[hurin]

The rather strong verbal comments aside - I think this is almost certainly correct.

Polygraph tests are notoriously inaccurate - where as for something like terrorist threats the number of real positives you are interested is probably in the x > 1/10^6.

That's totally fantastic - consider that pregnancy tests have a false positive rate in the single digits.

[gknoy]

The language is strong, but pretty much encapsulates the impotent anger I feel even __thinking__ about interacting with the TSA. On the rare occasions when I must, my anxiety and fears match very closely to the GP's post's language.

[tajen]

And this is why... I don't go to US. There has been two highly interesting conferences in NY and one in SF (for which another founder offered to give me his tickets for free). But I use a false name on Facebook, which is against my contract with an american company, which is an impersonation, and I don't want to risk it with a TSA agent.

[hueving]

Your reasoning is nonsensical. The TSA has nothing to do with enforcing company contracts.

[zaroth]

The newer scanners are much less invasive. You can turn your head and see the display, it's very basic. And I've found TSA agents are much more interested in getting you through security, than holding you up in security. I saw many things that were extremely upsetting a few years ago, but barely much of anything even noteworthy lately.

Now this FAST thing anyhow, sounds insane. I will assume it just doesn't work and isn't going to be a Problem. But really, you would want to be able to stop it or put better bounds on it.

But from what I can tell, you can only sue to stop something after it has already harmed you, not just because it could cause future harm. You have to show damages to even be heard. So, how can you show damages until after it's already built and deployed?

[jimktrains2]

> The newer scanners are much less invasive. You can turn your head and see the display, it's very basic.

But we'll nicely violate your 4th amendment rights, it's OK!

> And I've found TSA agents are much more interested in getting you through security, than holding you up in security.

Which is why the assign 1 person to the first class line. 1 person to the pre check line. and 1 person to the 4 normal lines. and then have 4 people standing around doing absolutely nothing. The TSA (as an org, not as individuals) is concerned with making money for large political contributors and keeping people afraid.

> But really, you would want to be able to stop it or put better bounds on it.

But really, I want to stop everything that's happened because it's all been insane, completely unhelpful, and worth exactly $0 of the billions we've spent on it.

> So, how can you show damages until after it's already built and deployed?

By having enough people who actually care and are politically active enough to be very loud when things like this happen. Senators and Representatives need to know that their constitutes won't stand for it.

[Zigurd]

Polygraphs are not just ineffective, the practitioners are frauds and quacks. It is widespread public knowledge that polygraphs simply don't work any better than reading tea leaves or entrails. They are perpetrating this fraud on the public and on the law, and ought to be harshly punished for doing so.