
TSA Sued Over New Policy to Refuse Opt-Outs - tsaoutourpants
http://professional-troublemaker.com/2015/12/24/corbett-sues-tsa-over-new-policy-to-refuse-opt-outs/
======
jimrandomh
The TSA scanners are presented to the public as a tool for detecting weapons
and other contraband, but I think this is actually a secondary goal and a bit
of misdirection. Think about what those scans actually are.

They're biometrics. They take precise measurements of a person's shape, which
is sufficient to detect if someone is traveling under a false name, and
they're building a database of those biometrics to have available for use
elsewhere. If the scan's result is ambiguous, they swab your hands and stick
the swab in a machine, supposedly to detect residue from explosives but with
the nice side-effect of producing a stored DNA sample for later use. They've
proven pretty useless for controlling the flow of contraband, but they're
quite useful for catching fugitives. While the people staffing the checkpoints
aren't particularly smart, it's reasonable to assume that the people at the
top are pretty clever, and their policies are consistent with this having been
the real goal all along.

If they tried collecting fingerprints from travelers, they would get a very
strong backlash. This way, they get a weaker backlash and some jokes about how
stupid they are for using machines that can't reliably detect guns.

~~~
wraithm112
The problem with this theory, as I see it, is identity. When you go through
the body scan, they don't ask for your identification. Yes, they ask for ID
before going to the security line, but there's a very difficult combinatorial
problem with lining up IDs with bodyscans.

Also, I'm inclined to believe that the TSA is incompetent all the way up.

~~~
shpx
You don't actually need to match up to the individual, you have roughly say
100 or 1000 possible candidates for each scan, based on people you processed
in the last X minutes. You can just save that then all you need is 2 scans to
be able to match.

If you're tagging face when they get processed and running face recognition at
the scanner, (which is either already possible or will be possible within a
couple years) you don't even need to do that.

On a related note, I feel like people dont factor in the (exponential)
progress of technology in their threat assessment. For example sites that tell
people their password strength don't count Moore's law into password
difficulty calculations. Nobody uses post quantum crypto. The NSA has played
this by storing as much interesting encrypted data and then decrypting it when
technology progresses Or vulnerabilities are discovered. Most of our encrypted
data is plain text in some X number of years.

Anyway going back to scanners, you could just store data and wait until
computer vision gets to the point where you can do it with computers. Anything
a person can do a computer will eventually be able to do. If a person could
watch a bunch of camera feeds and track each person from the point he presents
ID to the point he is scanned a computer will eventually be able to too.

IMO they already can.

~~~
chrismcb
Except they don't know who they've processed. I guess they have the list of
ticketed passengers, and most people will only go through the machines once.
But they don't record anything when they check your ID.

------
hyperbovine
Man that's annoying. I don't feel like these scanners have been impartially
vetted by the medical community and while they are potentially safe, it's
going to be a bummer to finally be forced through one.

~~~
seiji
_it 's going to be a bummer to finally be forced through one._

Earlier this year, Terminal 5 at Heathrow wouldn't let me opt out of the
scanner. Kinda felt like a personal violation, but the duty guards just said I
was uneducated for having any concerns outside of their training.

~~~
cgearhart
I frequently have conversations with the TSA about their machines. They have
been trained to discuss the differences between backscatter x-ray & MMW
technology to allay concerns about the health risks associated with the
former, especially in airports that only use the latter. They're typically
very surprised to find that I'm very clear on the differences, and that my
objection rides on the privacy implications rather than health concerns. Call
me old fashioned, but we shouldn't let it become _normal_ for the government
to scan your body as a precondition to travel.

------
cgearhart
I broadly oppose security theater in all its forms, especially when it does
nothing to improve actual security - and none of the naked scanners used by
the TSA have been shown to be effective.

The only real argument in their favor is that it's so easy to use that there
is no reason _not_ to use them - but even _that_ isn't true. It's trivial to
show that even if they were nearly foolproof that they _still_ wouldn't be
worth using. There are so many airline passengers that the prior probability
that an individual traveler has malicious intent means that virtually all
alerts will be false positives. It is pointless to violate the privacy of
everyone when the benefits are so minimal.

~~~
chrismcb
The biggest reason not to use them is they are slow. It is a waste of our
time, not to mention the cost to run them. And then, at least on the US they
don't have the right to search me.

------
tamana
Can we get some blog posts and discussions about how single individuals can
put together such a beautifully branded and effective civil rights advocacy
program, without a bloated nonprofit organization attached? This is a powerful
weapon against tyranny

~~~
tsaoutourpants
Hi tamana,

Author of the article and lawsuit here. Anything in particular you'd like to
challenge?

The thing is, I can put up a guide, but all of this takes a _ton_ of work (and
money). It's not possible to make a lawsuit tutorial that you can follow in a
couple hours and be done. Once you've researched, written, and filed your
lawsuit, then the real stuff begins: the government attacking your suit and
you're left to defend it. I think it's fun, and it's definitely rewarding, but
it takes a lot to make happen.

Thanks,

\--Jon

~~~
tslug
Thanks for fighting the good fight, Jon. I've been opting out for years, and
if there's anything people like us can do to help, please don't hesitate to
ask!

They clearly don't like it when you opt out. Things I have experienced while
opting out:

    
    
      1. Being separated from my belongings for up to a half hour while dozens of strangers are walking past them and could easily pluck my wallet or computer out of them.
    
      2. Being asked to wait directly next to the luggage X-ray machines.  I think most know that we're specifically not thrilled about that.
    
      3. Got an "extra-thorough" pat-down by a guy who claimed it was in the name of security and procedure.
    
      4. Teasing/harassment for not trusting the X-ray machines.
    

Between this latest opt-out opt out and the collaboration with the IRS, I'm
going to stop flying soon. I should anyway, as flying is one of the most
carbon-awful things you can do.

~~~
rexf
I always opt-out. Kudos to you for being able to stop flying soon. I don't fly
that often, but flying is always the most painful part of traveling. It's
amazing how bad the flying experience has turned into.

------
imroot
Interesting.

I opted out this morning. I have friends on flight crews who opt out (either
by KCM or by the freedom frisk) and I haven't heard anyone in my circles
complain about it on Facebook.

~~~
schoen
I think this headline is misleading. Per discussion from yesterday (there's
another thread), TSA published a document which says that they _may_ decline
opt-outs but that passengers can "generally" still opt out (they didn't
publicly state who won't be permitted to opt out or when or why). While this
is a very disturbing change, it's not quite the same as eliminating opt-outs
entirely.

------
meesterdude
This does nothing to make us safer, as the ineffectiveness of the TSA has been
well documented on numerous occasions since their inception.

~~~
tallerholler
would you rather have no security and feel good knowing anyone can walk into
the airport unhinged and hop on an airplane?

~~~
u801e
Definitely. The chances are so low that I'm not worried about it. The same
concern applies to any other mode of transportation and we don't have to deal
with the "security theater" measures for those other modes of transport.

Do you constantly worry about "unhinged" drivers while walking on the
sidewalk? Are you constantly worried that you would be the victim of an
intentional attack like what recently happened in Las Vegas? Do you believe we
need to go through the "security theater" motions in order to "mitigate" the,
for all practical purposes, negligible risk of something similar happening in
the future?

------
xs
Here is the excerpt from the DHS document:

Individuals undergoing screening using AIT generally will have the option to
decline an AIT screeningin favor of physical screening. Given the
implementation of ATR and the mitigation of privacy issues associated with the
individual image generated by previous versions of AIT not using ATR, and the
need to respond to potential security threats, TSA will nonetheless mandate
AIT screening for some passengers as warranted by security considerations in
order to safeguard transportation security.

~~~
tslug
I already know exactly what's going to represent a "security consideration in
order to safeguard transportation security."

When you opt-out, they make you wait a _long time_ standing next to the X-ray
machine for someone to give you a pat-down. (It's almost never that the guy
doing pat-downs is busy, btw- really weird.)

They're going to claim that having someone wait near the X-ray machines that
long represents some kind of security threat. And then they're going to use
that fact to justify overriding the opt-out, because the more time you spend
next to an X-ray machine, the higher the odds you've tampered with it or have
had time to assemble that tactical nuke you've been hiding in your pockets or
whatever nonsense they come up with.

------
jasonjei
Is this inclusive of the TSA PreCheck or Global Entry program?

~~~
tdicola
I have pre check with the global entry program and was 'randomly selected' to
go through a body scanner on a recent trip, so it can happen. Most of the time
pre check just goes through a simple metal detector though.

------
drglitch
December 2016 prediction: TSA PreCheck (including the $100+ fee) will become
mandatory as well. You can always take a bicycle to your destination if you
disagree.

~~~
mattzito
That seems like a weird assumption, considering that even today, you can fly
domestically without any ID at all, subject to additional screening.

PreCheck is a good thing, and a good system, but it hardly incentivizes the
government to make it mandatory.

------
Rhapso
This post was top on the front page an hour ago. It seems to have been
removed. Why?

~~~
tsaoutourpants
I noticed the same, and it's not the first time it happened to one of my
posts. My guess is one of the mods thinks it's "not tech enough" and bumps it
down, but who knows?

------
nikolay
The same scanners that proved to be inefficient?! I will definitely fly less
then and will consider other means of transportation. It's better for the
environment as well.

------
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10779589](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10779589)

~~~
Titanous
This is not a duplicate. The post is about a new lawsuit filed due to the
change in rules, the suit has not been previously on the front page.

~~~
dang
It's the same underlying story; note how the thread is much the same as the
earlier one. In such cases we treat follow-up posts as dupes unless they're
particularly substantive or contain significant new information. I don't think
this post quite clears that bar. That is not an opinion about either the TSA
or the lawsuit.

We started moderating HN this way after the Snowden deluge of 2013 in which
the front page was dominated by follow-up posts for a long time. Many users
complained about this, and they were right, yet the underlying stories were
obviously on-topic. We came up with the current policy as a way to balance the
concerns.

