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

Defeated

orenhazi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 445 posts

Re: Defeated

#331

Post by epoxyhockey »

ignostic wrote: post #315

I find it odd that a community like HN is reasonable, calm, and science-based on all but a few issues, like the TSA. The problem is not the body scanners. The problem is the TSA and the disregard of the bill of rights. Health claims: Passive mm-wave scanners do not produce radiation. The active mm-wave scanners use non-ionizing radiation which has been studied and shown not to cause cancer. One study even suggested i…

Your first points should really be addressing active Terahertz radiation and its effects on living things. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terahertz_radiation

The summary is that we don't know enough about terahertz radiation to draw any solid conclusions yet, and there is at least one reputable source pondering, "How Terahertz Waves Tear Apart DNA": http://www.technologyreview.com/view/416066/how-terahertz-wa...

Do you know how much power is emitted by the terahertz-wave scanner as two antennas are swept across your mid-section in close proximity?

Here are some responses to your other points about mm-wave:

Passive mm-wave scanners do not produce radiation

Passive mm-wave scanners are not used in airports and not relevant to this discussion.

You'll pick up far more radiation on the flight itself at a fairly low 5 mrem (50 µSv)

Also, irrelevant as the xray body scanners have largely been removed from US airports due to their safety concerns. The EU has also banned the use of those scanners. The study that you cite is for radiation applied to the entire body mass, while the xray body scanners applied all of the ionizing radiation only to the outer layer of the body (skin + some bones + male reproductive organs + brain).

Re: Defeated

#332

Post by takluyver »

pekru wrote: post #236
speedyrev wrote: post #222

What happens if someone steals your laptop from the table at the end of the conveyor? Does TSA have any liability since the laptop was taken from your possession by them?

So, they do not have a token system at all? Almost every other airport has a simple tokened system where one gets a token for their belongings, goes through the checks, reaches the other end and hands the token back and collects their belongings. Such a simple thing. Seen it in Changi (Singapore) and KL. The TSA dudes never thought simple thing?

I've not seen that at any UK or US airport I've been through. Stuff just goes through on a conveyor belt, and sits at the end for the passengers to pick up. It's struck me how easy it would be for someone to swipe a phone or wallet while it's sitting there, though I've never seen that happen.

Re: Defeated

#333

Post by ixacto »

300bps wrote: post #111
mosburger wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Extremely simple?" There's lots of reasons it isn't so simple for people. 1) Barriers to work and emigration 2) Language barriers - I know that learning a new language isn't impossible (I know a little Spanish but I'd hardly call myself fluent), but I speak only English fluently, which limits me to a handful of nations, many of which are nearly as bad as the United States (hey UK, how are those surveillance cameras?…

There's lots of reasons it isn't so simple for people. And one reason why it is extremely simple: if you're not from the U.S. to begin with. Our universities and business culture lure the best of the best from all over the world to the United States. Our draconian travel rules, lack of privacy and "shoot first, ask questions later" laws discourage them from even visiting let alone live here. Look like a Muslim? Suspe…

As a white natural born citizen not carrying more than $100 on a domestic flight from SEA to SFO, still suspected.

The weird part of it was after opting out the TSA thug asked if I wanted to go somewhere private for my government-blessed groping. They must have had the cattle prods and waterboards ready.

In all seriousness, if we want the TSA to remain in any way accountable we need to opt-out, and to do it in public with other fellow travelers watching, since there is no telling what happens when they pull you aside in a room for an "enhanced pat down".

There is a perverse irony to the whole thing though, if a man decides to sit alone in a park, say to get some coding done outside in the sun this automatically means that you are a pedo and the soccer moms will not hesitate to call the police on you. On the other hand you have actual TSA agents groping kids all the time at the airport (http://articles.philly.com/2011-04-23/news/29466700_1_tsa-sp...). They get to wear a uniform and stick their hands down people's pants every goddamn day. Is this what freedom looks like?

Re: Defeated

#334

Post by mgpetkov »

prof_hobart wrote: post #90
bayesianhorse wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think airport security and avoiding bombs on planes is an entirely "commercial" interest.

Other forms of transport, such as trains, don't have even a tiny fraction of the level of security that planes have, and if anything are a more effective terror target than a bomb on a plane (I would say that the terrorists got far more publicity out of the 7/7 bombings in London than they did out of Lockerbie) - I strolled around two of the busiest stations in London for a couple of hours on Saturday, and saw a sing…

I was wandering the same and came to conclusion that these security measures are not for our safety but the safety of our ruling elite. How often can you see a prime minister in a subway? But they often take commercial flights. And they never face such humiliating checks as we do. P.S Is there anybody who can explain me why 5x100ml bottles are safer than one 0.5l?

Re: Defeated

#335

Post by ilyanep »

laureny wrote: post #270

> I give up. The terrorists have won. Or maybe you could recognize that flying is a privilege, not a right, and that you have other options if you want to make a stand in your beliefs, such as picking a different airline, going to your destination by some other means or, you know, not traveling. These entitled smug conspiracy theorists who act like prima donnas irritate me. "The terrorists have won" because you had t…

Comments like yours make my blood boil.

> flying is a privilege, not a right

Is taking a train a privilege, not a right? Driving? A bus? Would you be okay with TSA-like screening procedures before any such sort of transportation? What makes flying so special? People have bombed trains, cars, busses, etc before too.

> "The terrorists have won" because you had to go through a machine? I think it's time for the OP to step back, take a hard look at their life and wonder if they have their priorities straight.

Maybe because our government has taught the citizenry that it's okay to be pre-emptively searched on planes, or stopped and frisked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_stop-and-frisk_pr...), or other such things. Meanwhile, the rent-a-cops operating these machines are basically given free reign to do whatever power tripping they want, because one wrong move can have you finding yourself detained for a while.

Re: Defeated

#336

Post by simonster »

xpaulbettsx wrote: post #9
highace wrote: post #4

Can someone please explain what's wrong with going through the machine? If it means not having my balls squeezed, it sounds pretty good to me.

Consider the following: if that identical machine were in a hospital, it would have been required to go through years of clinical trials to ensure its safety over the long term. The machines they are using are medical equipment. However, because it's in an airport, none of this has happened . Maybe it is safe. Maybe it isn't. It is unproven .

There's no clinical trial you could possibly do to show that these machines are "safe" in the medical sense (i.e., that the benefits to human subjects outweigh the harm). You could expose animals to the same doses of radiation and see what happens. This has been done for the general types of radiation (with X-rays animals contract cancers and die at sufficiently high power, with millimeter waves there's substantially less evidence for damage), but AFAIK not with the machines themselves.

The biggest danger may not come from chronic exposure, but from an acute failure of the machine or mistake made by the operator, the probability of which could not be determined in a study anyway. (Therac-25 delivered overdoses of radiation to several patients due to a software bug; Cedars-Sinai recently reported that they had accidentally delivered dozens of CT patients doses several times higher than normal; patients get killed by oxygen tanks and other objects sucked into the magnetic fields of MRIs with startling frequency.)

In any case, I think the danger posed by millimeter wave systems is significantly less than that of backscatter machines. There are plenty of studies to show that microwaves don't cause cancer, and it's hard to imagine a malfunctioning machine delivering something harmful.

Re: Defeated

#337

Post by wpietri »

hyperventilator wrote: post #255
wpietri wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hadn't thought about it before you asked, but this would be a perfect way to build up detailed information for biometric databases. You'd then use that with lower-fidelity sources, like video cameras. You've got head shape, hand shape, height, shoulder width, BMI, and length of every major body segment. From there you can calculate all sorts of ratios to apply to people, and I'd bet you could make a pretty good gue…

They could see you from a satellite so you should never go out on sunny days? Where does it end?

You asked a question. I gave you an answer. If you have a problem with that, try breathing into a paper bag for a while and see if that helps you calm down.

This technology could be plausibly misused for security purposes, and then perverted for political purposes, just like previous security technologies/bureaucracies have. That shouldn't make you upset at the people pointing it out. Instead, direct your outrage at the portions of government that have previously done exactly this sort of thing.

Re: Defeated

#338

Post by rayiner »

angersock wrote: post #183
arnarbi wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like them either, but why are they invasive?

Metal detectors (as memory serves) merely detect a change in inductance due to objects having a metallic composition. It's a purely passive system. By contrast, the full-body scanners bombard you with very mild radiation and capture results, giving the operator a view of your body and whatever you have on your person. It's a good deal more invasive.

Hint: you're constantly bombarded by mild radiation which bounces off you and gives operators a view of your body and what you have on your person.

And the current scanners don't give an image, just a "OK" or an outline with a location to check.

Re: Defeated

#340

Post by prof_hobart »

mgpetkov wrote: post #334
prof_hobart wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other forms of transport, such as trains, don't have even a tiny fraction of the level of security that planes have, and if anything are a more effective terror target than a bomb on a plane (I would say that the terrorists got far more publicity out of the 7/7 bombings in London than they did out of Lockerbie) - I strolled around two of the busiest stations in London for a couple of hours on Saturday, and saw a sing…

I was wandering the same and came to conclusion that these security measures are not for our safety but the safety of our ruling elite. How often can you see a prime minister in a subway? But they often take commercial flights. And they never face such humiliating checks as we do. P.S Is there anybody who can explain me why 5x100ml bottles are safer than one 0.5l?

I'm not sure that's even the case. The richest/most powerful will travel by private jet anyway, and many of the next tier of politicians/businessmen regularly travel by train (in first class of course) in the UK.
Post reply on HN