

National Opt-Out Day - igravious
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/national-opt-out-day/66485/

======
hfinney
I'm worried that we're only hearing one side of the story on these scanners.
If you listen to the net you learn that they are a total waste of time and
money, security theater, they are harmful to our health, the images will be
stored and leaked, agents will laugh and joke about passengers' penis size,
manual pat-downs are tantamount to sexual molestation, male agents feel up
female passengers, requesting a private room for a pat-down invites abuse, and
more.

There is no evidence of critical thinking or questioning whether all these
claims are correct. Even here on HN, people who challenge the conventional
wisdom are voted down. And make no mistake, opposition to the scanners and
stricter pat-downs is very much the conventional wisdom around here.

It may well be reasonable to conclude that the costs of the scanners are
greater than the benefits. But please don't just accept everything you are
told because it supports your conclusion. Intellectual honesty requires
challenging evidence that favors your beliefs as well as that which opposes
them.

~~~
bhickey

        There is no evidence of critical thinking or questioning whether all these claims are correct.
    

I'm afraid that I don't understand your comment. Let's look at some reports
from the mainstream media (not this scary 'net' that you mention):

Images of Shah Rukh Kahn, one of the biggest Bollywood stars, were leaked.
[http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2684287/bollywood_s...](http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2684287/bollywood_star_shah_rukh_kahn_naked.html)

At least one penis joke was made, and it led to one TSA agent assaulting
another. <http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20004436-504083.html>

There has been criticism as to the radiation dosage model used to evaluate
machine safety. Safety studies have been carried out in animal models.
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1268330...](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126833083)

Security theatre. Let's think this through: The people who are smuggling bombs
onto aircraft are suicide bombers. Drug mules swallow condoms full of cocaine
to bring product over the border. Do you think it's considerably more
difficult to eat a condom full of semtex? The nude-o-scope can't inspect the
contents of your stomach. Abdullah Hassan Al Aseery put PETN in his anus. How
do you counter that threat model?

Where do you see an absence of critical thinking?

~~~
hfinney
For your first example, you could ask whether there was any corroboration of
the story, and whether the scanners were even capable of printing out nude
images to be autographed, as he claimed.

For your second example, was that situation, a TSA training session where
agents were watching each other go through the machine, applicable to the
passenger screening scenario, where the display is in a separate room and the
screening agent never directly sees or is seen by the passenger?

For your third example, you can find plenty of evidence online that these
machines are safe.

As far as the bomb up the butt, that guy failed because too much force went
into ripping him apart. Butt bombs are an unproven technology, and should
increase the difficulty and uncertainty for the bombers.

~~~
bhickey

        Butt bombs are an unproven technology...
    

Any sufficiently advanced pedantry is indistinguishable from trolling.

------
epo
The suggestion for a regular opt-out Wednesday is a splendid one.

