Slashdot Mirror
T-Ray Camera Sees Through Clothes, Preserves Privacy
Quite a few readers are sending in stories about ThruVision's products, slated to be demonstrated in Britain next week, that are claimed to use Terahertz radiation ("T-rays") to detect foreign objects under clothing, without revealing body details, from a distance of 25 meters and while the subject is in motion. T-rays lie on the electromagnetic spectrum between infrared and microwaves, and are the subject of lively research efforts worldwide. ThruVision says it developed its products in cooperation with the European Space Agency.
pr0n!!
oh wait.....
I love humanity, it is people I hate
Everyone knows the real threat is breast milk and hand cream. Why are we scanning bodies for weapons when there are people trying to get on the plane with Starbucks coffee??
.... it detects foreign objects? a tampon? or only objects RIGHT under clothes? Cause we all seen news of drugs hidden inside human orifices.
...so long as you redefine privacy to mean exclusively "photographic images of your body", and exclude anything else including the contents of your own pockets. That's a pretty narrow definition of privacy. So narrow, in fact, that it stops being privacy at all.
jpegs or you're lying!
"Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
The "naught bits" might not be very clear, but a lot of people would be unhappy with security guards looking at images of you like the one shown in this article. Would you be happy with some guy looking at a picture of your teenage daughter like this?
I'll hold out for my Z-Ray specs. (Better than X-Rays. Two higher, in fact!)
They might as well call it Titty-ray. I'm no longer going to regret dropping out of high school and becoming a TSA agent!
Last year they installed a device at Airport Schiphol in Amsterdam, that can also scan through your clothes to see what's beneath it. Read the article [url=http://www.dutchamsterdam.nl/174-amsterdam-airport-body-scanning]here[/url]. Some articles on the internet claim that "The Security Scan scanner is based on a technology that uses millimeterwaves. The waves will persist over clothing, and are reflected by the skin. Also other materials, such as plastic, metal, wood, iron, ceramics, etc. reflect the waves. This will help to detect suspicious objects." More information can also be found here.
To repeat what others have said, requires education, to challenge it , requires brains.
Time to make some aluminum foil underpants to go with your hat.
)9TSS
so why cannot a computer be used to provide cover? In other words, it can mask out the irrelevant bits, and leave all the solid objects in view
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Any deice that attempts to see things you have decided to conceal is a threat to privacy. Just because I choose to conceal something doesn't make me a terrorist, I could be concealing an external bladder bag (or any other kind of medical device), women (and guys, I suppose) may have given themselves some non-surgical "enhancements". There are all sorts of things I may be concealing that are no threat to anyone, but could embarrass me if they were made known to others.
No, the question here isn't whether this is a threat to privacy or not - it is. The question here should be is it a threat we're prepared to accept. How much of our privacy are we going to give up for a sense of security?
...owwwww my sperm!
OH wait.. that was an F-ray!
I drink to make other people interesting!
Can you get one of these from an ad in the back of comic books, along with some sea monkeys?
Here..
Note the date... article is from 2003, and technology hasn't advanced at all since then. (Or prove me wrong, provide links)
I remember the picture of the guy with the knife, but a the time they called it millimeter wave? Didn't they like that buzzword? (sorry, I have no proof)
They can do what they want, but they'll never see through my tinfoil overall. I even have a catheter, so I never have to go pee. They've got cameras in the toilets, too!
I'm an infovore...
ah what the hell.. guns, bombs, and cameltoe!
Planes hijacking using knifes cannot happen again. The 9/11 was a one-time event. Before it, in case of plane hi-jacking, passengers sat quietly, waiting for the hijackers to finish their negotiations. After 9/11, taking back the control of a plane at the risk of getting hurt is the most intelligent course of action. This is what apparently happened on UAF93. Now you can't hijack a plane without anything short of an automatic gun.
All this craziness about uber-security is just useless, the only risk today is the risk of bombing and it is already hard enough to bring a big engine in the cabin. Bombings are far easier by bringing a car full of explosives into a crowded area...
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
My x-ray specs are obsolete?
What?
How can anybody claim that something that can tell if I'm wearing nipple rings or a Prince Albert, or a variety of medical devices from colostomy bags to artificial breasts "preserves privacy"?
It's a really unfortunate choice of names, this "T-ray." Inevitably, it wants to make a person associate these waves with x-rays. Photons are photons, but as far as these guys go healthwise, it's pretty certain they'll have more in common with radio or microwaves than x-rays. Heck, the reason they call them x-rays and gamma rays in the first place is because they're in the regime where it makes sense to talk about photons as particles, rather than waves. And they call them "radio waves" and "microwaves" because THEY are down in the more wave-like regime. Just call it "millimeter wave" and be done with it, before we get people claiming they're getting ARS from T-ray devices.
(Let us not forget that a single terahertz-range photon carries about 4meV of energy. That's little-m milli, not big-M mega. These guys might cause some heating, but they're not going to be ionizing many atoms in your body.)
Sorry Tibet, but Mr Gere now has a new issue to campaign about.
If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
I think they may match if you take into account a slightly different camera angle. It is not easy to tell. In any case I would be surprised if anyone would "risk" faking a picture like this, it is so easy for potential purchasers to ask for a demo.
Am I the only one wondering, for example, why the hell they're selling glass bottles in the shops past the security check (just smash one of those and you have a potentially deadly weapon) when they won't even let anyone bring their own beverages?
Great, then we should update all of security procedures in airport, don't know how can we so paranoid like this
Schiphol has had this technology for a few years now. The 'technicians' watch the show in a curtained box some distance from the gates and relay findings to security. When I asked if it was a 'sub-millimeter' system, I was told so, with a smile. They also have infrared that can spot people with a fever, who cannot fly. This system is passive. This device operates at about 10uM or 30THz.
BTW, 1mm = 300GHz and a true 'T-ray' is at about 1000GHz or 1/3mm.
...Get Your Ass To Mars. See you at the party Richter! Start the reactor. Free Mars. Get ready for a surprise!
I don't know if anybody remembers that old Little Ceasar's commercial.
European space agency? Then I'm terribly concerned over privacy.
Just what we don't need, a satellite based T-Ray camera. Just when you thought it was safe to go outdoors (without wearing your tinfoil hat, vest and undies).
Of course, on the flip side, the CIA will be able to check out hot chicks^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H terrorists for weapons during covert operations.
Something that just occurred to me is a different use for this technology (assuming it's safe, and depending on the range).
What about using it in military outposts (especially in areas where suicide bombers are prevalent) to check people approaching. Much less of a privacy concern there, and much more useful too. Possibly create a vehicle mounted system that could go out to investigate suspicious people loitering around the area or even approaching the gates.
These devices use sub mm wavelengths, which means that they would be stopped by metallic meshes with a mesh size of 0.1 mm or so.
(I have seen women's party dresses with meshes like this).
So, what if I wear a metallic mesh shirt or coat ? Or pants ? So much for the T5000.
BTW, has any physicist ever used the term "T rays" ? What dumb-ass marketing guy thought that up ?
I assume that they will also be giving out coupons for cancer treatments to the people they are scanning to be used 20 years later.
It's actually a quote from Lao Tse, actually a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laozi]philosopher[/url] from the ancient China. Although you could apply the quote to a nonsocial person, it is more meant for people who talk as if they know everything and are just talking non-sense. Some people are not talking that much or not at all, but do know a lot. Ok, in the end I think it applies a lot to nerds, but I don't know whether in the ancient China there were already a lot of nerds...
To repeat what others have said, requires education, to challenge it , requires brains.
That's why a lot of people use the backdoor to Schiphol: http://www.ad.nl/binnenland/article2029191.ece (Sorry: this is in Dutch).
After reading TFA and some of the linked material, it came to mind that if a small T-Ray scanner that would fit in ones hand were invented, it'd certianly have most of the capabilities of the tricorder from Star Trek. Identify materials, scan tissue for disease, etc. Interesting...
Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
That you can avoid all the insane inconveniences of airports and aeroplanes by travelling on a train. Tiny carbon footprint in comparison too. Perhaps it's time for the airport security industry to be taught that lesson.
heh. reminds me of a colleague who traveled to china once - but before he left he argued with his wife.
her revenge? she packed a set of carving knives in his hand luggage.
"damn you, you silly little man! I already told you nobody has fiddled with my luggage!" - needless to say the knives and his argumentative nature meant that he missed his original flight. ho ho..
Lots of people look at your bits with your permission; doctors, correction facility officers, the military, visitation people at airports. You could get around the awkwardness easily by establishing a code of conduct, and special procedures (like, I only want to be seen by a woman - ok, get in this special line here). But it would be expensive, and it would add a notch to the paycheck of the otherwise menial job of airport security officer. This technology is only being developed to avert payrises. Because T-ray /will/ be there at some point.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
It's not correct, Schipol Airport is using millimeter wave technology not teraherz imaging
Ironclad Security only exists when you have Chuck Norris on the shift. Do we really have to discuss this? (Plutonite)
It's also voluntarily to pass through that security or through the regular security procedures, it's still in a testing phase. The viewers of the images don't get to see the actual people passing through, but just the images from the scanner.
Link with pictures here
T-Ray will only catch the dumb terrorists anyways. Box cutters don't hijack planes, people do. As a frequent flyer, I'd much rather face the scrutiny practiced by El Al profilers at Ben Gurion International instead; an evasion of privacy, not invasion. Watchful parents practice these techniques daily with their teenage sons and daughters. Traditionally, our neglectful American airport guardians would simply hand you the ticket, "Here's the keys to the Buick. Take the toll gate. Be back home by 2."
I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
Picture here: http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/605/vlcsnap5485659gg2.jpg
At last -- a definitive answer to the question "is that a banana in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?"
But did you *really* want to know?
If you open yourself to the foo, You and foo become one.
What I'm carrying beneath my clothes is private. My privacy is not limited to just how well Nature has gifted the size and shape of my body's outline.
This device could be better for some limited security tasks like scanning for weapons at building entrances. But let's not pretend that it's a cureall for invading privacy somehow without invading privacy. If we do. then it'll be in use everywhere, and privacy will be as gone as the emperor's new clothes.
--
make install -not war
See if our emperors actually do have any clothes.
"Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
A friend and I enjoy occasionally looking at terrorist "threats" and seeing if we can do better ourselves. With all the knives and stuff being confiscated at airports these days, we concluded that you would have a good chance of actually hijacking a plane by simply taking the underwire out of a bra, sharpening it to razor sharpness, and using that as a knife.
(Those slashdotters that have never seen a bra up close, it was an "underwire" that goes under each of the cups (the part where the breast goes) to provide support. In some bras this is plastic, in most it's an actual wire, and strong enough to be used as a weapon if sharpened.)
Now, lets hope Fomeland Security doesn't read slashdot, or women passengers could be in for a few more unpleasant surprises when they go flying.
If we don't, some clever terrorist will figure out a way to make explosive hand cream.
For all we know, maybe it's already happened.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Well, if there's no problem with health risks, privacy risks and/or cost of using these devices routinely, it won't be a problem to stick one in the chamber where the security officers are, along with a normal camera if they get one too, and show everyone passing through the scanner the video feed, will it?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
how long it takes after this thing is installed before all the attractive women develope cancer
Given the law as it stands today, surveillance with T-rays may not be as legally risky as other forms of surveillance. http://hack-igations.blogspot.com/2008/03/robots-as-keepers-of-legal-records.html
Benjamin Wright, Dallas, Texas, benjaminwright.us
Lots? I'm assuming people who are paid to do it (not wives, girlfriends, etc), and it's been *years* since I had to take off my clothes so somebody could "look at my bits".
Okay, I'll grant you doctors, but where the hell did you come up with the other ones? Corrections officers? If you're in prison and they want to strip search you, you're not giving your permission, you're submitting to a requirement that they'd otherwise carry out by force. I'm really not sure the military counts, what are you getting at with that one? Yes, you'd get undressed for a physical exam, but it's not like people will just walk up to you and tell you to drop your pants so they can have a quick look just for the hell of it. It's also beside the point since in many (most?) countries, military service is completely voluntary and the majority of the population is never a member. As for "visitation people at airports", I don't really know what that is. Airport security?
The U.S., Canada and everywhere else I've ever traveled (mostly western Europe) already do this. Oddly, people still don't seem to like invasive searches.
It wouldn't be expensive, they already do it that way. Even if they didn't, how would it add to the paycheck of an "otherwise menial job"? These folks typically get paid by the hour, whether they're looking at an x-ray monitor or doing a strip search, they get paid the same. Perhaps you could make the argument the they need fewer people by using this gadget, but I doubt it. At this point, they hire the maximum number of security people they can afford. If they need less people doing searches because of a T-Ray camera, they'll just put the extra people on some other duty, they probably will not have less security people overall though.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
That's nothin. The good folks in alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.female have had this technology for years.
Right, so all these images go via a computer right?
...
And skin emits a certain wavelength of these T-rays or whatever bunkum name they using?
Is there any way for the machines to simply blank out that wavelength, which is surely different from metal (guns, knives), glass, plastics, etc.
So all the operator would see is the guns, knives, bottles, wallet, etc, of someone walking past, but none of the body detail
Well, maybe the computer could edge detect the body, then smooth that out, just so the operator has some context.
obviously it should have read: "... Preserves Private Parts".
If these machines could do what they are supposed to do, then news stories would show examples of what the airport screener sees. They never do. So far, it's all been "trust us."
An absolute minimum requirement on these machines is that they should at least have a display in them that shows the passenger being scanned exactly what image is being registered, and allows the passenger to decide for him- or herself whether privacy is being respected or not.
That doesn't even get into question of whether the "modesty-preserving" algorithms can be disabled by the airport screener or not, whether the system stores uncensored images or not, how difficult it is for a randy hacker to disable the censorship feature, and, once hacked, how difficult it is for a randy non-expert employee to obtain and install the hack.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
9/11 couldn't happen again because the airlines were forced to put locked doors on the cockpit. Let the hijackers try digging through the door with their box cutters. Airlines fought the requirement for years before 9/11 because it was too expensive. The executives and regulators should have been called to task for this. The whole knife/scissors/sharp object prohibition is pointless for anything other than public relations.
..when the silly 'tards have trouble identifying a laptop.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
These quotes can sound a bit harsh, for sure created with a smile
It has become to my attention all these security-theatre gadgets are being introduced in very short terms.
Even surveillance is a weapon, it's either being used for the good or the bad.
I could stretch this very far, there is no real definition of good or evil; only good and bad actions which cause good and bad consequences.
It's happening everywhere, politicians smell it's possible and jump up the wagon, with bad consequences for the people in long term.
If more people are not going to "get it" they are being bullied around and complain against this behavior, there will be soon no "people" anymore but "walking meat with a stamp".
It's favoring those who are pushing the most with money for laws to be in the best conditions leaving the smaller/individual people in the blank.
I think they got a word for that and we are all forced to be living towards those rules and none others... crazy! And that by the governments which are (partially) selected by the people
I'd almost call such behavior Shenanigans! And don't even think I'm complaining about the States, I'm European and self-employed where laws are and proposals are being proposed in high-speeds towards the new sub-religion called "Terrorism".
And that's not even everything, it's just a tip of the iceberg.
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Clothing is only a recent invention 50K years old. Humanimals lived millions of years without it. Anyone who goes to nude events finds the sexual allure wears off in hours if not minutes. The majority of people arent just not interesting nakid.
Clothing is for warmth, support, style expression, avoiding dirt and scratches off, etc.
Actually there is a good reason for the plastic bag.
The plastic bag is used as a quick way to confirm that the passenger is bringing on less than a certain total volume of liquids. You are allowed a single one quart bag, therefore it is obvious at a glance that you are carrying on considerably less than a quart of liquids or gel.
It's not a foolproof way to keep terrorists from assembling a liquid bomb on board. It just means you need a larger number of suicide bombers at a go. If you reckon that you're most concerned with bombs made from a gallon or so, you theoretically could face four terrorists with quart bags stuffed to the gills with flexible 3 fl oz sachets of explosive gel. However it's pretty certain they'd attract attention. With "normal" payloads of toothpaste and and aftershave, you might need a lot more than four conspirators.
This points out another aspect of the "mindless" security procedures. "Mindless" has its obvious disadvantages, as in the case of the elderly lady I once saw having her mascara confiscated, as if a couple cc of liquid was a deadly threat. On the other hand, the screeners are supposed to recognize that this is fifth or six guy they've checked in with a baggie stuffed full of trial size after shaves. Attention and judgment, like anything else, is a limited commodity, and it's not to be wasted on granting exceptions -- even reasonable exceptions -- to the rules. In fact, in a busy check-in, it's not really appropriate to chat up the screeners, much less engage them in a debate about whether the rules ought to apply to your mascara. It's not that you aren't right, it's that society can't afford to hire enough screeners to debate whether the rules should not apply to individual things.
The place to debate this is where the rules are made, not where they are applied. In fact, rules tend to start out more inflexible than they need to be, because more flexible rules are more complex and have more borderline cases that could result in checkpoint debates.
It comes down, in the end, to economics, and that's what people miss when they get frustrated by the absurdity of the rules. The point of the rules is to keep flying cheap as much as it is to keep it safe. That's the trade-off. Sure, we could dispense with the 3 fl oz container in a baggie rule and be just as safe,but we'd be paying somebody to open up that sixteen ounce bottle of pantene and sniff it. Sure, we could allow a half empty six fl oz bottle in the baggie, but then we'd have to pay the screener to eyeball it, and then argue with the passenger whether it's more than half empty or not.
I don't buy the "focusing on many things" argument. It's really the number of parameters the screener must handle. The early version of the liquids rule was "no liquids at all"; logically, the class of banned items was larger, but the screener had only a single question to answer: is it liquid? For the convenience of the passengers, we now allow 3 fl oz bottles, and it's the relaxation of the rule that makes the inspection more complex. Taken to its extreme, the rule becomes simply, "don't let anything on the plane that might be dangerous." That rule goes without saying, but it's not an easy one to apply. Your anecdote of getting something through in your jacket doesn't prove anything, other than that things get through, which of course is true. It was true when the rules were much simpler, as on 9/11 when the box cutters didn't trigger anybody's suspicion.
The truth is, if you wanted inspections to be more effective and cheaper, you'd just get tougher on the passengers. If they've got a 4 fl oz bottle, it goes right in the trash; if they argue, you assume they are creating a diversion and you give them and their companions a thorough inspection, even if it slows the line to a halt. Eventually, people would lea
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Anyone remember around 1999, when Sony camcorders were being recalled because their cameras could "see through clothing"?
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/see-thru-lens.html
http://www.kaya-optics.com/devices/sony_nightshot.shtml
http://www.spy.th.com/camcorders3.html
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/H9/H9A.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/V3/V3A2.HTM
Would any of this Sony technology have any silent (via shadow investors/subsidiaries) part in resurrecting Sony income stream? Would this technology in the news today be very good for random and equidistant surveillance points for bridges, office towers and infrastructure.
I can imagine a whole new slew of patent-evading startups (not counting some failed or badly-focused ones in the SillyConJobAlley area just north of San Jose/Milpitas...). Might be JUST what Boston and Santa Clara need.
However, if:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88031211&ft=1&f=1001
is any indication, countries like the USA will have the hopeless task of putting such cameras EVERY WHERE (good for business income from DOD/DHLS contracts...) until policy or attitude toward people OUTside of the US changes.
Maybe it WILL be good for police to use. Now, they will have no reason to cavity or strip search people. It could reduce the number of unjustified shootings/killings of people. No more claims of "S/he had what appeared to be a firearm aimed at me/my partner/a civilian bystander...". It could even protect police when approaching vehicles. No more being shot just for trying to issue a traffic citation for a vehicle code violation.
Stores and offices could use them for silent reporting and logging of robberies or undesired proliferation of weapons in neighborhoods. I wouldn't be surprised if places like SF's Tenderloin and Bayview/Hunters Point and Fillmore district get these things.
But, the train stations/undergrounds will be clamoring for federal funds (matching?/challenge grants?) to get these new gadgets installed.
HEHEH.... Captcha: Positron (how coincidental...)
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
I get handy e-mails all the time with such sites! I can forward you a few ;)
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
I can't wait to see the T-ray kill a bunch of velocirays and then bellow loudly as a banner falls from the sky saying "When Privacy Ruled the Earth."
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
A serious percentage of these people are not currently following the current code of conduct, so why would they follow a new one. The current code of conduct is the Golden Rule, the social contract, etc. These airport screeners are already on the other side of those rules, as are the police, the military, the politicians, lawyers, etc. Many of them violate social contracts, and the law, as well as rules and codes of conduct, as often as they feel they can get away with it. Just look at the videos of cops beating people, shooting in the back, and even dumping a quadriplegics out of his wheelchair onto the floor. And you suggest that a code of conduct would have any effect on these characters? Man, you live in a dream world, can we come to stay?
wake up and hold your nose
I had a box cutter in my pencil case in 2002 while boarding a plane. Apparently that didn't matter, but they took my nail clippers & my aunt's knitting pins. They also went through my luggage as their explosive resin check machine went off.
... getting anonymously irradiated for my own "protection."
OK, but wait, how would this work if the person wearing the clothing was, say, a foreigner?
For people who value their privacy, offer the choice; for T-Ray scans join the left-hand queue, for cavity searches join the right-hand queue, for full body X-rays lie down on the conveyor next to your hand luggage.
All these technologies seem are advertised as being able to pass through clothes but are reflected by skin. What if I am wearing leather pants? Leather is made from skin. Will these devices see through those? Will I have to take my pants off if the scanner can't see through them? What about leather underwear? Mind you, I don't normally wear leather clothing, but it may be a way to protect your privacy at airports.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
But while we're on the subject..
The sad thing about this kind of terrorism is that, somewhere under the concern for public safety, there's an epidemic of people committing suicide because they're being taught to. Where's the public focus on that? Where are the Help Lines for people so affected by their religion/cult that they're thinking about suicide?
It reminds me of "Waco" a little, in that this is a culture of very isolated, indoctrinated people. In their hearts they are not "evil" people, or indeed doing anything wrong. That's a major crime right there, turning a human being into that - a machine of war and politics. They need to be convinced that they are dying for politics and hatred, not for their religion, which is one of peace, as much as any religion is.
Just seems logical, nevermind humane, to me, to address that as part of the "war on terror". For it's also a war being waged on the minds of these young people, by enclaves of their own people. At that level it's criminal exploitation and slavery, and should be discussed widely as such, so young people don't mindlessly fall for it. Again these things come down to education.. an educated society doesn't go quite that astray, and the West has let these countries putrefy while we ride on their backs so here we are.. but that's another topic.
Just tape a soda to your chest and wear a puffy jacket
Guess we better ban air, then... it's what, 78% nitrogen?? who knows what sort of evil explosives one could create from that, especially considering the high oxygen content of the remaining air!!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
emits? It's probably a receiver looking at a spectrum that's passes through the body. whether or not part of the device broadcasts this frequency through the body to a receiver, or the receiver is just getting natural things that pass through the body I don't know.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
There are explosives that get some/most of their bang from Nitrogen - azides, hydrazines, maybe half a dozen or so more-exotic things. However, I was responding to someone who was saying that anything with enough nitrogen can be made into an explosive.
While this is funny at first glance, it's actually an insightful post.
Tin foil hats aside, we're not allowed to say the word "bomb" in an airport. Actually looking up information on how to get a bomb through airport security... Water boarding ftw!
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.