Hacker News Reader

Comment by cpeterso | Hacker News Reader

I always opt-out of the scanners when I fly, but my estimate is that less than 0.5% of other people opt-out. 1 in 200! Most people are too impatient or uninformed to care about privacy or potential health risks.

View on HN

I opt-out as well, I am a non-US citizen so I am a bit scared to cause any fuss considering the general friendliness of the US federal government.

I was physically searched all three times passing security, opting to do so in public rather than in a booth as I prefer to be violated where there are witnesses. All-in-all, the TSA treated me fairly well considering the circumstances apart from in San Francisco where a passing female TSA agent smirked and commented saying "Come on, he is enjoying it!", laughing as she passed me by. That, that was a bit of a punch below the belt...

The Dutch are now trying out the same scanners and they were not even remotely friendly when you opt-out. My plead to you over there in the states is to stop this madness before it spreads. Just as with liquids and all else, the US has a great influence on the rest of the world and in this case, I fear, for the worse.

> All-in-all, the TSA treated me fairly well considering the circumstances apart from in San Francisco where a passing female TSA agent smirked and commented saying "Come on, he is enjoying it!", laughing as she passed me by. That, that was a bit of a punch below the belt...

Yeah, TSA is a jobs program for the otherwise unemployable.

I've been told I can't twice. I always want to protest, but never do for fear of ending up on the irrational, incontestable no fly list.

Which airport was this? I fly 4-6 times a week and opt-out every single time. Never once been told no. They try to convince me sometimes to go through the scanner but still refuse.

Just insist on a patdown. (The several times I've flown in the past few years, they either let me through the regular metal detector like normal or I go through/around the metal detector for a patdown, which so far hasn't been invasive and I'm certain I could smuggle a ton of crap on my person.)

Do we actually have any conclusive evidence that these scanners are harmful? I thought all the "potential health risks" were just speculative.

Yes but the absence of health risks is pretty speculative too and based on the assumption that the particular machine you are stepping into is functioning as designed.

Do you feel lucky?

I think all programmers should know that even medical grade equipment can go terribly wrong (Therac-25 anyone?). The fact that this stuff isn't medical grade, isn't being operated by people who understand the risks, and isn't allowed to be inspected makes me feel very unlucky.

isn't being operated by people who understand the risks

This is the key point as far as I'm concerned. In what other profession am I allowed to use X-ray machines on the general public without any training whatsoever?

Mad scientist?

I don't think that counts; they would have had to have gone to school to study mad science.

Supervillian maybe ;)

I thought the "potential benefits" were also speculative.

Oh yes, I'm certainly not claiming that the devices are useful by any means, at least when it comes to ultimately making us safer. It's just that arguments on both sides seem to be spacious, which I thought was worth pointing out.

That the arguments for both sides is spacious is in fact an argument in favor of not using the machines. "When in doubt, default to not x-raying people." is a pretty good policy as far as I am concerned.

As a thought experiment, I sometimes imagine a Children of Men-like scenario where, twenty years from now, scientists discover that most American teenagers are sterile.

How is privacy a spacious argument?

"... It's just that arguments on both sides seem to be spacious ..."

"How is privacy a spacious argument?"

spacious

1. Generous or large in area or extent; roomy.

specious

spe·cious (sp sh s). adj. 1. Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument.

Do you only see two sides? I see at least four: "we need more tools to identify banned objects", "we need personal privacy", "we don't know the health effects" and "we need cost effective ways to handle the threat of terrorism."

The lack of solid benefits and the known cost of the machines seems heavily weighted against them being cost effective, even ignoring any privacy and health concerns.

EU banned x-ray scanners in all EU airports because of health risk factors:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2011/11/15/europe-b...

I also opt-out when I fly to the US (several times a year) but I get the impression that it's becoming more rare for people to do that. They used to sometimes treat you with a bit of contempt, and now it's more like "really?". I think a lot of the pressure has died down and the public has unfortunately learned to just live with it.

The past few times I've flown the agents have automatically redirected me to the regular metal detector rather than the backscatter machines. All you need to do is be holding an infant. If you don't have one of your own, maybe borrow one from a friend.

I opted-out last year while I was there. I've only ever seen myself choose that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com