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

171–180 of 193 posts

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

#171

Post by yummyfajitas »

nitrogen wrote: post #168
yummyfajitas wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A laser scalpel (designed to deliver large radiation doses) can also kill someone if used improperly. Does this mean I should be afraid of a malfunctioning flashlight burning my head off? Medical radiation machines deliver 45-80 Gy. The backscattered x-ray machine delivers 1e-7 Gy, if I've got my math right. That's roughly the difference between a punch and a nuclear bomb.

Please actually read about the Therac. It was not used improperly! Software errors combined with sloppy design caused the machine to malfunction under normal use conditions, delivering the wrong dose and/or wrong type of radiation, with victims perceiving flashes of light, feeling heat from the radiation, and dying.

Let me repeat: Therac is a radiation cannon, designed with the explicit purpose of killing cells. It's billions of times more powerful than an x-ray backscattering scanner.

The fact that a cell killing radiation cannon malfunctioned and killed someone does not imply that an illumination device billions of times weaker could do the same thing. Similarly, a laser scalpel will kill you if you shine it on the wrong place. A flashlight won't.

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

#172

Post by Semiapies »

Tamerlin wrote: post #108
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.

X-Ray technicians also hide behind lead-lined walls, so when they're irradiating you they're doing so while protected. The TSA screeners are just standing next to the machines and are probably getting pretty much the same dose that their passengers are, which given that these machines are in the TSA's hands, probably means that they have absolutely no idea as to what dosage they're actually delivering.

Yeah, that's my concern.

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

#173

Post by Semiapies »

ck2 wrote: post #147
Steuard wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you can see the next person in line proves that this picture is a blatant fake. (Note how the apparent sizes of the two people are identical to the actual photo: I guarantee that the x-ray camera isn't sitting at the same position that the photo was taken from! This picture and the others like it are a bad Photoshop job, nothing more.) I loathe the body scanner/groping policies as much as the next guy.…

They are not fake. http://gizmodo.com/5690820/body-scanner-pic-gallery/ There are 100 of them, those are just a sampling.

Real images, but a different technology.

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

#174

Post by Vivtek »

Psyonic wrote: post #167
Xurinos wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wit…

Restaurants deal with that by getting rid of the smoking section, which I think nearly every US state requires by law now anyway.

Indiana doesn't. (At least.) You have us confused with a state in the twenty-first, I think.

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

#175

Post by Vivtek »

huhtenberg wrote: post #143
Blunt wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airforce-1 doesn't have this.

Nor do any private plane terminals for that matter, international and domestic. You own or charter a plane - you are TSA-free.

Because there are no terrorists who can afford their own planes, clearly.

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

#176

Post by Semiapies »

frossie wrote: post #133

I flew through three airports with backscatter machines last week. I had a small child with me. Each time i was directed to the regular metal detector - and in one case where my child walked ahead and was about to go through the backscatter machine, she got called back by the TSA person with some agitation and directed through the metal detector instead. I don't have enough data points to know for sure, but I am wond…

Alternately, they may be concerned about having pictures of naked children stored on the hard drive.

Or both!

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

#177

Post by jbooth »

sliverstorm wrote: post #79
danilocampos wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm actually more horrified by my tax dollars paying for the TSA to sit in Herman Miller chairs, but damn. Beggars belief.

There are possibly some good reasons for that. If your employee sits most of the day, and you are covering his medical expenses, perhaps it is a good idea to get him a chair that doesn't screw up his body.

Pff, why should common sense get in the way of some good bitching about tax dollars?

I'm sick of my tax dollars paying for their computers, they should have to type stuff up themselves in triplicate.

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

#178

Post by yummyfajitas »

jerf wrote: post #153
tedunangst wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Therac was designed to send a concentrated beam of radiation into somebody. That was the machine's purpose. Are the scanners designed or even capable of doing the same?

You're playing the role of skeptic, but you're not going far enough. How would I actually answer that question? You could have said the same thing about the Therac; of course it can't blast that much radiation, there's no good reason for it. Yet, here we are. What evidence do you have that it is actually not possible for the machines to dangerously malfunction, and how much confidence can actually be placed in it? Th…

The Therac was designed to blast dangerous amounts of radiation. It had two modes of operation - "deadly radiation" and "VERY deadly radiation". A software bug caused it to go into "VERY deadly radiation" mode when it should have been only in "deadly radiation" mode.

A smaller radiation source, like that of an x-ray backscattering scanner, does not need to have a "deadly radiation" mode. And it's highly unlikely that a hardware failure can accidentally turn "10x weaker than chest x-ray" mode into "deadly radiation mode". The more likely failure mode will be something along the lines of "6x weaker than chest x-ray mode".

It's just highly unlikely that any device will accidentally emit millions to billions of times more energy than it was designed to.

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

#179

Post by Steuard »

ck2 wrote: post #147
Steuard wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you can see the next person in line proves that this picture is a blatant fake. (Note how the apparent sizes of the two people are identical to the actual photo: I guarantee that the x-ray camera isn't sitting at the same position that the photo was taken from! This picture and the others like it are a bad Photoshop job, nothing more.) I loathe the body scanner/groping policies as much as the next guy.…

They are not fake. http://gizmodo.com/5690820/body-scanner-pic-gallery/ There are 100 of them, those are just a sampling.

I'm not interested in how many of them there are, I'm interested in what they show. And from what I've seen of those galleries, a number of these supposed scanner images show people who aren't in the scanner.

If you can explain to me how that's possible with any of the current porno scanner technologies, you've got a case. (In particular, you'll need to explain why the "scanner images" show people from the same angle and perspective as the photos that accompany them.) Otherwise, I stand by my claim: whether it's one picture or a hundred, they're faked.

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

#180

Post by 7402 »

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…

To provide another data point: I had essentially the same experience at Boston Logan airport a week ago. When I said I would prefer not to go through the scanner, the TSA agent said into her radio "I have a male opt-out." I was calm and respectful, so were the TSA agents, nobody was particularly happy about the process, but everyone was professional about it. It did take perhaps an extra 5 minutes, and I was a little concerned about my luggage being out of sight during that time.

This was after the most recent initial flurry of bad publicity, so perhaps word came down to skip the yelling.

Post reply on HN