151–160 of 191 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Radiation exposure is cumulative. It's a small increase in your risk of developing cancer but it's not zero.
Millimeter wave scanners pose essentially no risk of cancer since they're non-ionizing.
And their effectiveness is, questionable (Germany reports 54% false positives, TSA reports handguns being concealed successfully in underwear, etc.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh, I do it every time. Never behind a privacy screen. Never bothered me at all. The only shitty part is when agents let your stuff go through the scanners but you’re stuck behind the machines. I’m always trying to crane my neck to make sure no one walks off with a laptop. Usually the TSA agents are very nice. I ask them about their days, how things are, and then I’m on my way. I like to exercise my rights just to m…
The sad thing is that even if you're not in the machine, the machine can still scan you -- as long as you're within a certain distance of it. When the machines first started being used there was some expose on them where pics from the machine were leaked, and you could clearly see that even people waiting in line within about 10 feet of the machine or so were scanned, and you can clearly see their bodies appear in th…
Hopefully, the cost of supporting this useless security theater will make it infeasible eventually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is your limit? What about handing over all your social accounts? fingerprints, DNA , it seems that gradually if a thing can be done it will be done. 2
Can you wear a mask while they do the passport scan? They need know how you look like so they can match the picture with the passport... using a computer or a human.
If there is a good reason to keep this data in a database let me know.
The writer is cognitively biased for switching from accuracy to error rate in a single sentence, to increase the accuracy gap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Radiation exposure is cumulative. It's a small increase in your risk of developing cancer but it's not zero.
Millimeter wave scanners pose essentially no risk of cancer since they're non-ionizing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I just wish we can all come to our senses and realize that the TSA doesn't really make us safer and that it just makes everyone mad. Unfortunately, people just seem to put up with it. Because people don't feel like they can make any real impact, and for those who can (our representatives), it's political suicide. The TSA is a giant waste of money but turning the front line of security back to airports would extreme…
The TSA was implemented during the Bush era "economic stimulus" drama. It was never about security, it was only ever about job creation. 9/11 was a convenient excuse to put lots of underqualified/underskilled people to work overnight. For a politician to go against that now, they get doubly fucked on both the "made America less safe" and "got rid of thousands of jobs" fronts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sad thing is that even if you're not in the machine, the machine can still scan you -- as long as you're within a certain distance of it. When the machines first started being used there was some expose on them where pics from the machine were leaked, and you could clearly see that even people waiting in line within about 10 feet of the machine or so were scanned, and you can clearly see their bodies appear in th…
Tell the TSA agents that they need to tell their doctors to aggressively screen for cancer. Standing next to these things for 40 hours a week for months has NOT been proven safe. Hopefully, the cost of supporting this useless security theater will make it infeasible eventually.
The newer scanners use millimeter wave RF, which is non-ionizing and much safer. The primary concern with RF is classic thermal effects, which shouldn't be significant at low power levels.
There's still plenty of room for research on the topic, but no direct causal link to any health effects have been found with these systems at present.
(That said, the TSA agents are also standing next to the baggage x-ray machines all day. And I do still see backscatter x-ray body scanners in use in other countries.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that biometric data are contained in your passport, which is already scanned by airlines when you check in and/or board planes. Here they are using this information to automatically check that it is in fact you instead of having a staff member look at you and check against your passport's photo.
I’m not certain of the particular setup here (per airport thing) but I’ve never had them scan my passport at the gate in a US Airport, only at Immigration checkpoints for international travel and TSA. This is especially true for domestic travel as well.
As a US citizen, this is mostly just to validate any visa requirements for the country you're traveling to.
However, for non citizens, this data gets sent to CBP to create an exit record. I believe the concern is that between the check-in counter and the flight, you could trade places with someone to effectively overstay a visa without CBP's computer systems noticing (since you'd have a valid exit record)... hence the push for facial recognition at the gate.
> Is saving a few minutes worth handing over your most sensitive biometric information? The problem is that you've already handed this biometric information over; say, when you get a passport. There is no "opt-out" for that context. This is also why RealId was so vehemently opposed[0]. At the end of the day, they're getting your data - one way or another and there is no opt-out for that. So, to make an appeal on the…
I don't understand the problem here. How does the facial recognition system work? I'm thinking that biometric passports contain the necessary data and that the airline has already got then by scanning the passport at some point so that it quick and easy to use facial recognition at boarding time. If so, it's pointless to request to opt out while boarding, really. In any case, there is no anonymity in air travel (this…