Slashdot Mirror
Can Imaging Technologies Save Us From Terrorists?
itwbennett writes "In the aftermath of the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack, full body scanning technologies such as millimeter wave and backscatter are regaining popularity, writes blogger Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols in a recent post. But, he asks, do they really work? The TSA seems to think so. It has just issued a contract to purchase more millimeter wave scanners from L3 Communications. Michael Chertoff, the former homeland security secretary, told the New York Times that if these scanners had been in place, they would have caught the would-be bomber. Ben Wallace, the Conservative Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom, disagrees, saying that the technologies can't detect the kind of low-density explosive that the would-be terrorist tried to use on December 25th."
He stuck them up his bum.
aren't these the scanners known to have health risks and/or not work?
Ben Wallace, the Conservative Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom, disagrees, saying that the technologies can't detect the kind of low-density explosive that the would-be terrorist tried to use on December 25th."
Since when has a technology that doesn't work deterred the US from using it anyway? :(
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
...until some terrorist manages to get his underwear bomb past the millimeter wave. After that, will we all be required to fly in the nude? (If so, I refuse to fly unless I'm flying in a plane full of nothing but attractive young female swimsuit models)
Had DHS not been so secretive about their processes and people actually bothered to listened when the guy's father walked into the US embassy and said "I think my son is a terrorist" and actually looked into the matter it wouldn't have happened.
Right now I don't think I know if anybody without an TS-SCI clearance actually knows how to get on of off the list.
New scanners break child porn laws
because child porn laws are already being considered with these new machines, in the UK I believe no one under 18 can be scanned with one.
So, lets just hand them our playbook again. Instead of looking for terrorist we are looking to naughty bits.
We are nearly suicidal in our attempts to not offend anyone. What will it take to realize that feelings heal over time but death does not?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
There was an article that mentioned that use of these scanners violated GB laws on child porn. So now you have kids (up to 17) - very impressionable and angsty kids - that will become the target of recruitment by terrorist organizations. Epic FAIL.
What we need to do now is to accept that airline travel is not safe, and can never be safe. Everything in life that has the best rewards also has the greatest risks. Why can't we just factor risk into airline travel for the reward of being a timezone away in an hour? I would still fly. And those who wouldn't would push for a transcontinental high-speed train (Mag-Lev?) which would have a lower risk/reward, but just as cost effective.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
It promoted "terror". It's making the enemy (us) scramble, expend resources and showed the jihadies that the enemy (us) is still vulnerable.
That there were no dead bodies or a mile-wide debris trail in downtown Detroit is trivial -- because there COULD have been.
The only thing that will save us from terrorists is to refuse to be terrorized. When we go through all this bullshit, giving up our liberties, conviniences, travel, the terrorists win.
It's just more security theater. There are a whole lot of ways to kill large numbers of people, and no way to protect all of them.
Why are you so afraid of terrorists when only 3,000 people have died from terrorism in the US this century, while there are five times as many Americans murdered every single year in non-terrorist murders?
Murder is murder, why should political murder scare you more than some thug doing a drive-by shooting?
Free Martian Whores!
Disclaimer: I am an expert in millimeter-wave and terahertz imaging technology, both passive and active. I have posted here many times before, also as AC, for obvious reasons.
The short answer is a qualified YES. All imaging technologies can (help) save us from (some) terrorists. Specifically, those individuals carrying dangerous/unknown objects or materials outside their body, whether integrated with their clothes or simply bound to their body. The proof is in the images. I will provide examples if asked.
As far as safety concerns, the active millimeter-wave systems are safer than your cell phone or laptop wifi. The x-ray backscatter systems give you a dose of radiation that is far less than what you receive while flying over a few states at 39,000'.
The ultimate issue for most people is privacy. I won't get into that here; I just know the phenomenology and implementation side. I will answer any questions now, so please respond.
Next time I fly I am going to use a paint-pen to write something clever on my ass and see if they notice. Maybe something like "open other end".
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
... is to the airline industry. My wife and I have flown once since 9/11. After being pulled out and "randomly" scanned at every single stop, we decided it wasn't worth the hassle anymore. Now we drive to where we want to be. It's amazing how pretty parts this country are from the ground. We don't really have any plans to fly again until this whole security theater thing has blown over.
Apparently we're not alone; general travel was up 2.2% over the holidays yet air travel was down 6.4%. This security nonsense only hurts the airlines. Soon we won't have a robust air travel system in the USA.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
Michael Chertoff, makes money from full body scanners. So he isn't exactly unbiased.
Also, he is kind of a jack ass who really doesn't seem to care for the constitution.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Hear, hear. Your chances of dying in an aircraft terrorism incident are really, really tiny. People need to stop wetting their pants every time they get a whiff of some kind of terrorist activity - it only encourages more of the same. You are far more likely to die in an auto accident, from some other form of murder, by slipping in your bathtub, or even by being struck by lightning, than you are to be killed by a terrorist. So enough with the inane security bullshit, already.
Could it be because he has a financial interest in selling them? Why, yes. Yes it could. Not that he ever mentioned any of that in his numerous television interviews extolling the virtues of the things - you're meant to think that he's flogging them because he's genuinely convinced of their effectiveness.
To be clear: I'm not opposed to the former DHS secretary taking a post-politics job in the security industry. I'm not even against him appearing on my teevee to flog his products. What stinks, though, is when he doesn't make it clear that his words amount to an advertisement rather than news.
...or at least, there is witness testimony strongly suggesting the bomber had inside help in the airport to get him past normal security, the answer is "No, full body scanners will not stop terrorists." What good is a full body scan if you have people on the inside that can get you past the scanner?
Don't take my word for it, listen to this NPR interview: Attorney witnessed bomber before flight had already bypassed security with no Passport
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
Because privacy is still something we're raised to expect as a basic civilized consideration, a fundamental personal liberty to maintain social boundaries until we wish otherwise. It's just that simple.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
If so, I refuse to fly unless I'm flying in a plane full of nothing but attractive young female swimsuit models who become nymphomaniacs when they see a slightly rotund computer nerd.
There, fixed it for you.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Radiation in general isn't the problem. There's some evidence that millimeter wave radiation in particular can un-zip DNA, even at its low energy, due to resonant effects.
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/
Now it's not yet clear *how* damaging regular exposure to a millimeter wave scan would be -- millimeter waves already exist in the natural environment and haven't killed us all yet -- so it's entirely possible that there is no real danger. But I'd like to see some of the billions spent on these machines used to verify that before we get too far along.
Hi, original AC here.
It's not IR... IR cannot penetrate clothing, so it is not great for this application; here's the paper you want to read. As I said, the image in the NG article is in the approximately 100-2000 GHz range, and it's passive.
And yes, everyone is confused about the sensor modalities. There are three. 1) Active narrowband millimeter-wave. Basically imaging radar. 2) Passive broadband millimeter-wave/terahertz. 3) X-ray backscatter. (also active of course, but a stretch to be called radar)
Each one has advantages and disadvantages. The problem is that they all get lumped into the "body scanner" category in the popular press (since that is what they do), and then the advantages and disadvantages get completely mixed up. To answer your question, the TSA is currently using (1) and (3) in airports.
Regarding the "strip search" issue, it really seems to depend on the individual. Yes, the high-resolution systems essentially display you without clothing, but on the other hand, the images look nothing like what you would see with your eyes. It has been said that they could appear on the front cover of Time or Reader's Digest in grocery store checkout lanes, and they wouldn't get covered up like the cover of Cosmo usually does. That's just someone's opinion, of course. Everyone has them...