Slashdot Mirror

First, Iris scans aren't necessarily stable over time.

Second, we're working on distance viewing of irises.

Not that this changes the fundamental issues of parent neglect, apathy and over arching government. But as usual, the government is proving to be a bunch of technological dullards.

THIS John Hopkins?:
http://www.propublica.org/article/scientists-cast-doubt-on-tsa-tests-of-full-body-scanners
"...the professors note that the Johns Hopkins lab didn't test an actual airport machine. Instead, the tests were done on a model built by the manufacturer, Rapiscan, and configured to resemble a system previously tested by the TSA."

http://www.ibtimes.com/johns-hopkins-unhappy-tsa-shout-out-248340
"The Transportation Security Administration is referencing a Johns Hopkins study on its web site, saying that the full-body x-ray scanners are safe to use. But Johns Hopkins is unhappy with the way that study is being used." ...
"Johns Hopkins says that its study only demonstrates that the radiation dosage is under the limit set by ANSI. A spokeswoman for Johns Hopkins said the people who did the testing were unhappy with the way the TSA characterized the study. The safety of the machines is a somewhat different question, she said.""

http://www.consumertraveler.com/columns/tsa-statements-strain-credibility/
"EPIC also obtained a document written by Johns Hopkins University, which TSA said pronounced their full body scanners safe, but didn’t. According to the Executive Summary of the report from Johns Hopkins, their tests, in fact, revealed safety concerns about the AIT units.

        “An area exists above each of the units, due to primary beam overshoot, where the 100 mrem per year general public dose limit could potentially be exceeded

        It is recommended that a survey of each installation site be conducted or a beam stop be considered to ensure that the dose to any member of the general public is maintained below the 100 mrem (0.1 rem) per year general public limit ”

To date there is no information I can find that either of Johns Hopkins’ recommendations were followed by TSA."

and

"Dr. Michael Love, who runs an x-ray laboratory at the Department of Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine states, “They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these [backscatter] x-rays.”" ...THAT John Hopkins???

I'm actually feeling uncomfortable thinking about what she said.

You can start here:
http://consumerist.com/2010/08/tsas-enhanced-pat-down-procedure-lets-their-fingers-do-the-searching.html
Then check this:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/
http://pncminnesota.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/rape-survivor-devasted-by-tsa-enhanced-pat-down/
http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/tsa-admits-to-punishing-travelers/

Your comment shows you don't understand the meaning of the words "sexual assault".

I don't know about GPP, but personally, I really couldn't care less about the legal definition. If a government employee (TSA? check...) uses power or intimidation (can't opt out of the search if it becomes too intrusive? check...) to touch someone else's genitals (see TFA), it is a sexual assault, and I will use whatever force necessary, including violence if necessary in my sole discretion, against TSO's to protect myself and my family from sexual assault, PERIOD.

shouldn't be too hard.

http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/pilot-who-posted-security-flaw-video-online-is-punished-by-the-tsa/

My issue with the scanners are:
1) They're invasive
2) They're yet another knee-jerk reaction
3) They won't do any good

== Invasive ==
If you do a search online you'll find all kinds of different images of what these things will show. They vary from the obviously modified to make them look really bad to the modified to make them look generic. A couple of things stand out:
- the case of the Florida TSA guard who went bonkers after too much teasing about his small genitalia after they were testing the full body scanners. How'd they know the size of his genitals if they weren't shown? http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-05-07/news/fl-miami-airport-screeners-20100506_1_airport-workers-co-worker-tsa
- the British won't use the full body scanners on children under 18 because they may break child pornography laws http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221111/Nude-X-ray-scans-scuppered-child-porn-fears.html#ixzz0bl6GB9Ts

So you are giving up personal rights that normally you wouldn't. You wouldn't want police to be able to pat you down with no probably cause on the streets would you? They're doing that at the airports with no probable cause. But, the extra security! Read on.

== Knee Jerk Reaction ==
9/11 attacks used box cutters and other sharp objects (not illegal at the time)
-- rules are changed to no longer allow those items
Shoe Bomber
-- rules are changed so your shoes now need to removed and screened
Liquid Explosives attempt
-- rules are changed to minimize amounts of liquids you can bring on board
Panty Bomber
-- introduction of full body scanners

Notice the pattern? Terrorists find ways to work within the rules.

== They won't do any good ==
Nobody can say with certainty that the scanners would have caught the panty bomber, since he used a low density explosive https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031700649.html
The scanners do not penetrate skin, so people can still carry explosives in body cavities (I'll leave the details of that up to your imagination). http://www.consumertraveler.com/columns/whats-the-real-lowdown-on-the-full-body-scanners/
Once you are on the plane you are not scanned again, terrorists will get in the system at small airports that don't have the scanners

== Summation ==
So where does that leave you? Rules/Restrictions are put in place, terrorists work within them, new, more stringent rules and restrictions are put in place. I was annoyed at the previous restrictions, but I could live with them. This invasion of privacy is a step too far.

And for those of you who have no issues with this step due to 'better security' where are *you* going to draw the line when that terrorist uses his handy body cavities to smuggle stuff on board and the TSA tries to figure out how to catch that ....

nobody assumes I'm a terrorist.

Unless you drive through Arizona.

Haven't you heard? Out of state drivers licenses are not considered a valid proof of citizenship.

The actual text of SB 1070 says:

A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

        1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.

        2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.

        3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.

        4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

See here, here and here.

And how exactly do you propose airlines make up the money they'd lose by making seats larger, and thereby reducing the number of passengers they can book and carry per flight? Many airlines are already barely making a profit, and some are taking significant losses.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=aQSs9CGd9Auc&pid=20601087
http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/2009-u-s-airline-profitloss-results-%E2%80%94-airtran-earns-and-aa-loses-the-most/

We as consumers (myself included) have spoken with our wallets, and what we have told them is that we will nearly always take the cheapest ticket we can find, based on price alone. Sometimes even if we have to drive an hour or two further to get to a different airport to save only a hundred bucks.

So genius, let's see your brilliant idea for how to make everyone happy and comfortable without going bankrupt in today's market.