Opting out is the easiest way to protest these machines. Just tell the person running the machine, "I opt out!" before entering it, and they will pat you down instead of using the scanners. Considering the false-positive rate of the scanners, you may get pat down anyway, so might as well protest and skip the dose.

I've finally given up on opting out, or perhaps I should frame it as finally declaring a partial victory and moving on. I still think the scanners are a huge waste of money and time, but they've gotten better.

The x-ray versions are gone (and with them any small chance of dangerous radiation exposure). And I'm told that they no longer show your naked body to agents, but rather a generic outline that labels potential objects of concern. So the things about them that I've felt had the potential for a direct negative impact on me personally are mostly in the past.

Because of that, the last time I flew, it struck me that opting out was purely a political protest, and that the only effect it was likely to have was to make things flow a little bit less smoothly for all the other poor folks standing in the long line behind me. I just didn't see the payoff anymore. So for the first time, I went through the blasted machine. They did a quick patdown anyway, but I guess that's par for the course.

I wish I knew a way to take an effective stand against this system. But I've ceased to believe that opting out is it.

One could argue that making things flow a little bit less smoothly is a positive effect in and of itself. If the powers that be see that they're getting no actual security and snarling lines perhaps they'll come to their senses.

Ok, probably not, but still ...

Actually, the agents don't see anything unless the machine detects a "potential threat item", then they see the generic outline. See: http://www.tsa.gov/ait-how-it-works

> the only effect it was likely to have was to make things flow a little bit less smoothly for all the other poor folks standing in the long line behind me.

Why should it have this effect? When I opt out, they have me stand in a little area off to the side until a scanner is ready for me. I don't hold up the line, and, as far as I know, most people don't even notice that anything is happening (except that some wonder curiously why I am electing to stand around, apparently for recreation, without belt or shoes).

I have no doubt that the NSA stores all the naked pictures. The data is far to valuable.

Random? What are you talking about? You've never seen that amazing iPad app that the TSA officers use to tell you which line to get in? You know... the one where they tap on the screen and a large arrow tells them whether to send you to the left or right? And for which they probably paid tens of thousands of dollars (maybe more) to have built? Wish I had gotten that contract! :-p

That just picks whether or not you get PreCheck if you weren't already on the list. It doesn't necessarily determine if you're in a metal detector or MMW line (though PreCheck lines only have metal detectors).

My pet peeve: when you opt out, they say "please stand right next the machine for a few minutes while we get somebody."

If you're opting out, you're already not blindly following their orders. So why would you stand right next to the machine just because they said so? I make sure to stand a comfortable distance away, and if harassed I tell them that's as close as I'm comfortable with. It also seems to cause a bit of confusion to the lemmings going through the microwave^wmilliwave, who feel bad about cutting in front of me. I also wouldn't be surprised if that turbulence causes the molester to arrive quicker than they would otherwise.

"MALE OPT OUT!"

And then you get to watch the employees' form of protest as they chit chat for a few minutes before heading over to fetch you.

Yep, I have never not waited at least a few minutes for someone to come over and pat me down. Once I waited 10 minutes at SFO, and I had to ask the same TSA agent who was nearby multiple times to get someone. I was in fear the whole time that my laptop, just waiting around on the other side of the conveyor belt, might disappear.

yay for opting out! wish everyone would opt out... i look at it like getting a mini-massage to relieve the stress of going through all that security theater.

i read somewhere that if we were serious about security, we'd be better off hiring a couple dozen sniffer dogs per airport and letting people walk right through, but the tsa looks to me more like a national jobs program than a security force (which is fine if it didn't make travel such a hassle).

I've flown in New Zealand where you don't need to talk to anyone or go through even a metal detector before boarding. I felt safer and happier than flying in the US.

> I felt safer and happier than flying in the US.

I agree with your main point, and am sorry to nit-pick, but I think that it's important: how you feel doesn't, and shouldn't, have any effect on the policy. In fact, the whole phrase 'security theatre' describes precisely the phenomenon of making (easily mollified) people feel secure instead of being secure. I am not at all saying that you are in this boat (it sounds like you're not), only that I think the word choice is very important.

I 100% agree that my feelings should be irrelevant to security policies. But the precautions taken by the TSA are completely disproportionate to the amount of risk we face while flying. It's a total joke to say that it's anything but "security theatre". That feeling of security is really all we're buying with all that money and inconvenience.

I agree; but what I meant here was that praising a different set-up for making you feel more secure risks implicitly suggesting that this feeling is the goal (rather than at best a pleasant by-product), thus playing into the whole security-theatre game.

Funny thing is, when you opt-out, they don't send you through the metal detector. Or even wand one down with a metal detector. Whole thing is a farce.

I opt out whenever I can, but not because I'm afraid of radiation--I just don't think the new scanners are necessary or useful.

And therein lies the rub. When rule by science is declared to be just, it leaves those trying to preserve autonomy ultimately at odds with science. (As well as corrupting science by people seeking power)

It bothers me to play on fears about radiation and sexual paranoia to get people to see that government interests diverge from theirs, and that perhaps maybe there is something wrong about eg deploying these ridiculous scanners.

But whenever I try the ideological approach, people resist applying abstract concepts to judge the concrete situation. Either they have little experience doing so, or the more erudite have merely used their intelligence to internalize all the flimsy justifications that, by common law, have destroyed any basis of this government's original charter.

I guess the analog of my initial observation applies to rule by the masses (with respect to rationalism) as well so, at least for this topic, hysteria it is.

That woman, who had a letter from the TSA saying that breast milk didn't need to go through the xray scanner, didn't have a fun time when she asked for her breast milk to not be xrayed.

http://rt.com/usa/154672-tsa-breast-milk-settlement/

But she did get a settlement and so -if you have the time and know your rigts and can keep calm[1]- it might be a good idea to opt out.

[1] calm because otherwise tasers or guns.

I signed up for Global Entry with the Customs and Border Patrol and it definitely makes things faster and I don't have to go through the millimeter wave machines (just the traditional metal detector).

I don't even see the X-Ray machines anywhere these days. Where do they still have them? I only see the other kind, the millimeter wave or whatever they are.