
Pilot Stands Up To TSA And Refuses Full Body Scan  - yread
http://www.expressjetpilots.com/the-pipe/showthread.php?39523-Well-today-was-the-day
======
jdietrich
I have absolutely no doubt that the most evil words in the english language
are "I'm just doing my job". It speaks of the profoundest moral cowardice, a
complete abrogation of personal responsibility.

Zimbardo showed that the inevitable consequence of unchecked authority is
abuse. Milgram showed that a large proportion of us will do just about
anything to our fellow man because someone with a clipboard says so. Asch
showed us that we will swear that black is white if we are surrounded by
people who tell us so.

This isn't about emotion or politics, it is about some basic psychological
facts. If you give a man a badge and a hat he will start beating people down
the moment you turn your back. If you give a man the authority to do "whatever
is necessary", that authority will be extended to dominate and control as far
as is possible. If you tell a man "You have no other choice, you must go on",
he will kill in cold blood.

All preventable deaths are unfortunate, but deaths due to terrorism are
incredibly rare. Even in the most violent and chaotic places on earth, road
traffic accidents dwarf the death toll due to terrorism. If we cared about the
preservation of human life, we would spend the TSA's budget on eliminating
malaria, tuberculosis and infant diarrhea. If we cared about saving _western_
lives, we would spend the money on public health education and support, road
traffic safety, school meals and so on.

It is clear that we're not acting rationally. In response to an extremely rare
risk, we are spending countless billions on largely ineffective responses and
sacrificing civil liberties on a grand scale. This isn't just about body-
scanners, it's about extraordinary rendition, warrantless wiretapping, the
criminalisation of photography and who the hell knows what else. Whatever
argument might be made for the TSA, it is absolutely bogus to suggest that
they are in any way a rational or proportional response to risk.

Every dollar that we spend on building scanners or spying on students is a
dollar that we can't spend on feeding schoolkids or preventing diabetes or
making roads safer. Government spending is finite and every dollar of the
TSA's budget is money that could be spent much more effectively and save far
more lives.

~~~
run4yourlives
You sir, should run for office. Unfortunately we live in a democracy.

~~~
RP_Joe
We don't live in a Democracy. Its suppose to be a Republic. But that died a
long time ago. Even Google says so. In fact that's the whole point of the
pilots protest.

------
DanielBMarkham
I'm a pilot, a libertarian, and somebody who believes that it is a fair trade
to _temporarily_ trade freedoms for security, such as when governments
institute blackout laws during air-raids when the nation is at war.

But this virtual strip-searching is going too far. Somebody needs to be a
grownup and stop abusing the public in return for the promise of a risk-free
travel experience.

The problem, from a political perspective, is this is one of those "clean
water" issues -- an issue with only one side. Who wants to be in favor of
dirty water? Yet the real question facing governments is what kind of trade to
make between tax revenue and water treatment plants, what kinds of burdens to
put on industry to not pollute (too much), etc. The real question is very
nuanced and involves lots of trade-offs and discussions about private property
rights and the public good. But the problem is, _even though it's a trade-off,
there's no upside to taking the other side of the issue_.

Let's suppose somebody gets elected on the platform to eliminate body
scanners. All the scanners get eliminated and the public cheers.

The next month there is a terrible attack -- one that could have been
prevented by the use of body scanners.

I know what the logical response is, but what do you think the _actual_
response from the public will be? It's going to be to get rid of that foolish
politician who's reckless ways caused so much harm and misery.

And to DavidW's point, yes, I think this is a HN issue, although it is also
emotionally-charged. It's a hacker issue because it gets to the heart of all
hacking: just because you _can_ do something, _should_ you? If I can create a
mind-reading device to stop terrorists, should I? It also addresses the ways
people can create organizational systems without balance -- systems that
continue growing ad infinitum. I would expect this virtual strip-searching to
be only the beginning: as terrorist defeat these (by the use of rectally-
planted explosives, as the pilot points out) then government will up the ante
and find a way to give rectal exams. They'll have to. It's a one-sided issue.

~~~
psyklic
It's a one-sided issue which our government has said that they're gonna fix -
small cost to attack, enormous cost to defend. The US had no other choice
though. If one vulnerability is found, terrorists will just continue to
exploit it, and it will erode trust in our transit networks.

Are you saying we should just let 9/11s happen, and _then_ fix the holes? Are
alternative scanning methods just as effective? Wouldn't _you_ prefer that
everyone else on your flight is scanned, just to make sure you'll be safe?
It's a tricky issue.

~~~
acabal
> Are you saying we should just let 9/11s happen, and then fix the holes?

Isn't that how TSA _already_ operates? Someone sneaks a bomb into their shoe
and TSA makes me take my flip-flops off through the metal detector. Someone
tries to blow up a plane with "gels" and TSA bans sealed water bottles.
Someone stitches a bomb in their underwear and TSA sets up virtual strip-
searches.

Until TSA mandates that everyone be stripped naked, anesthetized, and sealed
in blast-proof capsules for the length of the journey, there will always be a
way to sneak something deadly onto a plane. As terrorists get more clever, TSA
will continue to fix the holes the terrorists find with continually more
invasive, illogical, and civil-liberty-stripping mandates in the name of
safety.

~~~
viraptor
Isn't that the best solution for them (putting people to sleep for the
flight)? I'm still waiting to see what will happen when someone plays a
terrorist by:

\- using broken glass bottle (can be bought in the duty-free area)

\- breaking one-time shaving razor you can buy on the airport and making a DIY
knife

\- stealing kitchen utensils from bars at the airport

\- putting lighter gas into a small perfume container which you can take
onboard, making spark from a normal battery, using some flamable spray to get
more fuel

\- disassembling some on board electric device (even stuff like lights) and
warning to short it (that should cause some serious panic even if it's pretty
safe in reality... who's actually aware of separate circuits?)

etc. at some point, people will start to realise that there are so many
dangerous items on the airport itself, you don't need to bring anything with
you. What will the TSA limit then?

~~~
elai
Duty free shops will only be available when you land.

~~~
viraptor
Duty free shops would object. A lot. And they're "more important" than
travellers in some ways (i.e. they will be heard if they object).

------
hackoder
Looking at this 'from the outside' (US), some of this stuff is absolutely
shocking. How scared is the average person to continue tolerating stuff like
this? And when/where does it stop?

The BIGGEST QUESTION for me is this: Will there every come a point where the
government will say "Ok, the world is safe again, we're giving you your
liberties back."?

~~~
jacquesm
> The BIGGEST QUESTION for me is this: Will there every come a point where the
> government will say "Ok, the world is safe again, we're giving you your
> liberties back."?

I think I know the answer to that one but you will not like it one bit.

What's the last time a country repealed a law that limited citizens rights
somehow without there being a confrontation about it?

~~~
philwelch
Confrontations happen with every political change. The real question is
whether it's feasible to repeal laws that limit citizens rights; the US
presents numerous examples that suggest it is.

In 1972 the draft ended. In 1996 export of strong cryptography from the US was
legalized. Since the 1990's, 18 states have either decriminalized marijuana or
legalized medicinal marijuana. A couple states during that time span legalized
assisted suicide. Judicial rulings in the past ten years alone have overturned
laws banning firearms and sodomy, and in five states, same sex marriage was
legalized.

------
vaksel
personally I feel like the whole threat of terrorism is overblown. If they
were a real threat we'd see more attacks on U.S. soil. There are a ton of soft
targets like malls, subways, schools that aren't protected.

Instead the only attacks on the U.S. soil, seem to come from people who think
they are joining a movement. It's always some incompetent dumbass, who got
brainwashed by the media frenzy, with no actual connections to actual
terrorists.

Hell, the reason 911 happened was because everyone in this country was told to
just sit down and wait to get rescued. If someone tried to hijack a plane now
with box cutters, they'd get their asses kicked by everyone on the plane.

~~~
rbanffy
9/11 was a game changer. Up to that point, planes were kidnapped for hostages.
In that scenario, the best to do is not to confront the highjackers.

------
steveklabnik
I'm not really sure if I'm going to be able to effectively fly any more. Every
time I go through these lines, I get noticeably and visibly upset. I keep my
mouth shut, but the combination of being subversive looking and noticeably
agitated means I get picked out for secondary screening a lot. :/

It makes my blood boil every single time. I feel so ashamed that I basically
am forced to support this kind of behavior by needing to fly at times, and
feel totally helpless about doing anything about it. I'm seriously wondering
if I'm going to be able to continue traveling as these shenanigans get worse
and worse.

I see a lot of driving in my future. :/

~~~
JoelMcCracken
Take the train, if possible. Its not quite as convenient, but at least it is
leisurely.

~~~
Vivtek
That would work great if America still had a train system.

I always worried about this when we lived in Puerto Rico. Due to the Jones
Act, there are no passenger ships to the island - to leave, you _have_ to fly.

~~~
rubyrescue
There's nothing i can find on the Jones Act banning passenger ships - only
making Puerto Ricans US citizens - can you elaborate?

~~~
Vivtek
Ah. The Jones Act also specifies that all ships traveling between American
ports must be (1) made in America, (2) registered in America, (3) owned by
Americans, and (4) crewed by Americans. The consequence is that the market
can't actually bear passenger travel between American ports. So there isn't
any. At all. Hasn't been for decades. Unless you own and sail your own boat,
you can't get there from here except by air.

Weird - and definitely an unintended consequence. The Puerto Ricans are quite
aware of it. But as long as shipyard labor on the East Coast continues to
support protectionism no matter how meaningless, there will continue to be no
passenger shipping to Puerto Rico.

~~~
davidw
By way of a control, is there passenger ship traffic to Jamaica, Haiti, the
Dominican Republic, other islands in that region, or Cancun?

~~~
Vivtek
I don't actually know - I never lived in those places. The situations are
complex, though: Haiti and the Dominican Republic are very poor and might not
have the market, and Jamaica and Cancun are further from the mainland, thus
shipping would be disproportionately slower.

It might be interesting to look at _when_ passenger routes died out. For
instance, there is only intermittent ferry trade with the Bahamas from
Florida, even though they're very close - but the market is marginal given the
low cost of air travel right now. I would _guess_ that passenger routes to
Puerto Rico were eliminated before those to the Bahamas, but ... I don't
really know. This is an interesting point - but wow, it would take a lot more
research than I'm able to do in order to answer it.

~~~
davidw
Nitpicking: Cancun is closer to Miami than Puerto Rico by my reading of a map,
and Jamaica is about the same distance if you consider that you'd have to sail
around Cuba to get to it.

------
jgrahamc
It's interesting that people like this story because what I see is a pilot who
first refused the body scanner and then refused the alternative (a pat down)
and was refused entry to the airport. I don't see this as a big deal. He
wasn't arrested and appears to have been dealt with politely by all concerned.
The "stands up to the TSA" in the headline makes it sound like he's frikkin'
Gandhi standing up the British. And I'm probably going to burn karma for
saying this but, welcome to Reddit.

~~~
bambax
A pilot does not need concealed weapons to crash a plane...?!? He pilots the
damn machine.

You strip search him, find nothing, let him go, and then he takes command of
the plane and can crash it anywhere, any time. How obvious is this??

The link you posted below, to the "FedEx Express Flight 705" incident is
completely irrelevant since Mr. Calloway was not in charge of steering that
plane. Had he been, he would not have tried to kill the crew.

~~~
tallanvor
First, I don't agree with the use of full body scanners.

To be fair, the TSA doesn't know that the guy is a pilot - only that he has
the uniform and some sort of identification that says he is - both of which
could be faked.

Unfortunately nothing is likely to change until it's not isolated incidents of
people refusing to go through the full body scanners but rather 10% or more of
the flying public. --I'm estimating, of course, but can you imagine the
backlogs if just 10% of passengers refused every day and forced the TSA to
spend time frisking them?

~~~
nkassis
Or people will just stop using planes. I started driving when I need to go
anywhere now. I really enjoy it. I can make it from my place in Florida to my
fathers home in Montreal Canada in less than 2 days. That's no worse than
spending an entire day in the airport. At least in the car I get a comfortable
seat, radio, and a nice scenery.

~~~
jbarham
> Or people will just stop using planes.

Unfortunate and ironic from a safety POV since driving is much more dangerous
than flying on commercial flights.

~~~
nkassis
That's so very true. Maybe someone should explain that to the people in charge
of making policies. They are putting people in danger ;p

------
davidw
This is one of those stories that looks like it's designed to get you hot and
bothered about a topic that is not very related to tech and startups. In other
words, I think there are other sites that are better choices for long, far
ranging discussions about things like civil liberties, terrorism, and so on
and so forth.

~~~
shill
This story is relevant to HN because 80% of the posts here are about building
businesses and this often requires air-travel. Refusing to be X-raped by the
TSA could have negative long term repercussions on your ability to travel
efficiently.

~~~
davidw
By that measure, 100% of businesses here are run by people who breathe air and
drink water, so articles about environmentalism are pertinent too. Likewise,
most of us are human beings with sexual and emotional needs, which, if not
met, might lead to frustrations that could damage businesses, so "how to score
with hot chicks" is on-topic too.

I call that game "7 degrees of hacker news".

------
edw519
Here's how it works:

    
    
      - x-ray machine: 30 seconds
      - full body scan: add 30 seconds
      - pat down: add 5 to 20 minutes
    

Do I think these policies and procedures are violations of my personal rights?
Yes.

Am I willing to risk my job standing up for my beliefs? No.

I'm not even willing to risk being late for dinner. Given a choice, I always
opt for the fastest, regardless of what I believe in. Even if I'm right, what
do I win by missing my plane?

That's what they're counting on.

~~~
jamesbressi
My apologies and I wish no ill will or to cause flames, but your comment makes
me sad and reminds me of "First they came..."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came..>.

I only wish to be at least half as noble, brave and bold as some who have come
before me.

And, I am grateful that our forefathers of the United States were willing to
risk their LIVES (forget dinner or jobs) to stand up for what they believed in
to make this country independent. Also, while I never really bought into the
notion--rather the ideal, if it weren't for those who lost their lives in WWII
we would all be speaking German or possibly be slaves or dead if we didn't fit
the ideal of one man or group's belief is the perfect race.

I am just as guilty as I find your comment, as so far I have just sat by (but
have at least talked about to whoever listens) as our freedoms are stripped
away, but I realize my fault and hope to change it.

~~~
notahacker
Sure, but do you honestly think that use of full body scanners before boarding
flights is remotely linked to the threat of oppressive rulers targeting
unpopular minorities? Or that the levels of bravery involved in missing your
flight really compare with the people who died to stop dictators enslaving the
human race? You can accept irritation whilst remaining committed to stand up
to evil.

I realise that the levels of airport security might be verging on excessive
(pilots don't exactly need to be carrying banned sharp items to seriously
threaten passenger safety on board an aircraft anyway...), but for some reason
I find the equivocation of freedom fighting and moaning about being mildly
hassled at an airport more objectionable than the airport officials
themselves. Coming across as paranoid and self-righteous* every time law
enforcement comes up with any new directive detracts from legitimate criticism
of more disturbing trends and behaviour.

If you're really afraid of the power of government then security personnel
asking to see your genitals without asking you taking your clothes off ought
to be the least of your concerns. A healthy majority of American citizens
think the government has the right to take away people's _lives_ (should they
be convicted of a capital crime).

*this isn't intended as a direct personal criticism either of you or the pilot; merely an observation of how it potentially appears to a large swathe of the general public. The "boy who cried wolf" analogy sounds more apt than any Godwin's-law-invoking slippery slope arguments.

------
jacquesm
Wow, what a story and what a composure that pilot has. If it were me you would
have been able to see steam coming from my ears.

There was a cartoon a couple of years ago that showed nude people in line for
a pat-down as the only way to get on board an airplane. We're not there just
yet but we're getting there. I really wonder how long all this security
theater is going to continue. And I also hope that this brave man will not
lose his job for standing up to this abusive behavior, and if he does that all
his colleagues will walk out with him.

~~~
michael_dorfman
Forgive my being dense, but where was the _abusive behavior_ , exactly?

They asked him to take a full body scan. He declined. They offered him an
"alternative option"-- to get frisked. He declined. The security folks refused
to let him board the plane without either a) or b) above. At the end of this
impasse, they asked him a few questions to file an incident report.

Pain in the ass? Sure. Abuse? I don't see it.

~~~
jacquesm
The abusive behavior is in insulting a man that on a daily basis carries the
responsibility for the lives of a few hundred people with having to comply
with idiotic rules like these.

If you do not consider it abusive that's fine with me but I can fully
understand his position.

All he needs to do damage are his hands and his head, and he doesn't even have
to take off for that, all he has to do is _not_ brake on the pad in line for
takeoff. Are you going to read his mind to make sure he has no bad plans?

What's next ? Are we going to strip-search busdrivers ? Captains of ocean
liners ?

I used to visit the US on a very regular basis, a few years ago I decided I'd
had enough of the insults and the power trips these TSA types go through, I'm
very happy that someone with some visibility finally has enough of it and
steps up.

What bugs me a lot more is all the people that stand by and let it happen.
That's being complicit to some extent.

That war on terror was won long ago. But not by who you think.

~~~
gaius
I've traveled all over the world, I've encountered both incompetent and
paranoid border guards - but only in the US do they _enjoy_ it.

Best border I've been through recently would be Estonian - but living next
door to Finland, they've no doubt seen it all...

------
clr
I lived in Israel for 6 years. I do not want to have an Israel/Palestine
debate, I just want to talk about airport security. I go insane at airports in
the US because these people do not know what they are doing. In Israel, they
hire the best and the brightest just out of their army service to do airport
security. They have their pick of applicants because the jobs are well-paid,
and offer fantastic benefits, one of which is the chance to live abroad in the
various countries served by El Al. Housing and stipend paid for.

I understand that much of what El Al does for security screening amounts to
racial profiling. But surely we can take what they have established and work
with them to make it better and conform to US laws and civil rights. I am sad
because we don't even try.

Instead, we have underpaid dolts who don't know what a bookmark is (happened
to me).

------
IgorPartola
Soon to get on a plane we'll have to get naked and be sedated. The airlines
will just stack people along with the cargo and revive them at the
destination.

~~~
rbanffy
Doesn't sound that worse than the last time I flew couch...

------
michael_dorfman
The complicating factor here is not that he not only refused a Full Body Scan,
but that he refused to be frisked as well:

 _On the other side I was stopped by another agent and informed that because I
had “opted out” of AIT screening, I would have to go through secondary
screening. I asked for clarification to be sure he was talking about frisking
me, which he confirmed, and I declined._

~~~
rbanffy
The man is a pilot. If he ever intends to kidnap or blow up a plane, no amount
of frisking will stop him.

What's the next step? Functional MRI?

~~~
michael_dorfman
So, anyone holding a pilot's ID card should get waived through security?

~~~
Devilboy
You just need to ID him, not search him. Check his badge, call it in if you're
not sure, done.

~~~
michael_dorfman
Congratulations. You've just introduced a single point of failure to the
system: anyone with a badge forged well enough to fool a security guard now
has _carte blanche._

~~~
tomjen3
Not really - make all pilots have their badge authenticated at the security
point with a computer fetching the image from a database and comparing it
with:

1) the pilot 2) the picture of the id

Done.

------
jdp23
EPIC, along with Bruce Schneier and Chip Pitts, is suing to stop the use of
the body scanners

[http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/epic_v_dhs_suspension_...](http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/epic_v_dhs_suspension_of_body.html#lawsuit)

you can help out by donating -- they're a 501c3, so it's tax-deductible

------
marze
If everyone refuses the body scan in favor of a "pat down" the TSA would be
forced to modify the plan, since that would require 4x as much time or 4x as
many agents.

Too many guinea pigs wanting to help answer the question if long term exposure
to naked body scanning machine x-rays cause cataracts or worse.

------
watchandwait
The privacy group EPIC is leading the litigation against these abusive
scanners. You can learn more and support their efforts with donation:

<http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/>

------
arb99
So they're looking for bomb making things (etc) on him, yet when he's on the
plane he's going to be the pilot. I don't think he needs to bring things with
him to bring the plane down...

------
jules
Why do they need to search the pilot in the first place? So that he doesn't
hijack the plane? He already controls the plane.

------
bmj
I wonder if some of this discussion would have trended in a different way if
the pilot's post wasn't festooned with the markings of a "tea party-er?"

------
maxklein
Am I the only one who actually thinks that searches should be more thorough?
Airplanes are instruments that people like to target, and I'd not be
comfortable flying unless people are properly screened. It's scary enough with
the possibility that the plane could drop out of the sky, but adding an
additional threat of someone blowing up the plane would make it a terrible
experience.

You are a nice person, your friends probably, but there are a lot of crazy
people out there that would hijack or bomb planes, given the chance.

~~~
bambax
Interesting.

I don't remember if it's a real quote or if it's from a movie, but an elected
official said once (again, a real official or an actor, I'm not sure): "let's
have two planes; to get aboard plane A, nobody's searched or even asked a
single question; to get aboard plane B you're submitted to the current TSA
procedure and more; let's see how many people are willing to fly on plane A".

The answer seems obvious: nobody will ever take plane A (or, only terrorists).

But I'm not so sure. People do very dangerous things all the time. I drive a
motor bike in Paris (also when it rains or snows): it's is much more
frightening than flying in a commercial airliner, and statistically much more
dangerous. But I can't stand the metro, however safe it is.

The point is, there are many motor bikes and bicycles in Paris, so many people
make the same trade-off between security and convenience, and prefer
convenience.

So, why not try it? You want to be searched and safe, take plane B; make sure
to get to the airport 4 hours in advance, though, and to wear clean
underpants.

You don't care: take plane A.

~~~
gjm11
It's completely the wrong question, anyway, for two reasons.

1\. If some flights have security procedures and some don't, obviously all
malefactors will be attacking the ones that don't. So they'll be more
dangerous than if no flights had security procedures.

2\. No one is really suggesting having no security procedures at all, so far
as I know. The question is how much security overhead we're prepared to put up
with, and how much benefit in safety we're actually getting.

I might be reluctant to get on flight A. But if the great majority of flights
had simpler quicker security procedures only -- say, 1/4 of the way from
flight A to flight B -- then I bet I'd be about as safe on them as I am now
with all flights being like flight B.

Back of envelope calculation. Suppose I value my life at $10M, and my time at
$50/hour. Then I should be prepared to put up with an hour's timewasting if it
saves a 1/200,000 chance of death. The actual rate of violent death for
aeroplane passengers over the last half-century or so has never been higher
than about 1/5,000,000 per flight (in the 1940s and 1960s; it's been much
lower since then even counting 2001-09-11; even if you include non-passengers,
who of course made up most of the 9-11 deaths, the figure is _still_ lower for
the 2000s than for the 1940s and 1960s), meaning that I should be willing to
put up with about 2 minutes of security overhead per flight. In practice,
reducing the amount of security checking would probably increase the danger
somewhat, so the correct figure is probably more than 2 minutes. I doubt it's
more than 15.

~~~
sophacles
I somewhat doubt your point 1.

Terminology: type 1 flight, no security. Type 2 flight, security.

A. When bad things happen on type 1 flights, people will say 'thats what they
get', and not worry too much. Type 2 flights being targeted have more impact.

B. Type 1 flights will presumably be under more scrutiny as a flight -- they
will be 1. more restricted in airspace, and 2. be more likely to be shot down
in response to deviant behavior, as such less likely usable to reach bad guy
goals.

C. Airplanes are expensive enough that the airlines would need to figure out
ways to minimize bad guy impact on thier type 1 flights, rather than just hope
the security measures are good enough.

