

Female Passengers Say They Were Targeted for TSA Body Scanners - pwg
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/female-body-scans/

======
daeken
While I'm very, very anti-TSA and this sort of thing wouldn't surprise me a
single bit, saying you "found patterns in complaint data" is silly. Such data
is _obviously_ biased from the start; we can do far better than this, with
simple actual statistics on persons examined.

But in the end, this is what you get when your "random screenings" aren't
actually random in any way, not recorded for future analysis, and (due to the
previous point) not audited for bias. You can make arguments why we wouldn't
actually want random screenings in this stuff, but I think we all know that
it's pure security theater regardless.

------
pnathan
The desire of some people to look at others naked should come as a shock to no
one. Plus, the abuse of the power of looking at people naked without
retribution should surprise no one.

This cuts to the core of humanity: sexuality and power.

------
jchrisa
I rather enjoy opting-out of this crap. The TSA folks seem to respect it,
especially when they ask the reason for their clipboard and I say "health."
I've never been millimeter scanned and frankly the radiation aspects of it
scare me.

What I don't understand is why anyone _wouldn't_ opt-out. Even when I've been
on the late side for my flights, the time a pat down takes doesn't make a
difference in catching the flight.

~~~
gravitronic
I've been through it once before I even realized what was happening.

They didn't tell me "you are now being subjected to the new millimeter wave
scanner" or offer me the choice of a pat-down, they just pointed and herded my
fiancee and I through the machine without any mention of what it was or that I
had a choice to not go through it.

It was only after that I realized it was the new scanner I had just gone
through, and I only realized that because I read sites like HN.

So, to other travellers: when you've opted-out did you basically have to halt
in your tracks and demand an opt-out? I guess I naively thought opting out
would be more obvious... but I was wrong.

~~~
jchrisa
I usually try to play it cool until the moment the point me toward the
radiation machine. Then I say "I'd like to opt-out". They are always very
professional about it, and have a procedure (different in different airports)
where you basically stand there and watch other poor suckers go through the
machine, until they find someone to pat you down.

The reason I play it cool is because about 1/3 of the time they end up
pointing me toward the regular metal detector at the last minute (I guess I'm
not a cute girl...)

~~~
bmelton
I always opt-out, and it's never been a civil affair.

The _least_ obnoxious was when the TSA agent heard my "I'd like to opt out"
message, shouted "REFUSAL", made me stand _next_ to the scanner for
approximately 15 minutes before finding someone who could pat me down,
occasionally glaring at me for effect.

The pat-down was respectful, though it was done inches away from my 9 year old
daughter, but the core of the issue, to me anyway, is that I object to both
the new scanners AND the pat-down.

I've adopted an "only fly when I have to" policy, which meant 6 hour drives
replaced flights to New York, but there is regrettably no way of avoiding all
my business travel in lieu of driving.

~~~
jchrisa
I was raised by lawyers, and I think from that I learned how to present myself
in a way that is both courteous and has a subtext of "the paperwork involved
in fucking with me will crush you." The easy to articulate bits of this
include good posture, eye-contact and precise diction. There's probably more
to it than that which I'm unaware of. This also seems to work when I get
pulled over.

~~~
junktest
@jchrisa, If you don't mind, please could you let know how to politely convey
the subtext etc.? Thanks.

~~~
jchrisa
Wish I could help more -- I think if you appear deferrential to the law (more
so than the officer), it helps remind the law enforcement officer that they
are also subject to the law.

------
CognitiveLens
Is the statement from the TSA claiming they are mapping each individual body
scan to a standardized body model? Doesn't this distort the scan and therefore
reduce its value? I don't quite understand how they could adjust it so that it
can no longer see the shape of an individual's breasts, for example, but can
still identify suspicious bulges on the body. I don't mean to be crude, but I
am very suspicious about this claim.

~~~
jonhohle
From what I understand, this system is only being installed on millimeter wave
scanners and not on backscatter devices. In my experiences, the backscatter
devices are much more prevalent.

~~~
epoxyhockey
You are correct. Here is more info (plus a small photo) of what the _new AIT
software upgrade_ looks like:
<http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/index.shtm>

Even with the new software, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a _team_ of
TSA employees looking at the raw images in a dark room somewhere.

------
hansbo
Really disturbing - but not unexpected. Give people the power to choose who
they want to see naked and it's inevitable that some people will abuse this
power, I think.

------
dancole
The conclusion by a friend's father, when he went from Minneapolis to Chicago
and back, was that the TSA only pulled a side young females (20s & 30s) for
full body scans.

~~~
dhimes
I've been pulled aside twice in about 10 or so flights. I'm male, old, and
have a gut. Anecdotes != data.

My regular comment has been, "I don't mind the scans, but I'd appreciate it if
they would stop giggling."

~~~
epoxyhockey
During 2010 and the first half of 2011, my significant other (female) was
_randomly selected_ for the scanners 11 out of 12 times. The 1 time she wasn't
selected was because the scanner was not in operation. I (male) was randomly
selected 0 times.

Every time she asked for a pat down, the female TSA worker (who would be
performing the pat down) would scowl at the young male worker. It seemed that
female pat downs were in higher demand, making her job harder.

Now that more scanners have been installed at the airports we frequent, the
TSA workers try to send almost 100% of the people through the scanners.
Though, my significant other now gets directed over to the metal detector if
there is a long line for the scanner.

------
jrockway
I hate the TSA and everything, but can't you just look at someone and imagine
what they look like naked in much higher resolution than the body scanners
provide? People are afraid of being naked, but we all pretty much look the
same.

~~~
jberryman
Don't understand your point. Should we say to women: "you have no right to
feel violated because the blurry outline of your breasts and vagina looks very
similar to the blurry outline of that woman behind you (trust me I've seen a
lot of blurry vaginas)"?

as an aside, I have to say I felt pretty uncomfortable seeing a man send my SO
through the scanner; we weren't expecting it at our airport and she didn't
really know what it was until she was already through. The power dynamic was a
big part of this.

~~~
jrockway
Why do you care about the gender of the rent-a-cop that tells you to stand
inside an x-ray machine? He doesn't see the images, and even then, what
difference does the gender make? There are plenty of people that are sexually
attracted to people of the same gender.

I don't like the body scanners, but I could care less if someone sees me
naked. The reason we should fight body scanners is because the cost/benefit
ratio sucks. It takes too long to move a line of people through these things,
so they aren't used on everyone. So all you've done is thwart terrorist groups
that only have one member.

There could be no airport security at all and it's unlikely that many more
people would die. If we lost one 747 a year, it would be a rounding error
compared to the number of people dying in car accidents or from excessive
consumption of unhealthy food. So why do we spend any time solving this non-
problem? It just doesn't make sense.

~~~
shallowwater
I think the point to be made is that not everyone has the same comfort zone as
you do. You may not care about strangers seeing you naked, but other people
do. Being naked in front of someone can be an intensely vulnerable experience,
and the feelings of vulnerability can be compounded by a wide range of
factors, including power differentials, the fact that they are strangers, or
that those strangers may be letching on your naked body.

For instance, I don't particularly care about being naked in front of people,
but when I feel like I'm being objectified/letched on, that makes me
uncomfortable, regardless of my state of dress.

~~~
jrockway
Where do we draw the line? Some people feel uncomfortable when they aren't
carrying a gun. Should we let those people carry guns onto planes?

~~~
shallowwater
Uh. what? I was trying to explain that feeling uncomfortable or violated was a
reasonable reaction to a virtual strip search for people who aren't you. What
the actual bleepity bleep does not allowing weapons onto planes have to do
with the price of peas in Persepolis?

------
darxius
In most Canadian airports passengers step on a map which randomizes some
numbers and then determines if you go for scanning or not. Of course, you also
have the option to opt out.

On a side note, did the guy say "gingerale" at the end of the video?

~~~
Symmetry
Yeah, this is a sort of problem with well known solutions which aren't being
used in the US for reasons that are entirely opaque.

------
Mahh
I wonder if finding sketchiness in those image results could be automated.
Everyone through the machine stands in the same position, they're just of sort
of various statures.

I mean, the supposed upgrade would mean that they are reducing the ability of
operators to observe images. What's the point in it then? At a certain point,
the humans won't be able to beat software.

I know the reasoning of security theater(that none of this actually matters),
but it's pretty fun to imagine what we could solve with technology and
software.

~~~
shantanubala
It's a little difficult. If an employee screws up badly, they can be fired. If
the software screws up badly, we can fix it, but people still lose their trust
immediately.

------
jbattle
I'd prefer this technology goes away, but if it doesn't, I'd be more
comfortable if there was an impermeable wall between the people who see the
scans and the people who select passengers for scanning. I don't see why they
even need to be at the same facility. Why isn't there some central scanning
office somewhere where all the scans are reviewed? That would eliminate a lot
of the opportunity for abuse.

Of course you introduce the risk of network issues shutting down the scanners
- but - uh - no big loss

~~~
flyt
Because I would prefer an image of me being sent to a centralized center where
faceless, unnamed government employees equivalent to postal workers make
decisions about my character without any option for petition, verification, or
identification.

------
julian_t
I flew through Kiev airport last week, and the metal detector was in front of
the scanner... so if the detector beeps when you step through, you get told to
halt in the scanner. If it doesn't beep, you walk through.

No idea what would have happened if I'd tried to opt out, and the relative
levels of their English and my Russian meant I didn't really feel like finding
out.

------
shareme
SO when will we end this security theater cluster fuck? I say if all depts
have to face budget cuts body scans go away

~~~
nextparadigms
Never under Obama or most Republican candidates (you can take a guess who's
against the TSA), unless there's a major public outcry, at least as big as the
one for SOPA.

------
Craiggybear
Ugh. Its a licence to sleaze with ease. And no comeback. Deplorable. Makes
one's flesh literally creep.

------
shpoonj
HN has been mocked repeatedly for having stories about TSA scanners on the
front page... Yet here we go again.

Anyone care to explain how this is relevant to hackers?

