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.
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.
Agreed, I opt-out every time I can. This gives me a chance to talk to the TSA agent. This puts human faces on the, typically, blurry screen of human mass.
When they ask why I opt-out, I explain about the numerous times I have filled out the comment cards mentioning the real danger of cataracts because you don't tell people to close their eyes. Explain that my engineering background fully understands both the x-ray and mm-wave technology. I explain that even the weak, yet not disclosed, powers of mm-wave back scatter can, over time, cause damage to your eyes.
This gives them something to think about, that isn't the typical "freedom" complaint they hear. I hope, one day, to overhear a TSA agent tell people to close their eyes.
First, the threat to your eyes is real. But, my underline reason is by making people close their eyes it will give a sense of vulnerability that the current systems don't have. I am hoping, one day, that this is the tipping point needed for more people to opt-out.
Can you elaborate on the risk to eyes? I've not heard about this, and Wikipedia doesn't mention it, either for mm-wave or backscatter (I hadn't even realised there were two different technologies in use until now). What kind of risk level are we talking about? Do your eyelids offer any real protection against it?
As far as I can tell, the x-ray works similar to the dentist office. While, the basic idea behind the active backscatter mm-wave is similar to radar. It is my understanding that the majority of the TSA owned mm-wave machines are active. You have a number of antennas that pulse and listen. I would need to look up the specs, but I suspect they are in the 75 GHz range which is above the oxygen absorption (60 GHz) but below more expensive technologies in the 100+ GHz range. There are a number of "cheap" technologies that have emerged for radar in this range on the market at the 75 GHz frequency, and I think it is being driven by this technology.
All in all, the mm-wave at the powers they use are harmless. The depth of penetration to the skin is sub millimeter and your body dissipates any heat that would be generated. It is most likely a pulsed system and your overall exposure time is small. But, the most fragile part of your body is your eyes. The capillary blood vessels are much smaller and wouldn't dissipate the heat as readily as the body. And it is my professional opinion, that overtime, it could do damage to your lenses and cause cataracts. I would love to get a grant to study these effects.
As far as I have seen, there are no IEEE specs on specific absorption rates (how much heat energy is created by being irradiated with a source), they are typically categorized as "body", "head", and "appendages". If anyone has information on specific body parts (I personally need it for teeth and fingernail work I do) I would be very interested in the FDA specific absorption rates.
When you close your eyes your eyelids will dissipate any heat generated and the mm-wave will not penetrate through the skin. One interesting test would be if anyone could get what the images look like, and see if you can tell where the eyes are. If there there is a difference in the backscatter, that would mean that the mm-wave is being absorbed differently in the soft tissue of the eye.
In my professional opinion, just close your eyes. If you fly once a year, it probably isn't a big deal. If you fly all the time, I would close my eyes.
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.
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."
There's lots of reasons it isn't so simple for people.
And one reason why it is extremely simple: if you're not from the U.S. to begin with.
Our universities and business culture lure the best of the best from all over the world to the United States. Our draconian travel rules, lack of privacy and "shoot first, ask questions later" laws discourage them from even visiting let alone live here.
Look like a Muslim? Suspected jihadist. Detained.
Carry more than a few thousands dollars? Drug dealer. Money seized.
One of the 99.99% that don't fall into any suspect group? Still suspected. Violate your privacy and freedoms.
If I were anything but a natural born citizen, this crap would make me leave in a minute.
As a white natural born citizen not carrying more than $100 on a domestic flight from SEA to SFO, still suspected.
The weird part of it was after opting out the TSA thug asked if I wanted to go somewhere private for my government-blessed groping. They must have had the cattle prods and waterboards ready.
In all seriousness, if we want the TSA to remain in any way accountable we need to opt-out, and to do it in public with other fellow travelers watching, since there is no telling what happens when they pull you aside in a room for an "enhanced pat down".
There is a perverse irony to the whole thing though, if a man decides to sit alone in a park, say to get some coding done outside in the sun this automatically means that you are a pedo and the soccer moms will not hesitate to call the police on you. On the other hand you have actual TSA agents groping kids all the time at the airport (http://articles.philly.com/2011-04-23/news/29466700_1_tsa-sp...). They get to wear a uniform and stick their hands down people's pants every goddamn day. Is this what freedom looks like?
You're welcome here in Uruguay... but I think it's a case of "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence".
And while we do have liberal emigration policies, the bureaucracy involved cannot be underestimated.
There are another things going on that you will find violations of your privacy - Uruguay has a nationwide ID program with fingerprinting (and probably DNA in the near future).
We don't have cameras or backscatter machines yet, but the current wave of insecurity will probably make people clamor for them soon - weird statistic: you're ten times more likely to be murdered in the U.S., but almost twenty times more likely to be robbed in Uruguay (I had my laptop stolen last month, for example).
The current government isn't likely to cave in easily to the U.S. government, but what about the next one?
You're 100% correct about the incredible amount of bureaucracy for getting residency in Uruguay. After almost a year of waiting, and being told it would probably be at least another six months to a year to have my residency completed, I gave up and moved to Paraguay.
Getting permanent residency in Paraguay was fairly simple. I completed it in about seven months (partially because I needed to wait for my FBI background check). Other people I know had theirs completed in four to six months.
I also find Paraguay to have less government intrusion than Uruguay. Not that Uruguay felt oppressive, but the Uruguayan government is certainly involved in more aspects of business, welfare, regulations, etc., than the Paraguayan government.
Most Paraguayans only speak Spanish, or Guarani (the native language). However, if you're working in the tech sector, it isn't unusual to find people who speak a decent amount of English.
For most countries that I'm aware of, when you apply for permanent residency you need to submit a criminal background check from your home country. They don't want to let in fugitives or violent criminals.
For US citizens, that means the FBI (although you generally have your fingerprints taken by your local police, and send the fingerprint card to the FBI). Since I was already in South America, I had my fingerprints taken at the Paraguayan Interpol office. I sent them to the FBI in the US and waited about 75 days to get my results back.
I also had to get fingerprinted for a criminal background check by the Paraguayan police, even though I had never been in Paraguay before.
Other than that, the process was fairly simple - a copy of my birth certificate (certified by the Paraguayan consulate in the US), a couple of visa-sized photos, and US$5000 to deposit in a local bank for the duration of my application (to prove I'm financially solvent). If you're married or divorced, you'll also need to have those papers legalized.
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/ 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.
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.
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.
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.
First of all I think that moving to another country because you don't like the US customs might be a bit extreme, but still:
>> 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.
German here, I have worked in Germany and abroad, I worked with an Australian guy working in Germany that spoke about five words of German and that was completely fine ( he did HTML&CSS stuff, a little bit of PHP). Our client was American as well, but he spoke some German I think. (this was 2008ish)
My managers Manager in a big consultancy was American and stayed in Germany for a year and a half I think and did just fine with only english. The project lead at the same company was from India, didn't speak a word of German. On my last visit to Berlin I was amazed how many foreigners are there and working in tech at the moment, just the stuff you pick up on the street in Friedrichshain is amazing, people talking about databases and pointers while walking past you on the street in English with all sorts of accents you can imagine.
The same is probably true for Amsterdam or Copenhagen, the dutch and the danish are usually excellent with languages.
I agree with you that moving to another country is not simple. But I would like to offer some experience which might be encouraging to those who decide to do so.
1. I was able to happily work and live in Spain for couple of months with no knowledge of Spanish language whatsoever. It certainly limits your choices to a certain degree (I worked for one UK-based company which sent me to Madrid and it would have been difficult to find any Spanish-speaking job if I had to) but it's easier than you would think.
Now I live in the Czech Republic and I regularly visit 'English meetings' (imagine weekly organized party where anybody who speaks English is invited) and I know many foreigners (some of them are my close friends) who happily live here for years without any knowledge of Czech language.
2. Children - oh, how many times I was envious of their incredible adaptability. If they are younger than 10 - wherever you go they will have new friends in two weeks and they will speak fluently with no accent in 6 months. I had seen it many times with children of my Czech/Slovak friends when I lived in UK and I can see that now with children of my foreign friends living in the Czech Rep. 8 years old daughter of my Spanish friends speaks Spanish, Russian, Czech and English without any noticeable accent - her family moves a lot and I believe she will benefit from that tremendously. Children are so good at this that they don't need language lessons - they just pick it up from their peers while playing in a sandpit.
>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.
An aside, but why did you move from Ireland to the US? I'm semi-seriously considering moving to the UK or Ireland, not out of any "argh america is literally hitler, i'm out" impetus, but to be closer to my girlfriend's family and for adventure.
The short (and unhelpful) answer is that I didn't intend to move here.
I came here for a long vacation of sorts (quit dev job in Ireland, swore never work in IT again, first stop on taking a year out to travel the world...).
I was at a point where I'd over-stayed tourist visa and was getting ready to move on and then I met a girl...
You've only got half of the domino effect. Sure, it might become easy from a paperwork standpoint, but supply/demand will kick in and wages will drop.
In most countries recruiting immigrants is a royal pain in the ass. The main redeeming factor is that in the case where the immigrant's primary motivation is entry into the country (aka a work visa), the recruiter has an excellent negotiating position, especially when the visa in question keeps the immigrant bound to the sponsoring company.
Emigrating Americans are a little different, however. We're pretty highly paid in comparison to the rest of the world, and we're usually quite happy to stay in, or return to, our home country if we can't find something that suits us. Couple this with a good education and success in American industry, and this gives us a pretty powerful negotiating position in comparison with other immigrants. We still might not get anything comparable to an American salary, but at least we're able to negotiate rather than just having to accept whatever is handed to us.
This changes as soon as you remove the safety net. If there isn't a huge outflow of Americans, those who are emigrating because they truly want to leave America can just bluff their way through it. If there's a huge outflow however, this negotiating position will quickly be lost, at least in the countries to which most Americans would wish to be immigrants.
Language is not an overwhelming barrier for a technology professional if approached correctly. Assuming you need to learn a major western European language, a good rule of thumb is 250 hours of work to become sufficiently conversational for shopping and travel, and between 500 and 750 hours to defend an opinion coherently on a day-to-day topic. (For a totally unrelated language, multiply by 4.) You'll still be at a linguistic disadvantage, but you'll be able to pick up the phone and deal with confused customer service representatives or whatever. Real ingrained fluency and an educated vocabulary takes longer, but most people are in excellent shape after a couple of years of immersion and a bunch of reading.
On the professional side, most HTLAL readers will be able to find jobs using large amounts of English. French programmers, for example, tend to read English fluently, attend talks in English (even at French conferences), and write some fraction of their code in English.
I learned this while trying to improve my technical French—I went shopping for French programming books, French programming podcasts, etc., and I would up finding (a) very few technical books, (b) French programming news aggregators with 60% of the links in English, (c) French programming conferences where every single speaker spoke English, and (d) lots of very friendly French programmers with English skills ranging from serviceable to excellent.
If you want to live in another country for a while, don't let language be the factor that stops you.
May I suggest Germany? At least in regards to your first point, they have recently relaxed barriers. Right now all you need is a four-year degree in order for you to come and look for work for up to 6 months. The chances of anyone reading this finding work are extremely high because there's a shortage of skilled professionals.
Or, start out studying for a Master's degree first to get comfortable with the country. (Many are taught in English,and would be free. I can recommend certain programs if anyone is interested).
I speak enough German to not completely embarrass myself when out in public, and I would like to get my Masters in Computer Science (adding on to my BSc in Computer Science). What programs would you recommend?
The Universities come with more prestige, are larger, offer a wider variety of programs, and are more theoretically based. Therefore if you like computer science theory, taking classes that are math-intensive and could include things like algorithm optimization or building compilers, a University is the clear choice. I have heard only awesome things about TU Munich and TU Darmstadt, although any of the big TU's are probably great.
The other option, a Hochschule, is more practice based. Although there will be a mixture of theory and practice at both types, the distinction lies in the emphasis. So if you want to spend more time going straight to writing code, a Hochschule might be the better choice. The other advantages of a Hochschule are that they can be focused on a particular topic (if you are looking for something specific) and they definitely will have smaller classes. This means the professors know you, and you go directly to them for help for which they are often freely available (contrast with a Uni -- usually either go to a TA or have to schedule an appointment with the prof a week ahead through their secretary etc.)
I went to a Hochschule and was beyond pleased. There were only 20 people in my whole program so the individual help you can get from Professors was amazing. I actually studied Geoinformatics not Computer Science directly (and therefore searched for that specialty), but I think any of the larger cities will have good Comp Sci M.Sc. possibilities at their Hochschules.
In any case you can always visit ahead of time if you can to talk to the professors and sit in on classes. If that's not possible they are also very responsive to calls and emails... they often have preferred quotas for foreign students and love to recruit them.
I'm not an American, but one thing that bothers me about working abroad are the strict rules about levels of education. "You only need a four-year degree," is easy enough for someone who had the opportunities in life to go through that track. I have been very successful in life without a degree but attaining work visas is bloody difficult.
You can also go to Germany to simply study the German language for up to six months. I think you need a 4yr degree (not sure) and need only study for 18hrs/week if I recall. You're not allowed to work, but should you find a job, I was told by several employers there that the Blue Card easy to get and takes about a month.
I'm strongly considering it. I know enough German now to make a fool of myself there. Oh and at least in the software scene, and maybe tech in general, I've found Germans to be completely fluent in English, and some companies even state in their job ads that English is the language that they conduct business in. I was surprised to learn that outside of tech, things got more dicey. Many non-university-educated people did not speak English or spoke it with difficulty. Even a pharmacist I met really struggled. So for interactions outside of tech, a little German would help, and that's part of what the cultural "integration" classes offer.
[edit: add ref to Blue Card]
Do you need to have a savings that you can live off of for 6 months (if you can't work)?
I agree with the others in this thread the idea of moving is very easy. Just getting a visa can be expensive.
To jballanc's credit I think it really is extremly simple in theory, if you are OK with the excrucingly expensive route:
1) Barriers to work and emigration
Not if you have enough money or a high enough level of education and income. Paying a lawyer to iron out some problems can help avoiding some traps too.
2) Language barriers
These can be overcome, but not having to deal with a lot of menu details in your life (i.e "how to apply for family aid with the new flat I am trying to rent"), going to places that have english speaking staff, doing as much as you can online etc. simplifies it a lot. But it costs more overall.
3) A lot of us have family support systems
This is the most difficult point, and no amount of money will resolve some problems (adaptation, home sickness, culture etc). But others like schooling your kids in an international school (it's about 8000~10000 dollars a year at least I think), have someone speaking your language take care of them etc. eases things a lot.
I don't think this kind of money can be taken for granted, and only a smallish portion of people are at these levels of wealth[1]. It was just to bring a point about how "simple" changing a country could be depending on your means.
[1] Otherwise if you can get a company or country to pay for these expenses, it's great for you. BTW I'm far from having that kind of money, so it's just hearsay and personal research.
I see where you're coming from. Reminds one of "refuseniks" and modern-day China's queasiness about its people leaving.
But there's always going to be more people who want in than out, and I don't think there's ever be point anywhere in the near future in which this is going to change...
The vast majority of CCTV cameras in the UK are privately owned, on private property. What is the problem here? I don't know where this "surveillance state" idea came from but it's largely a myth.
It is particularly amusing because most times the people complaining about this strongly advocate the freedom to do what you like on your own property, without which there would be no CCTV cameras.
Everyone who is in the USA and is not a Native American had ancestors who left where they were from. Often not under ideal circumstances, there where no guaranteed jobs waiting for anyone over here, just the opportunity for something better.
I wasn't insinuating that you go back from whence your family came. I was trying to point out that it is in human nature to migrate to somewhere that holds the possibility of a better life. Not knowing the culture or language is not as big of a barrier as people are making it out to be.
Not knowing the culture or language is as big of a barrier as people are making it out to be.
The #1 concern of someone leaving a country, is whether or not the receiving country is actually a better place. It is absolutely critical to understand the culture of where you're going to, if you expect to evaluate how you're gonna live.
I wouldn't consider that to be a huge barrier, necessarily.
The best way to learn a language, and overcome language barriers, is just to move there. Not to wait until you've got the language. Because, honestly? - If you're not speaking it every day, maintaining reasonable fluency is very difficult. You can't get to that sort of skill just putting in a couple of hours here and there in a piecemeal fashion. Even with the best of intentions, how many hours a day do you speak your new language?
The same factors that work against you in your own country work for you in another's though: It's not that hard to learn a new one if your old one is not particularly dominant in your life. When you, by necessity, go from practising a few hours a week to 12-15 hours every day; while being exposed to excellent speakers of the language, while being heavily incentivised to advance (because, hey, if you don't you'll be lonely and vulnerable) ; you get better at what you're doing very quickly.
So, I wouldn't be too bothered about getting the language particularly nailed down before moving somewhere - provided, of course, you don't immediately need to be working or something. If you do, then hiring a tutor and drilling the basics of the language in first is a good idea - you can get vastly superior results that way than by taking classes with others (who may not be as serious about it as you.)
There are many international IT companies in Europe where English is the lingua franca (speaking from my experience in Catalonia and the Netherlands). Learning the language of the country is a welcome courtesy, but it is often not a requirement.
It's extremely simple. You just pull your finger out and do it. I've hopped continent four times so far in my life, and have no intention of stopping. Sure, family, ties, etc., but it's not like you can't visit them, and languages you learn on the go. People are patient.
Anyway. Better to go now, than to wait for them to take your passports away.
Heh. I'm in a wheelchair. I still haven't done a completely independent trip overseas, but I'm working on it. I guess that'll be an interesting blog when I do.
Real easy is something that only happens when your circumstances fall into some kind of normal bounds.
Yeah, I left too. I've lived in a couple parts of Europe and then Japan since leaving. All of them feel more "free" than post-Bush (I guess I really mean post-Bin Laden) USA; people enjoy more civil rights, and (more pragmatically) more freedom from idiotic hassle in the name of... whatever kind of fuckery it is that keeps the prison lobby, the TSA, and the general industrial-fearmongering complex in business and free of logical constraints.
But, leaving is not really a simple solution, at all. It is both complex and unsatisfying. Thankfully, my wife and kid are with me (and btw, compared to Japan, the USA seems like a completely insane place to raise a kid) but I still have family there, not to mention friends, business interests, tax obligations, etc.
I feel like my country is occupied by an enemy force, and that feeling is hammered home every single time I fly home, within minutes of deplaning.
The rampant xenophobia in Japan is what keeps me from moving there. You mean even if I becomes a naturalized citizen (an ordeal in itself) that most places will still treat me like a foreigner? No thanks.
The US is occupied by an enemy force that they supported and elected. Every time another basic human right is violated by the legislative and executive branch those cheer. Does it matter that drunk driving kills more people per year in the US than acts of terror? Does it matter that more people die from prescription drug dispensation mistakes? Not to the mind of the scared American.
I've lived seven years in Japan. Even if I were to get Japanese citizenship, I wouldn't identify myself culturally as Japanese (and neither would Japanese think of me as Japanese).
Countries like the US separate cultural identity and citizenship, so having citizenship but still being seen as a foreigner might seem a bit strange at first. On the other hand, if I was to go to the US, there are certain cultural identities I could never have. For instance, as a white guy, I could never be treated as an African American, no matter how much I wanted to be or tried.
Yes. It's very different to what you get, for example, in Australia. Or most parts of Europe. Yes, you'll probably be a gaijin forever, even if you get naturalized (and renounce to your other nationality). But there's a huge difference between what the japanese are, and have always been, and xenophobia. Of course you get a different treatment unless you show them what you know and your respect, but it boils down to the kind of society it is and the fact that you're, at first sight, different from them. But different, not worse.
This might sound really weird but I actually believe that for people who like freedom post-communist countries that were NOT part of Soviet Union can be quite good place to live right now.
I had previously spent 7 months in the US and I had lived in UK for 2.5 years and now I live in the Czech Republic. I guess this is very subjective but I believe that for example this country currently offers way more freedom than the "land of free" or UK. It has its downsides but not as many as an average citizen of western country would probably think. You could live pretty comfortable "nice apartment, designer clothes and BMW" life in Prague if you wish so (not that I do). It's not how Americans usually imagine Eastern Europe and because of the past people are more sensitive about government intrusion and the government is weak - do not conflate Eastern Europe with Russia with that weird authoritarian shit (the anti-gay law etc.) - this is completely different world here.
Just my $0.02 - it's about personal priorities. And it still feels weird just saying this... given what I thought 25 years ago.
EDIT: I should not have said 'countries that were NOT part of Soviet Union' - certainly not all of them, for example I hear really nice things about Estonia and I am sure that not all ex-Soviet countries are like Russia.
Every place has their pros and cons. Eastern Europe feels quite free in the context of daily living, but graft and corruption seem to be the mo of the powers that be.
Which part of Eastern Europe? I don't know the whole Eastern Europe really well but speaking for the Czech Republic (where I was born) I would say exactly the opposite is true at least when we are talking about tolerance to homosexuality... which might be related to the fact that unlike in the US or UK, religion has practically no influence here.
I don't know about xenophobia - I don't see it but if there is something above the average it would probably be related to the fact that people are not used to 'xeno' elements because this has always been pretty homogeneous and closed society.
I am beginning to realize that I made a mistake when I started talking about Eeastern Europe as a whole. I am Czech and I only know the Czech Republic really well (and Slovakia, for obvious reasons).
And also Eastern Europe is apparently not as homogeneous as I made it to be - there are big differences for example between catholic countries like Poland and atheist countries like Czech Republic (tolerance to homosexuality, abortion and stuff like that are strongly related to religious views). Despising Jews? I have seen it way more in Western Europe than here.
And if you are black or Hindu or Pakistani please excuse that some people have some bias... please try to understand that this has been very closed society and up until recently there were no black or Hindu or Pakistani people at all. People could not travel during communist regime... there was basically no opportunity to learn tolerance to different cultures etc. Yes, there are some racists here (like everywhere else) but I believe that Czech people are generally above average tolerant. But I am obviously biased.
I'm dual Polish/US citizen. Yes, that's true. However, you need to adjust for cultural differences. I.e. in the US people in general smile to you and pretend they don't mind you're gay. But then, Prop 8 comes up in "liberal" CA, and what happens? Yeah, right liberal. ;-)
You see, the US culture is very, very fake. Americans are fake. They'll smile in your face, tell you how much they love you, and then talk sht about you behind your back and hate just as much as a stereotypical Pole will. The only difference is that in Poland people will tell you stuff in your face while in the US it is all love, sensitivity, smiles and roses and everybody is just trained to talk the talk. But they never walk the walk. The problem with Poles is they had enough communists telling them what to say to be ignorant to the whole political correctness thing.
My guess is that if we could get into people's heads you would see they think probably the same stuff in both places. When for that example they see a gay couple kissing in public. The difference is that in the US they will pretend they're fine with it (and then show you their hate when voting), while in Poland - yeah - they'll openly tell you what they think about you.
Since I was talking about post-communist countries that were NOT part of Soviet Union I don't think that the Russian example applies here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6282131
LekkoscPiwa's comment and your reaction to it are IMO very interesting example of a different perception which can lead to so many misunderstandings. Your comment only makes sense if you include Russia into the term 'Eastern Europe' and technically you are right - Russia is part of Eastern Europe. But I am pretty sure that LekkoscPiwa did not mean it this way - when he said 'we' he almost certainly did not mean also Russia. This is a bit difficult to explain to people who are not from here but when we talk about this stuff here we say 'we' in a sense of countries that have similar cultural background - like Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland... Russia is completely different world and they certainly are not perceived as 'we Eastern Europe' - Russia is simply Russia, separate entity, not part of the team, different culture, different rules, even the alphabet is different.
Dear LekkoscPiwa, did I get it right?
I am sure you did not mean it that way but it might be interesting to know that many people would be seriously offended here if you included Russians into the perception of 'them' - people from outside of the Eastern block do not see internal differences important to people who lived inside - like the fact that 'Rusáci' occupied us for many years and are still perceived as the enemy by many people here. To make a simplified example to make it understandable - imagine someone talking about 'you western countries' and including example of 'your' behaviour - Nazi Germany.
Well no, I didn't include former USSR for the sake of discussion. Jew hatred in Poland is surprisingly common, despite actual Polish Jews being virtually extinct since WW2.
The fact that Russia is possibly even more xenophobic than Poland doesn't change much.
I'm Belarussian myself, so well aware of sentiments in the 'hood in either direction. The nuance is not lost on me :)
Jews were about 20% of population in Poland before WW2. Some cities, like Krakow or Lodz, this number was closer to 50%.
Go to Arizona or California and tell me if it is difficult to find people who hate Latinos who don't make even such a big minorities there as Jews used to in pre-war Poland.
This has nothing to do with Jews specifically. Look at this how Arabs are treated in France (Paris) or London.
Once a group that has different language, religion, customs, and its own ghettos is large enough - my guess about 1/3 of total population - the natives will react the way the do. Poland or US, doesn't matter.
Bluntly, I don't really care how Poles are perceived. There's little that can be done about it. And it's actually beyond funny to take the whole country and say "all Poles are like this". Try doing that with Israel or gay. All gay are this or in Israel people just hate Arabs. Try saying that. But, yeah as long as Poland or Russia goes you can degrade as much as you want. And I don't really care, it just shows you that people are racists/xenophobic even when they are victims of racism and xenophobia. Makes it just this much more funny.
Oh boy! I'm flying overseas soon for the first time in about 7 or 8 years. Does this imply they have backscatter and there's no alternative? I'm guessing this is at every international airport?
I see it's random? Sorry I'd rather ask somebody who's been there then misread the carefully crafted Q&A.
I don't understand the Australian impulse to push this technology when they are under a very low if not non-existent threat. When I was there I was 'wanded' multiple times.
Airports are only a symptom of a wider problem and I see this as running away. Much like when a bear is chasing you, you only have to be faster than those around you. Eventually the bear will chase you again and you'll be the only one left. To make that a little more concrete, you can only keep moving while there are viable places to move to. Sure, that's probably fine for our lifetimes but we're handing on a legacy where we refuse to fight for anything. When these machines and processes are everywhere they become even harder to fight against.
Edit: Also, moving when you have family (partner, kids), becomes even more complex and stressful. It's simply not a viable option for many.
I'd like to replace your bear with a pendulum. History has shown that public sentiment towards authoritarianism is cyclical. Certainly Nazi Germany represented an authoritarian regime that was more repressive than the current US government (history will tell how long this remains true...), but that played out. Now Germany has a wonderful framework of laws and regulations to guard personal privacy.
What leaving does is control how far the pendulum swings. Imagine if Fermi hadn't left Italy? Or consider Lise Meitner who didn't leave Germany when everyone else did (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lise_Meitner). In her words, "It was not only stupid but also very wrong that I did not leave at once."
Reminds me of a Keynes quote: "Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent."
In this case, the pendulum can remain autocratic far longer than your life is worth it - if you feel that fighting is not possible, perhaps the best move is to worry about your own (family's) safety first.
When a bear is chasing you, if it is a black bear (scared of you) you play dead. When a bear is chasing you and it is a grizzley, you stand tall, don't run, yell, and act combative. Otherwise the bear may see you as lunch.
I think that is a great metaphor here. If the government no longer respects the people, then the right approach is to stand tall and say things loudly. If they do then compliance is better.
Actually, it's not a solution. If everyone who questions such ineffective and intrusive procedures leave, the ones who imposed them on your fellow citizens win.
It's not my country, but I like it a lot. And it deeply saddens me to see what is happening to it.
Actually, if we could get 50% of all engineers and technophiles to flee the US, the insanity would have to stop. (How would they continue to pay for it?)
May not be a terrible strategy going forward if the US starts looking like an end-stage Weimer Republic, especially since people will have to flee anyway.
> Actually, if we could get 50% of all engineers and technophiles to flee the US, the insanity would have to stop.
On the contrary, I'd expect it to worsen. Engineers and technophiles are some of the most outspoken groups opposed to the surveillance state and other abuses of power, especially technological ones. They're also the groups most likely to invent technological workarounds to abuses of power.
> How would they continue to pay for it?
The same way it's being paid for now: massive debt.
> Engineers and technophiles are some of the most outspoken groups opposed to the surveillance state and other abuses of power
Yes, but it doesn't seem to me like they have any impact whatsoever. Maybe I'm incorrect, though.
> The same way it's being paid for now: massive debt.
If the US economy were to crash (which it would if 50% of STEM workers leave, I think), I'm not sure if US debt would be worth anything.
More generally speaking, though, the US military and intelligence system is very highly dependent on highly skilled STEM workers. I suspect that there is already a labor shortage affecting them, and I suspect that, via their shenanigans, they are running a serious risk of seriously crippling their capabilities in the upcoming decades.
Among my colleagues in grad school, I was one of minority that was seriously willing to consider work in the military sector as a career, and now even I'm not.
Well, it isn't yet an end-stage Weimer Republic. I'm just saying that it could forseeably, possibly get there.
And while the US could implement many aspects of fascism (particularly government control of industry that is nomially help privately, which is alredy the case for telecom), a war for global domination is not likely one of them.
Rather than leave, the better solution is to force the rights-violators to stop. They are the ones in the wrong, they should be ashamed and shamed.
This reminds me of the NSA recruitment session at the University of Washington (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVIHvbYYxJo) where the NSA agent tried to tell a skeptical student that she should not keep asking embarrassing questions, because even if an NSA job was not right for her, she should not prevent other students from joining the agency. In other words, it's fine to disagree with turning your country into a police state, you don't have to join the secret police, but don't interfere with your fellow citizens who want to profit from joining the police force.
"when bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." --Edmund Burke
as someone who recently moved TO the US - you are delusional. as if there is a magic, fairy place that is freedom and liberty and pixies.
Asia? good luck, the individual has awesome rights, try talking badly about the thai royalty for example. go on, please do.
Europe? Just moved from there, great place. But if you're looking for the right to act out your individual freedom (which ends where it impacts the freedom of ours), then you're in for a suprise. US constitution does not apply there. No amendments. No pleading the fifth or other stuff.
Maybe Somalia is the place for you. No one will force you through a milliwave scanner there.
Just off the top of my head, countries that are both freer and less insane: Canada, The Netherlands, Norway, Iceland, New Zealand, Singapore, Estonia, Latvia, Switzerland.
Freer in terms of personal freedom, civil rights, economic freedom.
In the US you have:
1. Forced to sign up for the draft.
2. Your "Army Reserves" and "National Guard" DEPLOYED to fun places like Afghanistan on a rotating schedule. No they did not agree to it, reserves are meant to defend a country when it is attacked, not to be pulled into a regional conflicts. Canada for example, has reserves, but they arn't in Afghanistan unless they volunteer to.
3. Every call and email monitored.
4. A militarized police state.
5. Massive hidden intelligence budgets.
6. Drug sales by intelligence forces.
7. 5% of GDP just on the military, let alone "intelligence" and "security" (NSA / CIA / TSA / etc).
8. Private prisons with bribed judges.
9. 1% of men in jail, CURRENTLY (with more on parole).
10. 0.5% of women in jail.
11. Domestic drones.
12. Laws against using cryptography without registering it with the NSA.
13. The most aggressive fingerprint collection system out of any country in the world.
15. Project mockingbird (seriously wtf is the point of a "free press" if your own CIA has infiltrated it).
16. A do not fly list that has millions of people on it none of which can contest the reasons why. This is made worse since it was held up by the courts (under the guise that they can always take a train). In Canada we have less than a thousand people and there is a mechanism for challenging it.
America only feels free while you are there and under the radar.
you don't like the draft in the US, which never gets executed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland
"Compulsory military service concerns all male Swiss citizens, with women serving voluntarily. Males usually receive initial orders at the age of 18 for military conscription eligibility screening. About two-thirds of young Swiss men are found suitable for service, while alternative service exists for those found unsuitable."
you cite rules about firearms and business as a downside in the US? the most hilarious thing ever. come over to Europe, please, and try to buy a handgun. plus open a business.
no fucking clue about the world, but spewing BS.
talk to leftist/liberals in the countries you've listed, please do. they all complain about the very same things. we have had biometric passports here for a while now, etc.
the big difference between the US and Europe? The US has the means to actually execute their ideas. the EU is slowly moving towards the US model by joining forces and sharing resources.
I have seen more of the world than you would guess, and there is this FUD all over the place. I was on the fence about including Switzerland, but their banking law and gun law is much more sane than the US.
The draft in the states was used in Vietnam.
Opening a business in ALL of Europe is hard (especially France) but in most of the countries I listed it is easy. Stop grouping all of Europe into one big thing.
Biometric passports are horrible, but the US requires it for certain forms of visitation.
"NL Passports issued from 21 September 2009 include fingerprints. Dutch identity cards are lookalike versions of the holder's page of the passport and contain the same biometric information."
You're misinformed and wrong, but you'll never admit it. Whatever.
While I agree with you on numerous points, your point #1 is pretty much par for the course in lots of countries.
In fact, I think the move to not draft those signed up (forcibly, I agree) is the reason that some of the other points (e.g.: #2,#3) are even issues - if the burden of war were spread in a regular manner (and forcibly) on the US populace, there would be very little tolerance for war... all those armchair soldiers buying guns would be off fighting a war or suffering through a family member getting killed/wounded involuntarily (just like the poor citizens of the country that's being occupied).
I know hacker news doesn't generally appreciate comments like this, but moving to Europe is the last thing you want to do if your objection is based on the political theory of individual liberty. Practically speaking the US is losing respect for personal freedom, but at least there's a legal framework and founding ideal for it here.
If your rely on rules to maintain order, bad actors will figure out how to "game the system". If you rely on people to maintain order, bad actors will bribe and corrupt those in charge.
The US has traditionally relied more on rules, and you are correct in citing that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights still represent the most comprehensive set of rules in the world guarding personal freedom. In turn, you also have "enemy combatants", "extraordinary rendition", "enhanced interrogation techniques", "national security letters", and "corporate personhood" that all represent ways in which people have gamed the system. Rules, alone, are not enough. You also need people.
(Consequently, where I live now there has always been much greater reliance on people over rules, and as such corruption is a major problem... Striking the right balance can be difficult.)
Could you elaborate on why you believe European countries to have no legal framework for individual liberty? (if I understood your statement correctly)
This is an honest question — I believe things to be exactly the opposite, but I'll correct my belief if I'm wrong.
A lot of countries are scalating in surveillance because there is the perception that US is trying to desestabilize a lot of governments with this disclosed programs. And, of course, could be for real, so the country where you land could eventually be desestabilized in a few years, and things will get ugly (look at middle east for a hint).
And, as a foreigner. your privacy on the global internet is ensured to not be respected by US intelligence agencies, at all. Not that it would make a difference in a few years, but still is something to take into account.
The only place on the world where you can have a chance to revert this trend is US, staying, voting, being active, chances are pretty slim, but better than the zero you get if are outside.
I'd also add that the three worst travel experiences I've ever had were: immigration at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport, anything at all London-Heathrow, immigration at Toronto Pearson.
Schiphol, El Prat, Marco Polo, Dublin, da Vinci, Kloten and Munich get me in and out without any fuss at all. Though security at Schiphol was about what you'd contend with at Dulles.
Domodedovo and Koltsovo are very mediocre and busy, but function. You might get harassed by security, you might not. Who knows? It's Russia after all.
Kuwait was easy-in easy-out, but basic airport services were generally a mess, due mostly to rampant queue hopping that none of the employees put a stop to.
My consistent best anywhere is traveling to South Korea. I would replace every airport on the planet with Inchon Int'l if I could.
In the U.S. Washington DC-Dulles and Denver are pretty smooth operations most days, JFK and LaGuardia are crowded but function and security doesn't really harass you, Charleston, SC is one of the easiest to get in and out of (even internationally). San Francisco, Sea-Tac and Portland are..."alright". LAX kinda sucks. O'Hare is a nightmare almost on the scale of Heathrow and Atlanta is a mess most days with what must be strictest security on the planet.
> I'd also add that the three worst travel experiences I've ever had were: immigration at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport, anything at all London-Heathrow, immigration at Toronto Pearson.
Funny, my only complaint about Toronto was that the immigration officials tried hard enough to avoid charging me the work permit fee that it wasted a bunch of our time.
Best experiences though have been Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. Worst experiences have been Houston and JFK NYC. Sea-Tac is ok aside from the body scanners.
I was surprised that just recently on an in-state flight from Spokane to Sea-tac and back, I did not get scanned at all, I only got the metal detector treatment. I had thought that the gawk-at-you-naked scanners were the default everywhere no matter where you were traveling.
I was surprised to find that leaving Tegel in Berlin was easy as can be, short lines, quick trip through the metal detector. The entry process at Sea-Tac was another story though. It took forever. You got grilled, you got the German Shepherd dog sniffing your crotch, and you had to wait for all your bags to be x-rayed. Some of the agents seemed to be behaving in a very rude way, in particular I remember one agent seemingly being a real jerk to some poor old guy who didn't speak English well. I remember thinking how bad an impression of the US that the foreign visitors in line must be forming. I was at that moment embarrassed to be a citizen.
Sometimes they randomly open and close security lines between scanners and metal detectors. To avoid the hassle, I pick the lines that are obviously headed to a metal detector. When I opt out, I do it firmly but politely, and never had anyone say something except one time a TSA man said "You know this isn't dangerous radiation, right?" I just said "It doesn't matter. I'm opting out." I always take the pat-down in public and they vary a lot in quality.
I'm kind of scratching my head here, because that doesn't jive with my experiences (and I do have plenty of experience of entering Canada there as a non-Canadian -- in fact, I've done it twice in the past month). Some times of day the lines are a bit longer than others, but I just don't know of anything else that I'd consider to be bad about it.
I hope it's better recently. I've only been through Toronto Pearson twice and it was a royal screw up each time: luggage for my entire plane was sent to the wrong area and nobody knew where it was, it took 3 hours to figure it out thus missing connecting flights for 300 people, harassing immigration officers as we tried to make alternate flight arrangements because it was a no cell phone area (where were we supposed to go?), customs hand searched my bags both times and on and on.
I've since decided not to fly into North America via Toronto from now on it was so bad.
I dearly love my Canadian neighbors so I hope they've since straightened it out.
Meanwhile, a couple years ago I was flying in through Toronto, and had been re-booked (from United to Air Canada) because of a delay. Which meant my bag arrived on a different flight than I did; the customs and security folks were all as nice as could be when I explained the problem, gave me no hassles about it, and got me through the process of claiming the bag and getting it through immigration pretty quickly once it arrived.
I'll agree with 2 of your 3 worst travel experiences only because I haven't experienced one of them personally, but for the other two, I agree 100%
The funny thing is, in CDG, what was bad was the immigration exit control. Entry was a breeze and I was asked exactly zero questions even having presented a non-EU passport.
The problems I've had at CDG were in entry control. 4 or 5 jumbo jets disgorging in-bound passengers at the same time all to be routed through a single immigration officer. Sure there's a ton of booths, but only one officer. I think they've both been mid-afternoon Saturday arrivals.
One time I think I timed it at around 2 and a half hours to get processed. No particular questions, just the usual look at the passport, look at you, stamp off you go. But there were probably a thousand people passing through the control point.
As someone that lives in a neighborhood (in the USA) where leaf blowers are being used constantly all weekend long, I don't see this as a suppression of freedom at all.
of all the things bothering me about Germany, this is not one of them. More the fact that nearly all shops close at 8pm and everything is closed on sunday.
This also means that if you work in a shop you can go home shortly after 8pm and you have a free Sunday. The difference here is that Germans (arguably) respect the time off-work more.
As an international traveler that for some reason ends up arriving in Germany Sundays, let me assure you, it sucks to high heaven that I can't get something to eat or drink easily.
Last time I went to Germany was...2009? I grabbed something to go at the airport and hit the road for my destination in central Bavaria. After I checked into my hotel, I hit six entire towns where everything was closed. It was around 6-7pm on a Sunday. Which is a hugely popular eating out time for families in the States. I finally found a Kebab place that was open and stuffed myself to the gills I was so starved. The rest of the week was perfectly fine. The next Sunday? Same thing, only I made sure to have a couple pre-made sandwiches in my hotel room and some breakfast meats I stored in the fridge from breakfast the previous day.
The Middle of Bavaria. Of course the airport had food. But I was 2 and a half hours away from an airport by autobahn. Every restaurant for dozens of kilometers around was closed.
I asked my hotelier about it and he just shrugged and told me where to get some kebab three towns over.
In Japan, there is no such law, and nearly all stores close at 8 PM anyway, many on sundays as well. There are 24/7 convenience stores which are almost exactly like German gas stations minus the gas. The net effect: harldy any difference.
> you can't take your empty bottles to the recycling bins on Sunday for example
I don't know Germany but it seems you're suggesting Germany curtails freedom in the name of economic efficiency, but not as much as the US for "national security" and what not.
> it seems you're suggesting Germany curtails freedom in the name of economic efficiency
Not even that. I believe it has to do with Ruhezeit (Quiet Time.) It's just that rattling the bottles is noisy, so it is more like curtailing freedom in the name of neighbors' freedom to have their Ruhe.
That's not a solution, unless you mean 'never go anywhere.' TSA is expanding into more modes of transportation [1]. Unchecked, you'd soon see them at every train station, bus terminal and eventually intervals of the interstate.
Do you happen to know — what happens if you try to decline to enter the full-body-scanners at AMS? Does Schiphol also have a "pat down option" like the TSA offers?
Thinking of other European countries, in the UK, signs at Gatwick say that if you are selected for a full-body scan and decline to use the machine, you will not be allowed to travel.
The use of the full-body scanners at Schiphol is optional. The agents there are not very well-trained about this fact but people do normally succeed in opting out. For example, I succeeded after OHM earlier this month, though I was given more push-back than when opting out in the U.S.
Here is a Dutch government site about the scanners confirming that travelers are allowed to opt out:
Maybe if you're a loner with no friends or attachments, sure.
Most people have lives. If you've ever seen people struggling to get by in what looks like a bombed out hellhole, remember this. People in Zimbabwe, Lebanon, and even Detroit are suffering, but only because for them the alternative is even worse: Being disconnected.
I prefer Oren's approach: writing about the experience—provoking discussion, even outrage, and eventually change.
I've lived overseas many times, but my simple advice when making life choices is to ask yourself wether you are running _to_ something (an amazing opportunity) or _away_ from something else.
Advocating for change takes stamina and patience. There are many good reasons to leave the US. And, like other nations, the US has some large and seemingly unsolvable problems. I just don't believe that the current state of airport security is immutable.
I'll concede that 9/11 had far-reaching impacts, predicated on our own fears and overreactions. What I won't concede is my home.
I did exactly that during the second term of Bush Jr. Left for Canada, and haven't been back since. The longer I'm gone, the more I don't want to go back. I miss my guns, but I'd miss my rights more.
My relatives have to experience egregious security checks while coming to visit me, but once they're here, their human rights are respected. Many of them (NRA members, even) are thinking of moving here for good.
Is simple the right answer (and moving abroad is NOT simple)? I did just that with the Bush years - first to London then to Singapore.
Obama convinced me to come back (I know) - but I don't have the same feeling now that he's betrayed us as well.
We have to stay and fight. We need more than one of a hundred of us being as brave as the poster. We need it to be clear that we are going to vote anyone out that keeps this apparatus running unchanged.
It would be quite a wheeze if countries started offering American (and UK) citizens political asylum, and favorable conditions. Long been said that the US is a brain drain for other countries, well, reverse it.
Perhaps that could be a great way for us to protest. If lots of US and UK (Aussies? Kiwis? Canadians?) citizens/subjects applied for political asylum in countries like Russia, would that send a message? At the very least, it would be bloody amusing!!!
You're joking. There's nothing simple about leaving a country of which you are a citizen! Besides, if you don't like something in a democracy, you work towards changing it. You don't just up and leave.
Don't leave. Fight. They do it because there is no reaction to their actions. Right there when waiting you should have called your attorney. What I would do: tell them they let me go or I call my attorney who'll shortly come and sue them for violating my constitutional rights.
How is that a solution? If you're about to take a flight, you already spent a bunch of money, which usually means you really want or need to get to your destination.
Leaving doesn't solve anything. You think TSA gives a crap? No, they get paid either way. You think airlines give a crap? No, they already got your money, and now they have an empty seat that they can resell (via the overbooking process).
If your singular judge of freedom and human rights is the annoyances of the TSA, there is a small chance this enormous decision may solve your concern.
If you have other concerns, you're likely to be sadly disappointed by overt corruption, intolerance, censorship, extreme taxation, or other ways your freedom can be violated.
"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.
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)?
Yeah just tell the agent when you first walk up then hold your stuff aside as needed. Mostly they totally get it but once I had a guy tell me to send it through. I told him no way because I always travel with an instrument and he backed down so I guess my situation is a little different.
Honestly I've never been made to wait more than 5 minutes and in the last couple years I've probably been on 100 flights but I have had asshats try and tell me that I'm wrong for wanting to opt out. I ask that person for the manager and the comment card every time and I've been profusely apologized to by the manager every time.
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.
> 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?
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.
Eh? What's the relationship between credibility and civility? He may be losing your respect, but he certainly loses no credibility. Still, it reminds me of what Vonnegut says in _Hocus Pocus_:
> Profanity and obscenity entitle people who don't want unpleasant information to close their ears and eyes to you
People will search for reasons to dismiss anything you say. Being utterly civil takes away the easy reasons. Vonnegut takes this to such extremes in the book that it becomes satirical, but taken at face value it is still meaningful.
As someone whose family is frequently stopped at airports and borders because of their Muslim names (the Christian-named half of my extended family universally makes it through, the ones with Muslim names universally have trouble, even when both travel together), I've learnt that the word 'damn' is near horrific but that hours of detention are okay.
I've also found this technique to be effective in getting a speedy opt-out: I get in line for the imaging machine; when I reach the front of the line, I firmly and loudly announce "OPT OUT"; they have me step aside; then I let 5 people pass me, get back in line, and repeat.
That is a great idea! I have not really ever had to wait long for an opt out screening but I am keeping this one in my back pocket for if the wait is ever egregiously long.
> 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.
Wait, how do you do this? Do I wait holding my stuff until the assist comes up, and then make them wait as I put my things on the machine? Do I get to "cut in line" and put my stuff in front of everybody else's stuff on the conveyor?
Yes, in fact as parent has stated this is the standard procedure. I've have been yelled at and demeaned many times by these self entitled federal mall cops for this and many other non-issues.
They treat you like criminals.
Only two weeks ago as I flew from SFO to JFK, I was held up for twenty minutes before I even got a screening. Then the guys tells me he has found chemical traces on his gloves prompting a screening they refused to do in public.
With his supervisor present and giving me dirty looks, they turned my bags upside-down and grabbed my junk with their palms.
Luckily the plane I was flying on was delayed two hours from its previous destination or I would have missed my flight.
The kicker is, some other passenger is walking around the airport scot-free with the "chemical traces" they are supposedly looking for.
I get harassed about 50% of the time when I fly. I fly back and forth through the same airports every other month. I recognize these guys harassing me, I see them a dozen times a year.
It's because I have an Arabic last name and a hefty beard. These guys are racially profiling American citizens.
Oh yeah, after all of it, they always recite the canned "Sorry for any inconvenience, have a nice day" with a fake smile.
Well, this turned out to be a little longer than I had expected. At least the first sentence was relevant to your post =)
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.)
> 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 have been arguing this for a long time. The removal of magnetometers is a very bad thing security-wise. I am not opposed to the use of bodyscanners where there is reasonable suspicion, but the idea that we virtually strip search everyone and omit the magentometers is just asking for trouble.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Don't worry. TSA is trying its best to expand to other means of transportation, too. How else are they going to keep asking for bigger and bigger budgets? That whole "airline-only" thing is pretty limiting.
Self-driving cars will kill air travel for distances shorter than an overnight car trip. Or we will suddenly find that airlines' customers are not a security risk and deserve good service throughout their trip.
Not really though. I regularly travel 1000 - 1500 km on US domestic flights for business on Embraers and CRJs. It's way too long a trip to do by car and high speed passenger rail isn't really a thing that exists here in the US.
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.
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?
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.
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.
No, you shouldn't. Cops are not there to "keep you safe." They are there to enforce the law. Never talk to cops without a lawyer. This lecture, by a law professor and former defense attorney, explains why <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc>
I do find many applications of metal detectors and places where I'm required to show ID objectionable. While relatively minor, I do consider such things unnecessary intrusions in to personal liberty, and I would rather live in the sort of society where they are rare. Instead, they've become more common.
I am willing to accept an increased risk that a criminal might bring a weapon in to a sensitive place or that a teenager might get drunk and hit me with a car in exchange for an increased sense of freedom, even if the actual freedoms involved are fairly trivial. Leaving slippery-slope arguments out of it, I think that the collective mindset of a culture that accepts these risks and spends less time and energy worrying about them encourages more people to strive to reach their full potential.
The scanners are already worthless. They can be defeated by being overweight and putting $dangerousitem under a fat fold, or between your butt, or any of a million other places.
They are actually less secure than magnetometers, which is my primary objection to them. They take longer, are more invasive, and are less effective. Why would I support that when the magnetometers exist and work well?
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...
That's not a metal detector, it's a system designed to scan for tagged items.
My problem with the scanners is that they are invasive AND ineffective. They aren't protecting me, but they do train me to complacently subject myself as an innocent, not-charged-with-a-crime citizen to pre-emptive searches. That's just not alright by me.
- They actively image your naked body. Metal detectors do not.
- They record said image of our naked body for an indefinite amount of time. Metal detectors do not.
- A human views the image of your naked body, and makes a subjective assessment of whether or not something suspicious has been detected, based on a wide range of parameters. A metal detector is a simple on/off detection based on an extremely narrow range of parameters.
In short, they are invasive because a human is involved. Let's not forget the cases (now rarer) of TSA agents guffawing at each others' penis sizes, or deliberately checking out women in the scanner, etc. My objections against the scanners would be greatly nullified if:
- All decision making is made via computer. No human ever sees the image.
- All images are immediately discarded. No record of the scan exists except the result.
- The parameters of detection are open and transparent.
The invasiveness of the scan has less to do with the scan and more to do with the tremendous opportunity for abuse it represents - both at the low level (individual TSA agents) and high level (as a matter of policy).
This whole rant hasn't been true for over a year. All it shows now is a generic block body, with an indication of an area to check if the COMPUTER decides it needs to be checked. For the majority of people, it doesn't even show the body. It just flashes "OK" on the screen.
I managed to completely avoid flying for the whole time when rapiscan scanners were around, despite flying a relatively commonly before that. And I heard many horror stories from people during that time, even people who didn't think the TSA was so bad.
I've been flying more in the past few months, and the TSA has always been courteous and professional in those instances.
I don't know if something changed or it's all luck of the draw, but things seem much better these days.
As backed up by xxpor, I don't think this is true. But mainly, I don't see the tremendous opportunity for abuse, unless you are some sort of celebrity whose blurry nude pictures are valuable.
The TSA says that there is no human in the loop and that they are no longer storing images. I don't know how much trust and credibility they have left these days (esp. after claiming xray scanners were perfectly safe to use).
The only decision you might want to fight is not being let on the plane, and this will only happen after a physical search, or you refusing to subject to one. In either case, the scanner data seems irrelevant.
Metal detectors (as memory serves) merely detect a change in inductance due to objects having a metallic composition. It's a purely passive system.
By contrast, the full-body scanners bombard you with very mild radiation and capture results, giving the operator a view of your body and whatever you have on your person.
My background is engineering--believe me, I chose the "mild" qualifier to try and avoid "oh noes teh evul radiationz" kneejerk reaction tend to have. It's unfortunate there isn't a less emotionally-charged word to use to describe it.
As for the rest, well, just because the operator doesn't see it doesn't mean the image isn't still being taken/saved/consumed down the road.
I like how uncomfortable the TSA guy feels about grabbing my junk, because that's how uncomfortable I feel about my constitutional rights being violated. It's a constant reminder to TSA staff that what they are doing is wrong.
People appear to be standing on principle more than anything else. If you are at the airport you will see that the overwhelming majority of people have no issues going through the scanners. People from all walks of life with all sorts of jobs and intelligence. Curious also how many of these people who are standing on principle (or fringe science) smoke cigarettes or do other harmful activities (climb mountains or use power tools without eye protection).
"I hate being ordered around by flunkies who can't get any other job every time I go to the airport"
Well do you think they should merely raise the wage in order to attract higher qualified people that would normally go into other careers? You can get frustrated because when you get served in a restaurant they get the order wrong or you can realize that the rocket scientists are not holding jobs serving you in a restaurant and realize things are the way they are for a reason.
Are you interested in giving up whatever job you have and working at the TSA (or any lower level government job say a postal carrier?) I'm not so I've learned to accept these things as necessary economically.
> 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?
When metal detectors were introduced, they weren't sensitive enough to pick up the change in your pocket. They were only sensitive enough to pick up large metal objects. This meant that to start off with, you didn't have to empty your pockets to go through, and the average passenger was almost totally unaffected by them. That frog was slowly boiled, and now we take off our shoes.
We were also pretty certain back then that the way metal detectors worked had no health implications. There was simply no danger attached to being near one, nor was it even slightly suspected.
> 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...
That's not a metal detector, except in the loosest sense.
They're not metal detectors -- they're RFID scanners that sound an alarm if someone tries to steal something. A lot of products have an RFID chip attached that must be deactivated at the checkout. It's for reducing shoplifting, not for public safety.
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.
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.
They are likely referring to the electronic article surveillance systems that many shops in the US use. They detect tags that are embedded in packaging, and now even inside products by the manufacturer. The only non-governmental metal detectors I've ever had to walk through are at major tourist spots and theme parks.
If I could opt out of the whole thing, I would. I think the whole enterprise is bullshit, a giant exercise in doing something, anything, whether or not it makes sense.
So now, I opt out. And when they ask why, I tell them, "I think this is a charade."
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.
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.
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.
That would be great. The first time they do it to someone like John McCain the program will end. The ADA is easy to violate and the penalties are severe, challenging people to raise their arms would be a plaintiff lawyer's wet dream.
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.
Frowns and interrogative looks I guess. When someone does not act as the norm in situations you are expected to, people just reacts negatively, since reacting positively requires to question yourself and make a decision whether you endorse or not a behavior different than yours.
It's way more easier to dismiss self questioning and jump to the disapproval of non conform behavior, the one that everyone has already decided to follow (willfully or not).
I similarly find annoying those who realize this negative disapproval act of "non conform behavior" and try to do the opposite. TSA is a giant pain in the ass, let's do something about it to fix it and not worry too much about what its side effects are on people and what it's turning us into.
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.
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.
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".
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'.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
Interestingly, your explanation shows that in this case the term "terrorists" can (should?) be applied to "commercial interests and their lobbyists", as the parent suggested.
This may not be key to your argument, but keep in mind that there's no working definition of terrorism.
Different nations, even different bodies of the US military use semantically different definitions. Resolutions to decide on a working definition of terrorism are regularly shot down in the UN by security council veto. It's not meant to be a real word.
Selling expensive equipment to the government is a commercial interest. Increasing responsibilities/work of the TSA (arguably) is a commercial interest as well.
A strongly commercial interest, at least. No one's going to fly if the planes aren't safe, for one thing. See the other reply which has already covered the boon in selling expensive detection equipment. Once that's in place, do you think lobbyists and TSA-employee unions are going to be excited about winding them down?
No terrorist is sitting there thinking "Hell yes, we've stifled their freedom! We've won!"
I can't imagine any of the airport shops cried when people were forced by policy to throw away bottled water and other drinks before entering waiting lounges. Longer security lines increase thirst and hunger too.
Board a plane with an infant and liquids are a non-issue - milk/formula, pre-boiled water, medication, etc. I've read that you can be asked to taste products you're carrying, but never had this happen. Always wondered if someone planning to asplode a plane is really going to be deterred by needing to drink a toxic substance. (Martyrdom for their infant would be a matter for the strength of their belief.)
Other forms of transport, such as trains, don't have even a tiny fraction of the level of security that planes have, and if anything are a more effective terror target than a bomb on a plane (I would say that the terrorists got far more publicity out of the 7/7 bombings in London than they did out of Lockerbie) - I strolled around two of the busiest stations in London for a couple of hours on Saturday, and saw a single sniffer dog occasionally checking out someone's bag, and even that was far more than I normally see.
Yet we don't see train bombs on a regular basis.
So why would planes be vastly different if the level of security was ramped down?
I was wandering the same and came to conclusion that these security measures are not for our safety but the safety of our ruling elite. How often can you see a prime minister in a subway? But they often take commercial flights. And they never face such humiliating checks as we do.
P.S Is there anybody who can explain me why 5x100ml bottles are safer than one 0.5l?
I'm not sure that's even the case. The richest/most powerful will travel by private jet anyway, and many of the next tier of politicians/businessmen regularly travel by train (in first class of course) in the UK.
As soon as 9/11 happened (I'm too young to have been aware of the Troubles), I argued, and continue to argue to this day: after a terrorist attack, as soon as _anything_ is changed, anything at all for any reason, the terrorists have won.
And now an exercise for the reader: do I mean the arabs, or do I mean the government and megacorporations and their lobbyists?
> As soon as 9/11 happened (I'm too young to have been aware of the Troubles), I argued, and continue to argue to this day: after a terrorist attack, as soon as _anything_ is changed, anything at all for any reason, the terrorists have won.
Cockpit door strengthening would have been an acceptable change without declaring the terrorists had won. Beyond that I'm with you.
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.
There's no clinical trial you could possibly do to show that these machines are "safe" in the medical sense (i.e., that the benefits to human subjects outweigh the harm). You could expose animals to the same doses of radiation and see what happens. This has been done for the general types of radiation (with X-rays animals contract cancers and die at sufficiently high power, with millimeter waves there's substantially less evidence for damage), but AFAIK not with the machines themselves.
The biggest danger may not come from chronic exposure, but from an acute failure of the machine or mistake made by the operator, the probability of which could not be determined in a study anyway. (Therac-25 delivered overdoses of radiation to several patients due to a software bug; Cedars-Sinai recently reported that they had accidentally delivered dozens of CT patients doses several times higher than normal; patients get killed by oxygen tanks and other objects sucked into the magnetic fields of MRIs with startling frequency.)
In any case, I think the danger posed by millimeter wave systems is significantly less than that of backscatter machines. There are plenty of studies to show that microwaves don't cause cancer, and it's hard to imagine a malfunctioning machine delivering something harmful.
I was under the impression that since it uses radio waves, there was no question about its safety (unlike the back scatter machines). Or are we also worried about cell phones?
Yes, it should be tested for safety, if in one case it looks like a lack of due diligence, in another it looks like an excessive CYA policy with some incentive from tort cases.
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:
Body scanners are like a big "Fuck You, Citizen" from your government.
First, we know they don't work, because they only work up to the epidermis, and sometimes not even that well, as lots of dangerous things have gotten through them. If you wanted to get something on a plane, put it up your butt or somehow else in your body and it will work 100% of the time. Just don't carry a gun strapped to your body. (Though that has worked too)
In addition, even when I go through the scanners (because I am a very obedient citizen) I still get a ball-hugging pat-down after going through the scanner, because they weren't sure what they were looking at. When Germany tested the millimeter wave scanners they reported around 50% false positives that required additional pat-downs.
Second, invasion of privacy. They're taking pictures of your naked body. And gross people have been caught ogling the pictures. Besides just being creepy, there are people who have been sexually assaulted and this amounts to an additional assault, and can be emotionally damaging. Not even considering how kids and their rights factor in here.
Third, we don't know how safe they are. Nobody even bothered to do a study to find out, or even do basic safety checks, before they installed them. The backscatter machines are banned completely in the EU and several prominent doctors have been urging more studies for a variety of people who may be more susceptible to the damage X-rays do to your cells. The president of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements says there should be an effort to verify millimeter wave scanners are safe for frequent use [that has still not been done].
Patdowns are a couple hundred orders of magnitude more of a "fuck you, citizen." Standing still on a platform with your arms raised for a few seconds does not even begin to approach getting felt up by a government agent as a condition of getting to your destination.
I don't trust them to not save the images, I don't trust them to not get hacked, and I don't want some random black hat to have images of my body over time.
PS: Michael Chertoff, the former Secretary of Homeland Security, represents scanner manufacturers. So the whole thing is a massive conflict of interest if you ask me.
Assuming it's possible to say that two images are from the same person, it would be trivial to work out specifically who that was with any frequent flyer.
You'd just build up a body of images of "person 1" then cross-reference with flight records till you narrow it down to only being one possible person who had been on all those flights...
I hadn't thought about it before you asked, but this would be a perfect way to build up detailed information for biometric databases. You'd then use that with lower-fidelity sources, like video cameras.
You've got head shape, hand shape, height, shoulder width, BMI, and length of every major body segment. From there you can calculate all sorts of ratios to apply to people, and I'd bet you could make a pretty good guess at gait for motion analysis.
A database like this would also be proof against facial surgery; changing bone lengths is harder. So if you get a known terrorist once, you should be able to spot them much more easily in the future. And of course you'd keep the records indefinitely, because you never know who's going to turn out to be a terrorist. Or a drug mule. Or a political protester [1].
You asked a question. I gave you an answer. If you have a problem with that, try breathing into a paper bag for a while and see if that helps you calm down.
This technology could be plausibly misused for security purposes, and then perverted for political purposes, just like previous security technologies/bureaucracies have.
That shouldn't make you upset at the people pointing it out. Instead, direct your outrage at the portions of government that have previously done exactly this sort of thing.
I think the powers of the state to spy on its citizens should be minimal and tightly controlled, because historically they always have been abused, and modern technology makes it much easier to run a surveillance state. So if you're asking how far surveillance should go, I'd say, "quite a ways back."
I'm not particularly worried about it, though, not in the US. As my links indicate, we've been through waves of this before. As long as government stays in the hands of the people, I believe this sort of thing will come out, cause outrage, and get pruned back.
My real worry is the rising Gini coefficient and the rise in intergenerational correlation in wealth and power. If we end up with something like a ruling class, then that cycle of error and correction will fail. Some would argue that the failure to punish anybody for the crimes leading up to the economic crash is a sign we're already there, but I don't believe it's true yet.
Wiretapping and saving everything in the internet, including comms from allies and neutral parties, is foolishness or possibly a form of mental illness.
Further to that, once you can no longer travel in your own country without being strip searched it means, as the article puts it, that the terrorists have won. It's a test and a defense of freedom.
The terrorists don't win if people in America lose rights. Wtf?
Terrorists win if they don't turn into terrorists in the first place but live normal happy lives in their countries, maintaining a mild disdain for the decadent west while admiring the nice parts, like freedom and wealth.
The radicalization surely has many roots, one of them being real and imagined pressure from the West. I propose looking into that aspect a bit more. I think we (the West) are not intentionally evil towards the arab/muslim world, but that politics happens and power is applied and these people often get the short end of the deal, leading to resentment and strengthening the crazy mullah's teachings.
I think you've missed his point. I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think it's not a useful response here.
On of Osama bin Laden's stated goals was to bankrupt the US. For $1m or so in initial investment, he's gotten us to waste a trillion or so on a pointless Iraq adventure. The TSA has only cost us $100bn or so, not counting the countless hours and energy lost waiting in line and performing pointless rituals.
But more broadly, he's a terrorist. As the name suggests, the goal is to create fear. And the TSA is a giant institutionalization of that fear. It's only scared people who give up their rights. The TSA is both a response to fear and a creator of fear, and having scared this guy into compliance, they have done their job.
I am from another place that had problems with US, and I always believed US is intentionally evil, and it don't proved otherwise yet.
It behaves like a school bully, that protect its interests by beating other kids until they hand their lunch over, and when someone ask why, he says he was hungry.
I am suspicious that they are gathering biometric data (exact body dimensions) with the scans. Collating that data with flight manifests and surveillance footage would lead to very accurate automated systems for identifying people from any surveillance footage.
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.
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.
Absolutely it's a violation of my rights to be patted down. I choose that option so that other people may actually see and consider the rights that they're so casually giving up walking through the scanner.
Not that anyone wants pictures of me... but having someone take nude pictures of me without my permission and spreading them around to whomever they want without my knowledge is more of a violation of my privacy than to have a yahoo briefly invade my physical space in a controlled environment. At least, that's the way I feel about it.
Exposing yourself to regular doses of unnecessary x-rays is probably not a great idea. The human [ed.: backscatter] x-ray machines are mostly phased out already, though. Millimeter wave (the most common scanners now) is non-ionizing radiation and does not have any known association with an increased risk of cancer.
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.
> 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.
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. ))
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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"... ;)
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.
It's a matter of the principle - if you don't stand by the right to have freedom, someone will eventually erode it piece by piece. And The People will not care because "it's just a security check at an airport". It has been shown that they offer little to no added security, but they do reveal a lot about you and it is in electronic form. If it somehow was guaranteed that this information would never leak it would be a non concern - that is however not the case (they need to preserve this information in case it is needed). It is comparable to pictures of a strip search getting leaked.
It funds the surveillance state, and gives them a slippery slope statement. Why not put these as sporting events, a other government buildings, in schools? Or on street corners and then randomly or not so randomly ask citizens to go in them.
If you don't think it's possible New York has been racially profiling people and searching them without cause, in a program called 'Stop and Frisk'.
This isn't about Air Ports, this is about citizens and constitutional rights, rights that our government has taken an oath to uphold before anything else.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office,
he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
— “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
faithfully execute the Office of President of the
United States, and will to the best of my Ability,
preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of
the United States.”
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.
No, it isn't. When you're in a back room with your clothes on the floor, being asked to lift your scrotum and spread your butt cheeks, you're being strip searched.
The MM machines are annoying, invasive and potentially harmful, but saying it's analogous to being strip searched doesn't help the cause. You'll believe me if you're ever actually strip searched. It's a far worse violation.
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.
Sadly, it is only available for citizens of the U.S., Mexico and the Netherlands. Canadians can use the NEXUS program, which gives the same benefits.
(See http://www.globalentry.gov/faq.html#a2.)
So this only helps a tiny fraction of people frequently flying to the U.S.
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.
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.
This may be paranoia, but it seems like this type of programme is a politically convenient loophole. The rich white potential-campaign-donor who's flying every week can get through quickly and easily, with the inconvenience and ignominy that the rest of us have to suffer before we get on a plane. If there wasn't this shortcut, would there be more political will to scale back the checkpoints?
The big problem with Global Entry/TSA Precheck is that it requires you fly on a "participating" airline which are all the bumbling legacy behemoths and not any of the airlines (JetBlue, Virgin, Southwest) you might actually want to fly on.
I'm pretty sure most people who fly enough to really benefit from PreCheck would gladly fly their preferred legacy of choice with their first class upgrade and elite service desk standing by in case of trouble... B6/VX/WN are certainly fine establishments, but they hardly cater to the same market of flyer that the trusted traveler programs target.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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...
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).
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) 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.
On the one hand, I agree that these machines are unlikely to be a public health risk, and I further agree with you on the real problems here.
On the other, I think that that it's misleading to compare risks you choose with risks that are forced upon you. That's part of what has people up in arms here; it's clear that the TSA didn't really care about safety or privacy when they started with this, so I'm ok with people being deeply suspicious about the "no, really, it's all safe and private now" shtick.
Also, I think this is dangerous: "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."
There's always a difference between what a machine is supposed to do and what it actually does. None know that better than HNers. Given that this is a novel technology rushed into production using giant government contracts to satisfy the security theater apparatus, it's reasonable to worry whether corners were cut, worries suppressed, or facts buried.
I'm happy to trust my dentist's x-ray machine because he's a licensed, trained medical professional who's focused on healing, and who plans to stand right next to it for a couple decades. None of that applies in the TSA situation.
I think the TSA scanners are probably fine anyhow, and I've used them happily when I don't have time to be obstreperous. But I don't fault people who refuse to trust the TSA on this.
> 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.
How about a bit of warranted cynicism: How do we know the high-res versions aren't being stored? It would be useful for them to do so, the images have been stored in the past, and the announcements don't mention storage, only display.
(For those unfamiliar: High-res versions have to be taken, they definitely do exist. The vague images the TSA personal see are the result of the original images being run through ATD (sometimes called ATR or AID) filters that boil the original image down to the important parts.)
Storing the original high-res versions would probably be fantastically useful. It would provide a good data source for real-world benchmarks and operational feedback for L3, but most enticingly it would provide an audit trail for post-incident analysis so investigators could re-examine the scanned data for a targeted individual.
Given that this is the age where, by default, we store everything and analyze it later, people did talk about storing the images, even if it was entirely low key. It's just too obviously useful.
I was looking into this recently, and I couldn't find anything about the new L3 ATD machines that mentioned whether the images are stored. The parent comment's links say nothing about it and I couldn't find anything else that did, including the L3 ProVision ATD product page[1].
It certainly seems strongly implied that the images are not stored. We read phrases from L3 like "processed by software without human intervention", but that sounds somewhat suspiciously specific. OK, no one is definitely and actively looking at it, but what about potentially and passively? Is it just bad wording on their part, or is someone actually trying to leave a loophole?
If they're going to scan us in a way we feel is invasive, is it too much to get some sort of assurance that the images are being handled properly? Frankly, an audit of the machines would be more than in proper order, given that it's handling sensitive data that needs to be carefully handled.
Can anyone point out something I've missed? Is there anything that talks about image storage, not just display?
I find it odd that we can exist as a community here at HN- with reasonable dialog and exchange of ideas, but yet we can have people like you who wholesale swallow these scanners as reasonable and worth accepting.
The TSA has a history of mismanaging the use of these scanners. This includes the actual operation of the devices as well as the maintenance of the devices. They don't provide meaningful security. All encroachments into our privacy should be fought on principle.
Stop moralizing so I don't have to copy your writing style to make a point. We can disagree on topics. There shouldn't be anything off limits at Hacker News.
The tactics you are employing in your writing style are obvious to any critical reader. Do not embarrass yourself by attempting to shame the community be association. We're all above average intelligent here. Reasonable people can disagree. Unreasonable people try to leverage shame. The community of opt-outers at HN is actually a reflection of the thoughtfulness of the average Hacker News Reader. Thoughtful people can disagree about Nginx vs. Apache, just the same as they can disagree about the value of TSA's naked body scanne^d^d privacy disintermediation proxies.
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.
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.
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.
I guess that refusing the scan turns the encounter from random into 'suspicious person', giving them "reasonable grounds" to do all sorts of interrogation.
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.
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.
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.
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?
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...), 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.
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!
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".
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.
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...). 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?
> Is taking a train a privilege, not a right? Driving? A bus?
Yes to all. If you're not quite sure how to determine if something is a privilege, just see if it's mentioned in the Constitution. For example, the "pursuit of happiness" is a US right. Driving a car is not (you need to get a license and that license can be revoked).
Just because you grew up with such conveniences doesn't make them a privilege, although they have the effect of giving a sense of entitlement to people who've lost sight of what's important.
See especially the 9th amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
"Picking a different airline" isn't really a solution. The screening happens regardless of which airline you are on.
I think it should be a solution -- given both 1) cockpit doors are now secured, and 2) passengers won't let hijackers take over a flight, the risk of any in-flight incidents is borne by the passengers, and if an airline wants to compete on less invasive scanning, they should be able to do that.
The government began to make claims about traveling being a "privilege" in the 20th century. The Soviet government used to claim the same thing, so perhaps the US government took a lesson from them.
Traveling is a right, regardless of what power any government exerts to claim otherwise.
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Constitution defines what the government can do, not what the people can do.
And the one before it: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The burden of proof is on the person who's making the claim: if flying is a right, then surely being turned down from flying should be reason enough to call the ACLU and sue the government for discriminating against you, right?
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.
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.
Why are you singling out Home Depot? Most stores use security cameras these days.
Have you considered compiling a list of stores that have taken a stand against cameras for privacy-conscious people to selectively patronize? That would probably do much more towards your ends than boycotting one store out of the many that use cameras.
(I don't mind the cameras: I've given up on privacy.)
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
I take it you've never traveled for business? Or for a funeral? Or have family cross country?
I don't enjoy traveling. I travel way too much to relax while traveling, It is a necessary evil to get me to point a to point b. The quickest way is the best way, it's like ripping off a band-aid, get it done quickly and painlessly as possible. Spending 4 days driving or riding a train from New York to LA isn't appealing to me, nor is it cost effective.
I've riding The Northeast Corridor more times than I can count. I don't like driving that route, so I take that train, but it isn't cost effective at all. It isn't pleasant. The train is delayed more than on time, once total delay time was over 5 hours. Not a relaxing good time.
When I was a kid I rode a train from New York to Florida, it was terrible. We slept in the seats, just like 90% of the passengers, because that's what was affordable. Real relaxing.
If you are a regular traveler, you aren't going to want to do any of those things. I travel regularly, I don't want to leave a day early, I'm on a tight schedule. Traveling isn't vacation.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
They are not refusing. They are opting out of an optional procedure. If you think this is a smart-alecky comment, realize that it's not mine, it's the TSA's.
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.