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."

28 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. Just a Matter of Time... by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Just a Matter of Time... by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was about to say something about the security guards being aroused the whole shift they work... But then i realized it will be at an US airport, where the traffic will have extra large volumes.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    2. Re:Just a Matter of Time... by PMBjornerud · · Score: 5, Funny

      But if you're a terrorist, hire an escort agency and enter the screening with a handful of nicely curved girls. You know where any board male security guards will be looking...

      --
      I lost my sig.
    3. Re:Just a Matter of Time... by palewook · · Score: 5, Funny

      how long before this device shows up as a Japanese Game Show.

  2. why? by thermian · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  3. Indecent posing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Indecent posing by clickety6 · · Score: 4, Funny



      The best part was that they weren't even scanning you. They pull this joke on all the tourists with American accents... ;-)

      --
      ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    2. Re:Indecent posing by Don_dumb · · Score: 3, Informative

      I had this at LHR back in November (coincidentally I was flying to JFK). The option was to stay in line, or be fast tracked to the front, via scanning.
      They described the process as an 'X-ray' which I would have questioned but as I was quite keen to be progressed I simply said "okay".
      The stances certainly weren't easy, especially as you have to remain still, they had 3 different positions as I remember it.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
  4. "please take off your clothes" by MosesJones · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  5. It may not stop terrorists but... by pagaboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    it'll certainly catch any unauthorised commandos.

  6. bullshit by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.


    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.
     
     

    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."


    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.
    1. Re:bullshit by Aranykai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No offense dude, but most people probably dont want to be checking our your "junk".

      Really, what is the paranoia of the human body? Who gives a shit if someone see's my penis, if its a guy they have one of similar design in their pants too...

      --
      If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    2. Re:bullshit by electrictroy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't understand the paranoia. This is the GOVERNMENT we are talking about. We trust them with our future retirement savings (SS); we trust them with our healthcare (medicare and coming soon: universal gov't hospitals); we trust them with feeding and housing us (food stamps; welfare; et cetera); and educating us (gov't schools).

      Surely we can trust the government in erasing naked photos of our bodies.

      Right?

      Hello?

      Hmmmm. Seems absurd we trust them with taking care of us (like children) in all other facets of life; why not this one too?

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    3. Re:bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First of all, I definitely understand your point. But let me raise a counter-example for the sake of the discussion.

      My neighbor has a a beautiful wife with the same similar design as my wife.. or even my mother. Does that mean that she (or her husband for that matter!) would feel comfortable showing her details to others? (nudists are considered an exception here).

      Or what about the idea of your wonderful teenage daughter being selected for a scan time after time again?!? Would you 'give a shit' in that case?

      It's not even directly a Puritan thing I guess.. more just a sense of 'personal privacy' that you just don't want to give away easily.

      Adding to that: there's a difference between taking of your clothes for ones general practitioner, who is under OATH to keep things secret, and getting naked for some random security dude.

      The later group is faarrr more like to e.g. video tape things and put it on YouTube. They did not have to study for many, many years for a job.

      Heck, if they screw up, they can just continue elsewhere. If a GP messes up, he can basically forget ever doing that work again.

  7. In use at London Heathrow, but... by MadCow42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  8. Re:Option to opt-out by MadCow42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  9. puritian influences by hansoloaf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I see the Puritan influences is still pervasive and strong in this country regarding our bodies.

    1. Re:puritian influences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Personally, I'm going to make an extra-special effort to be sporting a big stiffy the next time I'm subjected to this search.

    2. Re:puritian influences by madboson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
  10. so they'll be checking kids too? by owlnation · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  11. My employer forces me to get naked.. by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  12. Boarding pass check by supersat · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  13. Obvious flaw in system by benwiggy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  14. Re:Option to opt-out by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The easy path is one that leads to losing all your rights. Point out to me precisely where you derive this "right" to getting on an airplane without being searched? Go on, show me. I'm sure you know exactly what paragraph and clause in the Constitution says you have the right to board an airplane without having to comply with security regulations. You have to know because you're so damned sure you've got this "right."

    Of course, you have no such right because the law makes no provision for one. If you do not wish to submit to being scanned/searched/whatever, you can take a bus, a cab, or your own personal transportation. No one is restricting your ability to get from point A to point B, there are no traffic control points with Gestapo'd brownshirts saying "papers please." You're making a mountain out of a molehill because it suits your agenda. The bare facts are this: if you wish to travel via air, you are traveling in a collective manner, and the safety of everyone on board -- include your thin-skinned self -- outweighs your individual right to be a paranoid, the-government-is-out-to-get-me-all-the-time passenger. If the above security measures offend you so much, put your moral fortitude where your mouth is and don't travel by air. Or, if you must, charter your own flight and skip security altogether. Yes, it's expensive, or time consuming, or annoying depending upon what alternate mode of travel you chose, but if you're so terrified of losing your "right to privacy," it's a small price to pay...right?

    I don't trust the government any further than I can throw it, but I don't trust you either. 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.

    --
    In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  15. Medical privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  16. who watches the watchers? by wickerprints · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  17. Re:Option to opt-out by Eivind · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Agree to that. But for non-puritans the worst part already happened.

    I -do- mind having my nude photo taken in order to be allowed on a plane.

    I mind a lot -MORE- though having to deliver a metric shitload (make that 2.356 imperial shitloads) of personal data in order to be allowed to fly.

    Realistically, I look like an average adult. If someone gets off on blurry outlines of average adults, it's not as if such are in short supply anyway, and frankly I kinda doubt it. And I doubt these pictures are even stored at all, past the few seconds the guards spend inspecting them.

    On the other hand, to even be allowed to fly into USA, your freedom-loving government insist that my plane-company provide them with a LONG list of personal data, to be stored indefinitely;

    My name, sex and age. When I bougth the ticket. If it's a return-ticket or not. How I paid for the ticket. If I bought it directly, or trough a travel-agency. With whom I'm traveling. Age, name and sex of everyone I'm traveling with. What class I'm flying. My complete travel-itinerary for this trip. And so on.

    I consider this a -much- worse invasion of privacy than some blurry nudes. And infact I refuse to comply. Which mean that I refuse to visit the USA at all presently (and have since 2001).

    A pity. There's friends over there I'd like to see more often, and there's places I'd like to see and experience. Hopefully the pendulum will swing back, you'll regain some measure of privacy, if not, oh well, it's not as if there's a lack of other interesting places to go and things to do.

    I liked the way planes worked on the tiny airport near where I grew up. A lot like buses do today. You wait until the plane lands. Stewardess comes out and opens the luggage-hatch. You yourself toss your luggage in and enter the plane. Stewardess comes around and checks that everyone has a ticket. Your name ain't on the ticket and at no point are you even asked who you are. Closes the doors, and off you go. You could drive into the parking-lot and see the plane land -- and make it no problem. Back then. Oh well. Guess I'm getting old.

  18. Re:Option to opt-out by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    Airports were the first place where it didn't apply. Now you can be frisked before entering a night club, a political rally, or hell, even your local high school.

    The way the US has let the Fourth Amendment slip over the years is a disgrace.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.