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
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.
Yes - but is also needs to be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR to passengers that they have the option to opt out too! I had this experience in London Heathrow - they didn't give me a choice, until I asked if I must do it... after a few minutes of avoiding the question, they sheepishly admitted that I didn't have to.
People are often afraid of challenging any sort of authority these days - for fear of reprisal. That's unacceptable. You shouldn't be afraid to ask questions, and shouldn't be labeled a terrorist for doing so either!
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
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.
Has nothing to do with Puritan influences. This is extending the invasion of privacy to a very private level. So now, to travel any where I have to do the equivalent of dragging my clothes off for some anonymous screener. Thank you, no.
Mo00o