The actual letter from Prof. John Sedat and others, UCSF:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ost...
When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
51–60 of 193 posts
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#52"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…
It's really easy to Godwin a response to this, but I'll opt out and just ask: How decent are these people if they signed up for jobs to look at naked pictures and grope strangers? I'm all for being respectful as a tactic, but it's not as if they're doing anything to deserve respect.
I find your argument disingenuous, since these people were likely hired before these new regulations were in place.
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#53I recently flew JFK->SFO and back on Virgin. There are no backscatter machines at the Virgin terminal at JFK. They do have them at SFO. About every 10th person was selected to go through the scanner. Nobody opted out. Contrary to most reports, the TSA agents at both airports were pretty nice and helpful. At JFK, they were helping a number non-english speaking travelers speed their way through the line so they wouldn'…
If anything was off, a couple of the agents at SFO were too chipper at 6am Probably because they were looking forward to seeing some hotties.
The main chipper employee I remember was the androgynous female directing traffic at the front of the line. I would like to think if she wanted to see a nude hottie I would have been selected for the device, but who knows which way she was swinging.
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying "I would do X when presented with Y" is easy to say when you have not been presented with Y. Regarding the wallpaper, yes, it's inappropriate. Perhaps it is an indication that the people are drunk with power. But it could also be another instance of people in an uncomfortable situation using humor as a coping mechanism.
If your job makes you that uncomfortable, you can't do it properly and you should seek other employment immediately. That's like excusing cops for not following the law themselves because they have a "difficult" job.
You mean, so uncomfortable that you set your wallpaper to a funny picture? You're right, clearly anyone that uncomfortable couldn't possibly be doing their job well.
It's pretty tasteless, but give me a break. Some guy is "drunk with power" because he thinks an image macro is funny?
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
My general position is to avoid things that could conceivably cause cancer until hard evidence shows they don't rather than the reverse. X-rays could conceivably cause cancer.
You get a pretty decent radiation dose from flying around high in the atmosphere too. From what I have read the crossover point where you absorb more x-ray radiation in the flight than the scanners is about an hour and a half. See here for a bunch of things to read ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray#Health_effect... ). According to this page, 42 minutes of ordinary living is sufficient to give you a sim…
[deleted]
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's really easy to Godwin a response to this, but I'll opt out and just ask: How decent are these people if they signed up for jobs to look at naked pictures and grope strangers? I'm all for being respectful as a tactic, but it's not as if they're doing anything to deserve respect.
I find your argument disingenuous, since these people were likely hired before these new regulations were in place.
It's not as if this is the first invasive thing they've done, and I think my argument still stands if rephrased as "people who wouldn't quit a job when told to look at naked pictures and grope strangers all day."
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying "I would do X when presented with Y" is easy to say when you have not been presented with Y. Regarding the wallpaper, yes, it's inappropriate. Perhaps it is an indication that the people are drunk with power. But it could also be another instance of people in an uncomfortable situation using humor as a coping mechanism.
If your job makes you that uncomfortable, you can't do it properly and you should seek other employment immediately. That's like excusing cops for not following the law themselves because they have a "difficult" job.
I don't think cops breaking the law is analogous to people making inappropriate jokes about their work to colleagues. There are valid ways to argue against these machines and the policy. I do not think your line of argument is one of them.
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
My general position is to avoid things that could conceivably cause cancer until hard evidence shows they don't rather than the reverse. X-rays could conceivably cause cancer.
You get a pretty decent radiation dose from flying around high in the atmosphere too. From what I have read the crossover point where you absorb more x-ray radiation in the flight than the scanners is about an hour and a half. See here for a bunch of things to read ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray#Health_effect... ). According to this page, 42 minutes of ordinary living is sufficient to give you a sim…
According to what I've read, the energy of the radiation prevents it from penetrating deeply (indeed, the Compton effect backscatter at the surface is the whole point of it).
This might sound like a good thing, but it also means that the radiation isn't "diluted" over the full mass of your body. The damaging effects will be localized to -- and concentrated within -- the skin and shallower tissues. So those organs affected are getting a dose that's disproportionately much higher than the guidelines for full-body dosage considers.
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#59Never underestimate the potential for convincing an underpaid federal employee to cut corners. If you make this stuff too inconvenient for the guys on the ground, the policy gets eroded from the inside. Until Napolitano cracks down. But that's several moves ahead.
I know a consultant who leaves his dirty underwear at the top of his suitcase so when whey randomly search his bag, they quickly close it back up and send him on his way. The same thing can be accomplished with the body searches by eating a half dozen boiled eggs a couple hours before your flight.
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#60How 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…
> 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.
It would be a waste of a question because the President will never have to experience this scanning. Better yet: ask Chelsea Clinton or the Bush daughters.