
Ask HN: Please critique backscatter argument - thangalin
A friend wrote me on the subject of nude scans taken by backscatter x-ray machines: "No worse than a doctor seeing it."<p>After reading several comments on a Hacker News thread, I decided to write a note expressing the implications of the machine and pat-downs. I would appreciate reading your thoughts and ways to improve the content. The original thread:<p>http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1848622<p>--<p>"No worse than a doctor seeing it."<p>Respectfully, I disagree.<p>* You can screen your doctor for trustworthiness.<p>* You can choose to visit a doctor of a gender you prefer.<p>* Doctors are bound by the Hippocratic Oath: "I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know."<p>* Doctors rarely take, much less retain, nude photographs of your body.<p>Collection and use of personal information, including digital photographs, paves a road for government with inscrutable purposes: using information about people while denying them the ability to choose how that information is used. This is a severe tilt in balance between the power of the people and the power of the state. A tilt, to emphasize, that is unfavourable to the people.<p>In Smith v. City of Artesia, 1989, the court said, "Privacy is inherently personal. The right to privacy recognises the sovereignty of the individual." What is more private than our private parts? What can the general public be subjected to, en masse, that is more personally invasive than a pat-down or nude photo?<p>Bluntly, the choice is: allow an anonymous agent to take nude photographs of your child, or let strangers grope your child until their hands meet "resistance": a euphemistic way to say, "touch their testicles, penis, or vulva."<p>Any security measure that forces someone to feel a child's crotch so as to encourage parents to usher their children through a machine that takes nude photographs--without probable cause of having committed a crime--is a measure that aught not to exist.<p>Violations of our private areas must be countered with outrage and utmost resistance against corporations and governments alike. The TSA are not police and North America has no Police States, yet.<p>Add to this the uncertain health risks. Terahertz waves have resonant effects that can unzip double-stranded DNA, which could significantly interfere with gene expression and DNA replication. Think children, pregnant women, or sperm. And guess what wave frequency x-ray backscatter machines use? Hint: THz. http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294<p>My emotions surge at the thought of people speaking or acting out against tyranny. People must express themselves vehemently and eloquently against the infractions that governments permit to be made on our freedoms. Sometimes one voice, or one brave action, is enough to inspire a nation. http://i.imgur.com/cfifB.jpg<p>Martin Niemöller foretells of what happens when people--even those who prefer to drive than fly--keep quiet: They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.<p>John Dewey stated, "We cannot separate the idea of ourselves and our own good from our idea of others and of their good." When we protect the rights of individuals by forcing Corporations and Governments to sit at the same table as Respect, Dignity, and Decency, we protect all of our society.<p>--<p>More reading material: http://davidjarvis.ca/dave/letters/nothing-to-hide.pdf<p>Thank you for reading, and thank you for the original thread--it is inspiring. I look forward to your feedback.<p>Suggestions for spreading the word are also welcome.
======
maxawaytoolong
It's a direct violation of the 4th amendment, which guards against
unreasonable searches. I'm not sure what could be more unreasonable than
having to choose between being in a nude photo or having your dick groped by a
high school drop out just so that you can visit your grandparents for the
holidays.

~~~
rottencupcakes
Not at all. How does this statement have any basis? Where in the Bill of
Rights are you guaranteed the right to air travel? You don't have to fly. In
fact, you can drive between any two places in the US and never be searched or
questioned or anything.

This argument is a distraction from the root problem that government is
involved in something they shouldn't - citizens traveling freely in their own
country. Only when government gets involved in something do rights and other
issues like this start getting murky. If a private company ran airport
security and SFO demanded you do a body scan, you would go to OAK or SJC. No
chance of doing that when government's involved. Even if state government was
in charge, you could decide to fly out of JFK or Newark based on preferences.

The TSA at its core is a blatant violation of the 10th amendment. In case you
aren't familiar (most people aren't and for some reason most people don't
care): The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people. Arguments like this are a distraction from the core point that the
federal government should never have been involved in this at all.

~~~
jeebusroxors

        In fact, you can drive between any two places
        in the US and never be searched or questioned
        or anything.
    

Unless you run into a DUI checkpoint...

~~~
waterlesscloud
Or drive into California, with it's agricultural inspection stations on each
highway.

I've often wondered what they would do if they saw clear evidence of criminal
activity in a vehicle at one of those checkpoints.

------
smokey_the_bear
I went through one of these machines for the first time last week, and I was
really surprised how much it bothered me. I think the machines are excessive
and all, but I'm not particularly shy. It was quite dehumanizing.

I wasn't expecting that type of machine. You have to take everything out of
your pockets, and unfortunately, I had a tampon in mine. They made me hold the
tampon, and hold my hands over my head, during the scan. Which is already a
somewhat sexualized position for women, but I was wearing a shortish t-shirt
that rode up a little.

I guess in the future I'll know to make sure my pockets are totally empty and
to wear a longer shirt, and it won't be as awful. But it's still too invasive.

------
tav
We're experts on collective action failure — so not sure how much traction it
would gain on the grounds of privacy/health. However, "celebrity nude scans"
could be lucrative for TSA agents looking to make a quick buck. The ensuing
controversy could help highlight the issues.

P.S. celebritynudescans.com is still free... perhaps a fake mockup site would
attract media attention?

~~~
danielsiders
I just registered the domain (waiting on confirmation). Who wants in?

~~~
danielsiders
OK, the domain registration is live. Thoughts on structure/content?

------
miles
Sorry to keep posting this on similar threads, but thangalin: sounds like you
might want to get involved with these guys:

<http://www.stopdigitalstripsearches.org/>

~~~
SkyMarshal
By all means, continue. This was the first time I've seen it, so I imagine
there are others who haven't yet either.

I think HN can forgive the redundancy in cases such as this.

------
Osiris
As a frequent traveler (usually 2-4 flights per month), this particular issue
has really been bothering me.

Up until about two months ago, I had never been asked by TSA to be scanned
with an AIT device. I've always just used the metal detector. Two months ago I
was traveling out of Indianapolis, and was told that ALL passengers were now
subject to screening with the millimeter scanner. I politely requested the
metal detector and was declined, and was passed to an area for a pat-down.

After this experience, I now get agitated every single time I have to fly.
When I'm in the security line I choose the line that appears to be going to
the metal detector rather than the AIT scanner. Luckily, I have been able to
avoid the scanners since then.

But the fact is, I don't see how the government has a right to see my naked
body or touch my private parts without probable cause.

At the last airport I was at, there was a sign showing how many items had been
confiscated at airports, like "18 firearms were found", and "3 highly
concealed items". So, in an entire year, they only found 3 "highly concealed
items"? In that same exact trip through Indianapolis, I accidentally had left
a _box cutter_ in my laptop bag which I didn't discovered until getting home.
Despite spending all this money scanning, a simple business travel got a razor
blade through security without a problem.

I really, really, hope these new procedures and devices get tested in court. I
simply can't stand back and let people violate my personal privacy without
cause.

 _EDIT:_ Apparently, at least one lawsuit was filed in July:
[http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/epic_v_dhs_suspension_...](http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/epic_v_dhs_suspension_of_body.html)

~~~
mseebach
> like "18 firearms were found"

Was that using the backscatter device? If so, does that mean that pre-
backscatter, 18 firearms a year would pass security at that airport? And not a
single related incident in the entire US?

~~~
Osiris
The sign was just about screening procedures in general, and didn't state the
method of finding them. Of course with firearms, a traditional x-ray + meter
detector would pick that up easily.

------
carbocation
Personally identifiable data, explicitly including photographs, are protected
health information and are therefore their access and transmission are subject
to various legal restrictions in the United States due to HIPAA (at the very
least).

But the question is much more important than this, so I'd recommend not
drawing this particular analogy. The degree to which backscanners are like a
physician visit is only minimally related to the degree to which they are
intolerable in a free society.

------
janoulle
One of your main points (terahertz radiation) does not appear to be correct.
See this blogpost from the TSA: [http://blog.tsa.gov/2009/11/response-to-oops-
backscatter-x-r...](http://blog.tsa.gov/2009/11/response-to-oops-backscatter-
x-ray.html) which, in a nutshell, reiterates: "TSA has not tested nor procured
any terahertz AIT systems."

------
roger80
The most obvious health issue would be an unverified dose of ionizing
radiation and using the incorrect units to measure the dose. A short letter of
concern from UCSF might be insightful:
<http://npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf> . <http://www.dontscan.me>
seems to have collected other practical issues.

------
iwr
While these machines may stop terrorists from entering an airplane _, it won't
stop them from blowing up the crowded lines waiting to be scanned. Then
install the machines at the entrance? The terrorists just have to move further
outside. Any place with crowds of people is a threat. Nowhere is safe!

We should resurrect Ben Franklin's old adage: "They who can give up essential
liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety."

_Remember that the machines don't see inside body cavities. So if you, dear
backscatter supporter, want to feel better (but not actually be safer), you
should be arguing for complete cavity searches everywhere.

------
nubian
There are multiple problems with TSA screening in general, and backscatter
machines in particular, which are listed below.

As these machines are ill-advised, you currently have the option to "opt out"
and receive a pat-down instead.

PAT-DOWNS:

New guidelines just instituted for the pat-down procedure include groping of
breasts, buttocks, and crotches. [8][15] Even for minors. [13] [14]

 _"My wife tells me that they grabbed my [10-year-old] son's privates and he
was crying the whole time and all she could do was stand there and tell him it
was going to be OK."_ [16]

Due to this, the ACLU is now taking reports of pat-down abuse:

[http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/tsa-pat-down-
sear...](http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/tsa-pat-down-search-abuse)

Note that going through a scan does NOT exempt you from a pat-down grope. You
may be groped if you trigger a metal detector, or if your backscatter shows an
"anomaly", or for any other reason or no reason at all. There are also gate
screenings, where you will be pulled aside at the gate, and since there are no
machines, you will be patted down / groped.

IMPACT

About 1 in 5 people are sexually assaulted by age 18. [1]

This means that even "normal" pat-downs are extremely distressing or damaging
to a significant percentage of the population, and these new procedures are
simply sexual assault under color of authority, which can be traumatic.
Victims of sexual assault, molestation, and rape often feel like they are re-
living their experiences, and even those who don't have such a background may
experience emotional damage from the procedure.

I defy anyone to belittle the experience of victims of sexual abuse, who do
not want any unwanted touching forced upon them, least of all groping of
private areas.

BACKSCATTER SCANS

All the official images have been redacted. Here is what it REALLY looks like,
scaled down:

[http://dams.rca.ac.uk/res/sites/Show2006/Images06/John_Wild_...](http://dams.rca.ac.uk/res/sites/Show2006/Images06/John_Wild_1.jpg)

This is an artist's self-portrait. In addition to clearly seeing his genitals,
note the penetration into his kneecaps, shin bones, and feet. Then consider
the _un_ protected areas, such as face, neck, and _eyes_. Look more closely
and you can see the bones in his forearms (radius, ulna), part of his humerus,
and his hands.

Then consider the findings of people like David Brenner, the head of Columbia
University’s Center for Radiological Research, who explains that the dose is
actually 20 times higher than the official estimate. [2] [3] [4] [5]

The energy is absorbed mostly in the skin, NOT throughout the volume of the
entire body as with other types of ionizing radiation. Also, the dosage is
delivered in a few (under 30) seconds. You have to consider dose per unit
time; the figures often mentioned for long flights mention the total dose,
which is distributed over a period of HOURS.

PRIVACY

The TSA originally claimed that these machines were simply INCAPABLE of
storing images. That wasn't true:

 _"The documents, released by the Department of Homeland Security, reveal that
Whole Body Imaging machines can record, store, and transmit digital strip
search images of Americans"_ [6]

This also goes for MMW (millimeter wave) machines used by courthouses:

" _Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images"_ [7]

ANONYMITY

Some locations are now using a full-color video camera _in addition to_ the
backscatter / MMW imager. This means your full-body color portrait and
unclothed image can be linked; and if they scan your boarding pass or other
identifying information, they can link your images to your name and other
personal information (phone number, address, BIRTH DATE). [12]

SLIPPERY SLOPE

Originally the TSA claimed the backscatter machines were optional and there
was no penalty for declining (no groping); that they had no capability to
store images; that they would NEVER be used as primary screening instead of
metal detectors (now they ARE being used as primary screening in some airports
with plans for the rest -- see [9] [10]).

The supposed motivation for storing images would be in case of another attempt
like the underwear bomber, to go back and "check the tapes" to see what they
missed.

 _You should probably assume that if you are scanned, your full-color and
naked images along with personal identifying information will be stored by
Federal agencies in perpetuity._

EVEN DHS HEAD REFUSES BODY SCANNER

 _"Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano yesterday hailed
them as an important breakthrough for airport security and the fight against
terrorism."_

 _"Yet when it came to testing the devices - which produce chalky, naked X-ray
images of passengers - she turned the floor over to some brave volunteers."_
[11]

OPT-OUTS MAY NOT LAST

In the U.K., whole-body scanners have been mandatory for some time. This may
well come to the U.S.

So, you will be forced to be scanned, after which you may be groped anyway,
then groped again at the gate, and your images both clothed and naked will be
in the bowels of a government database, which then gets turned over to various
private industry bidders, who all will have a copy of all your information.

Some scanners take images in real-time at a decent framerate, which means your
3D biometric information of every part of your body will soon be recorded
forever and used in any number of ways.

[1] <http://www.ncdsv.org/images/SexualAssaultStatistics.pdf>

[2] [http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/naked-scanners-may-
increa...](http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/naked-scanners-may-increase-
cancer-risk/story-e6frfq80-1225868706270)

[3]
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7862265/Airport...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7862265/Airport-
body-scanners-could-give-you-cancer.html)

[4] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1290527/Airport-
bo...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1290527/Airport-body-
scanners-deliver-radiation-dose-20-times-higher-thought.html)

[5] [http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/07/full-body-
sc...](http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/07/full-body-scanners-
pose-cancer-risk-at-airports-us-scientists-warn/98552/1)

[6] <http://epic.org/2010/01/update---epic-posts-tsa-docume.html>

[7]
[http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html?part=rss...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20)

[8] [http://news.travel.aol.com/2010/10/29/tsa-launches-
enhanced-...](http://news.travel.aol.com/2010/10/29/tsa-launches-enhanced-
patdown-draws-critics/)

[9] [http://www.management.travel/news.php?cid=body-scans-body-
sc...](http://www.management.travel/news.php?cid=body-scans-body-scanners-
airport-screening-2011.Mar-10.25)

[10] <http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/tag/backscatter-x-ray/>

[11]
[http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/10/22/2010-10-22_bo...](http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/10/22/2010-10-22_body_scanners_unveiled_at_jfk_airport_homeland_security_sect_janet_napolitano_do.html)

[12] [http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/no-birthdate-no-
ticket...](http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/no-birthdate-no-ticket-tsa-
secure-flight-is-sneaking-up-on-travelers/)

[13] [http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-
security/114134...](http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-
security/1141343-opt-out-minors-enhanced-patdowns-looking-facts-2.html)

[14] [http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-
security/341574...](http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-
security/341574-my-one-year-old-gets-patted-down.html)

[15] [http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-
the-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-first-
time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/)

[16]
[http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/dyrr8/help_i_beli...](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/dyrr8/help_i_believe_the_tsa_violated_my_son/)

~~~
StavrosK
Wait, where are there backscatter scanners in the UK? I've never seen one,
unless I was scanned without my consent?

~~~
Devilboy
I think they're on the Heathrow to USA flights?

~~~
robin_reala
I’ve not flown to the US since 2003, but I’ve flown many times to other
European and Asian destinations from Heathrow and Gatwick and I’ve never been
through a backscatter machine.

~~~
Devilboy
Yea its for the USA bound flights.

------
fluidcruft
On the issue of doctors. HIPPA imposes severe civil, professional and criminal
concequences for leaking protected health information, standards that
backscatter scanner operators likely are not required to meet because it would
be expensive. Additionally, I very much doubt that the risk/benefit analysis
works out. Subjects are dosed with low levels of ionizing radiation. The
benefit is shorter time at checkpoints. Use of ionizing radiation is
controversial. Physicians justify its use based on the specific benefit of
improved diagnosis and treatment to the patient, not solely because of
improved workflow.

------
flipbrad
Firstly, it's disgusting that some cretin with a TV screen gets to see these,
only so that he can ask himself whether I am a wrongdoer (and whatever other
inappropriate question floats through his brain) Secondly, it's not in my best
interest, it's part of daft security theatre. It is not done in a situation
where I need treatment and reassurance that I am being cared for, it is done
in a situation where leaders think it to be reassuring to others. Thirdly,
it's vastly disproportionate protection against any legitimate threat. As a
corollary, showing my doctor something that is definitely wrong with me is
quite, quite different to speculative imaging. The question (what is that
rash?) exists and is real, and this is an efficient way to progress with it.
My future children or wife cannot subject themselves to the TSA only when the
threat is there and present (i.e, them). Fourthly, when visiting my doctor
he/she and I have other diagnostic options than either full body nude
photography or groping. He can, for example, ask me questions. Lastly, there's
a huge risk that the very private information will be shared: after all, you
don't have a close professional relationship with the agent, who has a
particularly boring job (not like the diverse and busy role of a doctor) faced
with constant possibilities for jokes scanning past his eyes. To err is human;
but it happens more in dull situations.

~~~
akkartik
Cretin? Why, would you be ok if a suave gentleman was looking at you naked?

Somebody else in this thread called them high-school drop-outs without getting
called on it. This is just ad hominem. Why are we insulting these people? They
aren't the ones who passed the law, bought the machines, put these processes
in motion. Let's not weaken our argument with distracting crap.

~~~
tibbon
But they do tow the party line and seem to agree with its practices and
regulations.

I think most of _us_ would stand up against our employers when asked to do
something that we felt was wrong. If your boss said that it was the new
regulation that you had to do something immoral, questionable or just
downright wrong... would you? I personally take it upon myself to find a new
job when placed in that situation, or at least convince my superiors that what
they are asking isn't right. I see such as my duty as an employee. I'm not
there to follow, but to make things better.

~~~
akkartik
1\. Even if you think they're in the wrong, _and_ you think their inaction is
_comparable_ in harm with the action of their superiors, calling them names is
_still_ useless/distracting ad hominem. (I suspect they aren't in the wrong,
and I'm _certain_ they don't bear nearly as much responsibility.)

2\. On what basis do you see them agreeing with the 'party line'?

3\. I don't know you, perhaps _you_ are really serious about giving up your
job when you see something wrong. That would be awesome, and I salute you as a
better man than me. But on what basis do you make this claim for others? When
I look around I see no evidence of any 'us' sacrificing for strangers, for the
larger good.

4\. I don't feel comfortable asking others en masse to make difficult
decisions I've never had to make myself. A lot of these people make far less
than you and me and are just struggling to get by, to provide for dependents.
How entitled can you get to ask them to give up their jobs in this
environment? What have _you_ done to help yourself on this issue, that you
demand they sacrifice a livelihood to help total strangers?

5\. I think if you look around you'll find something wrong with your company
worth leaving. Any company that isn't carbon neutral is doing far more harm
than just seeing a few people naked. And no companies are carbon neutral
today. So quit. I'll wait. Back? Next, you cause more damage everytime you
burn oil in your automotive, or by throwing a light switch. What are you going
to do about that?

------
jemfinch
Don't forget physician/patient privilege, as well.

------
roryokane

      What is more private than our private parts? What can the
      general public be subjected to, en masse, that is more
      personally invasive than a pat-down or nude photo?
    

I would find surveillance of my actions at all times _without_ being seen
naked a lot more invasive than just being seen naked or patted-down while
clothed. What is more private than our private parts? Our private information;
our secrets.

------
sharpneli
There is extremely glaring factual mistake in this text.

"And guess what wave frequency x-ray backscatter machines use? Hint: THz.
<http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294>

Sorry. You missed by a multiplier of 10000-10000000. X-rays go from tens of
petahertz to tens of exahertz.

X-rays have frequencies way above visible light and terahertz waves have
frequencies way below visible light. So this is quite glaring error. Is this
intentional to increase doubts about x-ray backscattering or just a honest
mistake?

Just to clarify for everyone who requires some source for this claim:
"X-radiation (composed of X-rays) is a form of electromagnetic radiation.
X-rays have a wavelength in the range of 0.01 to 10 nanometers, corresponding
to frequencies in the range 30 petahertz to 30 exahertz (3 × 1016 Hz to 3 ×
1019 Hz) and energies in the range 120 eV to 120 keV."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray>

[EDIT] Removed few sentences which were written before morning coffee, the
post was tad impolite before.

------
DrStalker
Are these new systems faster (in real world usage) than the traditional scan,
and do they let you keep small items in your pocket?

I'll let security see me naked if it means I can walk through without a long
line and without leaving my wallet and phone out of my sight.

~~~
sorbus
You have to empty your pockets, take belts off, and so forth[1], even with
backscatter scanning (I just put all of my stuff in the boxes which go through
the x-ray machine), so that's not an advantage. It's also slower than metal
detectors; with metal detectors, you walk right through and then go collect
your stuff (unless it goes off), but with backscatter you go in, you stand
still with your hands over your head for thirty seconds, and then you go out
and wait until the agent there gets told that you're okay, at which point you
get to go collect your stuff. Takes maybe a minute. No advantage there either.

[1] Though watches seem to be fine, as I forgot to take mine off last time and
didn't have any trouble. Might be different with larger watches, though.

------
danielsiders
Is there a question about the federal government trafficking in explicit
images of children? While backscatter images taken individually would likely
not meet the criteria required for pornography, if a private site posted them
a visit from the FBI would be more than likely. All it takes is one TSA agent
being convicted as a sex offender and it's off to the races.

------
kreneskyp
If i lined my pants with tinfoil would it be enough to block their view?

(not a joke post, serious question for someone who knows how these machines
work)

~~~
jberryman
All this time we've been perfecting our tinfoil hats we should have been
designing tinfoil undies!

I also don't know how thses machines work, but I assume if the foil was enough
to block their view, that your pants would appear the same way that guns,
knives and other metal objects appear.

~~~
Osiris
From what I've read, yes, it would. But that would simply cause them to pull
you aside for a more thorough pat-down and perhaps even require you to show
them your tin-foil undies.

~~~
DrStalker
I expect you'd get worse treatment doing this than you would going through
normal pat down. After all, only terrorists use scanner-proof clothing.

------
nphase
Don't forget:

* Doctors dont take a picture of you nude for their enjoyment at a later date

------
bhiggins
I'd have no problem going through the backscatter body scanner every time if
the government would just do this to make me feel better:

\- I could see the body scan of the TSA agent who is scanning me.

\- The body scans of John S. Pistole (TSA administrator), Janet Napolitano
(secretary of Homeland Security), and Barack Obama were made public.

I feel that if body scanning is so important then our national leaders should
lead the way in showing how it's not a big deal.

~~~
sliverstorm
I would like to ask you an honest question, and I would like you to be honest.
I will trust your answer is true.

Are you posturing and drawing a line in the sand with no real intent of
following through if they cross? Or would you really go through backscatters
with no qualms if they did as you asked?

~~~
jerf
It's difficult to answer the question "What would you do if this probability
effectively-0 event came to pass?" So many things about that world would have
to be different that I don't think that question is easy to answer. But all
else being equal, yes I would actually feel better about it (despite not being
the original poster you are questioning), and this is why: It would show our
leadership has a proper understanding about the nature of the situation, that
once information is taken it might as well be posted on the internet. Just
like I'd feel better if Social Security numbers were simply declared to be
public information so that we could all stop pretending that they are a useful
identification technique.

I still wouldn't _like_ it.

But it's a good question to ask, I think.

