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.
...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.
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?
'cause then you'd be able to disguise a weapon of mass destruction as a mere tool of rape.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
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?
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.
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"?
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?
The argument is that the liquids they are afraid of are volatile and hard to contain in cans, and thus you would see condensation on the inside of the bag.
Incidentally, do you know how many terrorist attacks that airport security at check-in have prevented? :)
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
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.
Really ? Can you show me a source for your claim that *that* is the "official" reason ?
Sounds downrigth ludicruos to me, and I've never seen that particular claim before.
First, it's not true that it's hard to make a can that is sealed well enough that no vapors, certainly not enough to cause visible condensation would escape.
Second, condensation happens on cold surfaces, if the plastic-bag is the same temperature as everything else (I don't see why it wouldn't be) there'd be little condensation even if there *was* a lot of vapor inside the bag.
Third, there's no prohibition that I've seen on having a ventilated plastic-bag, say one that has lots of holes in it, or even one made of some breathing membrane.
Not that being ridicolous is any sort of defence offcourse, lots of downrigth silly things happen anyway.
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
how long it takes after this thing is installed before all the attractive women develope cancer
If the bag was sealed at a warmer temperature, or with a humidity level that the current temperature cannot keep in gas form, condensation will occur regardless of whether or not there was anything dangerous in the bag.
I'd say GP has a point -- the idea that the bag is there so they can see condensation sounds bogus.
According to the TSA's website, the reason for the bag is to impose an overall limit on the amount of liquid carried by each passenger. (Which as near as anyone seems able to tell is also silly, but that's another matter...)
If everybody's armed it wouldn't be easy to hijack the plane, now would it? Maybe something the antiterrorists of today should consider. :)