Hacker News Reader

Comment by xutopia | Hacker News Reader

I wonder what happens when a normal person refuses to be scanned by these newfangled scanners?

I'm going to the US soon and I don't like the body scanners.

(Cross-posted from my Reddit account)

I went through SFO on the weekend and said I didn't want to go through the machine. You're made to feel pretty stigmatised, you have to stand there while the TSA officer repeatedly yells out "We got an opt-out. Male opt-out." across the hall.

The pat down itself was extremely thorough but considering how much the TSA gets bagged on Reddit, the officer was incredibly professional. It didn't feel lewd or dirty. Sure, it was violating and I resented having to be put through the experience, but the guy was just doing his job and it was obvious he'd been extensively trained. All up it took about 5 minutes of my time.

What worried me the most was that afterword he asked "The TSA is conducting a survey, why did you opt-out?" I replied that I didn't like my freedoms being taken away. However, thinking about this later, I realised that if in a year they release stats that say "only 1% of people opt-out, and only 5% of those people do so for medical or religious reasons" then it is going to be a hell of a lot easier for them to push for the scans to become mandatory.

"The TSA is conducting a survey, why did you opt-out?"

With a straight face:

"Because I get sexual gratification from having my genitles fondled. Your job is sort of like prostitution, but you get paid by the pimps rather than the customers."

Then walk away.

I've refused (and I'm flying again tomorrow and plan to refuse again if asked).

You get a, rather invasive, pat down. But, if everyone refuses, it will cost them enough time that they should have to stop.

Hopefully. I suspect instead, they'll just make the body scanners mandatory.

Or they'll just stop letting those who decline fly at all.

Someone on Reddit got selected for the scanner, and after getting scanned the TSA proceeded to give him the invasive gope-search too. So it sounds like you might as well 'opt out' of the scanner since it won't save you from having your genitals felt up.

I refused last week. I got pat down pretty invasively. The TSA agent seemed rather embarrassed about it. The protocol says that when they touch private areas, they must point out that they're using the back of the hand, but being groped is being groped.

If everyone refuses, I hope, it will be simply too costly to continue ... but I'm still not sure if allowing myself to be literally manhandled is any less an invasion of my privacy except insofar as there's no photographic evidence that can be stored indefinitely.

> there's no photographic evidence that can be stored indefinitely.

The machines are capable of storing the pictures, and all we have is the promise of a long abusive government agency that they are not.

Yes, I agree. Maybe I was unclear above, but what I meant to say was that not being photographed was one of the main motivations I had for consenting to being patted down, despite the discomfort.

If TSA uses the same machines as the Department of State uses at embassies then I can speak from experience that the pictures are stored by default.

Having looked at the TSA documents in the EPIC lawsuit, the TSA operational requirements are that the machines must be incapable of storing the images.

Not that this makes me any more OK with subjecting myself (and inflicting upon others) what is essentially a strip search.

The machines are capable of storing images. Straight from the mouth of Gale Rossides, the Deputy Administrator of the TSA [1]. The functionality is supposed to be disabled after an install, but such safeguards seem tenuous at best.

[1] http://www.infowars.com/media/tsadoc.pdf

There is a gay rights group who are planning to protest it by turning up at the airport in costume insisting on a special pat down and pretending (or not) to enjoy it very much.

Sounds like a great day out - especially if you are into uniforms!

Sexually harassing someone who makes $10 an hour to make a point to someone who makes $150,000 a year several thousand miles away and who has actual decisionmaking authority does not strike me as a justice-enhancing move.

I don't think there's a reasonable way to interpret the uninvited and unwelcome prodder of one's genitalia as a victim of sexual harassment.

Of course there is. Consider a male patient who has a legitimate medical need to visit a female doctor and have his privates examined. That could possibly be a very uncomfortable situation for the male patient (speaking from personal experience). It is not license to make lewd comments.

You choose to go to the doctor, the TSA is imposing.

The individuals working for minimum wage are not imposing, they're trying to do their jobs. Your beef is with a group of people who allocated millions of funds in a bill passed years ago. Harassing the people hired to implement the bill isn't going to convince many lawmakers of anything.

It doesn't matter that they are "just doing their jobs". They have choosen to work there, they have signed up for what their employer does. If they don't like it then they should quit. If a large percentage of their staff are unhappy and complain, then they might change it

All of the statements like "they're just doing their jobs" are missing the point. So do the rebuttals such as "their job is immoral!". The point is - you need to get as many people as possible to hate the situation, _including_ the TSA workers. The TSA workers should start hating their jobs, you should start hating flying, authorities should start hating dealing with this mess.

Will I contribute to the hate of the body scanners? You bet, I have a wife and planning to make a family. She's been going through medschool, I've been working nonstop for years, without a vacation. We were planning on going to a few places now that she finally has a break from all the studying, but this TSA situation is literally stopping us. This is crossing the line of invasiveness.

>they're trying to do their jobs.

Their jobs are immoral and should be illegal and yet they still choose to do it. I have no respect nor mercy for such people. Stop using the idiotic "trying to do their job" as an excuse. The WWII war trials proved that you are responsible for what you do. "Just doing my job" is no excuse.

While I agree on the whole, the WWII is a very poor example. It proved that "trying to do their job" may not be a good excuse in some limited circumstance. On top of that, the whole things was on a shaky legal (although maybe not moral IMHO) ground: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#Criticism

The trial itself may have had issues but the point remains that you are responsible for what you do. The only possible exception would be if your life or the life of your loved ones were on the line. Otherwise you are directly responsible for what you do.

It must be this way, otherwise "just doing my job" can be used to justify anything. How many bad things have happened because it was someone's job and it never occurred to the person to simply quit?

As I said, I agree with that sentiment.

If you're sick enough, the "choice" of whether or not to go to the doctor is pretty abstract.

It could in turn have the employees boycott the methods, I guess it's tough with the unemployment rate in America, many may not want to make a stand because the job is more important to them at the moment.

TSA employees are pretty easily replaceable at present. Maybe that will change some day, but I really feel like pressure needs to be applied to the politicians, not the grunts.

They're the ones who came up with this. They're the ones who are able to keep themselves from being subjected to this. They're the ones who can put a stop to this.

And one of these mall cops refuse to pat down the gay guy cos he'll get aids. The airport is sued for $1.2Gazzillion discrimination lawsuit, it decides to have a quiet word with the politician and suddenly looking tough on terror with security theater doesn't get you as many campaign contributions

This has already been done to death on HN. 1) "Doing your job" is never an excuse for doing what is wrong. 2) These pat-downs are wrong.

If you agree with the first 2 points, it seems to me that making the wrong-doer personally accountable is a reasonable response. Yes, their boss several thousand miles away also needs to be held to account, but so do the people physically executing the searches.

I'm pretty sure that argument should be reserved for possible war crimes and not frisking people.

There are plenty of jobs that violate rule #1 above. Spammers, those who take advantage of the economically disadvantaged, et cetera.

If groping someone's genitals doesn't cross a line, what does?

It's not about the TSA employees, it's more about making a spectacle of the whole thing to show all the other passengers in line that the whole security theater is stupid. The objective is to make everyone else opt out as well.

Umm, what exactly are they demanding? Invasive pat-down by an officer of the opposite sex?

Do you have a link with more information? I'm not interested in participating, just learning more.

It's not any less invasive, you're just being abused in a different way. The difference is that they don't want you to make more work for them.

Request a supervisor and or second agent be present for your screening to ensure you waste as much of their time as possible.

I wonder if it's worthwhile taking a video camera (like a Flip video) into the pat down booth and filming the whole thing, asking for their ID beforehand. That'll stop their abuse. Maybe setup a site for it too to submit videos.

It's illegal to record these guardians of our freedom protecting our rights.

That's not true universally, though local laws can choose to disallow cameras at security stations.

The TSA screening area is not under local jurisdiction.

The TSA begs to differ:

http://blog.tsa.gov/2009_03_01_archive.html

I'm pretty sure that post is describing the genereal gate area. I meant the space where the screening is actually done.

I flew a few days ago and opted out of the body scanner. The pat down was definitely very thorough and a little uncomfortable, but I could tell the TSA officer administering it was just as uncomfortable as I was. It held up the line for about 5 minutes because they didn't let anyone through while I was being searched. I never felt intimidated and will continue to opt out, so if that was their intention, they failed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com