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

Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

news.cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 115 posts

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#21

Post by tptacek »

melling wrote: post #16
tptacek wrote: post #2

I'm shocked, shocked! that electronic strip searches might be misused by the crack team of professionals at the TSA. This is very simple: (a) call these things what they are: electronic strip searches. (b) refuse to submit to them at the airport. I just did this on a flight from Kansas City. Guess what? Not a big deal. You'll get the same pat-down search you get when you're "randomly selected for additional screening…

It will add 5 minutes for everyone else too. Get in a security line on a busy travel day and 10 extra pat-downs will add up. We need a better solution. I want to arrive, with my carry-on luggage, 30 minutes before takeoff for my 1 hour flight home.

The fast-path TSA agents don't do the opt-out pat downs. They couldn't: the search happens in a semi-secluded area of the checkpoint, and the whole line would have to shut down if they didn't have people dedicated to that task. You do not in fact add 5 minutes for everyone else.

What is true is that you may end up in line behind 1 other person waiting for extended screening (if they don't have their ID, or if they got randomly selected), and you may add 5 minutes to those people's time. I have very little problem with that.

I'd refuse (politely) even if I knew I was screwing over the line, though. A strip search is a strip search. It crosses the line.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#22

Post by pvg »

tptacek wrote: post #2

I'm shocked, shocked! that electronic strip searches might be misused by the crack team of professionals at the TSA. This is very simple: (a) call these things what they are: electronic strip searches. (b) refuse to submit to them at the airport. I just did this on a flight from Kansas City. Guess what? Not a big deal. You'll get the same pat-down search you get when you're "randomly selected for additional screening…

You'll get the same pat-down search you get when you're "randomly selected for additional screening", which is not a big deal.

Just out of curiosity, did they actually turn you into 'selectee' (mark your boarding pass, etc) or was it just the extra search at the security checkpoint?

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#23

Post by jonhohle »

tptacek wrote: post #7
5teev wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Object while you can, before it's mandatory to surrender all civil rights in order to fly.

These millimeter wave devices aren't being installed in a secret plot to eliminate everyone's civil rights. They're being installed because regulators sincerely believe that they represent a reasonable compromise between privacy (which is actually not one of your ironclad civil liberties) and safety. Airport security is probably a bad joke. But acting and talking as if that's a foregone conclusion --- or worse, that…

> These millimeter wave devices aren't being installed in a secret plot to eliminate everyone's civil rights.

There likely is no plot to eliminate civil rights, however, devices like these erode privacy, increase distrust in government, and, worse, increase the time and comfort it takes to get from point A to point B.

From the late 80s to today we've gone from a time when only metal detectors were required to get back to a gate, to requiring tickets (making it more inconvenient and less safe for small children to fly alone), removing clothing in public view (shoes, belts, outer garments), unpacking/packing luggage in public view, potentially being patted down, heavily paramilitary patrolling gateways, detainment for arbitrary reasons, etc.

I worry more about running into a TSA agent in a bad mood (potentially ruining my day) than just about anything else when traveling.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#24

Post by tptacek »

johngalt wrote: post #19
tptacek wrote: post #2

I'm shocked, shocked! that electronic strip searches might be misused by the crack team of professionals at the TSA. This is very simple: (a) call these things what they are: electronic strip searches. (b) refuse to submit to them at the airport. I just did this on a flight from Kansas City. Guess what? Not a big deal. You'll get the same pat-down search you get when you're "randomly selected for additional screening…

Refusing these searches is important even if pat-downs are considered more intrusive. If we all do this, and the machines sit idle; eventually they will be removed.

The machines are never going anywhere; the government invested zillions of dollars in them after the underpants bomber. Too many career civil servants would lose their jobs if they got sidelined.

But you're right: things will improve if most people refuse the strip search; the TSA will get better at pretending to screen the opt-outs, and the machines won't matter anymore.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#25

Post by tptacek »

pvg wrote: post #22
tptacek wrote: post #2

I'm shocked, shocked! that electronic strip searches might be misused by the crack team of professionals at the TSA. This is very simple: (a) call these things what they are: electronic strip searches. (b) refuse to submit to them at the airport. I just did this on a flight from Kansas City. Guess what? Not a big deal. You'll get the same pat-down search you get when you're "randomly selected for additional screening…

You'll get the same pat-down search you get when you're "randomly selected for additional screening", which is not a big deal. Just out of curiosity, did they actually turn you into 'selectee' (mark your boarding pass, etc) or was it just the extra search at the security checkpoint?

I've been selectee'd before, and the search I got for "opting out" (that's what they said, "opt out! we've got an opt out!") was identical. They didn't mark my boarding pass or anything, though. In case you're worried that you'll get re-harassed at the gate... no.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#26

Post by scott_s »

tptacek wrote: post #13
scott_s wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To those who suggest that the pat-down searches are as intrusive or more intrusive than the electronic strip searches: no. There's no objective answer to this. I believe you and I have discussed this before. Personally, the scans don't bother me at all. Being patted down doesn't bother me too much, but it does bother me at least some. So, for me, I'd rather walk through a scanner unobstructed than be patted down.

Would it bother you to find a name-attributed copy of your body scan in a zip file on Rapidshare? Why do you assume that won't happen? I assume the opposite.

Not too much. It would bother me some, of course. But not enough to take the extra five minutes for the alternative. (It seems you assumed I hadn't thought of the worst case, and then further assumed it would bother me.)

I would be embarrassed to walk around naked, of course. But there the embarrassment is mostly from violating social norms. The remaining part is, of course, exposed genitalia. The rest of my body concerns me not at all - I routinely go for runs wearing just athletic shorts.

Further, while that is the worst-worst case, I think the more realistic-worst case are a dump of images with no names associated with them. Given the process as I understand it, I don't see a plausible way for the scan-name mapping to remain.

I'm genuinely curious: why does the worst case situation bother you so much?

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#27

Post by runjake »

Every time the TSA rambles on about how giving up this little bit of freedom saves your life from terrorism, I wonder why a journalist doesn't hit them up for comment on the (perhaps apocryphal) quote "Those who would give up their liberty for security deserve neither".

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#28

Post by tptacek »

bitwize wrote: post #20
tptacek wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These millimeter wave devices aren't being installed in a secret plot to eliminate everyone's civil rights. They're being installed because regulators sincerely believe that they represent a reasonable compromise between privacy (which is actually not one of your ironclad civil liberties) and safety. Airport security is probably a bad joke. But acting and talking as if that's a foregone conclusion --- or worse, that…

> (which is actually not one of your ironclad civil liberties) Not in the US, anyway. Thankfully, there's Europe, which has progressed considerably further than the U.S. in terms of actually protecting people's rights.

Having had the experience of observing the frontiers of my civil rights while being searched on the train from Zurich to Rome, I find this notion that things are better in Europe amusing. From what I can tell, the situation Americans find themselves in at the TSA checkpoints is identical to the situation all Europeans find themselves in everywhere.

You realize that (contrary to popular opinion) Americans don't even need to carry ID, right?

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#30

Post by PotatoEngineer »

runjake wrote: post #27

Every time the TSA rambles on about how giving up this little bit of freedom saves your life from terrorism, I wonder why a journalist doesn't hit them up for comment on the (perhaps apocryphal) quote "Those who would give up their liberty for security deserve neither".

I've always found that Franklin quote to be a little misleading. The mere act of being a member of a tribe, much less a nation, involves giving up some liberty for security: you're no longer allowed to punch your neighbors in the face for no reason, but now you have some extra spears on your side when some fellow from the next tribe over tries to steal your horse. (Or rather, if you punch a neighbor, you have to deal with whatever consequences the tribe tries to apply to you.)

Join a tribe: can't stab your neighbors anymore. Join a nation: not allowed to bomb buildings 500 miles from your home anymore. I'm all in favor of finding the right balance between liberty and security (usually more towards the liberty side), but the idea that you can get security without giving up liberty just doesn't work.

Post reply on HN