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

121–130 of 193 posts

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

#121

Post by jdp23 »

bambax wrote: post #70
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.

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.

this Mediate article has background on the Twitter meme: http://www.mediaite.com/online/reddit-users-asks-obama-to-se...

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

#122

Post by yummyfajitas »

seanc wrote: post #95
yummyfajitas wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When radiation causes a significant amount of cell death, yes. I.e., if you are going to have 2-3% of your cells killed (by heat, radiation, alchohol, whatever), it's better if it happens slowly over time than all at once. Backscattered X-rays are not remotely near that point. edit: Just want to respond to this: I had the impression it still mattered, with multiple impacts in the same area of DNA causing things to be…

No, it's all about bit errors and error correction. Highly concentrated radiation is more likely to cause multiple errors to a particular DNA strand, which can defeat the error correction and cause a mutation. The same radiation distributed through the body will cause fewer errors per strand and be corrected.

It's been a long time since I studied dosimetry, but I was under the impression this was only significant at high doses. Do you have evidence otherwise?

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

#123

Post by kgermino »

malyk wrote: post #92
j79 wrote: post #77

I opted out during my last flight. After everything I had read, I decided I needed to experience it first hand. I was expecting a huge scene, with the TSA agent screaming, "OPT OUT! We've got an opt out here!", and then being manhandled, groped, and basically demeaned in front of other passengers. After removing my shoes (the one part of airport security theatre I absolutely hate) and placing my belongings in those g…

Two things that strike me. First, what is the back of the hand thing all about? Is it less sensitive? Is it somehow less demeaning? It doesn't make sense to me. Second, if he "made contact" and then immediately retreated...what did he make contact with? Was it clearly your junk? Or could it have been anything? How is it at all effective to do the pat down if all they do is retreat when they feel a little resistance.…

They use the back of he hand on more private areas so that the fingers are facing outwards. The idea is to prevent any kind of grabbing: perceived, actual, accidental, intentional, whatever.

Edit: iPod typos

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

#124

Post by mattmaroon »

mcantor wrote: post #31
mattmaroon wrote: post #21

"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…

I believe he was intentionally using hyperbole there. For example, if he were being literal, why would he mention "firing" anyone, since he obviously can't actually do that?

It doesn't matter. It says something about him regardless. It says something about the snobbishness here too that nobody else thinks its even noteworthy.

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

#125

Post by Xurinos »

Semiapies wrote: post #84
j79 wrote: post #77

I opted out during my last flight. After everything I had read, I decided I needed to experience it first hand. I was expecting a huge scene, with the TSA agent screaming, "OPT OUT! We've got an opt out here!", and then being manhandled, groped, and basically demeaned in front of other passengers. After removing my shoes (the one part of airport security theatre I absolutely hate) and placing my belongings in those g…

"I have to stand in front of this thing all day!" You know, I never thought about that. Considering how x-ray technicians stand behind lead guards and aren't scanning people rapid-fire all day, I wonder what the dosage the TSA folks are getting.

Slightly off-topic, but this reminds me of the recent studies that revealed that nicotine in the air is actually spread nicely throughout a restaurant that has good air flow. Thus, even waiters and waitresses who opt to work in "nonsmoking" sections are still getting a decent dose of nicotine, moreso than in restaurants with bad air flow. What do people in the restaurant industry do to reduce the risks associated with nicotine inhalation for their employees? Tying back to this issue for the TSA employees, it seems like there would be some kind of regulation to help employees avoid prolonged exposure to rays/substances that have high risk consequences.

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

#126

Post by koenigdavidmj »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #35
dkokelley wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Where are these devices for entering Congress or the Whitehouse if they are so safe?" Jackpot. Part of the trouble is that the policy makers don't have to swallow their own medicine. They have private jets and political connections that place them above their own laws. It's not even that they are "above" the law. They simply write laws that won't involve them.

As much as I enjoy picking apart irrational government actions, you're stretching it here. For example, (deceased) Senator Ted Kennedy claimed to have been on the list and detained at airports. See https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/No_Fly_List#F... : In August 2004, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) told a Senate Judiciary Committee discussing the No Fly List that he had appeared on the list and had been repeat…

Yeah, there's also the tricky bit for the TSA that it's a particularly nasty felony to interfere with a Congressman's duties.

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

#127

Post by jdp23 »

retroafroman wrote: post #83
ck2 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

Utah Congreessman Jason Chaffetz has made quite a big deal about getting rid of the backscatter x-ray machines in the past, when they were first being implemented

indeed. back in May 2009, as a freshman congressman, Jason led an unexpected bipartisan outcry in the House that got the machines defunded. the vote happened right before final session of the Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference (which was in DC that year) where we had been talking -- and tweeting! -- about this all week.

it really isn't a partisan issue.

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

#128

Post by tibbon »

khafra wrote: post #80
j79 wrote: post #77

I opted out during my last flight. After everything I had read, I decided I needed to experience it first hand. I was expecting a huge scene, with the TSA agent screaming, "OPT OUT! We've got an opt out here!", and then being manhandled, groped, and basically demeaned in front of other passengers. After removing my shoes (the one part of airport security theatre I absolutely hate) and placing my belongings in those g…

Nice to get a detailed user report. One question--what clubs do you go to, to get extreme gropings?

If you're looking for extreme gropings, I'd say Ramrod's backroom in Boston is about as good as it gets. Just sayin.

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

#129

Post by burgerbrain »

mrkurt wrote: post #116
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…

That picture is the millimeter wave scanner, which doesn't use radiation. The backscatter scanners are the xray type and are the majority of the scanners in airports.

You didn't pay very close attention in physics class did you?

Millimeter wavelength electromagnetic waves are still radiation as much as any other wavelength.

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

#130

Post by dpatru »

watchandwait wrote: post #99
Semiapies wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I have to stand in front of this thing all day!" You know, I never thought about that. Considering how x-ray technicians stand behind lead guards and aren't scanning people rapid-fire all day, I wonder what the dosage the TSA folks are getting.

TSA will not allow staff to wear film badge dosimeters, like those regularly worn by health care workers with potential radiation exposure, Everyone is also assuming that the TSA is properly configuring and maintaining this equipment, and that it is not malfunctioning and giving overdoses.

If everything is configured properly, the dosimeters would read normal. If not, isn't it better to find out as soon as possible?
Post reply on HN