a metal detector but would mess up the body scanner?

Re: Opt Out of a Body Scan? Then Brace Yourself

#15

Post by smountcastle » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 2:33 PM UTC

What happens when a parent has their children opt-out of the full-body scanner? Can the TSA be sued for child abuse or can the parent press for criminal charges for touching?

Re: Opt Out of a Body Scan? Then Brace Yourself

#16

Post by daten » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 2:36 PM UTC

teilo wrote: post #7

I am seriously tempted to find some metal tape for the next time I have to fly, "mark up" my t-shirt with a suggestion as to where the TSA can shove their body-scan machine, and walk through side-ways.

Your idea reminds me of this story from 2006.

Milwaukee resident Ryan Bird wrote "Kip Hawley is an Idiot" on a plastic bag given to passengers by airport security. As a result he claims he was detained and told that the First Amendment did not apply to security checkpoints.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/606142...

Kip Hawley was the head of TSA at the time.

Re: Opt Out of a Body Scan? Then Brace Yourself

#17

Post by shasta » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 2:36 PM UTC

yardie wrote: post #4

Just got through the airport lastweek and didn't have to deal with this silliness. But I can't wait to go back to the US so I can opt-out. I'm not a perv, but can't wait to see the look on the screener's face while s/he's forced to touch my johnson. "That's not a roll of quarters my friend" :-)

"I was going to guess nickels."

Re: Opt Out of a Body Scan? Then Brace Yourself

#18

Post by percept » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 2:42 PM UTC

yequalsx wrote: post #9

Every story about the TSA always seems to end with something like this article did: "Mr. Delahorne said he was perfectly willing to comply with all procedures to ensure good security." There's always a quote about how someone is willing to do what must be done to ensure our safety. It makes me think that news agencies are required to do this or get paid to do this.

I just view it as a sort of standard disclaimer to preempt the usual criticism that dissenters are somehow ignorant, unreasonable, or un-American.

Basically: "I'm an otherwise reasonable person in full possession of my faculties."

Re: Opt Out of a Body Scan? Then Brace Yourself

#19

Post by jonnathanson » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 2:44 PM UTC

I went through O'Hare recently, where they've installed a battery of these devices. The way they had it set up, it was used as the secondary screener for people who got called out for random searches.

Guess who got called for "random" searches in the machine? Pretty much every hot chick in line. Now, this observation was purely anecdotal, so take it for what it is. But the coincidence was not lost on me, or on anyone else in the line. It was disgusting behavior on the TSA workers' part.

Re: Opt Out of a Body Scan? Then Brace Yourself

#20

Post by roc » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 2:46 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #11

daten wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Additionally I would feel perfectly safe flying without any security screening at the airports. No "terrorists" have been attacking schools, churches, malls, buses, trains, bridges, theaters, libraries, office buildings, etc. Either they only attack planes (not even the airports themselves) or there aren't enough terrorists to justify this amount of "security".

I've always been baffled by the lack of those sorts of attacks. One can imagine the economic damage if everyone was terrified to go to malls, grocery stores, schools, etc. Amazon.com would be about the only company to come out okay.

Despite what the security and media apparatus would have us believe, it simply isn't easy to convince people to go on murderous rampages. Most people are not monsters. Let alone suicidal ones.

When you realize the inhumanity required to follow through on a terror plot is the limiting resource, their targeting and methods make more sense.