National Opt-Out Day: November 24, 2010
Jan 3, 2014, 3:19 pm
#811
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: HP/US Gold, Hilton Gold, Starwood Gold
Posts: 711
It's still slow, invasive, unnecessary, and ineffective.
Jan 3, 2014, 3:26 pm
#814
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Many reasons.
Some folks decide that the physical pat-down that accompanies opting out is more invasive of one's privacy than the AIT scanners. Different people have different views on privacy; I can imagine a survivor of physical assault preferring an electronic scan rather than a physical pat-down. (More folks might feel this way now than in 2010, since the remote viewing of detailed body images has been eliminated from (almost?) all AIT scanners.)
Some folks might have opted out due to the radiation from theMMWbackscatter-based machines. Since (almost?) all of those machines have been removed from service, their reason for opting out may have been eliminated.
Some folks decide that their time is more valuable than their desire to avoid the AIT machines, and are willing to sacrifice one aspect of their privacy for a faster checkpoint experience.
Some folks now qualify for PreCheck, or for the exemptions granted to various (small) population groups, and therefore no longer have the opportunity to opt-out of AIT scanning.
Some folks don't know that they can opt-out, and so they don't exercise a choice that they don't know they have.
And some folks simply don't care about the issue.
Any assessment of what percentages of the traveling public fit into those categories is at best a guess --- a guess that probably reveals more about the speaker's opinions than the real reasons people aren't opting out.
Some folks decide that the physical pat-down that accompanies opting out is more invasive of one's privacy than the AIT scanners. Different people have different views on privacy; I can imagine a survivor of physical assault preferring an electronic scan rather than a physical pat-down. (More folks might feel this way now than in 2010, since the remote viewing of detailed body images has been eliminated from (almost?) all AIT scanners.)
Some folks might have opted out due to the radiation from the
Some folks decide that their time is more valuable than their desire to avoid the AIT machines, and are willing to sacrifice one aspect of their privacy for a faster checkpoint experience.
Some folks now qualify for PreCheck, or for the exemptions granted to various (small) population groups, and therefore no longer have the opportunity to opt-out of AIT scanning.
Some folks don't know that they can opt-out, and so they don't exercise a choice that they don't know they have.
And some folks simply don't care about the issue.
Any assessment of what percentages of the traveling public fit into those categories is at best a guess --- a guess that probably reveals more about the speaker's opinions than the real reasons people aren't opting out.
Last edited by jkhuggins; Jan 3, 2014 at 3:39 pm Reason: confused MMW for backscatter
Jan 3, 2014, 3:27 pm
#815
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Jan 3, 2014, 3:36 pm
#816
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,537
If I'm going to take unnecessary risks of disfiguring or deadly skin cancers, it'll be out enjoying the sun or a tanning bed. Not buying into security theatre.
Jan 3, 2014, 3:47 pm
#818
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: HP/US Gold, Hilton Gold, Starwood Gold
Posts: 711
Jan 4, 2014, 11:45 pm
#819
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,585
Both backscatter and MMW machines irradiate passengers. They use different types of radiation, at different frequencies. One type of radiation is ionizing, and one is non-ionizing. However, they both emit radiation, and therefore they both "irradiate" passengers.
Jan 5, 2014, 12:21 am
#820
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,537
Anyway, a bunch of posts up I believe I did mention that MMW machines were non-ionising. EVERYTHING emits radiation, including your light bulb.
Second, irradiate almost exclusively means to expose to ionising radiation. I've never heard anyone except some anti-mobile phone nuts use the term irradiate to refer to exposure to non-ionising radiation.
Jan 5, 2014, 4:06 am
#821
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,444
You forgot expensive!
My personal experience is they got worse. Now you are forced to listen to a stupid memorized speech on how the machines do not use radiation (false) and have less signal than a cell phone (apples and oranges). If you dare to point out the falseness or misleading parts of the speech, they instantly retaliate with a power trip. They also get very offended and angry at any mention of the fact that they stick their hands into your pants during the pat downs (which is effectively what they do).
My personal experience is they got worse. Now you are forced to listen to a stupid memorized speech on how the machines do not use radiation (false) and have less signal than a cell phone (apples and oranges). If you dare to point out the falseness or misleading parts of the speech, they instantly retaliate with a power trip. They also get very offended and angry at any mention of the fact that they stick their hands into your pants during the pat downs (which is effectively what they do).
Jan 5, 2014, 6:41 am
#822
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2005
Programs: ua mm, aa plat, starriott LTPP, ihg plat, hh gold.
Posts: 13,018
any time i'm in an airport where i don't have access to pre-check, i still opt out.
i still get the grope, and sometimes it's still REALLY invasive. i ALWAYS do it in public, and i explain to the agent that while she and i are fine, i'm going to roll my eyes at everything she does. i explain that it's not personal, and then i let her go through her spiel, and i roll my eyes.
it's still invasive, expensive, time-consuming and unnecessary. also, it doesn't make us any safer.
thank god for pre-check where available.
i still get the grope, and sometimes it's still REALLY invasive. i ALWAYS do it in public, and i explain to the agent that while she and i are fine, i'm going to roll my eyes at everything she does. i explain that it's not personal, and then i let her go through her spiel, and i roll my eyes.
it's still invasive, expensive, time-consuming and unnecessary. also, it doesn't make us any safer.
thank god for pre-check where available.
Jan 5, 2014, 8:23 am
#823
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,537
Part 2 is correct, they are not apples to oranges. It is a perfectly reasonable assessment that the signal field level of the MMW scanner is much lower than a mobile phone.
Jan 5, 2014, 10:09 am
#824
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,585
Colloquially, since the word "radiation" implies danger, people use it to refer to "dangerous radiation". It is similar to the word "chemical", which can refer to anything as simple as water or oxygen, but which implies danger and is therefore colloquially used to describe only chemicals that pose some sort of hazard.
Jan 5, 2014, 10:52 am
#825
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,537
The entire scientific community uses the word "radiation" to refer to both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Most scientists and engineers are not in the "tin foil hat" crowd.
Colloquially, since the word "radiation" implies danger, people use it to refer to "dangerous radiation". It is similar to the word "chemical", which can refer to anything as simple as water or oxygen, but which implies danger and is therefore colloquially used to describe only chemicals that pose some sort of hazard.
Colloquially, since the word "radiation" implies danger, people use it to refer to "dangerous radiation". It is similar to the word "chemical", which can refer to anything as simple as water or oxygen, but which implies danger and is therefore colloquially used to describe only chemicals that pose some sort of hazard.