How is the situation actually better? If you believe that these scanners are harmful, then it's pretty hard to argue that shuffling them around has actually done any good; it's just doing harm in a different place.

Well, if they're moving them from busy airports to less-busy ones then hypothetically less harm is being done overall, on account of fewer people being exposed.

Less bad is still no good. . . but it's still less bad, too.

Rural folks may be statistically less likely to be aware of the issue or make a fuss.

If something is harmful, I consider the situation "better" every time significantly fewer people are exposed to the harm. I'd rather have three backscatter scanners operating at Yeager Airport in Charleston, WV than operating in Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta.

Of course, if you live in Charleston, WV, then this doesn't really help you much personally.

Yeah - as a resident of Portland, Maine who frequently flies out of my home airport to visit clients, I'm not so psyched about the small airports getting the old radiation machines.

Just opt-out. I always did. It's not a great situation, but slow progress beats no progress.

It shows that they're aware of the negative public pressure. They may just be playing a shell game at the moment, but at least the pressure is forcing them to respond.

Agreed, I'd rather not have them anywhere...

And all that shuffling costs tax dollars.

The spokesperson says that the machines are not being removed due to radiation safety concerns. Thus there is no credit to be given.

They might publicly state that radiation safety concerns are not the reason, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's true. If they admit the reason is radiation safety concerns, then they wouldn't be able to relocate them to smaller airports because they would still cause safety concerns at smaller airports.

I would call it attempting to save face. Don't trust what they say about their motivation.

I love how dissenting opinions get downvoted like this on HN. Moskie was not hostile or otherwise in violation of the site guidelines; this is exactly the type of comment that should not be downvoted.

I'm curious what you think the exact purpose of clicking on an up or down arrow is supposed to express?

There is nothing in the guidelines or faq to actually say what the purpose is, and I could see an argument for "quality" being the criteria, but there's nothing wrong with using the arrow to express agreement or disagreement, from what I can see.

It may not be "wrong" per se, but it could easily have the unhappy result of making dissent invisible (or at least less visible). Unpopular opinions, if expressed honestly and well, ought to be encouraged.

How is this possibly a step in the right direction? The direction that they need to move in is one they will NEVER move it. That'd be like you going to your boss and saying "I'm redundant, useless and ironically harmful. Please throw me out."

Because that's what needs to happen with the entire security theatre that encompasses DoHS and TSA.