
National Opt-Out Day Called Against Invasive Body Scanners - ojbyrne
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/national-opt-out/
======
jambo
The TSA is now calling National Opt-Out Day "irresponsible."

John Pistole, TSA Administrator: "On the eve of a major national holiday and
less than one year after al Qaida's failed attack last Christmas Day, it is
irresponsible for a group to suggest travelers opt out of the very screening
that could prevent an attack using non-metallic explosives."
[http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/11/12/131275949/protest...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/11/12/131275949/protests-
mount-over-safety-and-privacy-of-airport-scanners)

That, to me, doesn't jive with their stance that body scanners aren't a big
deal because you can opt out. To me, it confirms that opt-out "enhanced pat-
downs" were introduced to intimidate people into being scanned.

~~~
SkyMarshal
_"On the eve of a major national holiday and less than one year after al
Qaida's failed attack last Christmas Day, it is irresponsible for a group to
suggest travelers opt out of the very screening that could prevent an attack
using non-metallic explosives."_

He seems to be overlooking the possibility that things are getting so bad with
the TSA that increasing numbers of travelers would rather take their chances
with terrorists and underwear bombs than submit to the TSA's heavy-handed,
dehumanizing procedures.

~~~
jambo
And that no security measure at the airport will prevent a threat before the
security checkpoint. With or without people opting out of the body scanners,
security checkpoints are bottlenecks (something that the scanners have, in
fact, exacerbated) and therefore vulnerable.

------
techiferous
This reminds me of Gandhi's non-cooperation attitude and shrewdness in dealing
with unjust people or policies in power.

As an individual, you are powerless when you go through the security line. As
a group, however, the American people have _all_ of the power. Because this is
both a democracy and a capitalist country (however flawed it may be), if there
is an _organized_ and _concerted_ effort against the TSA policies, they simply
cannot stand. Congress would not be able to oppose a unified voice of the
people saying "this is not okay" and the airlines would not be able to
tolerate a significant reduction in customers (and therefore would put
pressure on the TSA to change its policies).

Gandhi organized a "day of prayer and fasting" which was basically a general
strike of all of India. It was a wake-up call to the British. If somebody
organized a "do not fly" day where no one flew, that would probably be a
bigger wake-up call than opting out of the scan.

Sometimes you have to give up some temporary convenience or comfort to send a
message to those in power that you don't agree. During the Montgomery bus
boycott, people stopped using the bus and this was extremely inconvenient but
they would rather not trade their dignity for convenience.

~~~
synnik
The major difference between this situation and any efforts of Gandhi or the
civil rights movement is one of leadership.

An entire country would (and did) follow Gandhi. I don't think there is a
single person in the US whom everyone would follow for a day. Especially if it
meant shutting down all business travel during that day.

~~~
techiferous
I tend to agree; however, if the issue was important enough I think that a
significant portion of our population would organize to achieve a goal. Look
at how many people showed up for the rally to restore fear and/or sanity which
actually didn't have any stated goals.

------
sp332
Ugh, it makes me sad to see everyone blaming _these_ people for "holding up
the line." No, it's the _TSA_ , who decided to treat every passenger as a
criminal suspect, who are holding up the line!

------
blahblahblah
I hope they're successful in getting TSA's ridiculous policy changed. One
shouldn't have to choose between being unnecessarily irradiated and virtually
strip-searched or being sexually assaulted (in any other context, TSA's new
pat-down procedures would be classified as criminal sexual conduct) just to
ride on an airplane.

~~~
sp332
It's just a normal pat-down, the kind that might be given by an officer of the
law to someone reasonably suspected to be armed and dangerous. It's not like
the pat-downs themselves are unusual, it's that the TSA doesn't have cause (or
maybe even authority) to do these pat-downs.

Also, it's not sexual, so it can't possibly be sexual assault. Assault or
battery is about the most you could claim.

~~~
barrkel
TSA agents aren't officers of the law.

You might consider it non-sexual, but try asking a rape victim instead. I most
certainly consider someone touching my private parts a sexual assault; and the
fact that it's institutionalized doesn't make it any less a scandal. Don't be
under any illusions; people who enjoy this kind of thing will see it as an
interesting alternative career choice to school janitor etc.

If the scanners become mandatory here in the UK for going to the US (they
aren't on Virgin Atlantic flying out of Heathrow, last time I checked, a
couple of weeks back), I'll probably have to quit my job, as I will no longer
want to travel.

~~~
sp332
Yeah, that's what I meant when I said they might not have authority. But they
have been delegated that authority by the DHS, which does have cabinet-level
executive status. So it's arguable.

It's interesting how you consider any interaction with your "private parts" to
be sexual in nature. If you lean against a table, are you having sex with it?
Are you having sex with your underwear right now?? The agent isn't touching
you sexually, so it's not sexual assault.

~~~
sp4rki
If I lean against a table it's not sexual, but when the table grabs my balls
it sure as hell is. What I find interesting is that you equate an inanimate
object in contact with a sexual organ with a human being fondling your penis,
vagina, or breasts.

I honestly care less about the pats, if a dude or dudette wants to touch my
balls and buttocks to make sure I'm not packing (pun intended), then go ahead.
But to see them extend this same courtesy to grandmothers and little children
is disgusting, unnecessary, and irresponsible.

~~~
sixtofour
An argument could be made, a really depressing argument in so many ways, that
including children and grandmothers in the TSA's sexual assaults is for their
protection, because if they were exempt, they could be targets for hiding
contraband.

~~~
sp4rki
But what happens when terrorist children shove explosives inside themselves
through their anuses, or when terrorist grandma shoves a handgun inside her
vagina?

It's a very slippery slope to climb without a safety-line mate. The minimal
increase in security this new procedures allows is just too small in contrast
to the vast damage it does towards people's liberties and towards avoiding
precedents that could influence some Big Brother type of behavior.

This might sound awful, but a terrorist attack is most likely to be thwarted
because some agents doing profiling decided to be extra careful with Muslims
(and this is just an example, I'm not targeting Muslims in any way), than
because we have xray machines that strip people naked.

~~~
sixtofour
I'm not making the argument that I noted, I'm just pointing out that it fits
within the twisted logic of our current situation.

I agree with your points, and I don't feel any safer for the new procedures.
Indeed, I feel less safe, because the TSA's efforts are misdirected, and the
TSA has demonstrated its disdain for me, my rights and my dignity.

~~~
sp4rki
Oh no I got from your post that you where not making that specific point.
Sorry if I came off as 'protective' of my ideals or something, I was just
trying to convey why I thought that the TSA policies are rubbish. I agree with
you that there is a counterpoint to the way I see everything regarding this, I
just think that the counter point is as misguided as the policies are.

------
hyperbovine
I'm so tired of seeing pictures like this:
[http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/11/airpor...](http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/11/airport_scan_f.jpg)

Classic red herring. You couldn't sneak a pistol through security before 9/11,
you couldn't do it after 9/11, and the NakedTron 5000 doesn't do a damn thing
to change that.

~~~
tptacek
The press has been running stories about random people managing to get guns
past airport security for literally decades.

------
jim_h
If anybody knows people in tv or radio, it'd be good to get the word out.

Opt-Out Day is Nov 24th. The day before Thanksgiving. It's going to be packed
and slow without people opting out. Make sure to remind the mad people that
it's the TSA that's forcing you get a pat down.

------
jim_h
If you opt-out, please be respectful to the TSA security people. They're just
working and can't change the policies for you. Most of them are not in high
positions and can't just walk away and find another job the next day/week. So
they're not quitting no matter how rudely you treat them. No point to it and
it'll just make them grumpy towards you and everybody after you.

It's best to just talk to them like a regular person and be nice about it.
It'll make the pat down experience better for you and them. Just ask them to
send the word upstream.

edit - Why was I voted down? Is someone suggesting that you should act like a
douche bag to the staff?

~~~
miles
See tptacek's comment from a few weeks ago:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1849035>

~~~
jim_h
The post may have gotten a lot of up votes, but it doesn't mean he/she is
right.

I'm pretty sure that those low TSA people would LOVE to get a better job, but
guess what they're there and that's the reality of it. In a better reality, we
wouldn't have this security theater. However, we should focus our angry/energy
towards solutions that will bring better results.

Besides, if they quit, there lines of people to take their place. The economy
isn't that great and there's lots of people looking for jobs.

(I'm not saying let them keep their jobs and security theater. Just saying not
need waste energy on being rude to them.)

------
pinchyfingers
Too few people will even give the scanners a second thought. Unfortunately,
most people are satiated enough to watch their freedom gradually erode without
realizing what's happening. I don't know how far this call to opt-out will
spread, but if enough people opt-out to draw the attention of those who
haven't paid attention yet, things might change.

It takes a lot of effort to match government sponsored indoctrination. If this
works at all, it might lead to a lot more people waking up and saying 'no' to
the bullshit constantly being shoved down their throats.

------
jberryman
Not sure how feasible or legal it is to do this, but a good strategy for a
demonstration might be to hand out fliers to people waiting in the security
line. On the fliers would be some information on the new security policy and
body scanners and an example image of a body scan. Also attached would be a
sticker that says "opt out".

That we people can make an informed and visible decision _before_ they
encounter the TSA pressure.

~~~
nitrogen
Better yet, t-shirts. The front of the t-shirt is innocuous (so the security
guards don't get alarmed too early), but the back explains the body scan
process to everyone in line behind you, with example images.

~~~
sixtofour
Wear your Fourth Amendment tshirt whenever you fly.

------
karzeem
One of the great things about this backlash is that it springs mostly from
just a handful of small, mostly web-based efforts. Jonah Goldberg's post
arguably kicked off this latest, biggest anti-body-scanner outcry.

Among web sites:

<http://www.optoutday.com> is probably the most notable.

<http://wewontfly.com> is another biggie.

<http://www.imadethetsafeelmyresistance.com> (disclosure: I made it) has
gotten a bunch of traffic too.

There are lots of others. This whole thing has heated up a lot in the last
week or two. And I suspect the next week or two are going to be a lot bigger.

------
mark_l_watson
As I just ranted on my blog: call your Congressional representatives and ask
them how they would feel about their wives and kids being groped.

BTW, the backscatter scanners might prove to be very unsafe.

------
torme
Well, I'll be flying that day, but I would probably opt out without the
designated day.

~~~
ahi
Same here. Except I like to think of it as opting in for a rub down.

------
trunnell
This protest might not slow down security lines. These new scanners are pretty
slow to begin with.

When I went through SFO recently it took 1-2 minutes to go through the
scanner. The slowness seemed to be a combination of the instructions given to
the flyer for positioning themselves inside the device, the slowness of the
device itself, and the slack in the line.

In any case, I remember thinking that a pat-down might actually be quicker.

~~~
icefox
Recently when I choose not to go through the digital strip search they spent a
good 20 minutes going through my stuff, asking me questions and getting a pat
down.

~~~
cheald
The point is that if enough people are opting out, it's going to be a lot
harder for them to take the time to individually harass people.

~~~
prodigal_erik
Not harder, just slower, and why would they care about that? There are many
people with enough empathy and diligence to feel bad if you miss your flight.
But I don't see how any of them could stomach working for TSA.

------
terryjsmith
I can't get behind this, especially when it comes to kids. I really hope that
someone finds proof they do store images and sues the US government/TSA for
child pornography or something similar. While I doubt this opt-out day will
gain serious traction to make a decision, I agree that the best thing to do is
continue to call media attention to and scrutinize it.

~~~
philfreo
_The TSA has asserted that the machines cannot store pictures, but security
personnel at a courthouse in Florida were found to not only have saved images
but shared them among colleagues in order to humiliate one of their
coworkers._

~~~
terryjsmith
I saw that, but it's not enough. Someone needs to send some of these pictures
(even better, pictures of congress members) to Wikileaks or a similar
organization to really push this forward.

------
henry81
I fly out the Friday after this and will absolutely be opting out.

------
Gibbon
I'm emigrating from Canada to New Zealand and we're flying on Nov. 25.

Since I'm near the border, we're flying from Detroit to Fort Worth and then
LA.. I am not looking forward to this flight.

I've already had dozens of medical x-rays in the past few months, and don't
particularly want to get another dose, however low it may be.

On the other hand, opting out sounds really unpleasant. I especially don't
want my wife potentially suffering that indignity at the hands of a male TSA
agent (as some people have reported).

I don't think I have the balls to opt-out this time around.. I just want to
survive the 48 hour trip intact, with all my luggage.. but this will likely be
the last time I fly through the US.

~~~
robfitz
I've opted out twice and it really hasn't been a big deal. It's slightly
slower, but the security guys treated me fine. It was no more invasive than
being patted down before entering a nightclub to make sure you aren't carrying
anything pointy.

Given your health concerns, opting out seems like the clear choice (though
bear in mind I'm pulling from a sample size of only 2).

~~~
dalke
What kind of nightclubs do you go to? I've never seen that before. The most
has been to check for ID.

~~~
robfitz
Welcome to Atlanta! ;)

------
seles
There seems to be debate about whether or not this day is good or bad. But it
is pretty simple if the scanners are good the day is bad, if the scanners are
bad then the day is good.

This is the real issue, but there has probably been alot of debate about this
already? What made you take your current stance?

I went though the body scanner this Monday in Cincinnati, well aware of the
fact that they can see your penis etc (and it was cold that day...). It didn't
bother me that much, but it was much more time consuming than going through
the old metal detectors, and I don't like the fact that this could be harmful
(but I haven't researched how credible this is).

~~~
barrkel
We have to draw the line somewhere; if not here, they'll push the line
further, and further. The TSA has no motive to do a cost-benefit analysis: the
force pushing them forward is risk, no matter how small, but the only force
pushing back against them is how much budget they can get out of the American
taxpayer. The saliency of terrorism fears overpowers analytic reason in too
many people.

A quick search indicates there are over 87,000 flights daily in the US alone;
that puts the number at over a _quarter billion flights_ without a successful
terrorist incident _in the absence_ of these scanners.

------
daimyoyo
I would recommend taking this one step further. Let's all find a day in the
next few months where we simply refuse to fly. We can call it "dignity day".
If air traffic was significantly down because of this, the airlines would
start pressuring the TSA to back off. After all, keeping shareholders happy
trumps whatever safety concerns we might have.

~~~
cheald
This would be useless for the same reason that "Gas Out" boycotts are useless.

<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18492185/>

The only way to make an impact is to fly less, not to shift your flying dates
around to avoid a given day.

------
siculars
I think I will buy a ticket somewhere just so that I can participate.

------
nphase
This reminds me of all those Facebook groups telling people to protest OPEC by
not buying gas on X day.

~~~
orangecat
The gas "boycotts" are stupid, because they just shift sales to the days
before and after. This could have a meaningful impact, because it really will
increase the number of molestations that TSA agents have to perform.

------
aneth
Really disappointed in the hackernews community for downing dissenting
opinions in this thread. I understand this is an emotional issue for people
but that doesn't excuse for immaturity. Fortunately my karma is pretty
meaningless to me as much as I like to watch it go up (or down.)

~~~
sp4rki
You called the communities opinion pathetic, based on some erroneous what
"ifs" you came up with. Lot's of people just gave you their point of view on
why you're wrong and others just down voted you because you didn't back up
anything you said with facts. Here's my take:

1) I don't care about anyone seeing me naked, I've been working out for years,
four times a week to look like I look now and if could walk butt naked
everywhere I would. That doesn't mean that it's alright to look at other
people's naked bodies, and sure as hell doesn't make right the possibility of
a predator looking at naked children.

2) Regarding the scanner's radiation in no way is a healthy thing, and in the
absence of actual proof stating if it's really negligible or if it poses a
serious health risk, everyone should consider it dangerous. You're basically
saying that it's OK to walk through that tight dark alley in the middle of a
bad neighborhood at midnight because there's no proof that anyone has been
killed or mugged there. I'd rather avoid that kind of situation unless
completely necessary thank you very much.

You wanted a rational discussion so I'm giving you a rational answer (I have
no emotional issue with the topic at hand). I don't care about people touching
me or seeing me naked, and I do care (albeit very little) about the potential
health risks. I find your comment on how seeing someone's body through X-rays
is not a big deal, but seeing someone's luggage through X-ray is a violation
of privacy, preposterous and honestly laughable. Tell me what the big
difference between looking into your luggage and looking at your naked body is
that makes the latter so unimportant in comparison to the former.

You made a comment for the sake of disagreeing (instead of saying anything of
any value for the discussion) and then made some utterly incompetent remarks
all the while calling people immature and basically saying their opinions have
no value because you believe we're all cattle in the herd of the Anti-TSA fad.
While I don't agree there was a necessity for down-votes, you're comments did
add no value whatsoever so the people where in a way correct to do so. Next
time if you're going to disagree do it politely and state facts and opinions
instead of trying to come of as the better person.

~~~
aneth
Thanks for the feedback, however I did not call the community's opinion
pathetic, nor did I state a bunch of ifs. In fact I did not even use the word
"if" that I could find, nor did I state conditionals in any other way. I did
say there was a pathetic lack of rational discussion, and I was not referring
to HN specifically, but instead the general public discourse.

I did not comment "for the sake of disagreeing," but rather because I strongly
disagree with the prevailing group think going on. This policy was poorly
presented to the public, but that does not excuse its butchering, nor the
wholesale dismissal of the TSA.

I also think it's wrong to pile on a bunch of decent people working as TSA
agents just because of a couple bad anecdotes that made the news. Further, I
think the rationale behind the policy, ways to limit abuse, and the trade-offs
should be the subject of discussion. Instead it's a bunch of "fuck the police"
without consideration for those of us in favor of having secure airline
flights.

I don't see how being searched for weapons and explosives before boarding an
aircraft is a violation of privacy, and finding ways around a more thorough
search does not mean a more thorough search shouldn't be implemented.

You are free to fly your own plane without such searches, or to drive, walk,
take a train, etc - however if you get on a plane with other people you simply
do not have a right to not be searched, any more than you do when entering a
courthouse, having a private dinner with the President, or going to a
nightclub. Those policies are implemented to counter real dangers and threats,
and your right to privacy does not prevail here.

I just got off a flight from OAK-SEA without incident or encounter, a few
helpful pointers, and plenty of courtesy.

~~~
sp4rki
I get that you didn't mean it as a put down, I was just expressing to you how
it read for me (and probably for a lot of people). I didn't mean to come off
as aggressive towards you specifically, I was more being aggressive towards
the idea itself.

Now I don't see where the general disdain relates to the TSA agents
themselves, with the exceptions of a few posts stating that people that work
as TSA agents would resign as a result of this policies, and I agree with you
in that they aren't the ones that should have to deal with out unhappiness
with the policies.

It's not that people think that they have a right to not be searched, it's
that people think they have a right to not be treated in a way that demeans
them and that violates some of the basic human rights they posses. There is no
expectation of privacy on an airport, and as such you should be searched for
dangerous artifacts and weapons, but that doesn't mean that you should be
stripped by a machine or 'fondled' and 'groped' without a reason. There is no
expectation of privacy while walking down the street or getting into a bus,
and as such, but that doesn't give the right to anyone to take naked xray
pictures of your person or to touch you in way you not deem appropriate.

You might get plenty or courtesy on behalf of the TSA agents, and that's
great; however the fight is not with the agents themselves, it's with the
policies that demand people to submit to potentially damaging irradiation or
to a search procedure that proves to be invasive and with which you don't feel
comfortable with.

------
aneth
This anti scanner fad stinks of mob mentality and hysteria. There is no
evidence images have been stored at airports or that harm is caused by scans.
There is a pathetic lack of rational discussion of factual policies and why
such policies might be necessary, whether we like them or not.

I expect more from the HN crowd.

Someone want to fill us on on facts instead of speculation and fear mongering?

~~~
danilocampos
Let's start with this:

In a free society, people are being coerced to participate in a security
procedure that violates their privacy. Don't want to go through the porno
scanners? Okay, punk — have fun being aggressively _groped_ in punishment.

You don't get to enact this kind of invasive, extreme policy on a whim.
Extreme measures call for extreme circumstances and at this point, _no one_
has made any sort of compelling case for the necessity of seeing the American
public naked or grabbing them by the nuts.

No one asked for this. And no one gave permission for this, aside from
bureaucrats with more agenda than sense.

Finally, anyone dedicated to destroying themselves and others with a
nonmetallic explosive is simply going to shove it up their ass. No pat down
can detect that. So what, beyond further terrorizing the public, is the point?

The terrorists groups are a bunch of amateurs. If you want to see real terror,
call up some bureaucrats.

~~~
aneth
We have always been coerced into procedures that violate our privacy when we
fly. If we were not, terrorists would regularly board aircraft with guns and
ammo.

From a shitload of personal travel (I fly twice a month) I have found 95% of
the TSA to be good humored and responsible. The situation today is fa better
than it was when run by private companies.

~~~
dalke
"far better than it was" ... citation needed? I thought the GAO has reported
several times that it's as easy to get "bomb parts" and other weapons through
TSA security as it was in the pre-TSA days.

I've been trying to find the report. The closest I got to was one on "TSA's
Cost and Performance Study of Private-Sector Airport Screening" which said
there are methodological problems in the TSA's report on the cost of private
security over TSA-base ones. It pointed out that a handful of airports
(including SFO) use private security.

So, how has SFO compared to LAX?

~~~
aneth
I don't fly to LA.

By far better I mean the procedures are faster, better explained, and the
operation is more professional.

My point is not to advocate government run security, but to point out that all
this reactionary criticism of TSA is unjustified and it's crowdthink going on
right now.

~~~
dalke
But is the security any better? Back in the 1990s the procedures were faster
(because there was less checking) and better explained (because there were
fewer things to explain). Does 3-1-1 and taking off of shoes make us more
secure? If not, then the professionalism is unwarranted.

And every study report I've seen says that outside of a few things (secure
doors, which the airlines fought against in the 1990s; and halting the
practice of responding to hijacker demands), the overall security is not made
better by this ever-increasing level of passenger scrutiny.

~~~
aneth
By this logic, we could drop all security checks. I'm sure no one would ever
board a plane strapped with explosives...

~~~
dalke
That's not what I said and your logic makes no sense.

A few months ago we had security X. We now have security Y, which is more
expensive and more intrusive. Is that change justifiable? The TSA has not
really justified this, which is easy to see from the Government Accountability
Office reports.

A decade ago we had security A. We now have security Y (still). The same
argument holds - are flights more secure, and which security factors are
beneficial and which are not? Quite clearly the secure doors and rejection of
the policy to agree to hijacker demands are effective against a broad range of
attacks meant to use airplanes as a directed weapon. This is a security change
I would not drop.

But since the GAO has shown that it's as easy to smuggle in "bomb parts" into
an airport during periods A and Y, there is quite clearly limited improvement
in the effectiveness of preventing people from blowing up planes. Note that
this is a different security threat than in the previous paragraph.

How here does this equal to a logical conclusion that we should drop all
security checks? That only makes sense if you think that none of the security
screenings work, which I quite clearly did not say.

Oh, and in your original post you said you "found 95% of the TSA to be good
humored and responsible." If you deal with 3 TSA people each trip then every 5
trips you'll be dealing with a non-good humored or non-responsible TSA member.
If in a 1990s-era airport you found that only 90% of the staff was the same,
but you only needed to deal with a single magnetometer staff, then you would
have problems only every 7 trips. More professional staff doesn't necessarily
mean a better experience.

