
Defeated - ohazi
http://orenhazi.com/defeated.html
======
eloisius
You probably put to much stock in the whole "I've never been through the
imaging machines" bit. It's not about remaining opt-out puritan or something.
Fight when you can.

I hope op reads this, buried in all the other comments. Please, for the sake
of everyone, dust yourself off and opt out again. It doesn't matter if you do
it every time.

I opt out every time I can, but there have been plenty of times when I don't.
There's been times when I didn't have time to catch my flight, or my stress
levels were bordering on unmanageable, or I didn't want to miss that wedding
at any cost. One time, I felt like I had to pee too bad to risk waiting for a
screening.

So kick off your shoes, empty your pockets, and take the freedom stance on the
mat of defiance. Hold your arms out with pride and hope that someone on the
other side of the security barrier sees you and decides to opt out as well.

~~~
trekky1700
Or take the train.

~~~
fixxer
TSA is going there.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/us/tsa-expands-duties-
beyo...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/us/tsa-expands-duties-beyond-
airport-security.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

~~~
alan_cx
Air travel locked down by armed guards, searching and demanding identity, now
trains. What's next, buses? Then what, UK levels of CCTV, face recognition
motorway(freeway) cameras? Oh yeah, we Brits have those. What is the limit
here, can we expect check points on roads? Add to that comprehensive,
industrial slurping of all electronic data and metadata. Almost forgot, a
mostly compliant and controlled media and a political class who knows the NSA
have all their personal data from 10 odd years. Damn, another one.... a huge
military intelligence industrial complex which "donates" a fair amount of
money to both US political parties, and of course expect nothing in return.
(BTW, isn't the military the biggest and most powerful union in the US?).
Freedom of movement, gone. Freedom of expression, monitored. Political freedom
and independence, bought. Anything left? Is picking the channel on a TV or
chose our clothes all the freedom we humans need? Heh, I could even make an
argument that those are also controlled, at least highly manipulated.

At times like this I want to kick Godwin in the nuts.

~~~
thaumaturgy
> What's next, buses?

[http://rt.com/usa/tsa-bus-safe-houston-403/](http://rt.com/usa/tsa-bus-safe-
houston-403/)

> What is the limit here, can we expect check points on roads?

[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman?currentPage=all)

------
jballanc
There is an extremely simple solution: leave.

I've not lived in the US for almost two years now. I've only had to travel
back twice in that time. Meanwhile, in the same time I've visited France,
Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany multiple times. None of those travel
experiences were nearly as unpleasant or stressful as my two trips to the US.
Furthermore, the technology communities that are growing up in these places
have a vigor and sense of excitement that rivals or even surpasses anything
you'll find in Silicon Valley.

~~~
mosburger
"Extremely simple?"

There's lots of reasons it isn't so simple for people.

1) Barriers to work and emigration

2) Language barriers - I know that learning a new language isn't impossible (I
know a little Spanish but I'd hardly call myself fluent), but I speak only
English fluently, which limits me to a handful of nations, many of which are
nearly as bad as the United States (hey UK, how are those surveillance
cameras?)

3) A lot of us have family support systems that aren't easy to give up - I
happen to know who you are, and happen to know that the country to which you
moved didn't have that problem. ;)

I know it's not impossible - I follow /r/IWantOut over on Reddit because I
have my own fantasies about leaving the U.S. and maybe moving to a Spanish-
speaking country with liberal emigration policies (perhaps Uruguay?). But it's
not something I feel like I can put my family through at this time - it's
definitely not what I'd call "extremely simple."

~~~
jballanc
Ok, so maybe "extremely" was a bit much. In my defense I think leaving is much
simpler at this point than hoping that the current course of politics and
public sentiment in the US will change.

> _1) Barriers to work and emigration_

While real, they can be overcome. Also, I'd wager there will be something of a
domino effect -- once other countries begin to catch on that well educated,
highly trained Americans are looking to leave, it will likely become easier to
do so.

> _2) Language barriers_

One, you'd be _amazed_ how much you can get across non-verbally. Two, it might
take years to become conversational in a language, but probably only a handful
of months to get good enough to do the daily shopping. Three...what everyone
else has said: if you know English, there are very few places in the world
where you'll ever be completely unable to communicate with _someone_.

> _3) A lot of us have family support systems that aren 't easy to give up_

Yeah, I understand completely ;-)...

My mother was born in the same house in Switzerland where my grandfather and
his brothers and sisters grew up. My great-uncle lived in that same house
until the day he died, and my great-aunts still live in the same village to
this day. I can only imagine how hard it was for my grandfather and
grandmother to give all that up and move their three children to America in
the '50s, but they truly believed, at the time, that it was worth it.

At the same time, while I do have family where I live now, I also had to leave
behind a large family in the US. Airline tickets are expensive, but manageable
for at least once yearly visits. Video chat is all but ubiquitous. Time zones
differences are the hardest to manage, but still doable
([http://everytimezone.com/](http://everytimezone.com/) helps, even though
they _still_ don't have my time zone).

I don't like that I now feel like I _had_ to leave, though I am very glad that
I did leave.

Living in another country, even if only temporarily, is something I would
recommend to anyone in any country. A friend is currently living abroad for a
year with his two school-age kids, and he seems to be having a blast so far.
It will certainly improve your ability to gain perspective. It may change your
outlook on life. Certainly, when I left I still harbored the notion that at
some future time I might return...I don't feel that way any longer.

~~~
donohoe
I think you need to also drop the "simple" part as well.

    
    
      >> 1) Barriers to work and emigration
      > While real, they can be overcome. Also,
      I'd wager there will be something of a domino effect
    

This is a very non-trivial process so your casual response is a bit hard to
swallow. And "domino effect" \- I don't think there will be a vast tide of of
people, but whatever.

    
    
      >> 2) Language barriers
      > One, you'd be amazed how much you can
      get across non-verbally
    

So your answer here is great if you are a long-time tourist. Completely
impractical in terms of career and work.

    
    
      >> 3) A lot of us have family support systems 
      that aren't easy to give up
      >Yeah, I understand completely ;-)...
    

No. I don't think you do. I don't think you have a clue. Your family history
aside things are much complicated now.

For example, its hard enough finding a good school in my own neighborhood (US,
english speaking) let along transferring my kids to a new school where they
don't speak the language and I have to deal with bureaucracy and hope I'm not
screwing up their future. Thats just one quick simple example. Tell a 5 year
old she'll never see her friends again and good luck learning French, German,
Spanish, or whatever.

I really can't believe you replied with "Yeah, I understand completely ;-)..."
to that. Seriously.

On a final note. I'm Irish and lived (US) here 12 years. My family and I can
move to Ireland at any time without worry for some of the larger barriers;
visa and language.

However to do so is by no means: "extremely simple" or even just "simple".

This is HN, you just left a comment, and not expected to write a thesis on the
subject.

That not your fault, people white-wash what are complicated situations all the
time and over-simplify. However your off the cuff glib advice is not
particular accurate or helpful.

Think before you type. Please.

~~~
marcusf
Hey ho! That ending was unnecessarily rude. I don't think he planned his post
as a personal attack on you or your values, so I don't think the hostility is
necessary.

For some people it's easier than for others. I work with a ton of people
who've migrated to Sweden. I think they find 1 and 2 fairly easy -- not
trivial, mind you, but not hard enough that they can't be overcome. The third
problem varies from person to person and what stage in life they're at. We
have many people who have moved here with kids, and it seems to work out well.
So it's certainly not unsurmountable, but yes, not easy either.

~~~
donohoe
Yes - re-reading that now. It came off as rude that was NOT my intention.
Sorry - I apologize. (probably best not to edit it, and hope they see this
follow-up?)

It was my desperate attempt to implore them (and people in general) to think
through their responses before hitting Submit.

Opinion is great, but we're all too trigger happy to post our own view. Often
its best if we didn't contribute on matters we are not well versed in.

I'm guilty of this myself. Not implying I'm not.

Its a futile exercise I'm sure, but somethings I feel like I have to try.

------
eagsalazar2
"I won't be opting out again"? What? Give me a break.

I fly weekly for work so I know the routine. 99% of the time the TSA agents
are perfectly happy to do the pat down. I have had a few that have given me a
hard time but then I've also had others come and apologize and emphasize that
it is my right to opt-out.

Keep opting out and next time someone gives you a hard time calmly ask for (1)
a manager and (2) a comment card. They have both and they are eager not to
have you make an official record that there has been a problem. An agent
should never express their political opinion to you or try to influence your
decision to opt out. Instantly when one of them does this you should ask for a
manager and a comment card and refuse to talk to him anymore.

ALSO (jeez) don't send your stuff through until you go through! I have been
told this repeatedly so most agents actually know this already but even the
ones that won't prompt you to do it won't prevent it either.

Anyway, man don't give up so easily.

~~~
coldpie
I agree with you, though the longest wait I've had was about 15 minutes. My
girlfriend has had about the same length, since they didn't have any women
clowns at that station and had to call one from another station.

The TSA clowns aren't there to make your life hell, they're there to do their
useless jobs. Like any other position, sometimes the employees are bad at
their jobs.

I am confused about this, though:

> ALSO (jeez) don't send your stuff through until you go through! I have been
> told this repeatedly so most agents actually know this already but even the
> ones that won't prompt you to do it won't prevent it either.

I always wait in the line, send my stuff through, and then tell the clown next
to the scanner that I'm opting out. Do you approach the clown first, carrying
all your stuff? When do you put your stuff through the scanner (i.e. how do
you "cut" into the line)?

~~~
xxpor
You lose all credibility when you refer to TSA agents as "clowns"

~~~
coldpie
They perform a meaningless task with no purpose other than to instill a
certain emotion in their audience. Lots of job titles fit that definition, I
like to use the word "clown."

Edit for a slightly less flippant response. I do not respect the job these
people do, and I like to degrade their position of authority. I like to make
them hate their job, which is one of the reasons that I opt-out of the naked
scanners and wish more people would. I want to tear the TSA down to where it
was pre-9/11, and I think making people realize that the job these people
perform is pointless security theatre ("clowns" performing dumb and silly
actions like groping my testicles) helps do that.

~~~
xxpor
> I want to tear the TSA down to where it was pre-9/11

So non-existant.

> I do not respect the job these people do, and I like to degrade their
> position of authority.

Then you're just an asshole. Do you seriously think most people become TSA
agents to go on a power trip? Do you actively degrade prostitutes as well?
What about newspaper editorialists you disagree with?

~~~
dTal
Oh, get off your high horse. coldpie said "I do not respect the job these
people do" and "I like to degrade their position of authority", not "I do not
respect these people" and "I like to degrade these people". The TSA performs
no useful function and is actively harmful through regular abuses of their
position of power. Their employees are still humans and deserve to be treated
like them, but their job deserves no respect, or else the term "respect" is
now meaningless. Their position of authority absolutely deserves to be
degraded. Take your straw men elsewhere.

Also, "non-existant" [sic] is exactly where I'd like to see the TSA.

------
rdl
I opt out mostly to make it as difficult for the _screener_ as possible, not
because I think it's particularly less of a violation of my privacy to get my
nuts felt up vs. irradiated with low power mm wave. (if there were a "you can
have a copy of your own scan" machine, I'd probably voluntarily go through mm
wave for fun).

If people opt out, it 1) ties up a TSA agent 2) makes a TSA agent do something
moderately unpleasant 3) serves as an example for others in the screening line
4) makes me feel like I'm doing something. OTOH I mostly just don't fly unless
it's >800 miles.

I've always had the TSA people screening me be unfailingly polite, if a bit
incompetent (not running me through the magnetometer if they're doing a hand
screening actually lowers overall security vs. weapons; it wouldn't be
terribly difficult to get a disassembled handgun through the hand screening.)

I used to work on military bases with a much more invasive screening (for
vehicles; I was exempt personally but my vehicle wasn't). There, there was
mostly a legitimate threat (although the biggest screening was in Kuwait,
which had ~no risk; it was just a way to keep their combat zone pay. In Iraq,
they just asked me to unload my weapon before walking on base, and in
2003/2004, just being white was enough to get on base, no ID needed.)

~~~
peeters
> If people opt out, it 1) ties up a TSA agent

Isn't this something that doesn't scale then? Author of this post is
complaining of being "defeated" because no agent came to give him his pat
down. What if it just so happens that a few people had opted out in a short
window, and so their pat down guy was tied up? The more people follow this
example on a given day, the longer your wait for the pat down will be.

~~~
rdl
It depends -- if you are in a hurry, it's going to hurt you more than it hurts
TSA, but otherwise, it probably bothers them more. I've never had more than a
very brief delay, though.

There's extra lulz for me because if I check a bag on a domestic flight it is
essentially always because the bag contains a firearm. The red-tagged bags
must fly with the passenger, and TSA has already had extended contact with me
by that point (they search the bag containing the weapon in your presence,
usually in a private room, etc.), so I think making me miss my flight at that
point would cause them a lot of trouble without me even needing to prod.

------
flexie
Airline security measures is not only a threat to civil liberties, it's also a
threat to the airline industry. On short distances (<500 km) I chose cars and
trains. Getting to or from airports has always been an issue, but this problem
has been minimized in recent decades with more and more subway systems,
freeways etc. connecting airports with city centers. The check-in waiting time
has been minimized with online check-in, self check-in stations etc. But all
these gains have been cancelled out by overreaching security measures,
mandatory waiting time etc.

But there are powerful interests that like to keep it this way. Airport owners
make money turning airports into shopping malls because travellers are forced
to wait there. Governments use airport security as job creation schemes. It's
a leech sucking on resources all of us need.

~~~
claudius
> Airline security measures is not only a threat to civil liberties, it's also
> a threat to the airline industry. On short distances (<500 km) I chose cars
> and trains.

Good. Planes are somewhat decent means of transportation on long, rarely
travelled distances, but for everything else, both cars and trains are the
more ecological, economical and scalable way to get from A to B.
Unfortunately, both cars and planes (and, to a lesser extent, trains) are
still subsidised to a large extent, masking the real costs of going from A to
B in a little tube with wings, thirty other people and so-and-so many litres
of kerosine.

If you had to pay the ‘real’ price to use airplanes (i.e. the costs of
airports, air traffic control, standard-taxed kerosine, appropriate taxes to
revert the ecological destruction caused by airplane traffic etc.), you’d
prefer to walk.

~~~
Symmetry
Air travel is bad for the environment, but only because the distances are long
compared to driving. The fact that planes take lots of energy to propel
through the air is defrayed by the fact that you can pack a lot of people on a
plane - both typically consume on the order of .5 kWh of energy per kilometer
of travel. Rail and buses are, of course, an order of magnitude lower.[1]

You can talk about all the other energy costs surrounding air travel, but you
can do the same thing with cars. Really, they're small potatoes compared to
the costs of the fuel for vehicles and in the case of cars the cost of
building all those roads.

And then there's the fact that flying a distance is much safer than driving it
even on distances as short as a couple hundred kilometers. The diversion of
people from flying to driving after 9/11 causes on the order of a hundred
excess road deaths each year.

[1]
[http://www.withouthotair.com/c20/page_121.shtml](http://www.withouthotair.com/c20/page_121.shtml)

------
kghose
Sorry, but I'm going to be the token "sheeple" here. Did you make such a fuss
when you had to go through metal detectors? Did you make such a fuss when you
were wanded? Did you make a fuss when you were carded (at the bar, or at the
airport?)

I think we should protest when the TSA is unprofessional and does not monitor
their people and they do unprofessional things, (like circulate photos or make
fun of people) but protesting the scanners themselves is like going to a
hospital and refusing an MRI because hospital staff may act unprofessional and
look into your medical records.

The scanners are a detection technology. They are the next generation metal
detectors as are the "sniffers". At some point people will "hack" them, just
like metal detectors are useless now and we will need the next thing, but they
are just a technology.

~~~
coldpie
The people operating the naked scanners are literally ex-pizza-delivery-dudes:

[http://www.loweringthebar.net/2010/07/tsa-advertising-job-
op...](http://www.loweringthebar.net/2010/07/tsa-advertising-job-openings-on-
top-of-pizza-boxes.html)

Highly trained professionals, these are not. They're just people working their
nine-to-five to get a paycheck. We pass dumb customer support tickets around
the office all the time; why shouldn't they pass around hot chick photos, etc?

~~~
eddieroger
Cops are 9-to-5ers as well. Should we not trust them to do their job and keep
us safe? They didn't walk on the job with no training - maybe the ex-pizza
dudes got trained as well. Also, comparing security photos and helpdesk
tickets is a bad comparison, regardless of the similarities.

~~~
consultant23522
No, you shouldn't. Because the job of police officers is not to keep you safe.
In fact it's quite illegal for police officers to keep you safe, because
keeping you safe is something that must be done _before_ a crime is committed.
Police are there to help clean up _after_ you've been hurt in a crime. They
only keep you safe in the very stretched sense of the language by hopefully
preventing future undetermined crimes by the same person after they've already
harmed you once.

------
rayiner
I just don't get the deal with the millimeter wave scanners. Did everyone
raise a fuss like this when airports had you walk through metal detectors? How
is a millimeter wave scanner different than a high-tech metal detector? Aren't
we always talking about how the law needs to "catch up to technology?"

Don't get me wrong, I think the TSA is a huge waste of money and I hate being
ordered around by flunkies who can't get any other job every time I go to the
airport. But I don't see anyone raise a fuss when you have to walk through a
metal detector to get into the local Barnes and Noble...

~~~
flexie
They have to walk through metal detectors to buy books? I thought it was only
for dangerous places like schools and offices.

I can't think of anywhere in Europe we have those except for American
embassies, a few courthouses, some government buildings and airports.

Anyone knows when this started in the US and when it got so widespread?

~~~
mkenyon
I have let to see a local business in the US use a metal detector. Most will
use shoplifting-detection gates at the exits. An "empty your pockets and
purse" metal detector is terrible for business.

~~~
superuser2
Most local businesses don't, but high-value targets like government office
buildings, financial markets, museums (especially Jewish history and Holocaust
memorial museums), and iconic monuments all tend to.

------
gfodor
Is this even allowed? I had the understanding that once you opt-out, you
either have to get the pat down, or you have to leave the airport. Altering
your decision and going through the scanner I thought was against protocol,
much like when you enter the security line you have to go through security or
leave the airport.

Either way you should continue to opt-out despite this bad experience. I
always opt-out unless I am with my wife and time is tight, I don't want to be
responsible for us missing our flight if the trip is important enough to her.
(I've gone through only once or twice.)

In general, if all it takes for an American who is obviously already in the
outlier group of people who care about civil liberties to be "defeated" is a
half hour of (largely unwarranted) stress about a laptop, we are well and
truly screwed. I opt-out because it makes the experience just as uncomfortable
for the TSA as it is for me, raising awareness, unlike the scan which is only
uncomfortable for me. You should too. Nobody is going to steal or damage your
laptop, and either way if that's the price you have to pay to maintain little
dignity and perform openly visible, public, safe civil disobedience of a
horribly unconstitutional policy it's well worth it in my book.

------
WimLeers
I had the exact same experience at SEA several weeks ago: I waited well over
30 minutes, had to remind the TSA officer numerous times that I was still
standing there. He was not bothered one bit that I'd been standing there for
so long. Which is rude in and of itself.

Then some other TSA officer walked by and started talking to the one in my
security line. Just some chit chat. After 5 or so minutes, he started asking
why I didn't want to go in the machine. Did I realize this was not an X-ray?
Did I realize that this was in fact perfectly healthy?

Then, after letting me wait another few minutes, this same TSA officer took me
and performed the search ritual, not hurried one bit, doing everything with
the greatest pauses, all the while chewing extravagantly on his chewing gum.

If that's not unprofessional, then what is?

------
flyt
When you go into the millimeter-wave machine and the TSA employee asks you to
raise your arms, tell them that you can't, but don't elaborate (and they
usually won't ask why).

Every time I've done this they let me go through the regular metal detector
with no argument or subsequent pat downs or screening.

~~~
cbr
If a lot of able-bodied people start doing this then the TSA may start giving
people who actually can't raise their arms a hard time.

~~~
reginaldjcooper
I would love to see the resulting class action lawsuit from that.

~~~
sbarre
America: lawyers!

------
javajosh
Don't give up. You lost _once_. That doesn't mean you have to lose again.

~~~
prawn
Once, so far.

------
wilperkins
I had a similar experience when traveling to the US with my German girlfriend
(I am from the US). What I found even more disappointing is the way that other
passengers negatively reacted to her choosing to opt-out and wait for the "pat
down of shame". I would be happy to see in the US a better public awareness of
the amount of personal rights that we're forfeiting by simply passing through
an airport.

~~~
RivieraKid
What do you mean by "reacted negatively"?

~~~
wilperkins
The standard head shakes of disapproval. Comments like "she should just go
through the scanner like everyone else" or "look at her trying to create a
problem". After the first couple walked by and had such a reaction, I just
ignored it. But then when it repeatedly happened, I wondered why so many
people were bothered enough by her decision that they have to stop and make a
snarky comment about it.

~~~
seren
It could also be out of guilt. It is much more uncomfortable to see someone
doing the right thing, when you know that you have chosen the wrong, and
easier path. So you have to rationalize it verbally somehow.

------
jgeerts
An episode of South Park comes to mind 'The Entity',

"Despite this unorthodox control mechanism (which is uncomfortable to the
citizens of South Park), "IT" is still considered better than the airlines and
Garrison is a smashing success".

------
mchanson
Hey buddy, I opt out too all the time. It once did not work out for me also.
Don't worry about be a hypocrite or being an absolutist. You are still sending
a message and slowing the stupid operation down by opting out 99% of the time.
Chin up! Live to opt out next time.

BTW I quite enjoy the passive aggressive questions. If they ask if I know the
machine is safe I always agree with them that the machine is safe. They find
that amusing in SFO and annoying in BOS. I don't fly through LAX so they might
be more annoying there.

I find that most of the time the TSA people, if you treat them with a bit of a
sense of humor, are usually pretty nice about the whole opt out thing (though
they do do the passive agressive stuff). However I'm white middle aged guy
with a wedding ring. So perhaps I get, by far, the easiest side of TSA
'attitude'.

------
kleiba
They're much further in Australia:

 _If you are departing Melbourne on an international flight from Monday 10
December, you may be randomly selected for a body scan.

If you are selected to be screened by a body scanner and you refuse you will
NOT be allowed to pass through the screening point for 24 hours. This will
mean that you are unable to board your flight._

[http://melbourneairport.com.au/Flight-Passenger-
Info/prepari...](http://melbourneairport.com.au/Flight-Passenger-
Info/preparing-to-fly/security-information/body-scanners.html)

------
mherdeg
I would write to LAWA about this (even though they will just refer you to the
appropriate contact at TSA & you'll get a black hole with no reply). It's not
cool to wait >30 min for a "male assist".

------
ohazi
I wrote this last night as a way to vent some of my frustration and was really
floored by the responses I received in the morning. These solo protests are
small battles, and It's easy to get discouraged when the victories feel so
insignificant. But as many people pointed out, the losses can also be small
(especially when compared to some of the _truly_ horrifying TSA stories we
come across every now and then).

For me at least, being tired and stressed can really add to the feeling of
hopelessness and defeat, but a few words of encouragement from strangers can
be immensely empowering. I can't say for certain that I'll be up for another
small battle next time, but I'll certainly consider it.

To all who added to the discussion or offered support, your words have not
fallen upon deaf ears. Thank you.

------
prawn
_The terrorists have won._

I don't think the terrorists won, they just provided the push. The commercial
interests and their lobbyists have won. And by that, I mean they continue to
win.

~~~
aestra
No, the author is correct. The terrorist have won.

ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm] noun 1\. the use of violence and threats to
intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. 2\. the state of fear
and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

co·erce [koh-urs] verb (used with object), co·erced, co·erc·ing. 1\. to compel
by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual
desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document. 2\. to bring
about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce
obedience. 3\. to dominate or control, especially by exploiting fear, anxiety,
etc.: The state is based on successfully coercing the individual.

~~~
prawn
Not sure if you're taking a literal line or listing the government as the
intimidators. Maybe we have differing judgements of "winning".

I don't think the government is "winning" here. They're just doing their
thing.

And I don't think terrorists are gleefully watching the increase in security
theatre and thinking "Falling right into our trap! Now where's your freedom?"
Entire generations have been raised with the US as an adversary and the
destruction, not lockdown, would be the goal.

However, I do think commercial interests are gaining influence/control "by
exploiting fear, anxiety", but I think it's less about political purposes and
more about simple monetary gain. Expos, conferences, big budget tenders and
sales to government. Literally millions of dollars.

As another example, consider the fake explosive detection devices being
fraudulently sold to countries like Thailand, etc. They're little more than
divining rods. Government isn't winning. Terrorists aren't winning. Sellers of
fake detection devices? Winning.

------
highace
Can someone please explain what's wrong with going through the machine? If it
means not having my balls squeezed, it sounds pretty good to me.

~~~
xpaulbettsx
Consider the following: if that identical machine were in a hospital, it would
have been required to go through _years_ of clinical trials to ensure its
safety over the long term. The machines they are using are medical equipment.

However, because it's in an airport, __none of this has happened __. Maybe it
is safe. Maybe it isn 't. It is _unproven_.

~~~
bayesianhorse
Is the radiation worse than a long-distance flight?

~~~
biff
Doesn't help the cause if you're already doing a long-distance flight...

------
krichman
Please don't give up. We all have to value freedom more than to abandon it
after half an hour apart from a laptop if we want to be free.

~~~
honzzz
I think you are right but I also understand OP - it's way too easy to choose
the easier path. The older I get the more I admire people like Vaclav Havel
and others who would rather spend years in jail instead of just 'sucking it
up'... and the more I doubt I would be able to withstand even much smaller
pressure - it must have been much harder than I imagined when I was 16.

------
bluedino
Isn't being felt up much more of a violation of your rights than going through
an x-ray machine?

My nutso-girlfriend refuses to go through them because of OMG CANCER, so
instead I end up sitting around for a half hour while they manually search
her. It's such a pain in the ass.

~~~
coldpie
I agree. Wouldn't it be nice if every single person opted out, so they became
so overloaded with groping that they had to change their policies?

~~~
moheeb
Wasn't that exactly how it was before? How is that better, or worse?

------
ozh
As one says: "USA is the country of Liberty. They put a statue where it has
been buried!"

~~~
brightsize
Do you remember how right after 9/11 GW Bush said, to paraphrase, "they hate
our freedoms". "They" being terrorists I suppose, though I think the popular
interpretation was "Muslims".

We're giving "them" less to hate with every passing year.

------
robomartin
> I give up. The terrorists have won. I'm sad and I'm angry, but the perpetual
> wearing-down works. I won't be opting out again.

Time for "Freedom Flights"?

The airport is one place I can think of where you are presumed guilty and have
to prove your innocence through unreasonably search as well as seizure (I've
had a couple of nice Swiss Army knives confiscated simply because I forgot
them in my laptop bag).

Perhaps it is time to start organizing "Freedom Flights" between major cities.
By this I mean that a sizable group of people book seats in a flight, say,
from SFO to LAX, and every single member of the group would absolutely refuse
to be searched or touched by TSA.

Every single person would be armed (yes, I said armed) with a piece of paper
containing language developed by volunteer attorneys. Something in this vein:
"My constitutional rights state that you cannot touch or search me and
detaining me without cause is unlawful. Please get out of my way."

The idea would be to make a point. Nobody should expect to get on a flight, at
least not before a few tries. Conventional and social media channels would be
alerted in order to get coverage. I can't think of a better way to raise
awareness and make a point.

We are being treated like criminals, all of us. This has to stop. Enough is
enough.

------
rfatnabayeff
Eventually they might probably encounter a person, a "troll-terrorist", who's
demands would be not money, drugs or "release of brethren from prisons", but
"introduction of even stricter TSA procedures". The authorities would be in a
loose-loose situation, because if they tighten the measures, that would be the
fulfillment of terrorist's demands, while if they won't that would be the
ignorance of the terrorist threat. ))

------
jonnathanson
There's a bigger point at play here, which is this: in modern American
society, the real enemy of democracy isn't apathy, _per se_. It's convenience.

TSA lines are already a ridiculous inconvenience, and the prospect of
additional stress -- or worse, of missing a flight -- just ads to fuel to the
fire. So, faced with the choice between, say, a 30 minute line or a 45-60
minute line, most travelers will just say "fuck it" and submit to the scans.

It's not always practical to opt out, especially in extremely busy airports on
extremely busy days. Nor, would I submit, is opting out a scalable solution.
We're never going to convince n = enough people to opt out en masse, such that
we'll make any real difference.

Instead, the solution is organization. It's protest. It's petitioning.
Generally speaking, it's making a national stink of this issue. Not enough of
an outcry has been rallied, by not enough people, and not at sufficient
volume.

------
raheemm
Shit will really hit the fan when we have a President or some authority figure
who will use all this massive surveillance power to run McCarthyistic
campaigns against people. Heck, already NSA employees are spying on their
former lovers. The author is correct, this is how freedom and rights are lost,
slowly and bit by bit.

------
teresascientist
I am a female American. When I traveled through Seattle airport a while ago, I
saw that every single person was getting selected to the mm wave scanner. I
told the security guard I wanted to opt out...A few minutes later, a large
male TSA agent came over for the sole purpose of yelling at me (it was loud!)
that I opted out before I had been selected to go through the scan. This
continued 5 minutes before my pat down. Thanks, America... Like other people
point out, yes it's better here than other places. I am grateful I don't live
in Egypt. But, it upsets me to no end how quickly we throw away our
constitutional rights or cease to care about corruption and ineffectiveness of
mm wave scanners.

------
orblivion
I've been through once, because they found some substance on my person and
wouldn't let me on my flight otherwise (though they were very polite in my
instance). I opted out before that and still have since. They wore you out,
just keep wearing them out. Call the ACLU since they made you wait that long.
Continue to opt out.

You lost your "never been through the machine" badge. That sucked for me too,
well, let's get over it. (At least it wasn't a backscatter, right?) This is
really about raising awareness, as it were, right? Having lost one time
doesn't really change that. By that measure we already "lose" millions of
times because everybody else goes through those machines.

------
karmel
If you need some motivation, consider: originally, I opted out for the same
privacy concerns you cite. However, in the last couple of years, I have
started wearing a medical device that has not been rated to pass through the
backscatter machines. So now I opt-out because of both choice and necessity.
If all the good people choosing to opt-out stop doing so, it will be an even
bigger headache every time someone with a medical device is forced to opt-
out-- there will be no staff assigned to the screens, no stable protocol, etc.
So opt out! If not for your sake or the sake of American values, for the sake
of those of us with chronic diseases that don't play nicely with imaging
machines!

------
progx
The terrorist won a long time ago. In particular in the US and England.

Other countries (ironically) did not have such problems with terrorists, or
how we call this people in germany: "citizens", "taxpayers", "neighbors"... ;)

~~~
this_user
May I remind you of the RAF( _), checkpoints manned by police armed with semi-
automatic rifles and the use of dragnets in the late 70 's and early 80's? Our
hands aren't as clean as we would like to believe.

_
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction)

~~~
progx
And ? Did the terrorists won in germany ? Did germany has a totalitarian
monitoring state ? Or reject human rights ?

~~~
astrodust
Look, you _cannot_ say that Germany in the 20th century was a bastion of
freedom and respect of human rights.

Just because things have been relatively chill the past twenty years does not
mean it's time to start boasting.

------
philliphaydon
IMO This is silly. Yeah I understand why we don't want the NSA looking into
all our emails and phonecalls etc...

But its a security check at an airport... This has to be one of the silliest
things to get wound up about.

~~~
tomelders
It's a strip search. You don't have a problem with being strip searched?

~~~
philliphaydon
Its not a strip search. It's an x-ray. And after watching the tv series
"Embarrassing Bodies", I've come to realise we're all human and who really
gives a FUCK what we look like under our clothes. If someone wants to get off
over my x-ray scan good on them.

------
reaganite
Just sign up for Global Enrollment (GOES) and you automatically get TSA Pre
and don't have to go thru the regular security lines: no Millimeter back
scatter scanner, no taking off your shoes or taking your laptop out of your
bag. Australia, the Netherlands and Canada have similar programs and at
present all recognize each others program enrollees, so it also gets you thru
Customs in those countries faster too.

[https://goes-app.cbp.dhs.gov/main/goes](https://goes-
app.cbp.dhs.gov/main/goes)

~~~
Karunamon
Even if you get signed up for TSA Pre, you're not guaranteed to get the
benefits of it every time. Lot's of "if"s and "may"s and other weasel-ey
language.

 _If TSA determines a passenger is eligible for expedited screening,
information is embedded in the barcode of the passenger’s boarding pass. TSA
scans the barcode at designated checkpoints and the passenger may be able to
receive expedited screening._

[http://www.tsa.gov/tsa-precheck/tsa-precheck-how-it-
works](http://www.tsa.gov/tsa-precheck/tsa-precheck-how-it-works)

~~~
gergles
If you sign up through Global Entry and not through the "you've flown enough
that the airline likes you" version of the program, you are far more likely to
get expedited screening.

You can also scan your boarding pass at home and discover whether you're
getting expedited or not, so you know how early you have to be at the airport.

------
ignostic
I find it odd that a community like HN is reasonable, calm, and science-based
on all but a few issues, like the TSA. The problem is not the body scanners.
The problem is the TSA and the disregard of the bill of rights.

 _Health claims:_

Passive mm-wave scanners do not produce radiation. The active mm-wave scanners
use non-ionizing radiation which has been studied and shown not to cause
cancer. One study even suggested it might reduce metastasis:

[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.20208/abstrac...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.20208/abstract)

You'll pick up far more radiation on the flight itself at a fairly low 5 mrem
(50 µSv). Even that would only be a significant factor if you're part of the
flight crew.

[http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights....](http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.html)

[http://xkcd.com/radiation/](http://xkcd.com/radiation/)

It's true that the machine itself hasn't been studied much, but the type of
radiation it emits has been studied extensively. Barring any novel delivery
system, that's enough. By analogy, you don't need to study the health effects
of every single x-ray machine because we know what x-rays do. You just need to
know the machine's dosage and wavelength. The lack of health concern is more
than a stab in the dark.

 _Invasion of privacy:_

Yes, the scans are absolutely an invasion of privacy. So is submitting to a
pat-down. The problem isn't the scanner - it's the bureaucratic nonsense that
makes the security state and the TSA possible.

I believe a business should have the right to search you before coming on
board if they want to and you agree, but they shouldn't HAVE TO. Flyers should
have an option between airlines that use the security measures the market
determines people actually want.

 _Specifically, the "naked body" invasion:_

It does us harm to spout misinformation in our quest for privacy and freedom.
The machines no longer store or display images of your body - they store and
display images of a generic body with the data received from you.

[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/tsa-abandons-
nude-s...](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/tsa-abandons-nude-
scanners/) (the initial announcement)

[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/tsa-completely-
remo...](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/tsa-completely-removed-full-
body-scanners-rep-article-1.1360143)

I dislike the TSA and government paternalism more than almost anyone, but
we're getting caught up spreading misinformation and nonsense when we should
be thinking about how to get our personal freedom back.

~~~
epoxyhockey
Your first points should really be addressing active Terahertz radiation and
its effects on living things. Reference:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terahertz_radiation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terahertz_radiation)

The summary is that we don't know enough about terahertz radiation to draw any
solid conclusions yet, and there is at least one reputable source pondering,
"How Terahertz Waves Tear Apart DNA":
[http://www.technologyreview.com/view/416066/how-terahertz-
wa...](http://www.technologyreview.com/view/416066/how-terahertz-waves-tear-
apart-dna/)

Do you know how much power is emitted by the terahertz-wave scanner as two
antennas are swept across your mid-section in close proximity?

Here are some responses to your other points about mm-wave:

 _Passive mm-wave scanners do not produce radiation_

Passive mm-wave scanners are not used in airports and not relevant to this
discussion.

 _You 'll pick up far more radiation on the flight itself at a fairly low 5
mrem (50 µSv)_

Also, irrelevant as the xray body scanners have largely been removed from US
airports due to their safety concerns. The EU has also banned the use of those
scanners. The study that you cite is for radiation applied to the entire body
mass, while the xray body scanners applied all of the ionizing radiation only
to the outer layer of the body (skin + some bones + male reproductive organs +
brain).

~~~
ignostic
Thanks for bringing the MIT article to my attention. I wouldn't say I
referenced the type of radiation, but was just a little less specific. The
only source for the article you pointed to
([http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294](http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294)) was a
model, not an experiment or test.

Given the _potential for DNA damage_ , though, it would be silly of me not to
agree that more research should be done to see whether this model theory of
"resonant effects" have any significant real-world impact.

------
pekru
The worst would be for non-US citizens. My cousin got back to the US after a
vacation and she had two of her kids accompanying her. She was asked to go
through the scanners and though she protested, she was asked to 'follow the
rule'. And thus she complied and the entire bunch went through the scanners
only to find some fat slob at the monitor leering at her 12 yr old daughter.
She was crying over the phone saying she wanted to get out as soon as possible
from that hopeless place.

------
jaydub
I have to admit that I had an eerily similar experience at Logan Airport
around a month ago where I opted out. I was given a very difficult time, the
TSA agent repeated multiple times that I should just go through the machine
and that I'd be exposed to more radiation on the airplane etc. They kept
calling for a "male assist.

I waited it out for like 25 minutes and finally the guy came and took me
through. But it was such an annoying experience that I'd since given up on it.

------
shousper
If you weren't alone, maybe things would of been different?

~~~
Joeboy
One of the lessons of the
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment)
was that people were much more likely to rebel if they weren't alone in doing
so.

~~~
ajb
Maybe an 'anyone opting out on my flight' app would be a good idea. Although
writing one would probably get you put on the terrorist watch list.

~~~
jpalomaki
Offline version could be to wear a certain pin to indicate one is a member of
the "opt-out movement"

[http://www.pinmart.com/stock-pins-
awareness.aspx](http://www.pinmart.com/stock-pins-awareness.aspx)

------
josscrowcroft
This happened to me at Heathrow in London, except there's no option to "opt-
out". You either do it, or you don't fly. It's randomly selected, so although
I triggered no safety protocols, I was picked out for backscatter.

I was a hair's width from turning around and flying from Gatwick instead at a
few hundred bucks cost (nothing compared to observing my rights) - but the
engagement was too important.

~~~
abrichr
When was this? Heathrow doesn't currently use back scatter [1].

[1] [http://www.heathrowairport.com/heathrow-airport-
guide/heathr...](http://www.heathrowairport.com/heathrow-airport-
guide/heathrow-security/faqs#backscatter)

~~~
josscrowcroft
They do, unfortunately. Not for everybody, but randomly selected (I guess 1 in
1000 or fewer) and when singled out, it's a requirement. I'm white and
british, so you can't call it profiling either..

It's way off at the side, so nobody really knows it's going on. Your only
recourse is to take it up with the home office.

------
DjangoReinhardt
Non-American here. Can someone point me to what exactly happens if you opt-out
of these screenings? What happens on this 'opt-out floor-mat of shame'?

I'm asking out of pure curiosity and prefer not to search those keywords and
get added to some list and have an eye-in-the-sky suddenly trained on me. It
is completely understandable if you choose not to answer this question.

Thanks for reading, though. :)

~~~
cheald
You get pulled aside while the agent manning the scanner yells for a
"male/female assist" (depending on your sex). It takes somewhere between 30
seconds and 30 minutes for them to find someone to grope you.

You're then taken around the scanner, asked to identify (but not touch) your
luggage. They pick up your luggage, lead you over to a screening area (which
is in public view; they give you the option of a private patdown. I always
elect for the public one, as I want people to see and question what's going
on), explain their procedure, have you pose as though you're being crucified,
and give you a very thorough groping which includes putting their fingers into
your waistband and feeling your junk and buttocks with the backs of their
hands. They then swab your luggage and their gloves (with which they have just
groped you) and put it in an explosives detector. If the machine doesn't find
anything, you're free to go. If it does, you're pulled into a small room and
given an even more thorough search. The last time I flew out of LGA, I was
subjected to this secondary search; the agent said it was probably alerting on
the sunscreen I'd put on the day before.

The second search came up clean, but I was _extremely_ amused to find that the
room they searched me in was the room in which they kept their 5-gallon
buckets of confiscated cigarette lighters. I was left alone in this room -
with my luggage, past the security checkpoint - while the agent ran his second
explosives test. I didn't do anything untoward, but man, if I was a bad guy it
would have been trivial to stuff my bags with a bunch of containers holding
flammable liquids.

I don't get hassled all that much when I opt out, but I'm also extremely
white. I imagine that would be very different if I were brown and/or had a
foreign accent.

~~~
DjangoReinhardt
As I was reading your reply, I kept thinking, "Well, this sounds pretty
standard..." until I reached the part where you said:

> give you a very thorough groping which includes putting their fingers into
> your waistband and feeling your junk and buttocks with the backs of their
> hands

> fingers into your waistband and feeling your junk and buttocks

> feeling your junk and buttocks

Wat? Are they expecting that the bad guys will walk in with explosives stuffed
up their private parts and extract them out later for their intended purpose?
Also, honest question: why would anyone want to go through this? I mean, given
the option, I'd probably opt to walk through the scanner than let someone
handle my junk. (I felt extremely uncomfortable just saying that.) Surely the
scanners cannot be more invasive than THIS?

Or am I reading the whole thing wrong? Is the rejection of scanners not
because of privacy issues but because of health issues? So many questions...

I kept reading and a few lines later, you said:

> ...given an even more thorough search.

I can't even begin to imagine what an 'even more thorough search' would
be/look/feel like. The closest word I can think of is 'rape' but surely it
can't be THAT bad, can it?

Where I am from, we do have pat-down searches at private places like malls,
but the public places are largely ignored, surprisingly. Even the pat-down
searches at the private places are more customary than anything else. Then
again, our record at homeland security isn't all that great, as witnessed by
recent events. In comparison, your track record since 9/11 seems to have
considerably improved, though how much of it should be attributed to all of
this is another question entirely.

As a white male living in the US of A, I think I understand your outrage. If
this were to happen to me, in my country, I'd probably be up in arms, and so
would the rest of the country. However, as a brown male, living outside of the
US of A, and having never been to your country so far, I wouldn't know what it
truly feels like, so I might just be talking out of (pardon my french) ass
here.

I'm just too confused, surprised and horrified at the moment to fathom the
weirdness of it all.

Thanks for your detailed reply, though. I hope the situation resolves into
something amicable for both parties - you and the authorities.

PS: As a brown male who has never been to your country but who would like to
visit some day, your comments have unsettled me somewhat. I like to keep a
lush beard and I have long hair. Sure, I'm an atheist, but does that even
count?

~~~
cheald
> Wat? Are they expecting that the bad guys will walk in with explosives
> stuffed up their private parts and extract them out later for their intended
> purpose?

Frankly, if I intended to blow up an airplane, I'd have no trouble stuffing
stuff where the sun don't shine. If you know that an agent isn't going to
check an area, it makes sense to hide things in that area.

> Also, honest question: why would anyone want to go through this?

For me, it is a form of protest. I don't enjoy it, and I don't look forward to
it, but I believe that the TSA as it exists today is a wholly worthless
organization which spends a good chunk of my money to put on the hollow
appearance of keeping us safe. There has been a whole heck of a lot of
evidence that they don't really do a very good job of it. I protest by
refusing to just be a quiet compliant consumer, and instead pick the noisiest
and least-convenient route to make sure that they're at least as
inconvenienced as I am, and that the people in line with me get to see an
innocent man being searched like he's a murder suspect, so they'll maybe
question the wisdom of the status quo.

Before the x-ray scanners were removed, I opted out both out of health
concerns and ideological concerns. The millimeter wave scanners are
substantially less worrysome from a health perspective, but I still protest
because the entire concept is fundamentally flawed. Our courthouses and police
stations still use magnetometers, and we _know_ those are places that will
have people who are violent, dangerous, and angry; if the MW machines actually
_were_ substantially better, I'd have gone through one when I went down to the
courthouse earlier this month. Yet somehow, we have these privacy-invading
devices being purchased at astronomical cost to the US taxpayer and put into
airports while (potentially more critical) other locations are left untouched.
Let's not even begin to discuss the fact that the TSA tends to create a
bottleneck where a lot of people are gathered before anyone has been security
screened, presenting an extremely soft target for someone who wants to spark
terror with a suicide bombing.

Re-reading my comment, I feel that I may have not made something clear - they
run their fingers around the inside of your waistband, and they separately use
the backs of their hands to feel the buttocks and crotch _outside of the
pants_. They don't stick their hands down your pants and juggle your balls. I
don't feel like it's particularly any more invasive than the whole rest of the
patdown, but it's the kind of thing that would probably give a survivor of
sexual assault a panic attack.

> I can't even begin to imagine what an 'even more thorough search' would
> be/look/feel like.

It's just more pressure, and they make sure to cover every inch of the search
area closely. What they're doing is trying to pick up residue from your
clothing that will set off the bomb machine again. If you failed _that_ one,
then I suspect you may be detained for questioning and perhaps a much worse
search by actual law enforcement, but that's just conjecture - it's never
happened to me.

I should clarify that I'm not flat-out against security measures. I appreciate
things that keep me safe, and am happy to participate in them when they
actually materially improve my safety. My objections are primarily rooted in
the opinion that the TSA and its mission do somewhere between "nada" and
"jack-all" for Actual Real Security. The number of stories about comically-bad
lapses in security at TSA checkpoints over the years is hilarious. They
frequently fail penetration tests. An actually-determined attacker could
probably bypass them pretty trivially. The entire program is a whole lot of
taxpayer money that serves to line the wallets of people connected to
Congressmen and to provide a jobs program for unskilled workers.

Our track record on airline safety has improved since 9/11, but that's because
of two very specific things: we sealed the cockpit doors, so hijackers cannot
physically get at the controls, and we put air marshals with guns on the
planes, so that a hijacker has to contend with the possibility that he might
attempt to hijack a plane protected by an armed law enforcement officer who
will bring his life to a swift and inglorious halt. Additionally, passengers
are much more watchful. When Richard Reid attempted to blow up a flight with
explosives in his shoes, he was jumped by passengers and beaten into
submission. Pre-9/11, I don't know that that would have happened.

> As a brown male who has never been to your country but who would like to
> visit some day, your comments have unsettled me somewhat. I like to keep a
> lush beard and I have long hair. Sure, I'm an atheist, but does that even
> count?

I dearly hope that someday you have the opportunity to visit my country some
day without fear of being harassed and intimidated by people because of your
skin color or choice in facial hair. I'm genuinely very sorry that it's even a
concern, and wish that I could apologize to you with any measure of
meaningfulness. I do want to say that you aren't guaranteed to be - you hear
about the worst-case scenarios, but thousands of people travel every day
without so much as a hitch. I am angry and I protest because I feel that we
are losing the liberty that we hold so dear, and I don't _want_ us to become a
society where you have to be actively fearful of traveling.

------
siculars
I always opt-out. And I often exchange some words with the agent. When they
ask if I would like to do this in private I say no thanks, I like the public
knowing that their tax dollars are at work. The officers usually chuckle and
agree. Most of them don't like doing the pat down. One once went on about the
lack of union benefits. It's often an interesting experience.

------
utunga
I'm that person too I always make sure i have time to opt out and sometimes it
gets annoying.

The last time, the TSA person seemed friendly and chatty enough and I remarked
towards the end that, "you know why I'm doing this right? I'm doing this for
you". He may have been humoring me only but I think not, he seemed to
genuinely appreciate my point and almost be grateful.

It is very true that amongst the many things I dislike about those machines
the actually technically _unsafe_ exposures that the TSA employees are being
exposed to is one thing I really dislike about them.

I feel like by maintaining the protest we increase the chance that they may
one day turf the things. So I hope the author of this piece takes heart. Sure,
sometimes you get an ungrateful piece of mould for a guard, and they win. But
sometimes you get someone who appreciates the bigger picture, and that maybe
this is helping them out. So stick with it. I will if you will.

~~~
3JPLW
I still cannot believe that TSA personnel don't wear radiation dosimeter
badges. It's absolutely absurd. In any other setting, OSHA/CDC would be going
crazy.

From 2010:
[http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-12-06-tsa...](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-12-06-tsa-
xray-inside_N.htm)

------
sealless
My wish for you is that this is the worst thing that ever happens to you. And
that you move on.

------
eeeeaaii
I ask them to guard my laptop, which they usually do since I suppose they will
get in trouble if it's stolen. Actually maybe the fact that I'm asking them to
watch over my laptop expedites the actual patdown, because I never have to
wait long.

------
soheil
"three or four of them(passengers) had induced mini-panic-attacks by lifting
or moving the tray containing my laptop"

when are we going to learn to assume other people are probably somewhat
rational beings and not crazy zombies walking around?

~~~
singold
Maybe when we stop seeing everyone as potential 'terrorists' that should be
undressed to _prove_ they don't carry anything dangerous to the rest of us.

Also, there are really a lots of crazy zombies walking around

------
laureny
> I give up. The terrorists have won.

Or maybe you could recognize that flying is a privilege, not a right, and that
you have other options if you want to make a stand in your beliefs, such as
picking a different airline, going to your destination by some other means or,
you know, not traveling.

These entitled smug conspiracy theorists who act like prima donnas irritate
me.

"The terrorists have won" because you had to go through a machine? I think
it's time for the OP to step back, take a hard look at their life and wonder
if they have their priorities straight. There are much more interesting and
worthy things to worry about.

~~~
ilyanep
Comments like yours make my blood boil.

> flying is a privilege, not a right

Is taking a train a privilege, not a right? Driving? A bus? Would you be okay
with TSA-like screening procedures before any such sort of transportation?
What makes flying so special? People have bombed trains, cars, busses, etc
before too.

> "The terrorists have won" because you had to go through a machine? I think
> it's time for the OP to step back, take a hard look at their life and wonder
> if they have their priorities straight.

Maybe because our government has taught the citizenry that it's okay to be
pre-emptively searched on planes, or stopped and frisked
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_stop-and-
frisk_pr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_stop-and-
frisk_program)), or other such things. Meanwhile, the rent-a-cops operating
these machines are basically given free reign to do whatever power tripping
they want, because one wrong move can have you finding yourself detained for a
while.

~~~
moheeb
Driving actually is a privilege. Hence the reason it can be taken away from
you due to misconduct. People in the US agree with this practice.

Every driver in the US has to pass a driving test in order to be legally
allowed on the road. Is air travel somehow different? Maybe all you folks
should be boiling your blood over the fact that you have to prove to the
government you're capable of driving!

~~~
ilyanep
You're right, driving was a bad example. That being said, it's silly to
continue adding modes of transport to things that are "privileges, not rights"
until people really have no real and significant freedom of movement. Perhaps
my example should have been "walking around outside your house".

~~~
laureny
That's a slippery slope fallacy, let's stay away from these, please.

Here is the deal: flying brings you conveniences and comes with
inconveniences. It's entirely up to you which one outweighs the other, but
whatever the choice you make, you can't claim that a right is being taken away
from you if you are turned away from a flight.

If you really think you have a case, call the ACLU and see them laugh at you.

~~~
ilyanep
Okay, but trains are legitimate ground, because the TSA has previously set up
in the New York subway ([http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/28/travel/tsa-vipr-
passenger-trai...](http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/28/travel/tsa-vipr-passenger-
train-searches)). To some extent, stop-and-frisk (as I linked to above) means
that there are governments in the country who feel that they can search you
while you're walking around, so my bringing them up isn't that silly.

Again I ask, what modes of transport are privileges and how many of them can
we take away (not because you are incompetent at controlling them, but because
you refused to subject yourself to a search) without completely destroying
freedom of movement?

------
Simple1234
I took a flight once and I carried on my coin collection. All that metal set
off a red flag so they took me to a private room to examine my collection. The
TSA was generally polite, but at one point while shuffling my collection
around the table a coin fell on the floor. My favorite coin. It was a
commemorative coin for Operation Enduring Freedom that my cousin gave me.
Other than pictures, it's the only thing I have left to remember him by. As I
picked the coin up from the floor, with newly minted scratches no doubt, I
couldn't help but think of the symbolism.

------
shuri
I think the opposite should be done. I think every single person should opt-
out.

------
marincounty
1\. My subtle way of fighting back is trying to keep my face off cameras
everyplace I go. I stopped going to stores like Home Depot who have you on a
cam the minute you walk in.

2\. I'm glad you held out as long as you did.

~~~
awjr
Err not sure how important that is. I would guess making sure you pay in cash
at all times is probably more important.

~~~
hyperventilator
Even if you pay in cash the NSA will get those tapes and know he was at Home
Depot. :P

------
greendata
This disheartens me but thank you for your effort. We know the TSA is already
on buses and trains. I think more and more areas are going to be deemed "4th
amendment free" zones (schools, airports, football games, buses, trains, 100
miles within a border, cars and the internet to some degree).

If we can get even 10% of the people to opt out and waste their time the
system will begin to collapse. Keep fighting, keeping being a pain. They can't
do a pat down on 10% of the passengers.

------
speedyrev
What happens if someone steals your laptop from the table at the end of the
conveyor? Does TSA have any liability since the laptop was taken from your
possession by them?

~~~
pekru
So, they do not have a token system at all? Almost every other airport has a
simple tokened system where one gets a token for their belongings, goes
through the checks, reaches the other end and hands the token back and
collects their belongings. Such a simple thing. Seen it in Changi (Singapore)
and KL. The TSA dudes never thought simple thing?

~~~
takluyver
I've not seen that at any UK or US airport I've been through. Stuff just goes
through on a conveyor belt, and sits at the end for the passengers to pick up.
It's struck me how easy it would be for someone to swipe a phone or wallet
while it's sitting there, though I've never seen that happen.

------
einhverfr
Please don't give up. Please write the ACLU, the EPIC and ask for legal
representation.

We lose our rights by not asserting them and fighting abuses like this in
court.

------
squozzer
Political defiance is not a blitzkrieg -- if it were everyone would do it. A
loss does not dictate surrender.

I'm still pretty new at the political defiance game, but reading a few PDFs at
aeinstein.org has opened my eyes a little - thanks to an earlier post I read
on HN.

Myself, I avoid air travel whenever possible. The highways have not yet been
transformed into a maze of checkpoints.

------
bjourne
The next time you see a cop, take a photo. You are bound to get in trouble for
that pretty soon as the cops don't like it and many don't seem to be aware
that it is perfectly legal to do so. I wonder if it would help? You would be
harassed a lot but you would prevent photographing cops from becoming de facto
illegal.

~~~
marincounty
I think we will need to do this in the future. I'm thinking of front and rear
cams on my car. It just might come in handy if I ever need to fight an illegal
pull over.

------
jpalioto
I had the same experience at LAX recently. It seems they are doing this on
purpose to inconvenience people who opt out. When they ask me about the
machine and why I don't want to go through, I simply tell them that I worked
at a company that made machines like that (true) and I don't want to go
through.

------
csomar
These articles made me think that travelling (overall) and security checks are
unpleasant.

The first time I travelled was to Doha through Istanbul. I was amazed at how
comfortable the security checks are, and how friendly the security stuff were
there.

It really frightens me to hear the experience in the US borders is quite
different.

------
ccozan
Although I truly simpatize with the person ( and the political subject ), I
can only express my wonder towards humans as a species: in order to survive,
we adapt by overcoming our fears, then we move on, forgetting what was all
about. The next challenge is waiting.

Adapt or die ( figuratively speaking )!

------
yRetsyM
Did anyone else find it really hard to read the text in this article? I don't
like the contrast...

------
tpainton
Its interesting that there are > 200 comments on how easy it is to run snd not
one on stopping the bastards who threw you into fear and retreat. You are
_soundly_ defeated. Im not being forced from my homeland by a despot
government or a coward with a bomb. Sorry.

------
magikbum
Can people stop complaining? Every other day the front page is covered with
posts on people "giving up" and "this not being the American they love." Since
all of these intrusive efforts have started how many attacks have happened?

~~~
gergles
Since I bought this rock, 0 tigers have attacked me in my apartment!

------
adultSwim
The ending is a bit hyperbolic.

------
Tichy
Really overly dramatic. Just because they are nice enough to say "use of the
machine is optional", you are not losing your rights if eventually you have to
pass through. What if they had never put that option on display to begin with.
Would you then have decided to never fly again? Are airport checks in general
a violation of our rights?

I don't know what measures are effective - apparently a lot of procedures at
the airport are not effective. But in general I would say if safe flights
require procedure X, it is not a violation of our rights if airports require
procedure X.

Just because the government erred in one direction (too much intrusion and
security checks), doesn't mean that to oppose it we should demand the complete
absence of security checks.

------
tippytop
I noticed on my last trip that the TSA, at all airports involved, were more
pushy this time about herding me through the machines, using similar words. I
guess there was a new policy memo sent out.

------
59nadir
"The terrorists have won.". This line always strikes me as kind of missing the
point. Terrorists aren't the one infringing on your privacy and dismantling
your rights.

------
lowglow
I will continue to opt out. Not a fan of the new machines.

------
ssalbiz
I've been allowed to keep my belongings with me when I opt-out in the past.
This has helped alleviate the stress of opting out considerably.

------
burmask
Just say you had shoulder surgery and cannot lift your arm(s) and they'll move
away from the magnetometer and let you through.

------
epsylon
> that their development and procurement was a particularly depressing example
> of political corruption

I'd like to hear more about this.

------
magic5227
This works both ways, opt out as much as you can, hold up the process and
force the TSA to come up with something better.

------
jdavid
To be free, you must first act free.

------
hingisundhorsa
Sometimes I feel confused. Are "we" the real terrorists?

~~~
jacquesm
Maybe google translate can make this palatable for you:

[http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Het_monster_Trotteldrom](http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Het_monster_Trotteldrom)

It answers your questions to some extent. We are definitely complicit.

------
ethanazir
This is the type of crap that pushes a non-muslim over the edge.

------
pattle
You should have just used the machine

------
aneth5
I was once a great fighter for freedom, democracy, and civil liberties. I
battled the system long and hard. Then one day out of a hundred similar travel
days, I had to wait 30 minutes for a TSA pat down, probably because a single
TSA manager was not following procedure. I realize some great freedom fighters
would at least file an official complaint, but I also realized that if one
manager one time can make me wait 30 minutes, the terrorists have already won.
I surrendered my principles to the police state.

If I had known how hard this fight would be, that a mere mortal man as me
would have to wait 30 minutes for a pat down, might even have to miss a flight
or submit to a scan and then file a complaint, I never would have become such
a great freedom fighter. Fortunately, my ignorance of such trials allowed me
to boldly enter the resistance, even if my warrior days were cut short and I
failed to fight past 30 minutes of standing on a mat. 30 minutes - what man
could be expected to endure this in the name of human liberty?

------
bengrunfeld
Oren is right. Our rights are being taken away one at a time. As an immigrant
to America, I can see how the idea of "Freedom" has been so ingrained into the
culture that most people simply refuse to believe that the government is
taking it away from them. "But we are the Free Country!", they all yell. While
this may have been a free country in the past, and may still carry the echoes
of freedom, those echoes are fading quickly.

------
aneth5
A population that believes this strongly in liberties then surrenders after a
single 30 minute inconvenience is a greater danger to liberty than the TSA.

Seriously, you have shown you are willing to make zero sacrifice in fighting
for your rights. You don't believe in anything. This is the problem with
armchair libertarians. You sound tough them surrender at the first sign of
difficulty. This does more harm than good.

------
shloper
gay

------
transfire
Don't fly. Seriously. Aren't you tired of being stripped searched, herded like
cattle, squeezed into a tin can like sardines, going 300 miles in the wrong
direction to switch plans at a hub, or sitting hours in wait in your three
square feet of space on the tarmac?

But what to do instead? Leave a day early. Take a train. Maybe even find a co-
rider heading your way and split the cost of a cabin car. Then relax and enjoy
your trip. Chat with some other travelers in the lounge car. Have a nice meal
in the diner car. If you don't have to be there yesterday and you are not
going over an ocean, you can't beat a train.

Of course, in the States, the _a$$ holes_ are winning there too as they won't
let us build better trains ( _cough_ florida _caugh_ hyperloop _cough_ ) and
they have forced all passenger rail to go through Chicago when crossing the
middle of the country. Honestly, how do they get away with this sh*t?

~~~
WA
Please point me to the train that takes me from Germany to NYC.

~~~
atsidi
That would be very cool. However, when we need to get to Europe, we take a
train to Toronto or Montreal and fly from there. Canada's airports are a bit
more sane that those in the U.S. When I lived in southern California, I drove
across the border and flew out of Mexico: not as nice, but I saved a lot of
money that way.

------
tzaman
This is the second time in a week I have read about people refusing to go
through security scanners, and then complaining about being treated
_differently_.

You should really put yourselves into security guards' skins here; What if you
were him/her? You'd observe millions of people do the same stuff day in, day
out, and out of those million, a small percent would refuse to do what's
required of everyone - pass the standard security. If you ask me, I'd be
suspicious too. And probably annoyed why there have to be a few of smartasses
who can't follow standard procedure.

Now, before I hear you complain about privacy, you really need to wake up. If
you leave in a city, you're being recorded on pretty much every step, and you
still go to the bank, for example, and drive your car. And use Facebook. Or
whatever. If you want real privacy, move to Sibiria. Or Zimbabwe.

And for those who think these machines are medically dangerous, toss away your
phone - long term effects of it's use haven't been proven either.

my 2c

~~~
tomelders
The agents are 'supposed' to be protecting America. Not just the people, but
it's ideals as laid out in the constitution and the bill of rights. If someone
in that position takes umbrage with someone else exercising their rights, then
they are the wrong person for the job.

You don't have to like it, just like I don't have to like reading the endless
swill of weak minded, shortsighted arguments like the brain numbingly asinine
one you've just posited. What you do have, as a citizen of a country that
gives it's people rights, is a moral obligation to acknowledge and respect
those rights and to ensure they are administerd equally and without prejudice,
even if it's hard sometimes. You do not have the right to pick and chose which
rights other people can exercise, especially when you are in a position to do
just that.

~~~
larrys
"Not just the people, but it's ideals as laid out in the constitution and the
bill of rights."

Where are you getting that from? They have a job to do which they were hired
to do. At the end of the day they go home, eat dinner and watch TV. Nothing
more than that.

Why don't you go out and talk to them and see if (other than lip service) they
have a clue at all about what you are suggesting they should be protecting.

