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

111–120 of 123 posts

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

#111

Post by CapitalistCartr »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #81
CapitalistCartr wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The politicians can't be reached." Of course they can! Mail, email, they can certainly be reached, and right now they're extra sensitive to issues that upset their constituents.

right now they're extra sensitive to issues that upset their constituents Quite the opposite. Right now is the maximum time before the next election. That means they've got the longest time possible for you to forget. Any shenanigans they'd like to engage in would be safest now.

It is the maximum time, but issues are not that simple. The long-term members of Congress know the electorate are upset, and want to make nice; the new members are spoiling for a fight; the Dems are in disarray and retreat (I haven't a clue as to why), and the GOP is eagerly taking ground. It's a perfect time to push an issue with your Congress members.

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

#113

Post by ceejayoz »

asmithmd1 wrote: post #100
ceejayoz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised Al Qaeda hasn't used the DC snipers as a model.

This amazes me also. Imagine 6 or 8 teams of two shooting one person at random every other day or so in our largest metro areas. It would paralyze the country. And TSA would start swiping your hands at the airport to see if you had recently fired a gun.

Exactly. The DC folks got caught because they used the same vehicle and stayed in the same area. Al Qaeda surely has the resources to avoid that one.

Add in some random rural targets and the entire country comes to a standstill. That this hasn't happened yet indicates to me either that Al Qaeda is far more neutered than we generally think, or they utterly lack any amount of imagination.

It's rather terrifying how close our society is to total panic and shutdown.

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

#114

Post by ratsbane »

hyperbovine wrote: post #71
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…

The GA safety record is 50 times poorer than that of commercial airlines. ( http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/safety ) I'll take the rectal probe, thank you.

The GA safety record also includes student pilots, weekend pilots, crop-dusters, and other high-risk flight operations.

Scheduled airlines are operated under FAA Part 121 rules, charter operators work under Part 135 rules, and everything below that is under Part 91 rules. Part 135 operations are much safer than for all GA. It's safer than driving, though not quite as safe as flying a scheduled air carrier.

From the NTSB (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/table1.htm), in 2009 scheduled air carriers had 0.006 fatalities per 100,000 flight hours, on-demand carriers 0.07 per 100,000, and all GA 1.33 fatalities per 100,000 hours.

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

#115

Post by chopsueyar »

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…

What thickness of foam are we talking about?

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

#116

Post by hyperbovine »

ratsbane wrote: post #114
hyperbovine wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GA safety record is 50 times poorer than that of commercial airlines. ( http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/safety ) I'll take the rectal probe, thank you.

The GA safety record also includes student pilots, weekend pilots, crop-dusters, and other high-risk flight operations. Scheduled airlines are operated under FAA Part 121 rules, charter operators work under Part 135 rules, and everything below that is under Part 91 rules. Part 135 operations are much safer than for all GA. It's safer than driving, though not quite as safe as flying a scheduled air carrier. From the N…

It's a fair point. Nevertheless, when faced with a tenfold increase in the risk of death, I suspect most people would opt for dealing with the TSA.

Regardless, the debate is pointless--GA is not a realistic solution for 95% of air travelers.

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

#117

Post by mistermann »

ceejayoz wrote: post #113
asmithmd1 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This amazes me also. Imagine 6 or 8 teams of two shooting one person at random every other day or so in our largest metro areas. It would paralyze the country. And TSA would start swiping your hands at the airport to see if you had recently fired a gun.

Exactly. The DC folks got caught because they used the same vehicle and stayed in the same area. Al Qaeda surely has the resources to avoid that one. Add in some random rural targets and the entire country comes to a standstill. That this hasn't happened yet indicates to me either that Al Qaeda is far more neutered than we generally think, or they utterly lack any amount of imagination. It's rather terrifying how clo…

>That this hasn't happened yet indicates to me either that Al Qaeda is far more neutered than we generally think, or they utterly lack any amount of imagination.

Or perhaps Al Quaeda isn't quite what you've been told. For some reason that is considered impossible by almost all normally open minded people.

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

#118

Post by gonk »

These machines and the whole security theatre is simply this: a psy-op designed to produce more malleable citizens in the years to come.

5 years from now there will be grown adults, who once were teens, who won't think anything of it because "thats how its been our whole lives, so whats the big deal?".

Never forget this fact: you are going to be replaced, citizen, in just a few short years.

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

#119

Post by ceejayoz »

mistermann wrote: post #117
ceejayoz wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The DC folks got caught because they used the same vehicle and stayed in the same area. Al Qaeda surely has the resources to avoid that one. Add in some random rural targets and the entire country comes to a standstill. That this hasn't happened yet indicates to me either that Al Qaeda is far more neutered than we generally think, or they utterly lack any amount of imagination. It's rather terrifying how clo…

>That this hasn't happened yet indicates to me either that Al Qaeda is far more neutered than we generally think, or they utterly lack any amount of imagination. Or perhaps Al Quaeda isn't quite what you've been told. For some reason that is considered impossible by almost all normally open minded people.

I tend to doubt that Al Qaeda is some poor, misunderstood group of people who just want to be our friends if we'd only let them.

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

#120

Post by ceejayoz »

hyperbovine wrote: post #116
ratsbane wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GA safety record also includes student pilots, weekend pilots, crop-dusters, and other high-risk flight operations. Scheduled airlines are operated under FAA Part 121 rules, charter operators work under Part 135 rules, and everything below that is under Part 91 rules. Part 135 operations are much safer than for all GA. It's safer than driving, though not quite as safe as flying a scheduled air carrier. From the N…

It's a fair point. Nevertheless, when faced with a tenfold increase in the risk of death, I suspect most people would opt for dealing with the TSA. Regardless, the debate is pointless--GA is not a realistic solution for 95% of air travelers.

> It's a fair point. Nevertheless, when faced with a tenfold increase in the risk of death, I suspect most people would opt for dealing with the TSA.

Only when presented in an alarming but meaningless manner like that.

Post reply on HN