61–70 of 105 posts
If you opt-out, please be respectful to the TSA security people. They're just working and can't change the policies for you. Most of them are not in high positions and can't just walk away and find another job the next day/week. So they're not quitting no matter how rudely you treat them. No point to it and it'll just make them grumpy towards you and everybody after you. It's best to just talk to them like a regular…
Well, I'll be flying that day, but I would probably opt out without the designated day.
This anti scanner fad stinks of mob mentality and hysteria. There is no evidence images have been stored at airports or that harm is caused by scans. There is a pathetic lack of rational discussion of factual policies and why such policies might be necessary, whether we like them or not. I expect more from the HN crowd. Someone want to fill us on on facts instead of speculation and fear mongering?
There is, but even is they weren't they still could easily be saved via a photograph. Also, I don't really care if anyone sees me naked anymore, but I bet most of the public does, and to violate the right to be covered in clothes of the people is irresponsible.
... or that harm is caused by scans.
It's an X-ray machine. It irradiates your body. Some experts say it's negligible, others say it's not negligible at all, some say it's not a big deal, and others say it is a big deal for regular travelers. I really don't care if it is/isn't harmful until it is scientifically proven it's not, in the meanwhile I'll choose to label said machine as a potential danger to my health.
There is a pathetic lack of rational discussion of factual policies and why such policies might be necessary, whether we like them or not.
You find pathetic that people want to discuss their opinion on the violation of their civil right because you disagree? You want actual facts? How about this: 1) There is some probability that you might be inflicting unnecessary damage on your body with this machines. 2) You're giving the TSA consent to see you naked, which not only is it a violation of your rights, but it's an awful precedent to set. 3) Various security experts have expressed their disdain of such measures because the small (if any) benefit to security they might offer is not commensurate to the inconvenience, potential health damage, and violation of rights that are being committed. 4) Not doing anything about it (not complaining) makes this sort of actions easier to justify in the future. 5) There are adults watching your children naked without a real need to do so nor your consent. 6) It freaking annoys the hell out of me and every one in the line.
Do you even want me to get started on the pat down policy? I mean I would expect that in a military base, a police station, the White House, or a drug deal, but in an airport and done to children, elderly women, and people whom might be extremely offended by it? Fuck no.
The real solution to this is profiling, plain and simple. Everybody knows this, but it's a career suicide for whomever sets it up. Imagine the articles: "Muslim man was unjustly groped at airport by slender blonde TSA agent. Man said 'she grabbed my penis...'"
The real irresponsibility here is the TSA claiming that an opt out day is irresponsible, when they could easily avoid it by not imposing their ridiculous and useless security standards. In the mean time, I'll keep shoving my shampoo bottles up my ass.
I'm emigrating from Canada to New Zealand and we're flying on Nov. 25. Since I'm near the border, we're flying from Detroit to Fort Worth and then LA.. I am not looking forward to this flight. I've already had dozens of medical x-rays in the past few months, and don't particularly want to get another dose, however low it may be. On the other hand, opting out sounds really unpleasant. I especially don't want my wife p…
I understand pat-downs within the U.S. are by same-sex agents. This wouldn't be the kind of thing they would get wrong.
This protest might not slow down security lines. These new scanners are pretty slow to begin with. When I went through SFO recently it took 1-2 minutes to go through the scanner. The slowness seemed to be a combination of the instructions given to the flyer for positioning themselves inside the device, the slowness of the device itself, and the slack in the line. In any case, I remember thinking that a pat-down might…
This reminds me of Gandhi's non-cooperation attitude and shrewdness in dealing with unjust people or policies in power. As an individual, you are powerless when you go through the security line. As a group, however, the American people have all of the power. Because this is both a democracy and a capitalist country (however flawed it may be), if there is an organized and concerted effort against the TSA policies, the…
An entire country would (and did) follow Gandhi. I don't think there is a single person in the US whom everyone would follow for a day. Especially if it meant shutting down all business travel during that day.
I hope they're successful in getting TSA's ridiculous policy changed. One shouldn't have to choose between being unnecessarily irradiated and virtually strip-searched or being sexually assaulted (in any other context, TSA's new pat-down procedures would be classified as criminal sexual conduct) just to ride on an airplane.
It's just a normal pat-down, the kind that might be given by an officer of the law to someone reasonably suspected to be armed and dangerous. It's not like the pat-downs themselves are unusual, it's that the TSA doesn't have cause (or maybe even authority) to do these pat-downs. Also, it's not sexual, so it can't possibly be sexual assault. Assault or battery is about the most you could claim.
A police officer conducts this type of pat-down when a person is arrested or is in the process of being arrested or detained because there is a sufficient threat indicator. What the TSA is doing is saying that either you get irradiated and people get to see you naked, or you're a potential terrorist/criminal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So because it doesn't provide absolute security it doesn't provide "additional" security? Those are two very different things.
It provides incremental security at a cost to our civil liberties and taxes that is orders of magnitude greater than existing policy.
I'm guessing the same people critical of this policy criticized the previous one for being easy to circumvent.
What do you all suggest we do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TSA agents aren't officers of the law. You might consider it non-sexual, but try asking a rape victim instead. I most certainly consider someone touching my private parts a sexual assault; and the fact that it's institutionalized doesn't make it any less a scandal. Don't be under any illusions; people who enjoy this kind of thing will see it as an interesting alternative career choice to school janitor etc. If the sc…
Yeah, that's what I meant when I said they might not have authority. But they have been delegated that authority by the DHS, which does have cabinet-level executive status. So it's arguable. It's interesting how you consider any interaction with your "private parts" to be sexual in nature. If you lean against a table, are you having sex with it? Are you having sex with your underwear right now?? The agent isn't touch…
I honestly care less about the pats, if a dude or dudette wants to touch my balls and buttocks to make sure I'm not packing (pun intended), then go ahead. But to see them extend this same courtesy to grandmothers and little children is disgusting, unnecessary, and irresponsible.
If you opt-out, please be respectful to the TSA security people. They're just working and can't change the policies for you. Most of them are not in high positions and can't just walk away and find another job the next day/week. So they're not quitting no matter how rudely you treat them. No point to it and it'll just make them grumpy towards you and everybody after you. It's best to just talk to them like a regular…
See tptacek's comment from a few weeks ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1849035
I'm pretty sure that those low TSA people would LOVE to get a better job, but guess what they're there and that's the reality of it. In a better reality, we wouldn't have this security theater. However, we should focus our angry/energy towards solutions that will bring better results.
Besides, if they quit, there lines of people to take their place. The economy isn't that great and there's lots of people looking for jobs.
(I'm not saying let them keep their jobs and security theater. Just saying not need waste energy on being rude to them.)