Slashdot Mirror
JFK, LAX To Test Millimeter-Wave Scanners
Narrative Fallacy writes "The Transportation Security Administration has announced that it's beginning pilot tests of millimeter wave scanning technology at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) that allow TSA personnel to see concealed weapons and other items that may be hidden beneath clothes. TSA Administrator Kip Hawley says that that the potentially revealing body scans (YouTube) would not be stored and that 90% of passengers subject to secondary screening opt for a millimeter wave scan over a pat-down. The agency added that security officers viewing the scans would do so remotely, where they will not be able to recognize passengers but will be able to trigger an alarm if needed. The agency also said that a blurring algorithm is applied to passengers' faces in scanned images as an additional privacy protection."
before we see "best of anonymous airport scanner" porn sites pop up. On the bright side, the faces will already be blurred. From the I'd-know-that-birthmark-anywhere department.
Invenio via vel creo
Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
More incentive to get in shape I guess. I've got time though, I don't fly much.
hmm
this is not anything new
I mean, just how many millimetre waves are people going to be smuggling onto airplanes?
Is there a market in black market millimetre waves that I'm not aware of?
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
I was asked to do a scan at Heathrow, with no option for a patdown instead.
To do this I had to stand in a certain posture.
Imagine someone trying to push, with both hands, a wall coming at them from a slight angle above - or, someone doing a Hadouken at a telephone pole.
At the same time they should have their legs like someone doing a "Kungfu Dancing" imitation, with the condition that they have just crapped themself so making sure they keep those cheeks extra spread.
Image from front and back.
Given that both this airports insist on you taking laptops out of your bag (how bad a scanner is it?) and shoes off and on my last notable trip through JFK I had to remove all electronic items (2 ipods, PSP, 2 mobile phones, 2 laptops, safe token) an put them through in a series of trays I can just imagine how this will actually work.
They'll ask you to take your clothes off, put the clothes through the scanner to find anything "invisible" and then send them down a ramp at high speed getting them all mixed up with other people's clothes.
My current irritation in US airports is the "boarding card" check AFTER the body scanner. So if (like me) you normally put your ticket in your jacket pocket (which of course has to be scanned separately) then you get scolded even though your boarding pass had to be checked to get you into the security queue in the first place. All this check does is slow everyone down for another 10 seconds per person for absolutely ZERO benefit (they don't check that you are the person on the card, just that you have the boarding card).
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
what happened to the exciting x-ray glasses technology? when i was a kid i badly wanted one of those advertised on back of richie rich and archies comics... :-(
Manojar - pronounced like Manager
it'll certainly catch any unauthorised commandos.
How many of those people actually were aware of the pat-down option? I bet it was not 100%. Also, given the fact that even Medical information cannot be reliably kept confidential in most cases, I sincerely doubt this data will. Unless there are strong prison sentences for any employee convicted of disseminating this information, I am not impressed with their statements of security, confidentiality, or purported privacy.
Uh huh. I feel so much better that the pervert checking out my junk is out of sight. Yeah, much better. Ohhh, but I do agree that the blurred faces give additional illusions of privacy. I am certain that all the women feel better that we men aren't looking at their faces.
As long as it is an option the passenger has, to say no, and go with a standard pat down, then I don't see it being a huge issue. That said, if we start seeing the "non-stored" images popping up online, then we have a problem.
I had this happen at London Heathrow. I was selected for secondary scanning, and directed to the mm-wave device. The operator was sitting in a booth right beside the machine, but only he could see the screen.
The thing that really annoyed me is that I wasn't given a choice - simply told to go through this device. There was no explanation of what it was, or what it would do, only that "the amount of radiation is about the same as flying for an additional 5 minutes at altitude in a plane". However, when I asked the simple question "do I have to?", they sheepishly admitted that I did not. I signed a form saying that I didn't accept it, and they walked me to the front of the line for normal security!
So, by saying "no", I actually saved about 20 minutes in line.
My advice - REFUSE to participate in invasive scans like this. If people accept these new intrusions like sheep, it'll just keep getting worse.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
I see the Puritan influences is still pervasive and strong in this country regarding our bodies.
Remotely? I bet the security office watching the screen at remote place...is operating by themselves? How easy could he be holding a cellphone and recording all this?
Tell me next time when there is kiddie porn leaked from the video feed of scanner like this.
I'm sure the rat-things will disarm me promptly.
/. articles about sintered armorgel being produced, or I'd be really bad off.
Good thing I remember
You will be baked, and there will be cake.
Airport security -- first job choice for pedophiles now. The government spends half its energy trying to catch people looking at kids in their underwear, and then the other half making sure some people can get a good clear view.
just follow my logic here. I only fly because my company makes me. When I go to the airport I have to put up with all this security bullshit and now they've put in magic scanners (it's magic to me, as it is to most everyone) and the security people get to see me naked. So basically, if I want to get paid, my company is demanding that I get naked. Now, I don't know about you, but I didn't sign up for that. I'm not exactly *against* the idea of getting naked for money, but I think I should be getting paid a lot more than I am now if that's the deal.
How we know is more important than what we know.
So they'll give /two/ alarms instead of one, when the blond 17 year old with the giant but perky tits walks by.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
All else aside, how much do these things cost? Who's paying?
The homeland security folks have had a blank cheque to pay for whatever cool toys they want for far too long.
Air travel is expensive enough as it is, and considering just how rarely I do it, the taxpayer subsidies are sickening as well.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
The boarding pass check is to see if you should be directed to secondary screening. Yes, it's dumb that they put the secondary screening indicator (the "SSSS" of doom) on your boarding pass, but that's how it works.
if they find some thing then they go for a strip search anyway, don't they ? a pat down takes 10 seconds a scan takes 5 minutes.
The agency also said that a blurring algorithm is applied to passengers' faces
It isn't my face that I'm worried about them seeing...
You know when you go to a theme park, and there's some bozo photographer at the entrance asking to take your photograph, and then you can buy a print of that photograph as you leave? And even though it's a lousy shot, they want $20 for it? It's like that.
Or better yet, they'll sell anonymized scans of other people.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
So I'll be standing buck naked in line, saving them the trouble of raying me.
darkly for sure
If the system has an algorithm to blur the details of faces, then obviously, you just need to hide your terrorism kit in your face.
The agency added that security officers viewing the scans would do so remotely, where they will not be able to recognize passengers but will be able to trigger an alarm if needed.
Yeah, you can just imagine the sort of alarms they'll be triggering to get all the boys running for a look..
"Big Bazongas" Alert
"Penis shaped like an amusing vegetable" alert
Ben Wa Balls Alarm
and so on...
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
I'll keep all my illegal items in my hat then!
So even if grandma has a new hip and goes through the new scanner she's still getting a pat down. I also beleive this is the case for any alarm form the new scanner
Personally I have to question then how is this an improvement oveer the current magnetometers from a user perspective.
Also I do not for a minute buy the government's assertion this is safe. Plain and simple there isn't enough long term data for them to make that claim.
I'm a transsexual, and this would totally out me (people generally can't tell). As if I need people to find more excuses to give me shit.
Sorry fella, but your attempt at splitting hairs in order to avoid admitting the truth fails. You can't "entrust" someone with someone without trusting them, so when you said
"We don't trust them
You were wrong.
Nice try though, even though it was obviously wrong. And you do have another choice, the fact that you fail to even recognize it exists if far more worrisome than your failure to understand the words you're using.
I submit that if a TSA screener should be entitled to such a scan, that I should be entitled to see them do the same. Unfortunately, given the appearance and physical fitness of your average screener, I think I'm getting the short end of the stick even in that case.
In all seriousness, though, these sorts of violations by our governments upon the governed is the intent of terrorism. Civilians are the indirect target. By making them afraid, the government is pressured or motivated to enact increasingly restrictive laws and methods of enforcement to assuage that fear and protect the populace. The terrorists know that full protection is impossible, so they continue until the loss of freedom becomes so intolerable that the people overthrow the government. The politicians and so-called elected officials know this, but play into their hands anyway--in the short term, the power grab is irresistible.
The entire focus on security (and technology to improve such security) is wrongheaded, and is a convenient diversion from the real issue, which is why people become terrorists in the first place. People don't explode themselves for no reason whatsoever. No amount of technology, legislation, or vigilance will ever address the root cause that incites an individual to such fervor that they are willing to DIE to achieve their aims.
But again, the politicians know this--so one must call into question their own motivation for pushing these measures on the public. When I have the ability to subject each and every last one of our elected officials, corporate officers, and whomever is telling me I'm supposed to be OK with being scanned and exposed in such a humiliating fashion, to the exact same treatment, then and only then would I consider accepting such a practice. When I can see Dick Cheney's ugly-ass flaps of man-tits hanging over his oversized belly obscuring his undersized privates (mind you, not that I would ever risk the subsequent psychological scarring), I might reconsider. And if even one scan ever gets leaked or misused in any way, I'd like to see the scans of each and every one of those people involved in promoting this technology released all over the internet for everyone to laugh at as punishment. Otherwise, their promises and reassurances mean nothing.
It is not a question of trust, freedom, modesty, or security. It is a question of accountability; because without that, everything else is meaningless. To the extent that those that watch us do not desire to be watched by us is the precise extent to which we are not a free and just society.
Passenger Safety? try more FAA inspectors, and more air traffic controllers.
This looks like a machine that is being sold to the government and 10 or 20 times what it should cost with the main purpose of funneling tax money to some political donor.
This whole terrorist thing is way overblown , and the real danger in flying is the cheap airlines getting away with lax maintenance because the money that should be going to FAA inspectors is going to silly stuff like this.
Cheers
* Carthago Delenda Est *
There's one or two people here with the sig "oh look, my tax dollars at work coming to arrest me!"
Should now read "oh look, my tax dollars at work coming to ogle me!"
There's no limit to the liberty they'll take from you or the indignities they will subject to to in the name of security. But it isn't your security they fear, it's their cushy jobs that the terrorists threaten. And the domestic terrorists putting you through this rank bullshit have no remorse at all. In fact, they may possibly believe their own bullshit.
Someone else has that Heinlein quote about the four boxes, it is especcially germaine here, too.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
The scans have to be stored for criminal prosecution and accident/incident investigation.
Get off my lawn.
I thought all radiation is dangerous to some degree, even sunlight.
As for prudishness, most bodies are boring if anyone has spent more than a few minutes at a nude beach or as a medical professional. Most mature people can easily handle this.
.. just drop your pants down before you get to the scanner. "Hey, don't bother with the scanner, just a sec..".
If the point is to see what's inside your clothes, just expose yourself. No need for expensive machines.
Maybe even try special clothes that can be ripped off in an instant?
But is it safe? Does it give you cancer? Will it damage your eyesight? Will it damage reproductive organs? What IS the cumulative risk - lets be honest here.
Just last week I read an article assuring people that T-wave scans would not show any naughty bits. (Sorry, don't have a link handy) And now this is saying oh, there's naughty bits, but we'll be remote, we can't see your face, and won't keep the images.
Sure. Someone has already commented about being in Heathrow and having a guard right there looking at the scans, knowing who was walking though. Obviously Heathrow isn't a US airport, but can we really believe TSA won't do it that way soon enough? If they are remote and can't see who is which image, how do they know who to tackle?
I can't wait to see what they claim next.
The agency added that security officers viewing the scans would do so remotely, where they will not be able to recognize passengers but will be able to trigger an alarm if needed.
In other words, they'll post every picture online at am-i-a-terrorist-or-not.com and those who get the highest scores are detained. Thank you, Internet.
...by the thought of a communal metal plate down the pants?
"At the risk of sounding lax, if some guy has a gun in his ass crack, do you really want to confiscate it?"
If this ever happens to me I'm going to to throw wood and give 'em a show.
First the disclaimer... I am a researcher in a related field and so have a vested interest in the public perception of this technology. That being said... The parent article is somewhat misleading. There are actually two seperate technologies that are being looked at for this application X-ray backscatter and Millimeter-wave... The TSA has a good summary of the difference( http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/body_imaging.shtm) The youtube refenced in the parent article actually shows X-ray backscatter images. The millimeter-wave images are generally much lower resolution (limited by the physics of imaging at these wavelengths) but have the advantage of using a portion of the spectrum where the radiation is completely innocuous from a health perspective. However, both technologies are competing for a market that may not exist if the public backlash is severe. I personally am perplexed by the reactions that some post... Given that some sort of secondary screening is inevitable, would you really rather have a stranger touching you during a pat down than have an individual in another room looking at blurry images of your form.
Drawing a comparison between sunlight and an X-ray scanner is irresponsible. Insulting people who don't want to submit to invasive scans is worse.
As someone else pointed out, it isn't nearly as bad as all the other things they've already done. But perhaps he's not mature enough to give up his decency along with his privacy!
One assumption that the pro-scanners forget, and I'm sure any wouldbe terrorist knows is that most of the security at airports is not really designed to keep you safe. It's designed to make FEEL safe.
For instance. They make 'profiled' people remove their shoes. Coincidently, the 'profiles' they the general public will view as suspicious. Aside from volume of shoe, there isn't any other factor I can think of that would indicate any less of a threat. Taking that into account, any terrorist might use that idea and purposefully use a less likely profiled shoe to decrease the odds of more scrutiny.
All this scanning/profiling/high visibility security, at the same time the compare a me with a photo ID I give them. It seams to me that one of the first security measures would be to compare a person to an image on file, rather than one someone hands them. Just by printing/stealing an ID and altering the image one could bypass all security dealing with watchlists or know terrorists.
Moving visual comparison to an image already on file from when an ID is issued makes ID forgery much more difficult, and allows the entire time from ticket purchase to automated image comparison to know terrorists. But, this isn't as visible.
Does anyone have pictures of what the resulting scans look like? The only one I could find was on the tsa.gov website.
If that's what it really looks like, then I don't understand how there is any real controversy here. You'd have to be a desperate fella to get aroused by that. Any of these technologies, I assume, are going to be very abstract representations of the human body, hardly something comparable to an actual naked photo of you.
In the end, people will always be able to see you naked the old fashioned way: using their imagination. Get over your vanity, honestly.
"Arrr, I curse the shark that stole me leg." -PegLegPete
I would much rather bypass all airport security by owning my own carbon fiber zeppelin. I'm looking for venture capitalists, and I'm not joking, either.
There is simply no reason we shouldn't have luxury RV zeppelins by now.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
They could have come out with a better name than Millimeter Scanner?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
When the (document that would eventually become the) US Constitution was being written, the authors omitted, after deliberating the issue, a "Bill of Rights" precisely because some of them feared that listing a few would (at least implicitly) disallow any not so enumerated. The whole point of Amendment 9 is to clarify this issue.
Note that you don't have the right to use shaving cream, or ride a horse, or drive a car, or fly any flying contraption of any sort. Of course, you have no such right... Bullshit. I start with all rights, until and unless surrendered.
...because the law makes no provision for one. Bullshit. The law doesn't need to make any provision for one. It even claims this explicitly. Then it does, for good measure, make a provision for just such a right. If you do not wish to submit to being scanned/searched/whatever, you can [suffer serious inconvenience]. By your logic, it would be acceptable if a law mandated that everyone had to either a) have a government tracking and execution module implanted, or b) crawl everywhere they went, without walking upright. After all, the people's freedoms of travel and association are not being infringed if they can still do them, even at excruciating handicap! You'd just tell them they can either submit or fuck off. If the above security measures offend you so much, put your moral fortitude where your mouth is and don't travel by air. If the thought of flying with normal people who haven't been profiled, strip-searched and disarmed of any weapons like sports drinks and shampoo, put your moral fortitude (sanctimonious cowardice) where your mouth is and don't travel by air. You're the coward, here. Never forget that, coward. but I don't trust you either. Exhibit 2. You're the paranoid one here. That's why I'm happy as hell people are screened before they get on a plane with me, and I wish like hell they'd scan more of them and more thoroughly. You deserve all the pain you'll ever get, and then some. Land of the free and home of the brave? With people like you, it's more like the land of the subjugated and home of the cowardly. And historically illiterate. Get over your cowardice. Submitting to authority gives you less, not more safety.Just make everyone eat a piece of ham, bacon or pork to get through security.
Stops 100% of the terrorists and is a nice treat for hungry travelers!
>Unless there are strong prison sentences for any employee convicted of disseminating this information, I am not impressed with their statements of security, confidentiality, or purported privacy.
There would also need to be internal audits and tracking to make sure that misuse could be pinned down beyond a reasonable doubt. Imagine, if you can, a culture so strong that it would stop the guards from sharing passwords.
I know someone that REALLY DID THIS! I have never laughed so hard in my life. He got tired of the 'extra special" pat down and TOOK OFF HIS PANTS and sent them through the X-Ray. it was an absolute classic :)
That is likely true, but right up there at the top is "one way ticket"... Because you know, the terrorists can't figure out that is a flag and buy round trip.
Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
Your posts should NOT be labeled as Flamebait.
*--- Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are on the same side. ---*
Cheezus K. Riced, you are ignorant and dull-witted.
This isn't about nudity or sexual repression. It is about privacy, and about techno-dorks such as yourself thinking it's cool to have this ability.
You're a fascist police-stater's wet dream, you stupid fucktard.
And don't try to come back with "but I'm a coder so I'm not stupid." A high IQ still can result in sheer idiocy, as you're proving by focusing on Puritanism.
"Let's see: Pan Am 103 blown up by...hmmm...Muslims? 9/11 orchestrated by...Muslims? Achille Lauro, the Israeli Olympic athletes, the Beslan school massacres, ethnic cleansing, and many more too numerous to list, all done by...Muslims?"
Sure, Timothy McVeigh... Muslim. The Tamil Tigers... Muslim. The VA Tech shootings? Muslim. The Holocaust? Plotted by Muslims. Watergate? Richard Hassan Nixon was a closet Muslim. The slaughter of the Native Americans and internment of Japanese Americans? All a Muslim plot. Guatanamo only exists because the Muslims forced us to. The Crusades? They started it. It really is a wonder people object to profiling.
Stops 100% of the terrorists and is a nice treat for hungry travelers! Under the British Empire, beef fat was allegedly used to grease the rifle cartridges, which soldiers needed to put in their mouths in order to bite open the end. In India, there was a very brief rebellion over this: brief because the rebels refused to use the rifle cartridges.
Oh, I know. These same morons who preach "free speech" and "freedom of expression" are the same ones who eagerly brand anything they don't like as "flamebait." It's just their way of imposing censorship on those they don't like. They are all hypocrites.
I don't care. I've got Karma to burn.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
You see, this is what's commonly called a "straw man" argument. You take things I never said (or even implied) and proceed to demolish them. Then, you claim some sort of victory over it even though it was not my position in the first place. It's so sad that you find your position so untenable that you are forced to resort to this tactic. I was hoping you'd offer more of a challenge.
To put it succinctly, I never stated all terrorists are (or were) Muslim. However, the vast majority of those in the last forty years have been. When was the last time you heard of a Hindu blowing himself up in a crowded market? A Buddhist? A Sikh? A Jew? A Christian? You might find isolated cases of this here and there if you go back four decades (or more, since you brought up the Crusades that took place roughly 1,000 years ago -- some grudge you've got there, bub) but you'd have to be blind not to see the thousands of other incidents of Islamist-based terrorism. You would have to purposefully steer around those incidents in order to find even a scattering of non-Muslim terrorist incidents. The fact that you're already doing this by engaging in the argument in the manner of your previous post speaks volumes about your true mindset on these matters. You're more interested in finding ways to blame those you disagree with than you are in finding facts staring you in the face.
Are all Muslims terrorists? Nope. But most terrorists are Muslims. And a significant portion of the non-terrorist Muslims refuse to condemn or speak out against those who are terrorists, which speaks volumes about their mindset on the subject. But you go right on and ignore all that. I'm sure there were folks just like you on the planes that hit the WTC, or the bus in London, or the trains in Spain. They're all dead now, but I'm sure they held onto their idealism until the last possible moment when a Muslim killed them.
You go right on thinking there's no threat out there, that this is all some conspiracy against peace-loving folk by global power mongers. That seems to be the position you're advocating, is it not?
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
What will this technology detect that the current technology won't, other than a boner?
You were defending the act of profiling on the basis that Muslims were more commonly at fault. In order to sustain that argument, then 1) Muslims would have to be most commonly at fault, and 2) a significant danger of non-Muslims at fault (and being missed by your profiling) would have to be not-present. Neither of these are true and my response was at point.
To put it succinctly, I never stated all terrorists are (or were) Muslim. However, the vast majority of those in the last forty years have been. When was the last time you heard of a Hindu blowing himself up in a crowded market? A Buddhist? A Sikh? A Jew? A Christian?You seem to be ignoring the Tamil Tigers, who are Marxist suicide terrorists of Hindu extraction and just happen to be the most active suicide terror group in modern history. I also pointed out Christians among known Hezbollah suicide terrorists. The PKK are also primarily Marxist, culturally Kurdish terrorists with religion being at best an afterthought. Timothy McVeigh was a Christian. The folks who tried to attack a US military base up north were Christian. The various domestic suicide rampages have not been perpetrated by Muslims, including the guy who slaughtered people in a town hall near here recently. I am not looking hard to find these examples, either.
Historically, the Zealots were Jewish suicide terrorists fighting Roman occupation, the infamous Assassins were Muslims fighting another Muslim invader, and, of course, the Kamikazes were Japanese, so there is no basis for a historical trend based on religion vs. religion either.
Some of my other examples pointed to the fact that our own government (which we are trusting with profiling) has also been a threat to us and others in the past. Given that examples can be found readily for either side, the only solution is to look at actual statistics to see if one is actually more likely than another. But actual counts of terrorists and events where we know the religion of the terrorist do not bear out the conclusion either, not in modern times and not historically.
You might find isolated cases of this here and there if you go back four decades...You need only go back to 1980 to see that statistically, Hindus are more likely to be suicide terrorists than Muslims. Is this because Hindus are violent? No, it is just historical circumstance. They are largely active in parts of the world we do not care about and therefore we pay less attention to those numbers.
If you count non-suicide terrorism, then you suddenly have to include all of the groups in South America who are often Christian (and who are largely anti-US now, by the way), as well as terrorists in the former Russian Republics, so you can't get to your conclusion that way, either.
Are all Muslims terrorists? Nope. But most terrorists are Muslims.If actual statistics are examined, this is nowhere near the case, not even a little bit around the edges. If you read Newsweek, etc., it appears to be true due to selective reporting. Pape's Dying to Win is a very good treatment of the statistics, though it is becoming dated.
Sorry, trying to get used to the new interface, I posted my response in the wrong place. It is here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=528940&cid=23162044