
Opt Out of a Body Scan? Then Brace Yourself - edw519
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Opt-Out-of-a-Body-Scan-Then-nytimes-3016411705.html?x=0
======
binarymax
The repeated "Opt out!" yelling tactic is obviously a way to intimidate and
humiliate the participant, and dissuade anyone else who would otherwise choose
to opt out.

I have not had the opportunity to opt out yet. But when I do, I will gladly
join in the opt out screaming session, and add some other choice words of my
own.

I refuse to quietly be a part of some absurd bureaucratic plot that slowly and
steadily strips away my civil rights.

~~~
roc
The whole invasive pat-down is just a way to intimidate and humiliate people
away from that choice.

This is the last straw for me, personally. I'll just be vacationing closer to
home now or working old-school road trips into my plans. Maybe if the outraged
take a few less flights a year, the vacation, airline and union lobbies will
take up the cause.

~~~
jules
For whom on HN are pat downs intimidating and/or humiliating? I personally
don't mind it at all, but I can understand that they could be a problem for
somebody.

I'm much more worried about CCTV's everywhere, cell phone tracking, internet
usage tracking, tracking cars with cameras on highways that read number
plates, etc. All these tools are extremely well suited for keeping a dictator
in place. I'm afraid that if we get one, then we're not getting rid of him any
time soon.

~~~
steveklabnik
Me. It's insane. It serves no purpose other than to intimidate and harasses
normal citizens just trying to get from point A to point B. The fact that I'm
assumed to be that stupid, plus the 1984-esqe overtones really, really gets to
me.

~~~
jules
Right. So it's not so much the physical aspects of pat downs, but the reasons
behind the pat downs?

~~~
steveklabnik
I mean, I was raised Catholic, so I'm not exactly the model of immodesty, but
yes, its not the 'omg they'll touch my junk' part as it is the infringement on
basic human rights part.

And being reminded that some people think this is okay. And that most people
accept it.

I have slightly unusual polititcal views, so such a visible reminder that I'm
'the only person who cares' really riles me up.

------
jonnathanson
I went through O'Hare recently, where they've installed a battery of these
devices. The way they had it set up, it was used as the secondary screener for
people who got called out for random searches.

Guess who got called for "random" searches in the machine? Pretty much every
hot chick in line. Now, this observation was purely anecdotal, so take it for
what it is. But the coincidence was not lost on me, or on anyone else in the
line. It was disgusting behavior on the TSA workers' part.

~~~
mike-cardwell
I thought only women operated the machinery where women were scanned and only
men, where the men are scanned?

~~~
barrkel
Gender doesn't necessarily determine sexual orientation; the machines are
_required_ to have facilities to store and transmit images; and besides, the
mere power of forcefully suggesting someone submit to a strip search is
titillation in itself, quite apart from viewing any resulting imagery.

~~~
mike-cardwell
I never said it did.

The implication of the comment I was replying to was that it was a bunch of
men wanting to look at naked women. I just didn't see how that could be if you
were only allowed to observe someone of the same sex...

------
jlujan
I just passed through the airport in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The back-scatter
scanner is right next to the metal detector and the procedure was that they
would "offer" you the choice to walk through the new scanner and said if you
turned it down that they would have to perform a physical search. I told them
I did not wish to go through the scanner, at which point they walked me past
the metal detector (not through) to the pat-down area. While standing there
for a few moments for the TSA personel, several people went through the metal
detector with no further search. Further, the notification that the machine is
still in testing phase is posted after you have already passed through it. It
was abundantly clear at that point, the new policy of intimidation and
humiliation has nothing to do with my personal safety.

The unilateral and unpublished changes in screening procedure are blatant
abuses of authority and undermine the principles of our society. The argument
that I have given implicit consent to being searched just by buying an
airplane ticket is completely voided when the search procedures are constantly
changing without detailed public knowledge or immediate explanation.

I have no fears about flying in general or those caused by the threat of
terrorism. I am much more likely to die in a small plane crash with one of my
pilot friends at the controls. What terrifies me the most is this blatant
disregard of civil liberties and the apparent complacency with which the
public submits to the draconian policies being put in place without consent of
the people.

------
yequalsx
Every story about the TSA always seems to end with something like this article
did:

"Mr. Delahorne said he was perfectly willing to comply with all procedures to
ensure good security."

There's always a quote about how someone is willing to do what must be done to
ensure our safety. It makes me think that news agencies are required to do
this or get paid to do this.

~~~
percept
I just view it as a sort of standard disclaimer to preempt the usual criticism
that dissenters are somehow ignorant, unreasonable, or un-American.

Basically: "I'm an otherwise reasonable person in full possession of my
faculties."

~~~
yequalsx
That's possible but the impression that I have is that by always including
such remarks it has the effect of making people who disagree with security
measures as wanting something bad to happen. It's sort like the question,
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Instead of focusing on whether or
not the measures are appropriate the debate is about whether or not you want
to be safe. I think it makes dissenters look bad by making them against being
safe.

~~~
steveklabnik
Yep, this is an old PR trick. It's why you'll see organizations that are
preparing to be involved in a political demonstration agree to a 'points of
unity' that always have a clause about 'respecting a diversity of tactics.'

If you start asking one group, "What do you think of those guys smashing
windows?", it changes the dialogue from "What's your message," to "Aren't
those guys bad?" And it's not like you're able to properly discuss such a
subtle point as "this is a false dichotomy," when talking to news outlets.

------
petrilli
We have always been at war with Eastasia.

~~~
StavrosK
I came here to post this, there's nothing more to say. This is all very sad.

------
mcantelon
My guess is the option of opting out is likely going to be removed in a year
or so. The most effective way to remove freedom and privacy is incrementally.

------
smountcastle
What happens when a parent has their children opt-out of the full-body
scanner? Can the TSA be sued for child abuse or can the parent press for
criminal charges for touching?

~~~
DifE-Q
I have curtailed my domestic flying personally or with my family due to these
asinine security theater exhibitions. In all it amounts to about $5000.00 in
lost revenue to the airline industry every year. So if enough people do this
then hopefully that will send a message to these people.

Now there may be a time when I or my family have to fly and for sure I will be
opting out my entire family. When they go to feel-up my children I will ask
the person doing it if he/she has a history of child molestation...since they
are getting all personal with me and my children I plan on getting personal
with them.

I will try and remember to report back when with the results...

------
jasongullickson
To me this is just another reason (of many) that travelers should consider
general aviation (charter, etc.) as an alternative to commercial airline
travel.

The straight financial cost _may_ be higher but avoiding all of this sort of
nonsense has its rewards, and remember that most GA operators are locally-
owned smallish businesses that appreciate your support and treat their
passengers like customers and not like prisoners (or worse).

~~~
pchristensen
I echo tocomment - for someone who has only ever flown commercial, how would
one go about finding and hiring a GA operator? What's kind of premium would
you expect pay for a regional (eg Chicago to Detroit) flight or a longer
flight (eg Chicago to LA)?

~~~
Flemlord
I'm also curious. Do you use a national charter company or do you have to
contract directly with owner/pilots? How much does it cost? How fast is it
compared to regular commercial travel?

~~~
jtbigwoo
A little over a decade ago, my company used a local charter company when
Northwest's pilots went on strike. We were able to get a five-seat turboprop
with two pilots for $2000 for 70 minute flight (about 400 miles.) A full-fare
ticket on Northwest cost about $540 at the time. Our total travel time was cut
in half--no ticketing, no security screening, no baggage claim. We even
convinced the rental car companies to run our cars over to the charter office.
All we had to do was say hello at the charter office and head on to the plane.
This particular company also had seven- and ten-seaters which were slightly
cheaper per person per hour. I assume the prices would be more expensive now.
Anybody have experience with netjet or similar fractional ownership?

EDIT: Forgot to mention that the same flight on Northwest was 50 minutes in
the air.

------
daten
Baltimore Washington Intl. airport and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta
International Airport both recently got body scanners. They both changed their
process to close all lanes not equipped with a body-scanner and funnel
everyone through the one or two scanners they had.

At BWI they would make every 15th or so person go through the scanner, or
anyone who volunteered by walking up to it instead of the metal detector.

At Atlanta the scanners weren't even operational yet and they still only
opened the metal detectors with scanners beside them and had an army of TSA
screeners standing around doing nothing while a huge crowd of travelers waited
in a very long line.

The processes have indeed changed.

~~~
daten
Additionally I would feel perfectly safe flying without any security screening
at the airports.

No "terrorists" have been attacking schools, churches, malls, buses, trains,
bridges, theaters, libraries, office buildings, etc. Either they only attack
planes (not even the airports themselves) or there aren't enough terrorists to
justify this amount of "security".

~~~
ceejayoz
I've always been baffled by the lack of those sorts of attacks. One can
imagine the economic damage if everyone was terrified to go to malls, grocery
stores, schools, etc.

Amazon.com would be about the only company to come out okay.

~~~
jamii
I hate to keep making a point of this, but it has happened in the past and the
solution wasn't pretty. Wikipedia says:

The Troubles' impact on the ordinary people of Northern Ireland produced such
psychological trauma that the city of Belfast had been compared to London
during the Blitz. [104] The stress resulting from bomb attacks, street
disturbances, security checkpoints, and the constant military presence had the
strongest effect on children and young adults. [105] In addition to the
violence and intimidation, there was chronic unemployment and a severe housing
shortage. Vandalism was also a major problem. In the 1970s there were 10,000
vandalised empty houses in Belfast alone. Most of the vandals were aged
between eight and thirteen. [106] Activities for young people were limited,
with pubs fortified and cinemas closed. Just to go shopping in the city centre
required passing through security gates and being subjected to body searches.

In addition, some statistics from the same page:

Injuries 47,541

Shootings 36,923

Armed robberies 22,539

People charged with paramilitary offences 19,605

Bombings and attempted bombings 16,209

Arson 2,225 [citation needed]

I'm constantly amazed that after surviving the Troubles we over-react so
massively to a couple of nutjobs lighting their crotches. Al Qaeda are
incompetent morons. PIRA were fucking scary.

~~~
roc
The IRA was a completely different case.

They weren't asking agents to directly murder random individuals or property.
They had the tacit support of (or were at least politely ignored by) much of
the surrounding populace and social institutions. They didn't stick out in a
crowd. They were born and raised there, had history, jobs, families.

Al Qaeda enjoys none of those advantages for planning attacks in the US. Until
and unless they can successfully recruit within the US and garner support
within the US, an IRA-style campaign is implausible.

That Al Qaeda has to rely on people who consistently can't light a fuse under
stress, or keep a bomb-factory under wraps highlights how much harder it is to
find people to perform wanton murder, even as compared to finding people
willing to destroy property or carry out targeted murders.

~~~
jamii
Besides the fact that most of the Al Qaeda members involved in the London
bombings were British citizens, if you stand out then the IRA style attacks
are easier to perform. You don't have to get through airport security or pass
a background check. You just go shopping. Thousands of immigrants do it
without being stopped by the police.

> They weren't asking agents to directly murder random individuals or
> property.

From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles>

"In 1972, the Provisional IRA killed approximately 100 soldiers, wounded 500
more and carried out approximately 1,300 bombings,[66] mostly against
commercial targets which they considered "the artificial economy".[67][68] The
bombing campaign killed many civilians, notably on Bloody Friday on 21 July,
when 22 bombs were set off in the centre of Belfast killing seven civilians
and two soldiers. "

But otherwise I agree. The level of competence of Al Qaeda recruits is
laughable in comparison to PIRA. Which is exactly my point - we've survived
far worse, why are we giving up so much of what we stand for for protection
from such incompetent terrorists?

~~~
roc
Having citizenship doesn't confer the same benefits of having _roots_ like the
IRA did. It makes you less suspicious than someone without citizenship, sure.
But it's still not sufficient for an IRA-style campaign.

e.g. Attacking a shopping mall or hotel isn't difficult and all but impossible
to prevent, I absolutely agree. The difference is, the al qaeda agent won't
find refuge a few blocks away. He won't melt into any crowd. He won't have
trusted people from the community who will keep quiet or lie to the
authorities for him. He won't have a weapon supplier who continues to supply
him. And the resource that he _does_ have are far more likely to melt away as
it becomes clear that he is out to indiscriminately murder. Ergo the ability
of any foreign agent to make subsequent strikes is drastically reduced.

And, unless I'm mistaken, the IRA never _set out_ to murder non-uniformed,
uninvolved civilians. Those that were killed, such as on Bloody Friday, were
considered among the IRA wholly undesirable collateral damage. While it takes
a certain kind of person to be convinced to drop off a bomb designed to strike
a military target, or property target of a collaborator, that _might_ kill
innocent people, it's far, far more difficult to find people who will execute
an attack _designed_ to kill people going about their day.

And I absolutely agree that our response is laughable. But that's how it goes.
Authority has no vested interest in proportional or rational response. Its
rewards are aligned with over-reaction. If its masters (ostensibly the voters)
don't choose to curtail that response or correct the reward structure, we'll
only see continued escalation.

~~~
jamii
> But it's still not sufficient for an IRA-style campaign

Sure, you wouldn't be as successful as the IRA, but it would still be a damn
sight easier than attacking planes. Consider the hotel attacks in India for an
example of how poorly defended most locations are.

> the IRA never set out to murder non-uniformed, uninvolved civilians

They bombed shops and factories that they considered to be part of the
'artificial'' economy of the British rulers. Non-uniformed, uninvolved
civilians tend to work in shops and factories, hence the huge number of
civilian injuries and casualties.

More stats:

Deaths by status of victim[2]

Status No.

Civilian 1855

Members of security forces (and reserves) 1123

of whom:

British Army (excluding Northern Ireland regiments) 502

Royal Ulster Constabulary 301

Ulster Defence Regiment 196

Northern Ireland Prison Service 24

Garda Síochána 9

Royal Irish Regiment 7

Territorial Army 7

English police forces 6

Royal Air Force 4

Royal Navy 2

Irish Army 1

Members of Republican Paramilitary Groups 394

Members of loyalist Paramilitary Groups 151

> .... property target of a collaborator ...

Whilst the Troubles was nominally a political conflict the lines were drawn
across ethnic/religious grounds. Being a Protestant was sufficient to draw
fire from PIRA (similary Catholics were persecuted by the loyalists).

~~~
roc
And all I'm trying to draw a line between, is the way _the shops_ were the
target for the IRA as opposed to _the civilians_ , themselves.

It's a lot easier to talk someone into leaving a bomb next to a boiler than to
pick up an assault rifle and fire indiscriminately into a crowd of civilians.

------
yardie
Just got through the airport lastweek and didn't have to deal with this
silliness. But I can't wait to go back to the US so I can opt-out. I'm not a
perv, but can't wait to see the look on the screener's face while s/he's
forced to touch my johnson.

"That's not a roll of quarters my friend" :-)

~~~
shasta
"I was going to guess nickels."

~~~
yardie
Maybe if enough protests come about in this fashion then the screeners will
force their bosses to drop this stupid policy. Like, "I didn't take this job
to be touching 500 penises a day. And everyone's got snarky comments!"

------
ajaxian
Serious question for the physicists: How feasible would it be to put a faraday
cage in one's underpants that wouldn't trigger a metal detector but would mess
up the body scanner?

~~~
Construct
A Faraday cage is, by definition, a conductive cage. You'll have a hard time
getting a conductive material through a metal detector.

Your best bet would be to construct a garment from a material which is
significantly absorbs/attenuates the extremely high frequencies (30GHz to
300GHz) used by these millimeter-wave imaging scanners. Normal clothing passes
these waves with minimal attenuation, where they bounce off of your skin and
return to the scanner. The scanner then uses these returned signals to
reconstruct an image of your naked body for the TSA to examine. If your
clothing instead absorbs most of this signal, or at least attenuates it
significantly enough to fall below the dynamic range of the imager, the TSA
won't be able to see much.

Absorbing millimeter-wave signals to a significant enough degree will require
a relatively thick material. I typically use RF foam in the lab when I'm
working on EMI compliance issues because it is cheap and easy to cut to size.
Attenuation data is scarce for the EHF band, but ARC Technologies has a lossy
flexible foam that has 25dB of attenuation at 40GHz ( <http://www.arc-
tech.com/lossyflexiblefoam.php> ), which amounts to 50dB of round-trip
attenuation from the imager to your skin back to the imager. 50dB loss means
only 0.001% of the original signal will bounce back to the scanner.

Even more absorption can be had if you use pyramidal foam, much like you see
in a typical antenna chamber. ( <http://www.ets-lindgren.com/pdf/absorber.pdf>
) Of course, this probably won't be the most comfortable garment you've ever
worn.

Still, I would imagine wearing such a garment would immediately raise red
flags and you would quickly find yourself in a back room with some unfriendly
TSA agents. You're much better off opting out.

~~~
ajaxian
> Even more absorption can be had if you use pyramidal foam

Hell, it would also make the pat-down a lot more interesting!

Thanks for the detailed answer.

Of course my original question was somewhat facetious, but I do think it's
farcical that, nine years after 9/11, in order to fly within the "land of the
free and home of the brave" one has to be subjected to these humiliating so-
called security measures. Military-industrial complex indeed! It would be
interesting to trace the political donations given by the companies that make
these machines...

------
percept
I just returned from an international trip a couple of weeks ago and am glad I
missed this. However the snap on my pants (!) must have set off the metal
detector so I was still patted down.

In what other business is a normal, paying customer treated this way? Not
quite the golden age of commercial aviation . . .

------
roboneal
An organization, say like the EFF, should coordinate mass "opt-out" travel at
peak travel times.

A little "gridlock" might highlight the absurdity of the situation.

------
AgentConundrum
_"No, no. The process has always been the same, at every airport."_

We've always been at war with Eastasia.

------
j053003
Why the hell wasn't this an election issue? I would have gladly voted against
any candidate who supported this.

------
verdant
If enough would choose opt out (despite the obvious intimidation tactics),
then the entire process would become so inefficient that an easy, efficient
alternate would be provided (or the scanners removed altogether). It would
likely take a majority of people opting out though.

~~~
nano81
I think you overestimate government desire to eliminate inefficiency.

------
preek
‘No, no. The process has always been the same, at every airport.’

INGSOC! We should have known, 1984 is long due.

------
teilo
I am seriously tempted to find some metal tape for the next time I have to
fly, "mark up" my t-shirt with a suggestion as to where the TSA can shove
their body-scan machine, and walk through side-ways.

~~~
daten
Your idea reminds me of this story from 2006.

Milwaukee resident Ryan Bird wrote "Kip Hawley is an Idiot" on a plastic bag
given to passengers by airport security. As a result he claims he was detained
and told that the First Amendment did not apply to security checkpoints.

[http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-
security/606142...](http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-
security/606142-i-detained-tsa-checkpoint-about-25-minutes-today.html)

Kip Hawley was the head of TSA at the time.

~~~
corin_
All it reminds me of is the person who actually had that idea, on this site,
five days ago.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1849311>

~~~
teilo
It is a rather obvious hack, isn't it?

------
recampbell
Who is responsible for crafting these procedures, I.E., requiring the body
scans or alternative opt-out procedures? Do they have a name besides "Homeland
Security"?

~~~
epochwolf
Perhaps you're thinking of the Transportation Security Administration?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Adminis...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration)

------
joshwa
Original article (not framed by Yahoo):

<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/business/02road.html>

------
SkyMarshal
To the frequent business travelers, might this increase the growing trend of
working remotely?

Now that it's trivial to set up video-conferencing on your home workstation,
and collaborate via online tools that range the gamut from github to office
docs to just about anything you can imagine, might this drive even more people
to shift business travel to remote work instead?

------
palewery
I heard those body scanners can cause cancer

------
bartman
I've been through Cleveland Hopkins Intl' and San Jose Intl' in the last days
and there were "opt-out lanes" in which no body scanners were used and you
went through the normal metal detectors. No pat down either. Nobody told you
into which lane you have to go, so there was absolutely no pressure.

------
ChristianMarks
They can pat me down in the crotch until they're blue in the face: they'll
never find anything.

~~~
SkyMarshal
I'm not sure what that means, or if I want to know, or if I'm seeing innuendos
where there aren't any, but it made me lol anyway. Have an upvote.

------
tomjen3
It seems that the best way to get around this would be to make life unbearable
for the TSA agents. The politicians can't be reached.

While physically assaulting them would be very satisfying, simply freezing
them out socially would properly be a better tactic, since it is impossible to
arrest people for.

~~~
CapitalistCartr
"The politicians can't be reached."

Of course they can! Mail, email, they can certainly be reached, and right now
they're extra sensitive to issues that upset their constituents.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_right now they're extra sensitive to issues that upset their constituents_

Quite the opposite. Right now is the maximum time before the next election.
That means they've got the longest time possible for you to forget. Any
shenanigans they'd like to engage in would be safest now.

~~~
CapitalistCartr
It is the maximum time, but issues are not that simple. The long-term members
of Congress know the electorate are upset, and want to make nice; the new
members are spoiling for a fight; the Dems are in disarray and retreat (I
haven't a clue as to why), and the GOP is eagerly taking ground. It's a
perfect time to push an issue with your Congress members.

