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."
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!"
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!
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
... then we'll know for sure now if those breasts are real or fake!
Four weeks, Twenty papers, that's two dollars
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?
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.
There are two reasons why the public will reject this:
See the Pictures of the Flood of '08
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
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
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.
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?
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.