Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

I just don't get the deal with the millimeter wave scanners. Did everyone raise a fuss like this when airports had you walk through metal detectors? How is a millimeter wave scanner different than a high-tech metal detector? Aren't we always talking about how the law needs to "catch up to technology?"

Don't get me wrong, I think the TSA is a huge waste of money and I hate being ordered around by flunkies who can't get any other job every time I go to the airport. But I don't see anyone raise a fuss when you have to walk through a metal detector to get into the local Barnes and Noble...

View on HN

That's not a metal detector, it's a system designed to scan for tagged items.

My problem with the scanners is that they are invasive AND ineffective. They aren't protecting me, but they do train me to complacently subject myself as an innocent, not-charged-with-a-crime citizen to pre-emptive searches. That's just not alright by me.

I don't like them either, but why are they invasive?

They produce naked images of your body, which are stored indefinitely.

Where by "indefinitely" you mean "not at all".

Ah, it's tptacek again: rarely right, but never in doubt.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html

They scan my naked body through my clothing. I consider that invasive.

Metal detectors (as memory serves) merely detect a change in inductance due to objects having a metallic composition. It's a purely passive system.

By contrast, the full-body scanners bombard you with very mild radiation and capture results, giving the operator a view of your body and whatever you have on your person.

It's a good deal more invasive.

Hint: you're constantly bombarded by mild radiation which bounces off you and gives operators a view of your body and what you have on your person.

And the current scanners don't give an image, just a "OK" or an outline with a location to check.

My background is engineering--believe me, I chose the "mild" qualifier to try and avoid "oh noes teh evul radiationz" kneejerk reaction tend to have. It's unfortunate there isn't a less emotionally-charged word to use to describe it.

As for the rest, well, just because the operator doesn't see it doesn't mean the image isn't still being taken/saved/consumed down the road.

A few reasons:

- They actively image your naked body. Metal detectors do not.

- They record said image of our naked body for an indefinite amount of time. Metal detectors do not.

- A human views the image of your naked body, and makes a subjective assessment of whether or not something suspicious has been detected, based on a wide range of parameters. A metal detector is a simple on/off detection based on an extremely narrow range of parameters.

In short, they are invasive because a human is involved. Let's not forget the cases (now rarer) of TSA agents guffawing at each others' penis sizes, or deliberately checking out women in the scanner, etc. My objections against the scanners would be greatly nullified if:

- All decision making is made via computer. No human ever sees the image.

- All images are immediately discarded. No record of the scan exists except the result.

- The parameters of detection are open and transparent.

The invasiveness of the scan has less to do with the scan and more to do with the tremendous opportunity for abuse it represents - both at the low level (individual TSA agents) and high level (as a matter of policy).

This whole rant hasn't been true for over a year. All it shows now is a generic block body, with an indication of an area to check if the COMPUTER decides it needs to be checked. For the majority of people, it doesn't even show the body. It just flashes "OK" on the screen.

I managed to completely avoid flying for the whole time when rapiscan scanners were around, despite flying a relatively commonly before that. And I heard many horror stories from people during that time, even people who didn't think the TSA was so bad.

I've been flying more in the past few months, and the TSA has always been courteous and professional in those instances.

I don't know if something changed or it's all luck of the draw, but things seem much better these days.

That only addresses the active display. What about storage? Do we have any official confirmation on that?

That's kind of a moot point, isn't it? Even if they do store it, it's literally just a picture of a generic drawing of a human.

No, I'm talking about the original hi-res image.

(More detailed write-up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6279027)

As backed up by xxpor, I don't think this is true. But mainly, I don't see the tremendous opportunity for abuse, unless you are some sort of celebrity whose blurry nude pictures are valuable.

I don't see the tremendous opportunity for abuse

The TSA says that there is no human in the loop and that they are no longer storing images. I don't know how much trust and credibility they have left these days (esp. after claiming xray scanners were perfectly safe to use).

An undesirable side-effect of discarding the images is that there's no paper trail. This has been a problem for electronic voting machines.

Imagine you wanted to fight a decision later in court ... assuming that's possible ...

The only decision you might want to fight is not being let on the plane, and this will only happen after a physical search, or you refusing to subject to one. In either case, the scanner data seems irrelevant.

So invasive you'd rather have a guy grab your junk?

I like how uncomfortable the TSA guy feels about grabbing my junk, because that's how uncomfortable I feel about my constitutional rights being violated. It's a constant reminder to TSA staff that what they are doing is wrong.

The TSA guy has done it a thousand times and thinks nothing of it.

I do that not because I would prefer to be patted down, but because it's a lot more obvious that I'm being subjected to an unreasonable search.

Obvious to who? The people being subjected to the same?

People appear to be standing on principle more than anything else. If you are at the airport you will see that the overwhelming majority of people have no issues going through the scanners. People from all walks of life with all sorts of jobs and intelligence. Curious also how many of these people who are standing on principle (or fringe science) smoke cigarettes or do other harmful activities (climb mountains or use power tools without eye protection).

"I hate being ordered around by flunkies who can't get any other job every time I go to the airport"

Well do you think they should merely raise the wage in order to attract higher qualified people that would normally go into other careers? You can get frustrated because when you get served in a restaurant they get the order wrong or you can realize that the rocket scientists are not holding jobs serving you in a restaurant and realize things are the way they are for a reason.

Are you interested in giving up whatever job you have and working at the TSA (or any lower level government job say a postal carrier?) I'm not so I've learned to accept these things as necessary economically.

> I just don't get the deal with the millimeter wave scanners. Did everyone raise a fuss like this when airports had you walk through metal detectors?

When metal detectors were introduced, they weren't sensitive enough to pick up the change in your pocket. They were only sensitive enough to pick up large metal objects. This meant that to start off with, you didn't have to empty your pockets to go through, and the average passenger was almost totally unaffected by them. That frog was slowly boiled, and now we take off our shoes.

We were also pretty certain back then that the way metal detectors worked had no health implications. There was simply no danger attached to being near one, nor was it even slightly suspected.

> I don't see anyone raise a fuss when you have to walk through a metal detector to get into the local Barnes and Noble...

That's not a metal detector, except in the loosest sense.

They have to walk through metal detectors to buy books? I thought it was only for dangerous places like schools and offices.

I can't think of anywhere in Europe we have those except for American embassies, a few courthouses, some government buildings and airports.

Anyone knows when this started in the US and when it got so widespread?

This might have something to do with USA weapons law.

They're not metal detectors -- they're RFID scanners that sound an alarm if someone tries to steal something. A lot of products have an RFID chip attached that must be deactivated at the checkout. It's for reducing shoplifting, not for public safety.

I have let to see a local business in the US use a metal detector. Most will use shoplifting-detection gates at the exits. An "empty your pockets and purse" metal detector is terrible for business.

Most local businesses don't, but high-value targets like government office buildings, financial markets, museums (especially Jewish history and Holocaust memorial museums), and iconic monuments all tend to.

They are likely referring to the electronic article surveillance systems that many shops in the US use. They detect tags that are embedded in packaging, and now even inside products by the manufacturer. The only non-governmental metal detectors I've ever had to walk through are at major tourist spots and theme parks.

It's the fuss I can raise.

If I could opt out of the whole thing, I would. I think the whole enterprise is bullshit, a giant exercise in doing something, anything, whether or not it makes sense.

So now, I opt out. And when they ask why, I tell them, "I think this is a charade."

When I opt out, I have never been asked why.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com