
When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out. - Rickasaurus
http://blog.izs.me/post/1591805056/tsa-success-story
======
batasrki
A positive spin on this idiotic story, nicely done. Activism need not be
violent nor do people need to be yelled at or talked down to.

I still firmly believe that any TSA employee who doesn't want to be a part of
this should refuse to, just as any traveller should refuse to go through the
machine. But, there need not be drama. In fact, I'd say that refusal without
drama and in public has a more powerful effect than any verbal argument might.

~~~
Legion
> Activism need not be violent nor do people need to be yelled at or talked
> down to.

The lack of self-righteousness in the story was extremely refreshing.

As the author said: "Information, _properly_ _delivered_ , is power." Emphasis
mine.

~~~
eru
Yes. The article also shows the power of wearing Vibram FiveFingers.

------
yummyfajitas
Just curious, does anyone have some hard evidence that the MWBS is a cancer
risk?

I ask this simply because anti-X activists have pushed junk science claims of
the form "X causes CANCER" many times [1], so I'm a little dubious. I don't
think fighting civil liberties violations with junk science is a useful
tactic, if that is indeed what is happening here.

[1] For example, feminists pushed the "silicone gel implants cause breast
cancer", anti-bioscience types push "GMO foods cause cancer". Drug warriors
have pushed "pot causes cancer" and anti-abortion crusaders pushed "abortion
causes cancer".

~~~
ohyes
edit: s/mwbs/bs/g; per comment below

Well, X-rays cause cancer. BS uses X-rays So it is a cancer risk. And it is a
little more founded than someone randomly saying' this causes cancer'.

In terms of risk...

This says dental x-rays are about 2-3 mrem:
<http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/dental.htm>

This says BS is about .006-.009 mrem:
<http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/backscatter.htm>

Keep in mind that under certain models (the 'no-threshold model'), any amount
of exposure (even a tiny amount) to an X-ray is a slight increase in the
chance that that person will get cancer.

Now you might think that because dental x-rays are about 300 times more
powerful than BS, dental x-rays have a much higher chance to cause cancer.
Sure, individually, my chances of getting cancer from a BS are much lower than
my chances of getting cancer from a dental x-ray. It is even higher from daily
background radiation, or from the radiation that you get from flying in an
airplane.

But everything is about context. How many people fly each day? 2 million or
so? How many people do we propose to put through the BS machine? All of them?
(I assume the intent is to eventually replace the metal detectors with these).
If you are putting 2 million people through the BS each day, that is actually
large amount of radiation exposure. Probabilistically, someone will get cancer
from the BS.

There are certain types of radiation that you can avoid (x-raying your foot
for fun! backscatter machines), and there are certain types of radiation that
you cannot avoid (background cosmic).

I don't see how the argument that it is 'nothing' in comparison to other forms
of radiation really stands up, in that I could potentially avoid backscatter
radiation, whereas I couldn't conceivably avoid the other types.

(This doesn't take into account other real issues, like 'what if the machine
breaks down and we start blasting people with focused beams of radiation'...
while trained to run the machine, I doubt that the TSA people are trained to
maintain the machine, or would even know if something had gone horribly wrong
with it).

~~~
yummyfajitas
_(This doesn't take into account other real issues, like 'what if the machine
breaks down and we start blasting people with focused beams of radiation'..._

What if my flashlight breaks down and I start blasting people with focused
beams of laser light? What if my cell phone breaks down and the microwaves
melt the brains of everyone within 6 feet of me?

I don't know a great deal about the engineering of MWBS, but I see no reason
to believe that your fear is any more likely than mine. Most machines just
don't work that way. Do you have evidence that MWBS is different?

~~~
ohyes
It is hard to think that a flashlight or cellphone would have a power supply
strong enough to do that much damage. (Although actually, metal halide lamps
can sometimes cause UV radiation burns if they are damaged...
<http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/158/4/372> ).

As long as the backscatter machine doesn't run on Double A's, my fears are
actually more reasonable than yours.

The backscatter machine presumably uses some sort of electrical plug to
connect to power. It isn't inconceivable that it could receive more power than
intended and produce more x-rays, or that something could go wrong with the
shielding allowing x-rays to leak, or that something could go wrong with the
x-ray bulb and we could produce the wrong type of radiation.

And it doesn't have to be 'burning your head off' to be a problem, it could
simple produce an order of magnitude or two more radiation than intended, and
be a health risk.

~~~
yummyfajitas
My desk lamp also uses an electrical plug to connect to power. It isn't
inconceivable that it could receive more power than intended and blind me! By
the way, an order of magnitude or two more radiation than intended would be
equivalent to a dental xray.

Look, I'm not saying your fear is physically impossible. I'm just saying I
can't think of a very many machines (radiation sources or otherwise) for which
anything similar is a plausible fear. Most machines simply stop working when
used outside their operating parameters.

Also, do you really think that if the backscattering machine emitted the wrong
type of radiation (x-rays of a different frequency), the TSA agent operating
the scanner wouldn't notice when his screen went blank (unless the detectors
simultaneously malfunctioned to pick up the incorrect frequency)?

~~~
IsaacSchlueter
And if it does, it's your responsibility.

Your desk lamp doesn't emit X-Rays, you don't force droves of people to stand
underneath it, and no oncologists ever told me to be wary of your desk lamp
until it has received further study.

So, yeah. Not the same thing. Not even remotely. In fact, your analogy is a
bit silly.

------
aaroneous
Two interesting excerpts from the Backscatter X-ray wikipedia page:

The national radiation safety standard (see below) sets a dose per screening
limit for the general-use category. To meet the requirements of the general-
use category a full-body x-ray security system must deliver less than the dose
a person receives during 4 minutes of airline flight. TSA has set their dose
limit to ensure a person receives less radiation from one scan with a TSA
general-use x-ray security system than from 2 minutes of airline flight.

And

Fathers exposed to medical diagnostic x-rays are more likely to have infants
who contract leukemia, especially if exposure is closer to conception or
includes two or more X-rays of the lower gastrointestinal (GI) tract or lower
abdomen.[36] In medical radiography the x-ray beam is adjusted to expose only
the area of which an image is required, so that generally shielding is applied
to the patient to avoid exposing the gonads,[37] whereas in an airport
backscatter scan, the testicles of men and boys will be deliberately subjected
to the direct beam, and radiation will also reach the ovaries of female
subjects. Whilst the overall dose averaged over the entire body is lower in a
backscatter X-ray scan than in a typical medical X-ray examination, because of
the shielding of the gonads used in medical radiography this in itself does
not mean that the dose to the testicles would be less in an airport scan.

~~~
SkyMarshal
Good find, especially the second paragraph, thanks.

------
rgrove
"No thanks, I’ve already had cancer, just feel me up or whatever."

Brilliant!

------
jambo
I agree that having to choose between flying and getting groped/strip-scanned
or not flying is ridiculous, and I'm happy that he and others were able to
circumvent this.

But he says they were using Millimeter Wave Scanners, which as far as I can
tell, and contrary to his argument, do not use x-rays. That letter refers to
another type of machine, x-ray backscatter scanners.

~~~
batasrki
Well, firstly, the fact that the TSA employee didn't challenge that statement
tells me that either that employee isn't properly informed or he/she knows
more than what is publicly known. I'm gonna go on a limb and say it's the
former rather than latter.

Secondly, it shouldn't be a question of whether the machine is x-ray or
millimeter wave. Both of those emit radiation and until there's definitive
proof that one or both do not cause damage, they shouldn't be in use.

~~~
Symmetry
We actually have a very good idea how much damage x-rays and millimeter waves
do to the human body, since we've been dealing with both technologically for
many years.

Because x-rays are used in medical devices that have to be approved by the
FDA, we've developed some very good ideas about what sort of doses are harmful
and which aren't. The damage done by the x-ray scans used by the TSA do indeed
produce damage, measured in Sieverts - a scale used by medical technicians,
nuclear power plant operators, NASA, etc. Generally a dose of 1 Sievert all at
once is enough to make you sick. Radiation expose is usually measured in
milliSieverts and a person who doesn't do anything dangerous will usually
receive a couple of milliSieverts a year just from the sun and the radioactive
decay of things like the carbon in their body. Going through a TSA x-ray
scanner will give you about a microSievert (or 1/1000 of a milliSievert)
unless you do something like stop in the middle of the scanner and daydream.
Because flying on a plane involves going higher with less atmospher to protect
you from radiation from outer space, even short flights tend to cause you to
rack up 10 microSieverts and longer flights will give you more. So even if you
fly every day the excess dose you're getting from the machines is ignorable,
and if you are flying every day its only increasing the amount of radiation
you're getting by 10%.

As to millimeter waves, well, I'm not sure quite what mechanism they could
possibly use to be dangerous, since they're less energetic than the visible
light that we're exposed to every day. If you're inclined to worry about stuff
like that, I'd recommend worrying more about fluorescent lights (where all the
energy is concentrated in a few frequencies and which we're exposed to for
long periods of time) or cell phones and wireless access points (which have
about the same energy as the TSA devices, and which we're exposed to for long
periods of time).

~~~
simonsarris
But isn't 10 microSieverts over a 5 hour flight much better than 1
microSievert in the span on a few seconds?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning#Fractionati...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning#Fractionation_of_dose)

~~~
yummyfajitas
For carcinogenic purposes (what we are discussing here), no.

The fractionation effect only comes into play when you receive such a high
radiation does that it can cause large amounts of cell death. Similarly, being
burned (with fire) twice at low intensity is better than being burned once at
high intensity, since your body can partially recover after the first burn.

------
wccrawford
And just like that, it's that easy for someone to avoid the whole system. If
-anyone- can avoid them, then terrorists can. And that defeats the whole
system.

Of course, that assumes the system worked in the first place, which I don't
believe.

------
ck2
How dumb are people to not realize it's radiation one way or another? Do they
think it's "magic" they can see through your clothes?

How can there be a class action lawsuit against printer ink, but not against
radiating you for no reason with devices that have no track record?

Where are these devices for entering Congress or the Whitehouse if they are so
safe?

So would the President choose the radiation naked picture method or the deep
groping method for his daughters? I'd seriously like that question asked at
some point by the press.

 _ps. Even if you opt-out, you are probably being exposed to whatever
radiation method they use.

Note how in this photo the person in line, not just the person in the scanner
is being exposed:_

<http://i.imgur.com/NycwX.jpg>

~~~
lylejohnson
> So would the President choose the radiation naked picture method or the deep
> groping method for his daughters? I'd seriously like that question asked at
> some point by the press.

No one in the press has the guts to ask him this. But man, I'd love to see
that too.

~~~
ck2
To be fair, not just the President but also any Congressperson/Senator that is
interviewed for the rest of the year on any program.

 _Which one do you want your mother/children experiencing, naked picture
radiation, deep groping, or would you instead choose the $10,000 fine for
leaving (and possibly being put on the no-fly list forever)?_

~~~
shaddi
Maybe I'm just cynical but I'd imagine the answer would be something like,
"The scanner. The devices are safe and we feel their use is important for
ensuring the safety of US citizens. Next question?"

~~~
umjames
Yeah, you can give any answer when you know you'll never need to actually be
put through any of the options.

If everyone who flies, and I do mean everyone (regardless of whether you'll be
boarding a personal plane), had to go through this every time, we'd see this
go away.

------
motters
Americans really should start a campaign against this kind of degrading
treatment and make sure that it's stopped. It shows a profound lack of respect
for human dignity. The video showing a child being molested by an airport
security guard is just horrific, and long lasting psychological damage could
occur with a child that young after having a traumatic experience of that
kind.

------
verdant
This is what I have been thinking. If enough people refuse, its so
inconvenient for them that they don't bother to hassle you.

------
j79
I opted out during my last flight. After everything I had read, I decided I
needed to experience it first hand. I was expecting a huge scene, with the TSA
agent screaming, "OPT OUT! We've got an opt out here!", and then being
manhandled, groped, and basically demeaned in front of other passengers.

After removing my shoes (the one part of airport security theatre I absolutely
hate) and placing my belongings in those gray trays, I walked up to the TSA
agent, who asked me multiple times if I had anything in my pockets-had I
forgotten my wallet? Did I have my wrist watch on? Etc.

After the person in front of me had completed his scan, the TSA agent directed
me to step forward. I asked if I could opt out. He responded with, "sure", and
in his walkie-talkie, said, "I have a male-opt out." He then looked at me and
said, "One second..."

He got a response back in his walkie talkie, and then directed me to walk
through the scanner, pointing out that the scanner was not on.

On the other side, I was greeted by an older gentleman, who also pointed out
the scanner was off. He asked if I would prefer being patted down in a private
location. I declined. He then explained everything he would do: From the pat
down, to using the back of his hand for the more "private" areas. I said,
"okay...", honestly expecting the worst at this point.

He proceeded with the pat down at this point. He did my upper body first
(arms, chest, back) and then went to my backside and said, "I'll now be using
the back of my hand to pat your more private area" (my butt, basically...) I
responded, "okay", and then with a brush, he ran his hand down the backside of
my leg.

I'll be honest: My immediate thought was, "That's it? I've been grabbed worse
in a club/bar..."

Of course, I still hadn't received the crotch check...

He then explained he would be patting down my leg. "Here goes...", I thought.

With the back of his hands, he patted down my upper thighs (no where near the
crotch), and then wrapped his hands around my legs and went "up" until
"contact" was made, but immediately moved down, patting the rest of my leg. He
then moved on to the other.

Again, I've seen and experienced far worse contact made in a club/bar.

After that, he had to get his gloves scanned (similar to the band they use for
laptops), and after everything came clear, he thanked me for cooperating. I
thanked him in response, and went on my way.

While I realize it's entirely dependent on the TSA agent you're dealing with,
as well as personal/emotional experience, my own experience wasn't nearly as
bad as I had prepared myself for.

When I pointed this out to a friend of mine (via text), he responded, "Yeah,
but you're not a hot chick..."

He probably has a point :)

A few observations: Two of the four or five passengers who opted-in to get
scanned, had to be patted down after - a similar experience I had (I went
through the scanner once before, a mistake on my part, and had to be patted
down after...)

The TSA agent made a comment during the pat down that surprised me: He wasn't
a fan of the scanners himself. He said (paraphrasing here), "I've been reading
about the radiation from these machines. You think passengers have it bad? I
have to stand in front of this thing all day!"

Edit: Shoot, this is a lot longer than I had anticipated. A tl;dr: I opted-out
of the scanner out of my own curiosity. The airport I flew out of employed TSA
agents who made the experience not nearly as bad as I had anticipated... Of
course, YMMV.

~~~
Semiapies
_"I have to stand in front of this thing all day!"_

You know, I never thought about that. Considering how x-ray technicians stand
behind lead guards and aren't scanning people rapid-fire all day, I wonder
what the dosage the TSA folks are getting.

~~~
watchandwait
TSA will not allow staff to wear film badge dosimeters, like those regularly
worn by health care workers with potential radiation exposure,

Everyone is also assuming that the TSA is properly configuring and maintaining
this equipment, and that it is not malfunctioning and giving overdoses.

~~~
dpatru
If everything is configured properly, the dosimeters would read normal. If
not, isn't it better to find out as soon as possible?

~~~
jrockway
No. Imagine if a few workers were being overdosed. The TSA would get sued and
they'd have to find some other way to annoy us.

No data, no lawsuit.

~~~
Confusion
Using dosimeters works in many places where they use equipment that produce
X-rays. On occasion, an incident happens. This may lead to a lawsuit, but
still a lawsuit much smaller in scope than when workers are being overdosed
over longer periods of time and them finding out in a few years.

------
frossie
I flew through three airports with backscatter machines last week. I had a
small child with me. Each time i was directed to the regular metal detector -
and in one case where my child walked ahead and was about to go through the
backscatter machine, she got called back by the TSA person with some agitation
and directed through the metal detector instead.

I don't have enough data points to know for sure, but I am wondering if they
are purposefully not screening kids in these things and if so, are they doing
so due to the radiation exposure concerns.

Like the OP, I never saw anybody opt out.

~~~
Semiapies
Alternately, they may be concerned about having pictures of naked children
stored on the hard drive.

Or both!

------
danilocampos
Never underestimate the potential for convincing an underpaid federal employee
to cut corners. If you make this stuff too inconvenient for the guys on the
ground, the policy gets eroded from the inside.

Until Napolitano cracks down. But that's several moves ahead.

~~~
ck2
I think most of them are intoxicated on the power, I mean how much would
someone have to pay you to grope people all day? I'd quit in an hour.

Have you seen the photo where this horrifying parody

<http://imgur.com/Nu5f8.jpg>

is the wallpaper on the computer screen in the TSA office?

<http://imgur.com/1xFBp.jpg>

I mean think about the mentality - in the very workplace they do it.

~~~
scott_s
Saying "I would do X when presented with Y" is easy to say when you have not
been presented with Y. Regarding the wallpaper, yes, it's inappropriate.
Perhaps it is an indication that the people are drunk with power. But it could
also be another instance of people in an uncomfortable situation using humor
as a coping mechanism.

~~~
mechanical_fish
In _The Gift of Fear_ , Gavin de Becker talks about how, as a security
consultant, he takes offhand jokes very seriously. He tells the story about
the office which received an odd-looking package that nobody was expecting.
They debated whether to open it. Eventually one guy decided to open it, so his
coworker left the room. As the coworker was leaving, he made an offhand joke
over his shoulder: "I'm going to stand in the other room so I won't be around
when the bomb goes off."

Then the bomb went off.

Jokes are designed as a mechanism for saying speculative, potentially scary
things without being threatening or looking stupid. When I see a TSA agent
with that wallpaper, I see someone who knows at some level that something is
very wrong but isn't able to say so out loud. Maybe they can't even say it out
loud to _themselves_.

~~~
sosuke
I had to look up the story Gavin de Becker was quoting, I never heard it
before but it was the Unabomber.
[http://articles.latimes.com/1995-07-09/news/mn-22130_1_suspi...](http://articles.latimes.com/1995-07-09/news/mn-22130_1_suspicious-
package)

------
rdouble
I recently flew JFK->SFO and back on Virgin. There are no backscatter machines
at the Virgin terminal at JFK. They do have them at SFO. About every 10th
person was selected to go through the scanner. Nobody opted out. Contrary to
most reports, the TSA agents at both airports were pretty nice and helpful. At
JFK, they were helping a number non-english speaking travelers speed their way
through the line so they wouldn't miss their flight. If anything was off, a
couple of the agents at SFO were too chipper at 6am, which made them seem
slightly insane. Privacy and health concerns aside, an issue with this machine
is that it does nothing to speed up the security line. If anything, it is
slightly slower than the metal detector.

I wonder if this is really a cancer risk. For instance, I feel like living in
Toxic Williamsburg is probably a worse cancer risk than going through the
backscatter machine twice a year.

<http://gothamist.com/2007/04/11/toxic_williamsb.php>

~~~
kenjackson
_If anything was off, a couple of the agents at SFO were too chipper at 6am_

Probably because they were looking forward to seeing some hotties.

~~~
rdouble
The main chipper employee I remember was the androgynous female directing
traffic at the front of the line. I would like to think if she wanted to see a
nude hottie I would have been selected for the device, but who knows which way
she was swinging.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_(Saturday_Night_Live)>

------
delackner
Anyone care to do the math on what it would cost in excess fuel to add enough
metal shielding to the fuselage to offer passengers "new and improved: no
x-rays!" flights? (Only mostly not serious).

With more widespread awareness of x-ray exposure during a normal flight, I
wonder if we will see any people so agitated that they wear stuff like this:
<http://www.medvena.com/protection_clothing_maco_en.html>

------
jbail
Great moral: "Information, properly delivered, is power."

------
isleyaardvark
"There’s a senate oversight meeting tomorrow, so please call these people and
tell them how you feel
([http://hillwho.com/index.php?option=com_sobi2&sobi2Task=...](http://hillwho.com/index.php?option=com_sobi2&sobi2Task=sobi2Details&catid=10&sobi2Id=5651))."

Buried the lede.

------
swolchok
I thought it was established on HN that that letter about safety had been
properly addressed (it's from April).

~~~
mbreese
Yes, the letter is from April, but not many people buy the FDA response to the
letter.

See: [http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/11/fda-sidesteps-
sa...](http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/11/fda-sidesteps-safety-
concerns-over-tsa-body-scanners.ars)

[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)

------
davethewave
Has anyone thought of the impact of tourism. I'm in Australia and there has
been a bit of a campaign to spend your holidays in California on the tv. I was
deciding to take the family to Europe or the US, after hearing all the travel
problems the US has - Europe here we come. I'm not the only one.

------
sliverstorm
Further proof that social engineering is, as always, far more effective than
direct hacking at getting through security with a payload, even when that
payload may not be bytecode.

------
gasull
Direct link to the printed letter (PDF):

<http://j.mp/cancer-ray>

------
Rickasaurus
Some lines I've been saving up, feel free to contribute.

"Aren't you at least going to buy me dinner first?" "Woah there buddy, don't
skimp on the foreplay." "I think you might have missed a spot."

------
js2
Relatedly:
[http://www.myvidster.com/video/600891/Video_of_TSA_Screener_...](http://www.myvidster.com/video/600891/Video_of_TSA_Screener_Accosting_3_Year_Old_Child_at_Security_Checkpoint)

------
shill
Write in big letters at the top of the literature: "Please read this then pass
it to the person behind you in line. Thank you."

------
heimidal
I would upvote this 1000 times if I could.

------
albertcardona
The actual letter from Prof. John Sedat and others, UCSF:

[http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ost...](http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ucsf-
jph-letter.pdf)

------
mattmaroon
"They’re expendable workers. I own this place. I’m the boss. They work for me.
The only reason I don’t fire them is that they’re cheaper than robots. Etc."

I hate people like that. Why must he build himself up by putting down others?
Regardless of what you think of the TSA's procedures, the people in the
airport don't make the law. They're just decent people trying to make a
living. If you have to insult them, albeit only to yourself, just to opt out
of a scan you're probably the one who needs replaced by a robot.

~~~
jdminhbg
It's really easy to Godwin a response to this, but I'll opt out and just ask:
How decent are these people if they signed up for jobs to look at naked
pictures and grope strangers? I'm all for being respectful as a tactic, but
it's not as if they're doing anything to deserve respect.

~~~
scott_s
I find your argument disingenuous, since these people were likely hired before
these new regulations were in place.

~~~
jdminhbg
It's not as if this is the first invasive thing they've done, and I think my
argument still stands if rephrased as "people who wouldn't quit a job when
told to look at naked pictures and grope strangers all day."

~~~
scott_s
Security personnel will almost always have to perform a job that is, in some
way, invasive. Your argument could apply to _all_ security personnel, not just
those participating in the new policies.

------
Tomek_
Sorry for being cynical, but for me this story reads more or less like:
there's a guy who didn't have enough balls to opt out only by himself and thus
decided to find others to join him (he even brought some papers to show), and
the others were some family where a woman, "fortunately"(?) had a cancer
before - it's rather sad.

~~~
jarin
I think you are completely off base. In my opinion, it seems the guy was
planning to opt out anyway and wanted to do his small part in spreading
awareness of the problems associated with the scanners. I would even go so far
as to say the radiation literature is a strawman for the bigger problem
(people have shown that they are willing to give up their personal liberties,
but EVERYONE responds to physical danger).

