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

Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down

noblasters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 185 posts

Re: Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down

#171

Post by sgt »

bitwize wrote: post #157
sgt wrote: post #133

Is it common to say "Sir" when speaking to a police officer in the US? Where I come from, the police officer is expected to call you "Sir" and act as your servant.

I say "sir" to the cashier at Starbucks. It's a politeness and showing of respect thing.

I don't have that type of respect for the cashier at Starbucks, although I don't have "disrespect" for him/her either, if you can put that way.

But come on, I'm friendly to them and that's what counts.

How can a "the customer is always right" mindset work, if the customer says "sir"?

"A cup of cappuccino, sir"

"Yes sir"

"How long will it take, sir?"

"2 minutes, sir"

"Excellent, my good sir. I shall be awaiting my delicious cup of coffee, my liege."

Never heard this :-)

Re: Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down

#172

Post by Vivtek »

dedward wrote: post #42
Devilboy wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he means on arrival in the US, not before you get on the plane.

I'm theorizing here - maybe someone can answer - would the flight & airport in question be laid out such that, once passing through immigration, you were still in the secure area of the airport and able to board another aircraft, or was there a choice between "connecting flights" and "exit". The only rational explanation I can come up with would be if the airport layout demanded this - but it seems unlikely. This als…

Plenty of airports were built before the need (perceived or real) for a security zone was discovered, Cincinnati being one of those. In some cases, airports have managed to come up with a reasonable design to cover all needs, but in some there are some not-very-ideal solutions in use. Cincinnati, again, apparently being one of these.

Re: Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down

#173

Post by Vivtek »

aneth wrote: post #83
jacquesm wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other countries this idiocy would not have taken place to begin with.

If you refuse to cooperate with security in England, Germany, France, Italy, China, Burma, India, or any other place I can imagine, you would not have a policeman calmly understanding of how you were asserting your constitutional rights.

You've clearly never been to Germany in your life.

Re: Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down

#174

Post by 27182818284 »

qeorge wrote: post #13
27182818284 wrote: post #7

Really lucky. That situation could have easily turned into a 6 hour detention regardless of legal rights (which are already being ignored)

That's the same threat the TSA agents make. Don't assert your rights or it'll be a huge pain in the ass. Civil disobedience is not for the meek.

Oh absolutely and I'm happy to see the momentum building with this issue. That said, he still got lucky. For example, he was able to sit down and use his laptop still. It is a sad reflection on the US and the TSA, but I'm surprised they allowed that even. Had I not read the story and someone asked me to guess what would happen if a person took this attitude, I would have guessed the person was detained and kept in a back, empty room for 6-8 hours.

Re: Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down

#175

Post by redrobot5050 »

gcv wrote: post #156
zcid wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was plenty sufficient airport security 10 years ago. The airlines and airports were perfectly capable of handling it then just as they are now.

Far be it from me to defend the TSA (its behavior and policies are outrageous), but your comment is simply wrong. Before September 11th, private companies handled airport security. After September 11th, airlines and airports were heavily criticized for relying on inadequately trained, low-paid employees for something as essential as security. Everyone in the world agreed that a federal agency must step in to do a bet…

>After September 11th, airlines and airports were heavily criticized for relying on inadequately trained, low-paid employees for something as essential as security

Pro-tip: The same poorly trained, low-paid employees are now federal TSA goons.

>Everyone in the world agreed that a federal agency must step in to do a better job, and the TSA is the result.

Clearly, everyone in the world was overreacting to 9/11, and made poor, rash decisions. I'm sure many libertarians felt that despite 9/11, they would feel much safer having airport security handled by airlines, and not a bureaucratic organization that has yet to catch any terrorists in the act, or foil any terrorist plots.

Re: Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down

#176

Post by amanfredi »

rmc wrote: post #158
aperiodic wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work at a nuclear reactor, and for the type of dosimeters we wear on the job (thermoluminescent dosimeters), there's no chance of a false-positive, as far as I'm aware. The only thing that can cause the crystal to lose electrons is ionizing radiation in a certain energy range. As long as there were procedures to ensure that the badges are only worn on the job, false positives shouldn't be an issue.

As long as there were procedures to ensure that the badges are only worn on the job, false positives shouldn't be an issue. And that's how your false positives happen. How many people would have to wear dosimetres? Would they be mandatory? How many people per year will leave them at home and borrow their workmate's dosimeter so the boss doesn't give out? How many will drive home in their uniforms? Go to the shops in…

After all this, you don't think the TSA is strict on their policies?

Re: Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down

#177

Post by zcid »

epo wrote: post #165
zcid wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was plenty sufficient airport security 10 years ago. The airlines and airports were perfectly capable of handling it then just as they are now.

That is simply nonsense, 10 years there was little practical security on domestic US flights. That was the soft underbelly that the 9/11 hijackers exploited. Security on international flights was also lacking compared to e.g. the UK. The TSA is a hysterical over-reaction.

The only true improvement I've seen are the reinforced cockpit doors. Everything else is just a smokescreen.

Re: Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down

#178

Post by dpatru »

gtufano wrote: post #149
dpatru wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I very much got the impression that the author was refusing to be scanned or searched just to make trouble. That's like saying, you are just making trouble when you resist a pick-pocket or robber. You are never "just making trouble" when you assert your rights. On the contrary, government is the one just making trouble. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect rights. However, government seems to be f…

I, as European, always find fascinating when US people says: "The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect rights"... I feel the purpose of government is to protect and nurture the community and give the citizen common services. Different personal opionions and exceptions apply of course, but I feel this is probably the biggest difference in culture between US and EU.

There is no reason why payment for community nurturing and common services needs to extracted by force and administered by a monopoly.

Re: Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down

#179

Post by ZachPruckowski »

ZachPruckowski wrote: post #96
dadkins wrote: post #20

Does anyone know why the TSA even gives you the choice to opt out of the backscatter machines? You can't opt out of the metal detectors. It seems like the default policy would be for the new machines to be mandatory as well.

It's a slow-boiling sort of thing. Here was their plan: 1) Implement the backscatter machines with a non-invasive opt-out. Most people won't opt-out, but those that do won't complain, because the opt-out is painless. 2) Now that you've had backscatter machines for nearly a year, make the opt-out much more invasive. The complainers will be seen as crazy, since the Backscatter has been something we've been tolerating f…

>Here was their plan:

It occurs to me now (after the edit deadline has passed) that this might have implied I have some sort of inside knowledge. That's not the case. The above is conjecture.

Re: Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down

#180

Post by aperiodic »

rmc wrote: post #158
aperiodic wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work at a nuclear reactor, and for the type of dosimeters we wear on the job (thermoluminescent dosimeters), there's no chance of a false-positive, as far as I'm aware. The only thing that can cause the crystal to lose electrons is ionizing radiation in a certain energy range. As long as there were procedures to ensure that the badges are only worn on the job, false positives shouldn't be an issue.

As long as there were procedures to ensure that the badges are only worn on the job, false positives shouldn't be an issue. And that's how your false positives happen. How many people would have to wear dosimetres? Would they be mandatory? How many people per year will leave them at home and borrow their workmate's dosimeter so the boss doesn't give out? How many will drive home in their uniforms? Go to the shops in…

It's not very hard to solve this problem. At work, we just have a bunch of small cubbies where everyone keeps their dosimeters. When you come in, you take it out and put it on; when you leave, you take it off and put it in. Occasionally people forget to take their dosimetry off, but it's not a big deal–it's extremely unlikely you're going to receive a significant dose outside of the facility (although you are constantly receiving a low-level radiation dose from cosmic rays, and, if you're below ground, from radon gas). I should mention that I work at a test reactor where the typical dosage is so low that the Federal Government doesn't even require us to track employee dose. I get more dose from flying cross-country several times a year[1] than I do working at the reactor. So, I don't know how dosimetry policy differs at power reactors.

Regardless, I think it would be particularly illuminating if there were false positives. Why not have employees who are concerned wear dosimeters constantly, and at the same time stick reference dosimeters near where they usually stand while a scanner is in operation. If their dose is roughly the same as that of the reference dosimetry, there's not much room to complain about the scanners.

The fact is we are being constantly bombarded by low-level radiation from cosmic rays and radon gas simply by virtue of standing on the surface of the earth. The level of radiation these scanners output is much smaller than that. Wikipedia[2] cites an article in the European Journal of Radiology that gives a dose range for backscatter machines of between 0.07 and 6 micro-Sieverts. For reference, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements reports that the annual radiation dose from naturally occurring radiation is on the order of several hundred micro-Sieverts [3].

TSA employees have a right to be concerned, because they are involuntarily being exposed to it as a course of their job, without this being made clear to them when they were hired. If you're a traveler, you should be much more concerned about the radiation dose you receive on the plane than the one you receive from the scanner.

[1] Health Physics Society page on radiation exposure on commercial airflights: http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights..... [2] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Backscatter_X... [3] http://hps.org/documents/environmental_radiation_fact_sheet....

Post reply on HN