Another annoying thing is that invariably they have me wait sitting almost right next to the scanner. I've seen images showing that people behind scanners also get scanned. The best I can hope for is that the radiation dose is somewhat lower than when you're actually in the scanner itself.
Making the TSA clowns miserable is just a bonus. Maybe they'll think their job sucks so much that they'll quit and find a real job. Maybe they'll tell their manager that people are complaining and it'll work its way up the chain.
At the end of the day, making the TSA clown's job harder makes me happier, which is something I desperately need after going through the rigmarole. So I'm going to keep being just on the ragged edge of polite to them and sneak in whatever jabs I can. Fuck them.
stooge sto͞oj/Submit noun 1. derogatory a person who serves merely to support or assist others, particularly in doing unpleasant work. "you fell for that helpless-female act and let her make you a stooge" synonyms: underling, minion, lackey, subordinate; More 2. a performer whose act involves being the butt of a comedian's jokes. synonyms: butt, foil, straight man "a comedian's stooge"
The less socially desirable the TSA jobs are, the fewer people will hang onto them and feel like they are rewarded for "good work".
My point is, neither you nor the TSA want to be there.
Fuck the TSA.
Quite frankly you sound like a petty, angry, and terrible person.
Quite frankly, TSA agents should be shamed and suffer for directly profiting from this bullshit.
Sure, there are a few TSA workers who inevitably derive pleasure (or simply don't feel anything, which may be worse) from having to do what they do. But for most, it's just a job, and certainly not their dream job. If you're going to piss down the throat of a random TSA worker, I can easily picture you as the self-important asshole who makes fun of the cashier at the grocery store to her face for being so poor, or who kicks a dog when it crosses your path a bit too slowly.
In other words, you come across as a sociopathic asshole. It's not all about you, dude, and it's not King Coldpie's world the rest of us grovel in. Grow the fuck up already.
Without peons, there are no effectors for the policies passed from above, and historically, we've seen the people at the top be terrified and manipulated by disorder in their bottom most ranks.
Besides, how do you know the TSA agent being spit on isn't trying to work their way up the chain so they can be a better manager and fix the way things work on the ground floor? Someone like coldpie could be ironically dragging down the spirit of the one person on his side.
The world isn't black and white, nor is it two-dimensional. Every single government employee is not a mindless drone, implicit in the shenanigans of their superiors.
See if you can puzzle out the difference between you and the TSA clowns that makes me treat you well and them like scum.
You have a laser focus on the effect, when you should be attacking the cause. If you can't or won't see that, I don't know what else to say.
I can understand feeling empathy for the people doing these jobs, but that doesn't make them less responsible for their moral decisions.
"I was just following orders" is not a legitimate excuse. (I won't finish the comment, out of respect for Godwin's Law)
Nor is there an excuse for treating another human being like a piece of shit because they have a job you don't like. How is one any better than the other?
One is actively making my day worse to no useful purpose, so I treat them like the dirt that they are. The other is performing a valuable service which I appreciate and thank accordingly.
[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-u...
You're making two mistakes here. One, you're assuming that all TSA agents are evil jerks who only took the job so they can fulfill their life's goal of fucking with coldpie. I'll counter that the vast majority of TSA employees are regular people like you'd find in any entry level position. Maybe they hate their job, or maybe they feel they are doing their part in keeping America safe (whether they believe the security theater bullshit they're fed, or not). Either way, they are human beings just like you. You are no better than they are, and vice versa. You are putting yourself on a pedestal and looking down on them as if they are subhuman. That is textbook sociopath.
Two, you are equating policy set by their superiors with the entry level agents themselves. They have absolutely no say in what they are forced to do, yet they are the ones you're taking it all out on. You're quite simply barking up the wrong tree.
If you want anyone to take you seriously rather than thinking you're a raving lunatic, you should direct your ire towards the policy makers. Work the political angle, because you're fighting a losing battle on the ground. Making one of thousands of employees feel like shit does absolutely nothing for your claimed cause, and only serves to feed your own selfish need to feel superior (which I strongly suspect is your actual motive, whether you realize it or not).
No. I am angry at people for mistreating me to no one's benefit.
> They have absolutely no say in what they are forced to do, yet they are the ones you're taking it all out on. You're quite simply barking up the wrong tree.
Do you believe that being paid removes all culpability for your actions? Suppose I found someone to pay me to break the windows in your house[1] every day. Would you treat me with kindness and thank me for my service, while writing a letter to my benefactor asking him politely to stop paying me to break your windows?
[1] Ignore the legality of this action. If that's a sticking point for you, replace it with some other legal-but-annoying behavior, whatever.
I'd say you're angry at the system (and rightfully so!), and taking it out on the ones who are just trying to feed their families. You're quite literally cutting off the nose to spite the face.
And I still maintain that you are yourself just as sadistic and hateful as the system you bemoan, if not more so.
Not at all, and you know very well I never said that. Since you're so keen on putting words in my mouth to reach an erroneous conclusion, I'm just going to stop here.
1) We agree that the TSA agents' actions should make me angry.
2) We agree that the TSA agents themselves are culpable for their actions.
3) Therefor, it makes sense for me to be angry at the TSA agents.
4) I think our disagreement lies here, where I think I am allowed to retaliate (within the bounds of the law, obviously) against those who upset me, while you think I'm not.
You were couching your argument in terms of "they're just doing their jobs; be angry at the policy makers, not at those who carry out the policy," which made me think the disagreement was in (2) above. But your reply here makes me think the disagreement is in (4).
I understand the viewpoint that one should always turn the other cheek to one's oppressors. I don't subscribe to it myself. If they're going to harass and anger me and waste my time, I really don't have any problems returning the favor.
For me, it's not a radiation thing. It's more about a kind of semi-philosophical objection to the idea that people should look at naked pictures of me in order to provide the illusion of safety. AIT (advanced imaging technology) seems to be the quintessence of snake oil - we're told we need it and any real research into its efficacy is discouraged (still though, there's indications that metal detectors were probably better at catching threats). [0] [1]
[0]: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/06/tsa_not_detec... [1]: https://radsec.org/secure1000-sec14.pdf
At the end of the day, I have to travel - I have a job (yay) that lets me work remote (yay), but that means cross-country fights on a monthly basis. If I opt out of flying, I also opt out of working for a rad nonprofit developing software that helps teachers share artifacts of practice. Skipping flying is an option, sure (I could get a job in SF, it's not that hard probably for someone with my background), but I've prioritized keeping my existing job over that.
Like it or not, we've structured an economy that requires people to fly. People should just be more aware of what they're giving up to make that happen.
My objection to the scanners isn't actually about the government spying on my butt. It's about how the general public is willing to let the government look at naked pictures of them without really thinking about the trade-off they are making. Lots of people don't even realize that there is a naked picture at all - if you talk to them, they think all that happens is an outline and a yellow box. If every time you go through the scanner you're aware of the deep violation of your privacy that the scanner represents, I'm okay with that.
So yeah, precheck is a cop-out. Long form performance art is a pain in the spied-upon nethers, so I'm closing the show. I'm still aware of the sacrifice of privacy we've all made, and I'll still work to make other people aware of it as well.
A few times when I've flown out of PDX, there was a substantial line for opt-outs; sadly not every time.
I've also heard anecdotes that when DEFCON let out, the airport handling all the return flights ended up just sending everyone through the metal detectors rather than deal with thousands of people all opting out.
The best numbers I can find seem to point to something in the 0.015 μSv to 0.88 μSv range. At cruising altitude, you get 0.04 μSv per minute from cosmic radiation.
I don't think the radiation from these machines should be the biggest concern.
Plus, this kind of radiation exposure hasn't been tested on humans for long. I'd feel better about being scanned had these scanners been in use for 20 years without many adverse effects reported. As it stands, the jury's still out. And I'd personally rather wait a little longer in line and get a pat down than take a chance with my health.
EDIT: Driving to the airport will expose you to far more risk than walking through the machine, however you define that risk.
All the more reason to minimize it every chance you get, wouldn't you say?
"Just a little higher chance of cancer" is not a comforting observation.
After US airports switched to millimeter wave scanners, I no longer opt out.
My understanding is that the new scanners emit far less radiation, and no TSA agent operator is viewing naked images.
The software presents a stylized body silhouette on a monitor that you and the TSA agent both view when you exit the scanner.
If my understanding is correct, then isn't this a reasonable approach?
Oh please. You're not helping with that attitude.
EDIT: Flying at altitude probably exposes you to more radiation than the machines. A 7 hour flight is roughly the same as a chest x-ray, and that's way more than the machines.
Dan, if you have something to say, just say it. This rhetorical Q&A works in a conversation; here, it just looks petty.
In fact, I think I agree with what you're trying to say ("the flight itself exposes you to a lot more radiation"?), but if you don't actually say it, I can't be sure. And there's nothing to respond to, if I (or someone else) don't.
Not that I'm the boss of anyone; by all means, do what you want. Just that I dislike getting downvoted without explanation, so here's to being slightly less of a hypocrite than usual :)
I ended up chatting with the guy afterwards and he reported that I was also the only random person he'd ever seen waiting in the opt-out line. He was wearing a deliciously nerdy "Affordable Cleric Act" T-shirt.
The scans are less of a problem than the idea that the government can force people to go through them.