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."

27 of 480 comments (clear)

  1. ... but not if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He stuck them up his bum.

    1. Re:... but not if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or blew them up in the terminal before departure. What about a car bomb in Times Square? If airlines are immune to bombing, people will bomb elsewhere. Terrorism cannot be fought at this end.

  2. yeah, and? by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  3. Just wait... by mishehu · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...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)

    1. Re:Just wait... by willy_me · · Score: 4, Informative

      As soon as these scanners are deployed terrorists will simply start to carry the explosives in an internal cavity. 80g of explosives - the amount used on the 25th - only has a volume of 36x36x36 mm^3. There are plenty of places where this could be hidden - just look at the drug mules..

      So you will still need to be searched, even if you are travelling in the nude. But at least the searches would take less time.

    2. Re:Just wait... by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As soon as these scanners are deployed terrorists will simply start to carry the explosives in an internal cavity. 80g of explosives - the amount used on the 25th - only has a volume of 36x36x36 mm^3. There are plenty of places where this could be hidden - just look at the drug mules..

      So you will still need to be searched, even if you are travelling in the nude. But at least the searches would take less time.

      Do they inspect false limbs? If you're blowing yourself up for Allah anyway, why not give up your leg a few months early? Martyrdom candidate gets leg amputated below knee, heals up, is fitted with prosthetic. Interior of prosthetic is filled with explosive and is completely sealed. Cell phone is the wireless detonator for the bomb. Take seat in plane, wait until cruising altitude is reached so breaching the pressure vessel will cause maximum damage, detonate leg. How do you check for that? And what if the guy has a wheelchair. That's chock full of metal. What if the tubes that make it up were packed and sealed with plastique?

      I never understood the appeal of suicide bombings but I guess it makes things simpler on the operational end. There's the old saying about making the hit is easy, getting out alive is the hard part. A shoulder-fired SAM is hard to buy, hard to smuggle, and even if you blow up the plane, now there's an operative on the ground trying to evade the cops. The suicide bomber will be dead unless the bomb fails, nobody to interrogate, much harder to find his support people. But if bombs are simpler than missiles, why not just do what the Libyans did with Pan-Am 103 and check luggage with the bomb in it, then not get on the plane? Even if the bomb is caught in scanning, your guy presumably used a false ID and won't be caught.

      The only thing that's really encouraging throughout all of this is that the terrorists don't appear to be really smart. This country is full of gaping vulnerabilities that would be frightfully easy to exploit but aren't just because there aren't as many terrorists out there as we think and they don't have the Lex Luthor plotting skills we give them credit for. Just look at our power grid. Terrorists knocking down a few long-haul towers could make the country go crazier than 9-11. Even if they didn't manage to replicate that giant New York blackout from a few years back, just imagine the expense of patrolling all the lines now, especially through remote areas. It would cost a fortune. How difficult would it be to get a dozen crews modeled after the DC Snipers running around the country? We'd lose our minds. But they aren't doing this, are they?

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  4. Had DHS not been so secretive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. On a related note. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    New scanners break child porn laws

    The rapid introduction of full body scanners at British airports threatens to breach child protection laws which ban the creation of indecent images of children, the Guardian has learned.

    Privacy campaigners claim the images created by the machines are so graphic they amount to "virtual strip-searching" and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved.

    Ministers now face having to exempt under 18s from the scans or face the delays of introducing new legislation to ensure airport security staff do not commit offences under child pornography laws.

  6. Kiddie Porn Laws Defeat Scanners by scorp1us · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  7. It was not a "failed" attack. by Jhon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the aftermath of the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack

    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.

    1. Re:It was not a "failed" attack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That there were no dead bodies or a mile-wide debris trail in downtown Detroit is trivial

      Because that stuff is already in Detroit.

  8. No. by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  9. They are another layer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:They are another layer by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      Safety interlock design -- is the operator capable of increasing the radiation dosage, and if so what interlocks are present to prevent the person being scanned from being exposed multiple times or at a higher level than intended? The medical field learned from the therac-25 incident, but this is an airport scanner, not a medical scanner. Are the safety standards and review process comparable? How tamper-evident is the system, and what are the possible failure modes that could endanger the operator or person being scanned? Is there a sound or visual indicator the person being scanned can hear to indicate when it is in-use or when it is being activated multiple times?

      I have read these scanners are capable of covertly scanning large crowds in real-time. That implies a steady-state emission -- while a single use of this device may be quite low, what are the risks to continual exposure over, say, a 45 minute timeframe? What about frequent travelers -- at what point are the safety margins compromised?

      There are statements that the device will not be enabled for the transmission/storage of images -- but while those devices may be shipped with that disabled by default, it makes no sense from an employee-training perspective not to have records and auditing in place. Is it safe to assume this is just hyperbole to reassure people and the machines can be easily configured to do this?

      Why millimeter wave over other frequencies in the RF spectrum? Is this just a shortcut from a computational standpoint, or is there an advantage here that can only be realized by this technology? Why not use IR scanners? They can see through many types of clothing as well: and have the added benefit of being a lot safer.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:They are another layer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hi, original AC here.

      Active systems, as they exist now, are portal only. Thus there is only the exposure to several seconds of either millimeter-wave or x-ray radiation while in the portal. Also, the operators have no control over the emitted power. It is constant, person to person. The SNR of active systems is incredible even at such low radiation levels; increasing it would do nothing useful.

      Regarding your comment of crowd scanning; this is how some passive systems work, but (currently) no active systems. Passive, i.e., picture a CCD. Visible or IR currently, right? Well, imagine a millimeter-wave/terahertz one. Still passive, but can see through clothing at decreased spatial resolution (diffraction limited). No harm done by standing in front of a passive sensor all day long.

      About the transmission/storage of images: That is determined by the final system manufacturer and the TSA. I work only on the imaging hardware and initial display. I tend to agree with you, however.

      Why millimeter-wave over IR? IR cannot penetrate clothing as well as you think. And IR sensors are no more 'safe' than passive millimeter-wave/terahertz sensors: both are 100% safe.

  10. Body Paint by Itninja · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  11. The real danger... by Verteiron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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.
  12. It should be noted that by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  13. People are terrible at understanding risk by sean.peters · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  14. Why is Chertoff so keen on full-body scanners? by sean.peters · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  15. Considering the recent bomber BYPASSED security... by d474 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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.
  16. Re:wha by ILikeRed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is a better link to information on the damage to DNA from Terahertz scanners. It was covered in Slashdot earlier, don't know why it is not a related story.

    Quoting the earlier story:
    "Now a team led by Los Alamos National Labs thinks it knows why. They say that although the forces that terahertz waves exert on double-stranded DNA are tiny, in certain circumstances resonant effects can unzip the DNA strands, tearing them apart. This creates bubbles in the strands that can significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. With terahertz scanners already appearing in airports and hospitals, the question that now urgently needs answering is what level of exposure is safe."

    --
    I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress -J Adams
  17. Here's why by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't see why people are so critical of the TSA.

    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.
  18. Re:Terrorist will just use children by Duradin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every ideological movement needs an enemy.

    The West is their enemy. We could pull out entirely right now and we'd still be the Great Satan for generations and generations. (For example, North Korea wants their citizens to believe they are still at war with the U.S. and as such they need to continually endure 'wartime' hardships to continue the glorious fight.)

    They are also still happily killing themselves (no western involvement) over things that happened over 500 years or more ago.

  19. Re:RTFA by profplump · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  20. Re:Terrorist will just use children by sp3d2orbit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You are exactly right. Before 9/11 and before Iraq and Afghanistan I remember reading a post titled "Why do people hate Americans?" Hundreds chimed in, with as much passion as today's critics, but with different complaints. The biggest complaint, by far, was that Americans call themselves Americans (how arrogant) instead of USians. Next on the list was how we didn't finish the first Gulf War and let our allies be murdered by Saddam. People will hate Americans and America as long as we shall live.

  21. Re:Terrorist will just use children by BeardedChimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You are exactly right. Before 9/11 and before Iraq and Afghanistan I remember reading a post titled "Why do people hate Americans?" Hundreds chimed in, with as much passion as today's critics, but with different complaints. The biggest complaint, by far, was that Americans call themselves Americans (how arrogant) instead of USians. Next on the list was how we didn't finish the first Gulf War and let our allies be murdered by Saddam. People will hate Americans and America as long as we shall live.

    Your post in itself is an example of why people hate Americans.
    You create a straw man saying that the prime reason that people hate Americans is that they don't call themselves USians. Wtf? Do you really think Palestinians give a shit what you call yourself when your country supplies the weapons that kill members of their family?
    Do you think the Northern Irish who endured decades of violence while Americans supplied money and arms to the IRA hate them because of anything to do with the first gulf war?

    Wilful ignorance like you are showing is a real reason people hate Americans.