

World's largest association of pilots boycotts body scanners - mcantelon
http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2010/11/worlds-largest-association-of-pilots-boycotts-body-scanners.html

======
jfrancis
The key is to make the pat-down as time consuming and embarrassing as possible
for the TSA staff. Follow these steps:

1) Refuse the body scanner and request a manual pat-down.

2) Ask to have a supervisor, or a second TSA staff, present during the pat-
down. Explain that this is to ensure that no sexual harassment occurs.

3) If you are a guy, ask to have a female TSA staff member perform the pat-
down. If your request is denied, calmly explain to the TSA guy that you are
homosexual and that a pat-down by another guy will turn you on and will make
you sexually extremely uncomfortable.

4) During the pat-down, make comments such as "Oh yeah, I like it when you
touch me there!", or "Can I get a happy ending?"

~~~
potatolicious
No need to go that far. The easiest way to protest this is to DDoS the system
- if a large enough proportion of the population consistent opts out of the
backscatter, the system will collapse on itself.

There is no way TSA can clear a flight full of people using patdowns fast
enough. All we need is enough people to refuse - no need to make special
requests or other muck up the works.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_if a large enough proportion of the population consistent opts out of the
backscatter, the system will collapse on itself._

I disagree. Why in the world should the authorities care that the lines for
"opt-outs" are incredibly long, and the machines are getting low usage?

~~~
dpatru
If enough of the right people complain, people in authority start losing their
jobs. That's why the authorities care.

------
blahedo
Hang on, do we know this is for real? I followed the link to news.com.au, and
I can find one or two other blogs that are referring to this, but the APA site
itself (<http://public.alliedpilots.org/>) makes no reference to anything like
this, including in their "For the Media" section (press releases and such).

~~~
mrkurt
Here's a copy of the message the APA president sent to pilots:
[http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/11/apa-
pres...](http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/11/apa-president-
advises-against.html)

~~~
blahedo
Ok, thanks. I notice this doesn't really rise to the level of an APA
"boycott", though.

------
tomhenderson
There was an interesting opinion piece in New Scientist about radiation safety
levels recently (31 July 2010). It looked at health studies from Hiroshima and
Nagasaki and studies of chemotherapy patients that suggest that the current
recommended radiation limit (1 millisievert per year) is overly cautious. The
article went on to suggest that the recommendation be raised to a lifetime
total of 5 sieverts at no more than 0.1 sievert per month.

The article is here, unfortunately behind a pay wall:
[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727715.800-whos-
afra...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727715.800-whos-afraid-of-
radiation.html)

------
aresant
Did you know that they had full dose radiation-driven "shoe fitting" devices
in over 10,000 shoe stores up until 1970?

They were eventually pulled when reports of burns and stunting of bone and
cartilage began to emerge.

It's the little vignettes of history like this that remind me how many grand-
experiments there are out there using us all as the unwitting test subjects.

Is the Pilot Union’s boycott a kneejerk reaction to the measured warning about
potential radiation damage?

Maybe.

But never underestimate how quickly politicos helping to equip our airports
with $100 - 200k a pop units will happily ask for forgiveness, not permission.

Citation for shoe stores - <http://www.hemonctoday.com/article.aspx?rid=28218>

~~~
oiuytgfyhujik
But this is different - they have done long term studies following the total
life health of 1000s of pilots who have been exposed to these scanners 10x a
day for their whole careers.

~~~
Anechoic
Link/source?

~~~
oiuytgfyhujik
biblo-ref: Journal of Ironic Internet Postings 1 April 2011

~~~
dejb
There is an apparently dwindling minority of people who would consider this to
be sarcasm and not irony. For these few, irony is never merely logical
negation. It necessarily involves unintended and opposite consequences flowing
from the protagonist's actions. A short internet search suggests I may be the
last of this kind.

~~~
mcantor
The only problem I have with caveats like this is that on all the hundreds of
occasions when I've heard someone say, "Actually, that's not irony," the
subsequent explanation of what _does_ qualify as irony has been different
every single time.

This is additionally confounded by the fact that British people really _do_
mean "sarcasm" when they say "irony." (At least, most of the British people
I've spoken with do.)

~~~
dejb
> This is additionally confounded by the fact that British people really do
> mean "sarcasm" when they say "irony."

I've never experienced this in actual conversation with British and/or other
non-US English speakers. But the internet definitions I'm finding seem to all
include 'sarcastic but somewhat subtle' in the definition of ironic. For me
the definitions of sarcasm and irony do not intersect. Sarcasm is intentional
whereas irony is at best random or more often a signifier of implied 'fate'.

~~~
kwantam
Irony certainly can be random or a signifier of implied fate in the case of
literary/dramatic irony.

Verbal irony, which is closely related to but not identical to sarcasm (though
there is quite a lot of debate on exactly the relationship among
psycholinguists) is most certainly intentional.

    
    
        "I don't wear my seat belt because if I'm uncomfortable I'll drive more dangerously."
    
        "Sounds like you've really thought that one through."
    

Verbal irony, possibly sarcasm depending on whose definition you buy, but
definitely intentional in any case.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony#Verbal_irony> discusses this further and
refers to specific research on this topic.

------
IgorPartola
It seems that the debate in the comments here is on whether to give the TSA
employees a hard time (with suggestions) or to try to pressure the politicians
who let this happen (with no concrete suggestions).

I wonder if the pressure really should be applied to the airlines. Obviously
they are in a tough spot, but once they start to really lose profits, they
would be sure to run to DC screaming. Just a thought.

------
xutopia
I wonder what happens when a normal person refuses to be scanned by these
newfangled scanners?

I'm going to the US soon and I don't like the body scanners.

~~~
afshin
I refused last week. I got pat down pretty invasively. The TSA agent seemed
rather embarrassed about it. The protocol says that when they touch private
areas, they must point out that they're using the back of the hand, but being
groped is being groped.

If everyone refuses, I hope, it will be simply too costly to continue ... but
I'm still not sure if allowing myself to be literally manhandled is any less
an invasion of my privacy except insofar as there's no photographic evidence
that can be stored indefinitely.

~~~
oiuytgfyhujik
There is a gay rights group who are planning to protest it by turning up at
the airport in costume insisting on a special pat down and pretending (or not)
to enjoy it very much.

Sounds like a great day out - especially if you are into uniforms!

~~~
patio11
Sexually harassing someone who makes $10 an hour to make a point to someone
who makes $150,000 a year several thousand miles away and who has actual
decisionmaking authority does not strike me as a justice-enhancing move.

~~~
demallien
This has already been done to death on HN. 1) "Doing your job" is never an
excuse for doing what is wrong. 2) These pat-downs are wrong.

If you agree with the first 2 points, it seems to me that making the wrong-
doer personally accountable is a reasonable response. Yes, their boss several
thousand miles away also needs to be held to account, but so do the people
physically executing the searches.

~~~
coconutrandom
I'm pretty sure that argument should be reserved for possible war crimes and
not frisking people.

~~~
isleyaardvark
There are plenty of jobs that violate rule #1 above. Spammers, those who take
advantage of the economically disadvantaged, et cetera.

If groping someone's genitals doesn't cross a line, what does?

