Slashdot Mirror


Backscatter X-Rays Coming to Airports

TSMABob writes "Wired News reports that a recent, but expensive, technology of backscatter may grace airport security in the future. Nice Bombs Ya Got There is an article that explains how this technology is far superior to the metal detectors of today, pointing out that 'Richard Reid, convicted of trying to blow up a trans-Atlantic jetliner with explosives in his shoes, walked through metal detectors at Orly Airport in Paris several times before boarding the plane.' Read More about backscatter x-rays and their ability to pick up non-metallic objects."

493 comments

  1. You know what you're thinking... by IpsissimusMarr · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah yeah, I know its going to be repeated at least 300 times in this story... but I just can't help myself.

    X-RAY VISION IS FINALLY A REALITY!!!

    That is all, you may now go back to your regularly scheduled /.'ing.

    --
    "Engineers do the work of man, Physicists do the work of God"
    1. Re:You know what you're thinking... by globalar · · Score: 3, Funny

      I didn't use to be afraid of flying until now. I will probably be dropping a few pounds before I go on another plane.

      I wonder how many perverts will find a way to get a job working behind one of these machines.

    2. Re:You know what you're thinking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The agency hopes to modify the machines with an electronic fig leaf -- programming that fuzzes out sensitive body parts or distorts the body so it does not appear so, well, graphic.

      I'd much rather have the programmers focus their efforts on adding digital hair and recoloring the flesh to make it, well, more graphic.

    3. Re:You know what you're thinking... by Tablizer · · Score: 0, Redundant

      X-RAY VISION IS FINALLY A REALITY!!!

      Ooooh Baby! Niiice spleeeen!

    4. Re:You know what you're thinking... by iceperson · · Score: 1

      dunno... but if you find out where one can apply let us know :)

    5. Re:You know what you're thinking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me try:

      If a manly, breastless woman, dressed as a man, carries weener-shaped Semtex in her undies, will the airport security notice is?

      Or will they just say: Wow what a big schlong, mister!

      Greetz,
      "Dutch" Dilbert

    6. Re:You know what you're thinking... by JAgostoni · · Score: 1

      Probably not. The fig leaf would cover that rendering the entire system useless. DOH!

    7. Re:You know what you're thinking... by MicroBerto · · Score: 1

      Which is another good thing as you don't want to have to pay for two tickets!

      --
      Berto
    8. Re:You know what you're thinking... by JackMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Seriously, though...this thing brings up some major social and privacy issues.
      • Would you want your wife and kids walking through one of these things knowing that a complete stranger will be looking at them naked?
      • What if some pedophile gets a job working these things just to get his jollies from watching children go through?
      • What about people that are so self-concious about their weight that they will hold up the line indefinitely rather than go through security?
      • Are these scanned images akin to public pornography?
    9. Re:You know what you're thinking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with the privacy issues, but your examples are pretty lame..

      Would you want your wife and kids walking through one of these things knowing that a complete stranger will be looking at them naked?

      Sure, why not? The "stranger" isn't going to see anything s/he hasn't seen before.

      What if some pedophile gets a job working these things just to get his jollies from watching children go through?

      I think it would be better than having them use candy or the 'help me find my puppy' method of getting their jollies.

      Are you suggesting that we imprison people based on what they think?

      What about people that are so self-concious about their weight that they will hold up the line indefinitely rather than go through security?

      If someone is fat, you'll be able to tell without this - and if someone is just stalling, why won't people simply go around them?

    10. Re:You know what you're thinking... by nomel · · Score: 1

      If they don't obscure the images somehow, I don't see how people will accept this. I know I wouldn't want my future kids going through something like this.

      I wonder if the example picture that they give has been modified in any way. If not, it seems that they could easily use some software algorithms to hide the picture of the body, leaving only the other stuff, or at least make it just an outline or a block figure looking body. Then, if they needed more detail, they could use a more detailed representation. I hope this wont pass over the publics head like so many other issues. I have contacted my local news channel many times for stories. They seem to not care. Maybe I should try a more direct apporach than email. :)

    11. Re:You know what you're thinking... by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What if they were used to stop people from blowing up planes and killing people?

      A single person not being killed because one of these machines caught someone before they had the chance to get on a plane makes it all worthwhile in my books.

      Besides, I seriously doubt there would be any way to record/save the images created on the machines so it's not like a screener would be grabbing them and posting them on the net or anything.

      A screener could be looking at thousands, or tens of thousands of people a day - I think the "oh! nudies!" aspect of the job would grow old real fast. I mean, how much do people pay any attention to pr0nmail that shows up in the email box? You just automatically hit delete and move on.

      N.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    12. Re:You know what you're thinking... by mustangsal66 · · Score: 1

      Flight is not a right. It's an option. If you choose to fly to a location, you accept that someone will see through your clothes. If you don't like it, take a train, boat or car.

      You have other options.

      --
      Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed "nucular" accelerator on his back.
      Sig changed for readability by G.W.
    13. Re:You know what you're thinking... by romec · · Score: 1

      Xray Vision is overrated . . . .
      Infrared is where the action's at (tm)

    14. Re:You know what you're thinking... by Flopper · · Score: 1

      Why not scanning with x-ray everywhere? At work? At school? On the streets? In Israel?
      The world would get lot more secure.
      (ok, the most secure you would get with naked people on the streets anyway :D)

    15. Re:You know what you're thinking... by chundo · · Score: 1

      $200K... small price to pay for the entertainment I would get during my commute with one of these...

      -j

    16. Re:You know what you're thinking... by varith · · Score: 1

      Unless, of course, your company has directed you to fly overseas (and get there in less than 2 weeks)

    17. Re:You know what you're thinking... by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

      "Would you want your wife and kids walking through one of these things knowing that a complete stranger will be looking at them naked?"

      Would I want them to die by crashing into a building?

      "What if some pedophile gets a job working these things just to get his jollies from watching children go through?"

      What if he does that instead of finding kids to extract jollies from?

      "What about people that are so self-concious about their weight that they will hold up the line indefinitely rather than go through security?"

      That's why security guards have pepper spray.

      "Are these scanned images akin to public pornography?"

      No. They have to be public to be public. It would be trivial to put the machine in a booth. It's hard enough these days to see what's going on in an X-Ray machine at an airport. These guys will do more to ensure privacy. Secondly, these images are not intended to 'cause sexual arousal'. Truth be told, it'd probably do the opposite in most cases.

    18. Re:You know what you're thinking... by statusbar · · Score: 1

      Any bets on how long it will be before these see-through scans in secure areas end up on this site?
      --jeff++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    19. Re:You know what you're thinking... by nexex · · Score: 1
      What if he does that instead of finding kids to extract jollies from?

      What if they're your kids? Your argument, to me, is the same as saying, "well what if a peeping tom was voyeuring your wife instead of out raping some jogger?" I don't want the either of the two evils. I agree the vast majority of people would become desensitized after the first day (of course I still wouldn't want to walk through on someone's first day). But this will surely attract the pedophiles and perverts, not the vast majority.

      --
      Winter 2010: With Glowing Hearts
    20. Re:You know what you're thinking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #1) Grow up, naked bodies are just naked. relax.
      #2) ohhh PEDOPHILES EEVERYYWHERE!!! give me a break
      #3) Go through or dont get on the plane. Simple. Furhter, these kinds of body issues are for the easily influenced, weak and/or shallow...
      #4) no, xrays for security would not be 'pornography' unless the definition of 'pornography' is as defined by the church, a Conservative or the horribly repressed and overly concerned with (gasp) nakedness.

      in short, grow up.

    21. Re:You know what you're thinking... by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

      " Your argument, to me, is the same as saying, "well what if a peeping tom was voyeuring your wife instead of out raping some jogger?"

      That's not exactly what I meant to say, but you're right, it's not a very good argument. (I meant to say that I'd rather they have that as a job than an ice-cream man or something where they can physically grab the kids, but as I said it's not a good argument.)

      "But this will surely attract the pedophiles and perverts, not the vast majority."

      Part of the reason I dimsissed that comment so easily was that I doubt somebody with that sort of record could get into that job. Screeners would be given a good shakedown and investigation before being hired, so to prevent somebody from allowing a suicide bomber in.

      Truth be told, one does not need to see somebody naked to get their 'jollies' over it. People like this could probably get a similar effect from visiting a popular pool. This system, though, makes people look like they're sick. I love porn, but I can't imagine using a system like this to 'get my jollies' with. I can honestly say I'm not all that curious at peeking through one.

      I guess what I'm saying is that I really don't see pedophiles getting jobs operating these things. I don't see people doing it for any real perverted reason except for rapdily fading curiosity.

    22. Re:You know what you're thinking... by binarybum · · Score: 1

      yeah looking at naked people (especially around spring break) gets old real fast.

      who are you???

      --
      ôó
    23. Re:You know what you're thinking... by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Insightful
      What if they were used to stop people from blowing up planes and killing people?

      Yeah, it's like so many people are blowing up planes today. Four groups in what, ten years?

      A single person not being killed because one of these machines caught someone before they had the chance to get on a plane makes it all worthwhile in my books.

      I'm sorry, but this is lunacy. By this argument, we'd immediately ban the automobile. Think of how many people die because of them today. If we'd save just ONE life by banning them... and hot dogs (people do choke to death on them, you know. If we save just one life...

      Besides, I seriously doubt there would be any way to record/save the images created on the machines so it's not like a screener would be grabbing them and posting them on the net or anything.

      Huh? That's right, computers never have any means of saving images. Just how do you think they are going to train the people to run these, keep a stock of different kinds of bombs on hand, or keep a stock set of saved pictures of people carrying said bombs?

      And how will they review a suspicious image -- make the person stand in the picture booth until they decide? Nice, clue him in that he's being scrutinized so he sets the bomb off in the middle of the line.

      A screener could be looking at thousands, or tens of thousands of people a day -

      Oh, of course, invasion of privacy is ok as long as it happens to lots of people.

      Here's what you should be thinking about. That fellow mentioned in the summary, the ShoeBomber? He wasn't just passing through security at Orly, he was actually IN POLICE CUSTODY WEARING HIS SHOE BOMBS the day before he got on the plane. They let him go. Fancy hardware simply cannot replace common sense, but then, we're talking about people who idolize Jerry Lewis.

    24. Re:You know what you're thinking... by binarybum · · Score: 1

      true. the worst part about this is you really don't have other options. It's like telling someone they can get by on a typewriter if they're not comfortable with computers. Flying is a necessity for many and the only reasonable option for most people. If these x-rays were on taxis, sure I'd avoid them and put up with the bus, but I don't think the "you have other choices" arguement works here. People have every right to be upset with this, and in many cases people will now be put into positions they are very uncomfortable with but cannot conceive alternatives for.
      Between the the new stowed luggage scanning waiting lines and now this, believe me I will not fly unless I have to (it used to be the faster, simpler option, but this is frequently no longer the case), but I will still have to.

      --
      ôó
    25. Re:You know what you're thinking... by JackMonkey · · Score: 1

      I agree. Flying anywhere has gotten absolutely ridiculous.

      <rant>
      The security gates are like trying to get across the Berlin Wall, and anything in your luggage is fair game for baggage handlers. I had a digital camera stolen out of my bag the last time I flew, but you can't put locks on your luggage because it's a "security threat". For 2003, this sure feels more like 1984.
      </rant>

    26. Re:You know what you're thinking... by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but this is lunacy. By this argument, we'd immediately ban the automobile. Think of how many people die because of them today. If we'd save just ONE life by banning them... and hot dogs (people do choke to death on them, you know. If we save just one life...

      Nice, but you have your analogy all wrong. Maybe if you said something like "it would require all drivers to blow into a mandatory breathalyzer before starting the ignition", it would be more accurate. Don't know about you, but I wouldn't mind in the slightest if that was a legal requirement for anyone driving, anywhere. I don't drive drunk, so no skin off my back.

      Likewise, I don't particularly care if someone sees me naked, my body isn't so remarkable that I'm different from another 3 billion or more people on the planet in a way that someone would find particularly fascinating. I have 2 arms, 2 legs, 2 eyes, and everything else is likewise fairly normal for a human.

      Nobody is saying you can't fly, just that you'll be subject to a little more security before getting on the plane.

      Just for the sake of arguement, I'm curious what your solution would be, as you don't seem to find their proposal to your liking...?

      Perhaps you're suggesting they just put everyone on planes without any screening at all, and whenever a plane is hijacked or someone is killed, you can say "Yup, I guess we found one!"? Give me a break.

      N.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    27. Re:You know what you're thinking... by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Besides, I seriously doubt there would be any way to record/save the images created on the machines [...] think the "oh! nudies!" aspect of the job would grow old real fast.

      Still, they could have a digital camera standing by in case any celebrities walk through. Don't you want naked pictures of Bill Gates all over the Internet?

      OTOH, the machines probably do need to record either images or full-motion video to use as evidence in case anyone is caught with something nasty.

    28. Re:You know what you're thinking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe we put too much emphasis on human life. A single person not being killed makes everything and anything worthwhile to far too many people. seriously, though, if we really make airplanes safer than they already are the CIA (and foreign intelligence and other bad guys)will have to get even sneakier when they assassinate someone.

    29. Re:You know what you're thinking... by JackMonkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exactly. Ever since 9/11, we've been sacrificing freedom in the name of security.

      This technology will not make our country more noticeably secure. If someone wants to blow up a plane, they will find a way to do it.

      Our national security problems stem from our foreign policies and our general complacency and arrogance as a society. If we want to make ourselves more secure, we need to repair the fabric of our society and stop bombing the hell out of anyone who disagrees with us.

    30. Re:You know what you're thinking... by binarybum · · Score: 1

      doesn't it though?

      well not according to Bill
      .

      =)

      since when does HE get to make such claims?

      This is like the president of a sweatshop saying that all the employees have high moral.

      --
      ôó
    31. Re:You know what you're thinking... by SurgeonGeneral · · Score: 0, Troll

      Oh yeah, great argument man! I love the "what if" approach... I love the "if it saves one life" approach...

      You know what man, why dont you sit dont and think up the most fucked up 1984 style brave new world epxeriement with baby manufacturing and psychic conditioning that keeps people in bouncey kastles endlessly feeding them through tubes and pumping oxygen into the air. I bet that would save 1 life. LETS DO IT!!!!! IT SAVES ONE LIFE!!!! WHAT IF SOMEONE DIES AND WE COULDVE DONE THIS AND SAVED ONE LIFE!!!!

      Man, if you are so concerned about one life, why dont you volenteer your time and help one of the single mothers who suffers with their children while the government installs X-RAY machines so all rich people can travel to Honalulu in safety.

      I have a feeling that instead your going to sit on a computer pounding out messages about saving lives by invading people's UTMOST privacy. Personally I dont want Bob Jones from Minnesota looking at my dick.

      --
      -- "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Jean Jacques Rousseau
    32. Re:You know what you're thinking... by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 1

      I think perhaps you would be singing a different tune if your life were the one that could've been saved...

      Ok, so let's say an entire airliner full of people, men, women, kids. Are they worth a bit of an invasion of privacy to save?

      As for the rest of it - is your body so "special" and "unique" that anyone particularly cares what it looks like? Mine isn't. And I don't.

      Invading your UTMOST privacy is being seen without clothes huh? Guess you don't go to the gym or the pool much huh? Or do you hide yourself in shame behind a towel in the lockerroom?

      Farking north americans all concerned over a bit of nudity, as if it's the most precious thing in the world...

      N.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    33. Re:You know what you're thinking... by Obfuscant · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Nice, but you have your analogy all wrong. Maybe if you said something like "it would require all drivers to blow into a mandatory breathalyzer before starting the ignition", ...

      There are all sorts of causes of deaths in automobiles. If you truly want to prevent deaths (i.e., "if we'd save just ONE life...") then you ban them altogether. That would save lots of lives. And ban hot dogs. And just about everything else. No swimming, no diving, no boating, no autos, no flying, no walking, no showers. The list is endless.

      Don't know about you, but I wouldn't mind in the slightest if that was a legal requirement for anyone driving, anywhere.

      I'd like to know a few things, first. Things like, what happens after you blow into the breathalizer? I assume your plan includes an undefeatable interlock so the ignition won't start if the level is above X. Who picks what level X is? What happens when you drive from one state to another, and X is lower in the second state than in the first, and you're above the new limit? Does the car shut itself off at the state line?

      What happens when there is an emergency, and you are either .01 above the level or the device is broken, and lives are at stake?

      What happens when the drunk has his sober pal blow into the device for him? Or he pays a homeless person $5 to blow for him. Or he takes a balloon and uses the air from that?

      Perhaps you are not familiar with a plan that was going to make it a requirement for trucks to have governors installed so they could not go faster than 55 MPH. People die when speeding trucks go out of control, you know. That sounds like a great plan, right? Well, someone pointed out that sometimes it is a good thing that a truck can go faster than 55, like when it needs to get out of the way of some other truck or car. And then someone else pointed out the difficulty of enforcing this law, since it is trivial to tinker with any such governor. So it isn't a law.

      Likewise, I don't particularly care if someone sees me naked,

      Here's the ubiquitous "I don't need MY civil liberties, so I'll support taking them away from others" argument. If you don't mind people seeing you naked, that's nice for you. It says nothing about whether other people have a right not to be seen that way. I don't swim, dive, boat, or take showers. It's ok with me if all of those activities are banned in the search for fewer deaths. Ok? Did I pick your favorite hobby, yet?

      Nobody is saying you can't fly, just that you'll be subject to a little more security before getting on the plane.

      Unfortunately, that is a erronious statement. A "sense" of security is different than real security. Having a goverment droid search my carry-on looking for nasty things like nail clippers, just to find a vending machine near the gate that sells nail clippers and disposable razors, proved that to me.

      Just for the sake of arguement, I'm curious what your solution would be,

      Solution to what? Invasive, meaningless activities that don't improve security? Why, stop them, of course. Adjust the metal detectors so they don't trigger on the metal in a zipper. Don't waste time wanding people's feet when the floor has so much rebar in it that the buzzer always goes off anyway. Stuff that I'd think was common sense.

      Perhaps you're suggesting they just put everyone on planes without any screening at all,

      I guess if you can't understand why "security at any price" is an unreasonable position, you'll pretend that the only other option is "no security at all" and think you've won the argument.

    34. Re:You know what you're thinking... by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 1

      Solution to what? Invasive, meaningless activities that don't improve security? Why, stop them, of course. Adjust the metal detectors so they don't trigger on the metal in a zipper. Don't waste time wanding people's feet when the floor has so much rebar in it that the buzzer always goes off anyway. Stuff that I'd think was common sense.

      Since you didn't seem to grasp my message the first time around, I'll use smaller words this time. It's possible that you decided not to answer the obvious question because you don't have an answer - of course I don't really expect a reply, but here goes:

      "What is YOUR solution to preventing people from getting onto planes with bombs and weapons?"

      Remember, you need to get as close to 100% accuracy as possible, because you're going to get the blame if your measures don't work.

      Let me know what you come up with. Of course I fully expect you to dodge around the issues as you did before.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    35. Re:You know what you're thinking... by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 1

      Ah, one more thing...

      You seem to think it's your god-given right to fly in a plane or drive a car.

      If your rights and privacy is so important to you that you're unwilling deal with extra security, you're more than welcome to swim, walk, or jog to your chosen destination without endangering the rest of us.

      Thanks.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    36. Re:You know what you're thinking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost exactly;
      except, if we do continue to bomb the hell out of anyone who disagrees with us, then we eventually won't have to worry about foreign policy problems.

    37. Re:You know what you're thinking... by theTerribleRobbo · · Score: 0

      No swimming, no diving, no boating, no autos, no flying, no walking, no showers.

      Or runways, or re-enactments.

    38. Re:You know what you're thinking... by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1
      • Would you want your wife and kids walking through one of these things knowing that a complete stranger will be looking at them naked?
      • What if some pedophile gets a job working these things just to get his jollies from watching children go through?
      • What about people that are so self-concious about their weight that they will hold up the line indefinitely rather than go through security?
      • Are these scanned images akin to public pornography?

      Yep, these are all valid questions, as long as you buy into the belief that seeing a human being in its natural state is somehow bad, or ruinous to a healthy psyche, or even to the person being viewed without their all-powerful protective fabrics.

      Hmm, come to think of it, isn't that same mythical power attributed to God in his natural form? Odd that the people who chafe at having mankind considered to be on par with their deity in any way would propagate both these legends. Hmm.
      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    39. Re:You know what you're thinking... by Rod.Dorman · · Score: 1
      OTOH, the machines probably do need to record either images or full-motion video to use as evidence in case anyone is caught with something nasty

      I don't see how that would be necessary. When something looks suspicious the subsequent physical search would result in the object being "found" on the suspect. Surely that would be sufficient evidence, there's no need for the images.
    40. Re:You know what you're thinking... by 73939133 · · Score: 1

      Would you want your wife and kids walking through one of these things knowing that a complete stranger will be looking at them naked?

      Do your wife and kids see a doctor?

      What if some pedophile gets a job working these things just to get his jollies from watching children go through?

      I don't care what you get your jollies from, and I don't care whether a pedophile gets his jollies from watching an X-ray machine.

      What about people that are so self-concious about their weight that they will hold up the line indefinitely rather than go through security?

      "Sir, if you aren't going to go through the security system, would you please step aside? No, there won't be a refund on the ticket."

      Are these scanned images akin to public pornography?

      No: the primary purpose of pornography is to cause sexual arousal; the primary purpose of X-ray backscatter images is security.

    41. Re:You know what you're thinking... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      ...you're more than welcome to swim, walk, or jog to your chosen destination without endangering the rest of us.

      Sir, I've never been a danger to anyone else, despite having previously always travelled with a /GASP/ Swiss army knife in my pocket and probably a screwdriver or two on my keychain. In fact, now that I am allegedly disarmed, I am unable to help solve a problem were it to arise. Nothing safer than a whole box full of unarmed people and one person who has smuggled on a weapon, huh?

      It is your pathetic fear of everyone else who happens to want to travel the same place you do that is the problem. Your being too afraid to fly without trying to take away everyone else's freedoms (which our founding fathers did say were endowed by Our Creator -- if you were created by anything less than God, that's your problem) is the reason why YOU should be swimming, walking, or whatever else, instead of flying. Your fear is not my problem, and I resent your attempts at making it so.

    42. Re:You know what you're thinking... by sketerpot · · Score: 1
      "Sir, if you aren't going to go through the security system, would you please step aside? No, there won't be a refund on the ticket."

      That's the great part about the airport personnel I've seen: they're very polite and professional. If some pedophile is getting his jollies from backscatter x-rays, you won't know about it.

  2. Another version of the same story. by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There's another new article on this in the 'Globe and Mail'. It's a bit more indepth, and features a really, er, 'nice' picture of a seemingly shaven lady testing out the machine.

    1. Re:Another version of the same story. by msheppard · · Score: 4, Informative

      heres a picture of the woman in the picture without the xrays.

      M@

      --
      Krispy Cream is people
    2. Re:Another version of the same story. by Quixote · · Score: 3, Informative
      If you click on the image in the Wired story, you can see a better picture of the lady.

    3. Re:Another version of the same story. by grunherz · · Score: 5, Funny

      The first Airport Screener with a digital camera is gonna make a fortune the first time Britney Spears walks through this thing.

      Creepy image though ...

      --
      Four weeks, Twenty papers, that's two dollars ... plus tip.
    4. Re:Another version of the same story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jesus, they could have at least tested this on Jennifer Anniston.

      I feel like my eyes have been bombarded by Xray.

    5. Re:Another version of the same story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      heres a picture of the woman in the picture without the xrays.


      AHHHH! Turn the machine back on! Please!!!
    6. Re:Another version of the same story. by dissy · · Score: 4, Informative

      > ...of a seemingly shaven lady...

      Just to point it out, these xrays bounce off the skin only.
      So, she could possibly be as retro as the 70's downstairs, but you still couldnt tell.

      Look at the top of her head, she does have a full head of hair there atleast, so you can see what I mean.

    7. Re:Another version of the same story. by Paleh0rse · · Score: 1

      I will now announce my plans to create a pair of Khakis which have a pocket for my PDA right in the F-ing crotch. Have you seen the people who work those X-ray machines? I don't want Billy-Joe-Redneck checking out my package. That's just creepy.

      --
      "Whadda'ya watchin'?"
      "Angry Monkey."
      "That HORRIBLE monkey."
    8. Re:Another version of the same story. by noah_fense · · Score: 1

      Make sure /. posts where/when you can sign up! or at least a link to the pictures they DON'T want you to see. (flash mountain [flash mountain.com] anyone ?) everyone knows some of the most enjoyable pr0n is the funny stuff -n

    9. Re:Another version of the same story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      heres a picture of the woman in the picture without the xrays.

      That X-ray machine actually made her look attractive!

    10. Re:Another version of the same story. by Thud457 · · Score: 1
      I just patented my new line of lead-lined clothes!

      I've also got patterns for aluminium styles, too!

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    11. Re:Another version of the same story. by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 1

      Hmm... Wonder if there'd be some way to use a machine like this in place of a 3d-laser scanner for effects work...

      N.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    12. Re:Another version of the same story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Just to point it out, these xrays bounce off the skin only.

      So, uh, hypothetical exploit:

      1. Implant bomb into fully trained suicide bomber, send them on their way.
      2. Watch system completely fail to detect implanted bomb.
      3. Slaughter![1]

      Easy. Too easy. Doesn't even have to be neat surgery - it's not like they've gotta live very long, or like the people doing it really give a shit about their wellbeing, after all.

      This shit is scary, not cool.

    13. Re:Another version of the same story. by TamMan2000 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Doesn't even have to be neat surgery - it's not like they've gotta live very long

      Doesn't even have to be surgery... ;)

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    14. Re:Another version of the same story. by mcpkaaos · · Score: 1

      Doesn't even have to be surgery... ;)

      Yeah, but wouldn't it look a little suspicious to see a couple wires sticking out of someone's ass? I think the chic terrorist this year will opt for the surgery.

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    15. Re:Another version of the same story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO! I don't want to see either one!

      If these devices are introduced, there should be regulations to ensure that all passengers look like supermodels.

    16. Re:Another version of the same story. by Lucas+Membrane · · Score: 1

      "Bounce off skin only" -- How can that be? What kind of deeep mumbo is this? BS. Elsewhere they say "organic". Hair is skin. It's infrared, not X-Rays.

    17. Re:Another version of the same story. by Kashif+Shaikh · · Score: 1

      But I don't see any nipples...

    18. Re:Another version of the same story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yeah, but wouldn't it look a little suspicious to see a couple wires sticking out of someone's ass?"

      Not at SFO.

    19. Re:Another version of the same story. by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      yes, and now considere the wavelenght of the ir in comparison to hair thickness and you will see that hair cannot be shown.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    20. Re:Another version of the same story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Squeal like a pig, boy...

      You sure got a purdy mouth.

    21. Re:Another version of the same story. by BigBadBri · · Score: 1
      What I want to know is - how do the shadows appear in the picture?

      If it's all backscatter, the body should appear a uniform white colour, without the careful shading under the (admittedly quite large) breasts.

      I reckon the pic's been Photoshopped.

      --
      oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
  3. Gnome Vs KDE --0- HOT TOPIC! by Yr0 · · Score: 0, Insightful

    KDE

    A big room somewhere in Europe with lots of chrome and glass and a great big whiteboard in the front with lots of tiny, neat writing on it. There are about 50 desks, each with headphones and pristine workstations, also with a lot of chrome and glass. The faint sound of classical music permeates the room, accompanying the clicky-click of 50 programmers typing or quietly talking in one of the appropriately assigned meeting areas. (Which of course consist of elegant contemporary white pine coffee tables surrounded by contemporary white pine and fine leather meeting chairs.) Coffee, tea, mineral water and fruit juices are available in the break area.

    At the end of the day, *everyone* checks in their code and the project leader does a "make" just to make sure it all compiles cleanly, but it's mostly only done from tradition anymore since it always compiles cleanly and works flawlessly. When all milestones have been met, and everything has been QA'd, (usually within a day or two of the roadmap that was written up 18 months previous) a new KDE release is packaged up and released to the mirror sites with the appropriate 24-hour delay for distribution before being announced.

    KDE developers are generally between the ages of 16 and 25, like art made of lines and squares and the colors white and black. When/if they finally stop taking government subsidies and get around to getting "real jobs," most of their salary will be taken in taxes so the socialist government can subsidize the care and feeding of the next generation of KDE developers, just like it did for them. A high percentage of KDE developers, during their mandatory 5 years of government military service, crack from their years of cultural dullness and flee Europe to become terrorists for the sheer joy to be found in killing random strangers for no discernible reason.

    GNOME

    An abandoned warehouse in San Francisco, kitted up as for a rave, electronica playing at 15db louder than "my ears are bleeding and I'm developing an aneurism" volumes and the windows all painted over black so that the strobe and spotlights and lasers can be seen better. Computers, mainly made of whatever stuff has been exchanged for crack or scavenged from dumpsters behind dot-bombs, are scattered around on whatever furniture is available, which also consists of whatever stuff has been exchanged for crack or scavenged from dumpsters behind dot-bombs. There's no break area, but you may be able to bum a beer (or more likely something harder) off of one of the developers hanging around, and they will probably be too jacked up on X, coke, acid, heroin, ether or all of the above to notice that you've taken anything.

    Development strategies are generally determined by whatever light show happens to be going on at the moment, when one of the developers will leap up and scream "I WANT IT TO LOOK JUST LIKE THAT" and then straight-arm his laptop against the wall in an hallucinogenic frenzy before vomiting copiously, passing out and falling face-down in the middle of the dance floor. There's no whiteboard, so developers diagram things out in the puddles of spilt beer, urine and vomit on the floor.

    At the end of the day - whenever that is since an equal number of programmers will be passed out at any given time - or really whenever someone happens to think of it (which is rarely), someone might type "make" on some machine somewhere, with mixed results. Generally nothing happens, so he/she shrugs his/her shoulders and wanders off to look for someone who might have more pink/black-striped pills. Once in a great while, generally in the unpleasant time between the come-down from the last thing they took and before whatever it was they took just now comes on fully, someone will tar up a bunch of random files and post it on a website someplace it as the next GNOME release, usually with a reference to some kind of monkey.

    GNOME developers rarely live past 25 and prefer "alternative" art - generally stuff made of feces that's "too edgy" for most people to "understand" or "like." Core GNOME developers are heavy Ketamine users. The bodies of GNOME developers can often be found in dumpsters or floating face-down in any sufficiently large body of water.

    --








    I R00z j00!!!!!
  4. Nice Pic by LiXY · · Score: 0

    What a flattering image!

  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. Hrmm Airline XXX Videos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How many people are willing to bet that there will be x-ray photos released some how on the internet, or even that a website will try to make a profit off it? heheheh

    1. Re:Hrmm Airline XXX Videos? by JAgostoni · · Score: 1

      At the very least they will have created a fetish market fo it ...

  7. Obligatory considerations by serial+frame · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, maybe this will get me through the airport a little quicker. But then again, maybe it'll just add up on the delays. How so, you wonder? Consider the current climate in airport security. Not only will the person itself be under much scrutiny in the event of, say, a PDA left in a breast pocket (could be hard to discern from a block of C-4), but I'm sure the person will be delayed even further by background checks and such.

    This technology doesn't seem it will replace traditional X-ray, as I'm sure people will still (as gross as it sounds) be smuggling drugs and evil nanotech warriors in plastic baggies in their...rectums? (que AC goatse man reply)

    I certainly hope I don't end up getting skin cancer or something, but then again, I'm paranoid, right?

    --

    -
    And the Angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots! The cries of the carrots!"
    1. Re:Obligatory considerations by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      This technology doesn't seem it will replace traditional X-ray, as I'm sure people will still (as gross as it sounds) be smuggling drugs and evil nanotech warriors in plastic baggies in their...rectums? (que AC goatse man reply)

      However, if they can make this thing delicate enough to recognize a plastic baggie, people will have to switch to sausage casings. Just think, you'll have to smuggle your drugs inside a sheep's bladder, in your ass. Talk about recursion...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Obligatory considerations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "people will still (as gross as it sounds) be smuggling drugs and evil nanotech warriors in plastic baggies in their...rectums?"

      I think the important concern here is that people aren't likely going to sneak guns/knives/bombs onto a plane by shoving them up their ass.

    3. Re:Obligatory considerations by dacarr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not only will the person itself be under much scrutiny in the event of, say, a PDA left in a breast pocket (could be hard to discern from a block of C-4).... That is why they have you remove them before you pass through the metal detectors.

      --
      This sig no verb.
    4. Re:Obligatory considerations by serial+frame · · Score: 1

      And further into the gutter our minds go. :)

      --

      -
      And the Angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots! The cries of the carrots!"
    5. Re:Obligatory considerations by ocie · · Score: 1

      I certainly hope I don't end up getting skin cancer or something, but then again, I'm paranoid, right?

      Very paranoid. This device subjects the subject to .05 microsieverts of radiation. For comparison, the average person recieves 3600 microsieverts of radiation in one year. This is equivilant to the amount of radiation you would recieve in about 7 minutes. If the technology can reduce wait times, then I think it would be worthwhile.

      --
      JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
    6. Re:Obligatory considerations by tzanger · · Score: 1

      That's why you're supposed to REMOVE all electronic devices, pens, wallets, everything before going through the metal detectors. If some putz leaves his palmpilot in his shirt pocket, he's the ass, not the airport.

    7. Re:Obligatory considerations by chundo · · Score: 1
      I think this is a great idea. I don't care if a stranger sees a featureless black and white picture of me naked. Here's my current boarding procedure:
      1. Stand in line behind 20 people digging around in their pockets looking for metal objects
      2. Wait for everyone to dump their crap on the conveyor belt
      3. Get pulled aside and frisked anyways because my shoes have metal rivets in them
      4. Take shoes off at guard's request
      5. Put shoes back on
      6. Pick up metal objects and refill my pockets
      I don't know about you, but I'd opt for:
      1. Walk into a checkpoint, turn around once, wait five seconds for a "Go" signal (or "Stop" if something looks suspicious), and walk to your gate.
      With a bit of experience and training, screeners will be able to identify suspicious objects on people just as fast as can when they scan my carry-on bags - which I've learned is a very efficient process compared to the pat-downs and hand-scanning I go through when I set off the "dumb" metal detectors.

      -j
    8. Re:Obligatory considerations by chundo · · Score: 1

      I certainly hope I don't end up getting skin cancer or something, but then again, I'm paranoid, right?

      Do you go through security more often than you see sunlight? According to the article, the radiation is approximately like being out in the sun.

      -j

    9. Re:Obligatory considerations by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      This stuff doesn't penetrate your skin. Balloons will continue to function nicely.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    10. Re:Obligatory considerations by serial+frame · · Score: 1

      Dude, this is /., and yes, I do. :)

      --

      -
      And the Angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots! The cries of the carrots!"
    11. Re:Obligatory considerations by jafac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Falsies.

      She could be flat-chested, and have packed her bra with C-4, with a detonator cleverly hidden in her belt buckle or shoes.

      Then she could assemble the bomb(s) in the lavatory on the plane.

      A suprising number of women who are too chicken to get a boob job wear falsies. So a security person, spotting falsies, would necessarily need to do a tactile examination to make sure they're made of squishy silicone, instead of not-so-squishy C-4.
      On the other hand, some nitrate slurries could be made to resemble silicone.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    12. Re:Obligatory considerations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This technology doesn't seem it will replace traditional X-ray, as I'm sure people will still (as gross as it sounds) be smuggling drugs and evil nanotech warriors in plastic baggies in their...rectums? (que AC goatse man reply)

      Backscatter X-ray technology is not required to examine this gentleman.

    13. Re:Obligatory considerations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm . . don't people ALREADY smuggle stuff in their rectums?

    14. Re:Obligatory considerations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. I'm pretty sure people already DO have stuff in their rectums, thusly nullifying grandparent post's speculation of stuffing said matter into rectum. Not much space there, you know.

    15. Re:Obligatory considerations by Tokerat · · Score: 1


      When you go to the CN Tower in Toronto, they have these special gates that sniff for bombs when you walk through them. You stand there and they puff air at you from all different directions. Makes me wonder why more airports don't have it, if they're so worried about terrorists.

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    16. Re:Obligatory considerations by jafac · · Score: 1

      Because the official "line" from the present administration is that 9/11 was caused by Saddam Hussein, and in order to stop terrorism, we must kill all the mooslims.

      Improving airport security costs money, reduces the efficiency of our economy, and is generally unAmerican.

      (This message has been brought to you by Sarcasm. Don't watch the news without it!)

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  8. Don't forget to wear your iron undies by AnswerIs42 · · Score: 1
    Since this X-Ray will show you, for the most part.. completly nude.

    more info

    1. Re:Don't forget to wear your iron undies by Politburo · · Score: 1

      The Wired link is the AP story, just like the link you provide.

  9. Censorship? by svenjob · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anyone else notice her lack of nipples? Were they censored away? Or did the SCO and Amazon.com jointly patent X-Ray pr0n®?

    --

    Totally Life!

    ALL replies

    1. Re:Censorship? by rootofevil · · Score: 1

      or maybe she just doesnt have nipples. from the picture posted a few comments above...well lets just hope she doesnt.

      --
      turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
    2. Re:Censorship? by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      It's probably just that they don't show up well, the X rays seem to penetrate the skin maybe an inch or so and it even looks like you can see her brain, and nasal cavities slightly. Also, I doubt the melanin in the nipples reflects X-rays to a significant degree.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    3. Re:Censorship? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Also, I doubt the melanin in the nipples reflects X-rays to a significant degree.

      I am gonna write up a scientific study proposal to find out. "Don't worry mam, it is only science" :-)

      Hey, there is a new porn niche that the big guys haven't grabbed (pun) yet: X-ray porn. Motto: "Gorgeous babes in any wavelength you want!"

      Wait until you see the Gamma Girls!

      3. PROFIT!

    4. Re:Censorship? by Robert1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now with the hottest brain and nasal cavities you've ever seen!

  10. Interesting by Quixote · · Score: 1
    This looks very promising (except, maybe, to the people manning this machine: they'll probably get sick of watching fat people "naked" for hours at a time).

    How difficult would it be to make a portable version of this? Imagine, if you will, a portable version that could be discreetly carried around (maybe even in a van or something). I bet suicide bombings would soon become a thing of the past.

    1. Re:Interesting by Thng · · Score: 2, Informative
      At the moment, very difficult. One of the problems with the device is that they're already fairly large. Cnn had an article yesterday.
      Null said the biggest problem with the backscatter machines may be their size. One version, the BodySearch system made by Billerica, Massachusetts-based American Science & Engineering is about 4-feet by 7-feet by 10-feet -- awfully big for an airport lobby, Null said.
    2. Re:Interesting by Greedo · · Score: 1

      I bet suicide bombings would soon become a thing of the past.

      "Is that a pipe bomb in your pocket, or you just happy to see me? Oh, wait ... you *are* happy to see me. Please sir, move along."

      --
      Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
    3. Re:Interesting by bobbozzo · · Score: 1

      Sounds like it's not much bigger than the conveyor x-ray machines for carry-on.

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
  11. Health risks for frequent flyers? by BWJones · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Aside from the rather titilating views that these folks will be getting I am wondering about the health risks that constant bombardment of X-rays to frequent flyers. What about kids, infants and pregnant women?

    Man, perhaps purchasing that new Cessna Skylane is getting more attractive.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Health risks for frequent flyers? by NickDngr · · Score: 2, Informative

      The MSNBC version of this story says "The radiation dosage is about the same as sunshine."

      --
      Yoda of Borg am I! Assimilated shall you be! Futile resistance is, hmm?
    2. Re:Health risks for frequent flyers? by Country_hacker · · Score: 2, Informative

      RTFA man. "The radiation dosage is about the same as sunshine, Hallowell said." So you'd have to be a real frequent flyer to have as much chance of getting skin cancer as, say, a sun worshiper/surfer dude.

      'Course since most geeks haven't been exposed to the sun in years..... ;-)

      --
      Never give any object more potential energy than you want it to have.
    3. Re:Health risks for frequent flyers? by ebh · · Score: 1

      TFA says that the amount of radiation exposure is comparable to sunshine.

    4. Re:Health risks for frequent flyers? by jason0000042 · · Score: 1

      From the article: The radiation dosage is about the same as sunshine, Hallowell said.

      --
      i don't like my old sig.
    5. Re:Health risks for frequent flyers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sunshine gives you cancer

    6. Re:Health risks for frequent flyers? by FroMan · · Score: 1

      Most likely health risk is some slashdotter running this machine. Either he'd go blind when women go through, or he'd be beat to death when women go through.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    7. Re:Health risks for frequent flyers? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      What about kids, infants and pregnant women?

      What about the person running the machine? That poor screener's going to get more repeated doses than passengers.

      But then if he's looking at all the young kids and infants naked via this machine, perhaps he should get dosed, if these totally hairless bleached-out views do indeed become titillating to the operator.

      If the contraindicated items show up black and skin shows up white, you'd think they'd realize that a simple modification of inverting the image and a high-pass filter after that would give the screener a visual of the contraband items while preserving the modesty of the citizen.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    8. Re:Health risks for frequent flyers? by PetiePooo · · Score: 1

      Most likely health risk is some slashdotter running this machine. Either he'd go blind when women go through, or he'd be beat to death when women go through.

      Or blind because he's beating his.. uh.. to.. death.. Oh, never mind. I guess that's just something mothers say to try to discourage such behaviour.

    9. Re:Health risks for frequent flyers? by Wavicle · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You know... I have heard this sort of line time and again, and frankly I'm quite sick of it (I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking the person in the story who made the comment)...

      Not all radiation is the same!

      I'm tired of hearing "Oh you are exposed to more radiation on a trip from L.A. to New York than from getting an X-Ray"... Oh REALLY... Tell you what, let's put a piece of aircraft aluminum in front of your film and see if you can expose through it... What? You can't? What if you set it really high? X-Rays don't penetrate aluminum very well? I see...

      I know this isn't exactly what was said here, but... X-ray radiation is used because it is the right energy level to be blocked in different amounts by different body tissues. When we say "blocked" what we mean is "the energy of the X-ray is absorbed by your tissues". X-rays will ionize chemicals in your cells, and that can cause cancer. When a high energy photon smashes into your bodily tissue and is stopped, that's when the potential for bad things happens.

      Most of the ionizing radiation coming from sunshine doesn't make it to the ground. Most of what makes it to us from sunshine is the longer wavelength stuff, like infrared, visible light and UV which don't have don't have much ionization potential (well, the UV has some, as is well documented) and the very short wavelength stuff that would most likely pass right through you since 50 miles of atmosphere hadn't stopped it already. The radiation you receive on a flight from L.A. to New York had a short enough wavelength to penetrate the aircraft's aluminum skin, chances are pretty good it will pass through you without stopping.

      I do not think this thing is safe... and what really irritates me is it will be YEARS before a cancer caused by it shows up, so it will be impossible to hold them accountable.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    10. Re:Health risks for frequent flyers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm modding you down as "overrated" for posting completely incorrect statements about how radiation works and interacts with objects.

    11. Re:Health risks for frequent flyers? by Wavicle · · Score: 1

      According to the Southern Illinois University Center for Environmental and Health Science:

      Units of radiation exposure: "It is the energy of ionizing radiation that causes damage to biological tissue. If radiation passes straight through tissue without giving up any of its energy, it will do no damage."

      Why don't you break down your rebuttal (or lack thereof) further?

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    12. Re:Health risks for frequent flyers? by clarkcox3 · · Score: 1

      The whole point of backscatter x-ray machines is that the x-rays are not just stopped by your skin, they're reflected as well. That is, the emitter and the detector are on the same side of the target, so the photons have to bounce off the target to be detected. On the other hand, with a doctor's x-ray machine, where the emitter and the detector are on opposite sides of the target, the x-rays have to pass completely through the target to be detected.

      --
      There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
  12. Any good technical descriptions? by sleepingsquirrel · · Score: 4, Informative
    Since I'd never heard of X-Ray backscatter before I'd thought I'd do a google search, but I couldn't find much in the way of technical details of the how and why xray backscatter works. There didn't seem to be much for academic/research papers available. Is this a relatively new thing? The article mentions that the xrays are bounced off of you, but I wonder what dosage you would be exposed to. Are they using an xray source, or is it background radiation? These were my findings so far...

    More pictures.
    More detail as to how the machine works.

    1. Re:Any good technical descriptions? by rusty0101 · · Score: 3, Informative

      From the perspective of a Niel Stephenson reader, think of this as a x-ray frequency varient of milameter radar.

      What this does is send extreamly low dose x-ray radiation in the direction of the subject being scanned. Some percentage fo the x-rays (being extreamly high energy, even if it is low dose) will pass through the subject. Some percentage will be absorbed by the subject. Some other percentage will be reflected by the subject.

      A percentage of the reflected x-rays will be captured by an x-ray sensitive varient of a CCD and an image will be created by a computer.

      The demonstrations so far indicate that x-rays for the most part are passing right through clothing, and being reflected by the skin of the subject. Harder objects (such as plastic and metals) are either going to absorbe a higher percentage than usuall, or reflect a higher percentage than the subject, and will present visable difference in the image collected.

      Some training will be required, however most weapons are going to be fairly visable to this equipment.

      I have not heard however if glass is something that this equipment will recognize. We could be back to seeing metal and ceramic knives, but not glass.

      Much of this is my own opinion, so take what you will from it. Critizism is welcome as well.

      -Rusty

      --
      You never know...
    2. Re:Any good technical descriptions? by pclminion · · Score: 1
      I don't know about this technology specifically, but off the top of my head, I would assume that they are using a lower frequency of X ray radiation (lower voltage in the X ray tube).

      Traditional X rays work by passing through the body and are literally absorbed by dense material like bone. The resulting image shows regions of high X ray absorption. The reason it works is because the X rays have high enough energy to penetrate the body and come out the other side (except, of course, for where they are absorbed, which is the entire point).

      This new technique works by scattering the X rays off the surface of the body. It detects metal objects because they interact strongly with X rays. In a sense it is operating on the reverse principle -- instead of looking for where the X rays are absorbed, it is looking for where they are strongly reflected. It must be that they are using a lower X ray energy, otherwise the X rays would penetrate, not get reflected.

      I wouldn't go so far as to say the technology is safe, but the entire point is for the X rays to reflect, i.e., not get absorbed. It's probably safer than a traditional X ray.

    3. Re:Any good technical descriptions? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      I'm pulling this out of my ass, but it seems pretty reasonable.

      X-ray goes through things; they put an emitter on one side of you, a reciever on the other side, and they watch where things don't penetrate.

      Backscatter puts the reciever beside the transmitter, and the watch what bounces.

      Put the two together, and you get the best of both worlds.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    4. Re:Any good technical descriptions? by SpeedRacer · · Score: 4, Informative

      X-ray backscattering has been studied on an experimental level pretty extensively for quite a while. Perform a Google search on bremsstrahlung. Bremsstrahlung means "braking radiation." Electron bremsstrahlung is the most common. When an electron is deflected by the electron cloud of an atom, that acceleration produces an X-ray at an angle that is oblique to the original direction of the electron's path.

      My Bachelor's degree is in Physics, and my junior/senior research back in 1987-1989 was on bremsstrahlung. You can find more on the subject at:

      http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Bremsstrah lung.html

    5. Re:Any good technical descriptions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> I'm pulling this out of my ass

      Yes you are. Now if you're done playing with it, please put it back up there where it belongs.

    6. Re:Any good technical descriptions? by kwench · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nichts gegen Bremsstrahlung, aber...

      Z backscatter seems to base on the Compton effect. (At least that's what the specs from AS&E say.)

      There are three major effects ionisating radiation has on matter. Photoeffect, Compton-effect and pair emission. The last one appears only with very high energies, the first one need elements with high mass.

      This leaves the Compton effect that mainly takes place with medium energies and affects rather light elements, as used in organic matter. Briefly, the photon splits into a less-powerful photon and an electron. The new photon might (or might not) come back to you. This (back-)scattered light can be detected with special sensors.

      For medical purposes this scattered light is a PITA since you only get some gray blurred edges. But it seems to me that now there exists a new technique to get some good information out of this scattered light.

      Just my two cents...

    7. Re:Any good technical descriptions? by trtmrt · · Score: 1
      X-ray backscattering has been studied on an experimental level pretty extensively for quite a while. Perform a Google search on bremsstrahlung.


      Bremsstrahlung is radiation produced by accelerating or decelerating charged particles. It is often used to produce X-rays and this is the only connection it has to backscattered X-rays.

      Backscattered radiation is just that - radiation that has been scattered back toward the source (180 degrees scattering angle). This means that they are measuring what gets bounced back off the surface to reconstruct the objects.
    8. Re:Any good technical descriptions? by kisrael · · Score: 1

      This leaves the Compton effect that mainly takes place with medium energies and affects rather light elements,

      Err, so you're saying this thing is Straight Outta Compton?

      Huh.

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    9. Re:Any good technical descriptions? by bobthemuse · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't these x-rays bounce off of ceramics, metals, and glass just fine? If the point of the tech is to detect plastic explosive (as regular metal detectors don't)... I'd imagine all those substances are denser (so more x-ray opaque) then skin and plastic explosives...

    10. Re:Any good technical descriptions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't bombarding people with high-energy particles, so this is isn't "Bremsstrahlung". They are using low-level X-rays and looking at the backscatter.

      "My Bachelor's degree is in Physics, and my junior/senior research back in 1987-1989 was on bremsstrahlung. You can find more on the subject at:"

      Based on your comments, you should ask for your tuition back.

    11. Re:Any good technical descriptions? by SpeedRacer · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry my comments weren't clearer on this point, but my intention was to answer the original question of the how common research on backscattering is. I pointed to backscattering research that I did as an undergraduate. We studied the x-ray backscattering produced by accelerating electrons at thin films of metal. The x-rays themselves were examples of bremsstrahlung, or braking radiation, that occurs when a charged particle deccelerates or changes direction. We studied the energy and angle of the x-ray produced. I provided a link to anyone who might be interested in that phenomenon as well.

      My intent was not to comment directly on the Z backscatter technology describe in the article, nor the Compton effect it on which it seems to be based, but to illustrate the backscattering is common, and fairly well understood by the physics community. Again, my bad for not making the intent of my post more clear.

      I will remember in future comments the literalist nature of some persons on this forum and be more detailed in my replies. Considering, Mr. Coward, how little you know of me, I suspect you're not the right person to be making suggestions about getting a refund for my tuition.

  13. Everytime I fly, I will get x-rayed? by tstoneman · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but there wasn't enough info on either of the links...

    Does this mean that they will be using X-rays on us everytime we pass through a security checkpoint?

    Already I question how safe all that stuff is, especially standing in front of the opening of the X-ray machine while I put my carry-ons on the conveyor belt.

    Although the technology is really cool, is this something I want to subject myself to, especially if I am a business traveller?

    1. Re:Everytime I fly, I will get x-rayed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aw, shucks....what's a little cancer as long as we're DEFENDING FREEDOM?

    2. Re:Everytime I fly, I will get x-rayed? by Politburo · · Score: 3, Funny

      READ, dammit! It is the same radiation as sunshine. Are you afraid to go outside too?

    3. Re:Everytime I fly, I will get x-rayed? by calethix · · Score: 1

      " READ, dammit! It is the same radiation as sunshine. Are you afraid to go outside too?" Afraid to go outside you ask? Did you forget you're posting to slashdot?

    4. Re:Everytime I fly, I will get x-rayed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, more or less, every time you fly you are getting X-ray'ed, and always have. Flying exposes you to a lot of Radiation in general, due to being in the upper atmosphere for prolonged bits of time. A standard Business traveler over the time of a year gets much more than the 'legal' dose of Radiation than is allowed for Medical workers working around x-ray machines. So, point being, that the majority of the Radiation you're gonna be exposed to when flying will come from riding around at 30,000 feet (and possibly from eating the airline food) and not from the security machine. A link with more info Here

    5. Re:Everytime I fly, I will get x-rayed? by Politburo · · Score: 1

      psst, that was the point.

    6. Re:Everytime I fly, I will get x-rayed? by Gorm+the+DBA · · Score: 1
      On a day like today? Damned straight I'm afraid to go outside. It's hot and humid and the world is full of terrorists and evil people and Hackers and Stock Swindlers and Republicans.

      I'll stay inside and play my PS2, thanks.

    7. Re:Everytime I fly, I will get x-rayed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without sunscreen? Yes. Are you implying that I can merely wear sunscreen to pass through this scanner safely?

      Further, it must be more powerful than sunlight, because it passes through clothing. When's the last time you got a sunburn while wearing jeans?

    8. Re:Everytime I fly, I will get x-rayed? by isorox · · Score: 1

      I've been burnt through a tshirt before

    9. Re:Everytime I fly, I will get x-rayed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      READ, dammit! It is the same radiation as sunshine. Are you afraid to go outside too?

      Yesssses mustn't let the evil hobbitssesss steal my precioussss.

  14. No shoes? by sharlskdy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except Richard Reid had the explosives in his shoes .

    Are these scatter rays going to show shoes as well? The photo they have shown misses the feet!

    This seems very, very close to the security system they had in Total Recall!

    1. Re:No shoes? by morcheeba · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly.

      And it also misses weapons hidden in body cavities (including the obvious i/o ports, but also under this woman's breasts)

    2. Re:No shoes? by jmichaelg · · Score: 3, Interesting
      They'll just extend the scan to include the feet as well.

      The bigger problem is even then it's not clear his explosive would have shown up. He didn't have any wiring or timer - just plain explosive shaped to look like part of the shoe. If whoever made made both shoes had made the shoes the same way so they matched, who is going to recognize a pair of explosive shoe tongues? Sniffing? Without getting explicit, there are ways of circumventing the chemical sniffers as well. As Abraham Lincoln once said "If a man wants to kill me, he'll find a way."

    3. Re:No shoes? by Colonel+Panic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not only that, but shoes are mostly made of plastic, rubber, etc. that would look just the same as plastic explosives.

      Those who are willing to trade security for freedom deserve neither --GWB

    4. Re:No shoes? by afidel · · Score: 1

      conventional xray machines detect the properties of explosives and false color image them as red or orange depending on type. I'm not sure if they get enough info out of the backscatter technique to do something similar or not.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    5. Re:No shoes? by dargaud · · Score: 1
      > Not only that, but shoes are mostly made of plastic, rubber, etc. that would look just the same as plastic explosives

      On an X-ray, yes, but some other systems, like neutron scatter tomography machines, can detect some types of chemicals very well. Most explosives contain a very high ratio of nitrogen making them easy to differentiate from plasctis or metals. Those neutron tomographs are being used more and more to scan checked luggage at big European airports.

      The drawback is that the radiation flux is very high: you don't want any living thing to be in your luggage (a good way to sterlize your dirty laundry), and it completely destoys undevelopped photographic films. Keep them with you and put them in the X-ray machine in their own plastic bag, it's much safer.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    6. Re:No shoes? by putaro · · Score: 1

      So are we going to have everyone strip first and put their clothes through the neutron scatter tomography machine?

      There's too many ways around the system, especially if you're willing to die in the process of the bombin or hijacking.

      We'd be much better off DEemphasizing security on airlines, taking an ocassional bombing with a shrub and jumping on hijackers in the cabin and beating the bejeezus out of them than with this system which magnifies every terrorist act that occurs on an airplane, making them magnets for terrorists.

  15. so long as i dont have to take my damn shoes off by *weasel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    if they just put the monitor in a curtained-off booth, that'd be enough privacy for me. hell, i have less privacy when i try on pants at the store. like i care if they can see my junk.

    they have the authority to strip search you on nothing more than a hunch - so how different is this really?

    i do remember reading an article talking about this some time back and they were thinking of using a computer generated genderless wireframe and then transfer any hits from the backscatter onto that image, instead of showing the viewer the actual person in the scanner.

    --
    // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
  16. The extra money was great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but it looks like no more heroin muleing for me :(

  17. Guilty until proven innocent/otherwise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I dunno... I understand the "need" for something like this, and how it would be a very effective preventative measure, but shit... Aside from that fact that it's one HELL of an invasion of privacy, the whole prinicple of being treated "guilty until proven innocent" really gets me. I don't dig on this idea at ALL.

  18. This technology is getting pretty good. by Meat+Blaster · · Score: 1
    I think it's just a matter of time until we've got Total Recall style detection for contraband. Which isn't a bad thing. I know I feel a lot safer now than I did before -- the screening procedures have gotten a lot tighter and have improved with the technology.

    The odor-detecting technology is getting pretty good too.

    1. Re:This technology is getting pretty good. by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1
      I know I feel a lot safer now than I did before -- the screening procedures have gotten a lot tighter and have improved with the technology.

      I don't particularly. The Reid case showed that the barn door's been closed in that regard. Highjacking airplanes is effectively impossible now, and smuggling bomb-making materials on-board will run into problems if you have to put them together (though I wonder what would have happened if he'd been smart and tried to light them off in the bathroom...).

      Arming the pilots and armoring the cockpits is the main thing needed. After that, take a few pointers from El Al and require luggage inspections (and depressurizations!), etc. A better interview than, "Did you pack your bags?" might help. That stops highjackings and bombings.

      Not that it's worth the big concern everyone has for it. It's just not realistically that big a risk. Over the past ten years you're more likely to have drowned in your bathtub than to have died in a terrorist attack, even counting 9/11. Not that we shouldn't do anything, but total panic and wasteful (instead of smart) security doesn't help.

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    2. Re:This technology is getting pretty good. by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      The Reid case showed that the barn door's been closed in that regard. Highjacking airplanes is effectively impossible now

      Screw the Reid case. The fourth plane that went down on 9/11 proved that hijacking airplanes is effectively impossible now. We are borg. It took us a half an hour to upgrade our security, and it didn't have anything to do with airport scans. Just cell phones.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    3. Re:This technology is getting pretty good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Arming the pilots and armoring the cockpits is the main thing needed. After that, take a few pointers from El Al and require luggage inspections

      Yeah, but even they don't have pilots carry guns. That's unnecessary and brings in more problems than it solves.

  19. OMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article is at least 3 days old. I saw this on Drudge days ago..

    Looks like /.'s not on the 'cutting edge' anymore, eh?

  20. Finally! by donutz · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've been waiting for the day to come when I can just walk around naked in public...this machine, with it's ability to render the covering of clothing worthless, is a step in the right direction!

    1. Re:Finally! by cybercuzco · · Score: 2, Funny
      I've been waiting for the day to come when I can just walk around naked in public...

      And the rest of us are dreading the day we see you walking around naked in public.

      --

    2. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ability to render the covering of clothing worthless, is a step in the right direction!

      Ah, but you're forgetting the reason they invented clothing: Rita McNeal.

    3. Re:Finally! by PD · · Score: 1

      If that day comes, I know how to get rich:

      1) Make a pocket.
      2) Put sticky tape on the back of it.
      3) Profit!!!

      Half the utility of clothing is pockets.

  21. Sample Pictures by Alric · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's a link to a company, AS-E, who manufactures some of the most respected Backscatter equipment.

    For a sample of some slightly frightening pictures check out these images:

    http://www.as-e.com/technology/image_1.html
    If somebody has time, it might be good to provide a mirror for these images.

    1. Re:Sample Pictures by SphynxSR · · Score: 1

      Notice how they only showed a man. These are the same pictures the TV news are running.

      --

      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
    2. Re:Sample Pictures by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      For a sample of some slightly frightening pictures check out these images:

      I hope Mr. Goatse does not get ahold of this technology.

      When people ask me if they should let their children on the web, I think of goatse, then reply "Hell no!"

      If somebody has time, it might be good to provide a mirror for these images.

      Uh, maybe not.

    3. Re:Sample Pictures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can pretty clearly see the guy's tibia in this picture. The skin there is thin, but I think this penetrates more than "1/10 (0.1) inch". Granted that estimate came from PR bumpf from another company flogging a similar product.

      It's not about what reflects of course, it's the component that was absorbed that might be of concern. But here a portion of radiation went through the skin of his shin and was absorbed by the bone, never to be seen again.

    4. Re:Sample Pictures by Artifex · · Score: 1

      The scariest images, seen repeatedly, are how easy it is for Glock 17s and plastic explosives to make it through the machines. Makes you wonder why terrorists don't just buy plastic guns.

      --
      Get off my launchpad!
    5. Re:Sample Pictures by MyHair · · Score: 1

      Interesting pictures, although I have to nitpick at them.

      The Glock 17 guns they have apparently have no ammo in the magazine, otherwise the ammo would show in the normal x-ray. It's still dangerous as a brandished threat and possibly one round in the chamber, of course.

      Several of the Glock-hidden-in-bag pics appear to have the Glock on top of other items and suggest that it would be hidden if it were behind the item. That further suggests to me that baggage would need to be scanned from multiple directions to be effective. And if they did that, would normal x-ray still be inferior?

      I don't understand why I can't see the Glock's metal components in the ASE-11 photo in the normal x-ray.

      All the x-ray machines I've seen have two video displays; these photos are comparing to only one type of display.

      I'm not trained to recognize guns in x-rays, but security screeners are.

      As far as privacy goes, I think screeners would quickly bore of ordinary bald naked people, but I would expect to see a lot of "naked celeb" photos leak from these. I wonder if you can tell if a woman has breast implants with backscatter? I bet you can. I guarantee you this machine will have recording capability.

      I'll have to trust security experts to decide if backscatter x-ray will be more effective in airports. I can't be sure from here.

  22. ummmm ... by SuperDuG · · Score: 0
    this sounds great and all, but aren't we already exposed to enough high magnetic fields and high concentrations of small burstable radiation?

    I know there is no conclusive evidence about EMF or radition, but I know it can't really be that good for you either.

    --
    Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
    1. Re:ummmm ... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1
      The radiation dosage is about the same as sunshine, Hallowell said.

      So as long as you're not exposed for, oh, ten minutes at a time, you'll probably be fine.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  23. How long will you be staying at Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Twwwoooo weeks... twoooooooo weeeeeeks!

    1. Re:How long will you be staying at Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quaid.. start the reactor...

    2. Re:How long will you be staying at Mars? by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      OT: I saw the woman that was in that scene on "Love Connection" in a re-run that took place before the movie was made. Someone liked her... I guess...

    3. Re:How long will you be staying at Mars? by ThulsaDoom · · Score: 1

      http://us.imdb.com/Name?Allen,%20Priscilla IMDB, the oracle for all knowledge!

  24. The pic on the site shrank my testes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Can I sue for penile endangerment?

    You'd think they could have used a better spokesperson for that shot.

    She looks like transsexual Uncle Fester after Jenny Craig.

    1. Re:The pic on the site shrank my testes by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      You'd think they could have used a better spokesperson for that shot.

      She looks a lot better in the regular-light photo (other link).

      She looks like transsexual Uncle Fester after Jenny Craig.

      You know, transvestites are gonna really hate this thing.

  25. Oi, Squire... by jmb-d · · Score: 1

    Nice Bombs You Got There...

    Be a shame if sumpin' were to happen to 'em...

    Oh, wait...

    --
    In walking, just walk. In sitting, just sit. Above all, don't wobble.
    -- Yun-Men
  26. More cliched than that... by RevDobbs · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... imagine Natalie Portman behind a Beowulf cluster of these things!

    1. Re:More cliched than that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if the x-rays this produces can be harnessed to heat up some grits in my pants.

    2. Re:More cliched than that... by mblase · · Score: 3, Funny

      That would be so boring. I mean, the x-rays can't penetrate dense materials, so you'd never be able to see what's running inside all those PC boxes.

  27. The real person in the image by ehiris · · Score: 1

    The real person. Her problem is that she feels fat.

  28. The woman in the picture... by sxltrex · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ... is none other than Susan Hallowell, director of the Transportation Security Administration's security laboratory. Nice to see the director willing to be the test subject for all to see. Nice rack.

  29. This scares the hell out of me. by jaylen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How long before the police decide to use the mobile version of this technology to start looking inside people's homes and cars?

    Already where I come from (Wales, UK) the local police use helecopters with an infrared camera to fly over houses, searching for high heat output, the reason being it 'aids and assists in catching people growing cannabis in lofts and attics'.

    What is the next step with this technology? It offends me that a government official can soon be able to drive up outside my house, and literally look inside it, to see how many people are in my house, what kinds of material possesions I have, etc etc.

    Saying that, however, I do not think this is going to catch on in airports, especially in the USA :)

    Face it, more than 70% of American middle aged women are going to walk though, just to have the official ask her 'Please could you lift up your sagging stomach fat, so we can see if you have a huge bomb hidden under the rolls of fat'.

    I just wish I was there to see the reactions :)

    ______
    Jaylen

    1. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I believe the justification behind IR camera is that you're radiating, and they're just picking it up; xray or radar is different, as they're actively 'scanning' you by sending out a signal, then interpreting the results. Therefore, because they are, in some way, breeching your premesis, they're doing a defacto 'search.'

      In other words, if they can hear you're stereo from the street, they can bust you. But they can't point a laser microphone at your window without appropriate warrants.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feel free to lose the tinfoil hat.

    3. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by spotteddog · · Score: 2, Informative

      This technology will never be able to see inside your house (unless you live in a tent). The wood/brick/wallboard would require a much higher energy to penetrate. They would have to be penetrated twice, the incident x-rays and the reflected x-rays. If the x-rays had low enough energy to reflect off your stuff, they would not have sufficent energy to pass back through the wall. Now they could put a detector on the opposite side of your house, blast it with high energy x-rays, and image anything - but I think you would notice that (large truck parked in front of your house with big cables conneced to power grid, large screen set up behind your house, etc).

      --
      . there used to be a sig here.....
    4. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Java+no+not+that+jav · · Score: 1

      they could still do it through the window :)

    5. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      In the US, heat imaaging isn't legal to use in the method described by the parent poster. X-ray probably wouldn't be either.

      Of course this was before 9/11 & the PATRIOT act so who knows now.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    6. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by dupper · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but it's not like you're radiating purposely. With the stereo, yes, you are conciously responsible for the broadcast, but not so with bodyheat. And these security checks are well lit, but I don't think many people would call that much of a violation of privacy. Visible light and x-rays are all just different parts of the EM spectrum.

      Besides, I'd be willing to trade a whole load of personal freedom and privacy to bring us just a little closer to the much fantasized x-ray vision. I have to agree with a troll I read a little further up: Natalie Portman! The benefits clearly outweigh the sacrifices.

    7. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      check some of the links. The company who produces this has pictures on their web site of the xrays penetrating cars Which last time I checked metal is alot more dense than wood.

    8. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by borgasm · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't worry about this....yet..

      Currently, these scanners are either non-portable, or the size of a truck..

      We should start to worry when they become van sized.

      I am wondering what kind of jamming technology could prevent scanning by the backscattered rays. Creating destructive interference would probably produce a blank image, but consider safety...Do you want a high energy wave generator running a few feet from your bedroom? Probably not...

      I would be interested in what materials block the scanning waves. Perhaps something that would resonate at that particular frequency...

    9. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by jhines0042 · · Score: 1

      In the US I heard of a case where this happened and of course the case was thrown out due to Illegal Search and Seizure.

      Since the Police had no probable cause to look at the residence to see if it was producing an unusual amount of heat the reason for the arrest was illegal and the case thrown out.

      --
      42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
    10. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. These things can even see through metal and can see what is inside motor cars. Look at the other links to pictures.

    11. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by afidel · · Score: 1

      Guess you should move to the US, last year the Supreme Court here ruled that the police must obtain a search warrant to use thermal imaging, portable xray, and any other technique to invade a persons home. In the UK the populace has basically acquiesced and allowed big brother to come much closer to reality then I care for.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    12. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by bigpat · · Score: 1

      Scares me too, but the legal basis for infra red and x-ray seems to be different. Legally and practically the difference between an active search and passive observation are very important. With Infrared you are just taking pictures of the surface and the heat something gives off. X-rays are actually beamed at someone and go through them or their belongings, making it much much more invasive both legally and practically. It is physically similar to and should not be considered any different than going through a bag by hand.

      Just because we can't see them doesn't mean X-Rays aren't physical.

      So, a rational society would require the same level of due process for human searches as they would X-Ray searches. I believe as long as people can be made to understand the gyst of the physics, then it should be pretty clear that this is very much not a passive technology and should be used only with warrant or consent.

      Airports are not really public places anymore, and we give our consent to searches when we go in, or at least enter the terminal areas. Which would be unacceptable if it was a public space or right or way.

    13. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought about this some time ago and would like my new house to have metal cut-out letters be placed in the external walls to spell out things like F--- YOU!

      So, that IF someone uses this, they'll see your disdain.

    14. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by romec · · Score: 1

      This technology only penetrates 1/10th of an inch of skin, It wouldn't be effective in seeing through a car or house. A more powerful device wouldn't be approved for general use because it would exceed safety levels. You'd need a shorter wavelength thus a higher frequency and higher energy.

    15. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      and that is why my home has no windows! ;-)

    16. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by gerardrj · · Score: 1

      So if I'm arrested at night and the police officer actively rediate energy at me with a flashlight, and interpet the reflected energy, then that's illegal search?
      This doesn't seem far removed.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    17. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is only because of the energy levels of the x-rays used. (distinct from total energy used, think different frequencies) look here (someone else posted these too)
      http://www.as-e.com/technology/image_1.html

      goes through cars and trucks just fine!

    18. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

      " It offends me that a government official can soon be able to drive up outside my house, and literally look inside it, to see how many people are in my house, what kinds of material possesions I have, etc etc."

      1.) The technology to do that already exists, it's called a window. Another lesser known technology to do something like this is called a lock-pick. I don't know about Wales, but we have something called a search warrant here.

      2.) What is the gov't going to do with that information? At some point, police officers are going to need to see your stuff, especially if you're a victim. What if they chase a suspect who's broken into your house? The same violation is happening to you as with your portable sensor example, so why's it bothering you right now?

      The technology will always get better and let us see stuff. (Just wait until the tricorder is invented!) You're going to lose your ability to hide stuff one way or another. You can either trust your government (I doubt they have a bad track record over there), or live in a world of paranoia. In the mean time, your wishes make it harder for law enforcement to catch dangerous people. Which is more important, your right to privacy, or your right to safety? I can handle not being able to keep secrets, but living in an unsafe world is an unbearable thought to me.

    19. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, actually once you are arrested the officer has the right to search your person anyway, so your example is a bit off. Though it does hold for the many, many times that officers use flashlights without making an arrest.

    20. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two Points:

      1) For the car-imaging, it's generally at a border crossing when customs officials can order you out of the car (to use non-human-safe levels of radiation), and have sensors all around the car.

      2) The metal in cars, especially newer ones (which now have a lot of plastic too) is actually quite thin, so its permeability might be comparable to a wood 2x4.

    21. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is more important, your right to privacy, or your right to safety?

      I choose... my right to be safe from wackos in my government.

      Which entails a right to privacy.

      I can handle not being able to keep secrets, but living in an unsafe world is an unbearable thought to me.

      You must not sleep well at night then, since the world in inherently unsafe. In fact, the only absolute guarantee you've got is that you're going to die some day (well, taxes are supposedly an absolute too).

      Given that the world is an unsafe place to some degree, I certainly am not willing to always resolve conflicts in favor of security. Especially when the security being sold is sometimes highly notional, or not my own (cough USA Patriot Act cough).

    22. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Cyno · · Score: 1

      They don't even need this technology to do that. Time Domain has been working with wifi technology that will do the same sort of thing, looking through walls to create a 3D model of the room and all objects inside it. This is meant to be used by law enforcement if it becomes legal.

    23. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between doing something in public, and being searched, and being in your house, and being searched.

      Cops can't come and shine a flashlight through the window of your house, but they can shine one into your car, if they stopped you on a public road.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    24. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      --they use a form of radar as well. It gives a rather good view inside homes, and is able to penetrate the earth to a good depth. In the US it's illegal except with a warrant but they use it anyway, primarily military units illegally co opted to work monitoring civilians as part of "policing". You can see some other examples of it that natural disaster workers use to find people in collapsed buildings. the military units are more powerful, and they never give two hoots for any "dosage" they apply to "civvies".

      The bottom line is that mercenaries just follow orders,running advanced tech is just another order to them, and it doesn't matter if they call themselves troops, cops or security, or what badge or flag they have sewn on their clothes, or what "oath" they allegedly swear, or which nation, org or corporation they work for.

      The tech was mentioned above, millimeter radar, you can google for it.

    25. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Trepalium · · Score: 1
      Ever consider the fact that it's not easy to catch dangerous people on purpose? The whole reasonable cause thing, innocent until proven guilty, etc... All these make it more difficult to catch and prosecute dangerous people, and all are there to protect you from corruption in offices of power. After all, can you be certain that you NEVER break a law, especially considering how many stupid laws and by-laws that have been passed in most places? When these things become too easy, all it takes is someone who has a personal vendetta against you to find something that will directly harm you. Or maybe they'd just blackmail you because of something embarassing that you did.

      Besides, even if you lived in a complete police state, do you think you'd be any safer? You could still trip on your own shoelace tomorrow, fall, and break your neck. No amount of surveilance, or x-ray machines are going to help with that. And the thugs that would do you harm anyway, will simply migrate from one side of the law to the other. The world will always be unsafe. All you can do is manage your risks, and try not to make more problems with proposed solutions.

      --
      I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
    26. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

      I shouldn't have entered this discussion. Sadly, in a rush to get that posted, I skipped a statement that made my point more relevant. It's not just the gov't that gets a hold of this technology, your next door neighor will too. Right now, I have a $500 video camera that lets me see in the dark. I could easily video tape my neighbors from my own apartment. I can have this techology, but it's bad if Law Enforcement has it?

      Look, I understand your arguments, but the idea of supporting a police state is going a lot farther than I ever intended to go. As I said, that's a failure on my part.

    27. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have any long sharp knives in your "own" (sic) apartment? Imagine what sort of damage to yourself you could do to with them, instead, and then get back to us.

    28. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In the US they'd need a warrant to do this. Though, the way things are going...save this post for 2 years and see if it's still true...

      On a completely unrelated note: in one of the "I, Robot" stories, a reporter tried to use x-ray reflection to tell if Stephen Byerley was a robot. When I read that, I thought "what a crock", because I thought x-rays were too energetic to be reflected. Looks like Asimov was right again.

    29. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by bobthemuse · · Score: 1

      Several notes on this article....

      How difficult is it to hide IR from a helicopter? I should think that a good amount of insulation would do the job. That, or you can leave an electric heater running up their for months, after a couple of raids, start growing the pot...


      The article says that some of the x-rays pass through the subject, some scatter. Will they be using detectors behind the subject to look for densities within the subject? Hiding under a roll of fat is just the start, plenty of, er, 'cavities'.

    30. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by 73939133 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but your analysis is wrong. Using time-of-flight gating, you can look at different "layers" with X-ray backscatter, and you would adjust the X-rays so that enough go through the outer wall to make the inside visible. The radiation inside the house would not be very high either. And you wouldn't need any detectors behind the house.

      I would expect that in a few years, all the necessary equipment would fit into a suitcase.

    31. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by clarkcox3 · · Score: 1
      Already where I come from (Wales, UK) the local police use helecopters with an infrared camera to fly over houses, searching for high heat output, the reason being it 'aids and assists in catching people growing cannabis in lofts and attics'.

      Someone needs to help all these pot growers by selling them equipment to pump that excess heat back into their hot water heater, or into the ground ... bingo, no suspicious heat emissions

      .
      Face it, more than 70% of American middle aged women are going to walk though, just to have the official ask her 'Please could you lift up your sagging stomach fat, so we can see if you have a huge bomb hidden under the rolls of fat'.

      I just wish I was there to see the reactions :)

      I'd love to se the scene caused by that exchange. Just picture some fat woman getting so upset that she ends up striking the screener, and getting dragged away while screaming something about "fat people's rights".

      --
      There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
    32. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by clarkcox3 · · Score: 1

      Put anything you don't want seen into a lead safe.

      --
      There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
  30. Backscatter shouldnt be a health problem. by Omni+Magnus · · Score: 3, Informative

    Since the Xrays bounce OFF of the skin and do not go through it, it shouldn't be a hazard. Also, you are only bombarded for a second or two. Even for frequent flyers, a couple of seconds a week should not hurt anybody.

    1. Re:Backscatter shouldnt be a health problem. by WTFmonkey · · Score: 1

      Especially since the article says the dosage is "About the same as sunshine." Unless you're Boy-In-A-Bubble, you should be A-OK.

    2. Re:Backscatter shouldnt be a health problem. by hamburger+lady · · Score: 1
      ...or Irish.

      oh God, it burns! it burns! damn my fair skin!

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    3. Re:Backscatter shouldnt be a health problem. by 73939133 · · Score: 1

      They only measure the X-rays that bounce off the skin, but plenty of them go through the body anyway (they just aren't used for imaging).

  31. Stop modding this moron up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The exact same post get's made to every x-ray story, and it's completely paranoid rambling that is far more expensive and complex to actually get to work than simply kidnapping these people when they show up at their supposed place of employment.

    1. Re:Stop modding this moron up by serial+frame · · Score: 2, Funny

      Deep Thoughts...by Jack Handey

      At first I thought, if I were Superman, a perfect secret identity would be "Clark Kent, Dentist," because you could save money on tooth X-rays. But then I thought, if a patient said, "How's my back tooth?" and you just looked at it with your X-ray vision and said, "Oh it's okay," then the patient would probably say, "Aren't you going to take an X-ray, stupid?" and you'd say, "Aw screw you, get outta here," and then he probably wouldn't even pay his bill.

      --

      -
      And the Angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots! The cries of the carrots!"
    2. Re:Stop modding this moron up by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Stop modding this moron up...The exact same post get's made to every x-ray story, and it's completely paranoid rambling that is...

      Duplicate topics, duplicate karma. That's life.

  32. Coming soon, the hooter-shooter by lushmore · · Score: 5, Funny

    Truly an amazing technology. How long before contraband starts getting tucked in various bodily folds and crevices, and overweight travelers have to get pulled aside for special inspection?

    When fat people are naked in the airport, the terrorists will have won.

    1. Re:Coming soon, the hooter-shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the rest of us have lost!

    2. Re:Coming soon, the hooter-shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yesssss!!!!!

      I knew that one day my man-boobs would come in handy!!!!

  33. Yet another option by GillBates0 · · Score: 5, Funny
    Another option would be to restrict the screener to a booth so no passing peepers can see the image, said Randal Null, the agency's chief technology officer.

    Yet another option would be to make the screeners sit naked while at work, thus making embarrassment mutual.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
    1. Re:Yet another option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another option would be to restrict the screener to a booth so no passing peepers can see the image, said Randal Null, the agency's chief technology officer.

      I've seen one of those machines on display. It said "Tissues not included."

  34. If organic material shows up bright white... by grunherz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... then we'll know for sure now if those breasts are real or fake!

    --
    Four weeks, Twenty papers, that's two dollars ... plus tip.
  35. Undressing someone by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

    Now instead of using my imagination to mentally undress a girl, I can just get a backscatter xray! I just hope that I can operate the machine with just one hand, because the other hand will be tied up ;) hehe j/k and what not

  36. Girls gone wild by bathmatt · · Score: 5, Funny
    Great, now will be seeing ad's on latenight TV for

    Girls Gone Wild - Airport style.

  37. I will not fly because of this. by $beirdo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is the end of the line when it comes to privacy violations. This is where I stand up and say, I'm not getting on a fscking plane if someone's going to be sitting in a booth at the security checkpoint looking at me naked. If that's not a terrible invasion of privacy, THEN NOTHING IS.

    What is privacy anyway? Does anyone remember? Anyone?

    1. Re:I will not fly because of this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Seriously, dude, yes. Even if the TSA screeners where... um... PROFESSIONALS, I would still be highly reluctant to allow myself subjection to this kind of scrutiny... privacy factors aside, look at the kind of people who would be doing this... our current TSA folks are NOT the kind or calibur of people that I would entrust something like this to.

    2. Re:I will not fly because of this. by WTFmonkey · · Score: 1

      If you have to get somewhere far away very fast, you have to fly. In the cases I do fly, I'd much rather that some poor schlep sitting behind a monitor (who, BTW, has to look at nekkid people in the FATTEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD all day long) sees my package and everyone elses, giving me (at the very least an illusion of) security.

      The whole "invasion of privacy" thing is here, you might as well start getting used to it. You know what I do about it? Nothing. I don't smuggle drugs, I don't grow drugs, I don't smuggle foreigners across the border. If someone wants to look at me while I'm laying a steamer or rubbing one out, have at it. Want to watch me sit on my couch & scratch my balls while I watch TV? Knock yourself out. Seriously, I agree with the guy who can't wait until we all walk around naked anyways.

      As long as it doesn't interfere with me going about my business (and walking through a metal detector or x-ray machine certainly doesn't interfere, I'd have to walk to the terminal anyways), I'm cool with it. As long as it doesn't interfere with my business or in any way inconvenience me, invade my privacy.

    3. Re:I will not fly because of this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I have to wonder, at what date is the general public going to suddenly wake up and say 'no' to the latest 'drip' of privacy invasion? These things tend to flip fairly quickly, particularly if people realise they've been had. How will the politicos react when they are told to stop snooping by those they should be obeying ?

      Face it people, shit happens.

      Giving over the opportunity for some minimum wage, power crazed official to literally underdress you is a whole heap too far. It won't stop someone using you to make a political point, there are far to many ways open to them to try to wrap yourself in cotton wool. The only question is how dumb you will behave in the meantime, how much you will shrug and ignore.

      Freedom means a lot of things, but mostly it means freedom from those you appoint to carry out your bidding getting ideas of how to cement that position. People in another part of the world - the best you can do is to stop pissing them off.

      (the explosion when people say NO could be quite entertaining though...)

    4. Re:I will not fly because of this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Got a small johnson, eh?

    5. Re:I will not fly because of this. by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Awful. Utterly Awful. You invite the government to invade your privacy?

      The problem with your argument of 'just don't do anything wrong' is that the idea of "wrong" can CHANGE. One day, sitting on the couch scratching your balls may become illegal, but because people like you 50 years ago said "I don't do anything wrong, search me all you want", random full-house searches became acceptable to society at large. All of the sudden the authorities knock down the door and spy you in the most unconscionable of acts. 'We must stop terrorism', you said. 'Surely if this doesn't bother me, it can't be bad', you said. Perhaps the founders of this country shouldn't have been breaking the law and then attempting to get out of it by making searches illegal. They should have just followed the law, and stayed British subjects under the great king!

      "Get used to it"? Not on my life. And not on yours if you had a shred of sense.

    6. Re:I will not fly because of this. by WTFmonkey · · Score: 1

      Ah-ah-ah--you're inferring. "Knock down the door" falls into my disclaimer of "as long as it doesn't interfere with what I'm doing." Don't caught up in what you thought I said, read what I actually said.

      What you're describing with your colonial example is at the best breaking & entering, at the worst raping & pillaging (no matter who does it). Both of those activities interfere with my life, and so are out. If I'm boffing a broad and someone looks through the window and the broad freaks out (thereby stopping the boffing) that interferes with my life, and so is out.

      Feds want to search my house for no reason? Awesome! Knock on the door and ask to come in. Hell, knock on the door and demand to come in-- just don't do it during the middle of dinner or during the Simpsons, because that interferes with my life. Don't push, confiscate, pick my locks while I'm not home, or in any other way be a dick, because, you guessed it, that interferes.

      Is it a bit sophomoric to wish that "Don't be a dick" was the highest law in the land? Hell, yeah. Does it bother me that someone in a van across the street (doesn't interfere) has a infrared camera aimed at my house? Hell, no.

    7. Re:I will not fly because of this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really hard to keep my composure as people walk by my office when I read comments like that.. Thanks.

    8. Re:I will not fly because of this. by VCAGuy · · Score: 1
      You know, my Amtrak ridership has increased significantly since these privacy-invading tactics...thankfully, I enjoy rail travel.

      Amtrak Pre 9/11: "May I see your ticket?" [Hand the porter the ticket.] "Welcome aboard, go to the sleeper named 'Morning View'."

      Amtrak Post 9/11: "May I see your ticket and a photo ID?" [Hand the porter both items.] "Welcome aboard, go to the sleeper named 'Patriot View'."

      Now that, my friends, is the way things ought to be! But seriously, aren't we taking things a bit far? CAT-scan baggage scanners, "random" checks at the gate, CAPPS, CAPPS II, and now, backscatter x-ray machines for the virtual strip-searching of passengers. Why can't they just have a computer scan you and use fuzzy logic to determine if an operator needs to look at your x-ray. That would, I think, significantly lower at least the appearance of breached privacy. Anyone else remember when flying was "at your own risk"?

      --
      Q: "Why do sound techs say 'check 1, 2'?"
      A: "Cause if they could count any higher they'd be lighting techs."
    9. Re:I will not fly because of this. by $beirdo · · Score: 1

      People like you are the problem with this country - you don't understand the ideals it is based on so you're willing to throw them away. You are one of the people Benjamin Franklin was referring to when he said "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

      Not being seen naked is essential liberty, at least to me. If you don't agree, get the hell out of my country.

    10. Re:I will not fly because of this. by $beirdo · · Score: 1

      That's a good point - if the people who are going to be authorized to violate our privacy are perfect and trustworthy, then a lot of the concern is alleviated (although I think that modesty is a natural right of man, so it's still not OK). But history has shown that any kind of person given this sort of ability is going to abuse it. That's human nature. And it's totally unacceptable to me.

  38. I'll tell you who I feel sorry for.... by Nemus · · Score: 5, Funny
    I feel bad for the poor bastard who has to look at everyone of these images as people walk through the terminal. Yeah, you get the occasional hot chick, but more often than not its gonna be Uncle Butch and Aunt Myrtle from East Jesus, AL back from their yearly tropical vacation, where they managed to devour close to two tons of fresh seafood between them...Ugh. Ugh-Ugh......

    --
    Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
    1. Re:I'll tell you who I feel sorry for.... by fobbman · · Score: 1

      This job is going to be hotter than gynecology as the career of choice for high school boys without real career direction.

      "Dude, it's better than gynecology cuz you don't have to go through all that college crap!"

      The truth of the matter, that America is really a FAT country, will once again escape them.

    2. Re:I'll tell you who I feel sorry for.... by Cyno · · Score: 1

      Yeah, me too, because everyone knows that only skinny women are sexual objects.

      Love it when I see a digitally editted women, created so beautiful, so perfect she could never possibly exist.

      You're living in a dream world, Neo.

    3. Re:I'll tell you who I feel sorry for.... by kevmit · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but think how "stiff" the competition will be for the airport screener positions for flights to Cancun...during Spring Break

  39. must......make......tri.....corder by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It would be nice if such machines detected the explosives by their electro-magnetic frequency signature or the like instead of human-based image recognition.

    Another approach would be to use automated image recognition. The machine would hilite only suspicious spots, which the guards then inspect further. That way they don't have to see your whole body.

  40. "Hiding places" by Andrew+Lockhart · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From the example pictures it seems that this still won't be able to detect items that have been put in some of the body's natural "hiding places." I really doubt someone that is willing to die to blow up an airliner full of passengers is going to have any scruples about doing something like that.

    On the other hand, it's also possible to do that when you're just being checked out with metal detectors.

    1. Re:"Hiding places" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      On the other hand, it's also possible to do that when you're just being checked out with metal detectors.


      Also, traditional x-ray doesn't catch some plastic guns or explosives, but we don't hear about terrorists taking over planes or blowing anyone up by using them.

      By the way, there's probably nothing to stop terrorists right now from walking into an airport terminal when it's very busy, carrying bags full of explosives, entering a long line of people waiting to go through screening, and detonating the explosives when they're surrounded by the most people, just before screening.

      This would cause extreme carnage, shut down the terminal, and scare everyone away from flying again, but it's not something we can adequately protect against. Sure, we could have chemical sniffers everywhere, but even then, being able to track down who's got the bombs without alerting him to blow up early is probably impossible. If we try to push the screening zone out further, we still have the same problem, anywhere people congregate to be screened.
  41. How long until... by gnovos · · Score: 1

    Celebrity X-rays start making thier way out to the tabloids?

    --
    "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
  42. 3 microREMs by sleepingsquirrel · · Score: 5, Informative
    According to the FAQfor one of these machines...
    Q: How much radiant energy is a person exposed to?

    A: Each full body scan of the SECURE 1000 produces approximately 3 microREMs of emission. This is equivalent to the exposure every person receives each five minutes from naturally occurring background environmental radioactivity.

    Q: Is background radiation exposure really a good comparison?
    A: Yes, because SECURE 1000 scanning and background radiation both expose a large portion of the body to a very low level of x-rays. The only difference is that background radiation has slightly higher x-ray energy resulting in deeper penetration.

    Q: What about exposure levels for individuals who are frequent flyers or for employees in companies or high security facilities who have to be screened each day?
    A: Under current international guidelines (such as the ANSI 43.17 Standard) up to 5000 scans per year can be conducted safely.

    Q: Will SECURE 1000 detect objects in the body?
    A: No, the x-rays penetrate only about 1/10 (0.1) inch of the skin. Any object that would be deeper than that level would not be detected. Under current regulations generally body cavity inspections must be performed by high dose medical x-ray systems in the presence of a medical professional or body cavity searches must be performed manually by trained enforcement personnel.

    1. Re:3 microREMs by realdpk · · Score: 1

      How long til we have a technology that can take advantage of these "naturally occuring background radioactivity" to produce x-ray like images?

      I'd guess we'd have to reflect them so they're more directed/focused, but I don't know what other issues would have to be resolved to make that work.

    2. Re:3 microREMs by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Q: Is background radiation exposure really a good comparison? A: Yes, because SECURE 1000 scanning and background radiation both expose a large portion of the body to a very low level of x-rays. The only difference is that background radiation has slightly higher x-ray energy resulting in deeper penetration.

      I have read that they can actually use existing background radiation to detect large dense objects in ships. I wonder if it could not be adapted to scan people someday. It would then not have to generate any additional radiation. IOW, a read-only X-ray machine. Can't sue the Universe if it causes cancer.....well, at least outside of California.

    3. Re:3 microREMs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for posting that information. It's good that someone figured out what's important to note about these machines. Though, as far as "safe amount" of radiation, and background radation, no one on earth has yet figured out what is "safe". This "safe" level is debated today and will be for a long time in the future. Another question to be determined is, is any radiation good. Some scientists claim you need radiation to live. But as of yet, noone knows what that level is for sure. The problem with radiation is all about luck/chance. If a radiated particle hits another in your body you can be safe or not. If it hits a non vital particle in your body you're fine. If it hits something and causes a mutation, such as cencer, then it can be bad. That's why skin cancer, and many other forms of cancer are "avoidable", meaning you reduce your exposure and you're chances of getting cancer/a mutation from a radioactive particle, is less likely to happen. That's why young kids get cancer, and old adults do.

      I for one avoid any type of radiation. LCD monitors, UV protested windows, sunbathing, etc. (Even bananas, that have a vatimin that is 1% naturally radioactive) I'd fly much less if they implemented these, until scientific proof (not marketing proof) shows otherwise.

      And again, it's what you feel like is important to you. 5 minutes background radiation is 5 minutes of background radiation. You'll get it, and it's all about chance. We do know that the nuclear attack in Japan gave citizens within a quarter mile almost 2 years worth of radiation in the first 24 hours, of which 95% of them died in that time.

    4. Re:3 microREMs by BWJones · · Score: 1

      No, the x-rays penetrate only about 1/10 (0.1) inch of the skin.

      Oh, great. Then we are getting full body ionizing radiation that only goes .1 inches into our skin. That means we only get skin cancer rather than bone cancer or some other form of cancer caused by DNA damage from ionizing radiation. Not all forms of radiation are equivalent you know. X-Rays are not good to be exposed to long term.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    5. Re:3 microREMs by steve_l · · Score: 1
      There is a fascinating online book on the subject, Secret Fallout. What is interesting is not just the statistics (increase in child mortalities and failed pregnancies after nuclear tests), but all the institutional resistance. The Atomic energy industry didnt want to believe the resuls, and the (primarily government) institutions fought its publication and argued every step of the way.

      These are of course, the same people saying these backscatter x-rays are safe. If they arent, well, a lot of people are going to have been exposed before that becomes clear.

      I am not outstandingly worried as (a) the exposure from cosmic rays of any over-the-pole flight is bound to be worse, and (b) back in '85 I was caught out in rain that turned out to be from chernobyl.That was in Scotland, where some places are still so radioactive that they have to decontaminate sheep before sale for human consumption.

    6. Re:3 microREMs by fdiv · · Score: 1
      No, the x-rays penetrate only about 1/10 (0.1) inch of the skin.
      So does this mean I can wear leather clothing and prevent these pervs from getting a peep show?
    7. Re:3 microREMs by bobthemuse · · Score: 1

      If it is this close to background radiation, how can it be so effective? Can anyone tell me where 'background' radiation is coming from? Is it only outside?

    8. Re:3 microREMs by nurbman · · Score: 1
      Testicular cells are much more sensitive to xrays that other tissues. How thin is the skin of the scrotum? Probably less than .1", especially on children. I'd like to see some data on reproductive safety.

      Check out the picture of the guy they zapped.

      They may have to turn the power down a bit more.

      You can see his shinbones are well defined and the xrays are penetrating the skin on his face.

  43. I think I got something here.... by DA_MAN_DA_MYTH · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think I'm having a Total Recall.

    --
    "It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
  44. Just another excuse to take away my privacy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell me, how would this have stopped 9/11? It wouldn't. No matter what we build, the terrorists will find a way to get around it.

    1. Re:Just another excuse to take away my privacy... by sagenumen · · Score: 1

      Maybe it wouldn't have stopped 9/11 because the guidelines of the time really didn't think to cover small blades such as the box cutters. However, plastic explosives, plastic weapons? It might just be me, but I have no problem people seeing a digital "nude" of me as long as their professional. From what I could see in the picture on Wired, this technology is revealing, yes, but not to the extent that it can be considered really that "graphic."

      Yes, you're right...maybe this wouldn't have stopped 9/11....but with the new, stricter guidelines and this new technology, maybe we won't have to watch thousands of more people die.

      Just my $0.02.

    2. Re:Just another excuse to take away my privacy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're really going out on a limb there in your assumption that security workers are in the least bit "professional." Remember, these are the folks who could not cut it as actual law enforcement agents.

    3. Re:Just another excuse to take away my privacy... by AceM2 · · Score: 1

      What difference does it really make though? Are you afraid they're going to call over the intercom that passenger #whatever has this or that wrong with their body? Come on.. This isn't stripping in front of a crowd of sorority girls or something okay? Get over yourself.. You're not so hot these people are going to remember you, you're not too ugly (assumed), and they see thousands and thousands of people.. The people who work at my local grocery store have a hard enough time remembering me.. You aren't gonna get judged anymore with your clothes off than you are with them on.....

  45. Richard Reid? by 72beetle · · Score: 1

    Isn't he the stretchy guy from the Fantastic Four?

    -72

    --
    -Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
    1. Re:Richard Reid? by gmg · · Score: 1

      Thats Reed Richards

      -comic book fanboy

  46. Who needs birth control... by mofochickamo · · Score: 0

    ...when you can get your testicles blasted by Backscatter X-rays?

    --
    Honk if you're horny.
  47. Backscatter Paparazzi celebrity pr0n! by beacher · · Score: 3, Funny

    You *KNOW* it's only a matter of time before Larry Flynt or the latest celebrity pr0n site manages to get someone hired at LAX. Have someone taping the scanner line in RL, have the backscatter on a second feed, and this is all you need for verification that the backscatter pr0n is legit. Most of the more dubious websites will probably bypass the rl feed and try to pass the images off as celebs.

    I'm not sure about the 3dPoseur look of the images and they don't do anything for me, but I think it'd be interesting to see what kind of person applies for this job.. Voyeurs?

    The name backscatter is completely wrong.. It sounds like a Peter North film andways...

    Another thing - Ever seen Spinal Tap? The airport security gate/cucumber scene comes to mind here....

    B
    FYI: Wired says that the amount of radiation

    1. Re:Backscatter Paparazzi celebrity pr0n! by feed_me_cereal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      if it's that easy to get hired into airport security, why doesn't our buddy bin laden just get some asshole to work there and let some terrorists through unchecked?

      --
      "Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
    2. Re:Backscatter Paparazzi celebrity pr0n! by Symbha · · Score: 1

      He Very Likely Does.

    3. Re:Backscatter Paparazzi celebrity pr0n! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does what? There haven't been any "terrorist" events in the U.S. since 'shoe bomber'. OBL wasn't even linked to him. What does he do again?

  48. ok but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This stuff sees thru say, a suitcase, so it would see my laptop, but whats to say there isnt plastic explosive in my laptop? this doesnt seem like it would be so hard to pull off....

  49. something I found amusing by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    From Scientific American:

    "A close second [in the stupid-security contest] was submitted by a guy whose story starts as he is about to board a plane in San Francisco. "The polite inspector informed me that he had to check my shoes for explosives. I dutifully removed them and handed them to him. He picked them up one by one and slammed them down on the floor with full force. Apparently, as they hadn't exploded, they were not dangerous, and he handed them back to me." Perhaps it's best to look on the bright side and simply applaud any public display of the scientific method."

    1. Re:something I found amusing by FFFish · · Score: 1

      Does that not tell everything you need to know about the quality of person they can attract for minimum-wage security jobs?

      "Six bucks an hour? Sure, I'll risk blowing myself up for that kind of dough!"

      Gah.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
  50. New way to look for a date? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this a new way for security workers to screen for potential dates?

    1. Re:New way to look for a date? by wickedj · · Score: 1

      Ever go on a blind date and wonder if your partner didn't seem to be the person they say?

      Have you ever tried to pick up a girl and only when you hit second base, you realized "Hey!?! You're a guy!!!!"

      Ladies, ever pick that kind of butch guy with the squeaky voice, get him home only to find he ain't "packing the package"?

      Or perhaps, you were surprised to realize "Bobbi" actually meant "Bobby" or "Vicky" was short for "Victor".

      Well, ladies and gentlemen, worry no more! Our deluxe gender scanner can reveal those crossdressers in a matter of seconds.

      Never be shocked again!

  51. Idaho State University by missing000 · · Score: 1

    Says the scanner will give you a dose less than 2% of normal dosage picked up from background radiation.

  52. This Won't Fly by Anonym1ty · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are two reasons why the public will reject this:

    1. No one will want to be seen naked with one of these cameras
    2. The public already irrationally scared enough of irradiated meat, what do you think they are going to think of this? --no matter how safe it may really be
    1. Re:This Won't Fly by alexo · · Score: 1

      > There are two reasons why the public will reject this

      Since when does "the public" have a say?

    2. Re:This Won't Fly by Anonym1ty · · Score: 1

      Since the public chooses where to spend its money.

      You'd be surprised how much that can really make a difference. Many reasons things we don't like exist is because people don't care. That being said, there are times when people care and that's when the people do make a difference.

      I believe that the whole "radiation thing" is enough to convince the public to care enough for them to stand up and oppose this --no matter how irrational the arguement about radiation may or may not be.

    3. Re:This Won't Fly by alexo · · Score: 1

      99% of "the public" will blindly trust a man in a uniform with an authoritative tone of voice.

    4. Re:This Won't Fly by Anonym1ty · · Score: 1

      NOT

      There are many people who look at people in uniforms with distrust if not worse

      The first time they have a pregnant lady go through and she has the most minor problem ---that'll be the end of this

  53. Settle down by Skater · · Score: 1

    Popular Science had an article on this months ago. Then they recently had a followup where a newer version of the system actually somehow eliminated the person's body from the picture; all you (the operator) could see were the guns, etc., superimposed on a generic body.

    Here's the followup:

    http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,125 43,437603,00.html

    --RJ

    1. Re:Settle down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's awesome. And I would be all for the TSA using that technology. But that's not what they're considering. The POPSCI article was for radio wave-based scanning. The technology that the TAS is looking at is backscatter X-ray-based scanning... it's not "rated PG" like the one in the POPSCI article you link to.

  54. Hmmm, I guess she's gonna lose her job... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 0

    Posing naked for major newspapers sure doesn't look good for one's career, at lease inside the Beltway...

  55. Funny ways to mess with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok so here are some funny ways we can all mess with this:

    1. wrap your penis/scrotum in aluminum foil before flying.
    2. conversely you could use duct tape and aluminum foil and put the words "FIRST AMENDMENT" on your chest (under your clothes).
    3. carry a live gerbil in pants
    4. wrap yourself in christmas lights
    5. dress up as the opposite sex (perhaps see #1)

    I dunno that's all I got.

    1. Re:Funny ways to mess with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And, of course, the reaction by security to all this will be: "Ha ha, you're a funny fellow. Let me wipe the tears out of my eyes. Thanks for the laugh, you can get on the plane now. Wait'll I tell my wife when I get home."

      Because we all know that they just love jokers at the metal detectors.

    2. Re:Funny ways to mess with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I was told that airline security likes to treat searches, "like a fun game." I don't think you're too far off.

  56. Organic Camoflauge? by mikeophile · · Score: 2, Interesting
    If the backscattered x-rays show organic material like skin as opaque, does that mean a fat suit made of human skin could conceal a good amount of stuff?

    My fear is that this type of technology will make the underpaid, overworked, and barely skilled security workers even more complacent.

    1. Re:Organic Camoflauge? by MImeKillEr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure. All you'd need would be the fat that was suctioned out of Carnie (Yeah, I know she got her stomach stapled, work with me here) which would be more than enough for two people.

      Then you just need a suit that contained enough pocket space to amply wrap yourself in, and put whatever contraband between you & it.

      --
      Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
    2. Re:Organic Camoflauge? by leonardluen · · Score: 1

      this is why it would be ideal to combine the back scatter x-rays with conventional metal detectors, and possibly conventional x-rays as well. your fake fat suit would be seen.

    3. Re:Organic Camoflauge? by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      After thinking about it, I don't think that a "fat suit" would work. When the person goes through the scanner, the image generated will not be of the proper shapes for a human(if it were built like a wool jacket, for example), so it would be relitively easy to tell when another search method is needed. A thin layer of skin-tight clothing might change that a bit, but skin tight means that anything on you protrudes, which also looks odd. Overall, it can be done, but I'd imagine that it would be next to impossible to pull off.

  57. Radiation exposure by Space_Nerd · · Score: 1
    Ok, for all of those who didnt RTFA and start blurting out about radiation, let me quote this to you:

    With backscatter technology, rays deflected off dense materials such as metal or plastic produce a darker image than those deflected off skin. The radiation dosage is about the same as sunshine, Hallowell said.

    --
    Everybody has a purpose in life, maybe mine is to lurk in slashdot.
    1. Re:Radiation exposure by mofochickamo · · Score: 2, Funny
      The radiation dosage is about the same as sunshine

      OMG! My skin is going to be exposed to the same dosage of radiation that heats our solar system!

      --
      Honk if you're horny.
    2. Re:Radiation exposure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what about silicon implants?

    3. Re:Radiation exposure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The radiation dosage is about the same as sunshine"

      Sunshine like they get in Seattle?
      Sunshine like they get in Texas?
      Sunshine like they get on the light side of Mercury?

      You gotta be more specific here!

  58. They've finally managed to kill air travel by WinDoze · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Last weekend I took a trip to see my new neice. I brought along a few presents. At the last minute, the airline cancelled the flight and put me on a different flight, on a different airline. Fine.

    Only problem is, since I changed flights at the last minute, even though it wasn't my decision, I got the extra-special anal-probe screening, which included, of course, opening all the presents that had JUST PASSED THROUGH AN X-RAY MACHINE. I swore there and then that I was done. If I can't drive there in my car in 8 hours, I don't need to go there. This just cements the deal. This is YOUR GOVERNMENT performing unreasonable random searches on you and interfering with free travel now, friends.

    1. Re:They've finally managed to kill air travel by Ill_Omen · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but I can't quite agree with your conclusions on either 'unreasonable random searches' nor 'interfering with free travel'.

      If you want to hop in your car and drive anywhere in the country, no one is trying to stop you. You still have the right of free travel.

      I've been hassled at airports. I've had to empty my backpack, remove my shoes, etc. Do I think the confiscation of nail clippers is silly? Of course! Do I want airline security to make damn sure no one is bringing a bomb or gun on board? Hell Yes!

      As for your presents, I'm sure many Slashdotters can think of many hazardous materials that wouldn't show up in an X-ray machine.

    2. Re:They've finally managed to kill air travel by WinDoze · · Score: 1

      many hazardous materials that wouldn't show up in an X-ray machine

      The especially cool part is that they never searched ME! Seriously! They ran a metal detector over my shoes. That was IT. They were way more interested in the presents. I cold have had all sorts of nastiness on my person, no problem.

    3. Re:They've finally managed to kill air travel by Xerithane · · Score: 0

      opening all the presents that had JUST PASSED THROUGH AN X-RAY MACHINE.

      I'm still not feeling sympathy here... you had to open presents, it's not like you had to spread your ass cheeks.

      This just cements the deal. This is YOUR GOVERNMENT performing unreasonable random searches on you and interfering with free travel now, friends.

      Interfering? I'm not sure how they are interfering with my travel. I walk through a device and travel. There is no interference to travel. There is invasion of privacy, but I'm not that bashful. It's the human body, people see people naked constantly. As for it being unreasonable, why? Why is having a full body scan unreasonable? It seems to be a perfectly reasonable way to ensure free travel. Free travel meaning not getting in trouble in the air, as airplanes are a constant target in case you haven't paid attention to the last two decades.

      I'd rather it by the government than a corporation, wouldn't you?

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    4. Re:They've finally managed to kill air travel by GreyPoopon · · Score: 1
      ...which included, of course, opening all the presents...

      Might I recommend gift bags? Then you don't have to worry about destroying the wrapping when you have to let security see what's inside.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    5. Re:They've finally managed to kill air travel by raydobbs · · Score: 1

      I watched this unroll when I saw them lead my grandmother off at the airport to descretely strip search her - she is a lady who is afriad of flying anyway, and they had two guys with M16s behind her - as if she was the biggest danger in all of the airport.

      Your right - fuck that - I drive. There are huge parts of this country that I have never seen, but are SURE to get my patronage now. Only way I will EVER fly is if it's Charter or paid for by my employer up front. They are not getting any more of my money - ever.

    6. Re:They've finally managed to kill air travel by WinDoze · · Score: 1

      Gift bags would be a good idea, partially my own fault for not expecting such nonsense in the first place. I wold have thought a metal detector and X-Ray would have done the job, since that's more than they did to me personally.

    7. Re:They've finally managed to kill air travel by sahonen · · Score: 1

      They are not getting any more of my money - ever. Remember, it's not the airline's fault you gotta be searched. It's all the gov't. If you don't want whoever's responsible for all this security rigamarole to get money, don't pay your taxes. Let me know how you manage to pull it off. =D

      --
      Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
    8. Re:They've finally managed to kill air travel by Inode+Jones · · Score: 1
      Airport security is a joke.

      At the risk of /.ing myself, check out these items.

      The object in the brushed metal case with the countdown displays is a game timer. It went through baggage X-ray without any questions asked.

      The other items (in carry-on) aroused the suspicions of security personnel, and required a manual inspection.

      So, where would you have hidden the bomb?

    9. Re:They've finally managed to kill air travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      interfering is taking my gameboy out of my pocket in front of the boarding line and telling me in an overhearable voice that you wish you made enough money to get one for your kid, and that it must be nice that I, "have enough money for things like that." fuck the airlines.

    10. Re:They've finally managed to kill air travel by Dare+nMc · · Score: 2, Funny

      Air travel is fine, no x-rays, baggage checks... I would highly recomend it. Oh, you don't have a private Jet? :)

    11. Re:They've finally managed to kill air travel by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      interfering is taking my gameboy out of my pocket in front of the boarding line and telling me in an overhearable voice that you wish you made enough money to get one for your kid, and that it must be nice that I, "have enough money for things like that." fuck the airlines.

      You should have said, "Yes, it is and I don't appreciate discussing matters that don't concern our current business relationship."

      If that's the best you can come up with as to why people should "fuck the airlines" than you need some serious help.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    12. Re:They've finally managed to kill air travel by zipwow · · Score: 1

      "Do I want airline security to make damn sure no one is bringing a bomb or gun on board? Hell Yes!"

      If that's what they accomplished, that'd be great. The problem with all this "airline security" junk is that it doesn't make you any safer. Glass is still allowed on the flight, which can be easily made pointy enough to hold flight attendants hostage and demand cockpit access. Another poster has images of things easily smuggled through.

      The one thing that might make airline safer today is the attitude of the passengers. Before the trade center attacks, I think most people felt that they should sit back, stay calm, and let the negotiators take care of it. Now the feeling I get from people is that if you're being hijacked, it is worth attempting to resist.

      "I'm sure many Slashdotters can think of many hazardous materials that wouldn't show up in an X-ray machine."

      And can you not also think of ways to hide them? C-4 doesn't have to be stamped into bricks with the letters "C-4" on the side.

      -Zipwow

      --
      I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
    13. Re:They've finally managed to kill air travel by Forgotten · · Score: 1

      The one thing that might make airline safer today is the attitude of the passengers. Before the trade center attacks, I think most people felt that they should sit back, stay calm, and let the negotiators take care of it. Now the feeling I get from people is that if you're being hijacked, it is worth attempting to resist.

      Which may work out well if the intent of the attackers is to turn the plane into a missile (though note that the outcome in the only known case of passenger resistance still involved the death of everyone aboard). If it's your plain old garden-variety hijacking where someone wants to make a political point or (gasp) actually be transported somewhere, then passenger intervention is probably the last thing you want, same as it always was.

      The fourth plane in the Sept. 11th attacks makes a great, Hollywood-esque heroic story. That doesn't mean it has any applicability to anything else. If someone does try to crash another airliner, they'll be smarter too, and ready for passenger resistance.

    14. Re:They've finally managed to kill air travel by AceM2 · · Score: 1

      uhh.. Why not take it as a compliment? Isn't it nice that you have money for it? If you're ashamed of having (or your parents, I dunno) a little extra cash, tell him to keep it why don't ya? Hell, personally if I did get pissed off about it (and I've heard those comments before about my cheapass cellphone or calculator and such) I'd just grin.. He/she may be pissing you off, but I'm pretty sure they're the one that's feeling the hurt..

    15. Re:They've finally managed to kill air travel by Jardine · · Score: 1

      If it's your plain old garden-variety hijacking where someone wants to make a political point or (gasp) actually be transported somewhere, then passenger intervention is probably the last thing you want, same as it always was.

      Except any person trying to make a political point or get a ride somewhere would have to be insane to try hijacking a plane now. Even if the hijacker proclaims that "the pilot is the one who is flying and we are just going to be flying to Cuba. We are not going to be crashing into anything" at least a few people will get the idea that the pilot is in on it, the plane is heading for a building and they have to stop it by killing the hijacker and pilot. Since none of them knows how to fly, they're going to hit the ground, ocean, or city below them.

    16. Re:They've finally managed to kill air travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should have said, "Yes, it is and I don't appreciate discussing matters that don't concern our current business relationship."

      Which demonstrates your hostile attitude to security personel and substantially increases your chances for a "random" strip search. But, hey, that's not your problem, right?

    17. Re:They've finally managed to kill air travel by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      If you want to hop in your car and drive anywhere in the country, no one is trying to stop you. You still have the right of free travel.

      May I point out two similar arguments which have taken place, one just recently?

      1. Of course you still have the right to an abortion, but if the government won't help you pay for it, then do you really have the right? After all, poor people won't be able to have them, so their "right" is being taken away if you ban goverment funding.
      2. Of course you still have the right to look at pron, but unless you can afford your own computer and network connection, you can't look at it, because the publicly funded library (funded with your money too) is installing blocking software to keep you from doing so.
      Now, I'm not advocating either side of either issue, just pointing out the parallelism of the arguments.

      Is it really "freedom" if you are restricted from doing it? Is limiting the only mode of travel that can accomplish the task in a reasonable amount of time still leaving you "free"?

    18. Re:They've finally managed to kill air travel by WinDoze · · Score: 1

      That is the scariest thing I've seen in a long time...

    19. Re:They've finally managed to kill air travel by Saeger · · Score: 1
      You actually get snide comments about your "cheapass" cellphone? From who? I thought the early phase where cellphones were status symbols was over long ago, and those who don't carry them are the really "important" people. All the phones look alike anyway now.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    20. Re:They've finally managed to kill air travel by AceM2 · · Score: 1

      Just depends on the are you live and work.. For the early part of my life (up until now actually) I've lived in an extremely rural community and worked jobs where people with a family would be extremely lucky to have any new electronics at all.. I don't think many people on slashdot understand that there are still many parts of America where technology doesn't mean much more than a remote control and a digital clock..

    21. Re:They've finally managed to kill air travel by achurch · · Score: 1

      This is exactly why I haven't gone back to the US in two years (I was born there but now live in Japan). As if it's not bad enough having to sit in an undersized economy-class seat for 12-13 hours, now they want me to go through 3-4 hours of screening? No thanks.

      Incidentally, air travel in Japan is almost completely unchanged from before 9/11, with the exception that airlines are slightly stricter on the one-piece-of-baggage-per-person (not including purses, stuff you bought in the airport, etc.) rule than they used to be. I can arrive at the airport 15 minutes before the flight takes off and still make it onto the plane with close to 100% certainty.

      That said, the Shinkansen (bullet train) is still much less of a pain--no baggage checks, no security officers asking you stupid questions, as long as you reach the platform before the train leaves you can get on it. The one disadvantage is that it's significantly more expensive than air travel. Ah well, can't win 'em all...

    22. Re:They've finally managed to kill air travel by isorox · · Score: 1

      You have a right to stand on a soap box in the middle of the park and spew some nonsense. The government doesnt have to provide the soapbox. Because you cant afford something doesnt mean you dont have the right, you shouldnt expect the government (and hence tax payers) to pay for things for you.

    23. Re:They've finally managed to kill air travel by isorox · · Score: 1

      Since none of them knows how to fly, they're going to hit the ground, ocean, or city below them.


      But I've clocked up tons of hours in a MS Flightsim 95!

    24. Re:They've finally managed to kill air travel by justinburt · · Score: 1


      How does this show that airport security is a joke? The only item that got through security without being inspected was the game timer. It is, after all, just a timer. Why would this be a breach in security?

      A lot of posters seem to think they are very clever because they can come up with ideas for bypassing airport security. And some of them are right, especially since news organizations have done stories where they smuggled through actually dangerous materials. But show me a picture of you, on the plane, with actually dangerous stuff.

      You wouldn't risk it? Perhaps deterrence is valuable, since if a terrorist is caught, it can lead to the downfall of a larger part of a terrorist organization. The strategy seems to be looking for minimal risk of being arrested, so the 9/11 hijackers brought boxcutters (which I believe were allowed on planes at the time), and Richard Reid hid the explosives in his shoes, where nobody thought to look (until flight attendants noticed him trying to light his shoelaces).

      But it is true that no security strategy is likely to be 100% effective. Which is why we should address the causes of terrorism (by which I mean that we should continue to "end" states that sponsor it). The spread of individual rights and economic prosperity is the only way to ensure our security long-term.

      Justin

    25. Re:They've finally managed to kill air travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I travel all the time and don't find this to be a bother at all. My question to you is, how many times do we have to tell you idiots NOT TO WRAP YOUR PRESENTS before flying?

  59. What else is new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't all women "feel fat"?

  60. It's not new, but it's big and expensive by Animats · · Score: 3, Informative
    Check out this image gallery. That's a small version of that image; at full scale, you can count the change in the guy's pocket. California prisons have been using these units for several years.

    The AS&E BodySearch unit is huge. It's about 12 feet high, and costs about $1 million. The technology needs a redesign for production. Another generation or two, and it might be widely used. The X-ray exposure is surprisingly low, although well above background, of course.

    In a few years, we might see them in nightclubs.

    1. Re:It's not new, but it's big and expensive by EMH_Mark3 · · Score: 1

      at full scale, you can count the change in the guy's pocket

      Kinda easy since he only has one penny, eh?

      --
      Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me
  61. This Space For Rent... by wickedj · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can see all sorts of messages one can put on their body with reflective paint for all those scanner operators to see.

    1. Re:This Space For Rent... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      I can see all sorts of messages one can put on their body with reflective paint for all those scanner operators to see.

      I don't think the operators of these scanners are going to be a significantly large advertising venue to make backscatter x-ray body paint advertisement viable.

      Unless of course the advertiser is GoldenPalace.com. They'll advertise anywhere and take advantage of the bad publicity. Because they don't just want to be famous; they want to be infamous!

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    2. Re:This Space For Rent... by wickedj · · Score: 1

      I can see Acclaim all over this.

  62. you asked for it... by tomstdenis · · Score: 5, Funny

    Only x posts and slashdotted! Must be running their site on product "A".

    Imagine a beowolf cluster of item "B", on a "C".

    Just wait till the RIAA hears about this! and/or Just wait till the MPAA sees this! and/or Just wait till the **AA hears and/or sees this!

    Something SCO would do....Or Sue! Sue! call SCO

    BSD is dying, only a few million users left!

    Oh and MS knows security like they know open competition.

    I used Mozilla once!

    1. Action "D"
    2. ???
    3. Result "E"

    MS sucks. or MSFT sucks. or Microsoft sucks. or Micro$oft sucks or Micro$loth sucks.

    Linux has a far superior kitch factor.

    I'm going to patent patenting. I'm going to patent the wheel, air, fire, water, item "F". Quick hide it from bezos.

    I'm going to sue for violating my first post (patent|copyright).

    Check my l33t signature!

    Accomplishing goal L: Cost "G". Accomplishing goal M: Cost "H", for everything else there is item "I".

    Something, something, something, private part [giggle like the school child you are], something, something, something.

    something, other, something, Natalie Portman, something

    Boochicka wowwow, something, hot grits and person "J", who may or not be Natalie Portman

    Some guys widespread anus [goatse.cx]

    In Soviet Russia, Item "J" does "K" to YOU!

    Apple R0xx0rs!

    Apple Sucks!

    Kde!

    Gnome!

    Amigas aren't dead!

    Polling:
    [options a-g] ...
    h. [unable to participate] you insensitive clod!
    i. [cowboy neal poll option]

    all your "L" are belong to "M"

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    1. Re:you asked for it... by upplepop · · Score: 1

      Come on... you've already posted this!!! Although it is funny :)

    2. Re:you asked for it... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Person "N" (who may be Steven King) found dead in his "O" home.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:you asked for it... by sahala · · Score: 1

      You forgot "they should use php and mysql...snicker snicker"

    4. Re:you asked for it... by legojenn · · Score: 1

      When is mocking the Slashdot clichées going to become a clichée too?

      --
      I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
    5. Re:you asked for it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should enumerate these so we can reference them easily...

    6. Re:you asked for it... by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

      You forgot one:

      Blah, blah, blah = $Blah
      Blah, yack, blah, blah = $Blah
      Yack, blah, yack, blah, blah = $Blah
      Blah, blah, blah, blah = Priceless

      And even though you mentoned grits, you didn't put them down your pants.

      And the latest: [fill in the blank] is a poison dwarf.

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
    7. Re:you asked for it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Natalie Portman

    8. Re:you asked for it... by Jester99 · · Score: 1

      vi!

  63. Medical implications by wackybrit · · Score: 1, Troll

    Up until now, x-rays have only been used on luggage and to scan your personal belongings which you put into the tray before you walk through the metal detector. Why? Because x-rays have been proven to be dangerous to living matter at high levels.

    Of course, this doesn't stop them being used in an extremely diluted form, as in regular x-rays at the dentist or the hospital, but you cannot send x-rays more than a metre at these low levels because of spectral bandwidth diminishment issues (730 nanometers of bandwidth over more than a couple of feet diminishes beyond 100db/A - a useless level).

    So, how can this scanner work? It uses a slightly varied version of the 'x-ray spec', known as "X-Ray2 (squared)". This is a new improved version of x-rays which have had the fatal bit removed. But, this is such new technology that we can't really be SURE of what's going on.

    I recommend caution.

    1. Re:Medical implications by rikkards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why? Because x-rays have been proven to be dangerous to living matter at high levels.

      No, this way they don't waste time having you walk through the metal detector multiple times as you remove objects from your person. Plus they can check and make sure nothing is being smuggled in with your objects that could be considered banned (explosives, shivs, handmade guns, etc)

      Rant On

      Personally I think people need to get over the whole "they will see you naked bit" whoopdedoo, I have a penis so does 49%+/-1% of the population.
      Sure it is an invasion of privacy but if you want to get somewhere fast, concessions should be made.

      Rant Off

    2. Re:Medical implications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "Personally I think people need to get over the whole "they will see you naked bit" whoopdedoo, I have a penis so does 49%+/-1% of the population."

      Yes, but it's that other 51%+/-1% that I would have to beat off with a stick after walking through security at an airport.

    3. Re:Medical implications by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      >>Personally I think people need to get over the whole "they will see you naked bit" whoopdedoo, I have a penis so does 49%+/-1% of the population.

      Amen brother. If I had points I'd mod you insightful.

      We're all the same... and after a short while that's how it'd look to the screeners.

      Perhaps in order to keep the screeners from getting their jollies (by seeing the subject in person, then in the scan) the console could be kept out of sight of the machine itself. If the operator sees something prohibited, all he's gotta do is hit a panic button.

      Just a thought.

      --
      Huh?
    4. Re:Medical implications by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "Sure it is an invasion of privacy but if you want to get somewhere fast, concessions should be made."

      Why? Because the government says we should make concessions?

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    5. Re:Medical implications by slaida1 · · Score: 1
      I think YOU need to get over the "people need to get over the whole "they will see you naked bit" whoopdedoo", because this isn't about the nakedness itself but drawing the line somewhere, anywhere.

      In another few years they'll bring in some machine to scan people's body cavities because it's entirely possible terrorists hide bombs in there. Or maybe this machine already has ability to scan deeper than .1 inches when needed?

      Now it's nudity, tomorrow it's cavity and day after that it's dignity. Can't you see any value in selfrespect? I'm me, I have certain borders that I won't allow others to cross or otherwise I'm not so much me anymore.

      Terrorists have already won when we're undressing for them.

      --
      Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
  64. .....just one step away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..from what we've seen in total recall with arnold "I'm a detective you eeediot" schwartzenegger...

    1. Re:.....just one step away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " It's not a toooomah ! "

      (Kindergarten Cop)

  65. the wrong battle by kisrael · · Score: 1, Troll

    This is the wrong battle.

    The danger to planes is going to be shoulder launched missiles from near airports. (Few planes are going to be highjacked now without a HELL of a fight, no matter what weapons the bad guys have, and explosives...well, who knows if they'll be identifiable even with a great view)

    And the danger to the nation is in PORTS people...those thousands of semi-anonymous crates coming in ever day, with almost no inspection what so ever. That's how a little baby nuke would get into this nation, and Bush and Ridge are doing very little about it. (There was some good coverage of some technological helps to this problem in)

    --
    SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    1. Re:the wrong battle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out the pictures, notice how there are quite a few of container ships... this technology can be "ported" to any location, not just airports

    2. Re:the wrong battle by MImeKillEr · · Score: 1

      And the danger to the nation is in PORTS people...those thousands of semi-anonymous crates coming in ever day, with almost no inspection what so ever. That's how a little baby nuke would get into this nation, and Bush and Ridge are doing very little about it. (There was some good coverage of some technological helps to this problem in)

      There was also a movie about this. I can't remember the name but it had Ben Affleck and Morgan Freeman in it.

      Someone smuggled a nuke into the US via a port, hid it in a coke machine at the Super Bowl and tried to kill the president with it.

      Someone (inclined to look) could find it on imdb.

      --
      Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
    3. Re:the wrong battle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      The danger to planes is going to be shoulder launched missiles from near airports.
      And, in the longer run, lasers too. It's fairly easy to make *powerful* CO2 and gas dynamic lasers.
      And the danger to the nation is in PORTS people...those thousands of semi-anonymous crates coming in ever day, with almost no inspection what so ever. That's how a little baby nuke would get into this nation,...
      Nukes are easy to smuggle in *period*. You could unpack and hand-inspect every land-sea container and it would be no harder to smuggle in a nuke.

      The real danger is large chemical bombs hidden in containers. It doesn't take much of a bomb to send a container ship to the bottom of the sea. Repeat a couple of dozen times and the world economy collapses. Well, at least the Asian economy.

    4. Re:the wrong battle by kisrael · · Score: 1

      Could someone please explain why that was considered a damn Troll? It was a relevant point, despite the political (but not untruthful) sidenote.

      I swear, some people just shouldn't be Moderators.

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
  66. Ma'am, did you pack those implants yourself? by mikeophile · · Score: 1
    The agency hopes to modify the machines with an electronic fig leaf -- programming that fuzzes out sensitive body parts or distorts the body so it does not appear so, well, graphic.
    I sure hope the machine will be able to distinguish between silicone breast implants and bags of astrolite.

    For every technological approach to anti-terrorism and security, the determined will always find a means around it.

    Treating the symptoms of terrorism and not the cause will only erode the rights of the innocent and hasten a police state like nothing we've seen before.

  67. Re:Bonner at work. by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hmmm. Maybe there is a market for boner detectors. If we have to undergo scrutiny, then so do the guards.

    "(beep beep) Well, it looks like ol' Bob is going to be suspended again. I bet his wife tossed his porn again so that he can't empty out before work. Sad."

  68. excuse me sir by Trepidity · · Score: 1, Funny

    You just ruined 25 jokes in one post.

  69. late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Saw this the other day. Slashdot, old news for nerds.

  70. hmm... by EMH_Mark3 · · Score: 1

    A: Each full body scan of the SECURE 1000 produces approximately 3 microREMs of emission. This is equivalent to the exposure every person receives each five minutes from naturally occurring background environmental radioactivity.

    Yeah, except that you get that dose in a few seconds instead of five minutes.

    --
    Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me
  71. uhh, ok, but? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This stuff sees thru say, a suitcase, so it would see my laptop, but whats to say there isnt plastic explosive in my laptop? this doesnt seem like it would be so hard to pull off....

    1. Re:uhh, ok, but? by AuraSeer · · Score: 1

      It can see through the laptop as well. The plastic explosive, being an organic material, will reflect strongly and be visible on the screen.

  72. Wait a sec... by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2, Interesting
    How do we actually know whether we are being Xrayed in this way anyway?

    ;-(

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  73. I'm thinking you're lonely and got this ready... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... in advance so you could pouncepost when the article came out. Am I right?

  74. Call me... by Doktor+Memory · · Score: 1

    ...when there's a handheld version for sale.

    --

    News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.

  75. New definition? by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 1

    So does bring new meaning to Airport Extreme? Will I now have to worry that every time I walk past a Mac user, I'm about to appear on some Internet site in my birthday suit?

  76. travel naked like the Terminator by peter303 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the terminator series- soon to be expanded to its fourth installment- time travel only works on naked bodies. I am amused to think that we may have to esort to this for ultimate security.

    Even so, when you read about smuggling in prisons and elsewhere, there's alot you can hide inside a body.

  77. Unnecessary security by sahonen · · Score: 0, Troll

    This is almost as bad as the time I was flying between islands in Hawaii, and they made me take off my sandals (!) and they put them in the bomb sniffer device.

    Fact is, 99.99999% of flyers (not a real statistic) have absolutely no illegal intent when they fly, and all of this overblown security to get that last .00001% makes me feel exactly that much safer. It's not worth the inconvenience and the increased airfares. Thankfully, my father's a private pilot (hopefully me as well eventually), so we can just fly Cessna Airlines wherever we want to on the mainland.

    --
    Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
  78. "Nice Bombs Ya Got There" by The+Creator · · Score: 1

    Group of feminists: "Thats degrading to women!".

    --

    FRA: STFU GTFO
  79. Terahertz radiation... by sleepingsquirrel · · Score: 1
  80. The only secure airline by earthforce_1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is where all baggage is checked, and passengers, flight attendants, and pilots must fly entirely in the buff. Call it "bare skin" airlines. The only remaining problem would be that of beligerent naked kung-fu masters on board.

    --
    My rights don't need management.
    1. Re:The only secure airline by nochops · · Score: 1

      This was already done...kind of

      naked airline

      --
      "A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
    2. Re:The only secure airline by Vip · · Score: 1

      Already done...

      http://www.castawaystravel.com/eldoradors/eldora do rs-main.htm

      Vip

    3. Re:The only secure airline by aschlemm · · Score: 1

      They should at least provide a nice, soft terrycloth robe for the flight...

    4. Re:The only secure airline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My flatulence is a registered weapon of mass destruction.

  81. Two Words by asdfasdfasdfasdf · · Score: 1

    JLO Screengrabs.

  82. QUAID! by jinglecat · · Score: 0

    Start the Reactor

    Gee, Slashdot has a "Total Recall" motif going on this week: First it was the Ice Caps on Mars, now the XRay concept, then what?

    Next will be fat women muttering incoherent speeches about twwwo Weeeks.

  83. Randal Null? by Pingster · · Score: 1

    The CTO is named Randal Null? "Mr. Null, i presume." Naturally this man must name his son Devon...

  84. split 'em up by civilengineer · · Score: 1

    have women screeners to screen women and men screeners to sreen men in separtate lanes.

    --

    New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
    1. Re:split 'em up by gerardrj · · Score: 1

      Okay... But then you get in to the whole sexual orientation thing.

      Are the gay men going to scan the men of the women? Are the gay women going to scan the men or the women?

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  85. But by john_smith_45678 · · Score: 0

    What happens if something is swallowed or put up some body cavity? Looks like it just shows what's outside.

  86. A.D. 2009: Most pilots and stewardesses are bald. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice cancer ya got there.

    I don't think this ain't about bombs - it's about control.
    You stupid fsckin' 'mericans have no CLUE. Half the top dogs in our government are frickin' KGB. Geeze. Who cares about a bomb. How many Americans have ever bombed a plane? Zero (0).

    --

    Bush to Supreme Court in secret meeting: "We really need to legalize screwing the American public up the ass so we can pass Patrot Act II."

  87. Great... by macshune · · Score: 1

    So every time I store my inflight snack in nature's pocket and the guards find out about it, I'll still get the gloves....great...Juuuuuuust great....

  88. Sweet.. by sik0fewl · · Score: 1

    Now we can give terrorists cancer and they should be dead before they have a chance to take over any airplanes (assuming you give the cancer beam a little more power than the default).

    --
    I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
  89. 2 problems I see. by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

    First some guy looking at 13 year old girls toilet paper filled bra's.

    Second, what about women who have had breast cancer and carefully conceal it by having a "strap-on" boob?

    I still think the Total Recall version would be best, you just see bones and guns/bombs.

    1. Re:2 problems I see. by nochops · · Score: 1

      I still think the Total Recall version would be best, you just see bones and guns/bombs.


      I agree...Movies are the best, huh?

      --
      "A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
    2. Re:2 problems I see. by cK-Gunslinger · · Score: 1
      I still think the Total Recall version would be best, you just see bones and guns/bombs.
      Yeah, I can't believe we're using this crappy x-ray stuff instead of getting the Total Recall special effects crew to sell us their obviously superior technology. Damn them!
  90. Privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As a pre-op transsexual woman, use of such devices will guarantee that I'm not going to fly. Those transsexuals that fly now and are obviously trans are frequently subjected to strip searches, verbal harassment, and other abuse. I haven't had to deal with it because it's hard to tell with me - unless you have the ability to see certain parts of me naked.

    Well, now the screeners can see everything. Meaning I'll have to worry about someone seeing something unexpected about me, and use that as an excuse to harass me.

    This surely seems like an unfair violation of my privacy. After all, why should what's between my legs be their business?

  91. Worst Job by SlayerofGods · · Score: 0

    I'd hate to have to be the screener running these things. Considering most travelers are male, though this may appeal to the female readers oh who am I kidding there are no female readers of this. And if they are a female passenger there's an 75% their overweight and a 99% their still butt ugly, plus all the pictures come up bald so that just adds to the problem.

    --

    Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
  92. TSA Employees Viewing Little Children Nude? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Wonder how parents are going to feel when their little children are viewed virtually naked by TSA employees...there will be abuse of this technology for sure.

  93. Reid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so, why would this type of machine catch people with goop in their shoes???

    If they want to use an example, then they should at least use a proven working example...

  94. Hundreds of times more intense than background by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're not giving the straight facts on the radiation dangers of this.

    They state that the radiation dose you get is equivalent to 5 mins of ordinary background exposure, but that means that if the scan time is 1 second then the radiation intensity would be 300 times that of background, and pro rata for whatever the actual scan time is. Intensity is always a factor in the equation, you can't dismiss it.

    And secondly, they also state that it doesn't penetrate as deeply as background radiation, but that means that the absorption per volume of tissue near the skin is correspondingly higher. Again, the view is biased rather than balanced.

  95. focusing? by sleepingsquirrel · · Score: 1

    Hmmm. Are they really using a x-ray sensitive ccd? Do they use a pin-hole for focusing, or are there good lenses for these (apparently low-energy) x-rays. If they have to use a pin-hole, then it seems like they would have a relatively long exposure time (since I would think only a small percentage of the xrays are going to get bounced off the target, and fewer still are going to get through your pin-hole). So then I wonder what the exposure time is. Do you have to stand perfectly still while the exposure happens? And I also wonder what kinds of materials you could use for lenses, if they are indeed using lenses to focus. What I'm really wondering is how hard would it be to make a home-brew machine like this, assuming the ccd's and lenses are available.

    1. Re:focusing? by rusty0101 · · Score: 1

      That was just a high level overview. For all I know they are using a concave mirror as their lense. I am not sure what they ar actually using for a sensor, however people are familiar enough with the concept of a ccd (video camera sensor) to get the idea of such a sensor for a different spectrum of light (which is all x-rays are).

      For technical specs your best bet would be to talk to the manufacturers.

      -Rusty

      --
      You never know...
    2. Re:focusing? by Lucas+Membrane · · Score: 1
      What property of X-Rays makes them scatter back from 'organic' within 0.1 inches and pass straight through 'inorganic'? Isn't that a little fishy? So, it's a magic ray, it can do anything. IOW, cash in on the public's post-9/11 demand for safety, and, in the name of security, don't let anyone know how it works or doesn't work.

      Aren't there plenty of inorganic explosives?

  96. why not subtract the bodies? by pz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    [scientific-musing]

    The hullabaloo over this and similar devices is that they render the person under inspection apparently naked. This is an understandable objection. It seems, to my naive viewpoint, it would not be so difficult to computationally manipulate the image to remove the body, and leave everything else. After all, airport security (TSA in the US) is supposed to only care about things that are not the body. I've seen MRI scans which have been manipulated to, eg, peel the skull away from the brain, so I cannot imagine that it would be difficult to remove the pseudo-naked body from the data before they are displayed.

    [/scientific-musing]

    [privacy-rant]

    I hate the idea of these and similar technologies which allow semi-secret observation of the populace without court order. Forget the tinfoil hat, you'll have to wrap your entire body in foil now!

    [/privacy-rant]

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    1. Re:why not subtract the bodies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the presentation pointed out here earlier:

      http://www.radjournal.com/articles/bodyscan.pdf

      You'll see that that is a proposed solution
      (near the last page).

  97. it was the sum of all fears by macshune · · Score: 1
  98. Fisheye by Nakoruru · · Score: 1

    They should add fisheye distortion and very bright unnatural false colors to the image so that it is not as recognizable as a human figure. Such distortion would not make it difficult to spot odd items but it would pretty much make everyone look fat and ugly. That way the occasional hot chick does not look much better than a 300 pounder.

  99. Oh oh, CAMEL TOE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get ready for the camel toe fetishists to sign up for the job of checking out the images from this scanner then. Hairy camel toe is now a thing of the past!

  100. Hot grits! Come and get 'em! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have something warm and mushy in my pants.
    But it's not grits!

  101. Manditory joke: by Greedo · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm pulling this out of my ass, ...

    and now we have the photos to prove it!

    --
    Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
  102. Only in America by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 4, Funny
    do you see stuff like this:
    about 1/10 (0.1) inch
    Only in America ...
    --
    We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    1. Re:Only in America by Kashif+Shaikh · · Score: 1

      What is a person sticks a bomb in their ass, pulled out like a tampon for deployment?

  103. I give it a week... by metamatic · · Score: 1

    ...before bootleg videos of people being scanned make it onto the Internet.

    And then another few months before bootleg videos of scanned-naked children are seized in a child porn sting.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  104. yeah, but they have to look at the screens too by eurostar · · Score: 1

    I'm always amazed watching the security people
    chat while not looking at the monitors as my
    baggage goes through.

    Super-Duper machines don't do it all alone...

    1. Re:yeah, but they have to look at the screens too by Junta · · Score: 1

      Well, seeing as how a side effect of this is seeing through clothes, you can bet those security people will be paying attention when attractive people walk through. But with ugly terrorists, security guards may avert their eyes just to miss the sight of the body..

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  105. You know by Daetrin · · Score: 1

    you guys only modded it redundant because you wanted to tell those jokes yourself and he beat you to it!

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  106. Porn booth? by kobaz · · Score: 1

    Another option would be to restrict the screener to a booth so no passing peepers can see the image, said Randal Null, the agency's chief technology officer.

    So what they're saying is that there will be private booths for airport security to monitor passengers who walk through this machine that look completely naked? I can see how this would lead to abuse of the system.

    "Uhhh sorry mam we need you to stand right there for a few minutes our machine seems to be broken, yeah that's it, broken"

    --

    The goal of computer science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.
  107. Infested Terran Marines, anyone? by demo9orgon · · Score: 1

    Maybe I should have said,
    "Fundamentalist Infested Martyrs", with visions of whatever subjective paradise have been injected into their heads driving them onwards to victory for the cause of their handlers.

    You're spot on with the observation though, it's an arms race. And to make matters worse, there's astrolite variants that make the typical stuff look like koolaid which are relatively non-toxic until deployment. For the young man or woman with their sights set on paradise (ahahahahah, stupid humans), or the fundamentalist looking for a good kill ratio, backscatter isn't a factor. However, for the sheeple, it's wholesale humiliation and another reason to let the airlines rot until the government flips the switch on the "tighten the bonds on the commoners so they feel safer" methodology of freedom and relaxes again.

    If it's so dangerous to fly now, maybe it's time to invest in infrastructure and establish a real high-speed rail system, and not something built on a gravel berm that's insufficient for 40mph freight trains either. For an industrial nation, we have a crap rail system. Don't believe me? Get up from your computer and go take a look at it. It sucks.

    Like the benefits we reap from a slower government, maybe slowing down people and using the medium (rail) to limit the amount of devestation possible is a much better way to go. Face it, the chances that you're going to turn on the news to hear than an Amtrak passenger train derailed and took out a skyscraper are really small, buy still probably better than winning a state (shaft the sheeple) lottery.

    Damn...I've been infected with the "sheeple" meme...AAARRGH! GET IT OUT! GET IT OUT!!!

    --
    Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
    1. Re:Infested Terran Marines, anyone? by zipwow · · Score: 1

      If it's so dangerous to fly now, maybe it's time to invest in infrastructure and establish a real high-speed rail system, and not something built on a gravel berm that's insufficient for 40mph freight trains either. For an industrial nation, we have a crap rail system. Don't believe me? Get up from your computer and go take a look at it. It sucks.

      A-freakin'-men.

      Rail systems wouldn't even be that much slower, if you consider how much easier it is to load and unload trains. (think: paralell in many cars rather than serial through the front door hatch). I think trains can even be automated as well. That takes a little more blase` attitude, but when you're doing 120 in a 5000 ton machine, you measure braking distance in miles.

      And, they can be much less polluting than the jet-powered monstrosities we have now.

      Granted, it won't get you over the ocean, but it should do real well between San Fran, LA, and Vegas.

      -Zipwow

      --
      I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
    2. Re:Infested Terran Marines, anyone? by demo9orgon · · Score: 1

      Hey! I'm not alone in noticing the crap railway system! (cavort! carvort!)
      I think there needs to be a bigger shift though. Because people won't take the train if they can still pile their stinking bodies onto a deathtrap and think it's faster/worth the risk to everyone.

      Actually, it would be supercool to see the railsystem upgraded, and then kick things up a notch and limit aircraft capable of 12 or more passengers to military or government service, and then pass regulations so airliners meet the following specifications:

      1) Detachable crew/passenger section which deploys multiple parachutes and uses a parafoil to steer. Think a three-parachute/droud system, balanced to provide the right angle and drag to make a large one (with a backup) parafoil at the rear for steering highly effective. Since the crew/passenger compartments are no longer intimately mated to a BOMB, it should dramatically increase survivability.

      2) A semi-autonomous ILS intelligent independent superstruture which comprises the primary fusalage containing engines, fuel, and hydralic systems with a shunting fly-by-wire system that once disengaged from the crew/passenger section will context switch to a controlled landing in a close "ditch zone" to minimize casualties, or accept commands from an authenticated offical source like a flight controller, or just fly it's ass back to the airfield.

      Both of these objectives have been do-able since the 1970's, but it's been the public's complete and total passivity and acceptance of unnecessary risk and loss-of-life. Nobody should have to die on/from a large aircraft if it can be avoided. We've had self-landing-capable aircraft for nearly thirty years, radio encryption for over twenty years, and computers just keep getting better all the damn time.

      In the case of 9/11, all the pilots would have to do is say something cryptic into the radio and tap a switch to disengage the safties and they wouldn't have to be alive from that point on...the airframes could have disengaged remotely and the crew/passenger compartments would have landed safely and the explosive bits could have flown themsevles back to the airfield.

      I've even sat down and drew the whole thing out. The only things preventing this kind of technology are greed, apathy, lawyers, or a government's need to start wars. The limits are not technology based.

      And by creating regulations which would limit the size of flying vehicles,we would foster a boom in personal flying technology. Then I could have a car that would fly, just like they promised me so long ago. Of course, a flying car, filled with explosive bodies would be nothing to laugh at, but considering the level of autonomy required to prevent idiots from crashing into stuff the damage still wouldn't come close to a large commercial jet.

      While we're on it, how about video-phones...from earth orbit...so I don't have to worry my wifette or be late for my meeting on Phobos base. I hear the marines will be crunchy. My kids love crunchy marines. Crunch kids crunch!

      --
      Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
  108. misread the headline by Rashan · · Score: 1
    Was I the only one who misread the headline and saw Nice Boobs Ya Got There?

    Huh... wonder what's on my mind today...

    --
    Insert witty .sig HERE.
  109. Here it comes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When X-rays were first discovered, no one knew that they caused cancer. It became tradition for the early X-ray technicions to test the machine by waving their hand between the open X-Ray bulb and a phosporesent screen.

    Well, at one of the conferences for X-ray professionals, they accidentally served chicken. Accidentally, because most of the professionals had such bad cancer in their hands that their fingers fell off!

  110. Response from homeland security: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    If you're not a terroristic crimimininal, you have nothing to hide!!

    You're not a terroristic crimiminal, are you?

  111. Investing and privacy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shit -- I KNEW I should have invested in things after 9/11, but then I started having more rational thoughts. Damn brain! Privacy, shmivacy.

  112. why no guy in the picture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now they will all know how hung I am!

  113. Yet another reason ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 1
    for me to put back on the tin-foil suit.

    And summer is here. Oh, good.

    1. Re:Yet another reason ... by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

      Have fun with the full body cavity searches!

      *waves*

  114. This has interesting prospects by dacarr · · Score: 1
    The ideas have crossed my mind here. But then, I have an overactive imagination.

    This has the prospect of exhibitionists going to the airportfor the sake of being able to flash the guards without having to wear the classic trenchcoat. Imagine some otherwise normally clothed exhibitionist just innocently walking through security several times, simply for the sake of doing this.

    This has the prospect of having people working the scan booths watching these people walk through several times.

    Finally, if they do that electronic fig leaf thing, would somebody be able to hide something in the genital areas and have it be undetected?

    --
    This sig no verb.
    1. Re:This has interesting prospects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you propose walking through these scanners multiple times? Buy a ticket each time? That's certainly an expensive way to get your jollies.

  115. Be honest now... by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Does this X-ray make my ass look fat?"

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:Be honest now... by mechugena · · Score: 1

      No, your big ASS makes you look fat!!

  116. Airline finances may increase... by FJ · · Score: 1

    if they put a webcam and charged money. Heck, someday it may be free to fly as long as you spend 10 minutes in the booth.

  117. Is that what I think it is....? by mechugena · · Score: 2, Funny

    Security Guard: "Wow, that Commander Taco really DOES carry a roll of quarters in his front pocket!"

  118. Booths may not be such a good idea by mkweise · · Score: 1

    Another option would be to restrict the screener to a booth so no passing peepers can see the image, said Randal Null, the agency's chief technology officer. However, putting the screener in the privacy of a fully enclosed booth entails the risk of having him sit around masturbating all day instead of watching for guns and bombs.

    --
    Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
  119. Re:so long as i dont have to take my damn shoes of by s4m7 · · Score: 1

    so how different is this really?

    Having the authority to go to the trouble of a strip search on a hunch, versus making it effortless to scan everyone, without the need for so much as a hunch...

    nope, i don't see the difference either

    --
    This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
  120. The art of being clothed and naked simultaneously by dacarr · · Score: 1
    OK, here's a tricky one. Suppose somebody comes through one of these devices wearing a costume from Cats. These are pretty much full-length unitards and accessories - wigs, fur gauntlets, makeup, and braid tails tied around the waist. Not a costume for the grossly overweight or those who aren't comfortable with their body, because despite the fact that 95% of your body is covered in fabric, it is a unitard, ergo it is some form of spandex that conforms completely to the body's contours, ergo not much beyond excruciating detail is hidden.

    Anyway, somebody's decked out in one of these. And they walk through.

    Beyond the accessories, could they tell the difference? Would they see the ersatz tails the performers (or in this case, costumers) wear with the costumes?

    More importantly, would they really care?

    For that matter, would you be able to avoid the security checkpoint, simply because of the fact that there are no pockets in a unitard in which to hide anything?

    --
    This sig no verb.
  121. I must have shady looking family by machine+of+god · · Score: 1

    Alright, I know this is a whole can of worms that shouldn't be opened and that it's unsubstantiated and all that crap, but (I'm assuming you're white) at least you don't get "randomly" selected for humiliation every (this is not embellishment) time. I have a passport, a soc. sec. card, and a drivers license and still they eyeball me like I've just jumped a barbed wire fence from mexico. I generally avoid crossing checkpoints if I can help it. It makes me feel like I'm not wanted here, and it makes me not want to be here. Don't get me wrong, I think that our system of government is the best there is, when it's not broken by popular apathy. But I can see how someone who has no loyalty to it (hasn't grown up with it) could get really really pissed off by the kind of shit that goes on.

  122. Leather could be used as a shield by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about wearing leather underwear? Leather is organic, so it should appear as white, just like the person's skin. You can then hide thin stuff underneath.

  123. Advice to people carrying things inside them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It says the radiation levels are similar to being out in the sun. Therefore, the solution is simple: wear sunscreen.

  124. Re:so long as i dont have to take my damn shoes of by *weasel · · Score: 1


    there most likely are cameras in the changing rooms where you shop. they get to see you in your natural glory. granted you keep your underwear on, but look again at the picture. it just looks like the broad is wearing spandex. no nipples, no hair, strong color tint. this is much less intrusive that what we already accept.

    if the airports were officially privately held - we wouldn't be having this discussion.
    but since there's a bizarre local government / major airline collusion occurring in the airline industry - we have this dilemma.

    as with the changing room cameras in stores - you can simply opt out of this scrutiny. don't shop there. similarly - you have the option not to fly, or to fly out of a smaller airport that can't afford such expensive screening devices and subjects you to a pat-down and a wanding. Flight is a privilege in our country not a right.

    in my opinion - we've been putting up with this level of invasion of our privacy for much smaller problems. i dont see how a blue-tinted hairless, low resolution, ken-doll-style reproduction of your image is worth getting all bent out of shape over.

    yeah, it's a shame that the world has come to this, but until they can find a way to project our skeletal images onto a walk-by screen (ala Total Recall) without cooking us in short order with the current technology, i'm prepared to deal with the interim solution.

    --
    // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
  125. What time is good for you? by zipwow · · Score: 1

    Are you kidding? You want them to schedule times for searches for criminal activities that don't "conflict with your schedule"?

    Searching interferes. Your list of things that starts with "push, confiscate, pick my locks, " and ends with "be a dick" points that out pretty well. This kind of surveillance leads pretty directly to harassment. If the police perceive you as a lawbreaker (which is likely if they're watching your house), then finding reasons to arrest or fine you are easy enough when they have access to every action you make.

    Did you sign your wife's check to deposit it so rent won't bounce? That's fraud. Got in a fight and threw something? Could be spousal abuse. Talked about driving home in a hurry? Oops, that's reckless endangerment. Got mad and said the president should keel over and die? Ah-ha! The highest of thoughtcrime. Nevermind the privacy invasion of your more intimate moments. If having that violated, having comitted no crime, please let me know your address, I could use the extra money a webcam could bring in.

    At the end of the day, the best recommendation is: Don't give up your rights.

    -Zipwow

    --
    I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
    1. Re:What time is good for you? by WTFmonkey · · Score: 1

      Although I agree that my argument is self-contridictory, inflammatory, naive, based on false premises, and conveys an attitude that would cause the most robust of societies to self-destruct, I don't see how voluntarily (remember, you don't HAVE to fly) walking through an x-ray device constitutes an invasion of privacy. That's the on-topic bottom line.

      I'm sure that once I'm out of my irresponsible beer-guzzling just-barely-making-rent college days, my attitude will change and I will actually appreciate the freedoms I have. Until I can afford said freedoms, however, all bets are off.

  126. Causation? by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

    "It does basically make you look fat and naked, but you see all this stuff..."

    Actually, the fat is what makes you look fat.

  127. Why not just get rid of politicians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we get rid of these f***d up politicians we wont have to go through all this pain.

    Get the f*****n cause and effect straight in your mind!!

  128. will not affect security one iota by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could have these things at every airport already, still wouldn't stop a thing. Stuff gets smuggled onto planes by the workers at the airports primarily, including the flight crews. Whoops, just let that cat out of the bag. Sort of a dirty little secret inside the industry. The second point is, various nations all manufacture man portable anti aircraft rockets, and they are somewhat easily cloned by at least a semi sophisticated group with some decent resources, or examples are purchased on the international arms markets, which can be construed to be a gray market at best. Third point is, various electronic means exist to fsck with aircraft electronics, again, it's not all that hidden.

    All this does is get people used to more intrusiveness in our society, it's part of conditioning as much as anything else.

    Would it stop a hijacking? Once in an extreme great while, possibly, it might, but probably not very often if ever. A determined group of hijackers could just get on a plane, after having purchased their tickets very randomly and acted like they didn't know each other, and overwhelm the sky marshals, take their guns, commandeer the craft. They only sit a few places really, to be effective, not that hard to spot them, even the women marshals. They could also use a throw away to spot them, someone who acts up, acts drunk or something, and needs to be "restrained". There's ways beyond that if you think about it more than 30 seconds, but those are the most gross obvious ways.

    Now we know it's possible to shoot down any civvie plane. With that out of the way we have skyjacking. The ONLY thing that will prevent a skyjacking is a locked alloy door that is not easily broken through to the cockpit, and armed pilots. It's an obvious and very simple solution that doesn't require much in the way of high technology or expense. And even that won't work if one of the pilots or flight crew or government employees is in on it.

    1. Re:will not affect security one iota by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, I must have forgotten that those 19 Al Qaeda hijackers all worked for the airlines.

      Richard Reid was an airline worker too, right?

      And the World Trade Center was destroyed by a shoulder-launched missile?

      Fucking idiot.

  129. totall recall was better by slyguy420 · · Score: 1

    the system in total recall was better.. it showed your bones and any metal objects that you had on you.. not the skin.

    --


    C:\earth\humans\del *.m0ronz
  130. does an anonymous person need modesty? by supernova87a · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So it seems to me that the main thing that makes people modest, eg. not stripping naked and running around campus, is the fact that people will know it was you and you have to talk to them afterwards. The same is probably true of this machine, ie. people assume that the operator would see you before and after you walk through, and you might feel embarassed about beeing seen that way.

    But just suppose for a second, that the operator of the x-ray vision machine is in a totally isolated room, and sees only the image of the person walking through the machine with no face shown, and doesn't get to see the person before or after. Wouldn't this eliminate the privacy problem? After all, if no one knows who you were individually walking through the machine, how are you to feel violated?

    I personally would be ok with that kind of setup. Would you?

    1. Re:does an anonymous person need modesty? by pongo000 · · Score: 1

      Why not just have the person enter the same room with the operator, do a strip search, and be on your way? It would save the cost of a $150,000 piece of equipment, while technically accomplishing the same thing.

      Well, you might as well throw in a cavity search while you're at it, since these backscattered X-rays don't seem to penetrate skin.

      You'd still be anonymous. Violated, but anonymous. And that's the bottom line, right? That we can travel throughout this great country, violated but anonymous. Think "patriotic."

    2. Re:does an anonymous person need modesty? by pz · · Score: 1

      Yes. Definitely. Fundamentally, this is no different from walking though a metal detector, which we all have accepted as part-and-parcel of living in civilized society. But there are some serious issues to this technology because it allows detailed view with unprecedented accuracy. You'd have been able to tell if J. Edgar Hoover's bras had underwires or not. Who's wearing girdles. Who uses suspenders, and who uses belts. More seriously ... Who's had mastectomies. Who has colostomy bags. Who has urethral catheters. Who is wearing knee braces. Who has sutures in their skin. Who is wearing a cardiac event monitor. These later items are considered medical information, and by federal law private, but would clearly be revealed by this search technology even if the body is computationally subtracted away.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    3. Re:does an anonymous person need modesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      suppose for a second, that the operator of the x-ray vision machine is in a totally isolated room, and sees only the image of the person walking through the machine with no face shown, and doesn't get to see the person before or after. Wouldn't this eliminate the privacy problem?

      Sure, it will eliminate the privacy problem, but it will also eliminate the purpose of the system in the first place.

      Machine operator: "Security! I've just seen someone walk through on my screen with a gun taped to their thigh!"
      Security: "Good work sir. Just give us a description of the culprit and we'll finish up"
      Machine Operator: "Well, they were white, entirely bald, devoid of facial features or other noticable marks, and they may have been female, unless the guy is cultivating an impressive set of man-boobies..."

      Now you can see what they need non-modified visual feedback as they scan.

  131. Just cover with your hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just put your hand over your private parts. If the backscatter is reflected by skin.... then they can't see you.

    1. Re:Just cover with your hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course! We can let people prevent that area from scanning, because no hijacker will EVER think to hide a grenade in his shorts. And we should let women cross their arms over their chests, because no one would EVER try to smuggle C4 inside a bra.

      Fucking idiot.

  132. Brain folds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I crazy or can you see the surface of her cortex in those pictures? I know the specs say it only slightly penetrates skin but these pictures look like the radiation penetrated the skull.

  133. Quote from the story by xant · · Score: 1

    "It does basically make you look fat and naked, ..."

    Uh, no director. It just makes you look naked.

    --
    It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
  134. here's prediction by spamspam · · Score: 1

    a massive increase in xray security position applications from people who post frequently to alt. fetish.upskirt

  135. Will EVERYONE get scanned? by Xandar01 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember hearing some airlines setting up special lanes for VIPs, a.k.a. rich people, to pass through the security checkpoints faster. So as these backscatter checkpoints start showing up in airports, will the rich and famous wiggle their way out of having to walk through these things? Is it fair?

    On one hand, I'd have to say that well off people rarely blowup the planes that they are riding on. On the other hand, money can buy a lot of things. Can you really trust someone because they have paid for VIP privileges?

    I for one don't think it should an option to buy your way out of a security scan that "everyone" is required to go through.

    --
    Life moves pretty fast; if you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it. -FB
    1. Re:Will EVERYONE get scanned? by AuraSeer · · Score: 1

      I remember hearing some airlines setting up special lanes for VIPs [...]to pass through the security checkpoints faster.

      See the word I bolded? They go through faster, but they still go through.

      The first-class passengers may have their own shorter lines, but they still go through security. No matter how much you pay for a ticket, you don't get on a public flight without going through the metal detectors. Once this type of scanner is in wide use, everyone will have to go through it too, wealthy or not.

      (Come to think of it, the new scanners might even make VIP lines less common. If they really do let one guard scan more passengers per hour, all the lines will get shorter, which means there's less incentive to have separate "speedy" lines.)

    2. Re:Will EVERYONE get scanned? by Xandar01 · · Score: 1

      I wasn't worried about people going through any checkpoint "faster". My concern was more tied to the Natalie Portman comment. Given the opportunities for exploitation, will celebrities and VIPs look for ways out of being scanned before taking a PUBLIC flight?
      Would YOU cry foul if celebs could get out of be scanned for privacy reasons?

      I don't think anyone here would care if there were a special scanner for VIPs, as long as they were getting scanned just like everyone else.

      --
      Life moves pretty fast; if you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it. -FB
    3. Re:Will EVERYONE get scanned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would YOU cry foul if celebs could get out of be scanned for privacy reasons?

      There hasn't been the slightest suggestion that celebrities will be able to avoid these scanners, any more than they can avoid the ordinary metal detectors. You're making stuff up.

  136. Pinhead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Due to human nature, any system that can be abused, eventually WILL BE. The only way to insure that something "doesn't interfere with my business or in any way inconvenience me" is to activly fight aginst anything that potentially could. Unrestricted use by law-enforcement of this kind of technology has a huge potential for abuse.
    BTW, history shows that once something is being abused (and starts to interfere or inconcenience you) it is often too late to stop it. Legally anyway.

    Get up off your stupid couch, stop scratching your balls and protect your rights, or you will lose them.

  137. What about gamma by gnarled · · Score: 1

    According to your explanation, gamma radiation would be quite safe to be exposed to. Afterall, it can pass through lead and concrete, so of course it can pass through you leaving you unharmed. Yeah right...

    --
    I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. -Randal, Clerks
    1. Re:What about gamma by Wavicle · · Score: 1

      Are you implying that gamma radiation passes through lead and concrete but not through bone? Or are you implying that gamma radiation can pass through you and still do damage?

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    2. Re:What about gamma by gnarled · · Score: 1

      I was being sarcastic. You said that anything that passed through the skin of an airplane would pass through you and not be dangerous. Gamma radiation needs 2 inches of lead or about a foot of concrete to stop it therefore it should pass through you. According to your logic it wouldn't hurt you but it obviously does.

      --
      I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. -Randal, Clerks
    3. Re:What about gamma by Wavicle · · Score: 1

      You said that anything that passed through the skin of an airplane would pass through you and not be dangerous.

      Actually that wasn't what I said. Since these are all things based on probabilities, I used words rooted in the same. You might notice that you didn't use the same language and actually said that 2 inches of lead will protect you from gamma radiation when, of course, a high enough level of gamma radiation would find that just a pebble in the road.

      Gamma radiation will only hurt you if it gives up some of its energy into your tissue, and that will only happen if it collides with an electron shell of some tissue. It's a probability game between the size of the electron shell and the wavelength of the photon. X-rays have a longer wavelength and are less likely to pass through you without hitting something.

      My argument is roentgen for roentgen, X-rays are more dangerous to humans than the higher energy forms of radiation piercing the airplane's skin.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
  138. Think doctors [Re:You know what you're thinking... by aaandre · · Score: 1

    When you go to the hospital and the doctor asks you to undress, would you refuse?

    How about your children/wife? Would you rather have them not have a checkup? What if they seem sick?

    No guarantee that a doctor is not a pedofile. No guarantee that he is not going to fantasize about whatever images he retains in memory.

    On the other hand, looking at 5000 translucent quite imperfect human bodies a day may be quite desensetizing. I'd rather worry for the mental comfort of screeners than for the passengers.

    A job I definitely don't want.

    Of course this is coming from a guy born in Europe, where topless sunbathing doesn't cause mass hysteria.

  139. How the hell is this titillating? by cryptochrome · · Score: 1

    A hairless, eyeless, black and white image of a body? Even a good one? Unless you get turned on by naked department store mannequins I fail to see how this can be used for sexual purposes. Although, there's still plenty to be embarrassed about.

    --

    ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

    1. Re:How the hell is this titillating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get turned on by naked department store mannequins.

  140. Carbon-14 by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

    Worrying about bananas seems a little excessive to me .. you do realize your body is chock full of radioactive Carbon-14, right?

    --

    DNA just wants to be free...
  141. I Don't Believe It by Lucas+Membrane · · Score: 1

    Those see-through pictures of people look an awful
    lot like they are infra-red, picking up heat coming out of the body. I had two links last year from rapiscan and osi-systems that showed these things to have many signs of being infra-red. The images have been taken down. No way that enough X-Rays bounce back to take a picture like that. What kind of lens do they use to produce that image? Looks like pure PR hype to me.

    1. Re:I Don't Believe It by Lucas+Membrane · · Score: 1

      Hmmmmm... The rays only penetrate 1/10 of an inch. Wonder what they do in metric countries? But why, then are here globes of flesh bright and her shoulders gray? They both have the same skin. Globes of flesh are warmer than skin -- more flesh underneath to make infrared.

  142. "Titillating" views? by AuraSeer · · Score: 1

    Did you look at the picture attached to the story? It's hardly what I would call titillating. Sure the image is naked, but it's also hairless, eyeless, and apparently sexless. (The scanner seems to lack enough resolution to show nipples or female genitalia.) It's not even in color.

    You could get the same effect with a B&W photo of a clothes mannequin. And if that's what floats your boat, you'd be better served working at a department store rather than the airport.

  143. Tough job... by mcpkaaos · · Score: 1

    I'd hate to be the poor schlep sitting behind the viewer for this contraption. With every passenger I'd be afraid that them walking through the machine would end up playing out like a Tool video!

    I can hear the opening riff for Sober now...

    --
    It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
  144. great, now they all know... by zorcon · · Score: 1

    now the world, which generally was unaware of what was revealed in an x-ray, knows that very little shows up. Only a matter of time now before everyone starts to smuggle plastic glocks on planes.

  145. That's all well and good but by noldrin · · Score: 1

    will I be going to airports, No!

  146. Flying is optional... by zipwow · · Score: 1

    Okay, I was mostly responding to the "I'm not doing anything wrong, search all you like" sentiment. However, the whole "flying is optional, so the government can restrict it as much as they'd like" argument (which I'm generalizing your statements to) is an interesting, and as you point out, a more on-topic, one.

    Flying, like driving, is pretty far from being a right, and there are certainly cases where people should be restricted from doing both. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that its a completely optional service. Neither is driving, for that matter. Try living in rural Montana without a car and having anything resembling a modern lifestyle.

    Still, the government shouldn't be allowed to come into just any activity, even if its optional, and demand that you relinquish great swaths of your rights in order to perform it. To take it to ridiculous extremes, you don't *have* to buy groceries, you're "free" to grow them yourself, but that sure impinges on your lifestyle (and 'pursuit of happiness', maybe?) And with flying, you're effectively saying that if you pursue a certain set of jobs, you must give up these rights while flying.

    We tolerate it to some degree with flying already because of safety concerns. One point many people make is that most of these rights violations (illegal search and siezure) don't actually get you an increased level of safety.

    To be clear, there's a difference between a privately hired person scanning your stuff (which I think is fine, btw) and the government entity generating a giant database of your traveling habits.

    I guess your latest post did only mention x-ray devices. If that's all the further this stuff went, I'd probably agree that it's fine.

    To be completely on-topic, I don't have a fundamental problem with this device, provided its used in some way that doesn't show me naked. That's not so much a 'rights' issue as it is a "I don't want to be naked to anybody" issue.

    Well, this is all just rambling without a direct point, I think I'll end it here.

    -Zipwow

    --
    I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
  147. Re:so long as i dont have to take my damn shoes of by pongo000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    they have the authority to strip search you on nothing more than a hunch - so how different is this really?

    It's this very attitude of resignation and complacency that feeds the authority machine that breeds more intrusiveness into our lives. We've been sold on the idea that to submit to egregious violations of our person, we are somehow more "patriotic" than someone who has very real issues with this type of technology.

    The fact that some bad apples will press the boundaries of decency is the price one pays to live in a free society. We, however, are slowly morphing into an authoritarian society. The bright side? Fewer places for bad apples to hide. The down side? Instead of the people in control of the government, the government will be in control of the people.

    Which do you prefer?

  148. You aren't shown naked... by metrazol · · Score: 1

    ...because that would cause too high a turnover in screeners. ("Oh, great, Frank's losing it again...{hurrrrrrrlllllllllll}"
    These scanners show an image of your shape, not you skin, not you fine booty, not your tatoos, and definitely not you. Just b/c the images are the same shape as the person scanned does not link the two. This tech produces more of, say.. a checksum of your exterior, not an image of your posterior. The only reason someone even has to look is b/c image recognition is so terrible.
    So, for the modest, would you prefer a strip search? Once these devices become standard, all of the smaller airports will have to match up, and that means gettin' naked.

    --
    "Life's funny sometimes." "And sometimes it isn't." --Cat's Cradle
  149. Non-metallic objects? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's everything else isn't it?

  150. Airport security is simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hurry quick and mod this down!

    All you need to do is look at the person, look in their eyes and you'll see that they're up to no good.

    If your a sand nigger camel jockey, you're going to get searched, plain and simple. If you look like a fucking freak - you deserve to get the special treatment.

    Enough of this searching every single person on the planet and get down to searching the people who we KNOW are causing the problems!

  151. Hurry up and buy the domain! by PhoenixOne · · Score: 1

    Okay, if you make lots of money on this cut me in. ;) www.hotbackscatter.com You know images of celebrities and hot chicks will be on the web no less then 3 days after they start using this.

    --
    Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
  152. Dear Terrorist: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear Terrorist,

    I hope you're not that smart.

    When they really start cracking down on your ability to get on airplanes if you were smart, you would bring several suitcases full of high explosives into the lobby of the local airport during rush hour and press a button.

    When the airports get really hard to get into you'll start moving on to places like the NYSE, the Golden Gate bridge, hospitals and universities.

    But you're doing a great job of turning our own government into a facist dictatorship.

    Signed,

    Awake, Aware, and Armed citizen

    PS: I'm more afraid of legal precedents than I am of your bombs.

  153. Re:Bonner at work. by superyooser · · Score: 1
    This is better than being patted down or strip searched.

    An article in the Washington Post talks about a possible electronic "fig leaf" over sensitive areas. Well, now terrorists know exactly where to put their weapons.

  154. YES. MOST EMPHATICALLY YES. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Modesty is a natural human right . It CANNOT be taken away from me, I would rather die.

  155. Anyone found a use for plastic tape yet? by saitoh · · Score: 1

    My mother and I saw this when it was announced on CNN about 2-3 days ago and my first thought was "yes!!! another method of freadom of speach"

    now I can take tape, strap it to my chest in the patern so that when they X-Ray me, it will look like I have "F*ck Ashcroft" writen on my chest...

    --
    We don't need an "overrated" so much as we need a "you completely missed the parent's point, dumbass..."
    1. Re:Anyone found a use for plastic tape yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, another method of freadom of spelling

  156. You're kidding, RIGHT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Those who are willing to trade security for
    > freedom deserve neither --GWB

    That's *not* GWB. It's a paraphrase of Ben Franklin. A man who would be *appalled* by the restrictions on personal liberties that have been put in place by the Presidential Shrub's junta.

    HTH.

    1. Re:You're kidding, RIGHT? by Colonel+Panic · · Score: 1

      That's *not* GWB. It's a paraphrase of Ben Franklin. A man who would be *appalled* by the restrictions on personal liberties that have been put in place by the Presidential Shrub's junta.


      Read it again...

      Franklin said (paraphrase): Those who would be willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither.

    2. Re:You're kidding, RIGHT? by clarkcox3 · · Score: 1

      RTFSig, Notice that he reversed "freedom" and "security".

      --
      There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
  157. Alternatively... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... no security.

    I'd much -- MUCH -- rather fly on an airline with no security check -- none. No hassles, no harassment, no ESL security "guards" berating you because for once in their life they have the power. And I could get to the airport 10 mins before the plain leaves.

    Make it a perfect dreamworld, and it'd be open-bar, 21-and-over *only*.

    You listenin' airlines? I'd pay 2x the normal ticket price to fly on an airline like that.

    'course, I fly out of SFO, so my perspective on security may be understandable...

  158. Richard^2 by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Except Richard Reid had the explosives in his shoes

    Richard Reid + Richard Gere = Goatse

  159. This is Spinal Tap reference... by weeboo0104 · · Score: 1

    [Airport screener] "Excuse me sir, do you have any foreign objects on your body?"

    [Derek Smalls] "Um... Not really."

    [Airport screener] "Sir place all foreign objects in this tray"

    (Derek pulls a cucumber wrapped in aluminum foil out of his pants and puts it in the tray.)

    --
    It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
  160. you forgot by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    "They should use Postgre because MySQL isn't a real database; I really need rollbacks and views in my app."

  161. Will everyone be scanned? Hopefully so, ha ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Otherwise, some would realize grounds for greater rewards in future lawsuits for testicular and skin cancer, for potential examples, by disproving the serious security rationale put up behind the implementation. Potential machine malfunction and design flaws won't be the only things to point to, in other words. Thankfully, only the command and its assigns could be logically exempt from such concentrated subdermal rays. Nice set of choppers, eh?

    Oh, you know I just made all this silly stuff up. Hilarious, isn't it? I know it's got me bent over laughing. Well, maybe I should go get a fake foreign consulate card, and visit some job fair lot just over the "boarder". I think "Sorge Boostch" would be a clever name.

  162. Re:so long as i dont have to take my damn shoes of by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
    " if they just put the monitor in a curtained-off booth, that'd be enough privacy for me. hell, i have less privacy when i try on pants at the store. like i care if they can see my junk."

    Its people like you that piss me off. Yeah, you're entitled to your opinion, but for gods sake don't ruin it for those of us who VALUE our privacy and don't want everybody staring at our naked bodies under any conditions. Its not like this is taking anything away from you since you don't have an issue with it, but for a vast number of people, this is taking away something very personal that has previously been impossible to implement on a large scale like this.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  163. RTFA by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

    It's not another article; it's the same AP article on a different site. Even the photos are the same. Think.

  164. Rich people less dangerous by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    If I recall, the 9-11 dudes were all up in First/Business class. And OBL himself seems to be pretty wealthy.

  165. The other thing about the shoe-bomber by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The thing that gets me about the shoe-bomber is - he didn't even succeed! As far as I'm concerned he was a long way off from making that plan work out.

    And the WTC bombers had no advanced weapons of any sort. Just knives.

    Now if you tried to hijack a plain with a knife (even if you got a good long plastic one) you would be overwhelmed by the passengers and crew - because they would assume they were all going to die, so what's a knife wound or two? Before that was not the case.

    I think these technologies are too invasive, but part of that is because there is a human monitoring them. I agree that's more accurate but perhaps a good compromise is to have the devices everywhere but with a computer monitoring them, reporting anything that "looks" suspicious or allows security people to see a scan of a particular person they are concerned about (which is just ripe for abuse, I know).

    To have everyone subjected to a strip search so we can find the next person with a box cutter or the "Hat Bomber" (you know that's coming) is just insane, and has less payoff than building devices looking for killer meteors.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  166. Or film by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Before I went all digital, I would regularly stuff a bunch of film cartridges in my pockets. I'll bet that would look pretty interesting on this monitor! Even now I like to keep CF cards with me and away from the scanners. I'll bet if they try widespread adoption of these things they'll find all sorts of crazy things that people don't want scanned for all sorts of reasons (religious artifacts might be one example).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  167. WHAT?! by theTerribleRobbo · · Score: 0

    Informative? INFORMATIVE?!

    You bunch of arse-hats.

  168. Re:Bonner at work. by Kashif+Shaikh · · Score: 1

    "Ok miss, for purposes of national security, can you turn around and grab your ankles? Thanks."

    You should get +5 polite for saying "Please bend-over" in a friendly tone! You're so nice!

  169. Problem... by Hershmire · · Score: 1

    With backscatter technology, rays deflected off dense materials such as metal or plastic produce a darker image than those deflected off skin.

    Just hide a razor blade wrapped in tape in your mouth (the teeth will block the X-rays), put a small piece of wood in your carry-on for a handle, attach them when on the plane. Bob's your Uncle.

    --
    if(!toilet_paper) roll.replace(new roll); //Stupid roommates.
  170. Microsoft by David+Hartigan · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft are behind this, it's the sort of privacy invasion scheme that Microsoft are well known for.

    Or maybe I hate Microsoft too much :)

  171. For those worried about radiation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If you are concerned about the dose that you will receive from X-rays in this device, consider the following.

    From the manufacturer's website, the dose received per scan is roughly three microrem.

    The FAA provides a dose calculator for frequent fliers and flight crew. A flight from New York to Los Angeles (cruising at 40 000 feet) exposes an individual to an extra ~20 microsieverts; one sievert is 100 rem, hence a total dose of about 2000 microrem--two millirem.

    For a domestic flight, you will be exposed to six hundred times more radiation from cosmic rays in flight than you will get from this scanner on the ground. I've worked in a number of medical and research facilities; the dose that the backscatter machine delivers is way below the detection threshold for the film badges/TLDs that I've worn.

    Natural background exposure is on the order of 500 millirem per year depending a great deal on altitude and local conditions. Members of the general public (in Canada and the United States, YMMV elsewhere) may legally receive up to an additional 500 millirem per year from artificial sources; declared 'radiation workers' may receive 5000 millirem per year. IIRC, this dose (which admittedly involves a lot of guesswork, and is based mostly on data from survivors at Hiroshima and Nagasaki) is supposed to report in no more than one extra cancer per million persons exposed.

  172. metal pieces are in most shoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    one security guard at an airport I recently flew through claimed that most shoes had a metal support piece along the middle as well

  173. A single person not being killed is not enough by slaida1 · · Score: 1
    A single person not being killed because one of these machines caught someone before they had the chance to get on a plane makes it all worthwhile in my books.

    One could use that line to make up an excuse for almost any change in widely used procedures. You may say it's not an excuse but think before you say it. How many stupid decisions and overly strict, intrusive security policies are made up based on that particular excuse?

    --
    Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
  174. Hmmmmm.... by gmby · · Score: 1

    Time for a new job. ;)

    Fixing them machines...get your mind out-the-gutter...

    --
    I don't want a pickle; I just want a Motor-Cycle! A four foot cop arrived with a five foot gun!