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

61–70 of 193 posts

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

#61

Post by scott_s »

jdminhbg wrote: post #56
scott_s wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find your argument disingenuous, since these people were likely hired before these new regulations were in place.

It's not as if this is the first invasive thing they've done, and I think my argument still stands if rephrased as "people who wouldn't quit a job when told to look at naked pictures and grope strangers all day."

Security personnel will almost always have to perform a job that is, in some way, invasive. Your argument could apply to all security personnel, not just those participating in the new policies.

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

#62

Post by motters »

Americans really should start a campaign against this kind of degrading treatment and make sure that it's stopped. It shows a profound lack of respect for human dignity. The video showing a child being molested by an airport security guard is just horrific, and long lasting psychological damage could occur with a child that young after having a traumatic experience of that kind.

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

#63

Post by ars »

jcl wrote: post #41
ars wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

From an NPR blog entry: By the way, you might be wondering: Can the average traveler standing in a security line tell the difference? Yes, a TSA spokesman says. The X-ray type is blue and has two walls. The millimeter-wave machine is grayish-white and is more cylindrical. http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/11/12/131275949/protest...

Thanks. Just how shielded are those X-ray scanners?

They look like just walking near them will expose you.

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

#64

Post by aaroneous »

Two interesting excerpts from the Backscatter X-ray wikipedia page:

The national radiation safety standard (see below) sets a dose per screening limit for the general-use category. To meet the requirements of the general-use category a full-body x-ray security system must deliver less than the dose a person receives during 4 minutes of airline flight. TSA has set their dose limit to ensure a person receives less radiation from one scan with a TSA general-use x-ray security system than from 2 minutes of airline flight.

And

Fathers exposed to medical diagnostic x-rays are more likely to have infants who contract leukemia, especially if exposure is closer to conception or includes two or more X-rays of the lower gastrointestinal (GI) tract or lower abdomen.[36] In medical radiography the x-ray beam is adjusted to expose only the area of which an image is required, so that generally shielding is applied to the patient to avoid exposing the gonads,[37] whereas in an airport backscatter scan, the testicles of men and boys will be deliberately subjected to the direct beam, and radiation will also reach the ovaries of female subjects. Whilst the overall dose averaged over the entire body is lower in a backscatter X-ray scan than in a typical medical X-ray examination, because of the shielding of the gonads used in medical radiography this in itself does not mean that the dose to the testicles would be less in an airport scan.

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

#65

Post by simonsarris »

Symmetry wrote: post #38
batasrki wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We actually have a very good idea how much damage x-rays and millimeter waves do to the human body, since we've been dealing with both technologically for many years. Because x-rays are used in medical devices that have to be approved by the FDA, we've developed some very good ideas about what sort of doses are harmful and which aren't. The damage done by the x-ray scans used by the TSA do indeed produce damage, meas…

But isn't 10 microSieverts over a 5 hour flight much better than 1 microSievert in the span on a few seconds?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning#Fractionati...

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

#66

Post by fleitz »

lylejohnson wrote: post #14
ck2 wrote: post #5

How dumb are people to not realize it's radiation one way or another? Do they think it's "magic" they can see through your clothes? How can there be a class action lawsuit against printer ink, but not against radiating you for no reason with devices that have no track record? Where are these devices for entering Congress or the Whitehouse if they are so safe? So would the President choose the radiation naked picture…

> 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.

Brilliant framing of the issue. I can see the ads already. This framing is almost as brilliant as the death tax.

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

#67

Post by yummyfajitas »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #58
jamesaguilar wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get a pretty decent radiation dose from flying around high in the atmosphere too. From what I have read the crossover point where you absorb more x-ray radiation in the flight than the scanners is about an hour and a half. See here for a bunch of things to read ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray#Health_effect... ). According to this page, 42 minutes of ordinary living is sufficient to give you a sim…

According to what I've read, the energy of the radiation prevents it from penetrating deeply (indeed, the Compton effect backscatter at the surface is the whole point of it). This might sound like a good thing, but it also means that the radiation isn't "diluted" over the full mass of your body. The damaging effects will be localized to -- and concentrated within -- the skin and shallower tissues. So those organs aff…

This argument betrays a lack of understanding of radiation physics.

Think of each cell in your body as a dice. When a cell is hit by radiation, the dice is rolled - you get cancer if any dice comes up 6 (these are billion-sided dice). The radiation dose is the number of dice rolls you need to make.

Now, under which circumstance is a roll of 6 more likely? If you roll 100 dice 1 time each (traditional x-ray), or 1 dice 100 times (backscattered xray)?

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

#68

Post by [deleted] »

Symmetry wrote: post #38
batasrki wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We actually have a very good idea how much damage x-rays and millimeter waves do to the human body, since we've been dealing with both technologically for many years. Because x-rays are used in medical devices that have to be approved by the FDA, we've developed some very good ideas about what sort of doses are harmful and which aren't. The damage done by the x-ray scans used by the TSA do indeed produce damage, meas…

[deleted]

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

#69

Post by mechanical_fish »

scott_s wrote: post #48
ck2 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most of them are intoxicated on the power, I mean how much would someone have to pay you to grope people all day? I'd quit in an hour. Have you seen the photo where this horrifying parody http://imgur.com/Nu5f8.jpg is the wallpaper on the computer screen in the TSA office? http://imgur.com/1xFBp.jpg I mean think about the mentality - in the very workplace they do it.

Saying "I would do X when presented with Y" is easy to say when you have not been presented with Y. Regarding the wallpaper, yes, it's inappropriate. Perhaps it is an indication that the people are drunk with power. But it could also be another instance of people in an uncomfortable situation using humor as a coping mechanism.

In The Gift of Fear, Gavin de Becker talks about how, as a security consultant, he takes offhand jokes very seriously. He tells the story about the office which received an odd-looking package that nobody was expecting. They debated whether to open it. Eventually one guy decided to open it, so his coworker left the room. As the coworker was leaving, he made an offhand joke over his shoulder: "I'm going to stand in the other room so I won't be around when the bomb goes off."

Then the bomb went off.

Jokes are designed as a mechanism for saying speculative, potentially scary things without being threatening or looking stupid. When I see a TSA agent with that wallpaper, I see someone who knows at some level that something is very wrong but isn't able to say so out loud. Maybe they can't even say it out loud to themselves.

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

#70

Post by bambax »

lylejohnson wrote: post #14
ck2 wrote: post #5

How dumb are people to not realize it's radiation one way or another? Do they think it's "magic" they can see through your clothes? How can there be a class action lawsuit against printer ink, but not against radiating you for no reason with devices that have no track record? Where are these devices for entering Congress or the Whitehouse if they are so safe? So would the President choose the radiation naked picture…

> 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.

There is a meme growing on Twitter:

http://twitter.com/#search?q=%40cnn

Mr. President: Would you send Michelle/Sasha/Malia through TSA screening? Naked photos or invasive genital groping, you get to pick.

Post reply on HN