TSA Body Scanner Opt-out No Longer Guaranteed (slashgear.com) 278
codguy writes: Up to now, airline passengers have been able opt out of the TSA's Advanced Imaging Technologies (AIT) whole body scanners, and request a physical pat-down for their security check. But ProPublica journalist Julia Angwin points out that a rule change on December 18, 2015 now allows the TSA to compel some passengers to use these scanners instead of giving them a pat-down. The updated rule says, "While passengers may generally decline AIT screening in favor of physical screening, TSA may direct mandatory AIT screening for some passengers," (PDF source). Of course, the criteria for when this can happen is completely unspecified, and one can easily imagine them abusing this by deciding to compel anyone who requests a pat-down to go through the scanners for some reasonable cause from their perspective. Guilty until proven innocent?
Just build a wall, ok? (Score:2, Funny)
Just build a wall, ok?
Get it over with.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just build a wall, ok?
Get it over with.
The wall is already built. You'd have to be batshit crazy insane to want to go to the US of A.
It is in all but name a technological dictatorship predicated on the worship of the dollar.
As for the whole thing about freedom, land of brave, american dream etc... it never meant anything at all.
Re:Just build a wall, ok? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. The USA has lost. I went to an NFL game and had to have all my shit searched. I protested as an American. Any idiot knows (which means most of America is BElOW idiot status) that it is just security theater. Any terrorist with bad intentions would get more victims detonating in the packed security line than they EVER would detonating inside the stadium. The stadium spreads everyone out and the traffic jam they create to finger our asses puts us way closer together just asking for it. It is just security theater designed to make the dumb ass public feel warm and fuzzy while we give up our constitutional rights to have our ass fingered. I though America was about doing the right thing not being scared little dumbasses who won't help Syrians in need because some of the are terrorists with bad intentions. Hell some of US are terrorists with bad intentions. Help people, don't give up your freedoms for the illusion of security have a damn spine like a real American. Get a spine and realize there are only 2 choices. Let the government be worse than the terrorists EVER could be or accept that not giving up your freedoms means we have to accept that an occasional terrorist is going to get through. It cannot be stopped 100% with ANY amount of loss of freedom so why give up any that our family lines fought and died to protect. Our government uses terror more than the terrorist do... just to a different end, and that is to control the sheeple who want warm fuzzies.
Asking to avoid it is the reason to require it (Score:2)
Re:Asking to avoid it is the reason to require it (Score:5, Interesting)
I am more concerned about the clear sign saying "DO NOT USE IF PREGNANT OR MEDICAL CONDITION".
Re: (Score:2)
Seconded. I have a benign tumour in the left side of my head (acoustic neuroma) that was detected many years ago. It has not changed in size in over a decade (verified by regular MRI's) and so far has not caused me any grief. If it did start growing, one method to stop it would be to zap it with gamma radiation; however, that carries the risk that the tumour then turns malignant. So if I'm ever forced to go through one of those "death ray boxes" I'll tell the TSA agent my cancer-risk story and see where
Re: (Score:2)
Or if you go through the scanner and constantly get a pat down. That's what happens to me, always. These things are nothing more than security theater and are there to justify that the government is doing "something" to protect the flying public. If I'm going to get patted-down anyway, I opt-out routinely because it means I get the TSA to lug my bags through the checkpoint. As I'm flying today I'll give you an update but I have a 100% confidence that I'll get a pat-down after going through the Nudeo Sca
This Was Always The Case (Score:2)
The rule was always just for the general pop, who were not currently undergoing extra screening. The TSA can pump your stomach on a whim and a suspicion, they can strip search you, they can destroy your property, they can detain you, of course they can compel you to walk through a scanner.
Pat-down or body scan? (Score:2)
Whilst I don't like the body scanner, and prefer the old fashioned metal detectors, I would happily take either in preference to a pat down.
Part of the reason that I don't like the body scanner is it is much more likely to "find" a false positive requiring a partial pat down by the officers than the metal detector is.
Only if not X-Ray Scan (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They've removed all of the backscatter devices already.
Re: (Score:2)
They have? Last I heard, they were still using them, but only at smaller airports. I'm with the GP: the terahertz ones are OK with me, but not the X-ray scanners which were never tested by the FDA for safety or radiation levels.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that the backscatter X-ray scanners were retired from TSA use in 2013-2014 or so (too much commotion and it was discovered they could be easily fooled).
Instead they moved them to courthouse and jail use.
But think of the children! (Score:2)
I Always Opt-out (Score:3, Interesting)
I fly during the primary holidays and I always opt-out ever since the process started. I've never had any issues so far and everyone has been respectable, more annoyed that they have to do extra work than anything else. Interestingly the times when it was very busy they stopped asking people to take off their shoes and let us keep our laptops in their bags.
Skin cancer runs in my family, so that's the reason I opt-out. I have no clue if the scanners promote cancer or not, but why take the risk? I'm already getting a radiation dose from flying. Do I have any recourses if they refuse my opt-out?
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:ive kept similar rules for travel. (Score:4, Interesting)
I once went through a checkpoint about an hour after visiting a bomb range. (New Mexico Tech Energretic Meaterials Research and Testing Center) and opted out. I handled C4 and ANFO then examined the damage they did and in one case stood in the resulting crater. The pat-down, wipe-the-gloves, scanner test showed nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
But carrying cheese in your carry on luggage will get the TSA guys at the airport check points really excited that they found some C4 until they open the bag and discover it's just cheese. Having a stress test where the medical technician injects radioactive material into your bloodstream a few weeks before flying causes lots of excitement too.
If a checkpoint is really swamped, they can just wave people through and bypass the entire scanner/pat down routine.
Re: (Score:2)
I decided to exit the very tedious screening line to get a beer at an adjacent microbrewery in the portland airport. Big mistake.
So you think it was okay for them to question you and confiscate your personal property because you decided you'd rather get beer and see if the line got shorter a little later?
Wow just wow. So much for the forth amendment I guess.
Re:ive kept similar rules for travel. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait a second, you call that kind of jackbooted totalitarian shit productive? What the fuck is wrong with you?!
Re: (Score:2)
Member of congress or senate card (Score:3, Informative)
is now required to opt out.
You're going to get the pat down anyway (Score:2)
The machines false like crazy. I got pat downs coming and going, as it falsed on a number of locations including the groin, of course.
Why (Score:2)
Let the punishment fit the crime (Score:3)
Personally, I believe that the TSA having to look at my near-naked scan is probably punishment enough for whatever they've done to me that trip. I'd call it even.
Doctor says I can't lift my hands above my head (Score:2)
Only "some" people (Score:2)
"While passengers may generally decline AIT screening in favor of physical screening, TSA may direct mandatory AIT screening for some passengers,"
Those "some passengers" being the commie liberal terrorist sympathisers who request to opt out of the body scanners?
Guilty until proven innocent? (Score:3)
Criteria? (Score:2)
Well... (Score:2)
"Guilty until proven innocent?"
That's what security is all about.
They've "only" destroyed 9 Medtronic insulin pumps (Score:3)
They've "only" destroyed 9 Medtronic insulin pumps ... what's 9 dead people compared to a technology proven to stop terrorists at airports, as evidenced by our large number of public trials, and the terrorists subsequently jailed, thanks to AIT scanners.
What do you mean, we've not caught a single terrorist with an AIT scanner? Are you sure?!? Try Googling it... you *must* be wrong! AIT scanners are good for you!
this is why (Score:2)
This is why I haven't flown anywhere in 15 years. This shit right here.
I'll just drive wherever I want to go in the US and sail anywhere else....
I will not let TSA grope me or my family to get on a plane.
I will not let TSA irradiate me with machines that were forced into use by the same Senator who owned a healthy share of the company that manufactured them.
I will not let TSA take my personal laptop or electronics because I won't give them the passwords to 'look through them'.
Seriously, Fuck the TSA and t
It's the TSA, so ... (Score:2)
Guilty until proven innocent?
Re:Hyberbole much? (Score:5, Insightful)
At first I was going to flame you a bit for saying that by purchasing a ticket I'm waiving my rights to not be unreasonably searched. But I'm really just tired of the whole police state thing. I just won't fly commercial. It won't change anything - there are too few people who are willing to be inconvenienced in order to preserve our rights, so Police State wins, I lose.
I'm really tired of this crap.
Re: (Score:3)
At first I was going to flame you a bit for saying that by purchasing a ticket I'm waiving my rights to not be unreasonably searched. But I'm really just tired of the whole police state thing. I just won't fly commercial. It won't change anything - there are too few people who are willing to be inconvenienced in order to preserve our rights, so Police State wins, I lose.
I'm really tired of this crap.
At the very least we can recognize that this is a police state!
When airport security checkpoints were run as part of the airline business (and were every bit as effective as the TSA without the loss of dignity), this was an inconvenience, but not a constitutional issue. Now you're searched by government employees without probable cause. "Waiving" constitutional rights is a bit of self-serving government nonsense that no one should fall for.
It's just as bad at the courthouse. I'm legally compelled to ente
Re: Hyberbole much? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Hyberbole much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Almost nobody opts out anymore (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Hyberbole much? (Score:2)
Re: Really, i mean, really ?? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
For me, I just want them to stop moving old people into the TSA PreCheck lane, or at least start giving them better instructions on what to do when they get there. I didn't pay all that money to watch you take your 10 year old Dell laptop out of the bag and start fidd
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that by law, forcing someone to remove clothing involuntarily in any situation other than during an actual arrest constitutes first-degree sexual assault under color of law, and that everyone involved—the entire TSA chain of command, the airline and airport (for allowing the TSA to ope
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Hyberbole much? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are desperate for you to believe that you can't legally leave, but there are many stories of people doing exactly that. TSA knows that they don't have the authority to prevent you from leaving - that's why they threaten an $11,000 lawsuit that they try very hard to present as a "fine". Puffed-up screening clerks have told travelers "We WILL be bringing that lawsuit" and nothing has happened.
The only authority they have is to prohibit people from entering the terminal. They can try to get airport pol
Re:Hyberbole much? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hyberbole much? (Score:5, Interesting)
Go fuck yourself. If you are not suspected of a crime, nor have had a writ or warrant signed by a judge, there is no legal basis for a search. "Purchasing a ticket" does not give anyone the legal basis to violate your rights. If you believe that, you're part of the problem.
Fortunately, I won't willingly subject myself to being treated like a slave so I stay as far away from airports as I possibly can. If I ever do have to go to the airport again, I'll be sure and opt-out for the patdown. Of course, I'll also make sure I take 2-3 extra strength Viagra before I turn up at the checkpoint.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, there are regular rumblings from the security theater proponents about how we need to expand the TSA to cover trains, stadiums, etc. We're one "fear event" (either a terrorist attack or a hyped up "near miss") from other methods of transportation and gathering falling under TSA "protection." How long until we're being told "if you don't want to be strip searched then just don't drive across state lines?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. The airlines themselves hate this shit even more than their passengers do. They just want to get the plane packed and in the air on-schedule; kinda tough to reliably perform that function when some thug with a god-complex can recall a plane to the gate on a whim.
Re: (Score:2)
There is still no legal basis to be forced to participate in a search in order to travel. Of course, most people couldn't find their asshole with both hands, so they don't realize that they actually have rights and just go right along with it. And by the way, the airlines don't give a fuck, this is the fucking government sicko whackjobs who get off on molesting people who continue to perpetrate this shit.
And I'm a whimpering sheep? If you read the rest of my comment, which you didn't, I already stated I
Re: (Score:2)
The airlines don't get a choice in the matter either. The TSA was imposed on them as well. They cannot opt out and allow people to fly without the search nor can they opt to hire a private party to do the searching for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this. We could roll back all airport/airline security to pre-911 levels except for the locked, reinforced cockpit doors and the changed mentality of passengers (pre-911 hijacking meant you went to Cuba for a few days and are unharmed if you stay quiet, p
Re: (Score:2)
I still travel. Of course, I don't get to see the socialist utopias of Europe (which, with that attitude is where I assume you're from and exactly why I have no desire to ever set foot around you people ever again), but you see, most people over here see YOU as the ignorant joke of the first world, with the exception of super-liberal media sites and NPR. But keep telling yourselves how much better you are than everyone else and I'm sure one day you'll make it!
Merry Christmas from the US of fucking A, assh
Re: (Score:2)
Yay, another american dork who just sits at home all the time instead of travelling. Frankly thats in the best interest of the world. You fuckers just sit home and continue being the ignorant joke of the first world.
I live 4100 km from where I lived 10 years ago - all in America. How far from where you were born do you live today? If you think "traveling" a few hundred km for summer vacation makes you worldly, I think I know who's the ignorant joke of the world.
Re: Hyberbole much? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By contrast, it takes fewer than ten people with difficult jobs to fly a commercial airplane from New York to London. (I'm counting ground based mechanics, who, of course, can be the mechanic of multiple planes per day in a way that doesn't work with steamship mechanics.) That's a much
Re:Hyberbole much? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Guilty until proven innocent?"
No, not at all. You waive your rights when you purchase your ticket, which is a voluntary act. By purchasing your ticket, you are agreeing to the conditions attached to it, which include submitting to a search. If you don't want to be searched, don't buy a ticket, and find another way to travel.
Oy. I really can't stand this argument. Yes, it's voluntary; just like having a bank account and a computer and a credit card and a job and a home are all voluntary. Maybe when people buy houses they should all be required to have surveillance cameras installed. Buying a home is voluntary, so if people don't like being watched they are free to simply not buy a house. Why not just search everyone walking down the street? After all, it's completely voluntary to walk down the street. No one is forcing you are they?
But what am I to do to visit my aunt in France? Should I take a steamship? What if I'm flying for business and I don't want to go through the scanner? Should I quit my job? I mean, having a job is voluntary right? No one is forcing me to keep my job. The thing is, while many things are technically voluntary, they are also required to participate in the modern world. That's why the voluntary nature of these things is irrelevant. The point is whether these rules are proper and constitutional. I happen to think not. I know the Supreme Court has removed my rights at border crossings. But I don't have to like or agree with it. That, after all, is voluntary.
Re: (Score:2)
You're close (Score:3)
What will be next is real-time analysis of waste streams from peoples' homes (hey, it's a public utility, so...). Evidence of booze, drugs, diabetes, etc. will be shared with the police states' partners in the health insurance industry.
The frog-boiling will start with those in public housing / assistance, because eff the poor, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
-- Why not just search everyone walking down the street? After all, it's completely voluntary to walk down the street. No one is forcing you are they? --
----
They have this already -- it's called "Stop and Frisk" -- very common in New York City, *if* you're not the right color.
Yes, we *are* living in a Police State.
At least, some of us are.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hyberbole much? (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry that's now how it works. The TSA is a government agency, not a private organization, they don't get to ignore your rights, regardless of any conditions your sign or agree too with a "private" airline. You literally cannot sign away your rights like this.
Even in criminal plea deals you still have to declare guilt to a crime in court in front of a judge.
Re: (Score:2)
Officer: "May I search your vehicle?"
Civilian: "Yes."
The civilian has consented to a search, which is entirely lawful. The officer has violated no rights of the civilian by then proceeding with the search.
Another example:
Officer: "... You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to attorney. If you cannot afford one..."
Civilian: " I wave my right to attorney and will answer your questions."
The officer is violating no rights by proceeding with the intervi
Re: (Score:2)
But only the truly ignorant waive their rights. I see which category you fall under.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, no. Unless you can also end up flying if the conversation goes Passenger:"I would like a ticket to fly". Airline:"Do you consent to a search?", Passenger: "Certainly not!".
You should note that the TSA is not a private organization that airlines optionally hire. It is a government agency imposed on all airlines. Ny law, there cannot be a no hassle airline that welcomes passengers to bypass the TSA and board the plane without a hassle.
Re:Hyberbole much? (Score:5, Informative)
Do you know what "inalienable" means?
You can't "waive" your due process rights any more than you can sell yourself into slavery.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that an inalienable right granted by the Constitution? The same Constitution that doesn't apply within 100 miles of international airports?
Re: (Score:3)
I've heard that doesn't work.
There have been reports of people deciding not to go on their trip when confronted with an invasive security procedure, and then being detained and questions at that point.
Their obvious reasoning being that if you suddenly change your mind you must be hiding something you thought would be revealed if you'd continued.
Just like the old Wargames joke: Seems the only way to win is not to play.
Re: (Score:2)
From a Constitutional view, because the TSA is a government agency and being in possession of a weapon or other contraband is an arrestable and punishable offense I object to the searches and patdowns on 4th amendment grounds. However if the searches were conducted by the airlines themselves as a condition of accessing their property and there were no criminal results from being in possession of said property then I wouldn't have a problem with it.
As it is, it is an unconstitutional restriction on the right
Re: Hyberbole much? (Score:4, Interesting)
Wanting to go see grandma does not equal wanting to get skin cancer and nowhere on an airline ticket does it say you will be forced to endure radiation
I don't like these scanners either, but please don't be an idiot. The amount of ionizing radiation you get from the scanner is radically smaller than the extra amount you are going to get from spending time in an aircraft at 38000 ft, or eating a banana. Both risks are vanishingly small compared to the risk you incurred by driving to the airport.
Flying across the country will subject you to about 4,000 microrem. The TSA scanners, about 5 microrem. Independent (non-TSA affiliated) tests of over 700 scanners showed all were at or below their radiation targets.
There are plenty of good reasons to object to these scanners without introducing pseudscientific bullshit into it. Doing so just gives the other side of this debate more ammo to shoot down our side, who look like loons when they spout this kind of stuff. You want to object to the scanners? Great. Let's do it on civil rights grounds.
Re: Hyberbole much? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
These are raster machines so they scan you by bombarding you with a paper thin plane beam than pans down your body. If that beam stops, even for a few seconds then it would irradiate the cells along that plane with a massive dose. Not "pseudo science".
That's not true at all. These machines are are a phased array transducer. It emits a pulsed waves that radiate out in all directions. Interferometry of the reflected wave and the transmitter's position is used to reconstruct the 3D image. It's basically a form of synthetic aperture radar using millimeter wave radio.
Re: Hyberbole much? (Score:5, Informative)
I'd rather not be irradiated in the first place.
And please indicate where these are at all effective. Note that in the TSA's own tests they missed nearly all guns and explosives [cnn.com]. What's the point of these body scanners, other than allowing the TSA to get the equivalent of nylon filtered pornography? It's obvious the scanners do fuck all for security.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then you really shouldn't fly. As mentioned above, you will incur far more radiation from the actual flight than from anything the scanners could do to you.
You'll need to provide proof of the levels of radiation you'll be exposed to. Hint - there are no documented tests detailing what these machines release, because... NATIONAL SECURITY!!!! (My guess, the theater involved makes me gag as much as a soap opera) In any case, any extra radiation is amazingly "extra" and not necessary. I'll continue to refuse "extra" and unnecessary radiation exposure at every opportunity.
By all means, complain about your loss of rights - I despise TSA myself - but if we're dishonest about our rejection of TSA then we're no better than the deceptive methods by which they seized control of our airports.
I don't believe I'm in the least dishonest about my opinions of the TSA and their largely usel
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
We can discuss the mechanics by which they "work" all day, but honestly, in my own experience, they don't work in the sense that they have way too many false positives.
I have pretty long hair down to my lower back, and in my experience, the scanners have a tendency to flag various points on my upper back simply because my hair is there. It's gotten to the point where I automatically assume I'm going to need a pat-down because of it flinging yellow squares all over my upper back on the TSA's monitor.
The funn
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you aware of the danger of a simple mechanical failure? These are raster machines so they scan you by bombarding you with a paper thin plane beam than pans down your body. If that beam stops, even for a few seconds then it would irradiate the cells along that plane with a massive dose. Not "pseudo science".
I thought the TSA retired [dailymail.co.uk] all of their backscatter X-ray scanners and replaced them with millimeter wave RF scanners?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Please link to one instance of this happening at a real TSA scanner.
So you admit that the 95% failure rate in tests to detect explosives by the TSA was not due to "mechanical failure"?
You can't have it both ways. It's either useful and keeps us safer or it it's a complete clusterfuck.
(Insert comment about feeling up/scanning genitals and how it makes me feel safe to board a plane.)
Re: (Score:2)
What evidence would you expect to find if that happened? All I can think of is an apparently random group of people showing up with cancer over the next couple of decades...and good luck in either tying that back to the malfunctioning machines or in getting recompense.
If they claim their machines aren't working, I suspect that either they're lying or the malfunction inconveniences them. If they claim they're working fine, I don't think they mean the machines aren't injuring those being scanned. (FWIW, I
Re: (Score:3)
I don't like these scanners either, but please don't be an idiot.
The amount of ionizing radiation you get from the scanner is radically smaller than the extra amount you are going to get from spending time in an aircraft at 38000 ft, or eating a banana.
Flying across the country will subject you to about 4,000 microrem. The TSA scanners, about 5 microrem. Independent (non-TSA affiliated) tests of over 700 scanners showed all were at or below their radiation targets.
It is not possible to compare numbers like this. The type of radiation and area/organs exposed are all critically important.
X-ray scanners tend to deposit most of their energy close to the skin (1" or so) The exposure profile is different from random gamma strikes with a normal distribution throughout the body.
There are plenty of good reasons to object to these scanners without introducing pseudscientific bullshit into it. Doing so just gives the other side of this debate more ammo to shoot down our side, who look like loons when they spout this kind of stuff.
If LNT is correct people are getting cancer and dying as a result of x-ray body scanners. While your _individual_ risk is low giving a shit about unnecessary and entirely preventable deaths does not
Re: (Score:2)
Please stop making sense. I much prefer to be outraged. Thank-you.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. If you don't want to waive your rights, you should simply be rich enough to exercise them. General aviation doesn't have body scanners OR pat downs....
Re: (Score:2)
yeah and if i had a girl she would be dressed in a metallic leotard whenever she had to fly (hmm i wonder how much metal is needed to jam the scanner).
Re: (Score:2)
X-rays are known to cause cancer in sufficient quantity. How do you know the TSA machines aren't blasting you with huge amounts of X-ray radiation? Have they been checked by the FDA? No, they haven't, because they're supposedly not "medical devices".
Re: Hyberbole much? (Score:2)
Re: A pat-down won't find an SD card, body scan wi (Score:3, Funny)
This is definitely our main security concern in airports. Especially when traveling domestically!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And an SD card is a security hazard how exactly?
Re: (Score:3)
A pat-down probably won't find an SD card with encrypted data -- a body scan probably would.
What's your point? I have several SD cards that are encrypted. They're in my laptop bag and get scanned every time. Why would I try to hide them? They're not illegal.
Re:A pat-down won't find an SD card, body scan wil (Score:5, Insightful)
A pat-down probably won't find an SD card with encrypted data -- a body scan probably would.
What's your point? I have several SD cards that are encrypted. They're in my laptop bag and get scanned every time. Why would I try to hide them? They're not illegal.
They're encrypted. Just give it time.
Re: (Score:2)
They've shown how body scans miss weaponry on people testing the system. (These are professionals. Do NOT bring a gun to the TSA line and then say "well, I was just testing security.") If the scanners can't detect weaponry regularly, how would it find an SD card? As a followup, why would they need to find an SD card? Yes, the data on it might be a threat, but the SD card itself isn't a threat to the flight or the people on it.
Re: (Score:2)
As a followup, why would they need to find an SD card? Yes, the data on it might be a threat, but the SD card itself isn't a threat to the flight or the people on it.
Not a threat until someone opens up the headrest screen and inserts the SD card into the computer there, infecting the whole plane with a Mac-virus and forces it to fly into a building!
Re: (Score:2)