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

When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.

blog.izs.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 193 posts

Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.

#21

Post by mattmaroon »

"They’re expendable workers. I own this place. I’m the boss. They work for me. The only reason I don’t fire them is that they’re cheaper than robots. Etc."

I hate people like that. Why must he build himself up by putting down others? Regardless of what you think of the TSA's procedures, the people in the airport don't make the law. They're just decent people trying to make a living. If you have to insult them, albeit only to yourself, just to opt out of a scan you're probably the one who needs replaced by a robot.

Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.

#22

Post by shaddi »

ck2 wrote: post #17
lylejohnson wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So would the President choose the radiation naked picture method or the deep groping method for his daughters? I'd seriously like that question asked at some point by the press. No one in the press has the guts to ask him this. But man, I'd love to see that too.

To be fair, not just the President but also any Congressperson/Senator that is interviewed for the rest of the year on any program. Which one do you want your mother/children experiencing, naked picture radiation, deep groping, or would you instead choose the $10,000 fine for leaving (and possibly being put on the no-fly list forever)?

Maybe I'm just cynical but I'd imagine the answer would be something like, "The scanner. The devices are safe and we feel their use is important for ensuring the safety of US citizens. Next question?"

Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.

#23

Post by ars »

batasrki wrote: post #15
_ouxp wrote: post #9

I agree that having to choose between flying and getting groped/strip-scanned or not flying is ridiculous, and I'm happy that he and others were able to circumvent this. But he says they were using Millimeter Wave Scanners, which as far as I can tell, and contrary to his argument, do not use x-rays. That letter refers to another type of machine, x-ray backscatter scanners.

Well, firstly, the fact that the TSA employee didn't challenge that statement tells me that either that employee isn't properly informed or he/she knows more than what is publicly known. I'm gonna go on a limb and say it's the former rather than latter. Secondly, it shouldn't be a question of whether the machine is x-ray or millimeter wave. Both of those emit radiation and until there's definitive proof that one or b…

There is definitive proof that millimeter wave does not cause cancer, considering it's basically far infrared light which hits you all day every day.

Millimeter wave and X-ray scanners are not the same thing and should never be confused.

I personally would never go through an X-ray scanner. Are the scanners marked in some way so I know which is which?

Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.

#24

Post by rdouble »

I recently flew JFK->SFO and back on Virgin. There are no backscatter machines at the Virgin terminal at JFK. They do have them at SFO. About every 10th person was selected to go through the scanner. Nobody opted out. Contrary to most reports, the TSA agents at both airports were pretty nice and helpful. At JFK, they were helping a number non-english speaking travelers speed their way through the line so they wouldn't miss their flight. If anything was off, a couple of the agents at SFO were too chipper at 6am, which made them seem slightly insane. Privacy and health concerns aside, an issue with this machine is that it does nothing to speed up the security line. If anything, it is slightly slower than the metal detector.

I wonder if this is really a cancer risk. For instance, I feel like living in Toxic Williamsburg is probably a worse cancer risk than going through the backscatter machine twice a year.

http://gothamist.com/2007/04/11/toxic_williamsb.php

Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.

#25

Post by [deleted] »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #18

Just curious, does anyone have some hard evidence that the MWBS is a cancer risk? I ask this simply because anti-X activists have pushed junk science claims of the form "X causes CANCER" many times [1], so I'm a little dubious. I don't think fighting civil liberties violations with junk science is a useful tactic, if that is indeed what is happening here. [1] For example, feminists pushed the "silicone gel implants c…

[deleted]

Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.

#26

Post by DanI-S »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #18

Just curious, does anyone have some hard evidence that the MWBS is a cancer risk? I ask this simply because anti-X activists have pushed junk science claims of the form "X causes CANCER" many times [1], so I'm a little dubious. I don't think fighting civil liberties violations with junk science is a useful tactic, if that is indeed what is happening here. [1] For example, feminists pushed the "silicone gel implants c…

There's a letter here from a group of X-ray imaging and cancer experts recommending further study: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35498347/UCSF-letter-to-Holdren-co...

Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.

#27

Post by hfinney »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #18

Just curious, does anyone have some hard evidence that the MWBS is a cancer risk? I ask this simply because anti-X activists have pushed junk science claims of the form "X causes CANCER" many times [1], so I'm a little dubious. I don't think fighting civil liberties violations with junk science is a useful tactic, if that is indeed what is happening here. [1] For example, feminists pushed the "silicone gel implants c…

Don't forget cell phones, they cause cancer too.

Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.

#28

Post by mattmaroon »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #18

Just curious, does anyone have some hard evidence that the MWBS is a cancer risk? I ask this simply because anti-X activists have pushed junk science claims of the form "X causes CANCER" many times [1], so I'm a little dubious. I don't think fighting civil liberties violations with junk science is a useful tactic, if that is indeed what is happening here. [1] For example, feminists pushed the "silicone gel implants c…

My general position is to avoid things that could conceivably cause cancer until hard evidence shows they don't rather than the reverse. X-rays could conceivably cause cancer.

Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.

#29

Post by Tuna-Fish »

batasrki wrote: post #15
_ouxp wrote: post #9

I agree that having to choose between flying and getting groped/strip-scanned or not flying is ridiculous, and I'm happy that he and others were able to circumvent this. But he says they were using Millimeter Wave Scanners, which as far as I can tell, and contrary to his argument, do not use x-rays. That letter refers to another type of machine, x-ray backscatter scanners.

Well, firstly, the fact that the TSA employee didn't challenge that statement tells me that either that employee isn't properly informed or he/she knows more than what is publicly known. I'm gonna go on a limb and say it's the former rather than latter. Secondly, it shouldn't be a question of whether the machine is x-ray or millimeter wave. Both of those emit radiation and until there's definitive proof that one or b…

> Both of those emit radiation and until there's definitive proof that one or both do not cause damage, they shouldn't be in use.

Should we ban your light bulbs because they emit radiation that is in every way more dangerous than millimeter waves?

Sorry, but the catch-all "ban all radiation because the word radiation sounds scary" is beyond stupid. I believe there are good reasons not to use this kind of technology (mostly it's about privacy), but luddism like this degrades the legitimate health concerns there are against backscatter x-ray machines.

Post reply on HN