Hacker News Reader

Comment by goostavos | Hacker News Reader

I'm glad to hear that others still opt out.

I fly constantly for work, and I've watched the number of people opting out slowly drifting down till it feels like, well, just me.

If I'm getting my rights violated, I'm at least getting a reach around for it. Plus, even though I know it's terribly childish, being able to ask if they're happy that they grew up to make a living by touching my balls gives me a little bit of false empowerment in a crappy situation.

Ya, just can't get that satisfaction when walking through a scanner.

View on HN

My wife and I opt out every time. Whenever possible, we just aim toward the line that's using the old metal detectors* (since the new machines are either slow or prone to breaking, this is an option most of the time). But when the only option is the new machines (backscatter or mw), we opt out.

FWIW, we have a friend who sells mw equipment, and he refuses to go through them for safety reasons. So even if I weren't opting out for moral reasons, I wouldn't go through them.

* I'm sure glad no terrorists are smart enough to do this.

"FWIW, we have a friend who sells mw equipment, and he refuses to go through them for safety reasons."

He should probably stop selling them then.

I opt out 100% of the time. Instead of me just feeling violated (by going through the scanner) I think it's important that the TSA feels violated too. Most of the time the person doing the opt-out is humiliated as well. I also think it's important for Americans to see it.

The TSA at LAX really tries to talk me out of opting out. Maybe that's why.

I've been given the intimidation routine ("You know this means I'm going to touch your private areas," and "Do I need to call a supervisor?") and the downplay routine ("it'll only take 3 seconds and it's completely safe"). It's always in that order. It's always the same; send the bully then send the supervisor. It take 5 minutes to go through that. I've taken to simply standing in silence with my arms outstretched and legs apart.

Everywhere else is easier.

> "Do I need to call a supervisor?"

"Call someone, because as is my right I would like to request a private screening room, please."

I've always preferred to do it in public. If there are any shenanigans, I want non-TSA witnesses.

I always refuse the private room as well, not so much because of the witnesses but since it seems to me to be a much more efficient protest to have American citizens see a guest in their country being molested by their security personnel.

Ditto.

Flying out of SFO (where they have MMW machines, at least in the terminals I use), there's another person opting out about half the time. If I get a chance, I'll ask them why. It's almost always a matter of principle, as it is with me.

Free pre-flight massages. Why wouldn't you opt out?

Never thought of it this way.

I always opt out of both the new booths. Occasionally they ask why. I say I don't trust them, nobody should trust the security apparatus of the state, and they have no real concern for my safety or well-being. I also make a point of saying everyone needs to see my pat-downs, for me to be safe, and to show people how to stand for their limited choice.

>If I'm getting my rights violated, I'm at least getting a reach around for it. Plus, even though I know it's terribly childish, being able to ask if they're happy that they grew up to make a living by touching my balls gives me a little bit of false empowerment in a crappy situation.

Bravo. I'm going to use that.

I and my family opt-out 100% of the time. Part of it is due to the unknown risks (however low the chance may be), part of it is on principle (violation of rights), and part of it is to have everyone else see in full-view that others are opting-out (so others feel comfortable doing so as well).

I probably fly a little more frequently than the average citizen (once a quarter or so). I opt out 100% of the time. My reasons are are a little further down the tin-foil hat spectrum though... I'm not comfortable with the government having a highly accurate 3D model of my body.

I opt out 100% of the time.

Me too. I make it an ordeal for the TSA agents by applying simple logic to their absurd rules:

"So wait, 3oz of fluid in a 3oz container is okay.. but 3oz in a 5oz container is not? Is it more dangerous for some reason?"

#fuTSA

And one 6oz container isn't ok, but two 3oz containers is?

My favorite part is that empty bottles are always allowed, regardless of size. So you can have a six-ounce bottle with two ounces of liquid in it, and an empty three-ounce bottle, and that violates the rules, but if you pour the contents if the first bottle into the second, it's suddenly allowed, even though you have all of the same materials as before: bottles, liquids, etc. Totally irrational.

That's why it's called security theatre, not security.

Equally amusing - so long as a liquid is frozen, you can bring as much as you like in any size container, because now it's a solid.

I one brought through security the remains of a soft-drink with ice cubes, that I'd transferred into a bottle. They made me drain the liquid that had melted, but the ice-cubes themselves weren't a problem.

I think they are trying to make it harder for you to mix things.

Hogwash. I've taken quart-size lexan containers through security consistently, and then fill them with water on the secure side.

I think they are trying to avoid arguments over whether there's 2.9oz or 3.1oz of liquid in that 5oz bottle.

It's not that it's dangerous, or not, but "something must be done" when someone, somewhere, at some point, mis-used a liquid. It's not really meant to make sense.

I opt out, too.

>"So wait, 3oz of fluid in a 3oz container is okay.. but 3oz in a 5oz container is not? Is it more dangerous for some reason?"

As much as I dislike the current set of rules, I feel that if you going to have rules, then you need to make rules which are enforceable. "Containers 3 oz or less" is an enforceable rule[1]. Is it dumb? Yes, because a 3.1 oz container is no more dangerous (certainly not more than around 3% more dangerous) than a 3.0 oz container. "Containers with less than 3 oz of liquid" is not not an enforceable rule. How can the TSA person quickly assess the volume of liquid in the container? He or she can't, which is the problem. You could, of course, give the TSA agent the discretionary authority to allow larger containers with "about 3 oz of liquid," but that's just begging for an equal-protection lawsuit.

[1] Actually, it's not, because, as far as I can tell, the TSA determines the volume of a container by the declared volume on the label. If you really want to bring 5 oz of shampoo, you could probably just make a funny-shaped bottle with a label that says "Shampoo, 2.9 fl oz". Though it would be pretty easy to measure the volume of the entire container via water displacement ("Mr. President, we cannot allow... a thick-walled-container gap!")

I agree with you, but unfortunately, when I travel it's almost always for pleasure and I have my child with me. I didn't opt out last time because I didn't want him to have to deal with someone getting personal with him (he was 10 at the time).

yep i opt out and consider it my tax paid free massage. TSA Blogger Bob really should highlight this feature. Almost free sorry for the dude who does it but hey he is getting paid. Unfortunately they may wise up and go full ballsy because of the flak from not doing a proper frisk. As for all this talk of low dose rads try asking anyone who's ever had skin cancer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com