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

101–110 of 123 posts

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

#101

Post by sammcd »

vladk wrote: post #85
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 was at O'Hare this summer and noticed the exact same thing. All the dudes ended up going through the metal detector, and most of the girls went through the full body scanner. Then I got really upset when I saw them selecting a young teenage girl to go through the scanner as well - perverts.

This make me wish there was one nearby within site from an insecure area.

It would be very interesting to take data on male/female ratio over course of a few hours.

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

#102

Post by roc »

jamii wrote: post #97
roc wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The IRA was a completely different case. They weren't asking agents to directly murder random individuals or property. They had the tacit support of (or were at least politely ignored by) much of the surrounding populace and social institutions. They didn't stick out in a crowd. They were born and raised there, had history, jobs, families. Al Qaeda enjoys none of those advantages for planning attacks in the US. Until…

Besides the fact that most of the Al Qaeda members involved in the London bombings were British citizens, if you stand out then the IRA style attacks are easier to perform. You don't have to get through airport security or pass a background check. You just go shopping. Thousands of immigrants do it without being stopped by the police. > They weren't asking agents to directly murder random individuals or property. Fro…

Having citizenship doesn't confer the same benefits of having roots like the IRA did. It makes you less suspicious than someone without citizenship, sure. But it's still not sufficient for an IRA-style campaign.

e.g. Attacking a shopping mall or hotel isn't difficult and all but impossible to prevent, I absolutely agree. The difference is, the al qaeda agent won't find refuge a few blocks away. He won't melt into any crowd. He won't have trusted people from the community who will keep quiet or lie to the authorities for him. He won't have a weapon supplier who continues to supply him. And the resource that he does have are far more likely to melt away as it becomes clear that he is out to indiscriminately murder. Ergo the ability of any foreign agent to make subsequent strikes is drastically reduced.

And, unless I'm mistaken, the IRA never set out to murder non-uniformed, uninvolved civilians. Those that were killed, such as on Bloody Friday, were considered among the IRA wholly undesirable collateral damage. While it takes a certain kind of person to be convinced to drop off a bomb designed to strike a military target, or property target of a collaborator, that might kill innocent people, it's far, far more difficult to find people who will execute an attack designed to kill people going about their day.

And I absolutely agree that our response is laughable. But that's how it goes. Authority has no vested interest in proportional or rational response. Its rewards are aligned with over-reaction. If its masters (ostensibly the voters) don't choose to curtail that response or correct the reward structure, we'll only see continued escalation.

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

#104

Post by jamii »

tomjen3 wrote: post #99
jamii wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stupid lawmaking aside, I was really proud the day after the London bombings to see so many people commuting to work regardless. There were a fair few white faces and it was deathly silent but the place was still packed. You can blow up our trains and murder our citizens but life goes on.

Thats great to hear - I really hate the politicians for what they have done to the UK.

I feel like they acted the way they did because they thought the public wanted to see some kind of action in response to the threat. It's as much the fault of the British public for being so ambivalent about politics that the government is left trying to guess what we want.

Perhaps if more people were to study modern history it would be a bigger issue. Outside of my immediate friendship group, most of the people I've talked about it don't seem to view it as an issue. If you don't explicitly value civil liberty then it seems like a fair exchange for the chance to catch a terrorist before they act. Not many people think it through further than that.

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

#105

Post by jonnathanson »

sammcd wrote: post #101
vladk wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was at O'Hare this summer and noticed the exact same thing. All the dudes ended up going through the metal detector, and most of the girls went through the full body scanner. Then I got really upset when I saw them selecting a young teenage girl to go through the scanner as well - perverts.

This make me wish there was one nearby within site from an insecure area. It would be very interesting to take data on male/female ratio over course of a few hours.

Some fun things against which to compare the ratio:

- Total male/female ratio among the group processed that day (obviously).

- Average male/female ratio involved in terrorist threats and incidents.

I bet the numbers would tell quite a story.

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

#106

Post by pbhjpbhj »

jules wrote: post #91
roc wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you haven't seen or had the new pat-downs then? They're tantamount to a strip search. They lift, they separate. The choice for airline passengers in the US is now: be photographed nude, or have the TSA jostle your luggage. Reasonableness has been left at the door. Raising data tracking concerns is a false dichotomy; I can hate and distrust the expansion of both.

You're right I've only experienced European pat downs so far. However, I doubt that any kind of pat down would bother me much except if it takes an unreasonable amount of time. Somehow they nearly always select me randomly. I make sure that I'm the one enjoying the pat down the most by smiling and winking at the officer when I get selected. Agreed that the photographing and pat downs are unreasonable. One time I got…

>One time I got selected for a pat down because the metal detector went off of my belt.

I think they have an override under the desk that they can push - I get stopped every time (internal UK flights, not many). I've always found I'm stopped often, I'm bearded and usually have a backpack.

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

#107

Post by SkyMarshal »

ChristianMarks wrote: post #103

They can pat me down in the crotch until they're blue in the face: they'll never find anything.

I'm not sure what that means, or if I want to know, or if I'm seeing innuendos where there aren't any, but it made me lol anyway. Have an upvote.

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

#108

Post by SkyMarshal »

To the frequent business travelers, might this increase the growing trend of working remotely?

Now that it's trivial to set up video-conferencing on your home workstation, and collaborate via online tools that range the gamut from github to office docs to just about anything you can imagine, might this drive even more people to shift business travel to remote work instead?

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

#109

Post by jamii »

roc wrote: post #102
jamii wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides the fact that most of the Al Qaeda members involved in the London bombings were British citizens, if you stand out then the IRA style attacks are easier to perform. You don't have to get through airport security or pass a background check. You just go shopping. Thousands of immigrants do it without being stopped by the police. > They weren't asking agents to directly murder random individuals or property. Fro…

Having citizenship doesn't confer the same benefits of having roots like the IRA did. It makes you less suspicious than someone without citizenship, sure. But it's still not sufficient for an IRA-style campaign. e.g. Attacking a shopping mall or hotel isn't difficult and all but impossible to prevent, I absolutely agree. The difference is, the al qaeda agent won't find refuge a few blocks away. He won't melt into any…

> But it's still not sufficient for an IRA-style campaign

Sure, you wouldn't be as successful as the IRA, but it would still be a damn sight easier than attacking planes. Consider the hotel attacks in India for an example of how poorly defended most locations are.

> the IRA never set out to murder non-uniformed, uninvolved civilians

They bombed shops and factories that they considered to be part of the 'artificial'' economy of the British rulers. Non-uniformed, uninvolved civilians tend to work in shops and factories, hence the huge number of civilian injuries and casualties.

More stats:

Deaths by status of victim[2]

Status No.

Civilian 1855

Members of security forces (and reserves) 1123

of whom:

British Army (excluding Northern Ireland regiments) 502

Royal Ulster Constabulary 301

Ulster Defence Regiment 196

Northern Ireland Prison Service 24

Garda Síochána 9

Royal Irish Regiment 7

Territorial Army 7

English police forces 6

Royal Air Force 4

Royal Navy 2

Irish Army 1

Members of Republican Paramilitary Groups 394

Members of loyalist Paramilitary Groups 151

> .... property target of a collaborator ...

Whilst the Troubles was nominally a political conflict the lines were drawn across ethnic/religious grounds. Being a Protestant was sufficient to draw fire from PIRA (similary Catholics were persecuted by the loyalists).

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

#110

Post by saurik »

chadgeidel wrote: post #60
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…

I never thought of that, but wouldn't the TSA have authority over GA as well?

"""TSA’s Office of General Aviation is committed to working with the industry and community to develop and implement reasonable and effective security measures. As part of these efforts, TSA has recently launched the General Aviation Secure Program. This program is designed to build upon the Airport Watch program, encouraging everyone to be vigilant about general aviation security and report any unusual activities to TSA."""

[ http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/tsnm/general_aviation/programs... ]

( which I found via http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/tsnm/general_aviation/index.sh... )

Post reply on HN