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

National Opt-Out Day Called Against Invasive Body Scanners

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 105 posts

Re: National Opt-Out Day Called Against Invasive Body Scanners

#91

Post by barrkel »

aneth wrote: post #84
barrkel wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of the zero successful terrorist incidents in the last quarter-billion US flights in the past 9 years, how many would this technology and procedure have stopped? How much money do we need to spend to prevent these zero events from occurring in the next 9 years? And how much did extra was spent on preventing the third of a million motor deaths that occurred during the same period? There is a huge lack of rationality i…

So we should keep security the same until something terrible happens? Or should we continue to improe security based on new information and technology? What's irrational is to assume because nothing has happened in the last 8 years (successfully anyway) that our current measures are adequate for the next eight.

Can you not see the disparity between spending allocation changes, and the real actual risks, when comparing air travel vs road travel?

Re: National Opt-Out Day Called Against Invasive Body Scanners

#92

Post by aneth »

dalke wrote: post #87
aneth wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have always been coerced into procedures that violate our privacy when we fly. If we were not, terrorists would regularly board aircraft with guns and ammo. From a shitload of personal travel (I fly twice a month) I have found 95% of the TSA to be good humored and responsible. The situation today is fa better than it was when run by private companies.

"far better than it was" ... citation needed? I thought the GAO has reported several times that it's as easy to get "bomb parts" and other weapons through TSA security as it was in the pre-TSA days. I've been trying to find the report. The closest I got to was one on "TSA's Cost and Performance Study of Private-Sector Airport Screening" which said there are methodological problems in the TSA's report on the cost of p…

I don't fly to LA.

By far better I mean the procedures are faster, better explained, and the operation is more professional.

My point is not to advocate government run security, but to point out that all this reactionary criticism of TSA is unjustified and it's crowdthink going on right now.

Re: National Opt-Out Day Called Against Invasive Body Scanners

#93

Post by aneth »

barrkel wrote: post #91
aneth wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we should keep security the same until something terrible happens? Or should we continue to improe security based on new information and technology? What's irrational is to assume because nothing has happened in the last 8 years (successfully anyway) that our current measures are adequate for the next eight.

Can you not see the disparity between spending allocation changes, and the real actual risks, when comparing air travel vs road travel?

It might have something to do with the disparity between the effect of 9/11 on our country and the effect of 3000 highway deaths.

Re: National Opt-Out Day Called Against Invasive Body Scanners

#94

Post by aneth »

Really disappointed in the hackernews community for downing dissenting opinions in this thread. I understand this is an emotional issue for people but that doesn't excuse for immaturity. Fortunately my karma is pretty meaningless to me as much as I like to watch it go up (or down.)

Re: National Opt-Out Day Called Against Invasive Body Scanners

#95

Post by robfitz »

dalke wrote: post #85
robfitz wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've opted out twice and it really hasn't been a big deal. It's slightly slower, but the security guys treated me fine. It was no more invasive than being patted down before entering a nightclub to make sure you aren't carrying anything pointy. Given your health concerns, opting out seems like the clear choice (though bear in mind I'm pulling from a sample size of only 2).

What kind of nightclubs do you go to? I've never seen that before. The most has been to check for ID.

Welcome to Atlanta! ;)

Re: National Opt-Out Day Called Against Invasive Body Scanners

#96

Post by dalke »

aneth wrote: post #92
dalke wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"far better than it was" ... citation needed? I thought the GAO has reported several times that it's as easy to get "bomb parts" and other weapons through TSA security as it was in the pre-TSA days. I've been trying to find the report. The closest I got to was one on "TSA's Cost and Performance Study of Private-Sector Airport Screening" which said there are methodological problems in the TSA's report on the cost of p…

I don't fly to LA. By far better I mean the procedures are faster, better explained, and the operation is more professional. My point is not to advocate government run security, but to point out that all this reactionary criticism of TSA is unjustified and it's crowdthink going on right now.

But is the security any better? Back in the 1990s the procedures were faster (because there was less checking) and better explained (because there were fewer things to explain). Does 3-1-1 and taking off of shoes make us more secure? If not, then the professionalism is unwarranted.

And every study report I've seen says that outside of a few things (secure doors, which the airlines fought against in the 1990s; and halting the practice of responding to hijacker demands), the overall security is not made better by this ever-increasing level of passenger scrutiny.

Re: National Opt-Out Day Called Against Invasive Body Scanners

#97

Post by dalke »

aneth wrote: post #84
barrkel wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of the zero successful terrorist incidents in the last quarter-billion US flights in the past 9 years, how many would this technology and procedure have stopped? How much money do we need to spend to prevent these zero events from occurring in the next 9 years? And how much did extra was spent on preventing the third of a million motor deaths that occurred during the same period? There is a huge lack of rationality i…

So we should keep security the same until something terrible happens? Or should we continue to improe security based on new information and technology? What's irrational is to assume because nothing has happened in the last 8 years (successfully anyway) that our current measures are adequate for the next eight.

Part of the problem is the lack of overall risk assessment. The OMB has pointed out that the TSA does not have way to judge how best to spend resources. As a result, we have ever increasing levels of passenger screening (focusing on the same threat model is like "keep security the same", right) while we still after 9 years don't have things like 100% cargo inspection (remember, the printer cartridges were flying as cargo) and no screening of ground crew.

The irrational part isn't that we assume our current measures are adequate. The irrational part is the changes we're making have no rational basis, little public input, and any public objections are responded to with "we can't go into the details in public because it's too sensitive," which is a very non-democratic answer to something which affects so many people.

Re: National Opt-Out Day Called Against Invasive Body Scanners

#98

Post by sp4rki »

sixtofour wrote: post #88
sp4rki wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I lean against a table it's not sexual, but when the table grabs my balls it sure as hell is. What I find interesting is that you equate an inanimate object in contact with a sexual organ with a human being fondling your penis, vagina, or breasts. 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 the…

An argument could be made, a really depressing argument in so many ways, that including children and grandmothers in the TSA's sexual assaults is for their protection, because if they were exempt, they could be targets for hiding contraband.

But what happens when terrorist children shove explosives inside themselves through their anuses, or when terrorist grandma shoves a handgun inside her vagina?

It's a very slippery slope to climb without a safety-line mate. The minimal increase in security this new procedures allows is just too small in contrast to the vast damage it does towards people's liberties and towards avoiding precedents that could influence some Big Brother type of behavior.

This might sound awful, but a terrorist attack is most likely to be thwarted because some agents doing profiling decided to be extra careful with Muslims (and this is just an example, I'm not targeting Muslims in any way), than because we have xray machines that strip people naked.

Re: National Opt-Out Day Called Against Invasive Body Scanners

#99

Post by sp4rki »

aneth wrote: post #94

Really disappointed in the hackernews community for downing dissenting opinions in this thread. I understand this is an emotional issue for people but that doesn't excuse for immaturity. Fortunately my karma is pretty meaningless to me as much as I like to watch it go up (or down.)

You called the communities opinion pathetic, based on some erroneous what "ifs" you came up with. Lot's of people just gave you their point of view on why you're wrong and others just down voted you because you didn't back up anything you said with facts. Here's my take:

1) I don't care about anyone seeing me naked, I've been working out for years, four times a week to look like I look now and if could walk butt naked everywhere I would. That doesn't mean that it's alright to look at other people's naked bodies, and sure as hell doesn't make right the possibility of a predator looking at naked children.

2) Regarding the scanner's radiation in no way is a healthy thing, and in the absence of actual proof stating if it's really negligible or if it poses a serious health risk, everyone should consider it dangerous. You're basically saying that it's OK to walk through that tight dark alley in the middle of a bad neighborhood at midnight because there's no proof that anyone has been killed or mugged there. I'd rather avoid that kind of situation unless completely necessary thank you very much.

You wanted a rational discussion so I'm giving you a rational answer (I have no emotional issue with the topic at hand). I don't care about people touching me or seeing me naked, and I do care (albeit very little) about the potential health risks. I find your comment on how seeing someone's body through X-rays is not a big deal, but seeing someone's luggage through X-ray is a violation of privacy, preposterous and honestly laughable. Tell me what the big difference between looking into your luggage and looking at your naked body is that makes the latter so unimportant in comparison to the former.

You made a comment for the sake of disagreeing (instead of saying anything of any value for the discussion) and then made some utterly incompetent remarks all the while calling people immature and basically saying their opinions have no value because you believe we're all cattle in the herd of the Anti-TSA fad. While I don't agree there was a necessity for down-votes, you're comments did add no value whatsoever so the people where in a way correct to do so. Next time if you're going to disagree do it politely and state facts and opinions instead of trying to come of as the better person.

Re: National Opt-Out Day Called Against Invasive Body Scanners

#100

Post by aneth »

sp4rki wrote: post #99
aneth wrote: post #94

Really disappointed in the hackernews community for downing dissenting opinions in this thread. I understand this is an emotional issue for people but that doesn't excuse for immaturity. Fortunately my karma is pretty meaningless to me as much as I like to watch it go up (or down.)

You called the communities opinion pathetic, based on some erroneous what "ifs" you came up with. Lot's of people just gave you their point of view on why you're wrong and others just down voted you because you didn't back up anything you said with facts. Here's my take: 1) I don't care about anyone seeing me naked, I've been working out for years, four times a week to look like I look now and if could walk butt nake…

Thanks for the feedback, however I did not call the community's opinion pathetic, nor did I state a bunch of ifs. In fact I did not even use the word "if" that I could find, nor did I state conditionals in any other way. I did say there was a pathetic lack of rational discussion, and I was not referring to HN specifically, but instead the general public discourse.

I did not comment "for the sake of disagreeing," but rather because I strongly disagree with the prevailing group think going on. This policy was poorly presented to the public, but that does not excuse its butchering, nor the wholesale dismissal of the TSA.

I also think it's wrong to pile on a bunch of decent people working as TSA agents just because of a couple bad anecdotes that made the news. Further, I think the rationale behind the policy, ways to limit abuse, and the trade-offs should be the subject of discussion. Instead it's a bunch of "fuck the police" without consideration for those of us in favor of having secure airline flights.

I don't see how being searched for weapons and explosives before boarding an aircraft is a violation of privacy, and finding ways around a more thorough search does not mean a more thorough search shouldn't be implemented.

You are free to fly your own plane without such searches, or to drive, walk, take a train, etc - however if you get on a plane with other people you simply do not have a right to not be searched, any more than you do when entering a courthouse, having a private dinner with the President, or going to a nightclub. Those policies are implemented to counter real dangers and threats, and your right to privacy does not prevail here.

I just got off a flight from OAK-SEA without incident or encounter, a few helpful pointers, and plenty of courtesy.

Post reply on HN