Sorry to interrupt the discussion on bullies, but replying on the x-ray comments from yesterday:

I share your distrust of gov't in general and TSA in particular, and I'm not (again) defending the way these scanners may be used.

Companies and universities globally have published results on mm-wave scanners, including passive imagers (using just naturally-occuring energy). Producing transmitter power at these frequencies is really hard (= expensive). Above a certain level, it just becomes physically impossible. Why would anyone lie about the power levels when it's possible to get a good image at a low power? It’s like using a searchlight instead of a flashbulb to take a picture.

It could all be a conspiracy to persuade you that it’s low levels of mm-wave when it’s high levels of x-rays. But to me, at least, it seems unlikely:

Melbourne airport has just installed a mm-wave scanner . Could it really be an x-ray? I guess so. But unless mm-wave scanners are fictional, why would they lie about it? And this is Australia; down here we haven’t bought into the whole shoes and liquid lunacy for domestic travel.

One of the leading companies in this area is Qinetiq in the UK. Sure they’re sponsored by the UK gov’t and their product page implies liquids are a threat.:rolleyes: Sure they can make a fortune selling this stuff. This kind of development is expensive; who else is going to pay for it? But they seem to have gone to a lot of trouble over a non-existent technology. Here’s another UK based company. Here’s a patent for a passive mm-wave imager.

Under IEEE publications (subscription required) I found scientific papers from Canada, Spain, Japan, the Ukraine… Papers published in the scientific literature have to be peer-reviewed by other scientists. If it’s a conspiracy by the TSA, then it involves several governments, many research labs and the international research community – I just don’t believe that TSA is competent enough to pull that off.

As to testing by an independent lab, this is a very specialised (=expensive) area of R&D. Anyone who’s invested in equipment to measure power levels at that frequency is likely to have a link to someone who’s linked to someone who’s associated with some government. You can read the 2007 report by the National Materials Advisory Board who are supposed to be “the pre-eminent source of independent materials assessments for the nation.” but you may find that having some ex-government employees on the committee isn’t independent enough for you. Their conclusion 5 is “Millimeter-wavelength/terahertz technology and x-rays provide images of similar quality. However, millimeter-wavelength/terahertz energy has the safety benefit of being non-ionizing radiation, while x-rays are ionizing radiation. …”

Look, I think they're lying about liquids. And shoes. And probably about what they'll do with the images from these scanners. But I don’t think they could maintain a conspiracy to create a fictional technology or have any reason to lie about the power levels and associated risks of a real one.

Exactly. Checkpoint bullies never win with me because I don't recognize their authority to intimidate me. End runs around irrational behaviors are easier to execute if you keep your head about you and mitigate the power dramas of others.

"Needing to be at a business meeting in NY" would in no way prompt me to let the TSA bully me into getting in front of the naked machine. My dignity means more than that. And any client I have would have to understand that. If I were an employee, they certainly would understand my unwillingness to be seen like that in order to come to the meeting.

I have experienced, in many cases, that the screeners DO bully people, whether or not that's how they wake up in the morning.

I am in a semi-unique position, in that I can both afford and am willing to stand up for myself in this way. Those in the TSA who would make up rules on the spot and otherwise try to intimidate people play on the fact that most people cannot or will not say "no, that is not right."

This is a sad environment where people are encouraged to go along with what they're told in clear violation of their rights in order to get the job done, or to get where they're going, for fear of loss of job, loss of money, or other such reasons.

^^

That's just the nature of the world. Sometimes you can afford to fight, sometimes you can't. Be it insurance companies, the government, credit agencies, your employer, etc. etc., ad nauseum.

This is true, but it presupposes that the only authority in place is to intimidate. If there are others, then intimidation is the least of one's worries.

Not a world I plan to accept or validate.

The biggest thing that allows these guys on the front line to be bullies is that they know they can get away with almost anything and that they will get backed up at the airport level. The lack of accountability means that the airport staff can get away with pretty much anything it wants, without recourse.

Mike

Since I had already excepted the FAMs we're actually agreeing, but if you think there are no screeners who hold exactly the same credo then you need to go through a few more checkpoints.

Oh no Bird, you are exactly correct. Of course there are some who do. I just can't believe it's institutionalized behavior.

I hope it will change someday. I'm not holding my breath.

I just do my little part in my little corner of the world. I don't pretend it will change the world.

Even if I hope it does. :)

All you can do is your part.

I do mine.

Who knows. Your willingness to do it might give others around you the courage to do so. Or it might just make them think. Every bit may help.

+1.

I refused to be pushed, terrorized or intimidated.

The presuppositions lie solely in your mind, and not mine. @:-)

"Checkpoint bullies never win with me because I don't recognize their authority to intimidate me."

Dissect that statement and show me another authority mentioned in that sentence other than "intimidate."

Intimidation is not necessary when one has the power to do something. Intimidation is only necessary when 1) the intimidator doesn't want to act (chooses not to for whatever reason) or 2) doesn't have the ability to act and is bluffing.

If one is not intimidated, that's cool. One just must realize that intimidation isn't all there is in the toolbox. And prepare accordingly.