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

Opt Out of a Body Scan? Then Brace Yourself

finance.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 123 posts

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

#41

Post by biafra »

mike-cardwell wrote: post #22
jonnathanson wrote: post #19

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…

I thought only women operated the machinery where women were scanned and only men, where the men are scanned?

Maybe they save the pictures and share later?

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

#42

Post by jules »

roc wrote: post #33
binarymax wrote: post #3

The repeated "Opt out!" yelling tactic is obviously a way to intimidate and humiliate the participant, and dissuade anyone else who would otherwise choose to opt out. I have not had the opportunity to opt out yet. But when I do, I will gladly join in the opt out screaming session, and add some other choice words of my own. I refuse to quietly be a part of some absurd bureaucratic plot that slowly and steadily strips…

The whole invasive pat-down is just a way to intimidate and humiliate people away from that choice. This is the last straw for me, personally. I'll just be vacationing closer to home now or working old-school road trips into my plans. Maybe if the outraged take a few less flights a year, the vacation, airline and union lobbies will take up the cause.

For whom on HN are pat downs intimidating and/or humiliating? I personally don't mind it at all, but I can understand that they could be a problem for somebody.

I'm much more worried about CCTV's everywhere, cell phone tracking, internet usage tracking, tracking cars with cameras on highways that read number plates, etc. All these tools are extremely well suited for keeping a dictator in place. I'm afraid that if we get one, then we're not getting rid of him any time soon.

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

#43

Post by jasongullickson »

To me this is just another reason (of many) that travelers should consider general aviation (charter, etc.) as an alternative to commercial airline travel.

The straight financial cost may be higher but avoiding all of this sort of nonsense has its rewards, and remember that most GA operators are locally-owned smallish businesses that appreciate your support and treat their passengers like customers and not like prisoners (or worse).

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

#44

Post by tocomment »

jasongullickson wrote: post #43

To me this is just another reason (of many) that travelers should consider general aviation (charter, etc.) as an alternative to commercial airline travel. The straight financial cost may be higher but avoiding all of this sort of nonsense has its rewards, and remember that most GA operators are locally-owned smallish businesses that appreciate your support and treat their passengers like customers and not like priso…

Tell us more. How would I get to cancun for example?

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

#45

Post by Construct »

ajaxian wrote: post #14

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?

A Faraday cage is, by definition, a conductive cage. You'll have a hard time getting a conductive material through a metal detector.

Your best bet would be to construct a garment from a material which is significantly absorbs/attenuates the extremely high frequencies (30GHz to 300GHz) used by these millimeter-wave imaging scanners. Normal clothing passes these waves with minimal attenuation, where they bounce off of your skin and return to the scanner. The scanner then uses these returned signals to reconstruct an image of your naked body for the TSA to examine. If your clothing instead absorbs most of this signal, or at least attenuates it significantly enough to fall below the dynamic range of the imager, the TSA won't be able to see much.

Absorbing millimeter-wave signals to a significant enough degree will require a relatively thick material. I typically use RF foam in the lab when I'm working on EMI compliance issues because it is cheap and easy to cut to size. Attenuation data is scarce for the EHF band, but ARC Technologies has a lossy flexible foam that has 25dB of attenuation at 40GHz ( http://www.arc-tech.com/lossyflexiblefoam.php ), which amounts to 50dB of round-trip attenuation from the imager to your skin back to the imager. 50dB loss means only 0.001% of the original signal will bounce back to the scanner.

Even more absorption can be had if you use pyramidal foam, much like you see in a typical antenna chamber. ( http://www.ets-lindgren.com/pdf/absorber.pdf ) Of course, this probably won't be the most comfortable garment you've ever worn.

Still, I would imagine wearing such a garment would immediately raise red flags and you would quickly find yourself in a back room with some unfriendly TSA agents. You're much better off opting out.

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

#46

Post by mootothemax »

jamii wrote: post #38
ceejayoz wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I hate to keep making a point of this, but it has happened in the past and the solution wasn't pretty. Wikipedia says: The Troubles' impact on the ordinary people of Northern Ireland produced such psychological trauma that the city of Belfast had been compared to London during the Blitz. [104] The stress resulting from bomb attacks, street disturbances, security checkpoints, and the constant military presence had the…

Al Qaeda are incompetent morons. PIRA were fucking scary.

I kinda-sorta agree: suicide bombing's a pretty stupid way to go about things, as it means you wipe out all your capable terrorists after only one go. The IRA didn't have that problem - well, intentionally at least.

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

#47

Post by jlujan »

I just passed through the airport in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The back-scatter scanner is right next to the metal detector and the procedure was that they would "offer" you the choice to walk through the new scanner and said if you turned it down that they would have to perform a physical search. I told them I did not wish to go through the scanner, at which point they walked me past the metal detector (not through) to the pat-down area. While standing there for a few moments for the TSA personel, several people went through the metal detector with no further search. Further, the notification that the machine is still in testing phase is posted after you have already passed through it. It was abundantly clear at that point, the new policy of intimidation and humiliation has nothing to do with my personal safety.

The unilateral and unpublished changes in screening procedure are blatant abuses of authority and undermine the principles of our society. The argument that I have given implicit consent to being searched just by buying an airplane ticket is completely voided when the search procedures are constantly changing without detailed public knowledge or immediate explanation.

I have no fears about flying in general or those caused by the threat of terrorism. I am much more likely to die in a small plane crash with one of my pilot friends at the controls. What terrifies me the most is this blatant disregard of civil liberties and the apparent complacency with which the public submits to the draconian policies being put in place without consent of the people.

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

#48

Post by iampims »

jonnathanson wrote: post #19

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…

If that is really the case, I can’t wait for the deluge of lawsuits…

TSA is ridiculous.

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

#49

Post by steveklabnik »

jules wrote: post #42
roc wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole invasive pat-down is just a way to intimidate and humiliate people away from that choice. This is the last straw for me, personally. I'll just be vacationing closer to home now or working old-school road trips into my plans. Maybe if the outraged take a few less flights a year, the vacation, airline and union lobbies will take up the cause.

For whom on HN are pat downs intimidating and/or humiliating? I personally don't mind it at all, but I can understand that they could be a problem for somebody. I'm much more worried about CCTV's everywhere, cell phone tracking, internet usage tracking, tracking cars with cameras on highways that read number plates, etc. All these tools are extremely well suited for keeping a dictator in place. I'm afraid that if we…

Me. It's insane. It serves no purpose other than to intimidate and harasses normal citizens just trying to get from point A to point B. The fact that I'm assumed to be that stupid, plus the 1984-esqe overtones really, really gets to me.

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

#50

Post by koudelka »

Construct wrote: post #45
ajaxian wrote: post #14

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?

A Faraday cage is, by definition, a conductive cage. You'll have a hard time getting a conductive material through a metal detector. Your best bet would be to construct a garment from a material which is significantly absorbs/attenuates the extremely high frequencies (30GHz to 300GHz) used by these millimeter-wave imaging scanners. Normal clothing passes these waves with minimal attenuation, where they bounce off of…

Sounds like bacon underwear would work pretty well.
Post reply on HN